United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

 
 Cover photo:

View of Angora Lakes looking north-east, with Lake Tahoe in the 

background. 

 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 Land and Resource Management Plan – Appendices to the Plan & EIS 

Appendices | TOC ■ i 

Appendices Table of Contents 

Appendix A – Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Plan...............................................A-1 

Appendix B – Wild and Scenic River Evaluation.............................................................B-1 

 B.1. Introduction and Background.............................................................................................B-1 

 B.2. LTBMU Wild and Scenic River Review.................................................................................B-2 

 B3. Summary and Conclusion......................................................................................................B-8 

Appendix C – Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness.............................................C-1 

 C.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................C-1 

 C.2. Overview of Areas Evaluated............................................................................................. C-2 

 C.3. Capability...........................................................................................................................C-10 

 C.4. Availability........................................................................................................................C-41 

 C.5. Need for Wilderness.........................................................................................................C-43 

 C.6. Agency Recommendation................................................................................................C-51 

Appendix D – LTBMU Climate Change Trend Assessment............................................. D-1 

 I. Local trends in climate over the past century.................................................................. D-2 

 II. Regional trends over the last century linked to climate change.......................................D-7 

 III. Future predictions............................................................................................................D-13 

 IV. Literature Cited ...............................................................................................................D-18 

Appendix E – LTMBU Species Diversity...........................................................................E-1 

 E.1. Forest-wide Biological Concepts .......................................................................................E-1 

 E.2. Species Lists........................................................................................................................E-2 

Appendix F – Social and Economic Assessment...............................................................F-1 

 F.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................F-1 

 F.2. Study Area...........................................................................................................................F-2 

 F.3. Background........................................................................................................................F-5 

 F.4. Social Conditions and Tends.............................................................................................F-7 

 F.5. Economic Conditions and Trends ....................................................................................F-20 

 F.6. Unit Economic Contribution Analysis..............................................................................F-36 

 F.7. Current Conditions of Forest Economic Contribution......................................................F-40 

Appendix G – Timber Suitability Analysis........................................................................G-1 

G.1. Lands Generally Not Available for Timber Harvest (sec. 62.1) .............................................G-1 

G.2. Lands Suitable for Timber Production (sec. 62.21) ...............................................................G-1 

G.3. Other Lands Where Trees May Be Harvested for Multiple Use Values Other Than Timber Production 

(sec. 62.22) ....................................................................................................................................G-1 

G.4. Other Land Generally Suitable for Timber Harvest (sec. 62.22) ..........................................G-2 

G.5. Timber Sale Program Quantity (TSPQ) and Long-Term Sustained-Yield Capacity (LTSYC) (sec. 65.3) 

.........................................................................................................................................................G-4 

Appendix H – Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy...............................H-1 

Appendix I – Comparison of Alternatives by Objective....................................................I-1 

Appendix J – Alternative A Standards and Guidelines.....................................................J-1 

Appendix K – Previous Decisions That Remain in Place....................................................K-1 

Appendix L – References Cited.........................................................................................L-1 

Appendix M – Glossary of Acronyms and Terms..............................................................M- 1 

 M.1. Abbreviations and Acronyms ..........................................................................................M-1 

 M.2. Definition of Selected Acronyms ....................................................................................M-2 

 M.3. Glossary of Terms............................................................................................................M- 6 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ii ▪ Table of Contents 

Appendix N – Response to Comments............................................................................N-1 

N.1. Introduction and Process .........................................................................................................N-2 

N.2. Response to Comments............................................................................................................N-5 

N.3. Comments Received from Federal, State, Local Agencies, and Elected Officials ...............N-165 

Appendix O– LTBMU Effects Analysis............................................................................O-1 

O.1. The Unpredictability of Natural Conditions and Human Values Over Time..............................O-2 

O.2. The Analytical Methodology Employed in Chapter 3 of the EIS .............................................O-3 

O.3. The Uncertainty and Risks Associated With Forecasting Environmental Effects.....................O-3
Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS

Appendix A – Forest Plan Monitoring and 

Evaluation Plan 

Forest Plan monitoring is an integral part of the adaptive management cycle that guides future 

management decisions and actions. Adaptive management includes defining measurable 

objectives, monitoring, learning and changing, and recognizing uncertainties that may affect 

achievement of objectives and achievement or maintenance of desired conditions. Periodic 

evaluations summarizing the monitoring results will be reviewed by the Forest Supervisor and 

other managers to determine if any changes are needed in management actions, or plan 

components.

The Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Plan is designed to measure the degree to which onthe-ground management is maintaining or making progress toward the Forest Plan desired 

conditions and objectives. This monitoring plan will test assumptions, track changes, and 

measure management effectiveness, primarily through status and trend monitoring and 

effectiveness monitoring. The monitoring plan provides a framework that will be supplemented 

by more specific monitoring plans and protocols. It will be adjusted as needed to respond to new 

information and unanticipated changes in conditions.

The Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Plan is a subset of the monitoring for the LTBMU. 

Additional, project-specific monitoring may be required for some projects, including monitoring 

required through regulatory permitting processes. While inventories and implementation 

monitoring are important and will continue to be implemented, they are generally not included in 

this monitoring plan because they only indirectly inform progress towards the Forest Plan 

desired conditions and objectives. . Inventories describe how much or how many of a given 

resource is present, while implementation monitoring describes how well management direction 

and intent was followed in projects and activities. 

The LTBMU also participates in multiple broad-scale monitoring efforts. Some, but not all of 

these are included in the Monitoring Plan. For example, the LTBMU is an active partner in 

providing information to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency for monitoring attainment of 

TRPA’s environmental thresholds through the tracking and reporting of the Environmental 

Improvement Program performance measures, but these activities are not included in the 

Monitoring Plan. 

The Monitoring Plan presented below describes the program area associated with the 

monitoring, monitoring questions, associated indicators or performance measures, a crossreference to the plan component(s) being monitored, and the frequency of monitoring and 

reporting (annual or other time period). It also documents the source – (i.e. who does the 

monitoring) which may be the LTBMU, the Pacific Southwest Region, or a collaborative effort. 

Appendix A ■ A-1
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Desired Conditions Indicator/Measure Monitoring Question(s) Responsible Agency Monitoring Time 

Frame

Frequency of 

Monitoring

Frequency of 

Reporting

Air Quality: DC1 O3 injury to pine What is the status and trend of O3 injury to 

pine? 

USFS (RO), TRPA Life of plan 4 to 5 yrs 4 to 5 yrs

Air Quality: DC1 N compounds, O3 concentrations, 

and lichen analysis 

What is the status and trend of N 

compounds and 03?

USFS (RO) Life of plan 4 to 5 yrs 4 to 5 yrs

Air Quality: DC1 Acid deposition What is the status and trend of acid 

deposition?

USFS (RO, PSW 

Station)

Life of plan 4 to 5 yrs along with 

N compounds 

monitoring

4 to 5 yrs

Air Quality: DC2 California Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan goal 

Is visibility improving and data following the 

Regional Haze glide path, if not what are 

possible stressors related to LTBMU 

activities?

USFS (RO), TRPA, 

CARB

Life of plan Continuously Annually

Soil Quality DC 4,5, 6,&7 Soil cover, soil physical properties, 

national disturbance monitoring 

protocol.

Is soil quality being maintained such that 

the productivity of the land is not 

substantially or permanently impaired?

USFS (LTBMU) Life of plan Annually Every 2 years – as 

required by planning 

regs

Water Quality: DC 9, 10

Soil Quality: 

DC8(erosion only and by 

inference only)

BMPEP Evaluations. To what degree are best management 

practices implemented and effective in 

protecting soil and water resources for 

LTBMU management activities? 

USFS Life of plan Annually Annually

Water Quality: DC10

Habitat and Species 

Diversity

DC50, DC51, DC53, 

DC54, DC59, DC61

Macroinvertebrates – SWAMP 

Bioassessment Protocol

What is the status and trend of the 

biological integrity of LTB tributaries, and to 

what degree may LTBMU activities be 

related to changes in status and trends? 

TRPA Life of plan Annually TRPA Threshold 

Attainment Reporting 

Schedule

Hydro & Geomorphic 

Process: DC12

Tributary water quality 

(multi/agency), aquatic habitat 

condition, channel geomorphic 

condition, degree of watershed 

disturbance, forest health

(see WCA protocols)

Is watershed condition improving in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin, as evaluated through 

Watershed Condition Ratings, particularly in 

priority watersheds?

USFS Life of plan 5 yrs 5 yrs

Forest Veg – Forest 

Structure

DC 23

Seral Stage/ Percent Are the seral stage percentages for a major 

forest type within the historic reference 

condition?

USFS (R5-Ecology, 

RSL, LTBMU)

Life of plan 5 to 10 yrs 5 years as part of TRPA 

Common Vegetation 

Threshold, & annually in 

FACTS based on 

accomplishments on 

LTBMU

Forest Veg - Forest 

Composition

DC 23

Forest Type/ Proportion of Total 

Acres of Major Forest Types

Are the proportions of each major forest 

type in the Basin within the historic range?

USFS (RSL) Life of plan 5-10 yrs 5 years as part of TRPA 

Common Vegetation 

Threshold

A-2 ■ Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS

Desired Conditions Indicator/Measure Monitoring Question(s) Responsible Agency Monitoring Time 

Frame

Frequency of 

Monitoring

Frequency of 

Reporting

Forest Veg - Forest 

Stand Resilience

DC 23, 24

Mortality-Actual/ Trees Per Acre Are levels of tree mortality, by causal agent, 

at background levels?

USFS (RSL, S&PFFHP)Life of plan Annually Reported annually as the 

Annual Mortality Report 

from Forest Health 

Protection 

Forest Veg – Urban 

Forest Parcels

DC 20, 22

Parcel Condition related to forest 

health (hazard trees, invasive plants, 

insects & disease), fuel 

accumulation, hydrologic condition 

(erosion), & encroachments

What is the condition of urban forest 

parcels, i.e. what is the management need 

for the parcel?

USFS Life of plan 4-6 yrs depending on 

proximity to 

developed private 

lands

5 yrs

Forest Veg

DC 22

OBJ 5

Annual prescribed fire acres; Are planned and unplanned ignitions being 

used to meet or trend towards resource 

goals?

Are we meeting prescribed fire objectives?

USFS Life of plan Annual 5 years

Habitat & Species 

Diversity: DC53, DC61

MIS habitat and population 

distribution at the bioregional scale

What are the trends for Management 

Indicator Species at the bioregional (Sierra 

Nevada) scale?

USFS (RO) / Partners; 

MIS monitoring is 

conducted at the Sierra 

Nevada scale, 

including sampling on 

the LTBMU; see DEIS 

for more information.

Life of plan 1-3 yrs 1-3 yrs

Habitat & Species 

Diversity: DC53, DC54, 

DC59, DC60, DC61

Forest Veg DC 46

TEPCS Census Counts What is the status and trend in TEPCS 

plant populations and communities within 

the Lake Tahoe Basin? 

USFS (LTBMU) Life of Plan Annually (not every 

species or site will be

monitored annually)

5 yrs

Habitat & Species 

Diversity: DC53, DC57, 

DC60, DC64

Density, Plant Size, & demographic 

structure of TESPC plant species 

most likely impacted by changing 

climate (e.g. Tahoe draba, long 

petaled lewisia)

What is the status and trend of TES plant 

species most likely impacted by changing 

climate? 

USFS (LTBMU) Life of Plan or until 

species is removed 

from TES or SI list

5 yrs 6 yrs

Appendix A ■ A-3
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Desired Conditions Indicator/Measure Monitoring Question(s) Responsible Agency Monitoring Time 

Frame

Frequency of 

Monitoring

Frequency of 

Reporting

Habitat & Species 

Diversity

DC50, DC51, DC53, 

DC59, DC61, DC63

Invasive Species 

Management

DC68, DC69, DC70

Species Refuge Area:

DC75

Hydro & Geomorphic 

Process: DC15

Stream Temperature Monitoring: 

temperature

Are stream temperatures suitable for life 

history of native aquatic species? What is 

the status and trend of these native aquatic 

and nonnative aquatic species most 

susceptible to changing climate?

USFS (LTBMU) Life of Plan Annually (not every 

site will be monitored 

annually)

5 yrs

Habitat & Species 

Diversity: DC53, DC46, 

DC61

Photo-monitoring, cover/presence of 

key indicator species

What is the status and trend of Grass Lake 

(RNA) and Hell hole (critical habitat) fen 

ecosystems? Are changes in climate 

influencing community trends? 

USFS (LTBMU) Life of Plan 5 yrs 6yrs

Habitat & Species 

Diversity: DC54, DC55

Species Refuge Areas: 

DC77

TYC population estimate (through 

census or other sampling methods) 

and habitat assessment

What is the status and trend of Tahoe 

yellow cress? Are core sites adequately 

protected? 

TAG team with LTBMU 

partner

Life of Plan Set of conditions 

based on lake level 

Annually when survey is 

conducted

Habitat & Species 

Diversity: DC58, DC59, 

DC60

Species Refuge Areas: 

DC78, DC79, DC80 

Whitebark pine stand conditions What is the status and trend of whitebark 

pine, incidence of blister rust, and 

infestation of bark beetles? Is regeneration 

sufficient for the sustainability of whitebark 

pine in the LTB?

USFS (FHP, R5-

Ecology, LTBMU)

Life of Plan Annually (not every 

stand every year)

5 yrs

A-4 ■ Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS

Desired Conditions Indicator/Measure Monitoring Question(s) Responsible Agency Monitoring Time 

Frame

Frequency of 

Monitoring

Frequency of 

Reporting

Invasive Species 

Management: DC68, 

DC69, DC70

Habitat & Species 

Diversity: DC50, DC51, 

DC53, DC59, DC63

Species Refuge Areas: 

DC75, DC76

Recreation 

Opportunities DC83, 

DC84

Interpretive Services and 

Conservation Education

DC97, DC98, DC99, 

DC100

Invasive species sites/acres, new 

detections

What is the status and trend of invasive 

species within the Lake Tahoe basin? Are 

education, prevention, and treatment 

measures effective at preventing and 

reducing the spread of aquatic and 

terrestrial nonnative invasive species?

Coordination with Basin 

Invasive groups, 

LTBMU partner

Life of Plan Annually (not every 

species or every site 

will be monitored 

annually)

5-6 yrs

Species Refuge Areas: 

DC76

Habitat & Species 

Diversity:

DC53, DC59

Amphibian visual encounter surveys: 

number of amphibians, 

demographics, presence of Bd 

(chytrid fungus) [includes western 

toad and MYLF]; number of fish

What is the current status of amphibian, 

including Sierra Nevada (mountain) yellowlegged frog (SNYLF), populations and 

critical habitat in the Lake Tahoe basin and 

how are they changing over time? What is 

the distribution of Bd around the basin and 

infection level?

USFS (LTBMU); CA 

Dept. of Fish and 

Wildlife; USFWS

Life of Plan Annually (not every 

species or site will be 

monitored annually)

5 yrs

Habitat & Species 

Diversity: DC50, DC51, 

DC54, DC61

Hydro & Geomorphic 

Process: DC16, DC17

Ecological condition of streams 

using established protocols (e.g. 

SCI) 

What are the current physical and biological 

condition of streams and associated 

floodplains in the Lake Tahoe basin, and 

how is that condition changing over time?

To what degree have restoration efforts 

been successful in restoring floodplain 

connectivity and channel/riparian habitat, 

improving water quality, stabilizing stream 

banks and sediment transport regimes? 

Basin M&E; USFS 

(LTBMU) 

Life of Plan At least twice during 

the life of the plan 

selected SCI sites will 

be visited

10 yrs

Appendix A ■ A-5
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Desired Conditions Indicator/Measure Monitoring Question(s) Responsible Agency Monitoring Time 

Frame

Frequency of 

Monitoring

Frequency of 

Reporting

Species Refuge Areas: 

DC75

Habitat & Species 

Diversity: DC59

Number of self-sustaining subpopulations LCTHave recovery actions resulted in an 

increase in LCT abundance and associated 

native non-game species and decrease in 

non-native salmonids? Does the LCT 

population have multiple age and size 

classes as a positive population response 

to brook trout removal? Are we meeting 

recovery objectives?

US Fish and Wildlife, in 

collaboration with 

USFS (LTBMU) and 

partners

Life of Plan, or until 

recovery actions are 

achieved

Annually (not every 

site or entire site each 

year)

5 yrs

Habitat & Species 

Diversity: DC59, DC61, 

DC60

Number of detections, nests, and or 

roosts

What is the status and trend of select 

invertebrate and vertebrate TEPCS 

populations in the Basin?

USFS (LTBMU) Life of Plan or until 

species is removed 

from special status 

list

Annually (not every 

species or site will be 

monitored annually)

Annually 

Forest Veg:

DC40, DC41, DC42, 

DC43, DC44,DC45, DC46

Objective Forest Veg and 

Fuels: 13

Habitat & Species 

Diversity: DC53, DC61

Objective BIO: 17, 19

Acres/sites restored; number of 

Willow Flycatcher (WIFL) sites

What is our progress towards maintaining 

and improving willow and aspen habitats 

within the Basin?

USFS (LTBMU) Life of plan When plan is adopted 

and then every 2 

years

5 years

A-6 ■ Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS

Desired Conditions Indicator/Measure Monitoring Question(s) Responsible Agency Monitoring Time 

Frame

Frequency of 

Monitoring

Frequency of 

Reporting

Habitat & Species 

Diversity; Vegetation: 

DC58, DC60, DC23

Standard and Guidelines:

- When creating openings 

to restore forest 

structure/forest health use 

the group selection with 

reserve prescription within 

the mid seral stage....

-Select locations of 

openings (early seral 

creation or type 

conversion) on a projectspecific basis and as part 

of the IDT process.... 

- When designing forest 

health treatments 

(thinning) that would 

reduce canopy cover 

and/or basal area, 

minimum canopy cover 

and basal area....

-In late seral stands 

occupied by late seral 

associated species, limit 

canopy cover and basal 

area reduction to levels 

that maintain or improve 

habitat conditions ...

- Design vegetation 

treatments...

Acres of early seral forest and forest

openings (less than 1 to 10 acres) 

created within each watershed; 

proportion of early stage/openings 

created adjacent to mid seral, early 

seral, late seral, urban; nearest 

detection of sensitive wildlife species

What progress has been made towards 

protecting and maintaining late seral habitat 

connectivity? 

USFS (LTBMU, RSL, 

PSW)

Life of plan Starting 10 years after 

Plan is adopted and 

then every 5 years. 

5 years

Appendix A ■ A-7
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Desired Conditions Indicator/Measure Monitoring Question(s) Responsible Agency Monitoring Time 

Frame

Frequency of 

Monitoring

Frequency of 

Reporting

Habitat & Species 

Diversity: DC50, DC51, 

DC52, DC53, DC59, DC61

Vegetation: DC46

Species Refuge Areas: 

DC76

Soil Quality: DC4, DC6, 

DC7, DC8

Water Quality:

DC11

Hydro & Geomorphic 

Process: DC14 

Intensity of winter recreation use 

(e.g. groomed cross-country trails, 

OSV); sensitive resource presence;

compaction; water quality.

Is resource damage occurring from winter 

recreation use?

USFS (LTBMU) Monitoring would 

occur where known 

OSV use occurs in 

occupied habitat 

and/or suitable 

habitat or where 

future OSV 

expansion occurs

Baseline, every 3 yrs 5 years

Habitat & Species 

Diversity: DC71, DC72, 

DC73, DC74

Objectives BIO PACs and 

HRCAs: 24, 25

Standard and Guides: 87, 

90, 91, 92

Species presence (e.g., spotted owl) 

; canopy cover, basal area, 

structural complexity of understory 

(e.g., snags, downed wood, 

saplings), tree size class distribution

What progress has been made and what is 

the success towards maintaining/improving 

the habitat condition of PACS?

USFS (LTBMU) Life of Plan Selected project(s) 

that have occurred 

both within and 

outside a PAC to 

provide information 

needed for 

effectiveness of plan 

S&G

Pre- and post-project, 

then up to 5 monitoring 

periods over a course of 

up to 10 years

Recreation 

Opportunities: DC84

National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM)

What is the trend of visitor use, visitor 

satisfaction, and progress toward meeting 

recreation objectives in the plan?

USFS

(WO, LTBMU)

Life of Plan 5 yrs or agency 

standard

5 yrs or agency standard

Recreation 

Development: DC92

INFRA and SUDS (square ft. of 

parking, infrastructure, permitted 

acres). GIS. Track deferred 

maintenance costs over time; 

special use permits administered to 

standard; expired special use 

permits.

How are recreation facilities contributing to 

the plan’s desired condition(s) and 

objective(s) socio-economic sustainability?

USFS (LTBMU) Life of Plan Annual 5 yrs or agency standard

Wilderness: DC130 Visitor satisfaction surveys, 

campsite condition inventories)

What level of solitude and primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation opportunities 

are visitors experiencing?

USFS (LTBMU) Life of Plan Annual or as 

described in 

Wilderness 

Management Plans

5 yrs or agency standard

A-8 ■ Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS

Desired Conditions Indicator/Measure Monitoring Question(s) Responsible Agency Monitoring Time 

Frame

Frequency of 

Monitoring

Frequency of 

Reporting

Access & Travel 

Management: DC111

NVUM indicators of satisfaction; 

ATM project analysis 

Does the managed route system meet 

public access and resource management 

needs?

LTBMU Life of plan Every 5 years Every 5 years

Access & Travel 

Management: DC111

Built Environment: 

DC115

facility condition index; road and trail 

deferred maintenance 

Are maintenance levels sufficient to support 

existing infrastructure (e.g. roads, trails, 

facilities)

LTBMU Life of plan Annual Every 5 years

Appendix A ■ A-9
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Tier 2 Monitoring Elements

Desired 

Conditions

Indicator/Measure Monitoring Question(s) Responsible 

Agency

Monitoring 

Time Frame

Frequency of Monitoring Frequency 

of 

Reporting

Air Quality: DC1 O3 injury to pine What is the status and trend of O3 injury to pine? USFS (RO), 

TRPA

Life of plan 4 to 5 yrs 4 to 5 yrs

Air Quality: DC1 N compounds, O3 concentrations, and 

lichen analysis 

What is the status and trend of N compounds and 03? USFS (RO) Life of plan 4 to 5 yrs 4 to 5 yrs

Air Quality: DC1 Acid deposition What is the status and trend of acid deposition? USFS (RO, 

PSW Station)

Life of plan 4 to 5 yrs along with N 

compounds monitoring

4 to 5 yrs

Air Quality: DC2 California Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan goal 

Is visibility improving and data following the Regional Haze glide 

path, if not what are possible stressors related to LTBMU activities?

USFS (RO), 

TRPA, CARB

Life of plan Continuously Annually

Habitat and 

Species 

Diversity: DC53,

DC57, DC61, 

DC64

Freel Peak GLORIA - biodiversity What is the status and trend of high elevation communities and 

risks to these communities due to changing climates?

USFS (PSW, 

R5 Ecology)

Life of Plan 5 years Unknown

Forest Veg

DC 22 

Severity proportions burned by 

wildfires

Do wildfire severity proportions resemble desired fire regime? USFS Life of plan Post-fire 5 years

Habitat & 

Species 

Diversity: DC53

Forest Veg: 

DC46

Meadow Monitoring Region 5 Range 

monitoring protocol: Species 

composition, ground cover, wetland 

rating, vegetation rating, ecological 

status

What is the current condition and ecological status and trend of 

wetlands (e.g., wet meadows, fens, marshes, etc.) in the Lake 

Tahoe basin, based on key indicators of biological integrity and 

water quality, and how is that condition changing over time? Are 

changes in climate influencing wetland trends? What is the 

ecological condition and trend in meadow systems where grazing 

has been removed or restoration has occurred? 

USFS 

(LTBMU; RO)

Life of Plan 5 yrs 6 yrs

Protected 

Activity Center: 

DC71

California Spotted Owl; Northern 

Goshawk

What is the status and trend of California Spotted Owl and Northern 

Goshawk populations in the Basin?

USFS (RO) Life of Plan or 

until species is

removed from 

TES or SI list

3 times in 10 years monitoring 

plan - protocol developed by 

PSW (each of the 3 times is a 

2 year protocol so 6 times in 

10 years), annually known 

nests 

10 years

Habitat & 

Species 

Diversity: DC56

Standards and 

Guidelines

41, 52, 55, 58, 

59, 60,61, 62

 

Change in species presence (e.g. 

black backed woodpecker, CA spotted 

owl) associated with snag habitat; 

number of snags retained or created, 

size of snags, spatial distribution

What progress has been made towards protecting/maintaining 

habitats with snags and CWD (e.g. burned forests, insect 

outbreaks, late seral)?

USFS or PSW Pre and post 

project

Selected project(s) to provide 

information needed for 

effectiveness of plan S&G on 

burn forest habitat protection

A-10 ■ Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS

Desired 

Conditions

Indicator/Measure Monitoring Question(s) Responsible 

Agency

Monitoring 

Time Frame

Frequency of Monitoring Frequency 

of 

Reporting

Habitat & 

Species 

Diversity: DC53, 

DC57, DC592, 

DC61

Invasive 

species: DC68, 

DC69, DC70

Species Refuge 

Areas: DC77

Species presence, species condition, 

distribution and abundance of invasive

How do new recreation expansion and/or improvements of existing 

recreation influence the presence and/or condition of sensitive 

species? Are these conditions supporting conservation of sensitive 

species?

USFS 

(LTBMU)

Pre- and postprojectSelected project(s) 

Appendix A ■ A-11
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

This page intentionally blank

A-12 ■ Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix B ▪ B-1 

Appendix B – 

Wild and Scenic River Evaluation 

B1. Introduction and Background 

In 1990, a seven member interdisciplinary team (IDT) of resource specialists from the Lake 

Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU), in conjunction with the Tahoe National Forest (TNF), 

undertook an analysis to determine eligibility and suitability of potential candidate streams for 

designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. The resources represented on the 

LTBMU team included fisheries, forest archaeology, wildlife, grazing, hydrology, sensitive 

plants and planning. 

The initial analysis, coordinated by the Tahoe National Forest, evaluated a total of about 600 

rivers and streams using forest-wide resource information, as well as local field knowledge. From 

this screening process, 100 rivers were identified for more detailed study. Eligibility indicators 

were developed to help the IDT determine which rivers were eligible. These indicators defined 

local, regional and national significance for each resource. Out of the 100 rivers and streams 

identified for more detailed study, 30 were found eligible. Suitability of these 30 rivers was 

evaluated in two studies, one for the east side and one for west side. 

Eight rivers (a total of 59 miles) were evaluated in the Eight Eastside Rivers Wild and Scenic 

River Study Report and FEIS (Eastside Study), and two rivers in the Basin were found eligible 

based on Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) of national or regional significance. The 

Upper Truckee River was recommended for “Wild” designation due the mix of recreation, scenic, 

and historic values that were all considered outstandingly remarkable. The Truckee River was 

also considered due to its outstandingly remarkable recreation and prehistoric values. However, it 

was later considered not suitable for several reasons including management limitations due to 

existing land uses and water right constraints and opposition from the city of Truckee. 

In 1999, the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Eight Eastside Rivers FEIS documented the 

LTBMU Forest Supervisor’s 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 at the time but no further action was taken to 

designate this segment. 

To provide interim protection, the segment has been managed in accordance with the direction in 

Appendix A of the FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1998,) to ensure that eligibility is maintained. 

Interim protection requires that all projects proposed on National Forest System lands maintain 

the free-flowing status and that the ORVs listed for these rivers be protected or enhanced. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

B-2 ▪ Wild and Scenic River Evaluation 

B2. LTBMU Wild and Scenic River Review 

“A comprehensive evaluation of the potential for rivers to be eligible for 

inclusion in the national Wild and Scenic River system is required during land 

management planning. However, if a systematic inventory or other unit-wide 

suitability study has previously been completed and documented, additional 

assessment and study at the time of Forest Plan revision is only required if 

changed circumstances warrant additional review or if the Responsible Official 

decides to evaluate suitability (FSH 1909.12, Ch. 81.2).” 

In accordance with this direction, an IDT of resource specialists was convened in 2011 to 

consider whether there were any changed circumstances (e.g. increasing rarity of a river–related 

value or new outstandingly remarkable values) that warranted additional review of eligibility

within the Basin since the completion of the Eastside Study (USDA Forest Service 1998). 

Considering this FEIS and ROD along with input provided by the public during scoping, the IDT 

reviewed the rivers, streams, and creeks in the Lake Tahoe Basin to determine whether additional 

assessment is needed. To maintain consistency with the original analysis, this review utilized the 

same region of comparison as the original. This means that a river value would need to be 

outstandingly remarkable when considered in the context of the original area of analysis, and not 

just the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

The IDT used the criteria in FSH 1909.12 Ch. 82.14a to determine if there were any changed 

circumstances from the original 1990s eligibility inventory that constitute ORVs not present at 

the time of the previous analysis: Scenery, Recreation, Geology, Fisheries, Wildlife, Historic and 

Cultural, and Other Values. 

The results are presented in the following narratives. 

Upper Truckee River 

“The Upper Truckee River has a special mix of recreation, scenic, and historic values that are all 

considered Outstandingly Remarkable (OR). The largest watershed feeding Lake Tahoe, it has 

scenic landforms, attractive meadows, and easy access, attracting various backcountry users. In 

addition, the historic cabin provides a scenic accent to the high-country meadows...In addition to 

these values, self-sustaining populations of Lahontan cutthroat trout and highly valued early 

summer deer fawning habitat provide for special natural values which are also identified as OR 

values. The combination of these values indicates that this stream can clearly be considered an 

excellent candidate representing eastside Sierra streams and a worthy addition to the National 

System of Wild and Scenic Rivers” (USDA Forest Service 1999). 

Finding: The Upper Truckee River continues to have the outstanding remarkable values as 

described in the 1999 Report and continues to be supported by the IDT as “Wild” 

under Wild and Scenic River Act. 

In response to comments submitted on the DEIS in 2012, the LTBMU conducted an additional 

analysis of tributaries in the Upper Truckee River watershed. As a first step, IDT members 

identified potential ORVs associated with 9 of the 11 tributaries reviewed (see Project Record). 

This review was presented to the Forest Leadership Team (FLT) to consider in making a 

suitability finding and a decision about whether to recommend any additional tributaries. In 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix B ▪ B-3 

considering the suitability criteria in FSH 1909.10 Ch. 82.4, the FLT found that additional 

protection was not needed. The watershed is currently within an Inventoried Roadless Area, and 

would receive equivalent protection as a Backcountry Management Area in the Revised Forest 

Plan. This Management Area status would limit uses and activities, thus providing adequate 

protection for the valued attributes of the watershed. While several tributaries support 

populations of Lahontan Cutthroat Trout or are proposed areas for reintroduction, the Endangered 

Species Act provides stronger protection for this species than the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, so 

no additional protection is needed for this species. An additional factor considered was that some 

opposition to recommending additional tributaries had been expressed at the county level. 

The following section summarizes the initial eligibility review conducted by the IDT for 11 

tributaries of the Upper Truckee: 

Scenery 

Three tributaries were found to have geologic features, lakes, and meadows and aspen stands with 

backdrops with high scenic value.

Recreation 

While the IDT identified several trails that provide outstanding recreation values, these trails were 

found not to be river related. No other potential recreation ORVs were identified.

Geology 

One tributary was found to include an outstanding example of the Mehrten formation. While the 

Mehrten formation is relatively rare In the Lake Tahoe Basin, it is common within the region of 

comparison.

Fish 

Populations – Four tributaries currently support populations of the endangered Lahontan 

Cutthroat Trout.

Habitat – Five tributaries provide suitable potential habitat for Lahontan cutthroat trout.

Wildlife 

Populations – Four tributaries are within northern goshawk and/or California spotted owl 

Protected Activity Centers or Home Range Core Areas and there have been recent detections of 

these species. Bald eagle perch sites were found associated with 2 tributaries. One tributary was 

noted for high wildlife species diversity.

Habitat – Highly suitable deer habitat was associated with three tributaries; additional findings 

included northern goshawk and California spotted owl habitat.

Historic and Cultural 

History – The Hawley Grade National Historic Trail and Pony Express Trail are near one 

tributary, but were found not to be river related values because the river was not the reason for 

their establishment. 

Pre-history – A prehistoric milling district is associated with one tributary.
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

B-4 ▪ Wild and Scenic River Evaluation 

Other Values 

Botanical – Fens and/or TESP (Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, or Proposed) species, 

including whitebark pine, were found associated with three tributaries. 

Truckee River 

While the Truckee River was found eligible for designation on the basis of its 

outstandingly remarkable recreation values, it was not found suitable based on its 

complex management challenges. The Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA) has 

clarified the complex management of this river, but the management situation has not 

changed in a way that would change the suitability of the river for designation. 

The Forest Service has limited jurisdiction over the management of the Truckee River. 

In addition, Nation Forest System lands along the Truckee River have reserved rights 

retained by Liberty Energy that allow power development and power lines along the bed 

and banks for 100 feet adjoining the river. The Truckee River is also a corridor tor power 

lines, sewage lines, water lines. The utility lines have no alternative location in this area. 

Designation could create difficult or costly requirements for future infrastructure 

modification or improvements. A bicycle trail and Highway 89 run parallel and 

immediately adjacent to the river. Private ownership is concentrated on the banks of the 

river in small parcels which constitute 27 percent of the river corridor and include 11 

private bridges in 13 miles. 

In addition, provisions in the TROA provide protections equivalent to those of a Recreation 

designation in the Wild and Scenic River System, including managing Truckee River waters in a 

manner that enhances beneficial uses of water for fish, wildlife, and recreation in the Truckee 

River basin (TROA Part 419.1 (b-2) 

Finding: The Truckee River continues to have the outstanding remarkable recreation values 

resources as described in the 1999 Report. The recreation values were considered 

significant due to the high levels of general recreation use, the orientation of most of 

this use towards the river, and the opportunity for the public to raft without guides in a 

high-mountain environment. 

Analysis of Other Rivers 

This section describes changes related to each ORV category that have occurred since the initial 

analysis and presents findings for each category. It applies to rivers other than the Truckee and 

Upper Truckee, and uses the region of comparison in the original analysis. 

Scenery 

“The landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, color, and related factors result in 

notable or exemplary visual features and/or attractions. When analyzing scenic values, 

additional factors such as seasonal variations in vegetation, scale of cultural modifications, and 

the length of time negative intrusions are viewed, may be considered. Scenery and visual 

attractions may be highly diverse over the majority of the river or river segment (FSH 1909.12, 

CH 82.14a ,1).”
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix B ▪ B-5 

Rationale: Major changes to the scenic resource in the Lake Tahoe Basin include 

installation of the Heavenly Gondola, the Gondola and Angora fires, none of which 

enhanced scenic values. While vegetation management projects have altered views in 

localized areas, scenic values associated with rivers and streams in the Lake Tahoe Basin 

have not materially changed since 1999. 

Finding: Scenic values associated with other rivers in the Lake Tahoe Basin have not 

changed. 

Recreation 

“Recreational opportunities are, or have the potential to be, popular enough to attract visitors 

from throughout or beyond the region of comparison or are unique or rare within the region. 

River-related opportunities include, but are not limited to, sightseeing, interpretation, wildlife 

observation, camping, photography, hiking, fishing, hunting, and boating. The river may provide 

settings for national or regional usage or competitive events (FSH 1909.12, CH 82.14a ,2)”.

Rationale: While visitation to Lake Tahoe has increased, the lake remains the primary 

destination. The range of recreation opportunities available on Lake Tahoe tributaries 

has not changed, and opportunities are not unique or rare within the region. 

Finding: Recreation values associated with other rivers in the Lake Tahoe Basin have 

not changed. 

Geology 

“The river, or the area within the river corridor, contains one or more examples of a geologic 

feature, process, or phenomenon that is unique or rare within the region of comparison. The 

feature(s) may be in an unusually active stage of development, represent a “textbook” example, 

and/or represent a unique or rare combination of geologic features (erosional, volcanic, glacial, 

or other geologic structures) (FSH 1909.12, CH 82.14a ,3).” 

Finding: Geologic characteristics of Lake Tahoe Basin rivers and river corridors have 

not changed. 

Fish 

“Fish values may be judged on the relative merits of either fish populations or habitat, or a 

combination of these river-related conditions (FSH 1909.12, CH 82.14a ,4).” 

a. “Populations. The river is nationally or regionally an important producer of resident 

and/or anadromous fish species. Of particular significance is the presence of wild stocks 

and/or federal or state listed or candidate threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. 

Diversity of species is an important consideration and could, in itself, lead to a 

determination of outstandingly remarkable. “ 

Rationale: A recovery plan for LCT is being implemented, but self-sustaining 

populations are not yet present in any tributaries except the Upper Truckee. Populations 

of other native fish have not increased significantly since 1999.

Finding: Fish populations of Lake Tahoe Basin rivers have not changed such that they 

would constitute an ORV. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

B-6 ▪ Wild and Scenic River Evaluation 

b. “Habitat. The river provides exceptionally high quality habitat for fish species 

indigenous to the region of comparison. Of particular significance is habitat for wild 

stocks and/or federal or state listed or candidate threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species. Diversity of habitats is an important consideration and could, in itself, lead to a 

determination of outstandingly remarkable.” 

Rationale: Stream channel restoration projects to improve aquatic habitat have been 

undertaken on several tributaries in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Most of these projects are still 

in progress or have not been completed long enough for the habitat benefits to be 

realized. 

Finding: Fish habitat has not improved such that it would constitute an ORV. 

Wildlife 

“Wildlife values may be judged on the relative merits of either terrestrial or aquatic wildlife 

populations or habitat, or a combination of these conditions. (FSH 1909.12, CH 82.14a ,5).” 

a. “Populations - The river, or area within the river corridor, contains nationally or 

regionally important populations of indigenous wildlife species. Of particular 

significance are species considered to be unique, and/or populations of federal or state 

listed or candidate threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. Diversity of species is 

an important consideration and could, in itself, lead to a determination of outstandingly 

remarkable. “ 

Finding: Wildlife populations have not changed in any river or river corridors in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin such that they constitute an ORV. 

b. “Habitat - The river, or area within the river corridor, provides exceptionally high 

quality habitat for wildlife of national or regional significance, and/or may provide 

unique habitat or a critical link in habitat conditions for federal or state listed or 

candidate threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. Contiguous habitat conditions 

are such that the biological needs of the species are met. Diversity of habitat is an 

important consideration and could, in itself, lead to a determination of outstandingly 

remarkable. “ 

Rationale: While a number of small wildlife habitat improvement projects associated 

with Lake Tahoe tributaries have been accomplished (e.g. Cookhouse meadow, aspen 

restoration), they have not significantly changed habitat on any given tributary. Habitat 

restoration for Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog is underway in several lakes in the 

Desolation Wilderness, but reintroduction has not yet been accomplished, and the 

projects are associated with lakes rather than tributaries. 

Finding: Wildlife habitat in rivers or river corridors has not improved such that it 

constitutes an ORV. 

Historic and Cultural 

“The river, or area within the river corridor, contains important evidence of occupation or use by 

humans. Sites may have national or regional importance for interpreting history or prehistory. 

(FSH 1909.12, CH 82.14a ,6).” 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix B ▪ B-7 

a. “History - Site(s) or feature(s) associated with a significant event, an important person, 

or a cultural activity of the past that was rare or one-of-a-kind in the region. A historic 

site or feature, in most cases, is 50 years old or older.” 

Finding: No additional historic resources have been found that would constitute an 

ORV. 

b. “Pre-history - Sites may have unique or rare characteristics or exceptional human 

interest value; represent an area where a culture or cultural period was first identified 

and described; may have been used concurrently by two or more cultural groups; or may 

have been used by cultural groups for rare sacred purposes.” 

Finding: No additional pre-historic resources have been found that would constitute an 

ORV. 

Other Values 

“While no specific national evaluation guidelines have been developed for the “other similar 

values” category, assessments of additional river-related values consistent with the foregoing 

guidance may be developed, including, but not limited to, hydrology, paleontology, and botany 

resources(FSH 1909.12, CH 82.14a ,7).”

Finding: No additional river-related values have been found that would constitute an 

ORV. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

B-8 ▪ Wild and Scenic River Evaluation 

B3. Summary and Conclusion 

As defined by FSH 1909.12 Ch. 80, it was the goal of the IDT to determine if there were any 

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

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

status, and to determine if any new Outstandingly Remarkable Values are associated with any 

Lake Tahoe Basin rivers, stream, or creeks. 

This evaluation reaffirms the 1999 Record of Decision, and the original recommendation to 

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

and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. In response to comments submitted on the DEIS, the tributaries 

of the Upper Truckee River were re-analyzed. The IDT identified potential ORVs associated 

with many tributaries, but the tributaries were not found suitable. Given the protections and 

restrictions inherent in the Management Area where these tributaries are located, and protections 

provided by the Endangered Species Act, additional protection is not needed. Since no additional 

protection is needed, recommending these tributaries may not be consistent with the intent of the 

Wild and Scenic River Act. An additional consideration was opposition expressed at the county 

level. 

It also reaffirms the decision to not recommend the Truckee River. The Truckee River has 

sustained the Outstandingly Remarkable Values described in the ROD, but its suitability is still 

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

from the more recent adoption of the 2008 TROA, which provides many of the protections that 

were originally sought under the Wild and Scenic River designation. 

It is important to note that the Lake Tahoe Basin represents one of the most heavily managed 

landscapes in the United States. Federally designated as an Outstanding National Resource 

Water, Lake Tahoe and its surrounds have evolved into a rigorously scrutinized environment in 

which a cadre of federal, state, regional, and local regulatory agencies cooperatively manage and 

protect its most precious natural resource - Lake Tahoe and its contributing watersheds. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-1 

Appendix C – 

Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness 

C1. Introduction 

This document describes the process used to evaluate the wilderness potential of six areas on the 

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU). 

The analysis is based on GIS mapping of existing wilderness and inventoried roadless area 

polygon data, adjusted based on local knowledge 

Three tests were used—capability, availability, and need—to determine suitability as described in 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70. In addition to the inherent wilderness qualities an 

area might possess, the area must provide opportunities and experiences that are dependent on 

and enhanced by a wilderness environment. The area and boundaries must allow the area to be 

managed as wilderness. 

Capability is defined as the degree to which the area contains the basic characteristics that make 

it suitable for wilderness designation without regard to its availability for or need as wilderness. 

See Section 3. 

The availability determination is conditioned on the value of and need for the wilderness 

resource compared to the value of and need for the area for other resources. This is contained in 

Section 4. 

Need (contained in section 5) is the determination that the area should be designated as 

wilderness through an analysis of the degree the area contributes to the local and national 

distribution of wilderness. 

The March 2009 inventory conducted according to Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70 

is the basis for this evaluation. 

Section 6: The Inventory Process contains detail regarding the process of mapping the inventory, 

including the determination criteria and boundary adjustments. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-2 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

C2. Overview of Areas Evaluated 

Desolation Wilderness Additions - Pyramid (0519-001) 

The Pyramid area encompasses 7,732 acres. This segment of land is contiguous to the eastside of 

the Desolation Wilderness. 

The location of the Pyramid addition runs along the eastern border of the Desolation Wilderness. 

It would extend the Desolation Wilderness boundary closer to Lake Tahoe and would provide a 

buffer between Lake Tahoe and the present Wilderness. It would also include portions of the 

watersheds of General Creek and Meeks Creek to the north as well as abutting boundaries with 

D.L. Bliss and Sugar Pine Point California State Parks. 

The Pyramid area is accessed by numerous trailheads and roads that originate from Highway 89. 

Access roads include the Angora Lookout FS1214, Fallen Leaf road, Glen Alpine Trailhead road 

12N16, Mt. Tallac FS1306, Meeks Creek FS14N42 and several other roads that access summer 

recreation residences. Major trailheads that access the Pyramid area are Glen Alpine, Mt. Tallac, 

Bayview, Eagle Falls, and Meeks trailheads. 

Geology of the Pyramid area is dominated by the granite batholiths indicative of the Desolation 

Wilderness. The Pyramid area includes some major peaks in the Basin: Echo Peak (8,895 ft), 

Flagpole Peak (8,363 ft), and Angora Peak (8,588 ft). A majority of the topography is steep with 

slopes greater than 30%, which includes the easterly toe slopes of Rubicon Peak, Jakes Peak and 

Mt. Tallac. Elevations within the Pyramid area range from 8,900 ft to 6,300 ft. 

Vegetation types within the Pyramid area vary from predominately white and red fir, sub-alpine 

conifer in the northern reaches to montane chaparral, jeffery pine and lodgepole pine in the 

southern part. 

Little recreational use takes place during the summer in most of the Pyramid area, and consists of 

trails and roads that are used to access Desolation Wilderness. However, winter recreation in the 

form of backcountry skiing is growing exponentially in popularity and several areas of the 

Pyramid area see quite significant use. These include Jakes Peak, Flagpole Peak, Mt. Tallac, and 

the Angora area. There is no detailed analysis at this time on specific numbers. 

The area’s appearance ranges from densely forested slopes in the northern reach to sparse stands 

of trees and barren granite slopes of rock and chaparral in the mid to southern segment. The 

Pyramid area incorporates the dramatic backdrop that borders Lake Tahoe and is one of the 

majestic view sheds in the western United States. 

Cascade Falls and the dramatic summits of Angora Peak, Echo Peak and Flagpole Peak are key 

attractions. The cliffs found in this area provide valuable habitat for Peregrine falcon. Mature 

stands of timber also provide habitat for the Northern goshawk. 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-3 

Dardanelles Roadless Area (0519-002) 

Dardanelles Roadless Area, commonly known as "Meiss Country" after a local ranching family's 

summer range, contains 14,227 acres. This roadless area lies in the southernmost tip of the Lake 

Tahoe Basin. It is roughly bounded by Highway 50 and 89 on the north and Highway 88 to the 

east and south. The Lake Tahoe Basin is defined by the parallel Sierra Crest and Carson Range. 

These converge at Carson Pass, and, in the "V" formed by this merging, the Upper Truckee River 

begins. Dardanelles lies in the high meadow at the Truckee River's headwaters. The Truckee 

headwaters flow through what is known as Meiss Meadows, an extensive meadow system that is 

bordered by the high peaks named Stevens and Red Lakes Peaks. It was from Red Lake Peak that 

the first European explorers John C. Fremont, and his cartographer Charles Preuss, viewed Lake 

Tahoe. 

Elevations range from a low of 6,400 feet in Christmas Valley on the southern edge of the settled 

area of the Tahoe Basin, to the 10,000-foot summit of the Carson Range. Precipitation is 40-50 

inches per year. The ecosystem is classified as Sierra Forest Province (Bailey) with small portions 

of lodgepole pine/sub-alpine forest (Kuchler). Two-thirds of the land in Dardanelles is barren, 

brush, sub-alpine, lodgepole pine or large productive meadows. Over three quarters of the slopes 

are above 30%. 

Dardanelles is second only to Desolation Wilderness in popularity for non-motorized backcountry 

recreation. It sees prolific hiking, equestrian use and in recent years increased mountain bike use. 

Trailheads at Echo Summit, Big Meadow, Carson Pass, Christmas Valley and Sayles Canyon 

provide access to Dardanelles, and are accessed from Highways 50, 89 and 88. 

There is good opportunity for primitive recreation. The southern part, where the Upper Truckee 

begins, has broad meadows with shallow lakes and unobstructed views of the high alpine ridges 

to the east and west. The northern part is more steeply dissected, with granite terrain and the cliffs 

of the Sierra Crest to the west and dramatic outcrops of tertiary volcanic breccias to the east. The 

pocket lakes scattered through this varied terrain are isolated and relatively undisturbed. Red 

Lake Peak and the nearby Stevens Peak are the highest peaks in the area and are formed of 

mudflow breccias as its geologic parent material. The two peaks are, in this respect, a unique 

habitat. 

Key attractions are the numerous lakes, prolific wildflowers and expansive meadows that the 

Upper Truckee flows through. The Dardanelles area has a high degree of integrity and apparent 

naturalness, fostered by the physical enclosure of the landscape: very little of the outside world 

can be seen or heard while traveling in the heart of Dardanelles. Although non-conforming with 

wilderness standards, the remarkable "Meiss cabin," built in 1878, still stands in Meiss Meadow. 

In 1998, seven miles of the Upper Truckee River was recommended to be added to the National 

Wild and Scenic River inventory as a “Wild” river. It has since been managed to protect its 

Outstanding Remarkable values to maintain its eligibility. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-4 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Freel Roadless Area (0519-003) 

The Freel Roadless area includes 15,341 acres. Of this total acreage only 800 acres lie within 1⁄4 

mile of a road. Freel Peak (10,881 ft) is the highest point in the Lake Tahoe Basin and is the 

dominant feature of this roadless area. This section resides in the Carson Range looming over the 

South Lake Tahoe and Meyers. 

The Freel potential wilderness area is accessed from the north by the High Meadows Road FS 

12N05, Star Lake Trail 18EO1 and by the Tahoe Rim Trail from the South Kingsbury Trailhead. 

Main access points to the southern section of the area are the Oneidas Road FS 1201, Hell Hole 

Road, Saxon Road and related trails Hell Hole 18E 12, Saxon 18E 13 and the Tahoe Rim Trail 

which is accessed from the Big Meadow Trailhead on Highway 89. FS25 is another major access 

point from the south side of Luther Pass which runs within the Humboldt-Toiyabe National 

Forest and leads to the south side of Armstrong Pass. This primarily is used by mountain bikers 

who are accessing Saxon Creek trail (Mr. Toad's Wild Ride), a very popular downhill ride. 

The higher elevations of the roadless area have distinctive visual quality: high, barren peaks, 

wind-deformed trees, and panoramic views of regional scale down the Sierra Crest and across the 

basin and range country of Nevada. At the head of Cold Creek on the northern flank of Freel Peak 

is Star Lake, the highest lake in the Basin. Unsurpassed views of Lake Tahoe exist, in which the 

Crystal Range in Desolation Wilderness serves as a dramatic backdrop. The deep, decomposed 

granite soils conceal groundwater well below the surface. Hell Hole basin, with its cliffs and 

boggy meadows, and Freel meadows typify the spring fed surface water of the area. Over 80% of 

this area has slopes over 30%. 

The ecosystem is classified as the Northern Sierra Nevada physiographic province (Bailey 

classification M261 0). The western portion is representative of a mixed conifer forest (Kuchler 

type 5) and the eastern is lodgepole pine-sub-alpine forest (Kuchler type 8).Over half of the area 

is timbered with species such as lodgepole pine, red fir and sub-alpine conifer. Seven percent of 

the area is montane chaparral and sagebrush, 3% riparian and less than 1 % aspen. Thirty-nine 

percent of the area is barren or has sparse high elevation lodgepole and whitebark pine. 

Summer use levels have increased since the release of the previous LTBMU forest plan. The 

completion of the Tahoe Rim Trail from Kingsbury West Trailhead to Big Meadow has made the 

area more accessible to backpackers, mountain bikers and day hikers. Also, development of new 

trails from Oneidas Road up to Armstrong Pass and further improvements to the Saxon Creek 

trail have increased recreation opportunities for mountain biking. The Saxon Creek trail is now 

one of the most popular mountain bike trails on the south shore of Tahoe and has gained regionwide popularity among this user group. Winter use includes snowmobile and backcountry skiing 

in parts of the Freel Roadless Area. Currently, snowmobiles are allowed throughout the Saxon 

Creek and Hell Hole drainages. The Saxon Creek area receives consistent use when snow levels 

make it possible to ride from bordering communities. 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. 

The distance from the perimeter of this area to the core is short. Occasional views of the nearby 

urban areas and of airplanes at the Lake Tahoe Airport detract from the experience of solitude. 

Combining the Freel Roadless area (15,341 acres) with the Jobs Peak Roadless area (24,052 

acres) to the east (part of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest), would connect a large 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-5 

contiguous area of roadless terrain and would include a substantial part of the Carson Range as 

wilderness. 

Key attractions of this area are Freel Peak (the highest mountain in the Lake Tahoe Basin), Star 

Lake (the highest lake in the Basin), high alpine meadows and an uncommon community of 

alpine cushion plants (draba asterophora var. asterophora) that grow on a 600-acre area around 

the summit of Freel Peak. The views from this area are among the most majestic found in the 

Basin. 

Lincoln Creek Roadless Area (0519-004) 

This segment lies along the east shore of Lake Tahoe in Nevada. 

The Lincoln Creek Roadless area has a total of 6,562 acres. It lies between U.S. Highway 50 to 

the west, the Genoa Peak road to the east, Kingsbury Grade on the south, and Highway 50 

(Spooner Summit) to the north. Access to the area is from the Genoa Peak Road FS14N32, 

FS14N33 and the multitude of suburban roads that service the subdivisions that border this area 

on the west and south boundaries of the segment. The Tahoe Rim Trail runs through the south 

east side of the segment and can be accessed by the Spooner Summit South trailhead and the 

Kingsbury North Trailhead. The Tahoe Rim Trail travels in this area for a short length through 

the southeast corner of the segment. 

Lincoln Creek is unglaciated, lower elevation topography with a lack of lakes, high peaks or 

cliffs. The area is composed of numerous small hills containing granite outcroppings and 

intermixed timber. The area is bisected from east to west by many steep, V-shaped drainages. 

Nearly all the land has a high erosion hazard, and 80% of the area has slopes greater than 30%. 

Elevation ranges from 6,400 feet near Lake Tahoe to slightly over 8,000 feet on the east. 

The ecosystem is classified as Sierran Forest Province (Bailey classification M261O) with a 

mixed conifer forest (Kuchler type 8). The Lincoln Creek area was logged intensely in the late 

1800s. The second growth stand is dominated by a Sierran mixed conifer stand and pure stands of 

red fir, jeffery and lodgepole pine. There is minor acreage of montane riparian and montane 

chaparral. 

Compared to other areas of the Tahoe Basin, this area has low recreational opportunity and use. 

The Tahoe Rim Trail is popular, but only runs through a short length of this area. It is estimated 

that most recreation comes from local neighborhoods in the form of short hikes, bike rides and 

cross-country skiing. Snowmobile use is allowed within the entire area. 

The opportunities for solitude are moderate. The area is small and narrow, allowing a visitor to 

get only about a mile away from a road. Road noise can be audible and views of 

urban development and Heavenly ski area are intrusive. The broken topography and the uniform 

vegetative cover do provide some visual and auditory screening from these intrusions. Because 

the area occupies an intermediate position on a continuous slope, it has "no top or bottom" and 

therefore lacks physiographic unity. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-6 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

The existing boundary is complicated and is bordered nearly on all sides by development and 

uses that are non-conforming with wilderness. With the exception of the Lincoln Creek area 

itself, surrounding lands offer little primitive value or undeveloped nature. 

The scenic landmark of the area is a large outcrop, Castle Rock, which is near the boundary of the 

roadless area, but not included within the Lincoln Creek section. Views of Lake Tahoe, the 

Carson Valley and the Sierra Crest are spectacular. 

Mt. Rose Wilderness Area Additions (0519-005) 

The additions to the Mt. Rose Wilderness within the LTBMU total 473 acres. There are two 

additions, one expanding the western border of the LTBMU managed section of the Mt. Rose 

Wilderness, and a larger segment on the north east side of the LTBMU managed area. The 

western segment runs roughly north to south from Mt. Baldy along the present boundary in a 

narrow strip. The northeastern section occupies the land east of Relay Peak and north of Ginny 

and Incline Lakes. Road FS 17N 85 to the relay communication station runs along the northern 

boundary of this segment. In this document, the western addition is identified as the Mt. Baldy 

Addition and the eastern addition, the Relay Addition. 

The Mt. Baldy Addition can be directly accessed from the Tahoe Rim Trail. The Mt. Baldy 

Addition runs down the top of the southerly reaching ridge. Baldy and the trail runs right through 

the northern edge of the addition. This addition could also be potentially accessed by roads 

FS16N54 and FS16N52, which come within a mile of the area, but do not offer direct access. 

Access to the Relay Addition would be from FS 17N85 (the relay communication station road) 

and from the Tahoe Rim Trail. 

These additions incorporate segments of land that are part of the satellite peaks of Mt. Rose (itself 

entirely outside of the LTBMU). Relay Peak at 10,366 ft. is second only to Freel Peak in 

elevation. Unlike the other prominent peaks (in the Desolation and Freel areas), these summits 

rise continuously three to four thousand feet from the surface of Lake Tahoe. Visual quality is 

distinctly alpine, though not markedly glaciated in appearance. The treeless upper slopes, when 

snow covered, are a visual apex of Tahoe's north shore. Because the peaks are sometimes less 

than two miles from the shoreline, the views of Lake Tahoe from their summits is awesome. The 

sparse vegetation on the decomposed granite soils is relieved at intervals by small, lush pocket -

meadows and ponds at 8,900 to 9,200 feet and by frequent massive rock outcrops and cliff-bands. 

The predominantly south facing slopes are dry, sandy and support sparse stands of lodgepole and 

whitebark pine. Intermixed are slopes of sagebrush and montane/mixed chapparal. The upper 

slopes are nearly barren of vegetation. The ecosystem is classified as Kuchler type 8, lodgepole 

pine/sub-alpine forest. Snowmobile use is intensive within the Relay Addition. It is very popular 

and occurs throughout the identified Relay Addition. Backcountry skiing is also a favorite winter 

time activity. Summer use entails both overnight and day hikers on the Tahoe Rim Trail. 

Intrusion into the present wilderness by mountain bikers continues to present a management 

problem. The Mt. Baldy addition in all likelihood sees little use other than perhaps backcountry 

skiing in the winter. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-7 

These additions would expand the Mt. Rose Wilderness and add to an already permanently 

protected high elevation landscape. Opportunities for solitude are high. The Mt. Rose wilderness 

occupies many square miles at the head of Gray and Bronco Creeks, and this area itself is 

buffered by the little used lower drainages of these creeks extending ten or fifteen miles north to 

the Truckee River canyon. Immediately south is Incline Village which, despite its proximity, 

generates very few hikers willing to climb the steep slopes. Skiers on the other hand find the area 

well suited for winter backcountry travel. 

The Granite Chief Wilderness Additions (0519-006) 

The additions to the Granite Chief Wilderness within the LTBMU total 1,160 acres in two 

separate segments that are bisected by CA State owned land. The additions border the present 

Granite Chief Wilderness along its east side and run roughly along this boundary from Barker 

Pass to the south up to Alpine Meadows ski area (Ward Creek Blvd.) to the north. For ease of 

description we will refer to the addition as Granite Chief North and Granite Chief South. 

Access to Granite Chief North would be from the Alpine Meadows ski area road. 

The Pacific Crest Trail/Tahoe Rim Trail runs along the Sierra Crest/wilderness boundary and 

presents the best opportunity to access both Granite Chief additions. The "Stanford Rock trail" 

also provides access to the additions from the east with a northerly spur 16E07 to the northern 

addition and a southerly spur 16E08 that reaches the southern addition. The Blackwood 

Canyon/Barker Pass road affords the closest access at Barker Pass to the Granite Chief South 

addition. 

The geography of these additions is of a predominately eastern aspect with sections of steep 

granitic faces and cliffs. The western borders of the additions start at ridge top elevations of 

around 8,300-8600 feet and run down slope to the east to elevations around 6800-7600 feet. 

Tributaries of Blackwood creek start within Granite Chief South and flow from steep slopes all 

over 30% in grade. 

A majority of the additions vegetation cover is White Fir with Sierran Mixed Conifer, Sub-alpine 

Conifer and Montane/Mixed Chaparral dominating the drier southerly slopes. The ecosystem 

could be classified as Sierran Forest Province (Bailey). 

Granite Chief South sees moderate use on the Pacific Crest Trail/Tahoe Rim Trail with overnight 

backpackers and day hikers alike. The Granite Chief North addition sees more backcountry skiing 

use, as it is easily accessible from Alpine Meadows ski area. Overall it is estimated that these two 

additions see low to slightly moderate use year round and remain in a very natural state. 

Granite buttes, rolling faces intermixed with volcanic outcroppings and soils make up the 

landscape here. There are dense stands of White Fir and Mixed Conifers, as well as sparse 

exposed slopes mostly composed of bedrock and dispersed sagebrush and chaparral vegetation. 

Pocket meadows are found sporadically where wetter conditions persist. It resides as the 

backdrop for Tahoe City and the beginning of the Granite Chief Wilderness. 

These additions offer an expansion of the present wilderness to the east. The crest which the PCT 

runs along offers good views of Lake Tahoe and up the Truckee River canyon. A majority of the 

terrain is forested and is typical of the northeast shore of Lake Tahoe.
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-8 ▪ WNotes: P – Primitive; SPNM – Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

Numerical ID Area Name GIS 

acreage 

State Area> 5000 ac, 

undeveloped? 

Area<5000 ac, adjacent Wilderness? 

P or SPNROS sett

0519-001 Pyramid LTBMU 7,732 CA X X SPNM - Pyramid El Dorado NF 28,104 CA X X SPNM 0519-002 Dardanelles LTBMU 14,227 CA X SPNM 

Dardanelles El Dorado NF 8,116 CA X SPNM 

0519-003 Freel LTBMU 15,341 CA X SPNM - 

Jobs Peak Humboldt-Toiyabe NF 24,052 CA/NV X SPNM 

0519-004 Lincoln Creek 6,562 NV X SPNM 0519-005 Mt. Rose LTBMU 473 NV X SPNM - 

Mt. Rose Humboldt-Toiyabe & Tahoe NF 19,871 NV X SPNM 

0519-006 Granite Chief LTBMU 1,160 CA X SPNM  Granite Chief Tahoe NF 6,471 CA X SPNM 

Table C1. Overview of LTBMU Wilderness 
Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-9

Figure C1. LTBMU Evaluated Areas and Land Status Map
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-10 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

C3. Capability 

Per Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 Chapter 70, Section 72.1, each potential area’s capability for 

wilderness is described by basic characteristics that make the area appropriate and valuable for 

wilderness, regardless of the area’s availability or need. The following characteristics were addressed: 

a) Naturalness of the area; the degree to which humans and past or present human activity have 

affected natural ecological processes and conditions. 

b) Undeveloped; the degree to which the area’s appearance is appropriate and valuable for 

wilderness. 

c) Opportunities for experiences often unique to wilderness such as solitude, self-reliance, 

adventurous and challenging experiences, and primitive recreation. 

d) Special features and values of the area including those of ecological, geological, scientific, 

educational, recreational, scenic, or historical value, rare and endangered plant and animal species 

and other wildlife. 

e) A description of size and shape to include the implications of the area’s size, shape, and 

juxtaposition to external influences on the wilderness attributes. 

f) A summary of the boundary conditions, needs, and management requirements should the 

area be designated for wilderness. Addressing whether or not boundary changes would enhance 

the wilderness characteristics or whether or not it would be possible to use boundary 

modifications to separate incompatible activities from those characteristics. 

In order to evaluate the basic characteristics, they were broken down into elements, activities, or features 

that describe the basic characteristics and provide a basis for rating. Since criteria were not of equal 

importance, criteria are in order of priority for each element, activity, or feature. Resource specialists 

evaluated each criterion, rating each as high, moderate, or low. 

 
Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-11

Table C2. Wilderness Capability Ratings (Desolation-Pyramid Roadless) 

Desolation Wilderness Addition - Pyramid Roadless (0519-001) 

High Moderate Low Rating

A. Naturalness of Area 

Variety and abundance of wildlife, presence of T&E, SOC M 

1. Diverse community of 

native mammals, birds, and 

fish. 

1. Moderate variety of native 

mammals, birds, and fish. 

1. Community of native 

mammals, birds, and fish is 

not diverse. 

2. Presence of threatened 

and endangered species. 

2. Known moderate variety of 

threatened and endangered 

species. 

2. Low variety of 

threatened and 

endangered species. 

3. Streams are critical to 

historic distribution of 

Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

3. Streams are important to 

historic distribution of Lahontan 

cutthroat trout. 

3. Streams are not 

important to historic 

distribution of Lahontan 

cutthroat trout. 

4. Provides critical linkage 

between wildlife areas or 

habitats. 

4. Provides linkage between 

wildlife areas or habitats. 

4. Does not provide linkage 

between wildlife areas or 

habitats. 

5. Non-native species, 

Noxious weeds are not 

evident. 

5. Noxious weeds evident only 

along trails. 

5. Noxious weeds common 

or scattered throughout the 

area. 

6. High water quality. Fully 

supports beneficial uses. 

6. Good water quality. Partially 

supports beneficial uses. 

6. Poor water quality. Does 

not support beneficial uses. 

B. Undeveloped 

Natural and free from Human disturbance M 

7. Area appears free of 

human disturbance. 

Disturbance appears to be 

natural, e.g., small wildfire. 

7. Area appears mostly free 

of human disturbance. 

Natural disturbance evident 

but does not dominate the 

landscape. 

7. Area shows signs of 

human disturbance. 

8. Area visible in surrounding 

foreground (outside the area) 

may show some human 

disturbance but does not 

dominate the view. 

8. Area visible in surrounding 

foreground has signs of human 

activities, e.g., road, farm 

house. 

8. Area visible in 

surrounding foreground 

shows obvious human 

activities, e.g., clearcuts, 

town. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-12 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Desolation Wilderness Addition - Pyramid Roadless (0519-001) 

High Moderate Low Rating

9. Only a minor 

improvement, e.g., trail. 

9. Several minor 

improvements. 

9. Major improvements, e.g., 

power line, dam, road or 

structures. 

C. Opportunities for Primitive Recreation 

Opportunity for solitude 

L 

10. Feeling of being alone or 

remote from civilization. 

10. Feeling of being alone is 

possible but signs of 

civilization are likely. 

10. Little opportunity of 

feeling alone. 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is light. (encounters) 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is moderate. 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is high. 

Primitive Type Recreation Activities 

Hiking/backpacking opportunities 

12. Multiple system trails 

into area. 

12. At least one system trail 

into area. 

12. No system trails that are 

maintained. 

13. Several dispersed 

camping sites that are 

routinely used. 

13. At least one dispersed 

camping site that is 

occasionally used. 

13. No dispersed camping 

sites that are used, but 

progressive camping may 

occur. 

Fishing opportunities 

14. Good populations of 

native game fish. 

14. Fair populations of native 

game fish. 

14. Low populations of 

native game fish. 

Cross country Skiing and snowshoeing opportunities 

15. Easily accessible in 

winter by motorized wheeled 

vehicles. 

15. Snow keeps wheeled 

vehicles several miles from 

area, but access is possible by 

snowmobile. 

15. Area is difficult or 

rarely accessed by 

snowmobile. 

Snowmobiling use 

16. Terrain is steep or 

vegetation too dense that 

cross country travel is 

difficult. 

16. Terrain is moderate or 

vegetation brushy that impedes 

cross country travel. 

16. Terrain is gentle and 

vegetation open to allow 

easy cross country travel. 

17. Snowmobile use 

prohibited, or if allowed, 

rarely used. 

17. Snowmobile use restricted 

to two months or less, or on 

half or less of the area. 

17. Snowmobile use 

permitted. 
Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-13

Desolation Wilderness Addition - Pyramid Roadless (0519-001) 

High Moderate Low Rating

D. Special Features and Values 

Scenic features 

L 

18. Area has peaks or rocky 

formations considered 

spectacular from the rest of 

the Forest and/or special 

vegetative features that are 

considered very scenic. 

18. Area has a peak or 

formation that stands out 

from surrounding terrain 

and/or vegetative features 

considered scenic. 

1820. Terrain is typical of the 

Forest or surrounding area 

and vegetation is common to 

the surrounding area. 

19. Area has alpine lakes, 

creeks in alpine meadows, or 

waterfalls. 

19. Area may have bodies of 

water that are typical for the 

Forest. 

19. Area has no permanent 

lakes but may have 

perennial creeks or ponds. 

Other special features 

20. Area has at least one 

major other special feature, 

e.g., high mountain meadow, 

fen, etc. 

20. Several minor other special 

features, e.g., flat creek bottom, 

small waterfall, etc. 

20. No major or very few 

minor other special 

features. 

21. Contains a designated 

special area, e.g., wild and 

scenic river, research natural 

area, etc. 

21. Contains a candidate or 

eligible special area, e.g., wild 

and scenic river, research 

natural area, etc. 

21. Does not contain an 

established, candidate, or 

eligible special area. 

Scientific, educational, or historical values 

22. Several significant 

scientific, educational, or 

historical values have been 

identified in the area. 

22. At least one significant or 

several minor scientific, 

educational, or historical values 

have been identified in the 

area. 

22. No scientific, 

educational, or historical 

value has been identified 

in the area. 

23. Identified values are 

unique to the Sierra Nevada 

region. 

23. Identified values are 

common in the Sierra Nevada 

region but uncommon on the 

Forest. 

23. Any identified values 

are common throughout 

the Forest and the Sierra 

Nevada region. 

E. & F. Manageability 

Ability to Manage as Wilderness Manageable L 

24. Size and shape of area 

allows effective 

management. 

24. Size or shape will affect 

manageability but can be 

mitigated by boundary 

changes. 

24. Size is small or has 

irregular shape that makes 

management difficult. 

25. Minimum activity in 

surrounding area that affects 

manageability. 

25. Activity is evident and 

ongoing in surrounding area but 

will not keep area from being 

managed. 

25. Activity in surrounding 

area will affect the 

manageability of the 

inventoried area. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-14 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Desolation Wilderness Addition - Pyramid Roadless (0519-001) 

High Moderate Low Rating

26. Located adjacent to 

existing wilderness or 

other inventoried areas. 

26. Located near existing 

wilderness or other inventoried 

areas. May be difficult to 

access. 

26. Isolated, small parcel of 

land. 

Area boundaries are recognizable 

27. The vast majority of the 

boundary follows features 

that can be easily found and 

identified on the ground, e.g., 

dominant ridge, creek, road, 

or trail. 

27. More than half the 

boundary follows a feature that 

can be easily found and 

identified on the ground. 

27. Boundary generally lies 

across the hillside and can 

rarely be located without 

equipment, e.g. GPS unit. 

28. Boundary can be easily 

adjusted to follow locatable 

and identifiable features 

without significantly 

modifying the area 

boundaries. 

28. Boundary can be adjusted 

to follow locatable and 

identifiable features but will 

modify the general size and 

shape of the area. Boundary 

may be identified with minimal 

signing. 

28. Boundary cannot be 

adjusted to follow 

locatable and identifiable, 

or requires extensive 

signing. 

Area boundaries are manageable 

29. Area access by trail or 

closed and revegetated road, 

adjacent area has natural 

setting. 

29. May be accessed by narrow 

or two-track open road that is 

lightly traveled, minimal human 

presence evident. 

29. Boundary adjacent to 

heavily used road or along 

area showing high human 

presence, e.g., a number of 

farm houses with 

outbuilding, pasture land, 

etc. 

30. Boundary totally on 

national forest and not 

adjacent to private property. 

30. Boundary follows 

property line forming 

irregular shape. 

30. Boundary crosses private 

property so there are 

inholdings along the 

boundary. 

31. No inholdings. 31. Few small inholdings may 

be present. 

31. Several small or one 

large inholding. 

Area boundaries constitute barrier to prohibited use 

32. Human improvement is 

significant to physically 

provide a barrier, e.g., road 

cut slope. 

32. Human improvement places 

user on notice of prohibited 

use, e.g., a sign. 

32. Human improvement 

not a deterrent may 

provide point of access of 

prohibited use. 
Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-15

Figure C2. Desolation Wilderness Addition - Pyramid Roadless Map (0519-
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-16 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Table C3. Wilderness Capability Ratings (Dardanelles Roadless) 

Dardanelles Roadless (0519-002) 

High Moderate Low Rating

A. Naturalness of Area 

Variety and abundance of wildlife, presence of T&E, SOC H 

1. Diverse community of 

native mammals, birds, and 

fish. 

1. Moderate variety of native 

mammals, birds, and fish. 

1. Community of native 

mammals, birds, and fish is 

not diverse. 

2. Presence of threatened and 

endangered species. 

2. Known moderate variety 

of threatened and 

endangered species. 

2. Low variety of threatened 

and endangered species. 

3. Streams are critical to 

historic distribution of 

Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

3. Streams are important to 

historic distribution of 

Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

3. Streams are not 

important to historic 

distribution of Lahontan 

cutthroat trout. 

4. Provides critical linkage 

between wildlife areas or 

habitats. 

4. Provides linkage between 

wildlife areas or habitats. 

4. Does not provide linkage 

between wildlife areas or 

habitats. 

5. Non-native species, 

Noxious weeds are not 

evident. 

5. Noxious weeds evident only 

along trails. 

5. Noxious weeds common 

or scattered throughout the 

area. 

6. High water quality. Fully 

supports beneficial uses. 

6. Good water quality. Partially 

supports beneficial uses. 

6. Poor water quality. Does 

not support beneficial uses. 

B. Undeveloped 

Natural and free from Human disturbance H 

7. Area appears free of 

human disturbance. 

Disturbance appears to be 

natural, e.g., small wildfire. 

7. Area appears mostly free of 

human disturbance. Natural 

disturbance evident but does 

not dominate the landscape. 

7. Area shows signs of 

human disturbance. 

8. Area visible in 

surrounding foreground 

(outside the area) may show 

some human disturbance 

but does not dominate the 

view. 

8. Area visible in surrounding 

foreground has signs of human 

activities, e.g., road, farm 

house. 

8. Area visible in 

surrounding foreground 

shows obvious human 

activities, e.g., clearcuts, 

town. 

9. Only a minor improvement, 

e.g., trail. 

9. Several minor 

improvements (Historic 

Meiss cabin/barn, circa 

1878). 

9. Major improvements, 

e.g., power line, dam, road 

or structures. 
Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-17

Dardanelles Roadless (0519-002) 

High Moderate Low Rating

C. Opportunities for Primitive Recreation 

Opportunity for solitude M 

10. Feeling of being alone or 

remote from civilization. 

10. Feeling of being alone is 

possible but signs of civilization 

are likely. 

10. Little opportunity of 

feeling alone. 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is light. (encounters) 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is moderate. 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is high. 

Primitive Type Recreation Activities 

Hiking/backpacking opportunities 

12. Multiple system trails 

into area. 

12. At least one system trail 

into area. 

12. No system trails that are 

maintained. 

13. Several dispersed 

camping sites that are 

routinely used. 

13. At least one dispersed 

camping site that is 

occasionally used. 

13. No dispersed camping 

sites that are used, but 

progressive camping may 

occur. 

Fishing opportunities 

14. Good populations of native 

game fish. 

14. Fair populations of native 

game fish. 

14. Low populations of 

native game fish. 

Cross country Skiing and snowshoeing opportunities 

15. Easily accessible in winter 

by motorized wheeled 

vehicles. 

15. Snow keeps wheeled 

vehicles several miles from 

area, but access is possible by 

snowmobile. 

15. Area is difficult or 

rarely accessed by 

snowmobile. 

Snowmobiling use 

16. Terrain is steep or 

vegetation too dense that 

cross country travel is 

difficult. 

68. Terrain is moderate or 

vegetation brushy that impedes 

cross country travel. 

16. Terrain is gentle and 

vegetation open to allow 

easy cross country travel. 

17. Snowmobile use 

prohibited, or if allowed, 

rarely used. 

17. Snowmobile use restricted 

to two months or less, or on 

half or less of the area. 

17. Snowmobile use 

permitted. 

D. Special Features and Values 

Scenic features H 

18. Area has peaks or rocky 

formations considered 

spectacular from the rest of 

the Forest and/or special 

vegetative features that are 

considered very scenic. 

18. Area has a peak or 

formation that stands out from 

surrounding terrain and/or 

vegetative features considered 

scenic. 

18. Terrain is typical of the 

Forest or surrounding area 

and vegetation is common 

to the surrounding area. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-18 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Dardanelles Roadless (0519-002) 

High Moderate Low Rating

19. Area has alpine lakes, 

creeks in alpine meadows, 

or waterfalls. 

19. Area may have bodies of 

water that are typical for the 

Forest. 

19. Area has no permanent 

lakes but may have 

perennial creeks or ponds. 

Other special features 

20. Area has at least one 

major other special feature, 

e.g., high mountain 

meadow, fen, etc. 

20. Several minor other special 

features, e.g., flat creek 

bottom, small waterfall, etc. 

20. No major or very few 

minor other special features. 

21. Contains a designated 

special area, e.g., wild and 

scenic river, research natural 

area, etc. 

21. Contains a candidate or 

eligible special area, e.g., 

wild and scenic river, 

research natural area, 

etc.(Upper Truckee River 

segment) 

21. Does not contain an 

established, candidate, or 

eligible special area. 

Scientific, educational, or historical values 

22. Several significant 

scientific, educational, or 

historical values have been 

identified in the area. 

22. At least one significant or 

several minor scientific, 

educational, or historical 

values have been identified 

in the area. 

22. No scientific, 

educational, or historical 

value has been identified in 

the area. 

23. Identified values are 

unique to the Sierra Nevada 

region. 

23. Identified values are 

common in the Sierra Nevada 

region but uncommon on the 

Forest. 

23. Any identified values 

are common throughout 

the Forest and the Sierra 

Nevada region. 

E. & F. Manageability 

Ability to Manage as Wilderness Manageable H 

24. Size and shape of area 

allows effective 

management. 

24. Size or shape will affect 

manageability but can be 

mitigated by boundary 

changes. 

24. Size is small or has 

irregular shape that makes 

management difficult. 

25. Minimum activity in 

surrounding area that 

affects manageability. 

25. Activity is evident and 

ongoing in surrounding area 

but will not keep area from 

being managed. 

25. Activity in surrounding 

area will affect the 

manageability of the 

inventoried area. 

26. Located adjacent to 

existing wilderness or other 

inventoried areas.(Freel) 

26. Located near existing 

wilderness or other inventoried 

areas. May be difficult to 

access. 

26. Isolated, small parcel of 

land 

. 
Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-19

Dardanelles Roadless (0519-002) 

High Moderate Low Rating

Area boundaries are recognizable 

27. The vast majority of the 

boundary follows features that 

can be easily found and 

identified on the ground, e.g., 

dominant ridge, creek, road, or 

trail. 

27. More than half the 

boundary follows a feature 

that can be easily found and 

identified on the ground. 

27. Boundary generally lies 

across the hillside and can 

rarely be located without 

equipment, e.g. GPS unit. 

28. Boundary can be easily 

adjusted to follow locatable 

and identifiable features 

without significantly modifying 

the area boundaries. 

28. Boundary can be adjusted 

to follow locatable and 

identifiable features but will 

modify the general size and 

shape of the area. Boundary 

may be identified with minimal 

signing. 

28. Boundary cannot be 

adjusted to follow 

locatable and identifiable, 

or requires extensive 

signing. 

Area boundaries are manageable 

29. Area access by trail or 

closed and revegetated 

road, adjacent area has 

natural setting. 

29. May be accessed by 

narrow or two-track open road 

that is lightly traveled, minimal 

human presence evident. 

29. Boundary adjacent to 

heavily used road or along 

area showing high human 

presence, e.g., a number of 

farm houses with 

outbuilding, pasture land, 

etc. 

30. Boundary totally on 

national forest and not 

adjacent to private property. 

30. Boundary follows 

property line forming 

irregular shape. 

30. Boundary crosses 

private property so there are 

inholdings along the 

boundary. 

31. No inholdings. 31. Few small inholdings may 

be present. 

31. Several small or one 

large inholding. 

Area boundaries constitute barrier to prohibited use 

32. Human improvement is 

significant to physically 

provide a barrier, e.g., road 

cut slope. 

32. Human improvement 

places user on notice of 

prohibited use, e.g., a sign. 

32. Human improvement not 

a deterrent may provide 

point of access of prohibited 

use. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-20 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

 

Figure C3. Dardanelles Roadless Area Map (0519-002) 
Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-21

Table C4. Wilderness Capability Ratings (Freel Roadless) 

Freel Roadless (0519-003) 

High Moderate Low Rating

A. Naturalness of Area 

Variety and abundance of wildlife, presence of T&E, SOC M 

1. Diverse community of 

native mammals, birds, and 

fish. 

1. Moderate variety of native 

mammals, birds, and fish. 

1. Community of native 

mammals, birds, and fish is 

not diverse. 

2. Presence of threatened 

and endangered species. 

2. Known moderate variety of 

threatened and endangered 

species. 

2. Low variety of threatened 

and endangered species. 

3. Streams are critical to 

historic distribution of 

Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

3. Streams are important to 

historic distribution of 

Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

3. Streams are not important 

to historic distribution of 

Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

4. Provides critical linkage 

between wildlife areas or 

habitats. 

4. Provides linkage between 

wildlife areas or habitats. 

4. Does not provide linkage 

between wildlife areas or 

habitats. 

5. Non-native species, 

Noxious weeds are not 

evident. 

5. Noxious weeds evident only 

along trails. 

5. Noxious weeds common 

or scattered throughout the 

area. 

6. High water quality. Fully 

supports beneficial uses. 

6. Good water quality. Partially 

supports beneficial uses. 

6. Poor water quality. Does 

not support beneficial uses. 

B. Undeveloped 

Natural and free from Human disturbance M 

7. Area appears free of 

human disturbance. 

Disturbance appears to be 

natural, e.g., small wildfire. 

7. Area appears mostly free of 

human disturbance. Natural 

disturbance evident but does 

not dominate the landscape. 

7. Area shows signs of 

human disturbance. 

8. Area visible in surrounding 

foreground (outside the area) 

may show some human 

disturbance but does not 

dominate the view. 

8. Area visible in surrounding 

foreground has signs of 

human activities, e.g., road, 

farm house. 

8. Area visible in 

surrounding foreground 

shows obvious human 

activities, e.g., clearcuts, 

town. 

9. Only a minor improvement, 

e.g., trail. 

9. Several minor 

improvements. 

9. Major improvements, e.g., 

power line, dam, road or 

structures. 

C. Opportunities for Primitive Recreation 

Opportunity for solitude M 

 

 

10. Feeling of being alone 

or remote from civilization. 

10. Feeling of being alone is 

possible but signs of civilization 

are likely. 

10. Little opportunity of 

feeling alone. 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is light. (encounters) 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is moderate. 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is high. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-22 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Freel Roadless (0519-003) 

High Moderate Low Rating

Primitive Type Recreation Activities 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hiking/backpacking opportunities 

12. Multiple system trails 

into area. 

12. At least one system trail into 

area. 

12. No system trails that are 

maintained. 

13. Several dispersed 

camping sites that are 

routinely used. 

13. At least one dispersed 

camping site that is 

occasionally used. 

13. No dispersed camping 

sites that are used, but 

progressive camping may 

occur. 

Fishing opportunities 

14. Good populations of 

native game fish. 

14. Fair populations of native 

game fish. 

14. Low populations of 

native game fish. 

Cross country Skiing and snowshoeing opportunities 

15. Easily accessible in winter 

by motorized wheeled 

vehicles. 

15. Snow keeps wheeled 

vehicles several miles from 

area, but access is possible 

by snowmobile. 

15. Area is difficult or rarely 

accessed by snowmobile. 

Limited e.g. High Meadows) 

Snowmobiling use 

16. Terrain is steep or 

vegetation too dense that 

cross country travel is difficult. 

16. Terrain is moderate or 

vegetation brushy that impedes 

cross country travel. 

16. Terrain is gentle and 

vegetation open to allow 

easy cross country travel. 

(Limited, e.g. High 

Meadows) 

17. Snowmobile use 

prohibited, or if allowed, rarely 

used. 

17. Snowmobile use restricted 

to two months or less, or on half 

or less of the area. 

17. Snowmobile use 

permitted. 

D. Special Features and Values 

Scenic features M 

18. Area has peaks or rocky 

formations considered 

spectacular from the rest of 

the Forest and/or special 

vegetative features that are 

considered very scenic. 

18. Area has a peak or 

formation that stands out from 

surrounding terrain and/or 

vegetative features considered 

scenic. 

18. Terrain is typical of the 

Forest or surrounding area 

and vegetation is common to 

the surrounding area. 

19. Area has alpine lakes, 

creeks in alpine meadows, 

or waterfalls. 

19. Area may have bodies of 

water that are typical for the 

Forest. 

19. Area has no permanent 

lakes but may have 

perennial creeks or ponds. 

Other special features 

20. Area has at least one 

major other special feature, 

e.g., high mountain 

meadow, fen, etc. 

20. Several minor other special 

features, e.g., flat creek bottom, 

small waterfall, etc. 

20. No major or very few 

minor other special features. 
Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-23

Freel Roadless (0519-003) 

High Moderate Low Rating

21. Contains a designated 

special area, e.g., wild and 

scenic river, research natural 

area, etc. 

21. Contains a candidate or 

eligible special area, e.g., wild 

and scenic river, research 

natural area, etc. 

21. Does not contain an 

established, candidate, or 

eligible special area. 

Scientific, educational, or historical values 

22. Several significant 

scientific, educational, or 

historical values have been 

identified in the area. 

22. At least one significant or 

several minor scientific, 

educational, or historical 

values have been identified in 

the area. 

22. No scientific, 

educational, or historical 

value has been identified in 

the area. 

23. Identified values are 

unique to the Sierra Nevada 

region. 

23. Identified values are 

common in the Sierra Nevada 

region but uncommon on the 

Forest. 

23. Any identified values 

are common throughout 

the Forest and the Sierra 

Nevada region. 

E. & F. Manageability 

Ability to Manage as Wilderness Manageable M 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24. Size and shape of area 

allows effective management. 

24. Size or shape will affect 

manageability but can be 

mitigated by boundary 

changes. 

24. Size is small or has 

irregular shape that makes 

management difficult. 

25. Minimum activity in 

surrounding area that affects 

manageability. 

25. Activity is evident and 

ongoing in surrounding area 

but will not keep area from 

being managed. 

25. Activity in surrounding 

area will affect the 

manageability of the 

inventoried area. 

26. Located adjacent to 

existing wilderness or other 

inventoried areas. 

26. Located near existing 

wilderness or other inventoried 

areas. May be difficult to 

access. 

26. Isolated, small parcel of 

land. 

Area boundaries are recognizable 

27. The vast majority of the 

boundary follows features that 

can be easily found and 

identified on the ground, e.g., 

dominant ridge, creek, road, 

or trail. 

27. More than half the boundary 

follows a feature that can be 

easily found and identified on 

the ground. 

27. Boundary generally 

lies across the hillside and 

can rarely be located 

without equipment, e.g. 

GPS unit. 

28. Boundary can be easily 

adjusted to follow locatable 

and identifiable features 

without significantly modifying 

the area boundaries. 

28. Boundary can be adjusted 

to follow locatable and 

identifiable features but will 

modify the general size and 

shape of the area. Boundary 

may be identified with minimal 

signing. 

28. Boundary cannot be 

adjusted to follow 

locatable and identifiable, 

or requires extensive 

signing. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-24 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Freel Roadless (0519-003) 

High Moderate Low Rating

Area boundaries are manageable 

29. Area access by trail or 

closed and revegetated road, 

adjacent area has natural 

setting. 

29. May be accessed by 

narrow or two-track open 

road that is lightly traveled, 

minimal human presence 

evident. 

29. Boundary adjacent to 

heavily used road or along 

area showing high human 

presence, e.g., a number of 

farm houses with 

outbuilding, pasture land, 

etc. 

30. Boundary totally on 

national forest and not 

adjacent to private property. 

02. Boundary follows 

property line forming 

irregular shape. 

30. Boundary crosses 

private property so there are 

inholdings along the 

boundary. 

31. No inholdings. 31. Few small inholdings may 

be present. 

31. Several small or one 

large inholding. 

Area boundaries constitute barrier to prohibited use 

32. Human improvement is 

significant to physically 

provide a barrier, e.g., road 

cut slope. 

32. Human improvement 

places user on notice of 

prohibited use, e.g., a sign. 

32. Human improvement not 

a deterrent may provide 

point of access of prohibited 

use. 
Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-25

Figure C4. Freel/Jobs Peak Roadless Area Map (0519-003) 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-26 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Table C1. Wilderness Capability Ratings (Lincoln Creek Roadless) 

Lincoln Creek Roadless (0519-004) 

High Moderate Low Rating

A. Naturalness of Area 

Variety and abundance of wildlife, presence of T&E, SOC M 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Diverse community of 

native mammals, birds, and 

fish. 

1. Moderate variety of native 

mammals, birds, and fish. 

1. Community of native 

mammals, birds, and fish is 

not diverse. 

2. Presence of threatened 

and endangered species. 

2. Known moderate variety of 

threatened and endangered 

species. 

2. Low variety of threatened 

and endangered species. 

3. Streams are critical to 

historic distribution of 

Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

3. Streams are important to 

historic distribution of Lahontan 

cutthroat trout. 

3. Streams are not 

important to historic 

distribution of Lahontan 

cutthroat trout. 

4. Provides critical linkage 

between wildlife areas or 

habitats. 

4. Provides linkage between 

wildlife areas or habitats. 

4. Does not provide linkage 

between wildlife areas or 

habitats. 

5. Non-native species, 

Noxious weeds are not 

evident. 

5. Noxious weeds evident only 

along trails. 

5. Noxious weeds common or 

scattered throughout the area. 

6. High water quality. Fully 

supports beneficial uses. 

6. Good water quality. Partially 

supports beneficial uses. 

6. Poor water quality. Does 

not support beneficial uses. 

B. Undeveloped 

Natural and free from Human disturbance M 

 

 

 

7. Area appears free of 

human disturbance. 

Disturbance appears to be 

natural, e.g., small wildfire. 

7. Area appears mostly free of 

human disturbance. Natural 

disturbance evident but does 

not dominate the landscape. 

7. Area shows signs of human 

disturbance. 

8. Area visible in 

surrounding foreground 

(outside the area) may show 

some human disturbance 

but does not dominate the 

view. 

8. Area visible in surrounding 

foreground has signs of human 

activities, e.g., road, farm 

house. 

8. Area visible in 

surrounding foreground 

shows obvious human 

activities, e.g., clearcuts, 

town. 
Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-27

Lincoln Creek Roadless (0519-004) 

High Moderate Low Rating

9. Only a minor 

improvement, e.g., trail. 

9. Several minor 

improvements. 

9. Major improvements, e.g., 

power line, dam, road or 

structures. 

C. Opportunities for Primitive Recreation 

Opportunity for solitude M 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. Feeling of being alone or 

remote from civilization. 

10. Feeling of being alone is 

possible but signs of 

civilization are likely. 

10. Little opportunity of feeling 

alone. 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is light. (encounters) 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is moderate. 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is high. 

Primitive Type Recreation Activities 

Hiking/backpacking opportunities 

12. Multiple system trails 

into area. 

12. At least one system trail into 

area. 

12. No system trails that are 

maintained. 

13. Several dispersed 

camping sites that are 

routinely used. 

13. At least one dispersed 

camping site that is occasionally 

used. 

13. No dispersed camping 

sites that are used, but 

progressive camping may 

occur. 

Fishing opportunities 

14. Good populations of 

native game fish. 

14. Fair populations of native 

game fish. 

14. Low populations of 

native game fish. 

Cross country Skiing and snowshoeing opportunities 

15. Easily accessible in 

winter by motorized wheeled 

vehicles. 

15. Snow keeps wheeled 

vehicles several miles from 

area, but access is possible by 

snowmobile. 

15. Area is difficult or rarely 

accessed by snowmobile. 

Snowmobiling use 

16. Terrain is steep or 

vegetation too dense that 

cross country travel is 

difficult. 

16. Terrain is moderate or 

vegetation brushy that impedes 

cross country travel. 

16. Terrain is gentle and 

vegetation open to allow easy 

cross country travel. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-28 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Lincoln Creek Roadless (0519-004) 

High Moderate Low Rating

17. Snowmobile use 

prohibited, or if allowed, 

rarely used. 

17. Snowmobile use 

restricted to two months or 

less, or on half or less of the 

area. 

17. Snowmobile use 

permitted. 

D. Special Features and Values 

Scenic features L 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18. Area has peaks or rocky 

formations considered 

spectacular from the rest of 

the Forest and/or special 

vegetative features that are 

considered very scenic. 

18. Area has a peak or 

formation that stands out from 

surrounding terrain and/or 

vegetative features considered 

scenic. 

18. Terrain is typical of the 

Forest or surrounding area 

and vegetation is common 

to the surrounding area. 

19. Area has alpine lakes, 

creeks in alpine meadows, 

or waterfalls. 

19. Area may have bodies of 

water that are typical for the 

Forest. 

19. Area has no permanent 

lakes but may have 

perennial creeks or ponds. 

Other special features 

20. Area has at least one 

major other special feature, 

e.g., high mountain 

meadow, fen, etc. 

20. Several minor other special 

features, e.g., flat creek bottom, 

small waterfall, etc. 

20. No major or very few 

minor other special 

features. 

21. Contains a designated 

special area, e.g., wild and 

scenic river, research 

natural area, etc. 

21. Contains a candidate or 

eligible special area, e.g., wild 

and scenic river, research 

natural area, etc. 

21. Does not contain an 

established, candidate, or 

eligible special area. 

Scientific, educational, or historical values 

22. Several significant 

scientific, educational, or 

historical values have been 

identified in the area. 

22. At least one significant or 

several minor scientific, 

educational, or historical values 

have been identified in the area. 

22. No scientific, 

educational, or historical 

value has been identified in 

the area. 

23. Identified values are 

unique to the Sierra Nevada 

region. 

23. Identified values are 

common in the Sierra Nevada 

region but uncommon on the 

Forest. 

23. Any identified values are 

common throughout the 

Forest and the Sierra 

Nevada region. 

E. & F. Manageability 

Ability to Manage as Wilderness Manageable L 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24. Size and shape of area 

allows effective 

management. 

24. Size or shape will affect 

manageability but can be 

mitigated by boundary changes. 

24. Size is small or has 

irregular shape that makes 

management difficult. 

25. Minimum activity in 

surrounding area that affects 

manageability. 

25. Activity is evident and 

ongoing in surrounding area but 

will not keep area from being 

managed. 

25. Activity in surrounding 

area will affect the 

manageability of the 

inventoried area. 
Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-29

Lincoln Creek Roadless (0519-004) 

High Moderate Low Rating

26. Located adjacent to 

existing wilderness or other 

inventoried areas. 

26. Located near existing 

wilderness or other inventoried 

areas. May be difficult to 

access. 

26. Isolated, small parcel of 

land. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area boundaries are recognizable 

27. The vast majority of the 

boundary follows features 

that can be easily found and 

identified on the ground, 

e.g., dominant ridge, creek, 

road, or trail. 

27. More than half the boundary 

follows a feature that can be 

easily found and identified on 

the ground. 

27. Boundary generally lies 

across the hillside and can 

rarely be located without 

equipment, e.g. GPS unit. 

28. Boundary can be easily 

adjusted to follow locatable 

and identifiable features 

without significantly 

modifying the area 

boundaries. 

28. Boundary can be adjusted 

to follow locatable and 

identifiable features but will 

modify the general size and 

shape of the area. Boundary 

may be identified with minimal 

signing. 

28. Boundary cannot be 

adjusted to follow locatable 

and identifiable, or requires 

extensive signing. 

Area boundaries are manageable 

29. Area access by trail or 

closed and revegetated 

road, adjacent area has 

natural setting. 

29. May be accessed by narrow 

or two-track open road that is 

lightly traveled, minimal human 

presence evident. 

29. Boundary adjacent to 

heavily used road or along 

area showing high human 

presence, e.g., a number of 

farm houses with 

outbuilding, pasture land, 

etc. 

30. Boundary totally on 

national forest and not 

adjacent to private property. 

30. Boundary follows property 

line forming irregular shape. 

30. Boundary crosses 

private property so there 

are inholdings along the 

boundary. 

31. No inholdings. 31. Few small inholdings may 

be present. 

31. Several small or one 

large inholding. 

Area boundaries constitute barrier to prohibited use 

32. Human improvement is 

significant to physically 

provide a barrier, e.g., 

road cut slope. 

32. Human improvement places 

user on notice of prohibited use, 

e.g., a sign. 

32. Human improvement not a 

deterrent may provide point of 

access of prohibited use. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-30 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Figure C5. Lincoln Creek Roadless Area Map (0519-004) 
Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-31

Table C2. Wilderness Capability Ratings (Mt. Rose Wilderness and Roadless) 

Mt. Rose Wilderness & Roadless Additions (0519-005) 

High Moderate Low Rating

A. Naturalness of Area 

Variety and abundance of wildlife, presence of T&E, SOC M 

 

 

 

1. Diverse community of 

native mammals, birds, and 

fish. 

1. Moderate variety of native 

mammals, birds, and fish. 

1. Community of native 

mammals, birds, and fish is 

not diverse. 

2. Presence of threatened 

and endangered species. 

2. Known moderate variety of 

threatened and endangered 

species. 

2. Low variety of threatened 

and endangered species. 

3. Streams are critical to 

historic distribution of 

Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

3. Streams are important to 

historic distribution of Lahontan 

cutthroat trout. 

3. Streams are not 

important to historic 

distribution of Lahontan 

cutthroat trout. 

4. Provides critical linkage 

between wildlife areas or 

habitats. 

4. Provides linkage between 

wildlife areas or habitats. 

4. Does not provide linkage 

between wildlife areas or 

habitats. 

5. Non-native species, 

Noxious weeds are not 

evident. 

5. Noxious weeds evident only 

along trails. 

5. Noxious weeds common or 

scattered throughout the area. 

6. High water quality. Fully 

supports beneficial uses. 

6. Good water quality. Partially 

supports beneficial uses. 

6. Poor water quality. Does 

not support beneficial uses. 

B. Undeveloped 

Natural and free from Human disturbance M 

 

 

 

7. Area appears free of 

human disturbance. 

Disturbance appears to be 

natural, e.g., small wildfire. 

7. Area appears mostly free 

of human disturbance. 

Natural disturbance evident 

but does not dominate the 

landscape. 

7. Area shows signs of human 

disturbance. 

8. Area visible in surrounding 

foreground (outside the area) 

may show some human 

disturbance but does not 

dominate the view. 

8. Area visible in surrounding 

foreground has signs of 

human activities, e.g., road, 

farm house. 

8. Area visible in surrounding 

foreground shows obvious 

human activities, e.g., 

clearcuts, town. 

9. Only a minor 

improvement, e.g., trail. 

9. Several minor 

improvements. 

9. Major improvements, e.g., 

power line, dam, road or 

structures. 

C. Opportunities for Primitive Recreation 

Opportunity for solitude M 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-32 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Mt. Rose Wilderness & Roadless Additions (0519-005) 

High Moderate Low Rating

10. Feeling of being alone or 

remote from civilization. 

10. Feeling of being alone is 

possible but signs of 

civilization are likely. 

10. Little opportunity of feeling 

alone. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is light. (encounters) 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is moderate. 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is high. 

Primitive Type Recreation Activities 

Hiking/backpacking opportunities 

12. Multiple system trails into 

area. 

12. At least one system trail 

into area. 

12. No system trails that are 

maintained. 

13. Several dispersed 

camping sites that are 

routinely used. 

13. At least one dispersed 

camping site that is 

occasionally used. 

13. No dispersed camping 

sites that are used, but 

progressive camping may 

occur. 

Fishing opportunities

14. Good populations of 

native game fish. 

14. Fair populations of native 

game fish. 

14. Low populations of 

native game fish. 

Cross country Skiing and snowshoeing opportunities 

15. Terrain is gentle and 

vegetation open to allow 

easy cross country travel. 

15. Terrain is gentle and 

vegetation open to allow easy 

cross country travel. 

15. Terrain is gentle and 

vegetation open to allow easy 

cross country travel. 

Snowmobiling use 

16. Terrain is steep or 

vegetation too dense that 

cross country travel is 

difficult. 

16. Terrain is moderate or 

vegetation brushy that impedes 

cross country travel. 

16. Terrain is gentle and 

vegetation open to allow 

easy cross country travel. 

17. Snowmobile use 

prohibited, or if allowed, 

rarely used. 

17. Snowmobile use restricted 

to two months or less, or on 

half or less of the area. 

17. Snowmobile use 

permitted. 

D. Special Features and Values 

Scenic features L 
Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-33

Mt. Rose Wilderness & Roadless Additions (0519-005) 

High Moderate Low Rating

18. Area has peaks or rocky 

formations considered 

spectacular from the rest of 

the Forest and/or special 

vegetative features that are 

considered very scenic. 

18. Area has a peak or 

formation that stands out from 

surrounding terrain and/or 

vegetative features considered 

scenic. 

18. Terrain is typical of the 

Forest or surrounding area 

and vegetation is common 

to the surrounding area. 

 

 

 

 

19. Area has alpine lakes, 

creeks in alpine meadows, or 

waterfalls. 

19. Area may have bodies of 

water that are typical for the 

Forest. 

19. Area has no permanent 

lakes but may have 

perennial creeks or ponds. 

Other special features 

20. Area has at least one 

major other special feature, 

e.g., high mountain meadow, 

fen, etc. 

20. Several minor other special 

features, e.g., flat creek bottom, 

small waterfall, etc. 

20. No major or very few 

minor other special 

features. 

21. Contains a designated 

special area, e.g., wild and 

scenic river, research natural 

area, etc. 

21. Contains a candidate or 

eligible special area, e.g., wild 

and scenic river, research 

natural area, etc. 

21. Does not contain an 

established, candidate, or 

eligible special area. 

Scientific, educational, or historical values 

22. Several significant 

scientific, educational, or 

historical values have been 

identified in the area. 

22. At least one significant or 

several minor scientific, 

educational, or historical values 

have been identified in the 

area. 

22. No scientific, 

educational, or historical 

value has been identified in 

the area. 

23. Identified values are 

unique to the Sierra Nevada 

region. 

23. Identified values are 

common in the Sierra Nevada 

region but uncommon on the 

Forest. 

23. Any identified values are 

common throughout the 

Forest and the Sierra 

Nevada region. 

E. & F. Manageability 

Ability to Manage as Wilderness Manageable L 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24. Size and shape of area 

allows effective 

management. 

24. Size or shape will affect 

manageability but can be 

mitigated by boundary 

changes. 

24. Size is small or has 

irregular shape that makes 

management difficult. 

25. Minimum activity in 

surrounding area that affects 

manageability. 

25. Activity is evident and 

ongoing in surrounding area 

but will not keep area from 

being managed. 

25. Activity in surrounding 

area will affect the 

manageability of the 

inventoried area. 

26. Located adjacent to 

existing wilderness or 

other inventoried areas. 

26. Located near existing 

wilderness or other inventoried 

areas. May be difficult to 

access. 

26. Isolated, small parcel of 

land. 

Area boundaries are recognizable 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-34 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Mt. Rose Wilderness & Roadless Additions (0519-005) 

High Moderate Low Rating

27. The vast majority of the 

boundary follows features 

that can be easily found and 

identified on the ground, e.g., 

dominant ridge, creek, road, 

or trail. 

27. More than half the 

boundary follows a feature that 

can be easily found and 

identified on the ground. 

27. Boundary generally lies 

across the hillside and can 

rarely be located without 

equipment, e.g. GPS unit. 

28. Boundary can be easily 

adjusted to follow locatable 

and identifiable features 

without significantly 

modifying the area 

boundaries. 

28. Boundary can be adjusted 

to follow locatable and 

identifiable features but will 

modify the general size and 

shape of the area. Boundary 

may be identified with minimal 

signing. 

28. Boundary cannot be 

adjusted to follow locatable 

and identifiable, or requires 

extensive signing. 

Area boundaries are manageable 

29. Area access by trail or 

closed and revegetated road, 

adjacent area has natural 

setting. 

29. May be accessed by 

narrow or two-track open 

road that is lightly traveled, 

minimal human presence 

evident. 

29. Boundary adjacent to 

heavily used road or along 

area showing high human 

presence, e.g., a number of 

farm houses with outbuilding, 

pasture land, etc. 

30. Boundary totally on 

national forest and not 

adjacent to private 

property. 

30. Boundary follows property 

line forming irregular shape. 

30. Boundary crosses private 

property so there are 

inholdings along the 

boundary. 

 

 

 

31. No inholdings. 31. Few small inholdings may 

be present. 

31. Several small or one large 

inholding. 

Area boundaries constitute barrier to prohibited use 

32. Human improvement is 

significant to physically 

provide a barrier, e.g., road 

cut slope. 

32. Human improvement 

places user on notice of 

prohibited use, e.g., a sign. 

32. Human improvement not 

a deterrent may provide 

point of access of 

prohibited use. 
Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-35

Figure C6. Mt. Rose Wilderness and Roadless Additions Area Map (0519-005) 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-36 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Table C3. Wilderness Capability Ratings (The Granite Chief Wilderness and Roadless) 

The Granite Chief Wilderness & Roadless Additions (0519-006) 

High Moderate Low Rating

A. Naturalness of Area 

Variety and abundance of wildlife, presence of T&E, SOC M 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Diverse community of 

native mammals, birds, and 

fish. 

1. Moderate variety of native 

mammals, birds, and fish. 

1. Community of native 

mammals, birds, and fish is 

not diverse. 

2. Presence of threatened 

and endangered species. 

2. Known moderate variety of 

threatened and endangered 

species. 

2. Low variety of 

threatened and 

endangered species. 

3. Streams are critical to 

historic distribution of 

Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

3. Streams are important to 

historic distribution of Lahontan 

cutthroat trout. 

3. Streams are not important 

to historic distribution of 

Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

4. Provides critical linkage 

between wildlife areas or 

habitats. 

4. Provides linkage between 

wildlife areas or habitats. 

4. Does not provide linkage 

between wildlife areas or 

habitats. 

5. Non-native species, 

Noxious weeds are not 

evident. 

5. Noxious weeds evident only 

along trails. 

5. Noxious weeds common 

or scattered throughout the 

area. 

6. High water quality. Fully 

supports beneficial uses. 

6. Good water quality. Partially 

supports beneficial uses. 

6. Poor water quality. Does 

not support beneficial uses. 

B. Undeveloped 

Natural and free from Human disturbance M 

 

 

 

7. Area appears free of 

human disturbance. 

Disturbance appears to be 

natural, e.g., small wildfire. 

7. Area appears mostly free of 

human disturbance. Natural 

disturbance evident but does 

not dominate the landscape. 

7. Area shows signs of 

human disturbance. 

8. Area visible in surrounding 

foreground (outside the area) 

may show some human 

disturbance but does not 

dominate the view. 

8. Area visible in surrounding 

foreground has signs of 

human activities, e.g., road, 

farm house. 

8. Area visible in 

surrounding foreground 

shows obvious human 

activities, e.g., clearcuts, 

town. 

9. Only a minor improvement, 

e.g., trail. 

9. Several minor 

improvements. 

9. Major improvements, e.g., 

power line, dam, road or 

structures. 

C. Opportunities for Primitive Recreation 

Opportunity for solitude M 

 

 

10. Feeling of being alone or 

remote from civilization. 

10. Feeling of being alone is 

possible but signs of 

civilization are likely. 

10. Little opportunity of 

feeling alone. 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is light. (encounters) 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is moderate. 

11. Recreation use by other 

parties is high. 
Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-37

The Granite Chief Wilderness & Roadless Additions (0519-006) 

High Moderate Low Rating

Primitive Type Recreation Activities 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hiking/backpacking opportunities 

12. Multiple system trails 

into area. 

12. At least one system trail into 

area. 

12. No system trails that are 

maintained. 

13. Several dispersed 

camping sites that are 

routinely used. 

13. At least one dispersed 

camping site that is 

occasionally used. 

13. No dispersed camping 

sites that are used, but 

progressive camping may 

occur. 

Fishing opportunities 

14. Good populations of 

native game fish. 

14. Fair populations of native 

game fish. 

14. Low populations of 

native game fish. 

Cross country Skiing and snowshoeing opportunities 

15. Easily accessible in winter 

by motorized wheeled 

vehicles. 

15. Snow keeps wheeled 

vehicles several miles from 

area, but access is possible by 

snowmobile. 

15. Area is difficult or 

rarely accessed by 

snowmobile. 

Snowmobiling use 

16. Terrain is steep or 

vegetation too dense that 

cross country travel is 

difficult. 

16. Terrain is moderate or 

vegetation brushy that impedes 

cross country travel. 

16. Terrain is gentle and 

vegetation open to allow 

easy cross country travel. 

17. Snowmobile use 

prohibited, or if allowed, 

rarely used. 

17. Snowmobile use restricted to 

two months or less, or on half or 

less of the area. 

17. Snowmobile use 

permitted. 

D. Special Features and Values 

Scenic features L 

 

 

 

 

18. Area has peaks or rocky 

formations considered 

spectacular from the rest of 

the Forest and/or special 

vegetative features that are 

considered very scenic. 

18. Area has a peak or 

formation that stands out from 

surrounding terrain and/or 

vegetative features considered 

scenic. 

18. Terrain is typical of the 

Forest or surrounding 

area and vegetation is 

common to the 

surrounding area. 

19. Area has alpine lakes, 

creeks in alpine meadows, or 

waterfalls. 

19. Area may have bodies of 

water that are typical for the 

Forest. 

19. Area has no permanent 

lakes but may have 

perennial creeks or ponds. 

Other special features 

20. Area has at least one 

major other special feature, 

e.g., high mountain meadow, 

fen, etc. 

20. Several minor other special 

features, e.g., flat creek bottom, 

small waterfall, etc. 

20. No major or very few 

minor other special 

features. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-38 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

The Granite Chief Wilderness & Roadless Additions (0519-006) 

High Moderate Low Rating

21. Contains a designated 

special area, e.g., wild and 

scenic river, research natural 

area, etc. 

21. Contains a candidate or 

eligible special area, e.g., wild 

and scenic river, research 

natural area, etc. 

21. Does not contain an 

established, candidate, or 

eligible special area. 

 

 

 

 

Scientific, educational, or historical values 

22. Several significant 

scientific, educational, or 

historical values have been 

identified in the area. 

22. At least one significant or 

several minor scientific, 

educational, or historical values 

have been identified in the area. 

22. No scientific, 

educational, or historical 

value has been identified 

in the area. 

23. Identified values are 

unique to the Sierra Nevada 

region. 

23. Identified values are 

common in the Sierra Nevada 

region but uncommon on the 

Forest. 

23. Any identified values 

are common throughout 

the Forest and the Sierra 

Nevada region. 

E. & F. Manageability 

Ability to Manage as Wilderness Manageable L 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24. Size and shape of area 

allows effective management. 

24. Size or shape will affect 

manageability but can be 

mitigated by boundary changes. 

24. Size is small or has 

irregular shape that makes 

management difficult. 

25. Minimum activity in 

surrounding area that affects 

manageability. 

25. Activity is evident and 

ongoing in surrounding area 

but will not keep area from 

being managed. 

25. Activity in surrounding 

area will affect the 

manageability of the 

inventoried area. 

26. Located adjacent to 

existing wilderness or other 

inventoried areas. 

26. Located near existing 

wilderness or other inventoried 

areas. May be difficult to access.

26. Isolated, small parcel of 

land. 

Area boundaries are recognizable 

27. The vast majority of the 

boundary follows features that 

can be easily found and 

identified on the ground, e.g., 

dominant ridge, creek, road, 

or trail. 

27. More than half the boundary 

follows a feature that can be 

easily found and identified on 

the ground. 

27. Boundary generally 

lies across the hillside and 

can rarely be located 

without equipment, e.g. 

GPS unit. 

28. Boundary can be easily 

adjusted to follow locatable 

and identifiable features 

without significantly modifying 

the area boundaries. 

28. Boundary can be adjusted to 

follow locatable and identifiable 

features but will modify the 

general size and shape of the 

area. Boundary may be 

identified with minimal signing. 

28. Boundary cannot be 

adjusted to follow 

locatable and identifiable, 

or requires extensive 

signing. 
Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-39

The Granite Chief Wilderness & Roadless Additions (0519-006) 

High Moderate Low Rating

Area boundaries are manageable 

29. Area access by trail or 

closed and revegetated 

road, adjacent area has 

natural setting. 

29. May be accessed by narrow 

or two-track open road that is 

lightly traveled, minimal human 

presence evident. 

29. Boundary adjacent to 

heavily used road or along 

area showing high human 

presence, e.g., a number of 

farm houses with 

outbuilding, pasture land, 

etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

30. Boundary totally on 

national forest and not 

adjacent to private property. 

30. Boundary follows property 

line forming irregular shape. 

30. Boundary crosses 

private property so there 

are inholdings along the 

boundary. 

31. No inholdings. 31. Few small inholdings may be 

present. 

31. Several small or one 

large inholding. 

Area boundaries constitute barrier to prohibited use 

32. Human improvement is 

significant to physically 

provide a barrier, e.g., road 

cut slope. 

32. Human improvement places 

user on notice of prohibited use, 

e.g., a sign. 

32. Human improvement 

not a deterrent may 

provide point of access of 

prohibited use. 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-40 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

 

Figure C6. Granite Chief Wilderness Additions Map (0519-006) 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-41

C4. Availability 

Availability of the potential wilderness area is determined by describing other resource potentials 

and resource needs beyond the wilderness characterization addressed in the Capability process. 

Pertinent quantitative and qualitative information including current use, outputs, trends, and 

potential future use and/or outputs for the applicable resources in accordance with Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.12 Chapter 70, Section 72.2. Each area has been analyzed for the following 

criteria, as applicable: 

Table C4. Area Availability Resource Criteria 

Resources 

1. Areas that are of high value for communication sites where installation and maintenance of 

improvements may be required 

2. Areas with existing motorized or mechanized access or use. (winter summer). 

3. Areas needing active vegetative restoration activity due to specific species survival, or 

identifiable fuels reduction activity to reduce the risk of wildfire, or known areas of severe insect 

infestation(s) that will lead to high tree mortality 

4. Areas of high value mineral deposits of economic or strategic importance 

5. Areas having such unique characteristics or natural phenomena that public access should be 

developed to facilitate public use and enjoyment including winter sports sites 

6. Lands committed through contracts, permits, or agreements that would be in conflict with 

wilderness management (some minor permitted uses may still be allowed) 

Ratings 

High = areas having evidence of and high priority need the category addressed. 

Moderate = areas having a need in the category addressed. 

Low = areas having no to little need or management addressed. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-42 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Table C5. Details of the Availability Assessment for Areas Being Evaluated for 

Potential Wilderness on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Criteria 

Desolation 

Wilderness 

Additions 

Pyramid 

0519-001 

Dardanelles 

Roadless 

0519-002 

Freel/ 

Jobs 

Peek 

Roadless

0519-003 

Lincoln 

Creek 

Roadless

0519-004 

Mt. Rose 

Wild & 

Additions 

0519-005 

Granite 

Chief 

Wilderness 

Additions 

0519-006 

1. Areas that are of high 

value for communication 

sites where installation 

and maintenance of 

improvements may be 

required 

L L L L L L 

2. Areas with existing 

motorized or mechanized 

access or use. (winter 

summer). 

L L H M H L 

3. Areas needing active 

vegetative restoration 

activity due to specific 

species survival, or 

identifiable fuels 

reduction activity to 

reduce the risk of wildfire, 

or known areas of severe 

insect infestation(s) that 

will lead to high tree 

mortality 

M M M M M M 

4. Areas of high value 

mineral deposits of 

economic or strategic 

importance 

L L L L L L 

5. Areas having such 

unique characteristics or 

natural phenomena that 

public access should be 

developed to facilitate 

public use and enjoyment 

including winter sports 

sites 

L L L L L L 

6. Lands committed 

through contracts, 

permits, or agreements 

that would be in conflict 

with wilderness 

management (some 

minor permitted uses may 

still be allowed) 

L L L L L L 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-43

C5. Need for Wilderness 

Determination if the area is needed as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System is the 

final step of the evaluation process. As outlined in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 chapter 70, 

section 72(e), this section summarizes the factors considered and the process used in assessing the 

need for each potential wilderness area. 

Desolation Wilderness Additions – Pyramid Roadless Area (0519-001) 

1. The location, size, and type of other wildernesses in the general vicinity and their distance from 

the proposed area. Consider accessibility of areas to population centers and user groups. Public 

demand for wilderness may increase with proximity to growing population centers: 

 The Pyramid area lies along the eastern boundary and is contiguous to the Desolation 

Wilderness. Its boundary would interface with urbanized and semi-natural settings. Because of 

the proximity to urban areas, there are numerous informal trails in the Pyramid area, and several 

segments of system trails. Much of the Pyramid area is comprised of steep terrain, and forms a 

physical buffer to the Desolation Wilderness. 

2. Present visitor pressure on other wildernesses, the trends in use, changing patterns of use, 

population expansion factors, and trends and changes in transportation: 

Adjacent wilderness areas are all heavily used, owing to their relatively easy accessibility and 

proximity to urban centers in California and Nevada. Expected increases in population levels are 

expected to generate more pressure on existing wildernesses. The Pyramid area would 

accommodate some of that demand but the steep terrain would limit actual use. 

3. The extent to which non-wilderness lands on the NFS unit or other Federal lands are likely to 

provide opportunities for unconfined outdoor recreation experiences 

Within the Lake Tahoe Basin, are several sizeable roadless areas (e.g. Freel, Dardanelles), that 

provide opportunities for many forms of outdoor recreation, such as hiking, horseback riding, 

mountain biking, along with winter recreation opportunities such as cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing. The Pyramid area is largely a semi-primitive area, but its relative steep terrain 

constrains most recreation opportunities. 

4. The need to provide a refuge for those species that may have demonstrated an inability to 

survive in less than primitive surroundings or the need for a protected area for other unique 

scientific values or phenomena. 

The Pyramid area provides some natural habitat for a variety of native wildlife and plants species. 

Throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin there are limited natural areas undisturbed by the extensive 

logging activities that took place in the late 1800’s. Protection of available habitat for sensitive or 

protected species is a strategic goal for all National Forest lands within the Basin. 

5. Within social and biological limits, management may increase the capacity of established 

wildernesses to support human use without unacceptable depreciation of the wilderness resource. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-44 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

The Desolation Wilderness has been thoroughly evaluated as to its potential for increasing 

capacity from either a social or biological perspective and its current management conditions are 

being actively monitored. Sanctioned human use levels are unlikely to change. The Pyramid area 

complements the wilderness character and experience visitors receive in the Desolation, however 

increasing use needs to be evaluated to determine appropriate capacity levels for both social and 

biological limits. 

6. An area’s ability to provide for preservation of identifiable landform types and ecosystems. 

Consideration of this factor may include utilization of Hammond’s subdivision of landform types 

and the Bailey-Kuchler ecosystem classification. This approach is helpful from the standpoint of 

rounding out the National Wilderness Preservation System and may be further subdivided to suit 

local, sub-regional and regional needs. 

Pyramid is predominately in a semi-primitive natural condition (ROS), and the area appears to 

have a stable ecosystem. However, its relatively narrow shape and length suggest that it does not 

have its own unique and distinctive ecosystem. 

Dardanelles Roadless Area (0519-002) 

1. The location, size, and type of other wildernesses in the general vicinity and their distance from 

the proposed area. Consider accessibility of areas to population centers and user groups. Public 

demand for wilderness may increase with proximity to growing population centers: 

Located in the southernmost section of the Lake Tahoe Basin, the Dardanelles (Meiss) area has 

long served as an alternative destination for the heavily used Desolation Wilderness. It is also an 

alternative to the popular Mokelumne Wilderness to the south. The area is easily accessible from 

several trailheads off both Highway 89 and 88. While the Desolation offers visitors granite 

canyons, the Dardanelles area offers a large diversity of landscapes, from mountain meadows, 

scenic lakes to towering alpine peaks. 

2. Present visitor pressure on other wildernesses, the trends in use, changing patterns of use, 

population expansion factors, and trends and changes in transportation: 

Adjacent wilderness areas are all heavily used, owing to their relatively easy accessibility and 

proximity to urban centers in California and Nevada. Expected increases in population levels are 

expected to generate more pressure on existing wildernesses. 

3. The extent to which non-wilderness lands on the NFS unit or other Federal lands are likely to 

provide opportunities for unconfined outdoor recreation experiences 

Within the Lake Tahoe Basin, are several sizeable roadless areas (e.g. Freel, Lincoln), that 

provide opportunities for many forms of outdoor recreation, such as hiking, horseback riding, 

mountain biking, along with winter recreation opportunities such as cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing. The Dardanelles area has long-provided a wide variety of non-motorized 

recreational opportunities for visitors. 

4. The need to provide a refuge for those species that may have demonstrated an inability to 

survive in less than primitive surroundings or the need for a protected area for other unique 

scientific values or phenomena. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-45

The Dardanelles area provides a diversity of natural habitat for a variety of native fish, wildlife 

and plants species. Throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin there are limited natural areas undisturbed 

by the extensive logging and grazing activities that took place in the late 1800’s. Protection of 

available habitat for sensitive or protected species is a strategic goal for all National Forest lands 

within the Basin. 

5. Within social and biological limits, management may increase the capacity of established 

wildernesses to support human use without unacceptable depreciation of the wilderness resource. 

The Desolation Wilderness has been thoroughly evaluated as to its potential for increasing 

capacity from either a social or biological perspective and its current management conditions are 

being actively monitored. Sanctioned human use levels are unlikely to change. The Dardanelles 

area complements the wilderness character and experience visitors receive in the Desolation, 

however increasing use needs to be evaluated to determine appropriate capacity levels for both 

social and biological limits. 

6.. An area’s ability to provide for preservation of identifiable landform types and ecosystems. 

Consideration of this factor may include utilization of Hammond’s subdivision of landform types 

and the Bailey-Kuchler ecosystem classification. This approach is helpful from the standpoint of 

rounding out the National Wilderness Preservation System and may be further subdivided to suit 

local, sub-regional and regional needs. 

Dardanelles is predominately in a semi-primitive natural condition (ROS), and despite past 

human influences from grazing and logging, and the establishment of several small dams for 

fisheries, the area has a stable ecosystem. 

Freel Roadless Area (0519-003) 

1. The location, size, and type of other wildernesses in the general vicinity and their distance from 

the proposed area. Consider accessibility of areas to population centers and user groups. Public 

demand for wilderness may increase with proximity to growing population centers: 

The Freel area lies along the southern slopes of the Lake Tahoe Basin, across the lake from 

Desolation Wilderness, and with an hours drive of Mt. Rose Wilderness and Mokelumne 

Wilderness. The Freel area is adjacent to a number of roads and trails on its northern and southern 

boundary and urbanized areas along the western and southern boundary. While much of the Freel 

area is comprised of steep terrain, many areas are easily accessible from the urban fringe. 

2. Present visitor pressure on other wildernesses, the trends in use, changing patterns of use, 

population expansion factors, and trends and changes in transportation: 

Adjacent wilderness areas are all heavily used, owing to their relatively easy accessibility and 

proximity to urban centers in California and Nevada. Expected increases in population levels are 

expected to generate more pressure on existing wildernesses. The Freel area could accommodate 

some of that demand as it is predominately undeveloped forest land with some scenic peaks and 

water sources. 

3. The extent to which non-wilderness lands on the NFS unit or other Federal lands are likely to 

provide opportunities for unconfined outdoor recreation experiences 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-46 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Within the Lake Tahoe Basin, are several sizeable roadless areas (e.g. Lincoln, Dardanelles), that 

provide opportunities for many forms of outdoor recreation, such as hiking, horseback riding, 

mountain biking, along with winter recreation opportunities such as cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing. The Freel area is largely a semi-primitive area, with steep terrain and can 

accommodate most recreation opportunities. Portions are popular with snowmobiles and 

mountain bikers. 

4. The need to provide a refuge for those species that may have demonstrated an inability to 

survive in less than primitive surroundings or the need for a protected area for other unique 

scientific values or phenomena. 

The Freel area provides some natural habitat for a variety of native wildlife and plants species. 

Throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin there are limited natural areas undisturbed by the extensive 

logging activities that took place in the late 1800’s. Protection of available habitat for sensitive or 

protected species is a strategic goal for all National Forest lands within the Basin. 

5. Within social and biological limits, management may increase the capacity of established 

wildernesses to support human use without unacceptable depreciation of the wilderness resource. 

The Desolation Wilderness has been thoroughly evaluated as to its potential for increasing 

capacity from either a social or biological perspective and its current management conditions are 

being actively monitored. Sanctioned human use levels are unlikely to change. The Freel area 

complements the wilderness character and experience visitors receive in the Desolation, however 

increasing use needs to be evaluated to determine appropriate capacity levels for both social and 

biological limits.

6. An area’s ability to provide for preservation of identifiable landform types and ecosystems. 

Consideration of this factor may include utilization of Hammond’s subdivision of landform types 

and the Bailey-Kuchler ecosystem classification. This approach is helpful from the standpoint of 

rounding out the National Wilderness Preservation System and may be further subdivided to suit 

local, sub-regional and regional needs. 

Freel is predominately in a semi-primitive natural condition (ROS), and the area appears to have a 

high degree of natural integrity and an apparent stable ecosystem. 

Lincoln Creek Roadless Area (0519-004) 

1. The location, size, and type of other wildernesses in the general vicinity and their distance from 

the proposed area. Consider accessibility of areas to population centers and user groups. Public 

demand for wilderness may increase with proximity to growing population centers: 

 The Lincoln Creek area lies along the eastern slopes of the Lake Tahoe Basin, across the lake 

from Desolation Wilderness, and south of Mt. Rose Wilderness. The Lincoln Creek area, is 

adjacent to a number of roads and trails on its eastern boundary and urbanized areas along the 

western and southern boundary. While much of the Lincoln Creek area is comprised of steep 

terrain, many areas are easily accessible from the urban fringe 

2. Present visitor pressure on other wildernesses, the trends in use, changing patterns of use, 

population expansion factors, and trends and changes in transportation: 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-47

Adjacent wilderness areas are all heavily used, owing to their relatively easy accessibility and 

proximity to urban centers in California and Nevada. Expected increases in population levels are 

expected to generate more pressure on existing wildernesses. The Lincoln Creek area would 

accommodate some of that demand but the steep terrain, limited unique scenic character and lack 

of water sources would limit actual use. 

3. The extent to which non-wilderness lands on the NFS unit or other Federal lands are likely to 

provide opportunities for unconfined outdoor recreation experiences 

Within the Lake Tahoe Basin, are several sizeable roadless areas (e.g. Freel, Dardanelles), that 

provide opportunities for many forms of outdoor recreation, such as hiking, horseback riding, 

mountain biking, along with winter recreation opportunities such as cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing. The Lincoln Creek area is largely a semi-primitive area, but its relative steep terrain 

and constrains most recreation opportunities. 

4. The need to provide a refuge for those species that may have demonstrated an inability to 

survive in less than primitive surroundings or the need for a protected area for other unique 

scientific values or phenomena. 

The Lincoln Creek area provides some natural habitat for a variety of native wildlife and plants 

species. Throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin there are limited natural areas undisturbed by the 

extensive logging activities that took place in the late 1800’s. Protection of available habitat for 

sensitive or protected species is a strategic goal for all National Forest lands within the Basin. 

5. Within social and biological limits, management may increase the capacity of established 

wildernesses to support human use without unacceptable depreciation of the wilderness resource. 

The Desolation Wilderness has been thoroughly evaluated as to its potential for increasing 

capacity from either a social or biological perspective, and its current management conditions are 

being actively monitored. Sanctioned human use levels are unlikely to change. The Lincoln 

Creek area complements the wilderness character and experience visitors receive in the 

Desolation, however increasing use needs to be evaluated to determine appropriate capacity 

levels for both social and biological limits. 

6. An area’s ability to provide for preservation of identifiable landform types and ecosystems. 

Consideration of this factor may include utilization of Hammond’s subdivision of landform types 

and the Bailey-Kuchler ecosystem classification. This approach is helpful from the standpoint of 

rounding out the National Wilderness Preservation System and may be further subdivided to suit 

local, sub-regional and regional needs. 

Lincoln Creek is predominately in a semi-primitive natural condition (ROS), and the area appears 

to have a stable ecosystem. However, its relatively narrow shape and length suggest that it does 

not have its own unique and distinctive ecosystem. 

Mt. Rose Wilderness Additions (0519-007) 

1. The location, size, and type of other wildernesses in the general vicinity and their distance from 

the proposed area. Consider accessibility of areas to population centers and user groups. Public 

demand for wilderness may increase with proximity to growing population centers: 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-48 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Located in the northeast section of the Lake Tahoe Basin, the Mt. Rose area is contiguous to the 

Mt. Rose Wilderness, on both the eastern and western boundary. The area is easily accessible 

from the Tahoe Meadows trailhead Highway 431. The area is also within several short hours 

drive of Reno and Carson City. During the winter months this area is extremely popular with 

cross-country skiers and the eastern parcel is also very popular with snowmobiles. 

2. Present visitor pressure on other wildernesses, the trends in use, changing patterns of use, 

population expansion factors, and trends and changes in transportation: 

The Mt. Rose Wilderness receives strong demand for access to such destinations as the summit of 

Mt. Rose itself, and in several internal areas along with demand for access of the Tahoe Rim 

Trail, along its southern boundary. It does not have a permit system in place and is in general 

managed under the broad guidelines of the National Wilderness Preservation Act. Trends in 

population suggest a growing demand from adjacent populations centers (Reno, Carson and 

Tahoe). Additional pressure on trail uses are also predicted in and around the Mt. Rose area as 

new development from the Rim Trail and the neighboring Humboldt-Toiyabe NF create 

additional trail opportunities that will only increase over time._ 

3. The extent to which non-wilderness lands on the NFS unit or other Federal lands are likely to 

provide opportunities for unconfined outdoor recreation experiences 

Much of the non-wilderness land area to the south provides recreational opportunities through the 

Tahoe Rim Trail system which extends around the Basin. Odd-Even mountain-biking 

opportunities are available on the Rim Trail segment from Hwy 431 to Tunnel Creek. Nonlimited equestrian opportunities are also available. During the winter months, both sides of the 

Tahoe Meadows area (including the Mt. Rose Study area) are widely used by winter 

recreationists. The study area is very popular with snowmobilers (area south of Hwy 431 is 

closed to this activity). 

4. The need to provide a refuge for those species that may have demonstrated an inability to 

survive in less than primitive surroundings or the need for a protected area for other unique 

scientific values or phenomena. 

The Mt. Rose study area provides a limited diversity of natural habitat because of its steep 

topography and terrain for a variety of native fish, wildlife and plants species. The area was 

extensively logged in the later 1800’s. Later grazing activities took place in the early 1900’s that 

have modified the original landscape. Protection of available habitat for sensitive or protected 

species is a strategic goal for all National Forest lands within the Basin. 

5. Within social and biological limits, management may increase the capacity of established 

wildernesses to support human use without unacceptable depreciation of the wilderness resource. 

The Mt. Rose Wilderness, through the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) process, has been 

evaluated as to its potential for increasing capacity from either a social or biological perspective 

and its current management conditions are being actively monitored. Sanctioned human use 

levels are unlikely to change. By providing additional buffer, the Mt. Rose study area does 

complement the wilderness character and experience visitors receive in the Mt. Rose Wilderness, 

however increasing use needs to be evaluated to determine appropriate capacity levels for both 

social and biological limits. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-49

6.. An area’s ability to provide for preservation of identifiable landform types and ecosystems. 

Consideration of this factor may include utilization of Hammond’s subdivision of landform types 

and the Bailey-Kuchler ecosystem classification. This approach is helpful from the standpoint of 

rounding out the National Wilderness Preservation System and may be further subdivided to suit 

local, sub-regional and regional needs. The Mt. Rose is predominately in a semi-primitive nonmotorized ROS setting. Its relatively small size is insufficient to stand alone as a designated 

wilderness and so would need to be added to the existing Mt. Rose Wilderness. Also, its small 

acreage also suggest the area does not have its own unique and distinctive ecosystem. 

The Granite Chief Wilderness Additions (0519-010) 

1. The location, size, and type of other wildernesses in the general vicinity and their distance from 

the proposed area. Consider accessibility of areas to population centers and user groups. Public 

demand for wilderness may increase with proximity to growing population centers: 

The Granite Chief Roadless Area lies along the western boundary of the Lake Tahoe Basin, 

adjacent to the Granite Chief Wilderness, and within an hours journey to the Desolation 

Wilderness and within two hours drive of the Mt. Rose Wilderness area. Through portions of the 

Granite Chief run sections of the Pacific Crest/Tahoe Rim Trail. It has a high degree of natural 

integrity and apparent naturalness. Its small acreage and inholdings makes the land area 

dependent upon the adjacent Granite Chief Wilderness to provide a full wilderness character. 

2. Present visitor pressure on other wildernesses, the trends in use, changing patterns of use, 

population expansion factors, and trends and changes in transportation: 

Adjacent wilderness areas are all heavily used, owing to their relatively easy accessibility and 

proximity to urban centers in California and Nevada. Expected increases in population levels are 

expected to generate more pressure on existing wildernesses. The Granite Chief area could 

accommodate some of that demand as it is predominately undeveloped forest land adjacent to 

some scenic peaks. 

3. The extent to which non-wilderness lands on the NFS unit or other Federal lands are likely to 

provide opportunities for unconfined outdoor recreation experiences 

Within the Lake Tahoe Basin, are several sizeable roadless areas (e.g. Lincoln, Dardanelles), that 

provide opportunities for many forms of outdoor recreation, such as hiking, horseback riding, 

mountain biking, along with winter recreation opportunities such as cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing. The Granite Chief area is largely a semi-primitive area, with predominately steep 

terrain; however, it can accommodate some recreation opportunities. 

 4. The need to provide a refuge for those species that may have demonstrated an inability to 

survive in less than primitive surroundings or the need for a protected area for other unique 

scientific values or phenomena. 

The Granite Chief area provides some natural habitat for a variety of native wildlife and plants 

species. Throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin, there are limited natural areas undisturbed by the 

extensive logging activities that took place in the late 1800s. Protection of available habitat for 

sensitive or protected species is a strategic goal for all National Forest lands within the Basin 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-50 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

5. Within social and biological limits, management may increase the capacity of established 

wildernesses to support human use without unacceptable depreciation of the wilderness resource. 

The Granite Chief Wilderness has been evaluated as to its potential for increasing capacity from 

either a social or biological perspective, and its current management conditions are being actively 

monitored according to the guidance of the 1964 Wilderness Act. Sanctioned human use levels 

are likely to change. The Granite Chief Roadless Area complements the wilderness character and 

experience visitors receive in the Granite Chief Wilderness, however increasing use needs to be 

evaluated to determine appropriate capacity levels for both social and biological limits. 

6. An area’s ability to provide for preservation of identifiable landform types and ecosystems. 

Consideration of this factor may include utilization of Hammond’s subdivision of landform types 

and the Bailey-Kuchler ecosystem classification. This approach is helpful from the standpoint of 

rounding out the National Wilderness Preservation System and may be further subdivided to suit 

local, sub-regional and regional needs. 

Granite Chief is predominately in a semi-primitive natural condition (ROS), and the area appears 

to have a high degree of natural integrity, however its small size, unless added to the adjacent 

Granite Chief Wilderness area, precludes any ability to provide for preservation of identifiable 

landform types and ecosystems. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-51

C6. Agency Recommendation 

The agency recommendation varies by Alternative. Reference Chapter 3, section 3.4.27 of the 

Final EIS for the specific recommendations, and analysis of effects by alternative. 

Effect of Recommendations 

The following is a discussion of the impact on the area if it were designated as wilderness and the 

impact on the area if it were managed as non-wilderness. 

Desolation Wilderness Additions - Pyramid Roadless Area 

If wilderness: 

Effects on wilderness characteristics and values: Pyramid Roadless Area would need to be 

designated as “wilderness,” adjacent to the existing Desolation Wilderness. The area could not be 

managed as wilderness without this linkage. It is not anticipated the Pyramid area would 

significantly receive more use because of a wilderness designation because of the steep terrain. 

Most of the eastern boundary of the Pyramid Roadless Area interfaces with urban development 

that would facilitate intrusions into the area that would make “manageability” challenging. The 

greatest impact would be on the Desolation Wilderness as it presently exists, by creating a 

“buffer,” of undeveloped land. Wilderness designation of the Pyramid area would ensure its 

long-term integrity as a relatively naturally appearing area providing benefits for protection of 

wildlife habitat. 

Effects on non-wilderness resources and uses: Some conflicts would become significant 

generated by a predicted conflict with adjacent urban developments and activities because of the 

proximity of the Pyramid area to multiple developments such as subdivisions, summer-home 

residences, established highways and trails. That proximity would likely generate management 

conflicts such as intrusions by mechanized or motorized recreationists, noise and congestion from 

such areas as Echo, Angora, Fallen Leaf and Cascade Lakes. 

Economic and social effects: Addition of the Pyramid Roadless Area into the National 

Wilderness Preservation System would generate limited economic effects as the land area would 

remain largely unmodified and visitation would remain stable as most of the Pyramid area has 

been accessible and open. Because of its proximity to the long-established Desolation Wilderness 

(which has been a designated primitive area since 1931, and wilderness since 1969), the Pyramid 

area is generally viewed as a natural scenic boundary to the Desolation and that remains its 

strongest value. 

If non-wilderness: 

Effects on wilderness characteristics and values: Little of the Pyramid Roadless Area is expected 

to change if it is not added to the Desolation Wilderness. The status of the Pyramid Roadless 

Area as such is the critical determinant for that stability in the areas natural characteristics and 

future value. Its steep terrain has provided an “unofficial” buffer on the eastern boundary of the 

Desolation . 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-52 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Mitigation, if any. No special mitigation is necessary. 

Effects on non-wilderness resources and uses: Should the Pyramid Roadless Area remain in its 

current status, existing resources and uses would stay in their present condition unless the 

Roadless designation was modified to allow greater development or a change in resource or 

vegetation treatment prescriptions. 

Economic and social effects: Similar to the alternative option of wilderness, should the Pyramid 

area remain in its present management status, there are no anticipated noteworthy changes in 

either the economic or social outputs of conditions. 

Dardanelles Roadless Area 

If wilderness: 

Effects on wilderness characteristics and values: The Dardanelles Roadless Area is a substantially 

natural area offering a diversity of landscapes, and scenic opportunities. The Dardanelles has 

been used as an alternative destination to the Desolation Wilderness because of its easy 

accessibility and semi-primitive natural condition. Its boundary offers a relatively well defined 

and manageable land area should it become wilderness. The area offers opportunities for solitude 

and is relatively free of human developments or modifications with the exception of a historic 

cabin and barn located in the southern portion of the area. Rock dams were installed 50-years ago 

for fisheries management at several of the major lakes within Dardanelles. If designated as a 

wilderness, the Dardanelles area would retain wilderness attributes for wildlife habitat but would 

require a vegetation management prescription appropriate to a wilderness area; though to date 

there have not been any treatments. For well over a century, grazing was permitted in the 

Dardanelles area, but this activity was eliminated several years ago (note that grazing is allowed 

in wilderness areas). 

Effects on non-wilderness resources and uses: There are no motorized uses within the 

Dardanelles area. In recent years, there have been an increasing number of mountain bikers 

accessing the Dardanelles Roadless Area; however this activity has been restricted to portions of 

the existing trail system, and prohibited on the Pacific Crest Trail segment that traverses the 

southern and western portions of the Dardanelles. Should this area become designated as a 

wilderness, this mechanized activity would need to be variously modified and regulated to 

preserve the overall wilderness character of the Dardanelles, and allow users an outstanding 

opportunity for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. Alternatives would include 

eliminating that mechanized use as per the guidance of the National Wilderness Preservation Act, 

or the boundary of the Dardanelles modified to accommodate that activity outside of designated 

wilderness. 

Designation could lead to adverse effects to the Meiss Cabin and Barn and historic dams at 

Showers, Dardanelles, and Round lakes if the designation did not include enabling legislation to 

allow for preservation of these structures. 

Economic and social effects: The Dardanelles is already well established as a “wilderness-like” 

natural area within the Tahoe Basin, and provides a diversity of semi-primitive recreation 

opportunities. Its multiple lakes and meadows offer scenic opportunities as well as opportunities 

for wildflower viewing and non-motorized winter recreation and horseback riding. Accordingly, 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-53

the marginal increase in the economic contribution if the area was to be designated as a 

wilderness would be modest (estimated currently to be in excess of $100,000), annually largely 

generated through camping equipment rentals and purchases, and also, there is a single outfitter 

guide permit at this time, authorized during the winter months to utilize the cabin). 

If non-wilderness: 

Effects on wilderness characteristics and values: If maintained as a roadless area, the Dardanelles 

would likely retain its natural character and integrity. Vegetative prescriptions however may alter 

the present natural appearance of portions of the area. The area would maintain its overall 

character and capability to support a diverse community of native plants and wildlife. 

Mitigation, if any. None required. 

Effects on non-wilderness resources and uses: Mechanized recreational activities would continue, 

and the Dardanelles area would continue to experience a potential increase in visitation as an 

alternative to the quota-limited Desolation Wilderness. That unregulated use would eventually 

generate user impacts around popular lakes and destination within the Dardanelles that would 

require management attention. Permitted use of the “Meiss” cabin & barn would continue under 

special use authorization and potentially expand to include summer outfitter guiding activities. 

Economic and social effects: If the Dardanelles area is not converted to formal wilderness status, 

but its status remains unchanged, it will continue to experience growing visitation as an 

alternative to other roadless areas within the area, as it is meeting the public’s demand for a 

“wilderness-like” setting that accommodates most popular semi-primitive activities as hiking, 

backpacking, camping, fishing, skiing and saddle stock opportunities. Because a non-wilderness 

designation for the Dardanelles area does not substantially alter the present economic values 

respective to the current values respective to the status of the Dardanelles area, the projected 

economic contribution would be similar to its wilderness status outputs. 

Freel/Jobs Peak Roadless Area 

If wilderness: 

Effects on wilderness characteristics and values: This prescription for the Freel Roadless Area 

would support the distinctive natural attributes of this moderately to severely steep land area 

(80% of the Freel area has slopes in excess of 30%). Along with other south shore area roadless 

areas, the Freel area has provided an alternative destination to the Desolation Wilderness, with 

relatively easy accessibility and wilderness character. The higher elevations of the Freel area 

offer panoramic views of the Tahoe Basin and across the lake and of the Desolation Wilderness, 

and shaded urban views. Along some portions of the Freel area are some moderate improvements 

such as roads, powerlines and structures. Some vegetation management prescriptions would be 

affected. Maintaining the area as “roadless,” would also ensure its long-term integrity as a 

relatively natural appearing land area. A cushion plant community at the top of Freel Peak would 

be protected. 

Effects on non-wilderness resources and uses: Approximately half of the Freel Roadless Area is 

presently accessible by snowmobiles and contains designated OHV routes and system roads and 

trails. These routes are also popular with mountain bikers, especially sections around Tucker Flat 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-54 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

(known as “Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride.”) and a Tahoe Rim Trail segment above Star Lake. These 

popular activities would be prohibited or would need to be otherwise regulated. Other effects 

besides vegetation management prescription changes, may involve flight patterns for aircraft 

approaching the South Tahoe Airport, and maintenance of power lines. 

Designation could lead to adverse effects to the historic dam at Star Lake if the designation did 

not include enabling legislation to allow for preservation of this structure. 

Economic and social effects: Projections done in the 1988 Forest Plan indicated that a wilderness 

designation for the Freel area would generate up to 3 person years of annual employment and that 

would generate $36,000 of annual income. Any income stimulated by a wilderness designation 

of the area would come from such actions as backcountry equipment sales and rentals, related 

supplies and clothing, along with map sales, and potentially income from outfitter-guiding 

permitting. Adjusted for inflation and the presence of outfitter-guides, that estimated annual 

income is estimated to be around $100,000 annually. Most anticipated social effects will be 

positive with the significant exception of those nonconforming recreational uses such as mountain 

biking and snowmobiling, as designation of the Freel area as a formal wilderness would create 

substantial obstacles to the continuation of those uses which have been established in large 

portions of the Freel area for several decades. Accordingly, from an economic perspective of 

wilderness designation, there would be a loss of income if there was an elimination of access and 

recreational uses from mountain bikers and snowmobilers (equipment rental, maintenance, 

operations) of $50,000 or more annually (note at present, there are no outfitter-guide permitted 

operations in the Freel area). 

If non-wilderness: 

Effects on wilderness characteristics and values: The Freel Roadless Area would continue to 

provide a substantially natural setting that largely provides wilderness-like characteristics and 

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Designated areas within the Freel would 

accommodate the demand for mechanized and motorized recreation. 

Mitigation, if any: None 

Effects on non-wilderness resources and uses: Non-wilderness designation would essentially 

allow the present mixed uses to continue, while allowing management of the area to continue to 

provide a diverse habitat for wildlife, and also opportunities for primitive recreation along with 

opportunities for solitude. 

Economic and social effects: To maintain the Freel Roadless Area in its present non-wilderness 

status would accommodate a significant mixture of mechanized and motorized access 

opportunities along with allowing the Freel area to maintain most of its wilderness attributes and 

values. The natural integrity and solitude of the area would be maintained, and the effect on the 

economy would be relatively inconsequential. That combination of effects reflects Freel is a 

scenic and habitat resource that also is valued by the community for its accessibility along with its 

natural and scenic character. Economically, the approximate value for non-wilderness use would 

be similar to wilderness use. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-55

Lincoln Creek Roadless Area 

If wilderness: 

Effects on wilderness characteristics and values: The Lincoln Creek Roadless Area is a relatively 

steep (over 80% of the lands have slopes greater than 30%), moderately natural area that still 

provides important habitat to wildlife. With a complex boundary that interfaces with urban areas 

on the western and southern portions, there is moderate opportunity for solitude or primitive 

recreation opportunities. With few trails and limited water sources, the Lincoln Creek area is not 

easily accessible internally nor has any unique destinations. It greatest value is as a substantially 

naturally appearing forested area overlooking the east shore of the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

Effects on non-wilderness resources and uses: Areas of Lincoln Creek are located adjacent to 

urban zones, and wilderness designation would have substantial impacts on the present 

recreational uses (primarily mountain biking and snowmobile uses). 

Economic and social effects: Because the Lincoln Roadless Area has not attracted significant 

recreational use respective to its potential as a wilderness, there are mixed effects probable if it 

was designated. Since opportunities for solitude are moderate and the Lincoln Creek area has 

relatively low unique or scenic features, the social values would be moderate. Respective to the 

Forest LMP, the projected economic benefits of Lincoln Creek as a wilderness would also be 

relatively low (estimated at $17,000 in 1988, projected to $75,000 in 2009 if outfitter guiding 

services are permitted in this area). 

If non-wilderness: 

Effects on wilderness characteristics and values: If the Lincoln Creek Roadless Area is 

maintained as such, the area should retain its attributes of natural integrity, solitude and primitive 

recreation opportunities. 

Mitigation, if any: None 

Effects on non-wilderness resources and uses: The Lincoln Creek area would continue to 

accommodate nonconforming wilderness recreational activities such as mountain biking and 

snowmobiling uses, and the extensive urban interface areas would remain accessible for users. 

The area would accommodate vegetative management prescriptions. 

Economic and social effects: Maintaining the present natural condition would allow continued 

opportunities for solitude and maintain available scenic attributes. Non-wilderness economic 

effects would derive from the continuation of activities such as snowmobiling and mountain 

biking. There is some associated use by the permitted Zephyr Cove Resort Snowmobiling 

operations on small portions of the Lincoln Creek Roadless Area. 

Mt. Rose Wilderness Additions 

If wilderness: 

Effects on wilderness characteristics and values: The proposed additions to the present Mt. Rose 

Wilderness would further increase the contiguous area of protected land and would greater buffer 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-56 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

the core wilderness area. Larger areas of land not only provide for greater opportunities for 

solitude but allow for a primitive experience away from roads and development. Ecosystem 

attributes are also further protected and buffered against human development and intrusion. The 

Mt. Rose additions would bolster wilderness character and add greater value to this wilderness 

unit as a whole. 

Effects on non-wilderness resource and users: In particular, the Relay Addition, (northeasterly 

addition) would directly conflict with winter motorized use. Currently the area identified for 

potential wilderness designation is heavily used during the winter as a snowmobile playground. 

Wilderness designation would eliminate this user group, who mostly travel from the metropolitan 

areas of Reno and Sparks to recreate off Highway 431. During the summer months, mechanized 

use is generally restricted to the road that access’s the Relay Communication station and doesn’t 

travel through the Relay addition. 

Economic and social effects: Wilderness designation would benefit those seeking solitude and a 

primitive experience. Eliminating snowmobiles would expand more area for non-motorized use 

during the winter. Conversely wilderness designation for the Relay addition would create a 

cherry-stem of non designated land between the proposed addition and another “non-motorized” 

segment on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest that lies further to the east further 

complicating an already difficult and contentious area to manage. 

If non-wilderness: 

Effects on wilderness characteristics and values: Without wilderness designation this proposed 

addition will continue to see intense winter motorized use. Therefore many aspects of wilderness 

character such as solitude and non-motorized recreation will not be available. There is little value 

for wilderness recreation under current conditions. The land still does provide for an overall 

natural setting, although small in scope. 

Mitigation, if any: None 

Effects on non-wilderness resources and uses: The Mt. Rose addition would continue to provide 

a natural setting that allows for mixed use. Ever increasing motorized use could potentially lead 

to point source pollution of Incline Lake and the water resources of Lake Tahoe. 

Economic and social effects: Maintaining non-wilderness status of this segment will continue to 

support local businesses that sell and service snow machines. It will also continue to provide for 

the whole spectrum of recreation opportunity classes. Economically, the approximate value for 

non-wilderness use would be similar to wilderness use. 

Granite Chief Wilderness Additions 

If wilderness: 

Effects on wilderness characteristics and value: The proposed additions to the present Granite 

Chief wilderness would further increase the contiguous area of protected land and would provide 

more buffer to the core wilderness area. While its small size constrains its potential as a “standalone” wilderness, formal wilderness designation would permanently ensure protection of an area 

where the Pacific Crest Trail traverses and would allow for the wilderness attributes that the PCT 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix C ▪ C-57

tries to achieve. Inclusion into the NWPS would protect the headwaters of Blackwood Creek, 

increase the size of the present wilderness, buffer the core Granite Chief Wilderness and further 

provide true wilderness designation for another segment of the PCT. These all together increase 

the value and overall goals sought for wilderness designation. 

Effects on non-wilderness resources and uses: Currently these two additions allow winter 

motorized use by snowmobiles. Although the terrain and vegetation is not conducive to 

snowmobiles, wilderness designation would eliminate this use. There are also several 4WD roads 

and trails nearby that facilitate motorized and mechanical use (mountain bikes) which could cause 

management difficulties if the areas were wilderness. Vegetative prescriptions would also be 

eliminated if the land were wilderness. 

Economic and social effects: Most anticipated effects would be positive, but not drastically 

different than present conditions present. The largest effect socially would be to eliminate 

snowmobile use from where it’s already allowed. 

If non-wilderness: 

Effects on wilderness characteristics and value: Any potential roadless area that remains 

undesignated is potentially subject to non-conforming wilderness uses. Vegetative prescriptions 

and further user-created motorized trail development are the main concerns. Also degradation of 

undisturbed wildlife habitat by snowmobile intrusion and increasingly motorized recreational 

uses could reduce wilderness character and value. 

Mitigation, if any: None 

Effects on non-wilderness resources and uses: Use would remain the same, unchanged under a 

non-wilderness status. Mixed use would be allowed to continue. 

Economic and social effects: To maintain the Granite Chief additions in non-wilderness status 

would accommodate the mixed use regime that is established today. Economic effects pertaining 

to this area would remain the same. 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

C-58 ▪ Wilderness Evaluation 

Table C10. Summary of Assessments (by Area) 

Key 1

 – Areas capability for 

wilderness designation 

 Desirable ratings are High and 

Moderate 

 Variety and Abundance of wildlife 

Natural and Free from Disturbance 

 Outstanding opt for Solitude & 

Unconfined Rec. Special Feature and 

Values 

 Manageability 

Key 2

 – Potential for other resource 

potentials beyond wilderness 

 Desirable ratings are Low or 

Moderate 

 Areas with high value for comm. 

Sites Areas with existing OHV or 

mechanized use Areas needing active 

vegetation restoration 

 Areas having high mineral value 

 Areas with unique character 

 Lands committed thru contractswild conflicts 

Key 3

 – Determination of need for an 

area to be designated as wilderness 

 Desirable rating is High 

 Analysis narrative describes the 

degree to which it contributes to the 

overall National Wilderness 

Preservation System. 

 Stated Rating is a summary 

average based upon narrative of the 

six stated criteria.

Area Name Capability 1 Availability 2 Need 3

Desolation Wilderness 

additions - Pyramid 

0519-001 

 0 High 0 High 

L 2 Moderate 1 Moderate 

 3 Low 5 Low 

Dardanelles Roadless 

0519-002 

 4 High 0 High 

H 1 Moderate 1 Moderate 

 0 Low 5 Low 

Freel/ Jobs Peek 

Roadless 

0519-003 

 0 High 1 High 

M 5 Moderate 1 Moderate 

 0 Low 4 Low 

Lincoln Creek 

Roadless 

0519-004 

 0 High 0 High 

L 3 Moderate 2 Moderate 

 2 Low 4 Low 

Mt. Rose Wilderness 

Additions 

0519-005 

 0 High 1 High 

L 3 Moderate 1 Moderate 

2 Low 4 Low 

The Granite Chief 

Wilderness Additions 

0519-006 

 0 High 0 High 

L 3 Moderate 1 Moderate 

 2 Low 5 Low 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix D ■ D-1 

APPENDIX D: LTBMU CLIMATE CHANGE TREND ASSESSMENT

A summary of current trends and probable future trends 

in climate and climate- driven processes in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin and the neighboring Sierra Nevada 

Hugh Safford, Regional Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region. hughsafford@fs.fed.us; 707-562-8934 

Climate Change Appendix Contents 

I. Local trends in climate over the past century ......................................................... D-2

Temperature........................................................................................................................ D-2 

Precipitation ........................................................................................................................ D-3 

II. Regional trends over the last century linked to climate change ........................... D-7

Hydrology ............................................................................................................................ D-7 

Forest fires .......................................................................................................................... D-7

Forest structure ................................................................................................................... D-8 

Wildlife .............................................................................................................................. D-12 

III. Future predictions ..................................................................................................... D-13

Climate ............................................................................................................................. D-13 

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... D-14

Vegetation ......................................................................................................................... D-15 

Fire .................................................................................................................................. D-16 

IV. Literature Cited ......................................................................................................... D-18
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

D-2 ■ Climate Change Trend Assessment (Dec. 15, 2010) 

I. Local trends in climate over the past century

The data presented in this section are derived from the 98-year weather station record from 

Tahoe City, California, on the north shore of Lake Tahoe (WRCC 2008), and the annual 

State of the Lake Report published by the UC-Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center 

(TERC 2008). Spatial data are also presented from the PRISM climate dataset, which 

extrapolates weather station records to the landscape for all years beginning in the late 19th 

century (Daly et al. 1994, PRISM 2010). 

Temperature

Over the last century, mean annual temperature in the Lake Tahoe Basin (LTB) has risen by 

about two degrees Fahrenheit (Fig. D1). This trend is driven by a highly significant increase 

in mean minimum (i.e., nighttime) temperatures, which have risen by four degrees F since 

1910. For the first time on record, the annual average of the monthly mean minima is now 

above the freezing point (Fig. 1). At the beginning of the last century, seven to eight 

months in a year could be expected to have average nighttime temperatures that fell below 

freezing. Today the average is closer to six months, and the trend is strongly downward. 

The average number of days in a year on which the average air temperature remains below 

freezing has dropped by 27 days since 1910 (78 to 51; TERC 2008). The 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 (TERC 2008). 

Figure D1. Annual mean, mean maximum, and mean minimum temperatures at Tahoe City, 

California, 1910-2008. 

Trend lines fit with simple linear regression, no transformations employed. Data from WRCC 2008.
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix D ■ D-3 

Precipitation

The 98-year trend in LTB precipitation is shown in Fig. D2. Average annual precipitation 

has risen by almost 7 inches per year over the period, but there is very high interannual 

variability, such that the value predicted by the regression line in Fig. D2 is rarely 

representative of the actual annual mean. Of the months of the year, only August showed an 

even marginally significant increase in precipitation over the period of record (R2 = 0.034, 

P = 0.067), with the average August precipitation rising from about 0.2 to about 0.4 inches 

(1% of annual precipitation). There were no significant increases in precipitation by season, 

and the distribution of precipitation across the year has remained similar through the record 

(WRCC 2008). The 5-yr coefficient of variation in annual precipitation is rising over time 

(Fig. D3), which demonstrates that year-to-year variability in precipitation has increased 

over the course of the last century. Further evidence of high variability in recent annual 

precipitation sums can be seen in the last quarter-century of records: nine of the 20 wettest 

years have occurred since 1980, and two of the top three since 1995, but 2007 and 2008 are 

among the ten driest years on record. Mean annual snowfall has not changed significantly 

over the last century (TERC 2008), but when combined with the precipitation trend, it is 

obvious that the proportion of precipitation falling as snow (vs. rain) is dropping. At the 

beginning of the last century, about 54% of precipitation fell as snow, today the average is 

about 34%. Streamflow data show that peak snowmelt in the LTB is occurring 21⁄2 weeks 

earlier today than at the beginning of the 1960’s, when the record began (TERC 2008). 

Figure D2. Mean annual precipitation at Tahoe City, California, 1910-2008. Data from WRCC 2008. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

D-4 ■ Climate Change Trend Assessment (Dec. 15, 2010) 

Figure D3. Five-year coefficients of variation in annual precipitation at Tahoe City, California, 

1910-2008. Data from WRCC 2008.

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix D ■ D-5 

Snowpack measurements show a strong downward trend across northern California over 

the last 1⁄2 century, with the Sierra Nevada near Lake Tahoe experiencing decreases of 

>70% in snow water equivalent in many places (Fig. D4). 

Figure D4. Trends in the amount of water contained in the snowpack (“snow water equivalent”) on 

April 1, for the period 1950-1997. 

Red circles indicate percent decrease in snow water, blue circles indicate increase in snow water. From 

Moser et al. (2009).

 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

D-6 ■ Climate Change Trend Assessment (Dec. 15, 2010) 

The PRISM dataset shows that the area of the Sierra Nevada adjoining Lake Tahoe has 

experienced substantial increases in both temperature and precipitation over the last 3⁄4 

century (Fig. D5). This agrees with the trends from the Tahoe City station, but hides 

substantial variation among specific weather station sites. 

Figure D5. Spatial differences in mean annual temperature (A), and mean annual precipitation (B) 

between the 1930’s and 2000’s, as derived by the PRISM climate model. 

The LTBMU is found in the middle of the circled area. Both temperatures and precipitation have risen across 

most of the circled area, although precipitation has generally dropped east of the Sierra Nevada crest. 

Graphic courtesy of S. Dobrowksi, Univ. of Montana.

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix D ■ D-7 

II. Regional trends over the last century linked to climate 

change 

Hydrology 

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. During the same 

period, March flows in the studied streams were mostly higher by 5-20%, but June flows 

were mostly lower by the same amount; overall spring and early summer streamflow was 

down in most studied streams. Rising winter and spring temperatures appear to be the 

primary driver of these patterns (Stewart et al. 2005). Coats (2010) examined the shift in 

snowmelt timing in the Lake Tahoe Basin between 1972 and 2007 and found that the 

timing of the spring snowmelt peak occurred about two weeks earlier in 2007 than in 1972. 

Forest Fires

Data on forest fire frequency, size, total area burned, and severity all show strong increases 

in the Sierra Nevada over the last two to three decades. Westerling et al. (2006) showed that 

increasing frequencies of large fires (>1000 acres) across the western United States since 

the 1980’s were strongly linked to increasing temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt. 

The Sierra Nevada was one of two geographic areas of especially increased fire activity, 

which Westerling et al. (2006) ascribed to an interaction between climate and increased 

fuels due to fire suppression. Westerling et al. (2006) also identified the Sierra Nevada has 

being one of the geographic regions most likely to see further increases in fire activity due 

to future increases in temperature. Miller et al. (2009) showed that mean and maximum fire 

size, and total burned area in the Sierra Nevada have increased strongly between the early 

1980’s and 2007. Climatic variables explain very little of the pattern in fire size and area in 

the early 20th century, but 35-50% of the pattern in the last 25 years. The mean size of 

escaped fires in the Sierra Nevada was about 750 acres until the late 1970’s, but the most 

recent ten-year average has climbed to about 1100 acres. Miller et al. (2009) also showed 

that forest fire severity (a measure of the effect of fire on vegetation) rose strongly during 

the period 1984-2007, with the pattern centered in middle elevation conifer forests. Fires at 

the beginning of the record burned at an average of about 17% high (stand-replacing) 

severity, while the average for the last ten-year period was 30%. Miller et al. (2009) found 

that both climate change and increasing forest fuels were necessary to explain the patterns 

they analyzed. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

D-8 ■ Climate Change Trend Assessment (Dec. 15, 2010) 

Forest Structure

Fire suppression has been practiced as a federal policy since 1935. Pre-Euroamerican fire 

frequencies in high elevation forests such as red fir (>50 years in most places) and 

subalpine forest (>100 years) were long enough that fire suppression has had little or no 

impact on ecological patterns or processes (Miller et al. 2009). Higher elevation forests are 

also much more remote, less likely to have economic uses, and are often protected in 

Wilderness Areas and National Parks, so impacts by logging or recreation use are minimal. 

Subalpine tree growth has been shown to be strongly influenced by higher precipitation and 

warm summers (Graumlich 1991). Long-term changes in stand structure in higher elevation 

forests are thus more likely to represent responses to changes in exogenous factors like 

climate. 

In the early 1930’s, the Forest Service mapped vegetation in the Lake Tahoe Basin and 

neighboring National Forests, and sampled thousands of vegetation plots (Wieslander 

1935). Bouldin (1999) compared the Wieslander plots with the modern FIA inventory and 

described changes in forest structure. In red fir forest, Bouldin (1999) found that densities 

of young trees had increased by about 40% between 1935 and 1992, but densities of large 

trees had decreased by 50% during the same period. In old-growth stands, overall densities 

and basal areas were higher, and the number of plots in the red fir zone dominated by 

shade-tolerant species increased at the expense of species like Jeffrey pine and western 

white pine. In old-growth subalpine forests, Bouldin (1999) found that young mountain 

hemlock was increasing in density and basal area while larger western white pine was 

decreasing. In whitebark pine stands, overall density was increasing due to increased 

recruitment of young trees, but species composition had not changed. Lodgepole pine 

appears to be responding favorably to increased warming and/or increased precipitation 

throughout the subalpine forest. 

Bouldin (1999) also studied mortality patterns in the 1935 and 1992 datasets. He found that 

mortality rates had increased in red fir, with the greatest increases in the smaller sizeclasses. At the same time, in subalpine forests, lodgepole pine, western white pine, and 

mountain hemlock all showed decreases in mortality. The subalpine zone was the only 

forest type Bouldin (1999) studied where mortality had not greatly increased since the 1935 

inventory. This suggests that climate change (warming, plus steady or higher precipitation) 

is actually making conditions better for some tree species in this stressful environment. 

Dolanc et al. (2010) recently completed a study that resampled Wieslander plots in the 

subalpine zone between Yosemite National Park and the Lake Tahoe Basin. Corroborating 

Boulding (1999), they found that growing conditions in the subalpine zone were probably 

better today than in the 1930’s, as the density of small trees of almost all species had 

increased greatly in the 75 year period. Dolanc et al.’s (2010) direct plot-to-plot comparison 

also found that mortality of large trees had decreased density of the subalpine forest 

canopy, but the overall trend was for denser forests with no apparent change in relative tree 

species abundances. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix D ■ D-9 

Van Mantgem et al. (2009) recently documented widespread increases in tree mortality in 

old- growth forests across the west, including in the Sierra Nevada. Their plots had not 

experienced increases in density or basal area during the 15-40 year period between first 

and last census. The highest mortality rates were documented in the Sierra Nevada, and in 

middle elevation forests (3300-6700 feet). Higher elevation forests (>6700 feet) showed the 

lowest mortality rates, corroborating the Bouldin (1999) findings. Van Mantgem et al. 

(2009) ascribed the mortality patterns they analyzed to regional climate warming and 

associated drought stress. Comparisons of the 1930’s Wieslander vegetation inventories 

and map with modern vegetation maps and inventories show large changes in the 

distribution of many Sierra Nevada vegetation types over the last 70-80 years (Fig. D6a, 

D6b; Bouldin 1999, Moser et al. 2009, Thorne and Safford, unpub. data). The principal 

trends are (1) loss of yellow pine dominated forest, (2) increase in the area of forest 

dominated by shade-tolerant conifers (especially fir species), (3) loss of blue oak woodland, 

(4) increase in hardwood dominated forests, (5) loss of subalpine and alpine vegetation, and 

(6) expansion of subalpine trees into previous permanent snowfields. Trends (4) through (6) 

appear to have a strong connection to climate warming, while trends (1) through (3) are 

mostly the product of human management choices, including logging, fire suppression, and 

urban expansion. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

D-10 ■ Climate Change Trend Assessment (Dec. 15, 2010) 

Figure D6. (A) Distribution of major vegetation types in the central and northern Sierra Nevada in the 

period 1932-1936. 

Mapped by the US Forest Service “Wieslander” mapping project. Maps digitized and vegetation types crosswalked to CWHR type by UC-Davis Information Center for the Environment. AGS = agriculture; BOP = blue 

oak/foothill pine; BOW = blue oak woodland; MCH = mixed conifer hardwood; MHW = mixed hardwood; 

PPN = ponderosa pine; DFR = Douglas-fir; SMC = Sierra mixed conifer; WFR = white fir; LPN = lodgepole 

pine; RFR = red fir; SCN = Subalpine conifer; JPN = Jeffrey pine; EPN = eastside pine.
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix D ■ D-11 

Figure D6. (B) Distribution of major vegetation types in the central and northern Sierra Nevada in 

2000. Mapped by the US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Remote Sensing Laboratory. See Fig. 6 

(A) for key and scale. The major patterns of change between 1934 and 2000 are: (1) loss of yellow pine 

(ponderosa and Jeffrey pine) dominated forest; (2) expansion of shade tolerant conifers (DFR, WFR, SMC); 

(3) loss of blue oak woodland; (4) increase in hardwood dominated forests; (5) loss of subalpine and alpine 

vegetation.

 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

D-12 ■ Climate Change Trend Assessment (Dec. 15, 2010) 

Wildlife

Between 1914 and 1920, the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (MVZ) at the University of 

California Berkeley surveyed the terrestrial vertebrate fauna at 41 sites along a transect that 

extended from the western slope of Yosemite National Park to an area near Mono Lake 

(Grinnell and Storer 1924). In the past decade, MVZ resurveyed the Yosemite transect to 

evaluate the near century-long changes in Yosemite’s vertebrate fauna across this elevation 

gradient, stretching across numerous vegetation types (Mortiz 2007, Moritz et al. 2008). By 

comparing earlier and recent MVZ small mammal surveys, Moritz et al. (2008) came to 

several conclusions: (1) the elevation limits of geographic ranges shifted primarily upward, 

(2) several high-elevation species (e.g., alpine chipmunk; Tamias alpinus) exhibited range 

contraction (shifted their lower range limit upslope), while several low-elevation species 

expanded their range upslope, (3) many species showed no change in their elevational 

range, (4) elevational range shifts resulted in minor changes in species richness and 

composition at varying spatial scales, (5) closely-related species responded 

idiosyncratically to changes in climate and vegetation, and (6) most upwards range shifts 

for high-elevation species is consistent with predicted climate warming, but changes in 

most lower- to mid-elevation species’ ranges are likely the result of landscape-level 

vegetation dynamics related primarily to fire history. 

Similar distribution patterns have been observed for other faunal taxa throughout the Sierra 

Nevada. Forister et al. (2010) tracked 159 species of butterflies over 35 years in the central 

Sierra Nevada and observed upwards shifts in the elevational range of species, a pattern 

consistent with a warming climate. Tingley et al. (2009) resurveyed bird distributions along 

the Grinnell transects in the entire Sierra Nevada and concluded that 91% of species tracked 

changes in temperature or precipitation over time and 26% of species tracked both 

temperature and precipitation. This suggests that birds move in response to changing 

climates in order to maintain environmental associations to which they are adapted. The 

authors also suggest that combining climate and niche models may be useful for predicting 

future changes in regional bird distributions (Tingley et al. 2009). In contrast with other 

faunal studies, Drost and Fellers (1996) found that most frog and toad species in Yosemite 

exhibited widespread decline over the past several decades, regardless of elevation. Primary 

factors contributing to this faunal collapse throughout the Sierra Nevada include introduced 

predators, a fungal pathogen, pesticides, and climate change (Wake and Vredenburg 2008). 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix D ■ D-13 

III. Future predictions 

Climate 

Statewide models 

Relatively few future-climate modeling efforts have treated areas as restricted as the State 

of California. The principal limiting factor is the spatial scale of the General Circulation 

Models (GCMs) that are used to simulate future climate scenarios. Most GCMs produce 

raster outputs with pixels that are 10,000’s of km2 in area. To be used at finer scales, these 

outputs must be downscaled using a series of algorithms and assumptions – these finerscale secondary products currently provide the most credible sources we have for 

estimating potential outcomes of long- term climate change for California. Another 

complication is the extent to which GCMs disagree with respect to the probable outcomes 

of climate change. For example, a recent comparison of 21 published GCM outputs that 

included California found that estimates of future precipitation ranged from a 26% increase 

per 1o C increase in temperature to an 8% decrease (Gutowski et al. 2000, Hakkarinen and 

Smith 2003). That said, there was some broad consensus: all of the reviewed GCMs 

predicted warming temperatures for California, and 13 of 21 predicted higher precipitation 

(three showed no change and five predicted decreases). According to Dettinger (2005), the 

most common prediction among the most recent models (which are considerably more 

complex and, ideally, more credible) is temperature warming by about 9° F by 2100, with 

precipitation remaining similar or slightly reduced compared to today. Most models agreed 

that summers will be drier than they are currently, regardless of levels of annual 

precipitation. 

The most widely cited of the recent California-wide modeling efforts is probably Hayhoe et 

al. (2005). Hayhoe et al. (2005) used two contrasting GCMs (much warmer and wetter, vs. 

somewhat warmer and drier) under low and high greenhouse gas emissions scenarios to 

make projections of climate change impact for California over the next century. By 2100, 

under all GCM x emissions scenarios, April 1 snowpack was down by -22% to -93% in the 

6,700-10,000 feet elevation belt, and the date of peak snowmelt was projected to occur 

from 3 to 24 days earlier in the season. Average temperatures were projected to increase by 

2 to 4 degrees F in the winter, and 4-8 degrees in the summer. Finally, three of the four 

GCM x emissions scenarios employed by Hayhoe et al. (2005) predicted strong decreases 

in annual precipitation by 2100, ranging from -91 to -157%; the remaining scenario 

predicted a 38% increase. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

D-14 ■ Climate Change Trend Assessment (Dec. 15, 2010) 

Local models 

Until recently, no studies had projected future climates specifically for the area of the Lake 

Tahoe Basin. Coats et al. (2010) downscaled the GFDL and PCM General Circulation 

Models (GCMs) from the original 100 x 100 km output grid to a 12 x 12 km grid and 

provided 21st century projections of future climate and hydrology trends for the LTB based 

on the IPCC A2 (strong increase in Greenhouse gases [GHGs]) and B1 (moderate increase 

in GHGs) emissions scenarios. Coats et al.’s (2010) results project strong upward trends in 

maximum and minimum emperatures, with an increase of up to 9°F by 2100 under the A2 

emissions scenario (the equivalent of dropping the elevation of the LTB by over 2500 feet), 

but no strong trends in annual precipitation amount, except for a slight drying trend 

projected by the GFDL-A2 scenario toward the end of the century. Coats et al. (2010) also 

project a continuing shift from snowfall to rain (from about 35% snowfall currently to 10-

18% by 2100). 

Hydrology 

Sierra Nevada 

Miller et al. (2003) modeled future hydrological changes in California as a function of two 

contrasting GCMs (the same GCMs used in Hayhoe et al. [2005] and Lenihan et al. [2003; 

see below]) and a variety of scenarios intermediate to the GCMs. Miller et al. (2003) found 

that annual streamflow volumes were strongly dependent on the precipitation scenario, but 

changes in seasonal runoff were more complex. Predicted spring and summer runoff was 

lower in all of the California river basins they modeled, except where precipitation was 

greatly increased, in which case runoff was unchanged from today (Miller et al. 2003). 

Runoff in the winter and early spring was predicted to be higher under most of the climate 

scenarios because higher temperatures cause snow to melt earlier. Flood potential in 

California rivers that are fed principally by snowmelt (e.g., streams in and around Lake 

Tahoe) was predicted to increase under all scenarios of climate change, principally due to 

earlier dates of peak daily flows and the increase in the proportion of precipitation falling as 

rain. These increases in peak daily flows are predicted under all climate change scenarios, 

including those assuming reduced precipitation (Miller et al. 2003). The predicted increase 

in peak flow was most pronounced in higher elevation river basins, due to the greater 

reliance on snowmelt. If precipitation does increase, streamflow volumes during peak 

runoff could greatly increase. Under the wettest climate scenario modeled by Miller et al. 

(2003), by 2100 the volume of flow during the highest flow days could more than double in 

many Sierra Nevada rivers. This would result in a substantial increase in flood risk in floodprone areas like Sacramento or Reno. According to Miller et al. (2003), increased flood risk 

is a high probability outcome of the continuation of current climate change trends, because 

temperature, not precipitation, is the main driver of higher peak runoff. If scales, these 

outputs must be downscaled using a series of algorithms and assumptions – these finerscale secondary products currently provide the most credible sources we have for climate 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix D ■ D-15 

change leads not only to an increase in average precipitation but also a shift to more 

extreme precipitation, then peak flows would be expected to increase even more. 

Lake Tahoe Basin 

In their recent assessment of potential climate change and hydrology trends in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin, Coats et al. (2010) project a continuing trend toward earlier snowmelt and 

runoff during the water year; increases in drought severity, especially toward the end of the 

century; and dramatic increases in flood magnitude in the middle third of the century, 

especially under the B1 emissions scenario. Current snowpack duration in the LTB is 

between 240 and 250 days. Under the most extreme future climate x emissions scenario 

(GFDL-A2), Coats et al. (2010) project a mean snowpack duration of only 184 days by the 

last third of the 21st century. The same scenario projects a loss in stream inflow into Lake 

Tahoe of 20-40% of baseline (average of 1967-1999) by 2100. 

Vegetation 

Lenihan et al. (2003, 2008) used a dynamic ecosystem model (“MC1”) which estimates 

the distribution and the productivity of terrestrial ecosystems such as forests, grasslands, 

and deserts across a grid of 100 km2 cells. To this date, this is the highest resolution at 

which a model of this kind has been applied in California, but it is not of high enough 

resolution to be applied to the Lake Tahoe Basin as a unit. Based on their modeling 

results, Lenihan et al. (2003, 2008) projected that forest types and other vegetation 

dominated by woody plants in California would migrate to higher elevations as warmer 

temperatures make those areas suitable for colonization and survival. For example, with 

higher temperatures and a longer growing season, the area occupied by subalpine and 

alpine vegetation was predicted to decrease as evergreen conifer forests and shrublands 

migrate to higher altitudes (Fig. D7). Under their “wet future” scenarios, Lenihan et al. 

(2003, 2008) projected a general expansion of forests in northern California. With higher 

rainfall and higher nighttime minimum temperatures, broadleaf trees (especially oak 

species) were predicted to expand their distribution in many parts of the Sierra Nevada, 

and conifer-dominated forests were predicted to decrease in extent in the same areas. 

Under their “dry future” scenarios, Lenihan et al. (2003, 2008) predicted that grasslands 

would expand throughout the state, and that increases in the extent of tree-dominated 

vegetation would be minimal (Fig. 7). An expansion of shrublands into conifer types was 

also predicted, due to drought and increases in fire frequency and severity (see below). 

Hayhoe et al. (2005) also used the MC1 ecosystem model to predict vegetation and 

ecosystem changes under a number of different future greenhouse gas emissions 

scenarios. Their results were qualitatively similar to the Lenihan et al. (2003, 2008) 

results. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

D-16 ■ Climate Change Trend Assessment (Dec. 15, 2010) 

Figure D7. MC1 outputs for the Sierra Nevada Ecological Section, current vs. future projections of 

vegetation extent. 

The LTBMU is found within this Ecological Section. The GFDL-B1 scenario = moderately drier than today, 

with a moderate temperature increase (<5.5° F); PCM-A2 = similar ppt. to today, with <5.5° temp. increase; 

GFDL-A2 = much drier than today and much warmer (>7.2° higher) All scenarios project significant loss of 

subalpine and alpine vegetation. Most scenarios project lower cover of shrubland (including west side 

chaparral and east side sagebrush), due principally to increasing frequencies and extent of fire. Large 

increases in the hardwood component of forests are projected in all scenarios. Large increases in cover of 

grassland are projected for the Section, principally at lower elevations. Conifer forest decreases in cover 

under all scenarios. From Lenihan et al. (2008).

Fire

The combination of warmer climate with higher CO2 fertilization will likely cause more 

frequent and more extensive fires throughout western North America (Price and Rind 1994, 

Flannigan et al. 2000); fire responds rapidly to changes in climate and will likely 

overshadow the direct effects of climate change on tree species distributions and migrations 

(Flannigan et al. 2000, Dale et al. 2001). A temporal pattern of climate-driven increases in 

fire activity is already apparent in the western United States (Westerling et al. 2006), and 

modeling studies specific to California expect increased fire activity to persist and possibly 

accelerate under most future climate scenarios, due to increased growth of fuels under 

higher CO2 (and in some cases precipitation), decreased fuel moistures from warmer dry 

season temperatures, and possibly increased thundercell activity (Price and Rind 1994, 

Miller and Urban 1999, Lenihan et al. 2003,2008; Westerling and Bryant 2006). By 2100, 

Lenihan et al.’s (2003, 2008) simulations suggest a c. 5% to 8% increase in annual burned 

area across California, depending on the climate scenario (Fig. 8). Increased frequencies 

and/or intensities of fire in coniferous forest in California will almost certainly drive 

changes in tree species compositions (Lenihan et al. 2003, 2008), and will likely reduce the 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix D ■ D-17 

size and extent of late-successional refugia (USFS and BLM 1994, McKenzie et al. 2004). 

Thus, if fire becomes more active under future climates, there may be significant 

repercussions for old growth forest and old growth-dependent flora and fauna. 

A key question is to what extent future fire regimes in montane California will be 

characterized by either more or less severe fire than is currently (or was historically) the 

case. Fire regimes are driven principally by the effects of weather/climate and fuel type and 

availability (Bond and van Wilgen 1996). 70 years of effective fire suppression in the 

American West have led to fuel-rich conditions that are conducive to intense forest fires 

that remove significant amounts of biomass (McKelvey et al. 1996, Arno and Fiedler 2005, 

Miller et al. 2009), and most future climate modeling predicts climatic conditions that will 

likely exacerbate these conditions. Basing their analysis on two GCMs under the conditions 

of doubled atmospheric CO2 and increased annual precipitation, Flannigan et al. (2000) 

predicted that mean fire severity in California (measured by difficulty of control) would 

increase by about 10% averaged across the state. Vegetation growth models that 

incorporate rising atmospheric CO2 show an expansion of woody vegetation on many 

western landscapes (Lenihan et al. 2003, Hayhoe et al. 2005), which could feedback into 

increased fuel biomass and connectivity and more intense (and thus more severe) fires. Use 

of paleoecological analogies also suggests that parts of the Pacific Northwest (including 

northern California) could experience more severe fire conditions under warmer, more 

CO2-rich climates (Whitlock et al., 2003). Fire frequency and severity (or size) are usually 

assumed to be inversely related (Pickett and White 1985), and a number of researchers have 

demonstrated this relationship for Sierra Nevada forests (e.g. Swetnam 1993, Miller and 

Urban 1999), but if fuels grow more rapidly and dry more rapidly – as is predicted under 

many future climate scenarios – then both severity and frequency may increase. In this 

scenario, profound vegetation type conversion is all but inevitable. Lenihan et al.’s (2003, 

2008) results for fire intensity predict that large proportions of the Sierra Nevada landscape 

may see mean fire intensities increase over current conditions by the end of the century, 

with the actual change in intensity depending on future precipitation patterns. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

D-18 ■ Climate Change Trend Assessment (Dec. 15, 2010) 

Figure D8. Percent change in projected mean annual area burned for the 2050-2099 period relative to 

the mean annual area burned for the historical period (1895-2003). 

Sierra Nevada is circled. Figure from Lenihan et al. (2008). See Fig. 7 for description of the climate and 

emissions scenarios (PCM-A2, GFDL- B1, GFDL-A2). 

IV. Literature Cited

Arno, S. F., and C. E. Fiedler. 2005. Mimicking nature’s fire. Restoring fire-prone forests in the West. Island 

Press, Washington, DC, USA. 

Bond, W. J., and B. W. van Wilgen. 1996. Fire and plants. Chapman and Hall, London, England. 

Bouldin, J. 1999. Twentieth-century changes in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California. Ph.D. dissertation, 

University of California, Davis. 

Coats, R. 2010. Climate change in the Tahoe basin: regional trends, impacts and drivers. Climatic Change 

DOI 10.1007/s10584-010-9828-3. 

Coats, R., J. Reuter, M. Dettinger, J. Riverson, ZG. Sahoo, G. Schladow, B. Wolfe, and M. Costa-Cabral. 

2010. The effects of climate change on Lake Tahoe in the 21st century. Meteorology, hydrology, loading 

and lake response. Final project report to the Tahoe Science Program and USDA Forest Service Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 208 pp. 

Dale, V. H., L. A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R. P. Neilson, M. P. Ayres, M. D. Flannigan, P. J. Hanson, L. C. Irland, 

A. E. Lugo, C. J. Peterson, D. Simberloff, F. J. Swanson, B. J. Stocks, and B. M. Wotton. 2001. Climate 

change and forest disturbances. BioScience 51: 723-734. 

Dettinger, M. D. 2005. From climate-change spaghetti to climate-change distributions for 21st century 

California. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science Vol. 3, Issue 1, (March 2005), Article 4. 

http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol3/iss1/art4 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix D ■ D-19 

Dolanc, C. R., J. H. Thorne, and H. D. Safford. 2010. Widespread shifts in the demographic structure of 

Sierra Nevada subalpine forests over the last 80 years. Manuscript in review at Global Ecology and 

Biogeography. 

Drost, C. A., and G. M. Fellers. 1996. Collapse of a regional frog fauna in the Yosemite Area of the 

California Sierra Nevada, USA. Conservation Biology 10:414-425. 

Field, C., G. Dailey, F. Davis, S. Gaines, P. Matson, J. Melack, and N. Miller. 1999. Confronting climate 

change in California: ecological impacts on the Golden State. Report of the Union of Concerned 

Scientists and the Ecological Society of America. UCS Publications, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 

Flannigan M. D., B. J. Stocks, and B. M. Wotton. 2000. Climate change and forest fires. Science of the Total 

Environment 262: 221–229. 

Forister, M. L., A. C. McCall, N. J. Sanders, J. A. Fordyce, J. H. Thorne, J. O’Brien, D. P. Waetjen, and A. 

M. Shapiro. 2010. Compounded effects of climate change and habitat alteration shift patterns of butterfly 

diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:2088-2092. 

Graumlich, L. J. 1991. Subalpine tree growth, climate, and increasing CO2: an assessment of recent growth 

trends. Ecology 72: 1-11. 

Grinnell, J., and T. Storer. 1924. Animal Life in the Yosemite. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Gutowski, W. J., Z. Pan, C. J. Anderson, R. W. Arritt, F. Otieno, E. S. Takle, J. H. Christensen, and O. B. 

Christensen. 2000. What RCM data are available for California impacts modeling? California Energy 

Commission Workshop on Climate Change Scenarios for California, 12-13 June, 2000. California 

Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, USA. 

Hakkarinen, C., and J. Smith. 2003. Appendix I. Climate scenarios for a California Energy Commission 

study of the potential effects of climate change on California: summary of a June 12-13, 2000, 

workshop. In Global Climate Change and California: Potential Implications for Ecosystems, Health, and 

the Economy. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute), Palo Alto, CA, USA. 38 pp. 

Hayhoe, K., et al. (18 co-authors). 2004. Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101: 12422-12427. 

Lenihan, J. M., R. Drapek, D. Bachelet and R. P. Neilson. 2003. Climate change effects on vegetation 

distribution, carbon, and fire in California. Ecological Applications 13: 1667-1681. 

Lenihan, J. M., D. Bachelet, R. P. Neilson, and R. Drapek. 2008. Response of vegetation distribution, 

ecosystem productivity, and fire to climate change scenarios for California. Climate Change 87 (Suppl. 

1): S215-S230. 

McKelvey, K.S., C. N. Skinner, C. Chang, D. C. Erman, S. J. Husari, D. J. Parsons, J. W. van Wagtendonk, 

J.W., and C. W. Weatherspoon. 1996. An overview of fire in the Sierra Nevada. In Sierra Nevada 

Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress. Vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management 

options. University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, Davis, CA, USA. Pp. 

1033-1040. 

McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D. L. Peterson and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and conservation. 

Conservation Biology 18: 890-902. 

Miller, C., and D. Urban. 1999. Forest pattern, fire and climatic change in the Sierra Nevada. Ecosystems 2: 

76-87 

Miller, J. D., H. D. Safford, M. Crimmins, and A. E. Thode. 2009. Quantitative evidence for increasing 

forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada, USA. 

Ecosystems 12: 16-32 

Miller, N. L., K. E. Bashford and E. Strem. 2003b. Potential impacts of climate change on 

California hydrology. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39: 771-784. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

D-20 ■ Climate Change Trend Assessment (Dec. 15, 2010) 

Moritz, C., J. L. Patton, C. J. Conroy, J. L. Parra, G. C. White, and S. R. Beissinger. 2008. Impact of a 

century of climate change of small-mammal communities in Yosemite National Park, USA. Science 

322:261-264. 

Moser, S., G. Franco, S. Pittiglio, W. Chou, D. Cayan. 2009. The future is now: An update on climate 

change science impacts and response options for California. California Climate Change Center Report 

CEC-500-2008-071, May 2009. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. 

Pickett, S. T. A., and P. S. White. 1985. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic 

Press, New York, NY, USA 

Price, C., and D. Rind. 1994. The impact of a 2 x CO2 climate on lightning-caused fires. Journal of Climate 

7: 1484-1494. 

PRISM. 2010. PRISM climate group website. Available online at: http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/ 

Stephens, S. L., and S. J. Gill. 2005. Forest structure and mortality in an old growth Jeffrey pine- mixed 

conifer forest in north-western Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 205: 15-20. 

Stewart, I.T., D. R. Cayan, and M. D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across 

western North America. Journal of Climate 18: 1136-1155. 

Swetnam, T. W. 1993. Fire history and climate change in giant sequoia groves. Science 262: 885–889. 

Taylor, A. H. 2004. Identifying forest reference conditions on early cut-over lands, Lake Tahoe Basin, USA. 

Ecological Applications 14: 1903-1920. 

TERC. 2008. Tahoe State of the Lake Report. Tahoe Environmental Research Center, University of 

California, Davis, CA. 

Tingley, M. W., W. B. Monahan, S. R. Beissinger, and C. Moritz. 2009. Birds track their Grinnellian niche 

through a century of climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:19367-

19643. 

USFS and BLM. 1994. Record of Decision for amendment to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service 

and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR, USA. 

Van Mantgem, P. J., et al. (10 co-authors). 2009. Widespread increase of tree mortality rates in the western 

United States. Science 323: 521-524. 

Wake, D. B., and V. T. Vrendenburg. 2008. Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from 

the world of amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:11466-11473. 

Westerling, A. L., and B. Bryant. 2006. Climate change and wildfire in and around California: fire modeling 

and loss modeling. Report from the California Climate Change Center to the California Energy 

Commission. CEC-500-2006-190-SF. 

Westerling, A. L., H. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increases 

western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science, 6 July, 2006 /10.1126/ science.1128834 

Whitlock, C., S. L. Shafer, and J. Marlon. 2003. The role of vegetation change in shaping past and future 

fire regimes in the northwest U.S. and the implications for ecosystem management. Forest Ecology and 

Management 178: 5-21. 

Wieslander, A. E. 1935. A vegetation type map of California. Madroño 3: 140–144. WRCC. 2008. Tahoe 

City climate station record, 1910-2008. Data obtained from Western 

Regional Climate Center. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmcca.html (last accessed on 9 February, 

2008). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-1 

Appendix E – LTBMU Species Diversity 

E.1. Forest-wide Biological Concepts 

E.1.1 Biological Integrity 

The biological integrity of aquatic or terrestrial ecosystems is defined as “the ability to support 

and maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species 

composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of the natural habitat of the 

region” (SNEP 1996). Further discussions of biological integrity are presented for the Lake Tahoe 

basin in the LTWA (2000) and for the Sierra Nevada Mountains in the SNEP (1996). Individual 

species are adapted to conditions within the natural range of variability and are presumed to 

derive the greatest benefits (e.g., increased fitness and reproductive success) from environmental 

conditions within this range. 

E.1.2 Biological Diversity 

The law (The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) (88 Stat. 

476, et seq.), as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) (90 Stat. 

2949, et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1601-1614)), set standards for land and resource management planning 

across the National Forest System, including a requirement related to diversity of plant and 

animal communities. Specifically, NFMA states that plans must: 

"(B) 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..." 

The 1982 planning rule that implements this law requires the following be in forest plans: 

 Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing 

native and desired non-native species in the planning area (219.19) 

 Each alternative shall establish objectives for the maintenance & improvement of habitat 

for MIS (219.19(a)) 

 Habitat determined to be critical for threatened and endangered species shall be 

identified, and measures shall be prescribed to prevent the destruction or adverse 

modification of such habitat. Objectives shall be determined for threatened and 

endangered species that shall provide for, where possible, their removal from listing as 

threatened and endangered species through appropriate conservation measures, including 

the designation of special areas to meet the protection and management needs of such 

species. (219.19(a) (7)). 

E.1.3 Connectivity and Insularity 

The connectivity of suitable habitats is a bio geographical concept often used to describe the 

probability that a suitable habitat may be utilized based on its spatial relationship to other suitable 

habitats. The basic concept is founded on the idea that the probability of either of two suitable 

habitats having been, currently, or becoming occupied by a species increases with increases in the 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-2 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

degree of connectivity between the suitable habitats. The mechanism of connectivity depends 

upon the species in question. Birds and fish obviously require different forms of habitat 

connectivity. 

Insularity is a bio geographical concept that describes the inter-relationships of the conditions and 

processes between two or more habitats. For example, if a predator is known to forage along the 

boundary of two habitats (e.g., the edge of a meadow and a forest stand) then its prey species may 

require habitats located away from the habitat boundary (e.g., toward the interior of the forested 

stand) to survive and reproduce. The apparent suitability of habitats is, in this case, affected by 

the predator-prey relationship. Insularity may be described in relative degrees and may be either 

beneficial or detrimental depending on the ecological application (i.e., whether a given species is 

adapted to a high degree of insularity, as is often the case in island endemic species, or to a low 

degree of insularity, as is often the case in edge-adapted species). 

Habitat fragmentation is a concept often used to describe how connectivity and insularity have 

changed over time at varying spatial scales (e.g., fragmentation at the stand versus landscape 

scale). Fragmentation can be defined as “loss of stand area, loss of stand interior area, changes in 

relative or absolute amounts of stand edge, and changes in insularity” (Turner 1989 in Buskirk 

and Ruggiero 1994). 

E.1.4 Role of Fire 

Fire plays a significant ecological role in Lake Tahoe Basin ecosystems. In many of the basin’s 

vegetation types, fire is the primary disturbance agent setting the compositional and structural 

characteristics of the stand. The role that fire plays in a system is described by the system’s fire 

regime, which is characterized by a number of attributes including fire return interval, fire 

intensity and severity, fuel consumption and spread patterns, seasonality etc. Different 

ecosystems and vegetation types have differing fire regimes inherent with the fuels, topography 

and climatic conditions associated with the system. 

E.2. Species Viability and Species Lists 

Species viability is depicted in the 1982 NFMA regulations in several locations (219.19 (a), 

219.26, 219.27(a)(5-6), and 219.27(g) and all have been addressed and detailed in various 

sections of the Revised Forest Plan and incorporated into the alternative design in the Final EIS, 

as well as in associated Appendices and the biological assessment (BA) and biological 

evaluations (BE) as part of the overall Forest Planning process as required by the regulations. The 

regulations specific to species viability state: 

Sec. 219.19 Fish and wildlife resource. Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain 

viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning 

area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated 

numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well 

distributed in the planning area. In order to insure that viable populations will be maintained, 

habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and 

that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the 

planning area. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-3 

(a) Each alternative shall establish objectives for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for 

management indicator species selected under paragraph (g)(1) of this section, to the degree 

consistent with overall multiple use objectives of the alternative. To meet this goal, 

management planning for the fish and wildlife resource shall meet the requirements set forth 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(7) of this section. 

(1) In order to estimate the effects of each alternative on fish and wildlife populations, 

certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species present in the area shall be identified and selected as 

management indicator species and the reasons for their selection will be stated. These species 

shall be selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of 

management activities. In the selection of management indicator species, the following categories 

shall be represented where appropriate: Endangered and threatened plant and animal species 

identified on State and Federal lists for the planning area; 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 additional plant or animal species 

selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management 

activities on other species of selected major biological communities or on water quality. On the 

basis of available scientific information, the interdisciplinary team shall estimate the effects of 

changes in vegetation type, timber age classes, community composition, rotation age, and yearlong suitability of habitat related to mobility of management indicator species. Where 

appropriate, measures to mitigate adverse effects shall be prescribed. 

(2) Planning alternatives shall be stated and evaluated in terms of both amount and 

quality of habitat and of animal population trends of the anagement indicator species. 

(3) Biologists from State fish and wildlife agencies and other Federal agencies shall be 

consulted in order to coordinate planning for fish and wildlife, including opportunities for the 

reintroduction of extirpated species. 

(4) Access and dispersal problems of hunting, fishing, and other visitor uses shall be 

considered. 

(5) The effects of pest and fire management on fish and wildlife populations shall be 

considered. 

(6) Population trends of the management indicator species will be monitored and 

relationships to habitat changes determined. This monitoring will be done in cooperation with 

State fish and wildlife agencies, to the extent practicable. 

(7) Habitat determined to be critical for threatened and endangered species shall be 

identified, and measures shall be prescribed to prevent the destruction or adverse modification of 

such habitat. Objectives shall be determined for threatened and endangered species that shall 

provide for, where possible, their removal from listing as threatened and endangered species 

through appropriate conservation measures, including the designation of special areas to meet the 

protection and management needs of such species. 

Sec. 219.26 Diversity. Forest planning shall provide for diversity of plant and animal 

communities and tree species consistent with the overall multiple-use objectives of the planning 

area. Such diversity shall be considered throughout the planning process. Inventories shall include 

quantitative data making possible the evaluation of diversity in terms of its prior and present 

condition. For each planning alternative, the interdisciplinary team shall consider how diversity 

will be affected by various mixes of resource outputs and uses, including proposed management 

practices. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-4 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Sec 219.27 Management Requirements. (a 5-6) and (g): 

(a) Resource protection. All management prescriptions shall: 

(5) Provide for and maintain diversity of plant and animal communities to meet overall 

multiple-use objectives, as provided in paragraph (g) of this section; 

 (6) Provide for adequate fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of 

existing native vertebrate species and provide that habitat for species chosen under Sec. 

219.19 is maintained and improved to the degree consistent with multiple-use objectives 

established in the plan; 

(g) Diversity. Management prescriptions, where appropriate and to the extent practicable, shall 

preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities, including endemic and 

desirable naturalized plant and animal species, so that it is at least as great as that which would be 

expected in a natural forest and the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the planning 

area. Reductions in diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species from that which 

would be expected in a natural forest, or from that similar to the existing diversity in the planning 

area, may be prescribed only where needed to meet overall multiple-use objectives. Planned type 

conversion shall be justified by an analysis showing biological, economic, social, and 

environmental design consequences, and the relation of such conversions to the process of natural 

change. 

The implemention of the species viability provision of the 1982 NFMA regulations as stated 

above for the revised Forest Plan were accomplished by: 

 Describing the ecological context of the planning area (refer to EIS) 

 Identifing species for which there may be a viability concern (refer to Table E5 in 

Appendix E) 

 Information presented on the species for which there may be a viability concern (refer to 

Section E.2. of Appendix E, Table E5 in Appendix E, the Chapter 3 analysis for species 

in the EIS, including Management Indicator Species, the Biological Assessment, and the 

Biological Evaluation reports). 

 Species groups were formed where needed for habitat associations (refer to Forest Plan 

(e.g. cliff nesting raptors) 

 Conservation for species were addressed throughout the Forest Plan in the creation of 

species refuge area (SRA), in the deleveopment of desired conditions, strategies, 

objectives, and standard & guidelines, all in order to obtain approaches for managing for 

diversity of habitat and species 

 Multiple LRMP alternatives were delelvoped, all of which consider the needs for habitat 

to meet species diversity needs. 

 The effects on viability for species have been addressed in all of the LRMP alternatives 

described in Chapter 3 and the biological evaluations, 

 Monitoring for selected species is described in detail in Appendix A. 

The steps shown above are associated with the specific NFMA regulations related to species 

viability and have been integrated into the Revised Forest Plan, Final EIS, associated Appendices 

and biological assessment (BA) and biological evaluations (BE) where appropriate as part of the 

overall Forest Planning process as required by the regulations. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-5 

The design of the Revised Forest Plan (LRMP) was created to maintain species viability where 

that is possible and it is based on the best available science at the time of writing. The LRMP’s 

standard and guidelines (S&G) with associated desired condition, strategies, objectives, and 

limited operating periods (Appendix E – E.2.5) have been developed for maintaining viability but 

effects on viability cannot be determined at this programmatic scale since the plan does not 

authorize any activities that might actually cause adverse impacts to species or habitats (refer to 

Appendix O). Rather, any impacts to species (beneficial or otherwise) only come from sitespecific activities and project-level decisions, of which the scope, location, and design are unclear 

at the time of the LRMP approval. 

The specifications (i.e. desired conditions; S&Gs) in the LRMP have set the parameters on the 

scope of future project activities, and in no way require (or even encourage) projects to be 

designed to maximize outputs. The LRMP is not the sole constraint on project-level activities and 

project-level decisions can (and usually do) include additional design features to minimize 

adverse impacts to species. 

It is understood that new science is likely to be developed between the time of writing the LRMP 

and the time when projects are implemented, which can lead not only to different project design 

features but also to LRMP amendments as necessary to maintain viability of the selected species. 

It is also understood that the LTBMU is much smaller in size than most Forest Service units and 

it does not (cannot) provide for viability within the planning unit area for many of the wide 

ranging native vertebrate species based on its small size and geographic location between the 

Great Basin of Nevada and the Sierra Nevada mountain range. However, the LTBMU does 

function and provide for conservation of species over time by providing for habitat to support 

species reproductive individuals and provide for connectivity to surrounding habitat that allows 

for greater interaction and reproductive function for wide ranging species. 

The identification of selected species to be brought forward in species specific discussions in the 

LRMP (Figure E1), and those that relate to viability consideration in the LRMP, are described in 

detail in the following sections of this Appendix (E). Refer to Table E5 for the full list of species 

considered for the LRMP and where selected species are addressed in the Final LRMP. 

For species selected as “secure” those are noted as having “general species and habitat 

management guidance” and those species considered as “not secure” are those noted as having 

“species specific management direction guidance”. For species that are “not secure” - they are 

also on species lists (threatened, endangered, proposed, and or candidate species)maintained by 

the United States Department of Interior Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), considered as a 

management indicator species identified by the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service, 

and/or the Regional Forester Sensitive Species list. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-6 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Figure E1 Species-at-risk viability evaluation process diagram.

For species considered as not secure and which fall under various species lists, biological 

documents (i.e. BE and BA) have been prepared for the FEIS and Forest Plan and are available 

upon request. This section briefly highlights the purpose of those documents and the species 

considered for the FEIS and the E and BA. 

The purpose of a BA is to present an analysis of effects for the proposed project on federally 

listed endangered, threatened, candidate, and proposed species and their habitats. These federally 

listed species are managed under the authority of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the 

NFMA. The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that all actions are not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of any federally listed species. The ESA requires that a BA be written and 

that the analysis conducted determine whether formal consultation or conference is required on 

the preferred alternative with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. For the LTBMU, consultation 

has been agreed to occur with both the Sacramento and Reno field offices (per the USDI 2004 

coordination agreement). The BA is also prepared in compliance with the requirements of the 

ESA, Forest Service Manual 2670, and provides for compliance with Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 50-402.12. 

The purpose of a BE is to document Forest Service programs or activities in sufficient detail to 

determine how an action or proposed action may affect any threatened, endangered, proposed, 

candidate, or sensitive species and their habitats (FSM 2670.5). FSM 2672.4 directs us to 

complete the biological evaluation for all Forest Service planned, funded, executed, or permitted 

programs and activities for possible effects on Federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, 

candidate, or species listed as sensitive by the Pacific Southwest Regional Forester (i.e. sensitive 

species). The BE, therefore, provides a process through which potential effects of the proposed 

action on sensitive species are evaluated and considered during the planning and review process. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-7 

Part of the BE is completed to determine whether a proposed action or any of the alternatives will 

result in a trend toward the sensitive species becoming federally listed. 

E.2.1. FWS List of Critical Habitat and Endangered, 

Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species for 

the LTBMU 

The FWS species list is based on the most recent list of critical habitat designations, federally 

threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species for the LTBMU. This list is periodically 

updated by the FWS as species become listed or delisted for the LTBMU. The most recent list for 

the LTBMU can be found on the FWS website at: 

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES_Species/Lists/es_species_lists_NF-form-page.htm . 

Currently there is one proposed endangered species and it’s associated critical habitat listed for 

the LTBMU: 

 Sierra Nevada (mountain) yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) 

Currently there are three threatened species for the LTBMU: 

 Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhuynchus clarki henshawi) 

 Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) 

 Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Currently there are four candidate species for the LTBMU: 

 Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus) 

 Fisher (Martes pennanti) 

 Tahoe yellow-cress (Rorippa subumbellata) 

 White bark Pine (Pinus albicaulis)
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-8 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

E.2.2. USFS List of Sensitive Species for the LTBMU 

The list of Region 5 sensitive species is maintained by the Pacific Southwest Region - Regional 

Office and has been in the process of being updated. It is expected that before the Record of 

Decision for this LRMP is signed, the 2013 update to the sensitive species list will be officially 

completed. The species listed in Table E1 are those species that are currently listed as Forest 

Service Sensitive (FSS) for the LTBMU, as revised by the Regional Forester of Region 5 on June 

30, 2013. 

Table E1. Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) List for the LTBMU. 

FSS - Group Common Name Scientific Name 

Amphibians Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog Rana sierrae

Birds Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

California Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentiles

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii adastus

Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) 

Fish Lahontan Lake tui chub (Gila bicolor pectinifer)

Invertebrate Great Basin rams-horn Helisoma newberryi newberryi

Western bumble bee Bombus occidentalis 

Mammals American marten1

 Martes americana

California wolverine Gulo gulo luteus

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii

Fringe-tailed myotis Myotis thysanodes 

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus

Plants Blandow’s bog moss. Helodium blandowii 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-9 

FSS - Group Common Name Scientific Name 

Plants Bolander’s candle moss. Bruchia bolanderi 

Branched collybia. Dendrocollybia racemosa 

Blandow's bog moss Helodium blandowii 

Broad-nerved hump-moss. Meesia uliginosa 

Common moonwort. Botrychium lunaria 

Cup Lake draba. Draba asterophora var macrocarpa 

Donner Pass buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum

Galena Creek rock cress. Arabis rigidissima var demota 

Goldencarpet buckwheat Eriogonum luteolum var. saltuarium

Kellogg’s lewisia. Lewisia kelloggii ssp.hutchisonii 

Kellogg’s lewisia. Lewisia kelloggii ssp kelloggii 

Long-petaled lewisia. Lewisia longipetala 

Mineral King draba Draba cruciata 

Mingan moonwort. Botrychium minganense 

orthotrichum moss Orthotrichum praemorsum 

Plumas ivesia Ivesia sericoleuca 

Scalloped moonwort. Botrychium crenulatum 

Short-leaved hulsea. Hulsea brevifolia 

Slender moonwort. Botrychium lineare 

Starved daisy. Erigeron miser 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-10 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

FSS - Group Common Name Scientific Name 

Plants Tahoe draba. Draba asterophora var asterophora 

Tahoe yellow cress. Rorippa subumbellata 

Tiehm’s rock cress. Boechera tiehmii 

Tulare rockcress Boechera tularensis 

Upswept moonwort. Botrychium ascendens 

Goward’s water fan Peltigera gowardii 

Western goblin Botrychium montanum 

White bark Pine Pinus albicaulis 

E.2.3. TRPA Threshold Species and Sensitive 

Species 

In order to help maintain and protect natural resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin, the Tahoe 

Regional Planning Compact formed the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Regional Plan. 

Two documents provide guidelines for management of special status species: the Goals and 

Policies (TRPA 1986) and the Code of Ordinances and Rules of Procedure (TRPA 2012). 

For fisheries and wildlife resources, TRPA created and adopted environmental threshold carrying 

capacities (“thresholds” or “threshold standards”) The Forest Service analyzes environmental 

conseqeunces for the TRPA threshold species (listed in Table E2) to support attainment of the 

TRPA environmental threshold carrying capacities for fisheries and wildlife. 

For botanical resources, TRPA designated five plants species as Sensitive: Rorippa 

subumbellata (Tahoe yellow cress); Arabis rigidissima var. demota (Galena Creek rock 

cress); Lewisia longipetala (long-petaled Lewisia); Draba asterophora v. macrocarpa

(Cup Lake draba); and Draba asterophora v. asterophora (Tahoe draba). In addition, 

TRPA strives for “non-degradation of the natural qualities of any plant community that is 

uncommon to the Basin or of exceptional scientific, ecological, or scenic value” (TPRA 

2012). The direction specifically applies but is not limited to: deep-water plants of Lake 

Tahoe; Grass Lake; Osgood Swamp; Hell Hole; Upper Truckee Marsh; Taylor Creek 

Marsh; Freel Peak Cushion Plant Community; and Pope Marsh. 

The Forest Serivce analysis environmental condequences for TRPA sensitive plants 

species and uncommon plant communities to meet the standards and guidelines outlines 

in the 2012 Code of Ordinances. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-11 

Additional information and updates to this list can be found at the TRPA website: 

http://www.trpa.org/ . 

 Table E2. TRPA Threshold Species List

TRPA Threshold Species Population 

Sites 

Disturbance 

Zone (mi.) 

Northern goshawk 

(Accipter gentiles) 12 0.50 

Osprey 

(Pandion haliaetus) 4 0.25 

Bald eagle (winter) 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 2 Mapped 

Bald eagle (nesting) 1 0.50 

Golden eagle 

(Aquila chrysaetos) 4 0.25 

Peregrine falcon 

(Falco peregrinus anatum) 2 0.25 

Waterfowl 18 Mapped 

Mule deer 

(Odocoileus hemionus) Critical 

fawning 

habitat 

Meadows-Critical 

fawning habitat is 

mapped 

E.2.4. Invasive Species 

The LTBMU has identified and mapped areas on the Forest that include species identified as 

invasive by California Department of Food and Agriculture’s (CDFA), Nevada Department of 

Agriculture (NDA), California Invasive Plant Council, Lake Tahoe Basin Weed Coordinating 

Group, and Lake Tahoe Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinating Committee . 

Invasive species rankings incorporates ecological impacts, invasive potential, and potential for 

effective management and control. High priority species are species that have likelihood for high 

ecological impacts, a high probability for invasion, and potential for effective management and 

control. The LTBMU works with interagency working groups to identify high, medium and low 

ranks for invasive species. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-12 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

E.2.4.1. Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species 

There are several entities that maintain invasive plant lists that are utilitized for management of 

terrestrial invasive plant speices on LTBMU. 

The NDA maintains a state noxious weed list that categorizes species into three categories: 

Category A—Weeds not found or limited in distribution throughout the state; actively excluded 

from the state and actively eradicated wherever found; actively eradicated from nursery stock 

dealer premises; control required by the state in all infestations. Category B—Weeds established 

in scattered populations in some counties of the state; actively excluded where possible, actively 

eradicated from nursery stock dealer premises; control required by the state in areas where 

populations are not well established or previously unknown to occur. Category C—Weeds 

currently established and generally widespread in many counties of the state; actively eradicated 

from nursery stock dealer premises; abatement at the discretion of the state quarantine officer. 

(http://agri.nv.gov/nwac/PLANT_NoxWeedList.htm) 

The CDFA maintains a state noxious weed list that categorizes species into four categories: A--

Eradication or containment is required at the state or county level. B—Eradication or containment 

is at the discretion of the County Agricultural Commissioner. C--Require eradication or 

containment only when found in a nursery or at the discretion of the County Agricultural 

Commissioner. Q—Require temporary “A” action pending determination of a permanent rating. 

(http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/) 

California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) maintains an online invasive plant inventory (2007) 

that categorizes species into four categories: High—Species having severe ecological impacts on 

physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Moderate—Species 

having substantial and apparent—but generally not severe—ecological impacts on physical 

processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Limited—Species that are 

invasive but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level or there was not enough 

information to justify a higher score. Alert—Species with significant potential for invading new 

ecosystems. (http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/weedlist.php) 

Lake Tahoe Basin Weed Coordinating Group (LTBWCG) maintains a priority weed list that is 

updated annually and categorizes species in two groups: Group 1--Watch for, report, and 

eradicate immediately. Group 2--Manage infestations with the goal of eradication. 

The Forest Service reviews the lists created by the above entities and then prioritizes species 

known to occur on or very near LTBMU as follows: High—Species that have a large ecological 

impact or invasive potential; species that are easily controlled. Medium—Species that have a 

moderate ecological impact or invasive potential; species that may be difficult to control. Low—

Species that have a low ecological impact or invasive potential; species that require substantial 

effort to control. As conditions change, new species may be found. As new species are 

documented, they are evaluated for inclusion on the LTBMU list. Addition of new species may 

change prioritization of other species. As such, the list is continuously updated. 

Terminology 

Control: With respect to invasive species (plant, pathogen, vertebrate, or invertebrate species), 

control is defined as any activity or action taken to reduce the population, contain, limit the 

spread, or reduce the effects of an invasive species. Control activities are generally directed at 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-13 

established free-living infestations, and may not necessarily be intended to eradicate the targeted 

infestation in all cases. FSM 2900, Invasive Species Management 

Early Detection: The process of finding, identifying, and quantifying new, small, or previously 

unknown infestations of aquatic or terrestrial invasive species prior to (or in the initial stages of) 

its establishment as free-living expanding population. Early detection of an invasive species is 

typically coupled with integrated activities to rapidly assess and respond with quick and 

immediate actions to eradicate, control, or contain it. FSM 2900, Invasive Species Management 

Eradication: With respect to invasive species (plant, pathogen, vertebrate, or invertebrate 

species), eradication is defined as the removal or elimination of the last remaining individual 

invasive species in the target infestation on a given site. It is determined to be complete when the 

target species is absent from the site for a continuous time period (that is, several years after the 

last individual was observed). Eradication of an infestation of invasive species is relative to the 

time-frame provided for the treatment procedures. Considering the need for multiple treatments 

over time, certain populations can be eradicated using proper integrated management techniques. 

FSM 2900, Invasive Species Management 

Invasive Species: Executive Order 13112 defines an invasive species as “an alien species whose 

introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human 

health.” The Forest Service relies on Executive Order 13112 to provide the basis for labeling 

certain organisms as invasive. Based on this definition, the labeling of a species as “invasive” 

requires closely examining both the origin and effects of the species. The key is that the species 

must cause, or be likely to cause, harm and be exotic to the ecosystem it has infested before we 

can consider labeling it as “invasive”. Thus, native pests are not considered “invasive”, even 

though they may cause harm. Invasive species infest both aquatic and terrestrial areas and can be 

identified within any of the following four taxonomic categories: Plants, Vertebrates, 

Invertebrates, and Pathogens. Additional information on this definition can be found in 

Executive Order 13112. FSM 2900, Invasive Species Management 

Invasive Species Management: Activities to prevent, control, contain, eradicate, survey, detect, 

identify, inventory, and monitor invasive species; includes rehabilitation and restoration of 

affected sites and educational activities related to invasive species. Management actions are 

based upon species-specific or site-specific plans (including forest plans, IPM plans, watershed 

restoration plans, and so forth), and support the accomplishment of plan goals and objectives and 

achieve successful restoration or protection of priority areas identified in the respective plan(s). 

FSM 2900, Invasive Species Management 

Native Plant Species: A plant species which occurs naturally in a particular region, state, 

ecosystem and habitat without direct or indirect human actions. FSM 2070, Vegetation Ecology 

Noxious Weed: Defined for the Federal Government in the Plant Protection Act of 2000 as “any 

plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including 

nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, 

navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment.” The 

term typically describes species of plants that have been determined to be undesirable or injurious 

in some capacity. State statues for noxious weeds vary widely, with some States lacking any laws 

defining or regulating noxious weeds. Depending on the individual State law, some plants listed 

by a State statute as “noxious” may be native plants which that State has determined to be 

undesirable. When the species are native, they are not considered invasive species by the Federal 

Government. FSM 2900, Invasive Species Management 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-14 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Plant Materials: Seeds, spores, parts of plants or whole plants. FSM 2070, Vegetation Ecology 

Prevention: Any activity or action taken to reduce or eliminate the chance of an invasive species 

entering or becoming established in a particular area. Preventative activities can include projects 

for education and awareness as well as more traditional prevention activities such as 

vehicle/equipment cleaning, boat inspections, or native plant restoration plantings. FSM 2900, 

Invasive Species Management 

Rapid Response: With respect to invasive species (plant, pathogen, vertebrate, or invertebrate 

species), rapid responses are defined as the quick and immediate actions taken to eradicate, 

control, or contain infestations that must be completed within a relatively short time to maximize 

the biological and economic effectiveness against the targeted invasive species. Depending on 

the risk of the targeted invasive species, rapid response actions may be supported by an 

emergency situation determination and emergency considerations would include the geographic 

extent of the infestation, distance from other known infestations, mobility and rate of spread of 

the invasive species, threat level and potential impacts, and available treatments. FSM 2900, 

Invasive Species Management 

Rehabilitation: Reparation of ecosystem processes, productivity and services based on 

functioning pre-existing or existing ecosystems, but allowing for adaptation of sites to specific 

current or future uses. FSM 2070, Vegetation Ecology 

Restoration: Assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or 

destroyed including the re-establishment of the pre-existing biotic integrity in terms of species 

composition and community structure. FSM 2070, Vegetation Ecology 

Revegetation: Re-establishment of plants on a site. FSM 2070, Vegetation Ecology 

Survey: An invasive species survey is a process of systematically searching a geographic area for 

a particular (targeted) invasive species, or a group of invasive species, to determine if the species 

exists in that area. It is important to know where and when surveys have occurred, even if the 

object of the survey (target species) was not located. Information on the absence of an invasive 

species can be as valuable as information on the presence of the species, and can be used as a 

foundation to an early detection system. FSM 2900, Invasive Species Management 

Treatment: Any activity or action taken to directly prevent, control, or eradicate a targeted 

invasive species. Treatment of an invasive species infestation may not necessarily result in the 

elimination of the infestation, and multiple treatments on the same site or population are 

sometimes required to affect a change in the status of the infestation. Treatment activities 

typically fall within any of the four general categories of integrated management techniques: 

Biological treatments, Cultural treatments, Mechanical treatments, or Chemical treatments. For 

example, the use of domestic goats to control invasive plants would be considered a biological 

treatment; the use of a pesticide to control invasive fishes would be characterized as a chemical 

treatment; planting of native seeds used to prevent invasive species infestations and restore a 

degraded site would be considered a cultural treatment technique; developing an aquatic species 

barrier to prevent invasive species from spreading throughout a watershed would be considered a 

physical treatment; cleaning, scraping, or otherwise removing invasive species attached to 

equipment, structures, or vehicles would be considered a mechanical treatment designed to 

directly control and prevent the spread of those species. FSM 2900, Invasive Species 

Management 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-15 

Table E3. Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species (Noxious Weed) of Management Concern on 

LTBMU 

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

LTBMU 

Priority NDA CDFA Cal-IPC LTB WCG 

bull thistle Cirsium 

vulgare High C Moderate Group 

2 

Canada 

thistle 

Cirsium 

arvense 

Medium C B Moderate Group 

1 

cheat grass Bromus 

tectorum Low High 

curlyleaf 

pondweed 

Potamogeton 

crispus N/A Moderate 

Dalmatian 

toadflax 

Linaria 

genistifolia spp.

dalmatica 

High A A Moderate Group 

2 

diffuse 

knapweed 

Centaurea 

diffusa Medium B A Moderate Group 

1 

Dyer’s woad Isatis tinctoria Medium A B Moderate Group 

1 

Eurasian 

watermilfoil 

Myriophyllum 

spicatum N/A A High 

globe-podded 

hoary cress; 

hairy 

whitetop 

Cardaria 

pubescens Medium B Limited Group 

1 

heart-podded 

hoary cress; 

whitetop 

Cardaria draba Medium C B Moderate Group 

1 

Himalaya 

blackberry 

Rubus 

armeniacus Low High 

hydrilla; 

waterthyme 

Hydrilla 

verticillata N/A A A High; 

Alert 

medusahead Elymus caputmedusae High B C High Group 

1 

musk thistle Carduus 

nutans High B A Moderate Group 

1 

oxeye daisy Leucanthemum 

vulgare Medium Moderate Group 

2 

poison 

hemlock 

Conium 

maculatum Medium C Moderate 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-16 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

LTBMU 

Priority NDA CDFA Cal-IPC LTB WCG 

purple 

loosestrife 

Lythrum 

salicaria Medium A B High Group 

1 

purple 

starthistle; 

red starthistle 

Centaurea 

calcitrapa N/A A B Moderate Group 

1 

quackgrass Elytrigia 

repense 

N/A B 

rush 

skeletonweed 

Chondrilla 

juncea High A A Moderate Group 

1 

Russian 

knapweed 

Acroptilon 

repens 

Medium B B Moderate Group 

1 

Scotch 

broom 

Cytisus 

scoparius Medium C High Group 

2 

Scotch thistle 

Onorpordum 

acanthium ssp.

acanthium 

High B A High Group 

1 

spotted 

knapweed 

Centaurea 

maculosa Medium A A High Group 

2 

squarrose 

knapweed 

Centaurea 

virgata ssp.

squarrosa 

Medium A A Moderate 

St. 

Johnswort; 

Klamathweed 

Hypericum 

perforatum Medium A C Moderate Group 

2 

stinkwort Dittrichia 

graveolens N/A Moderate Group 

1 

sulfur 

cinquefoil Potentilla recta Low A A Group 

1 

tall whitetop; 

perennial 

pepperweed 

Lepidium 

latifolium Medium C B High Group 

2 

tamarisk; 

saltcedar 

Tamarix 

chinensis, T. 

ramosissima, & 

T. parvifolia 

High C B High Group 

1 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-17 

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name 

LTBMU 

Priority NDA CDFA Cal-IPC LTB WCG 

teasel; 

Fuller’s 

teasel 

Dipsacus 

fullonum N/A Moderate Group 

1 

tree of 

heaven 

Ailanthus 

altissima N/A C Moderate Group 

1 

woolly 

mullein; 

common 

mullein 

Verbascum 

thapsus N/A Limited 

yellow 

starthistle 

Centaurea 

solstitialis Medium A C High Group 

1 

yellow 

toadflax; 

butter & eggs 

Linaria vulgaris Medium A Moderate Group 

2 

LTBMU: High—Species that have a large ecological impact or invasive potential; species that are easily 

controlled. Medium—Species that have a moderate ecological impact or invasive potential; species that may 

be difficult to control. Low—Species that have a low ecological impact or invasive potential; species that 

require substantial effort to control. N/A—species not evaluated. 

NDA: Nevada Department of Agriculture Noxious Weed List 

(http://agri.nv.gov/nwac/PLANT_NoxWeedList.htm) Category A—Weeds not found or limited in distribution 

throughout the state; actively excluded from the state and actively eradicated wherever found; actively 

eradicated from nursery stock dealer premises; control required by the state in all infestations. Category B—

Weeds established in scattered populations in some counties of the state; actively excluded where possible, 

actively eradicated from nursery stock dealer premises; control required by the state in areas where 

populations are not well established or previously unknown to occur. Category C—Weeds currently 

established and generally widespread in many counties of the state; actively eradicated from nursery stock 

dealer premises; abatement at the discretion of the state quarantine officer. 

CDFA: California Department of Food and Agriculture Noxious Weed List (http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/ 

). A--Eradication or containment is required at the state or county level. B—Eradication or containment is at 

the discretion of the County Agricultural Commissioner. C--Require eradication or containment only when 

found in a nursery or at the discretion of the County Agricultural Commissioner. Q—Require temporary “A” 

action pending determination of a permanent rating. 

Cal-IPC: California Invasive Plant Council Online Invasive Plant Inventory (2006) (http://www.calipc.org/ip/inventory/weedlist.php). High—Species having severe ecological impacts on physical processes, 

plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Moderate—Species having substantial and 

apparent—but generally not severe—ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal 

communities, and vegetation structure. Limited—Species that are invasive but their ecological impacts are 

minor on a statewide level or there was not enough information to justify a higher score. Alert—Species with 

significant potential for invading new ecosystems. 

LTBWCG: Lake Tahoe Basin Weed Coordinating Group Weed Priority List (2010). Group 1--Watch for, 

report, and eradicate immediately. Group 2--Manage infestations with the goal of eradication. 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-18 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

E.2.4.2. Aquatic Invasive Species 

The Lake Tahoe Region AIS Program is governed by existing Federal, State and local laws. 

Those relevant to water quality and/or to aquatic invasive species include but are not limited to: 

Federal 

 Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA) of 1990, 

16 USC 4721

 Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 

 Lacey Act of 1990 as amended in 1998 

 National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 

 National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) 

 Clean Water Act of 1972 

 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 

State 

 California-Nevada Compact for Jurisdiction on Interstate Waters 

 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 

 California Fish and Game Code 2301 

 Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS 503.597; NRS 488) 

Regional 

 Tahoe Regional Planning Compact (Public Law 96-551) 

 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Code of Ordinances (Chapter 79.3) 

Further information on authorities and the parameters and abilities of the Lake Tahoe Region AIS 

program is provided in the Lake Tahoe Region Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan which 

is available at http://www.trpa.org/documents/docdwnlds/AIS/LTAIS_Magmt_Plan_Final_11-

2009.pdf. 

AIS program in the Lake Tahoe Basin, including the LTBMU, is managed by the AIS 

Coordinating Committee. Members include representatives from the following government 

agencies and entities: 

Federal 

 USDOI, US Fish and Wildlife Service 

 USDA, Agricultural Research Service 

 USDA, US Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

State 

 California Department of Fish & Game 

 California Department of Parks and Recreation 

 California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan) 

 California State Lands Commission 

 California Tahoe Conservancy 

 Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

 Nevada Department of Wildlife 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-19 

Regional 

 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

 Tahoe Resource Conservation District 

 Tahoe Science Consortium (ex-officio) 

The information for aquatic invasive species are continually updated and modified annually as 

new invasive species are identified, new sites are identified, and as management actions eradicate 

invasive. The list of aquatic invasive species presented in this section are the current aquatic 

invasive species that are considered of concern for the LTBMU. 

Table E4. Aquatic Invasive Species List

Group Common Scientific 

Aquatic Corbicula (Asian Clam) Corbicula fluminea 

Zebra Mussel Dreissena polymorpha 

Quagga Mussel

Dreissena rostriformis 

bugensis 

New Zealand Mudsnail

Potamopyrgus 

antipodarum 

Bullhead Catfish Ameiurus spp. 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 

Crappie Pomoxis spp. 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

E.2.5. Species Specific Limited Operating Periods 

This section notes the current expected limited operating periods for specific species that can be 

updated as new information becomes available and or as new species become listed or delisted. 

The following limited operating periods have been established to conform to the LTBMU site 

conditions. Design features, including limited operating periods, may change or be added over 

the Life of the Plan based on species status including new species detection and/or species 

removals/additionas to TECPS lists. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-20 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

E.2.5.1. Sierra Nevada (mountain) yellow-legged frog 

Maintain a Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae) LOP April 15 through August 15 

within a minimum of 25 feet of known breeding sites. Prohibit habitat manipulation or other 

activity that could create bank disturbance unless surveys confirm that egg masses are not 

present. 

E.2.5.2. Cliff Nesting Raptors 

Do not construct roads and trails within 1⁄4 mile of the top or base of known cliff nesting 

raptor sites. Prohibit activities such as rock climbing that may disrupt breeding during the 

raptor nesting season (April 1-July 31). Determine the distance to prohibit activities from an 

occupied nest based on nest location, nesting pair behavior, and cliff features that either 

expose or visually/audibly protect the nest from disturbance. 

E.2.5.3. Marten 

Maintain a marten LOP (March 15 through July 31 )within 1⁄2 mile of a known den site. 

Prohibit vegetation treatments and other activities that may disrupt breeding (e.g. timber 

thinning, prescribed fire, restoration, construction, road or trail building) within this area 

during the breeding season. If a female marten is detected in the planned activities area or 

within 0.5 mile radius of the activity site, their detection locations are buffered by 700 acres 

(equal to approximate average female home range size) of the best available habitat to 

encompass the likely den sites. 

Marten Waiver - The LOP may be waived for individual projects of limited scope and 

duration, when a biological evaluation documents that such projects are unlikely to result in 

breeding disturbance considering their intensity, duration, timing, and specific location. 

E.2.5.4. Willow flycatcher 

Maintain a willow flycatcher LOP during the breeding season for activities that are likely to 

disrupt breeding within 1⁄4 mile of occupied nest sites or habitat during the period of June 1 

through August 31 (including no timber thinning, prescribed fire, restoration activities, 

grazing, utilities work, road or trail building). 

E.2.5.5. Townsend’s big-eared Bat 

Maintain a Townsend’s big-eared bat LOP May 1 through August 31 within a minimum of 

300 feet of roost sites. Prohibit habitat manipulation or other activity that could create a noise 

disturbance unless surveys confirm that bats are not present; Prohibit burning near a roost site 

unless surveys confirm bats are not present or smoke will not enter the roost. Exceptions may 

be permitted when surveys confirm bats are not present. 

E.2.5.6. California Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk - 

Breeding 

Maintain a California spotted owl and /or northern goshawk LOP during the breeding season 

(March 1 through August 31 for California spotted owls and February 15 through September 

15 for Northern Goshawk) for activities that may disrupt breeding within a minimum of 1⁄4 

mile of the nest site or activity center, unless surveys confirm that spotted owls are not 

nesting. When the location of the nest site or activity center is uncertain, conduct surveys to 

establish or confirm the location prior to implementing activities. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-21 

E.2.5.7. California Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk – 

Vegetation Treatments Waiver 

The spotted owl and/or northern goshawk LOP may be waived for vegetation treatments 

when a biological review determines that such projects are unlikely to result in breeding 

disturbance considering their intensity, duration, timing, and specific location. The LOP 

buffer distance may be modified when a biological review concludes that a nest site would be 

shielded from planned activities by topographic features that would minimize disturbance. 

E.2.5.8. California Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk – 

Prescribed Fire Waiver 

The spotted owl and/or northern goshawk LOP restrictions may be waived, where necessary, 

to allow for use of early season prescribed fire in PACs when surveys for the target species 

(per current protocol standards by Region 5) demonstrate that reproduction has not occurred 

within the PAC in at least the previous three years and the PAC was not occupied during the 

previous breeding season. 

E.2.6. Full List of Species Considered for the Draft 

EIS 

The table presented in this section displays the full list of FWS, LTBMU Sensitive, and other 

species considered for inclusion in the Final LRMP and EIS. For species selected as “secure” - 

those species are noted as having “general species and habitat management guidance” and have 

been addressed in general biological program desired condition and strategies . For species 

considered as “not secure” - those species are noted as having “species specific management 

direction guidance” that are in addition to the general species and habitat guidance found in the 

LRMP such as specific desired conditions, objectives, S&G, and or LOPs. 

Species Considered - “N/A” indicates that a species was considered, but not included in the 

Draft EIS for analysis based on what is described in the “comments / rationale” column. 

Status Definitions (NatureServe Rankings) - : G = Global Conservation Status - full species, 

range-wide; T = Global Conservation Status - subspecies, varieties, and population range-wide; N 

= National Conservation Status; S = State / Province Status; 1 = Critically Imperiled; 2 = 

Imperiled; 3 = Vulnerable; 4 = Apparently Secure; 5 = Secure. 

Detailed information for all species can be found at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm. Just enter the species common or scientific 

name in the species quick search box and follow the on-line instructions. In cases where 

additional reference information was needed (beyond Nature Serve) to determine if the species 

would be carried forward for further consideration, the reference link is added into the 

“comments / rationale” column of the species table. 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-22 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Table E5. Complete List of Species Considered within the LTBMU Draft EIS. 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Amphibia

ns 

California Redlegged Frog Rana draytonii 

G2G3 

Federally 

Threaten

ed, SSC 

riparian, 

ponds N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

Watershed; also 

not on FWS list 

Amphibia

ns 

Foothill Yellowlegged Frog Rana boylii G3, SSC 

Rivers, 

Riparian N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Amphibia

ns 

Mount Lyell 

Salamander 

Hydromantes 

platycephalus G3, SSC

S3 (CA) 

riparian, 

logs, 

woody 

debris 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Amphibia

ns 

Northern 

Leopard Frog Rana pipiens 

G5, S2 

(CA) 

S2S3 

(NV), 

FSS 

rivers, 

wetlands N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Amphibia

ns 

Pacific tree 

frog 

Pseudacris 

regilla MIS 

Wet 

meadow 

(WTM), 

freshwater 

emergent 

wetland 

(FEW) 

YES 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

EIS Chapter 

3.4.14 

SECURE 

MIS 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-23 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Amphibia

ns 

Sierra Nevada 

Yellow-legged 

Frog

Rana sierrae 

G1 

Federally 

Proposed 

Endange

red, FSS 

small lakes 

and 

wetlands 

Yes 

 DCs 76 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objectives 

31-33 

S&Gs 89, 90 

LOP App. 

E.2.5 

NOT SECURE 

Species Specific 

Management 

Amphibia

ns 

Western 

Spadefoot

Spea 

hammondii 

G3, SSC, 

S3 

intermittent 

pools, 

grasslands 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Amphibia

ns 

Western Toad Bufo boreas 

G4, S5 

(CA) 

S4 (NV) 

meadow, 

riparian 

Yes 

DCs 50, 51, 

53-55, 57, 

61-63, 66 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objectives 

15-18, 20-22 

S&Gs 39, 40, 

42-46, 52-55, 

63 

SECURE 

Aquatic Ecosystem 

Management 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-24 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Amphibia

ns 

Yosemite Toad Bufo canorus 

G2 

Federally 

Proposed 

Endange

red 

meadow, 

riparian N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Arachnids 

A Cave 

Obligate 

Harvestman

Banksula galilei G1 

only found 

in caves in 

Placer 

County 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

Watershed 

Birds American 

Avocet 

Recurvirostra 

americana 

G5, 

SNRB,S

NRN 

(CA) 

S4B 

(NV), GB 

riparian, 

marshes N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - due 

to rare occurrence 

within the LTBMU 

Birds American 

Golden Plover 

Pluvialis 

dominica 

G5, SNA 

(CA) 

SNA 

(NV), GB 

riparian, 

grasslands

, sand 

dunes 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Birds American 

White Pelican 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhyncho

s 

G3, SSC

S1 (CA), 

S2B NV 

riparian N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - due 

to occasional 

occurrence within 

the LTBMU 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-25 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Birds Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

G5, SE 

FP 

CDF:S 

S2 (CA) 

S1B,S3N 

(NV), 

TRPA-SI; 

FSS 

Snags, 

Cliffs, 

Riparian, 

General 

Forest 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

General Habitat 

Management 

Birds Bank Swallow Riparia riparia 

G5, ST 

S2S3 

(CA) 

S3B (NV) 

riparian, 

grasslands N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Birds Black-backed 

Woodpecker 

Picoides 

arcticus 

G5, S3 

(CA) 

S1 (NV) , 

MIS 

snags,burn

ed conifer 

forests 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

S&G 56, 57 

EIS Chapter 

3.4.14 

MIS 

General Forest 

Management 

Birds Black Rail 

Laterallus 

jamaicensis 

coturniculus 

G4, S1 

(CA) wetlands N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-26 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Birds Black Swift Cypseloides 

niger 

G4, SSC

S2 (CA) 

GB, SN 

Aerial, 

Bare 

rock/talus/s

cree, Cliff 

N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - due 

to rare occurrence 

within the LTBMU 

Birds Brewer's 

Sparrow 

Spizella 

breweri 

G5, S3 

(CA) 

S4B (NV)

GB 

desert, 

shrublands N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - due 

to rare occurrence 

within the LTBMU 

Birds Burrowing Owl Athene 

cunicularia 

G4, SSC

S2 (CA), 

S3B (NV)

GB 

Grasslands N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Birds California 

Black Rail 

Laterallus 

jamaicensis 

coturniculus 

G4T1, 

ST 

FP, S1 

(CA) 

wetlands N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-27 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Birds California 

Spotted Owl 

Strix 

occidentalis 

occidentalis 

G3T3, 

SSC 

S3 (CA), 

S1N (NV)

GB, SN, 

FSS, 

TRPA-SI; 

MIS 

snags, 

general 

forest 

Yes 

 DCs 71-74 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objective 25 

S&Gs 84-88 

LOPs App. 

E.2.5 

EIS Chapter 

3.4.14 

NOT SECURE 

Species Specific 

Management 

Birds Cooper's Hawk Accipiter 

cooperii G5 S3 

riparian, 

general 

forest 

N/A uncommon in 

LTBMU 

Birds Ferruginous 

Hawk Buteo regalis 

G4, 

S3S4 

(CA) 

S2 (NV) 

GB 

Desert, 

grassland, 

riparian, 

cliffs 

N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - due 

to accidental 

occurrence within 

the LTBMU 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-28 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Birds Flammulated 

Owl 

Otus 

flammeolus 

G4, 

S2S4 

GB, SN 

snags, 

general 

forest 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

General Forest 

Management 

Birds Golden Eagle Aquila 

chrysaetos 

G5, FP, 

TRPA-SI

CDF:S, 

S3 (CA) , 

S4 (NV) 

Alpine, 

Cliffs 

Yes 

DC 65 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objective 19 

S&G 61 

SECURE 

Cliffs, Caves, and 

Cave Surrogates 

Management 

Birds Grasshopper 

Sparrow 

Ammodramus 

savannarum 

G5, SSC, 

S2 (CA, 

SU (NV) 

grasslands N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Birds Gray Vireo Vireo vicinior 

G4, SSC

S2 (CA), 

S3B (NV)

GB 

riparian, 

general 

forest 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Birds Great Blue 

Heron Ardea herodias 

G5, S4 

(CA) 

S5 (NV) 

Riparian N/A local population 

considered secure 

Birds Great Egret Ardea alba 

G5, S4 

(CA) 

S4B (NV) 

Riparian N/A local population 

considered secure 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-29 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Birds Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa 

G5, SE 

CDF:S, 

S1 (CA), 

FSS 

riparian, 

general 

forest 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed – habitat 

management 

Birds Greater Sage 

Grouse 

Centrocercus 

urophasianus 

GB, 

SSC, S3 

(CA) 

S3S4 

(NV) 

desert, 

grassland, 

shrubs 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Birds Hairy 

Woodpecker 

Picoides 

villosus MIS 

Medium 

and large 

snags in 

green 

forest 

YES 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

EIS Chapter 

3.4.14 

SECURE 

MIS 

Birds Harlequin Duck Histrionicus 

histrionicus 

G4, S2 

(CA) 

Rivers, 

Riparian N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-30 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Birds Lewis's 

Woodpecker 

Melanerpes 

lewis 

G4, SNR 

(CA) 

S3 (NV) 

GB, SN 

riparian, 

general 

forest 

N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - due 

to occasional 

occurrence within 

the LTBMU 

Birds Loggerhead 

Shrike 

Lanius 

ludovicianus 

G4, SSC

S4 (CA) , 

S4 (NV) 

GB 

grasslands N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - due 

to rare occurrence 

within the LTBMU 

Birds Long-billed 

Curlew 

Numenius 

americanus 

G5, S2 

(CA) 

S2S3B 

(NV) 

GB 

grassland, 

riparian N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - due 

to rare occurrence 

within the LTBMU 

Birds Marbled 

Godwit Limosa fedoa 

SNRN 

(CA) 

S3M 

(NV) 

GB 

grasslands

, sand 

dunes 

N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - due 

to rare occurrence 

within the LTBMU 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-31 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Birds Mountain 

Plover 

Charadrius 

montanus G2 desert, 

grasslands N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Birds Mountain Quail Oreortyx pictus MIS 

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 

YES 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

EIS Chapter 

3.4.14 

MIS 

Birds Northern 

Goshawk

Accipiter 

gentilis 

G5, 

S2S3, 

FSS, 

SSC, 

CDF:S, 

TRPA-SI; 

riparian, 

general 

forest, late 

seral 

closed 

canopy 

Yes 

DCs 71, 72, 

74 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objective 26 

S&Gs 84-88 

LOP App. 

E.2.5 

NOT SECURE 

Species Specific 

Management 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-32 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Birds Olive-sided 

Flycatcher 

Contopus 

cooperi 

G4, SSC

S4 (CA) 

S2B (NV)

SN 

Riparian, 

Wetlands, 

General 

Forest 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

General Forest 

Management 

Birds Osprey Pandion 

haliaetus 

G5, 

CDF:S 

S3 (CA) 

S1B, 

S3M 

(NV), 

TRPA-SI 

Snags, 

Cliffs, 

Riparian, 

Shorelines 

Yes 

DCs 50, 51, 

53-55, 57, 

61-63, 66 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objectives 

15-18, 20-22 

S&Gs 39, 40, 

42-46, 52-55, 

63 

SECURE 

Aquatic Ecosystem 

Management; 

General Forest 

Management 

Birds Peregrine 

falcon 

Falco 

peregrinus 

G4, SCD

FP 

S2B,SNR

N (CA) 

S2 (NV) 

GB, SN, 

TRPA-SI 

Aerial, 

Cliffs, 

General 

Forest 

Yes 

DC 65 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objective 19 

S&G 61 

SECURE 

Cliffs, Caves, and 

Cave Surrogates 

Management 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-33 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Birds Prairie Falcon Falco 

mexicanus 

S3 (CA) 

S4 (NV) 

GB 

Alpine, 

Cliffs 

Yes 

DC 65 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objective 19 

S&G 61 

SECURE 

Cliffs, Caves, and 

Cave Surrogates 

Management 

Birds Rufous 

Hummingbird 

Selasphorus 

rufus 

G5, 

S1S2 

(CA) 

S3M 

(NV), SN 

riparian, 

alpine, 

conifer 

forest 

Yes 

- DCs 50, 51, 

53-55, 57, 

61-63, 66 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objectives 

15-18, 20-22 

S&Gs 39, 40, 

42-46, 52-55, 

63 

SECURE 

Aquatic Ecosystem 

Management 

Birds Sage Sparrow Amphispiza 

belli 

G5, 

SNRB,S

NRN 

(CA) 

S4B,S4N 

(NV), GB 

desert, 

shrubland N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-34 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Birds Sanderling Calidris alba 

G5, 

SNRN 

(CA) 

SNA 

(NV), GB 

Riparian, 

sand 

dunes 

N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - due 

to accidental 

occurrence within 

the LTBMU 

Birds Sharp-shinned 

Hawk

Accipiter 

striatus G5 S3 

riparian, 

general 

forest 

N/A uncommon in 

LTBMU 

Birds Solitary 

Sandpiper Tringa solitaria 

G5, SNA 

(CA) 

S4N 

(NV), GB 

wetlands, 

grasslands N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Birds Souty (Blue) 

Grouse 

Dendragapus 

obscurus MIS 

Ponderosa 

pine 

(PPN), 

Sierran 

mixed 

conifer 

(SMC), 

white fir 

(WFR), red 

fir (RFR), 

eastside 

pine 

(EPN), tree 

size 5, 

canopy 

closures S 

and P 

YES 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

EIS Chapter 

3.4.14 

MIS 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-35 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Birds Swainson's 

Hawk

Buteo 

swainsoni 

G5, S2 

(CA) 

S2B (NV)

GB, ST 

Desert, 

grassland, 

riparian, 

woodlands 

N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - due 

to accidental 

occurrence within 

the LTBMU 

Birds Tricolored 

Blackbird 

Agelaius 

tricolor 

G2G3, 

S1(NV) 

S2 (CA), 

GB, SN, 

SSC 

grasslands N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Birds Virginia's 

warbler 

Vermivora 

virginiae 

S2S3 

(CA) 

S4B 

(NV), GB 

riparian, 

general 

forest 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Birds Western Snowy 

Plover

Charadrius 

alexandrinus 

nivosus 

G4,T3, 

SSC 

S2 (CA) 

S3B (NV)

GB 

Riparian, 

sand 

dunes 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Birds 

Western 

Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo 

Coccyzus 

americanus 

occidentalis 

G5T3Q 

Candidat

e, SE 

S! (CA) 

S1B (NV) 

Riparian, 

Wetlands, 

General 

Forest 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-36 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Birds Whimbrel Numenius 

phaeopus 

G5, 

SNRN 

(CA) 

SNA 

(NV), GB 

grassland, 

riparian N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - due 

to accidental 

occurrence within 

the LTBMU 

Birds White-Faced 

Ibis Pegadis chihi 

G5, S1 

(CA) 

S3B (NV) 

riparian N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Birds White-headed 

Woodpecker 

Picoides 

albolarvatus 

G4, SNR 

(CA) 

S2 (NV), 

GB, SN 

snags, 

conifer 

forests 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

General Forest 

Management 

Birds White-tailed 

Kite 

Elanus 

leucurus 

G5, FP 

S3 (CA) 

croplands, 

riparian N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-37 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Birds Willow 

Flycatcher 

Empidonax 

traillii adastus 

G5T5, 

SE 

S1S2, 

S3B 

(NV), 

FSS 

wet 

meadow 

Yes 

 DCs 46-49 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objective 20 

S&G 142 

LOP App. 

E.2.5 

NOT SECURE 

Species Specific 

Management 

Birds Williamson's 

Sapsucker 

Sphyrapicus 

thyroideus 

G5, S3 

(CA) 

S2 (NV) 

GB, SN 

snags, 

general 

forest 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

General Forest 

Management 

Birds Wilson's 

Phalarope 

Phalaropus 

tricolor 

G5, 

SNRB,S

NRN 

(CA) 

S2S3B,S

4M (NV) 

GB 

grassland, 

riparian N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - due 

to rare occurrence 

within the LTBMU 

Birds Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo

Coccyzus 

americanus 

G5,SNR

B (CA) 

S1B (NV) 

Riparian, 

General 

Forest 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-38 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Birds Yellow-headed 

Blackbird 

Xanthocephalu

s 

xanthocephalus

G5, SSC

S3S4 

(CA), 

S4B (NV) 

wetlands, 

grasslands N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - due 

to occasional 

occurrence within 

the LTBMU 

Birds Yellow Rail Coturnicops 

noveboracensis

G4, SSC

S1S2 

(CA) 

GB 

riparian, 

grasslands N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Birds Yellow Warbler

Dendroica 

petechia 

brewsteri 

G5T3?, 

SSC 

S2 (CA) , 

MIS 

riparian 

Yes 

DCs 50, 51, 

53-55, 57, 

61-63, 66 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objectives 

15-18, 20-22 

S&Gs 39, 40, 

42-46, 52-55, 

63 

EIS Chapter 

3.4.14 

MIS 

Aquatic Ecosystem 

Management 

Crustace

ans 

California Fairy 

Shrimp 

Linderiella 

occidentalis G3G4 vernal 

pools N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

Watershed 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-39 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Crustace

ans 

Vernal Pool 

Fairy Shrimp

Branchinecta 

lynchi 

G3 

Federally 

Threaten

ed 

vernal 

pools N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

Watershed; also 

not on FWS list 

Crustace

ans 

Vernal Pool 

Tadpole 

Shrimp

Lepidurus 

packardi 

G4 

Federally 

Endange

red 

vernal 

pools N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

Watershed 

Fish Wall Canyon 

Sucker 

Catastomus sp. 

1 G1 lakes and 

streams N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Fish Warner Sucker Catastomus 

warnerensis 

G1 

Federally 

Threaten

ed 

lakes and 

streams N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

Watershed; also 

not on FWS list 

Fish Mountain 

Sucker

Catostomus 

platyrhynchus 

G5, 

S2S3 streams N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-40 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Fish Tahoe Sucker Catostomus 

tahoensis G5 streams 

Yes 

DCs 50, 51, 

53-55, 57, 

61-63, 66 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objectives 

15-18, 20-22 

S&Gs 39, 40, 

42-46, 52-55, 

63 

SECURE 

Aquatic Ecosystem 

Management, 

concern for local 

population 

Fish Cui-ui Chasmistes 

cujus 

G1 

Federally 

Endange

red 

streams N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

Watershed; also 

not on FWS list 

Fish Piute Sculpin Cottus beldingi G5, S4 streams 

Yes 

DCs 50, 51, 

53-55, 57, 

61-63, 66 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objectives 

15-18, 20-22 

S&Gs 39, 40, 

42-46, 52-55, 

63 

SECURE 

Aquatic Ecosystem 

Management, 

concern for local 

population 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-41 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Fish Sheldon Tui 

Chub

Gila bicolor 

eurysoma 

G4T1 streams N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Fish Lahontan Lake 

Tui Chub

Gila bicolor 

pectinifer 

G4T3, 

S1S2, 

FSS 

large 

lakes, 

lakezone 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Aquatic Ecosystem 

Management, 

Fish 

High Rock 

Spring Tui 

Chub

Gila bicolor 

ssp. 11 G4TX streams N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Fish Cowhead Lake 

Tui Chub

Gila bicolor 

vaccaceps 

G4T1 Cowhead 

slough N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Fish Delta smelt Hypomesus 

transpacificus 

G1, S1, 

Federally 

threatene

d 

California 

delta N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-42 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Fish Lahontan 

Cutthroat Trout

Oncorhynchus 

clarkii 

henshawi 

G4T3 

Fedrally 

Threaten

ed 

large lakes 

and 

streams 

Yes 

 DCs 75 

 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objectives 

27-30 

S&Gs 89, 91 

NOT SECURE 

Species Specific 

Management 

Fish Paiute 

Cutthroat Trout

Oncorhynchus 

clarkii seleniris G4T1T2 

large lakes 

and 

streams 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Fish Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus 

mykiss G5 lakes and 

streams 

Yes 

DCs 50, 51, 

53-55, 57, 

61-63, 66 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objectives 

15-18, 20-22 

S&Gs 39, 40, 

42-46, 52-55, 

63 

SECURE 

Recreational 

fisheries, Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

Management 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-43 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Fish Central Valley 

steelhead

Oncorhynchus 

mykiss pop. 11 

G5T2Q, 

Federally 

Threaten

ed 

lakes and 

streams N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Fish Redband Trout 

- Warner Valley

Oncorhynchus 

mykiss pop. 4 G5T2Q lakes and 

streams N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Fish Kokanee 

Salmon

Oncorhynchus 

nerka G5 lakes and 

streams 

Yes 

DCs 50, 51, 

53-55, 57, 

61-63, 66 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objectives 

15-18, 20-22 

S&Gs 39, 40, 

42-46, 52-55, 

63 

SECURE 

Recreational 

fisheries, Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

Management 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-44 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Fish Mountain 

Whitefish

Prosopium 

williamsoni 

G5, SNR 

(NV) 

lakes and 

streams 

Yes 

DCs 50, 51, 

53-55, 57, 

61-63, 66 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objectives 

15-18, 20-22 

S&Gs 39, 40, 

42-46, 52-55, 

63 

SECURE 

Aquatic Ecosystem 

Management; 

concern for local 

population 

Fish Lahontan 

Redside Shiner

Richardsonius 

egregius G5 rivers, 

lakezone 

Yes 

DCs 50, 51, 

53-55, 57, 

61-63, 66 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objectives 

15-18, 20-22 

S&Gs 39, 40, 

42-46, 52-55, 

63 

SECURE 

Aquatic Ecosystem 

Management; 

concern for local 

population 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-45 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Fish Brown Trout Salmo trutta G5 lakes and 

streams 

Yes 

DCs 50, 51, 

53-55, 57, 

61-63, 66 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objectives 

15-18, 20-22 

S&Gs 39, 40, 

42-46, 52-55, 

63 

SECURE 

Recreational 

fisheries, Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

Management 

Fish Brook Trout Salvelinus 

fontinalis G5 lakes and 

streams 

Yes 

DCs 50, 51, 

53-55, 57, 

61-63, 66 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objectives 

15-18, 20-22 

S&Gs 39, 40, 

42-46, 52-55, 

63 

SECURE 

Recreational 

fisheries, Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

Management 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-46 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Fish Lake Trout Salvelinus 

namaycush G5 lakes 

Yes 

DCs 50, 51, 

53-55, 57, 

61-63, 66 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objectives 

15-18, 20-22 

S&Gs 39, 40, 

42-46, 52-55, 

63 

SECURE 

Recreational 

fisheries, Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

Management 

Insects 

A Vernal Pool 

Andrenid Bee

Andrena 

blennospermati

s 

G2 vernal 

pools N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

Watershed 

An Andrenid 

Bee

Andrena 

subapasta G1G3 grassland 

forbs N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

Watershed - 

reference link: 

http://www.dfg.ca.g

ov/biogeodata/cndd

b/pdfs/invert/Insect

s_-

_Hymenoptera/And

rena_subapasta.pd

f 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-47 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Insects 

Tahoe Benthic 

Stonefly Capnia lacustra G1 

deep water 

habitats (> 

100feet) of 

Lake 

Tahoe 

N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components 

Carson Valley 

Wood Nymph

Cercyonis 

pegala 

carsonensis 

G5T2 

S1S2 

(CA) / S2 

(NV) 

Great 

Basin 

valleys on 

Nevada 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

Watershed - 

reference link: 

http://www.flmnh.ufl

.edu/butterflies/res

earch/allyn_pdfs/A

ME135small.pdf 

Cosumnes 

Stripetail

Cosumnoperla 

hypocrena G1 

intermittent 

streams of 

the 

American 

and 

Cosumnes 

Rivers 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

Watershed 

Kings Canyon 

Cryptochian 

Caddisfly

Cryptochia 

excella G1G2 

benthic, 

springs & 

brooks in 

specific 

locations in 

CA / NV 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

Watershed - 

reference link: 

http://www.dfg.ca.g

ov/biogeodata/cndd

b/pdfs/invert/Insect

s_-

_Trichoptera/Crypt

ochia_excella.pdf 

A Longhorned 

Beetle

Desmocerus 

californicus G3 

riparian 

forests of 

the Central 

Valley of 

CA 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-48 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Insects 

Valley 

Elderberry 

Longhorn 

Beetle

Desmocerus 

californicus 

dimorphus 

G3T2 

Federally 

Threaten

ed 

riparian 

forests of 

the Central 

Valley of 

CA 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

Watershed - also 

not on LTBMU 

FWS list - 

reference link: 

http://essig.berkele

y.edu/endins/desm

ocer.htm 

Amphibious 

Caddisfly

Desmona 

bethula G2 

high 

elevation, 

first order 

streams 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Dotted Blue

Euphilotes 

enoptes 

aridorum 

G5T1 urban 

areas 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Mono Lake 

Checkerspot

Euphydryas 

editha 

monoensis 

G5T2T3 

Grasslands

, 

herbaceou

s, 

Woodland, 

Conifer 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

A Montane Ant 

(Northern 

Sierra Endemic 

Ant)

Formica 

microphthalma G2? Conifer 

Forests N/A 

not confirmed to be 

on LTBMU; not 

considered in detail 

since they will not 

be affected by 

LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-49 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Insects 

Ricksecker's 

Water 

Scavenger 

Beetle

Hydrochara 

rickseckeri G1G2 

Shallow 

water, 

creeks, 

springs, 

brooks 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Nevada Viceroy

Limenitis 

archippus 

lahontani 

G5T1T2 riparian N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Sierra 

Needlefly

Megaleuctra 

sierra G2Q 

benthic, 

springs & 

brook 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Dune Honey 

Ant

Myrmecocystus 

snellingi 

(=arenarius) 

G2? Sand 

dunes N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

South Forks 

Ground Beetle

Nebria 

darlingtoni G1 

oak 

woodlands, 

South Fork 

American 

River 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed - 

reference link: 

http://www.dot.ca.g

ov/dist3/projects/sh

ingle/pdfs/vol1/5-

07-BiologicalResources.pdf 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-50 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Gold Rush 

Hanging Fly

Orobittacus 

obscurus S1 (CA) 

Western 

slopes of 

Sierra 

Nevada, 

forest to 

aok 

woodlands 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed - 

reference link: 

http://www.dfg.ca.g

ov/biogeodata/cndd

b/pdfs/invert/Insect

s_-

_Misc/Orobittacus_

obscurus.pdf 

An Aquatic 

Moth

Petrophila 

confusalis S1 (NV) unknown N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Alkaline 

Sandhill 

Skipper

Polites sabuleti 

alkaliensis G5T3T4 alkaline 

lakes N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed - 

reference link: 

http://www.flmnh.ufl

.edu/butterflies/res

earch/allyn_pdfs/A

ME109small.pdf 

Carson Valley 

Sandhill 

Skipper

Polites sabuleti 

genoa 

G5T3T4 

Carson 

River 

Valley 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed - 

reference link: 

http://www.flmnh.ufl

.edu/butterflies/res

earch/allyn_pdfs/A

ME109small.pdf 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-51 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Insects 

Insects 

Alkali Skipper Pseudocopaeo

des eunus G3 

Riparian, 

Alkali flats 

in arid 

areas 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed - 

reference link: 

http://www.nearctic

a.com/butter/plate2

7/Peunus.htm 

Carson 

Wandering 

Skipper

Pseudocopaeo

des eunus 

obscurus 

G3G4T1 

Federally 

Endange

red 

grassland N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed - also 

not on FWS list - 

reference link: 

http://xerces.org/wp

-

content/uploads/20

08/09/pseudocopa

eodes_eunus_obsc

urus.pdf 

Spiny 

Rhyacophilan 

Caddisfly

Rhyacophila 

spinata G1G2 

benthic, 

creeks, 

rivers 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Nokomis 

Fritillary

Speyeria 

nokomis G3 

wet places 

in arid 

areas 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Apache 

Fritillary

Speyeria 

nokomis 

apacheana 

G3T2 unknown N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-52 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Carson Valley 

Silverspot

Speyeria 

nokomis 

carsonensis 

G3T1 

Carson 

River 

Valley 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed - 

reference link: 

http://www.nature.o

rg/wherewework/no

rthamerica/states/n

evada/science/art1

1296.html 

Western 

bumble bee 

Bombus 

occidentalis FSS Varied 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

General Forest 

management – this 

species was added 

to the LTBMU FSS 

list as of June 30, 

2013. 

An Endemic 

Ant

Stenamma 

wheelerorum G1? Conifer 

Forests N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Mammals 

Pallid Bat Antrozous 

pallidus 

G5, SSC, 

S3 (CA) 

S3 (NV) 

Graslands, 

deserts, 

woodlands, 

confir 

forests 

N/A species considered 

secure locally 

Sewellel Aplodontia rufa 

G5, S3 

(CA) 

S1 (NV) 

riparian, 

conifer 

forests 

N/A 

drop in lieu of 

specific 

subspecies: 

Aplodontia rufa 

californica
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-53 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Mammals 

Sierra Nevada 

Mountain 

Beaver 

(Mono Basin 

Mountain 

Beaver, Nevad 

Natural 

Heritage 

Program)

Aplodontia rufa 

californica 

G5T3T4, 

SSC 

NV 

StateProtected 

Species 

S2S3 

(CA) 

S1 (NV) 

riparian, 

conifer 

forests 

Yes 

 - DCs 50, 

51, 53-55, 

57, 61-63, 66 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objectives 

15-18, 20-22 

S&Gs 39, 40, 

42-46, 52-55, 

63 

SECURE 

Aquatic Ecosystem 

Management; 

General 

Management 

American 

Beaver

Castor 

canadensis G5 riparian N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components 

Townsend's 

Big-eared Bat

Corynorhinus 

townsendii 

G4, SSC

S2S3 

(CA) 

S2 (NV), 

FSS 

cliffs, 

conifer 

forests, 

deserts, 

prairies, 

riparian, 

caves, 

mines, 

cave 

surrogates 

Yes 

DC 65 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objective 19 

S&G 61 

SECURE 

Cliffs, Caves, and 

Cave Surrogates 

Management 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-54 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Mammals 

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus 

fuscus 

G5, S5 

(CA) 

S4 (NV) 

conifer 

forests, 

urban 

environme

nts 

N/A Species considered 

secure 

Spotted Bat Euderma 

maculatum 

G4, SSC

S2S3 

(CA) , S2 

(NV) 

deserts, 

forests, 

prominnent 

rock 

features 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Northern Flying 

Squirrel

Glaucomys 

sabrinus 

G5, S5 

(CA) 

S3 (NV), 

MIS 

snags, 

general 

forest 

YES 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

EIS Chapter 

3.4.14 

SECURE 

MIS 

Wolverine Gulo gulo 

G4, ST 

FP, S2 

(CA) , SH 

(NV), 

FSS 

alpine, 

conifer 

forests 

Yes for 

subspecies 

only: 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Potential for 

subspecies(Gulo 

Gulo luteus)) to 

occur in Plan area 

during the life of 

the Plan 

Silver-haired 

Bat

Lasionycteris 

noctivagans 

G5, 

S3S4 

(CA) 

S3 (NV) 

general 

forest N/A Species considered secure 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-55 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Mammals 

Western Red 

Bat

Lasiurus 

blossevillii 

SSC 

S3? CA) 

S1 (NV) 

riparian, 

general 

forest 

N/A 

Low probability to 

be found in the 

Plan area – not 

expected that 

management will 

affect species 

Hoary Bat Lasiurus 

cinereus G5 general 

forest N/A Species considered secure 

Sierra Nevada 

Snowshoe 

Hare

Lepus 

americanus 

tahoensis 

G5T3T4

Q 

general 

forest N/A 

SECURE 

General Forest 

Management - 

reference link: 

http://wildlife1.wildli

feinformation.org/S/

0MLagomorph/Lep

oridae/lepus/Lepus

_americanus.html 

American 

Marten

Martes 

americana 

G5, 

S3S4 

(CA) 

S2S3 

(NV), 

FSS; MIS 

snags, 

woody 

debris, 

general 

forest 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

S&G 65, 66 

EIS Ch 

3.4.14 

SECURE 

General Forest 

Management; MIS 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-56 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Mammals 

Fisher - West 

Coast Distinct 

Population 

Segment

Martes 

pennanti pop. 1 

G5T2T3

Q 

Candidat

e 

Species, 

SSC 

S2S3 

(CA) 

snags, 

woody 

debris, 

general 

forest, 

riparian 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

California 

myotis

Myotis 

californicus 

G5, S5 

(CA) 

S4 (NV) 

cliffs, 

general 

forest, 

riparian, 

N/A Species considered 

secure 

Western Smallfooted MyotisMyotis 

ciliolabrum 

G5, 

S2S3 

(CA) 

S3 (NV) 

cliffs, 

general 

forest, 

riparian, 

snags 

Yes 

DC 65 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objective 19 

S&G 61 

SECURE 

Cliffs, Caves, and 

Cave Surrogates 

Management 

Long-eared 

Myotis Myotis evotis 

G5, S4? 

(CA) 

S4 (NV) 

cliffs, 

general 

forest, 

riparian, 

N/A Species considered 

secure 

Little Brown 

Myotis

Myotis 

lucifugus 

S2S3 

(CA) 

S3 (NV) 

general 

forest, 

riparian, 

caves, 

buildings, 

N/A Species considered 

secure 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-57 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Fringed-tailed 

Myotis

Myotis 

thysanodes 

G4G5, 

S4 (CA) 

S2 (NV), 

FSS 

cliffs, 

general 

forest, 

riparian, 

Yes 

DC 65 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objective 19 

S&G 61 

SECURE 

Cliffs, Caves, and 

Cave Surrogates 

Management 

Long-legged 

Myotis Myotis volans G5 

cliffs, 

caves, 

general 

forest, 

N/A Species considered 

secure 

Yuma Myotis Myotis 

yumanensis 

G5, S4 

(CA) 

cliffs, 

general 

forest, 

riparian, 

N/A Species considered 

secure 

Lodgepole 

Chipmunk

Neotamias 

speciosus G4 

cliffs, 

general 

forest, 

riparian, 

N/A Species considered 

secure 

American Pika Ochotona 

princeps 

G5, 

S3S4 

(CA) 

S2 (NV) 

alpine, 

rocky talus 

slopes 

N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-58 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Mule Deer Odocoileus 

hemionus 

G5, 

TRPA-SI 

general 

forest 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Species considered 

secure – habitat 

management 

Western 

Pipistrelle

Pipistrellus 

hesperus G5 

rocky 

canyons, 

deserts 

N/A Species considered 

secure 

Preble's Shrew Sorex preblei 

G4, SNR 

(CA) 

S1S2 

(NV) 

riparian, 

desert, 

grasslands 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Trowbridge's 

Shrew

Sorex 

trowbridgii 

G5, 

S4S5 

(CA) 

S2 (NV) 

general 

forest, 

riparian, 

woody 

debris 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

General Forest 

Management 

Brazilian Freetailed BatTadarida 

brasiliensis G5 

Uban 

environme

nts, 

general 

forest, 

riparian, 

N/A Species considered 

secure 

American 

Black Bear

Ursus 

americanus G5 general 

forest N/A Species considered secure 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-59 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes 

G5, 

S1 (CA), 

S2 (NV) 

general 

forest N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - 

considered 

extremely rare or 

extinct on LTBMU 

Sierra Nevada 

Red Fox

Vulpes vulpes 

necator 

G5T3, 

ST 

S1 (CA), 

S3 (NV), 

general 

forest 

No 

SECURE 

considered 

extremely rare or 

extinct on LTBMU 

– habitat 

management – this 

species was 

removed from the 

FSS list as of June 

30, 2013 and is not 

considered in detail 

the Final EIS or the 

Biological 

Evaulation 

Mollusks Tight Coin 

(snail)

Ammonitella 

yatesii G1 terrestrial N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

California 

Floater

Anodonta 

californiensis G3Q 

Shallow 

water, 

creeks, 

springs, 

brooks 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed - 

reference link: 

http://www.xerces.o

rg/california-floater/ 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-60 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Mollusks 

Pyramid Lake 

Pebblesnail

Fluminicola 

dalli G1 Pyramid 

Lake N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Virginia 

Mountains 

Pebblesnail

Fluminicola 

virginius G1 Pyramid 

Lake N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Great Basin 

Rams-horn

Helisoma 

newberryi 

newberryi 

G1Q / 

FSS Freshwater 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Habitat 

management 

though not 

considered in detail 

since they will not 

be affected by 

LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - due 

to burrowing in soft 

mud species 

maybe invisible 

even when 

abundant 

Smooth Juga Juga interioris G1 Freshwater N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Oasis Juga Juga laurae G1 Freshwater N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Western 

Pearshell

Margaritifera 

falcata 

G4G5 / 

SNR (CA 

/ NV) 

Rivers N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-61 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Mollusks 

Sierra 

Sideband 

(snail)

Monadenia 

mormonum 

G2 terrestrial N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Button's Sierra 

Sideband 

(snail)

Monadenia 

mormonum 

buttoni 

G2T1 terrestrial N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Fly Ranch Pyrg Pyrgulopsis 

bruesi G1 

thermal 

spring in 

Northweste

rn NV 

N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Western 

Lahontan Pyrg

Pyrgulopsis 

longiglans G2G3 Freshwater N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Wong's 

Springsnail

Pyrgulopsis 

wongi G2 Freshwater N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Plants 

Mountain 

Bentgrass Agrostis humilis G4, S1.3 

(CA) N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Jepson's Onion Allium jepsonii G1 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-62 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Plants 

Bristly-leaf 

Rockcress

Arabis 

rectissima var 

simulans 

G4G5T1

Q, 

S1(NV), 

LSI, 

General 

forest 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Galena Creek 

Rockcress

Arabis 

rigidissima var. 

dermota 

G3T2Q, 

S1.2 

(CA) 

S2 (NV), 

FSS 

Rocky 

habitat, 

general 

forest, 

aspen 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Tiehm's 

Rockcress Arabis tiehmii 

G2 

S1(NV), 

FSS 

rocky 

habitats 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Suspected to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-63 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Tulare 

Rockcress 

Boechera 

tularensis FSS 

East facing 

subalpine 

rocky 

areas 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

General Species 

habitat 

management; this 

species was newly 

listed as FSS for 

the LTBMU as of 

June 30, 2013 

Nissenan 

Manzanita

Arctostaphylos 

nisseniana G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Margaret's 

Rushy 

Milkvetch

Astragalus 

convallarius 

var. 

margaretiae 

G5T2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Lemmon's 

Milkvetch

Astragalus 

lemmonii G3? N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Lavin's Egg 

Milkvetch

Astragalus 

oophorus var. 

lavinii 

G4T2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Lahontan 

Milkvetch

Astragalus 

porrectus G3? N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Pulsifer's 

Milkvetch

Astragalus 

pulsiferae 

G4, 

S2S3 

(NV) 

 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-64 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Plants 

Pulsifer's 

Milkvetch

Astragalus 

pulsiferae var. 

coronensis 

G4T3, 

S3.2 

(CA), S1 

(NV) 

 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Pulsifer's 

Milkvetch

Astragalus 

pulsiferae var. 

pulsiferae 

G4T2, 

S2.2 

(CA), S1 

(NV) 

 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Tiehm's 

Milkvetch

Astragalus 

tiehmii G3 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Balsamroot Balsamorhiza 

macrolepis G3G4 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

California 

Balsamroot

Balsamorhiza 

macrolepis var. 

macrolepis 

G3G4T2, 

S2.2 

(CA) 

 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

trianglelobe 

moonwort

Botrychium 

ascendens 

G2G3, 

S1.3? 

(CA) 

S1 (NV), 

FSS 

Meadow, 

shrublands

, seeps, 

fens, 

streams 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-65 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Plants 

scalloped 

moonwort

Botrychium 

crenulatum 

G3, S2.2 

(CA) 

S1? 

(NV), 

FSS 

Seeps, 

streams, 

wet 

roadside 

ditches 

and 

drainage 

ways 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

narrowleaf 

grapefern

Botrychium 

lineare 

G2?, 

S1.3(CA)

, FSS 

 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

common 

moonwort

Botrychium 

lunaria 

G5, S2 

(CA), 

FSS 

 Meadows 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Suspected to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Mingan's 

Moonwort

Botrychium 

minganense G4, FSS 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-66 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Plants 

mountain 

moonwort

Botrychium 

montanum 

G3, S1.1 

(CA), 

FSS 

 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Bolander's 

bruchia moss

Bruchia 

bolanderi 

G3, 

S2.2(CA)

, FSS 

 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Pleasant Valley 

Mariposa Lily

Calochortus 

clavatus var. 

avius 

G4T3 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Stebbin's 

Morning-glory

Calystegia 

stebbinsii G1, FE N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed - also 

not on FWS list for 

LTBMU 

Pine Creek 

Eveningprimrose

Camissonia 

boothii ssp. 

Alyssoides 

G5T4 N/A Species considered 

secure 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-67 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Nevada 

Eveningprimrose

Camissonia 

nevadensis G3 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

claspbract 

sedge

Carex 

amplectens G2? CBR N/A 

Not recognized as 

a separate species 

at this time. 

Mud Sedge Carex limosa G5, S2.2 

(CA) 

 Fens, 

meadows 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed, 

semi common 

within the LTBMU 

Sheldon's 

Sedge Carex sheldonii G4, S2.2 

(CA) N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Valley Sedge Carex vallicola G5, S2.3 

(CA) N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Pine Hill 

Ceanothus

Ceanothus 

roderickii G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-68 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Alpine 

Pincushion

Chaenactis 

douglassi var. 

alpina 

G5T5 N/A 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed, 

but does not 

currently have a 

rare rank, will 

monitor 

Red Hills 

Soaproot

Chlorogalum 

grandiflorum G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Oval-leaf 

Viburnum

Ciburnum 

ellipticum G5 N/A Species considered 

secure 

Two-lobed 

Clarkia

Clarkia biloba 

ssp. 

barndegeeae 

G4G5T2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Alpine 

Springbeauty

Claytonia 

megarhiza 

G4G5, 

S2.3 (ca) 

 Rocky 

habitats 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Great Basin 

Springbeauty

Claytonia 

umbellata G5? N/A Species considered 

secure 

Hispid Bird'sbeak

Cordylanthus 

mollis ssp. 

Hispidus 

G2T2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-69 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Subalpine 

Cryptantha

Cryptantha 

crymophila G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Alkali False 

Whitlow-grass

Cusickiella 

douglasii G4G5 N/A Species considered 

secure 

Bodie Hills 

Cusickiella

Cusickiella 

quadricostata G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Fungi branched 

collybia

Dendrocollybia 

racemosa 

G2G3, 

FSS 

 General 

Forest - 

older 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Historical record - 

known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Plants 

Plants 

Plants 

Plants 

Doublet Dimeresia 

howellii G4? N/A Species considered 

secure 

Dwaft 

Downingia

Downingia 

pusilla G3 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-70 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Plants 

Plants 

Plants Lake Tahoe 

Draba

Draba 

asterophora 

var. 

asterophora 

G4T2, 

S1.2(CA)

, FSS 

Rocky 

habitats – 

tallus, 

scree 

Yes 

DC 64 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objective 23 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Cup Lake 

Draba

Draba 

asterophora 

var. 

macrocarpa 

G4T1, 

S1.1(CA)

, FSS 

Rocky 

habitats – 

tallus, 

scree 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

Objective 23 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Carson Range 

Draba

Draba 

stenoloba var. 

ramosa 

G5T2T3 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Mineral King 

draba Draba cruciata FSS 

Subalpine 

gravelly or 

rocky 

slopes 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

General Species 

habitat 

management; this 

species was newly 

listed as FSS for 

the LTBMU as of 

June 30, 2013 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-71 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Yuba Pass 

willowherb

Epilobium 

howellii 

G2, S2.3 

(CA), 

FSS 

 Meadow 

edges, 

seeps, 

streams 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Oregon 

Willowherb

Epilobium 

oreganum 

G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Marsh 

willowherb

Epilobium 

palustre 

G5, S1.3 

(CA) 

 Fens, 

Meadow, 

seeps 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Historic - Known to 

occur within the 

Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Nevada 

Fleabane

Erigeron eatonii 

var. 

nevadincola 

G5T4, 

S2.3(CA) N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-72 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Starved Daisy Erigeron miser 

G2, S2.3 

(CA), 

FSS 

 Rocky 

habitats - 

cliffs 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Suspected to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Crosby's 

Buckwheat

Eriogonum 

crosbyae G3 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Lemmon's 

Buckwheat

Eriogonum 

lemmonii G3? N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Steamboat 

Buckwheat

Eriogonum 

ovalifolium var. 

williamsiae 

G5T1 

Federally 

Endange

red 

 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed - also 

not on FWS list for 

LTBMU 

Prostrate 

Buckwheat

Eriogonum 

prociduum G3 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Altered 

Andesite 

Buckwheat

Eriogonum 

robustum G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-73 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Donner Pass 

Wild 

Buckwheat

Eriogonum 

umbellatum 

var. torreyanum

G5T2, 

FSS 

 Ridge 

tops, steep 

slopes, dry 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Suspected to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Goldencarper 

buckwheat 

Erigonum 

luteolum var. 

saltuarium 

FSS 

Sandy 

granitic 

flats and 

slopes 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

General Species 

habitat 

management; this 

species was newly 

listed as FSS for 

the LTBMU as of 

June 30, 2013 

Pine Hill 

Flannelbush

Fremontodendr

on decumbens G1 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Butte County 

Fritillary

Fritillaria 

eastwoodiae G3Q N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

El Dorado 

Bedstraw

Galium 

californicum 

ssp. Sierrae 

G5T1 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Nevada 

Greasebush

Glossopetalon 

spinescens var. 

aridum 

G5T5? N/A Species considered 

secure 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-74 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

American 

mannagrass

Glyceria 

grandis 

G5, S1.3 

(CA) 

 Fen, 

meadow, 

seep, 

marsh, 

swamp 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Suspected to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Boggs Lake 

Hedge-hyssop

Gratiola 

heterosepala G3 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Cusick's 

Stickseed

Hackelia 

cusickii G5 N/A Species considered 

secure 

Blandow's 

helodium moss

Helodium 

blandowii 

G5, S1.3 

(CA), 

FSS 

 Meadows

eep, fens 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Parry's 

Horkelia Horkelia parryi G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

shortleaf 

alpinegold

Hulsea 

brevifolia 

G3, 

S3.2(CA)

, FSS 

 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-75 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Sierra Valley 

Ivesia

Ivesia aperta 

var. aperta G2T2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Pine Nut Ivesia Ivesia 

pityocharis G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Grimy Ivesia Ivesia rhypara 

var. rhypara G2T1 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Plumas Ivesia Ivesia 

sericoleuca G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Webber Ivesia Ivesia webberi G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Red Bluff Rush Juncus 

leiospermus G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Ahart Rush

Juncus 

leiospermus 

var. ahartii 

G2T1, 

S1.2 

(CA) 

 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Red Bluff Rush

Juncus 

leiospermus 

var. 

leiospermus 

G2T2, 

S2.2 

(CA) 

 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-76 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Legenere Legenere 

limosa G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Kellogg's 

lewisia

Lewisia 

kelloggii ssp. 

hutchisonii 

G4T2T3, 

S2S3.3 

(CA), 

FSS 

Flat open 

forest 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Suspected to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Kellogg's 

lewisia

Lewisia 

kelloggii ssp. 

kelloggii 

G4T4?, 

FSS 

Flat open 

forest 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Suspected to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Long-petaled 

Lewisia

Lewisia 

longipetala 

G2, S2.2 

(CA), 

FSS 

Rocky 

habitats – 

granitic 

slabs 

Yes – 

DC 64 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-77 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Saw-toothed 

Lewisia Lewisia serrata G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Sage-like 

Loeflingia

Loeflingia 

squarrosa ssp. 

artemisiarum 

G5T2T3 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Packard's 

Desert-parsley

Lomatium 

packardiae G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Raven's 

Lomatium

Lomatium 

ravenii G4 N/A Species considered 

secure 

Rose-flower 

Desert-parsley

Lomatium 

roseanum 

G2G3 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Mount Rose 

Lupine

Lupinus 

caudatus ssp. 

Montigenus 

G5T4 N/A Species considered 

secure 

Jaw-leaf 

Lupine

Lupinus 

malacophyllus G3? N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-78 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Meesia Moss Meesia 

longiseta G4?, LSI 

 Stream 

banks, 

fens, 

meadows 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Suspected to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed, 

not yet known from 

FS land in CA but 

included as LTBMU 

special interest to 

confirm presence in 

CA prior to listing 

as R5 sensitive 

Three-ranked 

Hump Moss

Meesia 

triquetra 

G5, 

S3S4.2 

(CA), 

FSS 

Fens, 

wetland 

sites 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed, 

common in the LTB 

but is still a R5 

sensitive 

Broad-nerved 

Hump Moss 

Meesia 

uliginosa 

G4, S2.2 

(CA), 

FSS 

fens 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Mielichhoferia 

mielichhoferian

a var. elongata 

G4?T4?, 

S2.2 

(CA) 

 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-79 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Mount Rose 

Monkeyflower

Mimulus 

angustifolius 

G1?Q, 

S1 (NV) N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Effleaf 

Monkeyflower Mimulus ovatus G1G2Q N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Myurella Moss Myurella 

julacea 

G5, S1.3 

(CA), LSI N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Pincushion 

Navarretia

Navarretia 

myersii ssp. 

Myersii 

G1T1 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Northern 

Adder's-tongue

Ophioglossum 

pusillum G5 N/A Species considered 

secure 

Sand Cholla Opuntia 

pulchella G4 N/A Species considered 

secure 

Orthotrichum 

moss

Orthotrichum 

praemorsum G2, LSI Rocky 

habitat 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-80 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Shevock's 

bristle moss 

Orthotrichum 

shevockii 

G1, S1.3 

(CA), LSI 

rocky 

habitats – 

rock 

outcrops 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Spjut's bristle 

moss

Orthotrichum 

spjutii 

G1, S1.3 

(CA), LSI 

rocky 

habitats – 

volcanic 

rock walls 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Suspected to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Nevada 

Oryctes

Oryctes 

nevadensis G2G3 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Plants Layne's 

Butterweed

Packera 

layneae G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-81 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Lichens Veined water 

lichen

Peltigera 

hydrothyria 

G3G5, 

FSS Streams 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Plants 

Wassuk 

Beardtongue

Penstemon 

rubicundus G2G3 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Susanville 

Beardtongue

Penstemon 

sudans G2G3 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Playa Phacelia Phacelia 

inundata G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Stebbins 

Phacelia

Phacelia 

stebbinsii G3 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Washoe Pine Pinus 

washoensis G3Q N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Clustered 

Popcorn-flower

Plagiobothrys 

glomeratus G2G3 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-82 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Plants 

Tundra Pohlia 

Moss Pohlia tundrae 

G2G3, 

S2.3 

(CA), LSI 

Rocky 

habitats – 

alpine 

boulder 

and rock 

fields 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed, 

not sure if 

populations occur 

on LTBMU land 

Nuttall's 

Pondweed

Potamogeton 

epihydrus ssp. 

Nuttallii 

G2G3, 

S2.3 

(CA) 

 Marshes, 

swamps 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed, 

not sure if 

populations occur 

on LTBMU land 

Slender 

Pondweed

Potamogeton 

filiformis 

G5, 

S1S2 

(CA) 

 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed

Flatleaf 

Pondweed

Potamogeton 

robbinsii 

G5, S2.3 

(CA) N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Hartweg's 

Golden 

Sunburst

Pseudobahia 

bahifolia G2, FE N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed - also 

not on FWS list for 

LTBMU 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-83 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Plants 

Alder-leaved 

Buckthorn

Rhamnus 

alnifolia 

G5, S2.2 

(CA) 

 Wet 

meadow, 

lodgepole 

forest 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed, 

not sure if 

populations occur 

on LTBMU land 

Tahoe 

Yellowcress

Rorippa 

subumbellata 

G1 

Candidat

e 

Species, 

SE, 

S1.1(CA)

, S1S2 

(NV), 

FSS, 

TRPA-SI 

sandy, 

shoreline 

habitats 

Yes 

DCs 77 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

S&Gs 89, 92 

NOT SECURE 

Endemic to the 

Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Sanford's 

Arrowhead

Sagittaria 

sanfordii G3 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Water Bulrush Schoenoplectu

s subterminalis 

G4G5, 

S2.3 

(CA) 

 Lakes, 

ponds, 

marshes 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed, 

not sure if 

populations occur 

on LTBMU land 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-84 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Hooded 

Skullcap

Scutellaria 

galericulata 

G5, S2.3 

(CA) 

 Meadows, 

seeps 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Known to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Sweet Marsh 

Ragwort

Senecio 

hydrophiloides 

G4G5, 

S2.3 

(CA) 

Mesic 

habitats 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Suspected to occur 

within the Lake 

Tahoe watershed 

Naked Catchfly Silene nuda 

ssp.nuda 

G4G5T1

T2Q, 

SNR 

(CA), 

S1S2 

(NV) 

 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Monroe's 

Desert Mallow

Sphaeralcea 

monroana 

G4, S1.2 

(CA) N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-85 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Peat Moss Sphagnum 

sppecies

Genus as 

habitat 

indicator 

fens 

Yes 

General 

Desired 

Conditions & 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

SECURE 

Genera is 

indicative of unique 

wetland habitats in 

Sierra Nevada 

Masonic 

Mountain 

Jewelflower

Streptanthus 

oliganthus 

G3, 

S2.2(CA)

, S2 (NV) 

 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Beatley's 

Clover

Trifolium 

andersonii ssp. 

Beatleyae 

G4T4 N/A Species considered 

secure 

Lemmon's 

Clover

Trifolium 

lemmonii G4? N/A Species considered 

secure 

Whitebark Pine Pinus albicaulis 

Federal 

Candidat

e, FSS 

Subalpine 

and 

timberline 

on rocky 

soils 

YES 

DCs 78-80 

 

Strategies – 

Biological 

Resource 

Program 

S&G 89 

NOT SECURE 

Species specific 

management ; this 

species was listed 

as FSS for the 

LTBMU in June 30, 

2013 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-86 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

El Dorado 

Mule's-ears

Wyethia 

reticulata G2 N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Reptiles 

Reptiles 

Pacific Pond 

Turtle

Actinemys 

marmorata 

G3G4, 

S3(CA) 

S3 (NV) 

ponds N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Northern 

Pacific Pond 

Turtle

Actinemys 

marmorata 

marmorata 

G3G4T3

Q, SSC 

S3(CA), 

S3 (NV) 

ponds N/A 

species occurs 

outside the LTBMU 

- Lake Tahoe 

watershed 

Rubber Boa Charina bottae 

G5, S4 

(CA) 

S3S4 

(NV) 

riparian, 

general 

forest 

N/A local population 

considered secure 

Northern 

Alligator Lizard 

Elgaria 

coerulea 

G5, S5 

(CA) 

S2S3 

(NV) 

riparian, 

general 

forest 

N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - due 

to population 

considered secure 

in CA and not 

occurring on the 

NV side of the 

LTBMU 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Appendix E ▪ E-87 

Group Species Name Status Habitat Consider 

species in 

LRMP and 

or in EIS – 

How is 

species 

addressed 

Comments / 

Rationale – 

Secure / Not 

Secure (as it 

relates to viability 

chart – Figure E1).

Sierra Alligator 

Lizard

Elgaria 

coerulea 

palmeri 

G5T4, 

S2S3 

(NV) 

riparian, 

general 

forest 

N/A 

not considered in 

detail since they 

will not be affected 

by LTBMU 

management or 

potential plan 

components - due 

to population 

considered secure 

in CA and not 

occurring on the 

NV side of the 

LTBMU 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

E-88 ▪ LTBMU Species Diversity 

Page Intentionally Blank 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-1 

Appendix F – Social and Economic 

Assessment 

F.1. Introduction 

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. Recreation opportunities supported by interpretation and 

conservation education enrich the recreation experience and contribute to enhancing the 

public’s environmental literacy. The Lake Tahoe Basin’s 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. 

Information and data used in this assessment was collected from the following sources: 

 US Census Bureau statistics 

 US Bureau of Labor Statistics 

 US Bureau of Economic Analysis 

 Economic Profile System by Headwaters Economics 

 National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) survey 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-2 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

F.2. Study Area 

The Lake Tahoe Basin is composed of approximately 200,000 acres of land, of which the 

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit manages approximately 150,000 acres. While the 

land area of the Lake Tahoe Basin is relatively small, there are many political entities 

represented. Within the Lake Tahoe Basin, there are five counties, the Tahoe Regional 

Planning Agency (TRPA), two cities, and two states (see Figure F1). . Along with state, 

county, and city ownership, close to 90% of Lake Tahoe Basin lands are in public 

ownership. 

The communities within the Lake Tahoe Basin represent only a small share of the 

surrounding county’s total population (which includes the large communities of 

Placerville, CA and Reno, NV) therefore social and economic data based on county level 

data overwhelms the social and economic trends of Lake Tahoe communities. While the 

communities in the Basin differ in many respects, they are united by geography, 

economy, and social values. So, two assessment areas are used in the Social and 

Economic Assessment to illustrate the roles and contributions the LTBMU plays in 

providing local and regional communities with social and economic benefits. The use of 

multiple study areas also reveals management implications associated with servicing 

different populations. 

The larger area is the Greater Lake Tahoe Area (GLTA) (Figure F1). 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. 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-3 

Figure F1. Greater Lake Tahoe Area (GLTA) 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-4 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

The smaller area is located within the Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit’s exterior boundary and is referred to as the 

“Lake Tahoe Region,” or LTR (Figure F2). The communities 

within the LTR have a relatively high degree of economic 

responsiveness to recreation revenues, and there are pronounced 

social differences between Lake Tahoe communities and 

adjacent communities located outside of the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

Census County Divisions (CCDs) from the US Census Bureau 

are the geographic units used to analyze the LTR social and 

economic assessment. 

The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit’s influence on the Lake Tahoe Region 

economy is much greater than on the Greater Lake Tahoe economy given the relative size 

and diversity of the two economies. 

Census County Divisions (CCD) Community 

Zephyr Cove Glenbrook 

Zephyr Cove 

Lake Ridge 

Incline Village Incline Village 

Stateline 

South Lake Tahoe Meyers 

Tahoma 

City of South Lake Tahoe

Lake Tahoe Brockway 

Lake Forest 

Rampart (Sunnyside) 

Tahoe Pines 

Homewood 

Chambers Lodge 

Tahoe Vista 

Greater Lake Tahoe 

Area 

State County 

California 

El Dorado 

Alpine 

Placer 

Nevada 

Nevada 

Washoe 

Carson 

City 

Douglas 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-5 

Figure F2. Lake Tahoe Region by 

Community Civil Division (CCD) 

F.3. Background 

For thousands of years, the people of the Washoe Tribe traveled to the shores of Lake 

Tahoe in the summer to live, trade, and reaffirm tribal unity. The Washoe way of life 

was greatly impacted in 1859 with the Virginia City silver strike, which marked the 

beginning of the Comstock Era. By 1890, the forests of Lake Tahoe had been largely 

clear-cut to fuel mining operations, shore-up mine shafts, and provide building supplies 

for rapidly growing Virginia City. The lands around Lake Tahoe provided forage for 

sheep and were home to Basque sheepherders from the 1850s to the 1950s. 

In 1899, President William McKinley designated 13,000 acres of Lake Tahoe forests as 

National Forest Reserves, which would mark the beginning of federal acquisitions in the 

Tahoe Basin. Between 1890 and 1920, Lake Tahoe was a popular resort destination for 

wealthy and elite families from San Francisco. Roads were paved during the 1920s and 

1930s: Lake Tahoe became accessible to a greater number of people, and tourism and 

recreation soon became a dominant industry in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The 1940s marked 

the beginning of the gaming industry, which grew quickly, attracting vacationers looking 

for urban amenities in a scenic setting. With the 1960 Winter Olympic Games at Squaw 

Valley Resort, development escalated as Tahoe became known as an international 

recreation destination. 

Lake Ridge

Rampart (Sunnyside)

Tahoe Vista

CCD Community

Zephyr Cove

Glenbrook

Zephyr Cove

Incline Village Incline Village

Stateline

South Lake Tahoe

Meyers

Tahoma

City of South Lake Tahoe

Lake Tahoe

Brockway

Lake Forest

Tahoe Pines

Homewood

Chambers Lodge
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-6 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

At this same time, the Forest Service acquired large tracts of land in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin, and management of this land was divided among three forests: the Eldorado, the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe and the Tahoe National Forest. However, by 1973, National Forest 

land managers recognized the need to manage Lake Tahoe’s upland resources separately 

to preserve the unique nature of Lake Tahoe. It was with this goal that the Lake Tahoe 

Basin Management Unit was formed by carving out sections of the three forests to 

approximate Lake Tahoe’s watershed boundary. 

Much of the LTBMU’s management priorities and objectives have been driven by 

legislative acts, which have served to authorize funding for the acquisition and restoration 

of lands within the Lake Tahoe Basin. In 1980, Congress passed the Santini-Burton Act 

(PL 96-586), which authorized funding and directed the LTBMU to acquire 

environmentally sensitive lands, restore watersheds on acquired National Forest System 

lands, and administer erosion control grants to local government. Thirteen thousand 

acres have since been acquired through the Santini-Burton Act, of which many are small 

parcels interspersed throughout urban neighborhoods. 

The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (LTRA), signed by President Bill Clinton in 1997, 

recognized the unique scenic and ecological features of Lake Tahoe, as well as Lake 

Tahoe communities’ economic dependence on the perpetuation of these characteristics. 

The LTRA was designed to enable the Forest Service to plan and implement significant 

new environmental restoration and forest management activities to address water quality, 

water clarity, and forest health in coordination with Federal, State, local, regional, tribal 

and private entities. While the LTRA was intended to increase restoration in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin, this objective was not fully implemented due to lack of federal funding 

until the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA) was amended in 

2003. The SNPLMA amendment guaranteed agencies in the Lake Tahoe Basin a 

consistent flow of federal funds for eight years, with an average annual funding level of 

$37.5 million. With these funds, large watershed restoration projects to restore meadows 

and forest health and reduce fuels have commenced. This funding is scheduled to end by 

2015, with some projects lasting for a few years past when funding is granted. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-7 

F.4. Social Conditions and Tends 

Population 

The LTR, with a population of 51,774 represents a small fraction of the 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 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 kids in schools, year-round shopping in the local 

community, etc. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-8 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

Table F1. Population 2000-2011 

Assessment Area 2000 

Census 

2011 ACS 

Census 

% Change Since 

2000 

Nevada 1,998,257 2,673,396 33.8%

California 33,871,648 36,969,200 9.1%

Carson City Co, NV 52,457 55,378 5.6%

Douglas County, NV 41,259 47,058 14.1%

Washoe County, NV 339,486 417,855 23.1%

El Dorado County, CA 156,299 179,878 15.1%

Placer County, CA 248,399 343,554 38.3%

Greater Lake Tahoe Area 

(GLTA) 837,900

1,043,723 24.6%

Incline Village CCD, NV 9,952 8,347 -16.1%

Zephyr Cove CCD, NV 6,739 4,098 -39.2%

Lake Tahoe CCD, CA 12,158 9,491 -21.9%

South Lake Tahoe CCD, CA 34,042 29,838 -12.3%

Lake Tahoe Region (LTR) 62,891 51,774 -17.7%

% LTR of GLTA 7.5% 5.0% 

ACS = American Community Survey 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-9 

Figure F3. Percent Population, LTR, 2011. 

Figure F4. Population Change, Regional, –2000-2011. 

Incline

Village CCD,

NV, 8,347

Zephyr Cove

CCD, NV,

4,098

Lake Tahoe

CCD, CA,

9,491

South Lake

Tahoe CCD,

CA, 29,838

‐30.0%

‐20.0%

‐10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

Nevada California Greater Lake

Tahoe Area

(GLTA)

Lake Tahoe

Region (LTR)
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-10 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

Figure F5. Population Change, LTR, 2000 - 2011. 

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. 

 Just over 37% of California’s population was Hispanic in 2010, while Nevada’s Hispanic 

population was reported at 26%. The GLTA had the lowest Hispanic population of the 

four regions, while the LTR, with a 22% Hispanic population was similar to Nevada’s 

Hispanic composition. Within the LTR 12,206 people identified themselves as Hispanic 

during the 2010 census. The South Lake Tahoe CCD had the largest Hispanic population 

with 7,345 people representing 24% of the SLT CCD population. Lake Tahoe CCD was 

also 27% Hispanic, with 2,720 Hispanic residents. The South Lake Tahoe CCD and 

Lake Tahoe CCD had on average over 4 times the population of Hispanics than Incline 

Village and Zephyr Cove. 

‐45.0%

‐40.0%

‐35.0%

‐30.0%

‐25.0%

‐20.0%

‐15.0%

‐10.0%

‐5.0%

0.0%

Incline

Village

Zephyr

Cove

Lake

Tahoe

South Lake

Tahoe
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-11 

Figure F6. Race and Ethnicity, Regional, 2011. 

Figure F7. Race and Ethnicity by CCD, LTR, 2011. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

California

Nevada

Greater Lake Tahoe Area

Lake Tahoe Region

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Incline Village CCD

Zephry Cove CCD

South Lake Tahoe CCD

Lake Tahoe CCD
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-12 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

Table F2. Race and Ethnicity, LTR, 2011 

Race/Ethnicity 

Incline 

Village 

CCD 

Zephyr 

Cove 

CCD 

South 

Lake 

Tahoe 

CCD 

Lake 

Tahoe 

CCD 

Total 

Lake 

Tahoe 

Region 

Total population 8,347 4,098 29,838 9,491 51,774

One Race 8,339 4,058 28,670 9,332 50,399 

 White 7,632 3,812 23,849 9,010 44,303 

Black or African 

American 

19 3 139 39 200 

American Indian 

and Alaska Native 

130 0 451 72 653 

Asian 282 47 1,001 57 1387 

Native Hawaiian 

and Other Pacific 

Islander 

28 1 1 0 30 

Some Other Race 248 195 3,229 154 3826 

Two or More 

Races 

8 40 1,168 159 1375 

HISPANIC OR 

LATINO 

 

Hispanic or Latino 

(of any race) 

1,611 778 7,483 3,176 13,048 

Not Hispanic or 

Latino 

6,736 3,320 22,355 6,315 38,726 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-13 

Poverty 

Census poverty estimates are based on a set of income thresholds for various family sizes 

and are the same regardless of geography or cost of living. If a family is found to make 

less than the threshold, then every family member is considered to be in poverty. So 

while it appears that across almost all races, people living in the GLTA and LTR 

experience less risk of living in poverty than the general population of California and 

Nevada, this may not accurately reflect the occurrence of poverty within the LTRs high 

cost-of-living census county divisions within the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

Figure F8. Poverty by Race and Ethnicity, Regional, 2011. 

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

CA

NV

GLTR

LTR
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-14 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

Figure F9. Poverty by Race and Ethnicity, LTR, 2011. 

Age Distribution 

The GLTA and LTR had more people in the 45 to 64 age range than Nevada and 

California, and less people under 45 than Nevada and California. The GLTA and LTR 

had fewer young people under 19 than Nevada and California. When looking at 

communities in the LTR, Nevada community populations were older than California 

community populations. Fifty-four percent of Nevada communities within the LTR were 

45 years and older, compared to California communities within the LTR at 41%. 

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

Incline Village

Zephyr Cove

South Lake Tahoe

Lake Tahoe
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-15 

Figure F10. Age Distribution, Regional, 2010. 

Figure F11. Age Distribution, LTR, 2010. 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Under 19

20 to 24

25 to 34

35 to 44

45 to 54

55 to 64

65 to 74

75 to 84

85 years and over

LTR

GLTA

Nevada

California

0 10 20 30

Under 19

20 to 24

25 to 34

35 to 44

45 to 54

55 to 64

65 to 74

75 to 84

85 years and over

Lake Tahoe

South Lake Tahoe

Zephyr Cove

Incline Village
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-16 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

Educational 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; however, GLTA was 

consistent with California and exceeded Nevada’s rate. 

Figure F12. Educational Attainment, Regional, 2011. 

Figure F13. Educational Attainment, LTR, 2011 

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

CA NV GLTR LTR

  Percent high school

graduate or higher

  Percent bachelor's

degree or higher

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

South Lake

Tahoe

Lake Tahoe Zephyr

Cove

Incline

Village

  Percent high school

graduate or higher

  Percent bachelor's

degree or higher
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-17 

Housing 

When considering housing occupancy status, the LTR differs greatly from all other 

regions with a 45% vacancy rate, 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, and the LTR was on par 

with California and Nevada. Housing data is from the 2010 Census. 

Figure F14. Housing Occupancy Status, Regional, 2010. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

California Nevada GLTA LTR

    Vacant housing units

    Occupied housing units
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-18 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

Figure F15. Housing Occupancy Status, LTR, 2010. 

Figure F16. Housing Tenure, Regional, 2010. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Incline

Village

Zephyr Cove South Lake

Tahoe

Lake Tahoe

    Vacant housing units

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

California Nevada GLTA LTR

Percent of vacant housing units

All other vacants

For seasonal, recreational, or

occasional use

Sold, not occupied

For sale only

Rented, not occupied

For rent
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-19 

Figure F17. Renter vs. owner-occupied housing, 2010. 

 Discussion 

The almost 25% rise in population between 2000 and 2011 in the GLTA translates into 

higher day-use demand being placed on recreation opportunities in the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

As reported by National Visitor Use Monitoring reports, shown in Figure F- 14), 41.7% 

of visitors live within the GLTA. Compared to the surrounding area and states of 

California and Nevada, it is unusual to see an almost 18% drop in population from 2000 

to 2011 in the LTR. This is at least in part due to a decline in the gaming/casino industry, 

increased second home ownership, and the general decline in economic condition over 

this time period. 

California LTR communities were generally younger and had a greater degree of ethnic 

diversity than Nevada communities. With respect to ethnic diversity, the LTR was just a 

little over half of the California Hispanic percent of population. This indicates a need to 

design interpretive displays, education programs and planning events that integrate the 

Lake Tahoe Basin’s Hispanic communities in National Forest land management. 

Meetings designed to integrate the Hispanic community should be located in areas with 

the greatest concentration of Hispanic population. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

California Nevada GLTA LTR

Percent occupied housing units

    Renter‐occupied housing

units

    Owner‐occupied housing

units
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-20 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

Overall communities in the GLTA and LTR had relatively high educational attainment 

rates when compared to state rates. The GLTA and LTR high school graduation rates 

exceeded that of California and Nevada, as did three LTR communities: Incline Village 

CCD; Zephyr Cove CCD; and Lake Tahoe CCD; exceed state rates in percentage of 

bachelor’s degree or higher. 

The housing status in the LTR is vastly different in respect to occupancy status and 

vacancy status from the other regions compared in this study. Close to half of the 

housing units in the LTR are vacant for seasonal, recreational, and occasional use. This 

presents a challenge in respect to communicating with and involving absentee 

landowners in forest planning and programs. 

F.5. Economic Conditions and Trends 

(Note: Employment and Income for the Lake Tahoe CCD’s had not been updated to the 

2010 Census as of this writing (9/16/11), so the write-up using the earlier information 

from the previous Social-Economic Specialist Report written by Christy Prescott (former 

LTBMU Economist and Susan Winter (Economist for the WO Ecosystem Management 

Coordination staff) is presented here as it was written.) 

F.5.1 Employment (Current Condition and Trends) 

The number of full-time and part-time positions in the GLTA was 623,742 in 2003. 

Wage and salary positions comprised the largest sector, which accounted for 77% of 

employment, while non-farm proprietorship accounted for 23%, and farm proprietorship 

accounted for 0.5 %. The GLTA non-farm proprietor sector accounts for 3.4% more in 

employment and 3.5% lower in wage and salary employment than California and Nevada 

combined. Farm proprietor employment was slightly higher in the GLTA than in Nevada 

and California. Nevada and 

El Dorado Counties’ employment composition differed the most from the GLTA, with a 

greater proportion of employment from non-farm proprietorships and lesser proportion of 

employment in wage and salary employment. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-21 

Figure F18. Employment by Labor Sector, Regional, 2003 

When considering the GLTA’s employment by industry compared to state 

figures, the GLTA more closely resembles California’s employment structure 

over Nevada’s. Public administration and retail sales provided the greatest share 

of employment in the GLTA and California. Employment in accommodations 

and food service was the third highest in the GLTA with 11%; however, Nevada 

outpaced the GLTA by 10%. Overall, the GLTA employment was more evenly 

distributed across industries than Nevada, but less so than California. 

Figure F19. Regional Comparison of Employment by Industry (NAICS), 2003 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Wage & Salary

Employment

Farm Proprietor

Employment

Non-Farm Proprietor

Employment

Percent Employment

California

Nevada

GLTA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

California Nevada GLTA

 Public admin.

 Other services

 Accommodation & food services

 Arts, entertainment, & recreation

 Health care & social assistance

 Educational services

 Admin. & w aste management svcs

 Management and enterprises

 Prof., scientific, & tech. services

 Real estate, rental & leasing

 Finance & insurance

 Information

 Transportation & w arehousing

 Retail trade

 Wholesale trade

 Manufacturing

 Construction

 Utilities

 Mining

 Ag., forestry, fishing & hunting
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-22 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

Figure F-20 illustrates the employment structure of the GLTA and LTR in 2006. 

Employment represents part-time, full-time, seasonal, and temporary jobs in the 

given category. The GLTA has a greater degree of diversity than the LTR, which 

is to be expected given that the GLTA encompasses a metropolitan area, as well 

as rural areas. Tourism-related industries dominate the LTR economy with over a 

quarter of employment opportunities in accommodation and food services, and 

8% in arts, entertainment, and recreation. Tourism-related industries assume a 

much smaller percentage in the GLTA with accommodation and food services 

accounting for 11% and arts, entertainment and recreation accounting for 3% of 

employment. 

Figure F20. Employment by Industry (NAICS), GLTA and LTR, 2006. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

GLTA LTR

Employment by Industry 2006

Government

Other Services

Accommodation & Food Services

Arts, Entertainment, and Rec

Health Care & Social Assistance

Educational Services

Admin, Waste Mngt & Rem Serv

Mngt of Companies

Prof, Scientific, & Tech Services

Real Estate & Rental & Leasing

Finance & Insurance

Information

Retail Trade

Transportation & Warehousing

Wholesale Trade

Manufacturing

Construction

Utilities

Mining

Agriculture
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-23 

Figure F21 illustrates employment by industry among census county divisions 

(CCD) within the Lake Tahoe Region. The Zephyr CCD far exceeds all other 

CCDs in the Lake Tahoe Region in the arts, entertainment, and recreation sector; 

this is explained by the large gaming industry located on the south shore in 

Nevada. Accommodation and food services provide the greatest number of 

positions in Incline, El Dorado, and Placer CCDs. The most diversified economy 

in the LTR is Incline Village CCD, meaning that employment by industry is more 

evenly distributed across industries in Incline CCD than in other CCDs. 

Figure F21. Employment Distribution by Industry (NAICS), 2000. Lake Tahoe Region 

by CCD 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Zephyr CCD Incline CCD El Dorado,

SLT CCD

Placer, Lake

Tahoe CCD

Public admin.

Other services

Accommodation & food services

Arts, entertainment, & recreation

Health care & social assistance

Educational services

Admin. & w aste management svcs

Management and enterprises

Prof., scientific, & tech. services

Real estate, rental & leasing

Finance & insurance

Information

Transportation & w arehousing

Retail trade

Wholesale trade

Manufacturing

Construction

Utilities

Mining

Ag, forestry, fishing & hunting
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-24 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

Figure F22 illustrates the unemployment rates for California, Nevada, the Greater 

Lake Tahoe Area, and the Lake Tahoe Region in 2011. The unemployment rate 

for the LTR was lower than the GLTA and both California and Nevada; and had 

the lowest unemployment rate of the four regions. 

 

Figure F22. Regional Unemployment, 2011 

8.00%

8.50%

9.00%

9.50%

10.00%

10.50%

11.00%

CA NV GLTA LTR

Percent Unemployed

  Percent Unemployed
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-25 

When comparing the CCDs that comprise the LTR, it appears that south shore 

communities had higher unemployment rates than north shore communities 

(Figure F23). The higher unemployment rates on the south shore may be 

explained by the greater degree of employment being occupied by the arts, 

entertainment and recreation industries, which are subject to the seasonal influx of 

visitors. Employees in these industries often work seasonally. 

Figure F23. Unemployment, Lake Tahoe Region CCDs, 2011. 

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

Zephyr

Cove

Incline

Village

Lake Tahoe South Lake

Tahoe

Percent Unemployed

  Percent Unemployed
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-26 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

F.5.2 Employment Trends 

Overall, employment growth in the GLTA outpaced California but lagged behind 

Nevada. From 1993 to 2003, total employment in the GLTA increased by 46%. Nevada 

outpaced the GLTA by 19%; however, the GLTA outpaced California by 26% in 

increased employment opportunities. 

The greatest increase in positions in the GLTA was in the non-farm proprietor sector 

which increased by 54%. While the GLTA lagged behind Nevada’s increase in the nonfarm proprietor sector by 34%, the GLTA exceeded California’s increase by 27%. The 

GLTA, Nevada, and California all experienced declining employment in the farm 

proprietor sector. The greatest loss was in California which declined by 7% and the 

smallest decline was in Nevada which declined by 4%. 

While Nevada led California in increasing employment, all the Nevada counties 

represented in the GLTA were below the state average. The California counties were 

above the state average. Placer County increased employment opportunities by 74%, 

with the greatest percentage of the positions in wage and salary employment. Nevada 

County showed the largest gain from 1993 to 2003 in the non-farm proprietor sector and 

had the greatest number of positions in non-farm proprietor employment. 

Figure F24. Trends in Employment by Labor Sector, Regional, 1993-2003. 

From 2003 to 2006, employment by industry in the GLTA was relatively stable 

(Figure F25). Construction lead in growth, increasing employment by 1.64%, and 

accommodation and food services, which declined in total share of employment 

by 0.8%, accounted for the greatest decline in the GLTA. 

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total Employment Wage & Salary

Employment

Farm Proprietor

Employment

Non-Farm

Proprietor

Employment

California

Nevada

GLTA
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-27 

S

 Figure F25. Trends in Employment by Industry, Greater Lake Tahoe Region, 2003-

2006 

Between 2000 and 2006, the Lake Tahoe Region’s employment by industry was 

more volatile than the GLTA (Figure F26). Public administration grew by 8%, 

followed closely by accommodation and food services at 7% and real estate at 

6%. Industries that exhibited a decline in share of employment are the arts, 

entertainment, and recreation sector, which declined by 4% and the construction 

sector, which declined by 3%. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2003 2006

Public admin.

Other services

Accommodation & food services

Arts, entertainment, & recreation

Health care & social assistance

Educational services

Admin. & w aste management svcs

Management and enterprises

Prof., scientific, & tech. services

Real estate, rental & leasing

Finance & insurance

Information

Transportation & w arehousing

Retail trade

Wholesale trade

Manufacturing

Construction

Ag, forestry, fishing & hunting
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-28 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

Figure F26. Trends in Employment by Industry, Lake Tahoe Region, 2000-2006. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2006

Public admin.

Other services

Accommodation & food services

Arts, entertainment, & recreation

Health care & social assistance

Educational services

Admin. & w aste management svcs

Prof., scientific, & tech. services

Real estate, rental & leasing

Finance & insurance

Info.

Transportation & w arehousing

Retail trade

Wholesale trade

Manufacturing

Construction

Utilities

Ag, forestry, fishing & hunting
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-29 

Figure F27 illustrates trends in regional unemployment rates from 1990 to 2000. 

In both the GLTA and the LTR, unemployment rates fell over the 10-year period, 

while in Nevada the unemployment rate stayed the same and in California 

unemployment rose during the same period. 

Figure F27. Trends in Unemployment Rates, Regional, 1990 - 2000. 

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

California Nevada GLTA LTR

1990

2000
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-30 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

Figure F28 shows that unemployment rates fell in all CCDs but the Zephyr Cove 

CCD, which in 1990 had the lowest unemployment rate of the CCDs but by 2000 

had the highest. 

Figure F28. Trends in Unemployment Rates, Lake Tahoe Region, 1990- 2000. 

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

South Lake Tahoe

CCD

Lake Tahoe CCD Zephyr Cove CCD Incline Village CCD

1990

2000
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-31 

F.5.3 Income 

Current Condition 

Public administration, followed by construction, then health care and social assistance 

provided the greatest amount of income by industry in the GLTA in 2003 (Figure F29).

Within the Lake Tahoe Region in 2006, the accommodation and food services accounted 

for the greatest share of labor income, followed closely by government (Figure F30).

 Figure F29. Income by Industry, Regional, 2003. 

 

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

 Forestry, fishing, related act., and oth.

 Mining

 Utilities

 Construction

 Manufacturing

 Wholesale trade

 Retail Trade

Transportation and warehousing

 Information

 Finance and insurance

 Real estate and rental and leasing

Professional and technical services

Management of companies & enterp.

 Administrative and waste services

 Educational services

Health care and social assistance

 Arts, entertainment, and recreation

 Accommodation and food services

 Other services, except public admin.

Public Administration

Percent Personal Income

California

Nevada

GLTA
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-32 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

Figure F30. Labor Income by Industry Sector, Lake Tahoe Region, 2006. 

The GLTA differed from California and Nevada by having a greater share of 

income derived from dividends, interest, and rent than the two states, and a lesser 

share of personal income coming from wage and salary disbursements. 

Figure F31. Income by Labor Sector, Regional, 2003. 

Retail Trade

6%

Educational Svcs

1%

Admin, Waste Mngt & 

Rem Serv

3%

Health & Social 

Assistance

7%

Arts, Entertainment, 

& Rec

5%

Other Svcs

3%

Accommodation & Food 

Svcs

20%

Prof, Scientific, & Tech 

Services

8%

Real Estate, Rental & 

Leasing

7%

Finance & Insurance

4%

Manufacturing

1% Wholesale Trade

1%

Transportation & 

Warehousing

6%

Info

1%

Construction

9%

Utilities

2%

Govt

18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Wage & Salary

Disbursement

Self

Employment

Income

Dividends,

interest, and

rent

Personal

current transfer

receipts

Percent Personal Income

California

Nevada

GLTA
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-33 

Income derived from the wage or salary income labor sector was the dominant 

source of income across all communities in the Lake Tahoe Region. On average, 

LTR communities in California derived 69% of personal income from wage and 

salary positions, compared to Nevada LTR communities where 52% of personal 

income was from wage and salary positions. In turn, 28% of personal income in 

Nevada LTR communities was earned through interest, dividends, or net rental 

income, while in California this sector only accounted for 8% of personal income. 

Figure F32. Income by Labor Sector, Lake Tahoe Region CCDs, 2003. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Wage Or Salary

Income

SelfEmployment

Income

Interest,

Dividends, Or

Net Rental

Income

Personal

Current Transfer

Reciepts

Percent Personal Income

Incline Village

Zephyr Cove

South Lake Tahoe

Lake Tahoe
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-34 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

Trends 

Of the four labor sectors, wage and salary positions grew the fastest in the GLTA. For 

both Nevada and California, the fastest growing labor sector was self-employment. 

Figure F33. Percent Change in Personal Income by Labor Sector, Regional, 1993-

2003. 

Discussion 

Although accommodation and food services occupy more than a quarter of the 

employment opportunities in the Lake Tahoe Region (Figure F26), they represent 

only one fifth of the labor income (Figure F30), which means that the greatest 

portion of employment opportunities in the Lake Tahoe Region are low paying 

positions. In contrast, the second largest industry sector by employment is 

government, which occupies 15% of the employment opportunities and provides 

18% of the labor income. Figure F34 illustrates the relationship between industry 

sectors in the Lake Tahoe Region and whether each sector’s employment 

proportion is higher or lower than the proportion of wages.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Wage & Salary Self

Employment

Dividends,

interest & rent

Personal

current transfer

reciepts

Percent Change

California

Nevada

GLTA
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-35 

Figure F34. Relative Income by Industry, Lake Tahoe Region, 2006. 

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

Ag

Mining

Utilities

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale

Trade

Transp

ortation &

Warehousing

Retail Trade

Info

Finance

& Insurance

Re

al Estate, Rental &

Le

asing

Prof, Scientific, &

Tech Services

Mngt of Co

mpanies

Admin, Waste

Mngt &

Rem

Serv

Educational Svcs

He

alth &

Social Assistance

Arts, Entertainment, &

Rec

Accom

modation &

Foo

d

Svcs

Other Svcs

Govt

Difference = Percent Income - Percent Employment
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-36 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

F.6. Unit Economic Contribution Analysis 

Methodology 

An economic contribution analysis depicts the Forest Service’s contribution to the 

local and regional economy. An economic contribution analysis differs from an 

impact analysis in that it does not report the economy-wide effects of some 

anticipated change but rather provides a snapshot of all the income, jobs and 

industries in an area that are related to National Forest resource management. 

Where an impact analysis may focus on the economic consequences of proposed 

alternatives, a contribution analysis provides a description of the structure, size, 

and dynamics of the current economy and the Forest Service’s contribution to it. 

Non-market benefits such as ecosystem services or social benefits are not 

captured in the economic contribution analysis. While non-market benefits such 

as carbon sequestration, scenic beauty, or opportunities for solitude are important, 

there is no accepted methodology on how to quantify these values. While the 

Forest Service does recognize the role of ecosystem services, it has yet to 

establish a formal policy and protocol on whether or how to quantify these values. 

For these reasons, non-market benefits will be captured in the Social Assessment 

section. 

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. Originally developed to assist land managers in planning, IMPLAN 

has since been privatized and is currently run by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group 

(MIG). 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. 

Study Area 

One of the most important decisions to be made in this type of analysis is the 

definition of a study area based on a functional local economy. 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. 

The zip codes listed in Table F3 were used to model the “Lake Tahoe Region” 

economy. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-37 

Table F3. Zip Codes for Economic Analysis for the Lake Tahoe Region 

State County Zip Code City/Town 

NV Washoe 89402 Crystal Bay, NV 

NV Douglas 89413 Glenbrook, NV 

NV Douglas 89448 Zephyr Cove, NV 

NV Douglas 89449 Stateline, NV 

NV Washoe 89450 Incline Village, NV 

NV Washoe 89451 Incline Village, NV 

NV Washoe 89452 Incline Village, NV 

NV Carson City 89703 Carson City, NV 

CA Placer 96140 Carnellian Bay, CA 

CA Placer 96141 Homewood, CA 

CA El Dorado 96142 Tahoma, CA 

CA Placer 96143 Kings Beach, CA 

CA Placer 96145 Tahoe City, CA 

CA Placer 96146 Olympic Valley, CA 

CA Placer 96148 Tahoe Vista, CA 

CA El Dorado 96150 South Lake Tahoe, CA 

CA El Dorado 96151 South Lake Tahoe, CA 

CA El Dorado 96152 South Lake Tahoe, CA 

CA El Dorado 96154 South Lake Tahoe, CA 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-38 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

State County Zip Code City/Town 

CA El Dorado 96155 South Lake Tahoe, CA 

CA El Dorado 96156 South Lake Tahoe, CA 

CA El Dorado 96157 South Lake Tahoe, CA 

CA El Dorado 96158 South Lake Tahoe, CA 

Once the base economic model was built with IMPLAN, the following ‘Response 

Coefficients’, or rates of economic activity, were estimated. 

Recreation: The local economic stimulus for every million dollars of non-local visitor 

expenditures while visiting the LTBMU. 

Wildlife and Fish: The local economic stimulus for every million dollars of non-local 

visitor expenditures related to hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching while visiting the 

LTBMU. 

Ecosystem Restoration: The acres of mechanical thinning and small openings created 

for ecosystem restoration. 

Forest Service Expenditures: The local economic stimulus for every million dollars of 

salary and non-salary expenditures to carry out recreation management activities on the 

LTBMU. 

The response coefficients were then imported into “FEAST”, an economic analysis tool 

developed for forest planning, along with baseline economic data and resource data to 

generate the economic contribution report. The following data on forest related activities 

and management were used to support the development of the report. 

Recreation and Wildlife and Fish 

Annual visitors to the LTBMU by activity and by origin (local or non-local) from the 

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) survey for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management 

Unit, 2007. 

Expenditure profiles from NVUM (Stynes and White 2007) by activity (including 

wildlife and fish), type of use (overnight or day use) and by residence (local or nonlocal). 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-39 

Forest Service Expenditures 

Annual budget expenditures including salary and non-salary expenditures from fiscal 

year 2008 (October 2007 to September 2008). 

 Base funding, congressionally-allocated funds 

 Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act funds 

 Environmental Improvement Project funding 

 Erosion control grant funds administered by the LTBMU 

LTBMU-related employment and labor income describes the “direct”, “indirect” and 

“induced” economic effects derived from expenditures associated with management 

activities. A “direct” effect is sales of goods and services by local businesses to National 

Forest visitors or to the LTBMU. The local purchase of goods and services by directly 

affected businesses for production purposes is referred to as the “indirect” effect. The 

local expenditure of income by employees and proprietors of directly and indirectly 

affected firms is referred to as an “induced” effect. 

For example, a visitor who comes to the Lake Tahoe basin for the primary purpose of 

recreating on National Forest lands may also purchase accommodations off the forest. 

This would be a direct effect. Supplies purchased by the hotel to provide that hotel room 

would represent an indirect effect, and the employees of the hotel who spend their wage 

on groceries generates an induced effect. Induced and indirect impacts are also referred 

to as secondary, or ripple, effects. Secondary effects in the local economy can also be 

described as recirculated monies. 

The more times money is circulated within the local economy before it “leaks” out, the 

greater the economic benefit is to the local economy in terms of income and employment. 

Leakage refers to when monies are spent outside of the local economy. How effective a 

community is in increasing the number of times a dollar is recirculated in the local 

economy is largely affected by the degree of economic diversity. The rate of spending 

and respending of money in an economy is called the “multiplier effect.” 

In estimating the LTBMU’s economic contribution, it is important to note that when 

considering the economic contribution of recreation visitors, only non-local visitor 

expenditures are assessed in Table F4. This is not to say that spending behaviors by local 

recreationists do not influence the economic vitality of the area, but rather the 

“substitution effect” is unknown. Substitution effect refers to how spending behaviors 

would be affected if the LTBMU did not exist. It is conceivable that the local 

recreationists would find similar local recreation opportunities and their spending 

behavior would remain the same. In addition, expenditures by locals do not introduce 

“new money” into the economy. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-40 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

F.7. Current Conditions of Forest Economic 

Contribution 

Table F4 describes the LTBMU’s contribution to the Lake Tahoe Basin area as measured 

by jobs and labor income by industry sector. Note that “Jobs” is average annual 

employment and includes a combination of full and part time, temporary, and seasonal 

workers. “Labor 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 F4. LTBMU Economic Contribution to Lake Tahoe Region (2008) 

 

Industry 

Employment (jobs) Labor Income (Thousands of 

2010 dollars) 

Area Totals FS-Related Area Totals FS-Related 

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
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-41 

 

Industry 

Employment (jobs) Labor Income (Thousands of 

2010 dollars) 

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%

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-42 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

The LTBMU’s contribution to employment in the LTR by program area by alternative is 

shown in Table F5. Of the Forest Service programs, the greatest economic stimulus to 

the GLTA and LTA’s economy is due to the recreation program. Note: The row titled 

“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. 

Table F5. Employment by Program Area for the Lake Tahoe Region 

 

Resource 

Total Number of Jobs Contributed 

Alternative 

A (Current) 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative 

D 

Recreation: non-local only 3,166 3,324 3,641 2,691

Wildlife and Fish: non-local only 87 92 100 74

Grazing 0 0 0 0

Timber 0 0 0 0

Minerals 0 0 0 0

Ecosystem Restoration 50 50 50 50

Payments to States/Counties 31 31 31 31

Forest Service Expenditures 258 258 258 258

Total Forest Management 3,593 3,755 4,081 3,105

Percent Change from Current --- 4.5% 13.6% -13.6%
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

 Appendix F ■ F-43 

Discussion 

Susan Winter, economist and economic modeler with the Forest Service’s Planning 

Analysis Group (PAG), performed the IMPLAN modeling for this analysis, and indicated 

that an economic contribution to the area of analysis of close to 4% is a large contribution 

in comparison with other National Forests. The typical contribution is 1 - 2%. This 

contribution is relatively large because the LTBMU is one of the smallest forests in the 

country and has the highest per acre visitor rate. As illustrated in numerous tables, the 

dominant industries in the LTR are related to recreation and tourism. One of the 

industry’s most dependent on the LTBMU for economic stimulus is accommodation and 

food services, which, as noted in the income discussion, is dominated by low wage 

positions. However, 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.

Table F6. Risk Assessment 

Current Condition Risks Effects on Management 

The Lake Tahoe Region is 

highly dependent on tourism. 

The greatest contribution by 

the LTBMU is in tourism 

related industries. 

The Lake Tahoe Region is 

highly vulnerable to national 

social, economic, political, and 

environmental conditions that 

affect travel and tourism. 

Diversify economic opportunities by 

coordinating with local, county, and 

state jurisdictions, and economic 

development organizations to identify 

and develop small-scale industries 

dependent on non-timber forest 

products. 

The second greatest 

contribution of the LTBMU in 

the LTR is from government 

expenditures on salary and 

non-salary items. Much of the 

operating budget comes from 

SNPLMA, whose funds are 

guaranteed through 2012. 

There is a great level of 

uncertainty about what the 

funding level from SNPLMA 

will be after 2012. This could 

translate into a considerably 

sizable loss of jobs and labor 

income. 

Eventually the SNPLMA funding will 

run out, likely in the first decade of 

the revised plan. The budget is 

expected to drop by around half. 

The LTBMU’s largest 

contribution to employment 

and labor income is in low 

wage positions. 

Wages cannot support cost of 

living for many local 

employees. Creates 

community instability. 

Create tourism related economic 

opportunities for small owneroperated businesses that pay higher 

wages. Increase outfitter and guiding 

permittee opportunities. 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

F-44 ■ Social and Economic Assessment 

Page Intentionally Blank 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix G ■ G-1 

APPENDIX G – TIMBER SUITABILITY ANALYSIS

G.1. Lands Generally Not Available for Timber Harvest 

(sec. 62.1) 

The first task was to find lands that are generally not available for timber harvests or where 

timber harvest is not permissive. These lands include area removed from availability due to 

national designation, such as Wilderness Areas or Research Natural Areas. On the LTBMU, 

there are three Wilderness Areas (Desolation, Mount Rose, and Granite Chief) and one Research 

Natural Area (Grass Lake). Also included in this acreage are vegetation types identified as not 

capable of producing harvestable timber such as barren rock, water, shrub-lands, meadows, and 

some sub-alpine types. All the remaining acres where considered available for potentially 

treatments that could involve timber harvests. This resulted in approximately 103,000 acres out 

154,000 acres where timber related treatments could be utilized even if the objective was not 

timber production. 

G.2. Lands Suitable for Timber Production (sec. 62.21) 

There are no lands on LTBMU where timber “production” is either a primary or even a 

secondary objective or goal. However, timber output or harvest can be a by-product or 

derivative from an integrated vegetative treatment where the objective are other than timber 

production and timber harvest or removal is not explicitly forbidden in the forest plan. Timber 

output is an incidental product from prescription that had other purposes and timber harvest is 

seen as a “tool” for accomplishing other objectives such as restoration and fuels hazard 

reduction. There is no intent of producing a sustainable timber harvest over time on any lands in 

the basin. Therefore, there are no acres of lands suitable for timber production [3.a in the table 

above].

G.3. Other Lands Where Trees May Be Harvested for 

Multiple Use Values Other Than Timber Production 

(sec. 62.22) 

These are lands where achieving desired conditions or resource objectives is not compatible with 

sustainable timber production, but timber harvest can be used as a tool to achieve other multipleuse purposes. Examples of the reasons that timber harvest could occur on lands where achieving 

desired conditions or resources objectives is not compatible with timber production may include, 

but is not limited to: 

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

community wildfire protection plans. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

G-2 ■ Timber Suitability Analysis 

2. Maintaining or recruiting mature forest characteristics in areas where final regeneration 

of a stand is not planned. 

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

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

campgrounds, picnic grounds, and administrative sites, and along roads and trails open to 

public travel. 

5. Timber harvest to meet early seral habitat objectives for wildlife 

6. Timber harvest to meet scenic objectives that may include viewing areas or that increases 

scenic quality and integrity of an area. 

G.4. Other Land Generally Suitable for Timber Harvest 

(sec. 62.22) 

These are lands where achieving desired conditions or resource objectives is not compatible with 

timber production, but timber harvest can be used to achieve other multiple-use purposes. In 

some areas, achieving the resource objectives and desired conditions of vegetation may make it 

difficult to provide timber products on a planned and reasonably predictable basis, yet timber 

harvest may be an important tool to restore or maintain those desired conditions. Examples of 

the reasons that timber harvest could occur on lands where achieving desired conditions or 

resources objectives is not compatible with timber production may include, but is not limited to: 

1. Maintaining or recruiting mature forest characteristics in areas where final regeneration 

of a stand is not planned. 

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

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

campgrounds, picnic grounds, and administrative sites, and along roads and trails open to 

public travel. 

4. Timber harvest to meet early seral habitat objectives for wildlife 

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

community wildfire protection plans. 

6. Timber harvest to meet scenic objectives that may include viewing areas or that increases 

scenic quality and integrity of an area. 

A map showing the layout of the suitable vegetation types and unavailable areas within the 

LTBMU is displayed in Figure G1. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix G ■ G-3 

Figure G1. Lands Generally Available for Timber Harvest Map 

 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

G-4 ■ Timber Suitability Analysis 

G.5. Timber Sale Program Quantity (TSPQ) and LongTerm Sustained-Yield Capacity (LTSYC) (sec. 65.3) 

Forest Health and Hazardous Fuels Reduction 

Over the next 10 to 20 years, the LTBMU will continue to emphasize forest health and 

hazardous fuels reduction according to the Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel 

Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy. This strategy prioritizes vegetation and fuels 

treatments in the Wildland Urban Intermix zones as identified in Community Wildfire Protection 

Plans. The primary goals of this emphasis are to improve the resiliency of forested ecosystems 

to disturbance events such as wildfires, wind and storm events, and insect and disease outbreaks, 

including the management of forest vegetation to protect communities from losses associated 

with these disturbance events. 

Wildlife/Fisheries 

Harvesting forest vegetation will serve to improve habitat conditions for terrestrial or aquatic 

animal species, including threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and communities. 

Recreation/Scenery 

Harvesting forest vegetation will serve to maintain or improve the recreational experience of 

forest visitors, including the management of fore vegetation to maintain or improve scenic 

resources. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix G ■ G-5 

Table G1. LTBMU Timber Sale Program Quantity (by Practice) 

65.5 - Exhibit 03 

Timber Sale Program Quantity 1

(Annual Average Volume Outputs for First Decade) 

Practice Timber Sale Program Quantity (TSPQ) By Management Emphasis 2

Lands Suitable for Timber 

Production 

Timber 

Prod. 

Water

Yield

Wildlife/

Fisheries

Recreation/

Scenery 

Fire/Fuels/ 

Forest Health Other Totals

Regeneration Cutting (even- or 

two-aged) 

- 

Uneven-aged Management 

Intermediate Harvest 

 Commercial Thinning 

 Salvage/Sanitation 

Other Harvest Cutting 

Subtotal, Sawtimber (MMBF) 

Subtotal, All Products (MMCF) 

Other Lands 3 Water

Yield 

Wildlife/ 

Fisheries 

Recreation/ 

Scenery 

Fire/Fuels/ 

Forest Health 

Other Totals 

Regeneration Cutting (even- or 

two-aged) 

Uneven-aged Management 

Intermediate Harvest 

 Commercial Thinning 2.0 2.0 

 Salvage/Sanitation 0.5 0.5 

Other Harvest Cutting 

Subtotal, Sawtimber (MMBF) 2.5 2.5 

Subtotal, All Products (MMCF) 6.5 6.5 

Grand Totals - Sawtimber 

(MMBF) 

2.5 2.5 

Grand Totals, All Products 

(MMCF) 

6.5 6.5 

Notes: 

 All products includes Sawtimber plus other products such as biomass and fuelwood 

1

 To be expressed to nearest 0.1 million cubic feet (MMCF). Use local conversion ratios for BF/CF conversions. 2 See exhibit 01 for primary management emphasis category definitions. 

3 Other lands where trees may be harvested for multiple use values other than timber production as described in 

section 62.22. 

MMBF – One million board feet 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

G-6 ■ Timber Suitability Analysis 

The TSQP is displayed in the tables and charts below. They are projected for 10-decades and 

displayed as average annual amounts. Outputs are shown for both green sawlogs greater than 

9.9-inch to a utilizable top and for the total, which includes other products that have been 

converted to MBF or CF along with the sawtimber. Tables are in both board feet and cubic feet. 

The Yields are based on treating approximately 3,500 acres [single foot print] in the first decade 

based on a combination of initial and maintenance treatments. This amount is projected to 

increase to about 6,000-7,000 acres in the future as additional activities are needed to move the 

LTBMU toward its desired condition for forest health by the addition of more restoration 

treatments along with those needed to reduce risk of catastrophic fire in the WUI. 

The LTSYC was derived by estimating the amount of treatments needed to maintain the 

forestlands at its desired condition once the unit reaches that state. Active management is needed 

to restore and maintain the Basin forestland at its desired condition. This is due to the need to 

continue fire suppression throughout the unit with the exception of a few small areas in which 

natural wildfire might be allowed to burn, e.g., Desolation Wilderness or Grass Lake Research 

Natural Area. 

Table G2. LTBMU Long Term Sustained Yield Capacity by Vegetation Type 

mmcf/year average 

 Decade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

TSQP/yr [gsl]-mmbf 2.5 3.0 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 

TSQP/yr [all products] 3.3 3.9 4.0 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.7 

LTSY/Yr 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 

mmcf/year average 

 Decade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

TSQP/yr [gsl] mmcf 5.0 6.0 6.2 7.0 7.2 7.0 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.6 

TSQP/yr [all products] 6.5 7.8 8.1 9.1 9.4 9.1 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.6 

LTSY/Yr [Sawtimber Only] 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 

Notes: TSPQ– Timber Sale Program Quantity; LTSYC– Long-Term Sustained-Yield Capacity 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix G ■ G-7 

Figure G-2. Projected Incidental Timber Volume (MMBF) 

Figure G-3. Projected Incidental Timber Volume (MMCF) 

Projected Incidental Timber Volume [MMBF] from Restoration 

and Fuel Projects

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Decades

Million Board Feet per Year

TSQP/yr [gsl]-mmbf

TSQP/yr [all products]

LTSY/Yr

Projected Incidental Timber Volume [MMCF] from Restoration 

and Fuel Projects

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Decades

Million CCF [Hundred Cubic Feet] per Year

TSQP/yr [gsl] mmcf

TSQP/yr [all products]

LTSY/Yr [Sawtimber Only]
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

G-8 ■ Timber Suitability Analysis 

Page Intentionally Blank 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix H ■ H-1 

APPENDIX H – 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES BY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt

E

Physical Resources Program 

Air Quality 

Utilize smoke dispersion models for prescribed fire projects greater than 

250 acres. 

X X X X X 

Wherever feasible, apply Emission Reduction Techniques (ERTs) to reduce 

emissions and control greenhouse gas emissions from burn activities on 

NFS lands. Consider non-burning alternatives in addition to ERTs wherever 

possible to reduce and prevent smoke intrusion into communities. Manage 

emissions from on-forest activities to avoid elevating ambient air 

concentrations to levels that result in non-attainment of standards for the 

Lake Tahoe Basin. 

X X X X X 

For Forest Service operated combustion engines, utilize alternative fuels 

when technically and fiscally feasible, for purposes of reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions and ozone precursor emissions. 

X X X X X 

Consider the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan targets for the Class 

1 Airshed over Desolation Wilderness during project planning. 

X X X X X 

Water Quality and Soil Quality 

Implement PSW Region Best Management Practices to protect and 

conserve physical resources. 

X X X X X 

Manage activities within SEZs in a manner that is consistent with the 

protection of SEZ functions and values and protection of beneficial uses of 

water bodies. 

X X X X X 

Participate in achieving the program goals for the Integrated Water Quality 

Management Strategy for achievement of the Lake Tahoe TMDL. 

X X X X X 

Ensure that identified beneficial uses for water bodies are adequately 

protected. Identify the specific beneficial uses for the project area, and water 

quality goals from the Regional Basin Plan. 

X X X X X 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

H-2 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt

E

Disperse runoff to reduce velocity, and increase infiltration to enhance 

treatment of nutrients and contaminants. Stabilize soil to prevent 

accelerated (human-caused) erosion of topsoil and subsequent 

sedimentation and loss of soil productivity. Utilize NFS lands for treatment 

of urban runoff where appropriate. 

X X X X X 

Reduce the watershed impacts resulting from land coverage. Minimize the 

development of new hard and soft coverage from forest management 

activities. Seek out opportunities to reduce coverage through site design 

when retrofitting, improving, or rebuilding at existing developed sites. 

X X X X X 

Protect natural functioning of soil resources and sustain or improve longterm soil productivity in areas dedicated to growing vegetation. Where past 

management activities have reduced soil productivity below Forest Service 

regional or national guidelines, improve soil productivity by respreading 

displaced topsoil, using tillage to increase porosity, increasing nutrient 

supplies through the addition of appropriate amendments, or increasing 

nutrients and water-holding capacity through the addition of organic matter. 

X X X X X 

Water Use and Development

Where feasible, arrange for and secure water rights for existing and 

foreseeable future Forest Service consumptive uses, including 

administrative, recreation, erosion control, and evaporative losses. 

X X X X X 

Where feasible, obtain water availability assurances for existing and 

foreseeable future non-consumptive uses, including minimum instream 

flows and reservoir level maintenance for fish, wildlife, boating, swimming, 

and aesthetics. 

X X X X X 

Manage dams to ensure adequate flows for downstream uses, including 

supporting aquatic habitats. Consider opportunities for removal of dams. 

X X X X X 

If it is not possible to determine from existing data the magnitude of 

potential adverse effects on the groundwater table of a groundwater 

development project, a geologic and geotechnical analysis should be 

conducted. 

X X X X X 

Use plants which do not require long-term irrigation in re-vegetation and 

landscaping projects in order to conserve water. 

X X X X X 

Natural Hazards
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix H ■ H-3 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt

E

Evaluate natural hazards before developing or permitting new uses or 

facilities on NFS lands. 

X X X X X 

Watershed Restoration

Implement restoration projects in high priority watersheds identified by 

LRWQCB’s total maximum daily load (TMDL) Model for Lake Tahoe, to 

improve self-sustaining, dynamically stable stream systems, channel 

stability, and hydrologic function. 

X X X X X

Implement currently planned projects. New watershed restoration projects 

would be limited to removal of stressors, and the rate of watershed recovery 

would be governed by natural processes. 

 X

Implement projects identified through National USFS Watershed Condition 

Assessment Process. 

X X X X

In general, where stream characteristics are outside the natural range of 

variability in the area of a proposed project/activity, implement mitigation 

measures and short-term restoration actions to prevent further declines or 

cause an upward trend in conditions. 

X X X X

Reconnect floodplains with stream channels to enhance treatment of 

nutrients and contaminants, and improve channel geomorphic function to 

reduce in-channel sediment sources and increase in-channel sediment 

storage. 

X X X X 

Design projects to maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration 

of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows, wetlands, 

and other special aquatic features. Implement restoration projects to 

attenuate peak flows and promote water storage in SEZs. 

X X X X 

Maintain or restore: (1) the geomorphic and biological characteristics of 

special aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, 

vernal pools, springs; (2) streams, including in stream flows; and (3) 

hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for 

the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species. 

X X X X 

Identify and implement restoration actions to maintain, restore or enhance 

water quality and maintain, restore, or enhance habitat for riparian and 

aquatic species. 

X X X X 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

H-4 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt

E

Design projects to maintain and restore the hydrologic connectivity of 

streams, meadows, wetlands, and other special aquatic features. During 

project analysis, roads and trails that intercept, divert, or disrupt natural 

surface and subsurface water flow paths should be identified and corrective 

actions planned and implemented where necessary to restore connectivity 

X X X X

Climate Change

Collaborate on local and regional vulnerability assessments. Participate in a 

Regional vulnerability assessment for the Sierra Nevada. 

 X X X X 

Incorporate vulnerability assessments related to climate change into 

management on the LTBMU as information is synthesized. Consider and 

prioritize adaptation activities recommended for vulnerable resources based 

on funding. 

 X X X 

Consider restoration of species and/or habitat identified as vulnerable to 

climate change during project planning. 

 X X X 

Consider restoration of individual species during habitat restoration, 

especially for vulnerable resources. 

 X X X 

Minimize management impacts to species that are vulnerable to climate 

change. Reduce stress (e.g. human activities, invasive species) related to 

management in order to reduce the additive effects of non-climate stress. 

 X X X X 

Incorporate adaptation actions into management to increase resiliency and 

adaptive capacity of vulnerable resources. 

 X X X 

Forest Vegetation, Fuels and Fire Management Program 

Forest Vegetation and Fuels

Emphasize prevention in the form of silvicultural (e.g. mechanical 

treatments, herbicides, etc.) or prescribed fire treatments, resulting in forest 

stands that are less susceptible to high levels of tree mortality caused by 

drought, wildfires and bark beetles. 

X X X

Emphasize use of prescribed fire, managed wildfire and hand thinning to 

achieve forest stands that are less susceptible to high levels of tree mortality 

caused by drought, wildfires and bark beetles. 

X 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix H ■ H-5 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt

E

Invoke specific integrated pest management strategies as needed to respond 

to immediate native or exotic forest insect or disease threats to forest health, 

which may include removal or treatment of beetle-infested trees, when 

identified that threaten developed recreation and administrative sites, and 

private property, prior to beetle emergence, to reduce the likelihood of 

further infestation. 

X X X X X 

Establish measures to prevent the establishment and spread of invasive 

plants during project implementation and post-disturbance rehabilitation 

activities. 

X X X X X 

Consider all available technologies and management tools and practices to 

meet project objectives. 

X X X

Consider all available technologies and management tools and practices to 

meet project objectives, but emphasize use of prescribed fire, managed 

wildfire, and hand thinning.

X

Vegetation management activities adhere to ecologically-based management 

strategies and are integrated, ultimately to restore or maintain forest 

resiliency. For example, forest vegetation treatments around communities 

(thinning that alters density, structure, and species composition) to restore 

forest resilience to wildfire also meet the goals of reducing forest stand 

susceptibility to bark beetle-caused tree mortality.

X X X X X 

Vegetation treatments in montane forests favor Jeffrey pine, sugar pine that 

is white pine blister rust-resistant, and aspen, species that have become 

much less common over the last century due to logging and fire exclusion.

X X X X X 

Reforestation strategies incorporate species mix, stocking density, or use of 

genetically superior or pest resistant planting stock, to restore landscapes 

and improve adaptability under climate change. 

X X X

Reforestation strategies incorporate species mix, stocking density, or use of 

genetically superior or pest resistant planting stock, to restore landscapes. X X

Revegetation following a disturbance event or management activity first 

considers hazard tree removal, then the potential for natural regeneration of 

early seral vegetation, and finally, the need for artificial regeneration and 

corresponding competing vegetation control measures. 

X X
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

H-6 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt

E

Revegetation following a disturbance event or management activity first 

considers hazard tree removal, then the potential for natural regeneration of 

early seral vegetation.

X X 

Forest vegetation treatments, including aspen stand enhancements and 

riparian area restorations, achieve High Minimum Scenic Stability (MSS) 

and enhance desired scenic attributes and are applied on a project-by-project 

basis. 

 X X 

Forest vegetation treatments, achieve High Minimum Scenic Stability 

(MSS) and enhance desired scenic attributes and are applied on a projectby-project basis.

 X X 

When restoring disturbance regimes such as fire, many forest stands are 

currently too dense to allow the re-establishment of a frequent-fire regime. 

In these cases, management techniques such as thinning and prescribed 

burning are used as surrogates for wildfire and other mortality agents.

X X X 

Planned and unplanned ignitions are used where possible to accomplish 

forest health, wildlife habitat, or other ecosystem restoration objectives. 

X X X X X 

The majority of fuels reduction treatment efforts are concentrated in WUIs 

until initial WUI treatments are completed WUI maintenance treatments 

occur as needed. 

X X X X X 

Consistent with preserving the recreation resource, trees, tree limbs, or 

downed woody debris identified as hazardous at developed recreation sites 

are removed. 

X X X X X 

Projects should consider the creation of openings of varying sizes and 

shapes that retain reserve trees and clumps to produce spatial and structural 

heterogeneity in forest stands, and should give greater weight to openings 

from 2 to 7 acres. Forest structure should vary over the landscape in relation 

to topographic variables of slope, aspect, and slope position. 

X X X X X 

Where reforested areas (generally Pacific Southwest Region size classes 0x, 

1x, 2x) are included within area treatments, consider designing treatments to 

also: (1) accelerate the development of key habitat and late seral 

characteristics, (2) increase stand heterogeneity, (3) promote hardwoods, 

and (4) reduce risk of loss to wildland fire. 

X X X X X 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix H ■ H-7 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt

E

Preference should be given to reducing stand density and modifying species 

composition through thinning treatments to prevent/reduce high levels of 

bark beetle-or other forest pest -caused tree mortality. Preventive measures 

such as thinning should be used for reducing opportunities for forest pests. 

X X X X

Vegetation treatments designed to restore aspen should focus on restoring 

dominance of aspen in the canopy; regenerating and expanding aspen 

stands; reducing the risk of loss of aspen stands from the landscape; and 

developing vigorous under-story deciduous tree, shrub, and herbaceous 

associations and habitats. 

X X X X X 

Perpetuate and promote existing late seral stages in each project area and 

throughout the broader landscape if feasible, with primary emphasis on 

protecting/enhancing late seral dependent wildlife habitat. 

X X X

Perpetuate and promote existing late seral stages in Old Forest Emphasis 

Areas with primary emphasis on protecting/enhancing late seral dependent 

wildlife habitat. 

X X X 

Fire Management

Maintain fire suppression capability and preparedness at a level that is 

appropriate to protect lives, communities, and resources. Protection of 

human life (firefighter and public safety) is the most important objective 

during a fire. Once firefighters have been assigned to a fire, their safety 

becomes the highest value to be protected. 

X X X X X 

Base fire management strategies and tactics on firefighter and public health 

and safety, fire cause, current and predicted weather, current and potential 

fire behavior, fire effects, values to be protected, post-fire tradeoffs, 

resource availability, cumulative effects of the fire, and cost effectiveness. 

Strategy and tactics may vary around a fire’s perimeter. 

X X X X X 

Support attainment of desired conditions for fuels reduction, wildlife 

habitat, forest health, and ecosystem restoration contained in this Forest 

Plan through appropriate response to unplanned ignitions. By taking into 

account the location of ignition, time of year, current and expected weather 

and burning conditions, fire managers apply the best strategy to mitigate 

risks to the public and firefighters, meet protection priorities, and meet 

cultural/natural resource management objectives defined in this Forest Plan. 

X X X X X 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

H-8 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt

E

Respond to mutual threat incidents when requested under a cooperative 

agreement. Forest Service employees limit fire suppression actions to 

exterior structure protection measures as described in FSM 5137. 

X X X X X 

Consider use of all types of firefighting equipment in fire emergencies when 

there is threat to human life and property, or where resource value saved is 

clearly greater than the damage done through the use of such equipment. In 

other than these conditions, disturbance to soils, stream environment zones, 

and visual quality are given increased priority. Cost effectiveness of 

equipment used is also considered during tactical decision-making. 

X X X X X 

Strive to keep fire suppression costs near national historic averages for fires 

with similar characteristics in comparable areas. 

X X X X X 

Continue a Fire Prevention Program that reduces the number of humancaused fires through an aggressive program of public contact, education, 

outreach, and enforcement. 

X X X X X 

Work in cooperation with public agencies, local fire-safe councils, and 

private citizens to exchange information and assistance throughout all local 

jurisdictions. 

X X X X X 

Use fire retardant according to national and regional policy. X X X X X 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix H ■ H-9 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E 

Biological Resources Program

Conservation of Habitat and Species Diversity 

Develop a LTBMU biological (aquatic, botanical, and terrestrial) resources 

conservation strategy, including a five year action plan. 

X X X X X 

Provide for Lake Tahoe Basin-wide and Region-wide recovery actions for 

threatened and endangered species, and local species of interest. Develop, in 

partnership with other Lake Tahoe Basin entities, a basin-wide management 

strategy that utilizes well-supported indicators and reference conditions to 

assess the biological integrity and status and trend of a number of threatened 

and endangered species, Region 5 sensitive species, TRPA special interest 

species, local species of interest and priority invasive species. 

X X X X X 

Identify and map areas of high biological diversity, where multiple 

biological resources occur in the same habitat (e.g. a sensitive fish, TRPA 

special interest plant, and target wildlife species occur all within 200 meters 

of each other). 

X X X X X 

Collaborate with partners to establish priority locations for maintaining and 

restoring habitat connectivity and to expand habitat of native species. 

X X X X X 

Management activities should consider all levels of food web (trophic level) 

biodiversity (example predator/prey) during project planning and design. 

Maintenance of this diversity will help mitigate climate change exposure to 

individual species and communities (e.g. from changes in phenology and 

habitat shifts). 

X X X 

Management activities should consider habitat connectivity for species that 

may be impacted due to climate change by removing or modifying physical 

impediments to movements 

X X X 

Aquatic Habitats and Species

Maintain, enhance, or restore the physical and biological characteristics of 

aquatic ecosystems. 

X X X X X 

Minimize human disturbance that would degrade wetland function and 

processes.

X X X
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

H-10 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E 

Provide for hydrologic and geomorphic processes, such as allowing flood 

events and associated bedload to pass downstream while providing for 

maintenance of stream pattern, profile and dimension. 

X X X

Allow stream channels to adjust to reigning climate and natural processes. X

Provide a renewable supply of large downed logs that: (1) can reach the 

stream channel and (2) provide suitable habitat within and adjacent to the 

SEZs. 

X X 

Downed logs are recruited through natural processes. X

Ensure that management activities, including fuels reduction actions, within 

SEZs and SRAs enhance or maintain physical and biological characteristics 

associated with aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. 

X X X X X 

Preserve, restore, or enhance special aquatic features, such as meadows, 

lakes, ponds, bogs, fens, and wetlands, to provide the ecological conditions 

and processes needed to recover or enhance the viability of species that rely 

on these areas. 

X X X

Preserve special aquatic features, such as meadows, lakes, ponds, bogs, 

fens, and wetlands, to provide the ecological conditions and processes 

needed to recover or enhance the viability of species that rely on these areas. 

X

Identify and implement restoration actions to maintain, restore or enhance 

water quality and maintain, restore, or enhance habitat for riparian and 

aquatic species. 

X X 

Protect rare aquatic ecological habitats such as Osgood Swamp, Hell Hole, 

and Pope Marsh. Enhance these habitats through restoration activities such 

as the removal of upland vegetation (i.e. conifers, xeric species) and 

restoring hydrologic function. 

X X X

Protect rare aquatic ecological habitats such as Osgood Swamp, Hell Hole, 

and Pope Marsh. X 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix H ■ H-11 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E 

Maintain and restore connectivity of aquatic habitats where barriers to 

aquatic organism passage have been identified or where natural surface and 

subsurface water flows are intercepted, diverted, or disrupted in highest 

priority watersheds that were identified in the 2010 and 2011 aquatic 

organism passage report (LTBMU) within the life of the Forest Plan. 

X X X

Maintain and restore connectivity of aquatic habitats for TES species where 

barriers to aquatic organism passage have been identified or where natural 

surface and subsurface water flows are intercepted, diverted, or disrupted in 

highest priority watersheds that were identified in the 2010 and 2011 

aquatic organism passage report (LTBMU) within the life of the Forest 

Plan. 

 X

Employ natural channel design methods/techniques to restore aquatic 

habitat, and facilitate upstream or downstream passage for aquaticdependent species. 

X X X X 

Restore aquatic habitat for native non-game fishes in streams that have been 

identified in the LTB five year restoration plan by removing stressors 

including but not limited to removal of invasive species such as warm water 

fish. 

X X X

Manage stream reaches and associated habitat to support all life stages of 

native assemblages by providing aquatic organism passage for all life 

stages, stream conditions that provide spawning and rearing habitat such as 

appropriate pool/riffle ratio, substrate and large woody debris, except where 

not appropriate (e.g. some Urban Forest Parcels). 

X X X X 

Manage stream reaches and associated habitat to support TES species by 

providing aquatic organism passage for all life stages, stream conditions that 

provide spawning and rearing habitat such as appropriate pool/riffle ratio, 

substrate and large woody debris, except where not appropriate (e.g. some 

Urban Forest Parcels). 

X 

Participate with partner agencies to ensure native nongame fish status is 

current and accurate. Target to resurvey fish community sampling reaches at 

a minimum of every 10 years. 

X X X X

Work collaboratively with partners to assess native non-game fish 

populations and implement habitat restoration strategies, such as warmwater fish removal. 

X X X X X 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

H-12 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E 

Support active restoration for native fishes should occur where field data 

and other State, Federal, and other local agencies have determined that such 

species are at high risk of local extirpation. 

X X X

Seek opportunities to remove physical impediments to the movement of 

aquatic species, or modify physical impediments to allow migration. 

X X X X 

Seek opportunities to remove physical impediments to the movement of 

aquatic TES species, or modify physical impediments to allow migration. 

X 

Maintain, restore, and/or enhance the ecological function and condition of 

shorelines, streams, lakes, wetlands (e.g., marshes, fens, springs, seeps, and 

lagoons), and/or meadows (wet and dry) in unstable or poorly functioning 

watersheds identified in the Lake Tahoe’s Environmental Improvement 

Program or otherwise specified in species recovery plans within the life of 

the Forest Plan. 

X X X X X 

Allow aquatic ecosystems to adjust to natural processes. X

Promote actions that increase meadow wetness and diversity of native 

wetland species (i.e. obligate, facultative-wet). 

X X X X 

In certain places in meadows, prescribed fire may be used to favor increased 

growth of certain species important to cultural practices, such as basket 

weaving. 

X X X X 

Use historical sedimentation regimes as a guide for ecosystem resiliency 

and/or vulnerability. 

X X X X X 

Project activities should maintain or enhance groundwater connectivity in 

marshes and lagoons to maintain linkage with fluctuations in lake levels. 

X X X X X 

Management actions should consider retaining barrier beach and lagoon 

formations and processes. 

X X X X X 

Utilize prescribed fire in aquatic ecosystems where the use of fire is needed 

to improve habitat or the long-term function of these ecosystems. Ensure 

that fire intensity and severity (i.e. residence time) are consistent with the 

natural fire regime for the ecotype. 

X X X X X 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix H ■ H-13 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E 

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. 

X X X X X 

Terrestrial Habitats and Species

Maintain, enhance, and/or restore terrestrial habitats to increase the 

diversity, abundance, and distribution of species and biological 

communities. 

X X X X 

Natural processes are utilized to maintain and enhance the diversity, 

abundance, and distribution of species and biological communities. 

X 

Where compatible with other resource objectives for the area, increase total 

Salix (willow) cover during project implementation where habitat 

conditions will support Salix communities. 

X X X X 

Design management activities to maintain suitable habitat structure and 

function following implementation. 

X X X X X 

Manage snags and coarse woody debris for wildlife habitat as part of forest 

health or fuels reduction treatments as well as post-disturbance restoration. 

X X X X X 

Seek opportunities to develop and restore corridors for terrestrial species. X X X 

Seek opportunities to develop and restore corridors for terrestrial TES 

species. 

X 

Maintain or restore habitat connectivity where appropriate to improve 

adaptive capacity. Collaborate with partners to establish priority locations 

for maintaining and restoring habitat connectivity. 

 X X X 

Maintain or restore habitat connectivity for TES species where appropriate 

to improve adaptive capacity. Collaborate with partners to establish priority 

locations for maintaining and restoring habitat connectivity. 

 X 

Maintain, enhance, or restore the physical and biological attributes of 

habitats where rare plants occur. 

X X X X X 

Protect rare terrestrial ecological sites: including but not limited to Freel 

Peak, through restoration activities including, trail maintenance and signage. 

X X X 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

H-14 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E 

Protect rare terrestrial ecological sites: including but not limited to Freel 

Peak, through trail maintenance and signage. 

 X 

Maintain or restore habitat connectivity where appropriate to improve 

adaptive capacity. Collaborate with partners to establish priority locations 

for maintaining and restoring habitat connectivity. 

X X X 

Maintain or restore habitat connectivity for TES species where appropriate 

to improve adaptive capacity. Collaborate with partners to establish priority 

locations for maintaining and restoring habitat connectivity. 

X X 

Management activities should maintain, enhance, or restore the physical and 

biological attributes of habitats where rare plants occur. 

X X X X X 

Develop a conservation assessment for Draba (asterophora var. asterophora 

and Draba asterophora var. macrocarpa) within five years of Plan adoption. 

X X X X X 

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). 

X X X X X 

Promote the use of native plant materials for the revegetation, rehabilitation, 

and restoration of ecosystems. Give primary consideration to genetically 

appropriate native plant materials. 

X X X X 

Anticipate plant material needs for emergency and planned revegetation. 

Develop plant lists, planting guidelines, plant material sources, seed caches, 

and seed storage facilities. 

X X X X 

Consider the enhancement of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat (e.g. 

creation of snags, mosaic of habitat types) in forest management and 

prescribed fire projects. 

X X X X X 

Invasive Species (Aquatic and Terrestrial)

Clean vehicles and equipment to prevent the accidental spread of aquatic 

and terrestrial invasive species 

X X X X X 

Use an Early Detection Rapid Response (EDRR) approach to survey 

susceptible aquatic and terrestrial areas, quickly detect invasive species 

infestations, and subsequently implement immediate and specific actions to 

control those infestations before they become established and/or spread. 

X X X X X 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix H ■ H-15 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E 

Monitor management activities for potential spread or establishment of 

invasive species in aquatic and terrestrial areas of NFS lands. 

X X X X X 

Coordinate invasive species management actions (such as prevention, 

education, EDRR, up to date inventories, treatment) with tribes and other 

federal, state, local and private groups. 

X X X X X 

Support invasive species research. Adopt 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. 

X X X X X 

Aquatic Invasive Species 

Implement aquatic invasive species control and/or eradication measures 

where there is high potential for adverse effects to native species, human 

health, ecosystem processes, or resources on NFS lands. 

X X X X X 

Use prevention measures, such as screening, boat inspection, 

decontamination, and weed washing stations to reduce the spread or 

establishment of invasive species. 

X X X X X 

Cooperate with the multi-agency Lake Tahoe Region Aquatic Invasive 

Species Program. 

X X X X X 

Provide the public information about local Aquatic Invasive Species 

policies, where watercraft can be inspected and decontaminated prior to 

entering water bodies of the Lake Tahoe basin, and education regarding 

principles of cleaning, draining and drying for all watercraft at developed 

recreation facilities. 

X X X X X 

Reinforce consistent AIS prevention and outreach message at appropriate 

Forest Service recreation facilities. 

X X X X X 

Control existing or new populations of Eurasian milfoil, curly leaf 

pondweed, invasive warm-water fish, bullfrogs, Asian clam or other newly 

discovered populations of aquatic invasive species. 

X X X X X 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

H-16 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E 

Work with current partners (CDFG, USFWS, UC Berkeley, and Sierra 

Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory) and others to document Bd fungus 

occurrence levels in both existing populations and historic habitats of Sierra 

Nevada yellow-legged frog. 

X X X X X 

Terrestrial Invasive Species

Cooperate with the multi-agency Lake Tahoe Basin Weed Coordinating 

Group Program. Prioritize invasive plant species and infestations, placing 

highest priority on new species and new, small infestations; include risk to 

NFS resources and feasibility of control among prioritization factors. 

Reassess priorities based on new information. 

X X X X X

Focus treatment efforts on high priority species and infestations, while 

developing management goals for lower priority species and infestations. 

X X X X X 

Screen newly discovered terrestrial invasive plants species for management 

prioritization within two years of confirmed introduction on LTBMU. 

X X X X X 

Monitor invasive plant management projects to determine success and to 

evaluate the need for follow-up treatments or different control methods. 

Monitor known infestations, as appropriate, to determine changes in density 

and rate of spread. 

X X X X X 

Use prevention measures, such as materials inspection, equipment cleaning, 

and avoidance of known infested areas, to reduce the introduction and 

spread on invasive plants. 

X X X X X 

Assess the amount of ground and vegetation disturbance in habitats that are 

highly vulnerable to invasive plant invasion and pursue active revegetation 

as needed. 

X X X X X 

In partnership with the Pacific Southwest Research Station’s Institute of 

Forest Genetics Blister Rust Project, identify and collect seed from 5-needle 

pine trees that exhibit rust resistance to white pine blister rust (target species 

are sugar pine, western white pine, and whitebark pine). 

X X X X X 

Identify and assess terrestrial wildlife invasive species during project 

planning. During planned restoration activities, consider terrestrial invasive 

wildlife. 

X X X X X 

Protected Activity Centers (PACs ) and Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs)
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix H ■ H-17 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E 

Collaborate with partners to establish priority locations for maintaining and 

restoring spotted owl habitat connectivity. 

X X X X X 

Species Refuge Areas

Work collaboratively with the Tahoe Basin Recovery Implementation Team 

for LCT to implement the short-term recovery action plan. 

X X X X X 

Work collaboratively with partners to identify and implement additional 

habitat restoration efforts that expand the range of SNYLF in historic 

habitat throughout the Basin. 

X X X X X 

Work collaboratively with partners to implement a public-private Tahoe 

yellow cress adaptive framework, including (but not limited to): continued 

participation in the TYC Executive Committee and Adaptive Management 

Working Group; continued monitoring of TYC occurrences; encouragement 

of TYC stewardship on private lands; and site-specific conservation and 

restoration actions. 

X X X X X 

Continue TYC public outreach and education efforts. X X X X X 

Balance conservation of known TYC occurrences and high quality habitat 

with development and use of recreational facilities and access. 

X X X X X 

Revise site-specific TYC management plans to allow for adaptive 

management of known occurrences and high quality habitat that addresses 

both the annual shifts in habitat and threat level associated with lake level 

changes, and the provision of adequate beach access for recreational users. 

X X X X X 

Work collaboratively with partners to identify and implement efforts to 

conserve and, as necessary, restore whitebark pine stands. 

X X X X X 

Assess management activities for the risk of establishment or spread of 

white pine blister rust (WPBR) among whitebark pine stands. 

X X X X X 

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. 

X X X X X 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

H-18 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E 

Proactively manage whitebark pine stands of high conservation or 

restoration priority to improve resilience after disturbance and resistance to 

pathogens. Actions may include: precautions to limit the spread of blister 

rust; use of fire or silvicultural treatments; or reforestation with WPBRresistant seedlings. 

X X X X X 

Develop a unit-wide whitebark pine conservation strategy. X X X X X 

Identify whitebark pine stands of conservation and, as necessary, restoration 

priority. Develop spatially explicit species refuge areas. 

X X X X X 

Develop and maintain spatial data of known whitebark pine stands and 

potential habitat. 

X X X X X 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix H ■ H-19 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E

Recreation Program 

Partnership and Volunteers 

Provide for stewardship opportunities by partnering with schools, profit, and 

non-profit organizations, public, and other agencies. 

X X X X X 

Through joint participation, cooperative agreements, volunteer agreements, 

and grant funding, encourage partners and volunteer stewards to achieve 

mutual resource management and stewardship goals. 

X X X X X 

Using an all-lands approach, collaborate with neighboring communities, 

partner organizations, state and local agencies, tribes, and adjacent Forest 

Service units to achieve ecological, economic, and social sustainability 

within the lake Tahoe Basin and in surrounding areas. 

X X X X X 

Recreation Expansion 

Consider changing user demands, trends, and preferences, including 

modifying existing sites and infrastructure to improve natural resource 

conditions and recreation settings. 

X X X X X 

Review and evaluate existing design capacity and reduce site development 

when financially feasible. 

 X 

Undertake recreation expansion to address socioeconomic challenges, 

improve management of existing developed sites, and mitigate adverse 

effects to natural resources resulting from recreation activities. 

X X X X 

Recreation Opportunities 

As recreation trends and users change, recreation facilities and opportunities 

are adapted to provide intended user experience while being compatible 

with management goals. 

X X X X X

Use planning inventory and monitoring tools to identify changing desired 

recreation activities, settings, and opportunities. 

X X X X X 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

H-20 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E

Provide opportunities for general forest undeveloped camping where 

applicable and where it meets management goals. Periodically review and 

update the forest camping order based on public health and safety, fire 

prevention goals, and resource protection and management capabilities. 

X X X X X

Provide opportunities for dispersed camping where applicable and where it 

meets management goals. Periodically review and update the forest 

camping order based on public health and safety, fire prevention and 

resource protection goals, and management capabilities. 

X X X X X 

Recognizing and accepting that some conflict between user groups is 

natural, the LTBMU will manage user interactions by using a variety of 

methods, including educating visitors on shared and multiple use concepts 

(e.g., signage, information kiosk, interpretive programs), managing visitor 

expectations, and recreation setting design. 

X X X X X 

Address hazards at recreation sites to provide for public safety. X X X X X 

NFS lands on the LTBMU will provide a setting for local communities and 

visitors to pursue healthy lifestyle objectives and a range of outdoor pursuits 

year-round. 

X X X X X 

Perform Title VI reviews of permit holders and review NVUM survey 

results regularly to ensure recreation needs of a diverse visitor base are 

being addressed. 

X X X X X 

Maintain an interconnected, seamless approach to recreation planning in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin by applying an all-lands approach and collaborating with 

neighboring communities, partner organizations, state and local agencies, 

and adjacent Forest Service units. 

X X X X X 

Public Access 

Manage recreation activities to avoid or mitigate environmental degradation 

in sensitive environments to ensure continued access. 

X X X X X 

Maintain public access opportunities to Lake Tahoe shorelines and NFS 

lands. 

X X X X X 

Coordinate management activities to minimize impacts to public access and 

recreational experience. 

X X X X X 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix H ■ H-21 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E

Consider developed site design capacity and management capabilities when 

evaluating access. 

X X X X X 

Improve circulation and reduce congestion through capital investments. X X X X X 

Provide programs and facilities that meet universal accessibility standards. X X X X X 

Recreation Development 

Reduce deferred maintenance at developed recreation sites. X X X X X 

Management of developed recreation sites will consider deferred 

maintenance and modification and/or conversion of existing facilities to 

achieve ecological, social, and economic sustainability of the recreation 

setting prior to constructing new facilities. 

X X X X X 

Adjust recreation sites or permit boundaries to meet user needs and 

sustainability goals. 

X X X X X 

Recreation infrastructure will incorporate innovative and sustainable design 

concepts. 

X X X X X 

Modify or relocate federally-owned facilities and public access sites that are 

impeding groundwater connectivity, lagoon function, or barrier beach 

formation while maintaining public access and recreation opportunity. 

X X X X X 

Developed recreation sites are made more sustainable through design and 

construction principles in order to increase a site’s ability to withstand use 

without facility or natural resource deterioration. 

X X X X X 

Coordinate with partner agencies, permit holders, and other appropriate 

organizations to educate visitors and residents on bear conflict issues in the 

LTBMU, and reduce the number of human-bear conflicts. 

X X X X X 

Recreation Special Uses Program 

Permitted activities increase opportunities for recreation use while 

protecting the natural setting and resources. Recreation special use permits 

effectively leverage LTBMU’s ability to provide recreation services. 

X X X X X 

Evaluate existing recreation special use permits for deficiencies before 

considering new proposals. 

X X X X X 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

H-22 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E

Administer special use permits to Forest Service standards by: 

X X X X X

 Eliminating the backlog of expired authorizations; 

 Increasing monitoring and oversight of current 

authorizations; and 

 Completing appropriate level of environmental 

documentation. 

Issue new recreation special use permits that expand opportunities in 

response to identified needs and management goals. X X X X

Consider long-term plans when expanding or modifying ski facilities and 

activities. X X X X

Consider summer uses at existing ski resorts consistent with national policy. X X X X

Interpretive Services Program

Periodically review Interpretation and Education programs and information 

for consistency with national objectives and regional and local issues. X X X X X 

Communicate range of recreation opportunities and settings while 

emphasizing shared and multiple use objectives to the public. Encourage 

public responsibility for natural and cultural resource protection and 

recreation etiquette. 

X X X X X 

Provide visitor information services at major entry points and areas of 

concentrated use. 

X X X X X 

Provide and update interpretive signage, wayside exhibits, publications, and 

programs using a variety of media and methods. X X X X X 

Educate the local community about the importance of ecosystem services 

and stewardship principles using teacher trainings, school programs, and 

community events. 

X X X X X 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix H ■ H-23 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E

Educate the local community about principles and methods for sustaining 

forests in a changing climate. X X X X X 

Inform the public about Forest Service projects and management actions. X X X X X 

Scenic Quality Program 

Manage scenery to perpetuate the overall natural-appearing setting, protect 

significant scenic features, and ensure that development is appropriate for 

the area in which it is located in terms of size, mass, architectural style, and 

density. 

X X X X X 

Consider the type, intensity, location, and visual characteristics of land use, 

visual dominance competition between the natural and built environments, 

and resource management actions, particularly in sensitive, undeveloped 

areas. 

X X X X X 

Manage for scenic stability through actions that will enhance and protect 

desired scenic attributes through vegetation treatments to achieve High 

Minimum Scenic Stability (MSS), on a project-by-project basis over the 

Plan Period. Examples include aspen stand enhancements and riparian area 

restorations. 

X X X X X 

Restore damaged landscape scenes (currently meeting Low or No Scenic 

Integrity Levels), to achieve the established scenery objectives shown in the 

Minimum Scenic Integrity (MSI) map. 

X X X X X 

Mitigate the establishment of visible lines in landscape areas where 

vegetation is removed for management objectives; cleared areas will include 

edges that reflect the visual character of naturally occurring vegetation 

openings. 

X X X X X 

Cultural Resources Program
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

H-24 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E

Through the Plan period, efficiently manage cultural resource databases to 

support resource management and research, in cooperation with the 

appropriate California and Nevada state agencies. 

X X X X X 

Employ education and enforcement to deter vandalism. X X X X X 

Implement restrictions, using permits and/or visitation controls, when 

necessary, to protect sites from physical damage and excessive wear and 

tear. 

X X X X X 

Implement a policy of site avoidance to prevent physical damage to heritage 

resources during forest management activities. X X X X X 

The cultural resources program will involve collaboration with site 

stewards; volunteers; State and other Federal agencies; local and tribal 

governments; schools and universities; and non-profit groups. Cooperative 

partnerships with organizations will provide site protection and facilitate 

development of research, educational, and interpretive opportunities. Public 

participation and partnerships in cultural resources management for these 

purposes will be increased. 

X X X X X 

Address natural physical deterioration of cultural resources based on 

resource priorities and availability of funding. X X X X X 

Tribal Relations Program

Tribal input is solicited during all stages of planning processes. Existing 

agreements that allow the Tribe to manage vegetation resources in 

traditional use areas are maintained or enhanced, and tribal interests are 

integrated into LTBMU program areas where possible. 

X X X X X 

Coordinate management where National Forest lands are adjacent to tribal 

lands. X X X X X 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix H ■ H-25 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E

Continue support of the Washoe Tribe in pursuit of establishing a Washoe 

Cultural Center and a Washoe Tending and Gathering Garden. X X X X X 

Continue to implement the agreement regarding use of traditional 

management techniques for Meeks Meadow. X X X X X 

Work closely with tribes to ensure that cultural practices and traditional 

knowledge is preserved and made available to future generations through 

preservation of important resources and supporting traditional uses at Lake 

Tahoe. 

X X X X X 

Support the Washoe Tribe’s goal of ensuring and increasing Tribal access to 

Lake Tahoe. X X X X X 

Work cooperatively with the Washoe Tribe to maintain access to and 

protect the physical integrity of Cave Rock and other culturally important 

areas. 

X X X X X 

Participate in additional LTBMU programs to enhance economic 

development opportunities for the Washoe Tribe (e.g. contracting, permits, 

employment). EO 13084-Consultation with Indian Tribal Governments. EO 

13175-Consultation with Indian Tribal Governments. 

X X X X X 

Identify opportunities to incorporate tribal traditional management practices 

into projects to restore, enhance, and promote ecosystem health, in 

collaboration with the Washoe Tribe and native traditional practitioners. 

X X X X X 

Access and Travel Management Program 

Designate road and trail systems. Utilize the ATM planning process to 

identify sustainable route systems and identify authorized uses of routes 

(Motor Vehicle Use Map, MVUM). Update ATMs to respond to changing 

conditions. 

X X X X X 

Designate NFS lands open to use by over-snow vehicles. X X X X X 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

H-26 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E

Manage designated road and trail systems so that they are socioeconomically as well as environmentally sustainable. Management 

techniques include: 

X X X X X 

a. implement water quality protection BMPs, 

b. manage road gate openings and closures, 

c. provide managed parking opportunities, 

d. provide route information and regulations, 

e. reroute and restore alignments, 

f. provide for a variety of user types, 

g. design to reduce use conflicts, 

h. provide multi-modal and loop trail opportunities, 

i. provide accessible opportunities, 

j. provide for Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP), 

k. anticipate higher and earlier peak run off water flows and more 

rain-on-snow events, 

Collaborate with agencies and partner organizations in road and trail 

transportation planning efforts aimed at connecting communities and public 

lands across jurisdictional boundaries. 

X X X X X 

Reduce roadside parking in areas of high density use and provide for 

managed parking. Prioritize transit or alternatives to the private automobile 

where parking capacity is reduced. 

X X X X 

Increase dispersed winter parking opportunities. X X X X 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix H ■ H-27 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E

National Trails System Program 

National Recreation Trails

Utilize partnerships to achieve management goals for National Recreation 

Trails. X X X X X 

National trails meet the maintenance standards for the trail class and 

managed use, described in the Designated Special Area section of this 

Forest Plan (Section 2.4). 

X X X X X 

Limited recreation facilities, such as interpretive signs, viewing platforms, 

and benches may be present along the trail. Trailheads may offer amenities 

such as picnic facilities or interpretive information that enhances the 

experience of using the trail. 

X X X X X 

Trailheads may offer amenities such as picnic facilities or interpretive 

information that enhances the experience of using the trail. X X X X X 

Where the trail leads to an outstanding destination feature, the qualities of 

that feature are protected. X X X X X 

Reconstruct or relocate existing portions of the trail as needed to enhance 

the recreation experience and protect resources. X X X X X 

Trailheads are designed with sensitivity to scale and character of the setting. X X X X X 

Implement measures to protect areas of high ecologic value, such as rare 

plant sites or unique geologic features within the corridor, as needed. X X X X X 

Preserve the scenic quality and character of the National Recreation Trails. X X X X X 

National Scenic Trails

Manage the PCT as a non-motorized and non-mechanized trail (i.e. hiking, 

pack and saddle, ski and snowshoe uses). X X X X X 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

H-28 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E

Emphasize preservation of the backcountry setting and rustic character of 

the trail and amenities along the trail. X X X X X 

The PCT meets the maintenance standard for the trail class and managed 

uses of hiker/pedestrian and pack and saddle. X X X X X 

Utilize partnerships to achieve management goals for the Pacific Crest Trail. X X X X X 

Require mitigation measures including screening, feathering, and other 

visual management techniques to mitigate visual and other impacts of new 

or upgraded utility rights-of-way. Mitigation measures apply to facilities as 

well as vegetation. 

X X X X X 

Where the trail leads to an outstanding destination feature, the qualities of 

that feature are protected. X X X X X 

Reconstruct or relocate existing portions of the PCT as needed to enhance 

the recreation experience and protect resources. X X X X X 

Trailheads are designed with sensitivity to scale and character of the setting. X X X X X 

Where possible, locate trailhead parking facilities in locations not visible 

from the trail. X X X X X 

Consider provision of campsites where there is a demonstrated need for 

overnight use and facilities are needed to protect natural resources. X X X X X 

Trailheads may offer amenities such as sanitation and picnic facilities and 

interpretive information that enhances the experience of the trail. Recreation 

facilities along the trail, such as interpretive signs, are installed primarily for 

resource protection. 

X X X X X 

Allow wildlife and fish habitat improvements which enhance trail desired 

conditions and setting. Allow expansion of existing forest openings and/or 

creation of new openings when compatible with desired conditions. 

X X X X X 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix H ■ H-29 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E

Allow timber harvest, prescribed burning, and wildland fire to manage 

vegetation consistent with desired conditions and setting for the PCT. X X X X X 

Wildfire suppression strategies will strive to minimize impacts on PCT 

values. X X X X X 

Restore degraded destinations, areas, or trail sections to provide for public 

use while improving the immediate foreground view from the trail and area 

focal points such as lakeshores. 

X X X X X 

Built Environment Program 

Use the Recreation Facility Analysis (RFA) and Facilities Master Plan to 

reduce deferred maintenance backlogs consistent with national direction. X X X X X 

Buildings and facilities are prioritized for construction, reconstruction or 

decommissioning based upon public benefit and ability to reduce deferred 

maintenance. 

X X X X X 

Provide and operate reliable, adequately sized facilities that support 

administrative needs and recreation opportunities. X X X X X 

Seek opportunities to reduce impervious coverage and soil compaction on 

low capability soils. X X X X X 

Implement water and energy conservation measures at developed recreation 

and administrative sites. X X X X X 

Reduce energy consumption associated with facilities operations and 

maintenance. X X X X X 

Retrofit Forest Service owned facilities with water quality protection BMPs 

throughout the Plan period. X X X X X 

Incorporate opportunities for use of public transit, or other alternative 

modes of` transportation into new facilities or those undergoing remodel, 

reconstruction, or retrofit. 

X X X X X 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

H-30 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E

Incorporate energy efficiency, conservation, sustainable design principles, 

and “green” technologies into administrative and recreation facilities 

whenever possible during renovations, remodels, reconstruction, retrofit, or 

new construction to minimize operation and maintenance costs. 

X X X X X 

The quality of the built environment should benefit from sound site 

planning as well as from low-energy and environmental design principles 

such as those embodied in the LEED program. 

X X X X X 

Construct facilities that are economically feasible to maintain. X X X X X 

Recreational facilities and trails are rehabilitated and/or maintained to 

improve the environment, the user experience, protect natural settings, 

restore cultural and historical areas, and enhance economic sustainability. 

X X X X X 

The architectural character of administrative and recreation buildings, 

landscape structures, site furnishings, wayside structures, and signs installed 

or operated on NFS lands are planned and designed with aesthetic 

characteristics that respect the cultural and natural scenic quality of the Lake 

Tahoe Basin. The built environment is economically, environmentally, and 

socially sustainable. 

X X X X X 

Prioritize buildings and facilities for construction, reconstruction or 

decommissioning based upon Agency or public benefit and ability to 

eliminate deferred maintenance. 

X X X X X 

Lands Program

Resolve trespass and encroachments with the highest priority assigned to the 

following: 1) where public safety is threatened; 2) where damage to 

resources and/or resource values is occurring, or encroachment is interfering 

with resource management activities; and 3) where public access is 

interfered with. 

X X X X X 

Continue to purchase small urban lots, subdivision lots less than 1 acre, in 

Placer County only, where lots with an IPES score of 725 or less are still 

unbuildable and qualify for acquisition under the Santini-Burton program. 

X X X X X 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix H ■ H-31 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E

Direct all other land purchases to parcels larger than one acre that include 

important resource or recreational values, improve access to National Forest 

System lands, protect environmentally sensitive land from development or 

consolidate or improve NFS land boundaries, eliminate inholdings and 

provide for more efficient and effective resource management. 

X X X X X 

In El Dorado and Douglas Counties, consider accepting donations of small 

urban lots that are unbuildable due to their location in Stream 

Environmental Zones when they improve the ownership pattern and 

management efficiency. 

X X X X X 

Retain National Forest System lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin in public 

ownership to fulfill the specific objectives for which they were acquired X X X X X 

Seek opportunities for land adjustments with State and Local governments 

that consolidate ownership and improve management of urban lots. X X X X X 

When approving erosion control grant projects, consider transfer of 

ownership to grantees when the proposed improvements encumber twentyfive percent or more of the lot. 

X X X X X 

Consider authorizing small scale renewable energy projects, such a site 

specific solar, when they are compatible with other resource objectives and 

meet scenic resource standards. 

X X X X X 

There are no major utility transmission corridors currently designated in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin. Such corridors should not be designated at Lake Tahoe 

due to their incompatibility with the scenic, recreational and other resource 

values at Lake Tahoe. 

X X X X X 

Research and Monitoring Projects

Actively seek and encourage research activities that may be beneficial in 

informing management of NFS lands. Routinely evaluate research findings 

to inform adaptive management. 

X X X X X 

Continue to prioritize science needs based on monitoring results, science 

findings, and national guidance. X X X X X 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

H-32 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy 

Comparison of Alternatives by Management Strategy Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt 

E

Santini-Burton Acquired Lands/Urban Forest Parcels 

Manage urban forest as undeveloped parcels that provide open space and 

dispersed recreation opportunity. X X X X X 

Manage stand densities on urban forest parcels to achieve and maintain 

healthy forest characteristics. X X X X X 

Manage the continuity and arrangement of live and dead fuels to reduce risk 

of catastrophic fire, and to complement defensible space efforts on 

adjoining private lands. Urban Forest parcels are located within the urban 

zone of the wildland urban interface (WUI). 

X X X X X 

Retain, protect, and restore aspen and riparian plant communities to enhance 

wetland function and provide habitat for disturbance tolerant species that 

utilize urban forests. 

X X X X X 

Restore areas of existing human-caused disturbance, generally related to 

residential development, to control erosion and support natural watershed 

function. 

X X X X X

Prevent the introduction of non-native, invasive species and noxious weeds 

and contain existing populations. X X X X X

Mitigate all identified hazard trees as quickly as possible. X X X X X

Abate all identified hazard trees as quickly as possible. X X X X X
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix I ■ I-1 

APPENDIX I – COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES BY OBJECTIVE

Comparison of Alternatives by Objective Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt

E

Physical Resources Program

OBJ1. Achieve load reduction targets for upland forest and SEZs identified in 

the Lake Tahoe TMDL during the life of the plan. 

X X X X X 

OBJ2. Implement effective BMPs to achieve 95% implementation and 

effectiveness ratings forest-wide in BMP assessments annually, as determined by 

the Pacific Southwest Region’s Best Management Practices Effectiveness Program. 

X X X X X 

OBJ3. Maintain up to date inventory of water rights and uses on NFS lands, 

and meet state requirements for maintaining water rights. 

X X X X X 

OBJ4. Implement actions to restore geomorphic and habitat function to Reach 

5 of the Upper Truckee River and Angora Creek within the Angora fire area by 

approximately 2016. 

X X X X X 

Forest Vegetation, Fuels and Fire Management Program

OBJ5. Reduce surface, ladder and canopy fuels through thinning and fuel 

reduction treatments on 2,000 acres per year in the WUI. 

X X X X X 

OBJ6. Prescribed burning of surface fuels in the WUI occur on 1,800 acres per 

year when possible. 

X X X 

OBJ6. Prescribed burning of surface fuels in the WUI occur on 2,100 acres per 

year when possible. 

X X 

White fir – mixed conifer

OBJ7. Create openings to shift approximately 50 acres of mid-seral white fir – 

mixed conifer type to early-seral each year over the latter 10 years of plan 

implementation (beginning 5 years after this Plan goes into effect). 

X X X X 

OBJ7. Create openings to shift approximately 100 acres of mid-seral white fir 

– mixed conifer type to early-seral each year between 2019 and 2029. 

 X 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

I-2 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Objective 

Comparison of Alternatives by Objective Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt

E

OBJ8. In stands historically dominated by pines, convert white fir-mixed 

conifer type generally in the early or mid-seral stages to Jeffrey pine by 

approximately 50 acres per year between 2019 and 2029. Retain pines during 

conversion treatments. 

X X X X 

OBJ8. In stands historically dominated by pines, convert white fir-mixed 

conifer type generally in the early or mid-seral stages to Jeffrey pine by 

approximately 100 acres per year between 2019 and 2029. Retain pines during 

conversion treatments. 

X 

OBJ9. Thin approximately 200 acres of white fir-mixed conifer each year 

between 2019 and 2029 to improve resiliency and reduce susceptibility to insects, 

disease, and drought. 

X X X 

OBJ9. Thin approximately 400 acres of white fir-mixed conifer each year 

between 2019 and 2029 to improve resiliency and reduce susceptibility to insects, 

disease, and drought. 

 X 

OBJ9. Thin approximately 120 acres of white fir-mixed conifer each year 

between 2019 and 2029 to improve resiliency and reduce susceptibility to insects, 

disease, and drought. 

 X 

Jeffrey pine

OBJ10. From the mid-seral stages create approximately 40 acres of openings to 

early-seral Jeffrey pine each year between 2019 and 2029, and maintain it as the 

dominant species. Employ techniques to release early seral pine from competing 

vegetation if necessary. Post-disturbance event treatments will be used as 

opportunities to regenerate early seral Jeffrey pine. This objective may be 

accomplished in coordination with white fir – mixed conifer conversion objective, 

above. 

X X X X 

OBJ10. From the mid-seral stages create approximately 80 acres of openings to 

early-seral Jeffrey pine each year between 2019 and 2029, and maintain it as the 

dominant species. Employ techniques to release early seral pine from competing 

vegetation if necessary. Post-disturbance event treatments will be used as 

opportunities to regenerate early seral Jeffrey pine. This objective may be 

accomplished in coordination with white fir – mixed conifer conversion objective, 

above. 

X 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix I ■ I-3 

Comparison of Alternatives by Objective Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt

E

OBJ11. Thin approximately 250 acres of Jeffrey pine each year between 2019 

and 2029 to improve resiliency and reduce susceptibility to insects, disease, and 

drought. 

X X X 

OBJ11. Thin approximately 500 acres of Jeffrey pine each year between 2019 

and 2029 to improve resiliency and reduce susceptibility to insects, disease, and 

drought. 

 X 

OBJ11. Thin approximately 150 acres of Jeffrey pine each year between 2019 

and 2029 to improve resiliency and reduce susceptibility to insects, disease, and 

drought. 

 X 

Red fir

OBJ12. Create approximately 10 acres of openings in the mid-seral stages to 

shift stands to early-seral red fir type each year between 2019 and 2029. Utilize 

opportunities for treatment after disturbance events. 

X X X X 

OBJ12. Create approximately 20 acres of openings in the mid-seral stages to 

shift stands to early-seral red fir type each year between 2019 and 2029. Utilize 

opportunities for treatment after disturbance events. 

X 

OBJ13. Thin approximately 50 acres of red fir each year between 2019 and 2029 

to improve resiliency and reduce susceptibility to insects, disease, and drought. 

X X X 

OBJ13. Thin approximately 100 acres of red fir each year between 2019 and 

2029 to improve resiliency and reduce susceptibility to insects, disease, and 

drought. 

 X 

OBJ13. Thin approximately 30 acres of red fir each year between 2019 and 2029 

to improve resiliency and reduce susceptibility to insects, disease, and drought. 

 X 

Aspen

OBJ14. Restore or stimulate regeneration of at least 25 acres of aspen per year. X X X X 

OBJ14. Restore or stimulate regeneration of at least 50 acres of aspen per year. X 

 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

I-4 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Objective 

Comparison of Alternatives by Objective Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt

E

Biological Resources Program

Conservation of Habitat and Species Diversity

OBJ15. Restore a minimum of two fens that are assessed to be at risk of 

conversion to meadow, based on fen inventory and ranking assessment (California 

Native Plant Society and LTBMU data) by 2029. 

X X X X 

OBJ16. Restore stream segments with degraded habitat in a minimum of 2 

streams using natural channel design methods/techniques to design elements such 

as large wood and pools in aquatic habitats to maintain or improve biological 

processes (e.g., expansion of native species populations), biological characteristics 

(e.g., species composition), physical processes (e.g., erosion and aggradation), and 

physical characteristics (e.g., channel and over-bank flows)by 2029. This will 

provide important aquatic habitat needed to support all life history processes. 

X X X X 

OBJ17. By 2019, identify degraded aquatic habitat that historically supported 

native aquatic species. Restore a minimum of two sites to support self-sustaining 

aquatic populations by 2029. 

X X X X 

OBJ 18. By 2029, maintain or increase vegetation cover in meadows where 

LTBMU data shows that cover is insufficient. 

X X X X X 

OBJ19. Identify cave, cave surrogate, and/or cliff sites that are important to the 

survival, migration, reproduction, and dispersal of dependent species where 

removal of human impacts will improve species success. Remove human impacts 

at a minimum of one site identified, by 2029. 

X X X X 

OBJ20. Restore a minimum of three willow flycatcher nesting habitats in 

historic and currently occupied habitats by 2029. 

X X X X 

OBJ21. Complete the Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) action plan to identify 

management opportunities for improving aquatic connectivity by 2016. 

X X X X X 

OBJ22. Improve 5 high priority AOP barriers by 2029, based on AOP 

management and monitoring plan. 

X X X X X 

OBJ23. Develop a conservation assessment for Tahoe and Cup Lake draba 

(Draba asterophora var. asterophora, D.a. var. macrocarpa) by 2019. 

X X X X X 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix I ■ I-5 

Comparison of Alternatives by Objective Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt

E

Invasive Habitats and Species (Aquatic and Terrestrial)

OBJ24. Screen hand-carried/non-motorized watercraft are screened or show 

proof of boat inspection or decontamination at all staffed developed recreation sites 

(campgrounds, day use areas, resorts) check-in points (i.e. kiosks), by 2016. 

X X X X X 

Protected Activity Centers (PACs) and Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs)

OBJ25. Restore six California spotted owl PACs (representing approximately 

30 percent of the known territories in the Lake Tahoe Basin) by 2029; treatments 

would be designed based on restoration needs of the specific PAC. 

X X X 

OBJ26. Restore seven northern goshawk PACS (representing approximately 30 

percent of the known territories in the Lake Tahoe Basin) by 2029; treatments 

would be designed based on restoration needs of the specific PAC. 

X X X 

Lahontan cutthroat trout

OBJ27. Establish at least one self-sustaining Lahontan cutthroat trout subpopulation in Fallen Leaf Lake, and implement appropriate conservation measures 

in Glen Alpine Creek in cooperation with the Lake Tahoe Basin Recovery 

Implementation Team by 2029. 

X X X X 

OBJ28. Secure the existing Upper Truckee River (Meiss Meadows) Lahontan 

cutthroat trout sub-population (four miles of stream habitat) through maintenance 

removal of brook trout by 2016. 

X X X X 

OBJ29. Reestablish Lahontan cutthroat trout in ten stream miles of the Upper 

Truckee River (from Meiss Meadows to the southern extent of Christmas Valley), 

in cooperation with California Department of Fish and Game by 2029. 

X X X X X 

OBJ30. Identify five recovery locations. Initiate recovery of two subpopulations 

of LCT within fluvial and/or lacustrine ecosystems, as identified by the Tahoe 

Basin LCT Recovery Implementation team by 2029. 

X X X X X 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

I-6 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Objective 

Comparison of Alternatives by Objective Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt

E

OBJ31. Collaborate with California Department of Fish and Game, US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and Eldorado National Forest to identify and restore additional 

suitable habitat for yellow-legged frog as deemed appropriate. Complete 

restoration of seven high alpine lakes (composed of habitat areas that would 

support four sub-populations) adjacent to current yellow-legged frog populations in 

the Desolation wilderness by removing introduced trout species wby 2029. 

X X X X X 

OBJ32. Conduct physical habitat maintenance or enhancement that promotes 

long-term water availability and structural conditions to create areas for basking 

and/or cover, for the Hellhole yellow-legged for sub-population, by 2029 

X X X X X 

OBJ33. By 2029, maintain or expand fishless high elevation aquatic habitats 

near existing or historic SNYLF sub-populations where such habitats are 

determined to support yellow-legged frog production and development and these 

actions will increase localized range of SNYLF. 

X X X X X 

OBJ31. Collaborate with California Department of Fish and Game, US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and Eldorado National Forest to identify and restore additional 

suitable habitat for yellow-legged frog as deemed appropriate. Complete 

restoration of seven high alpine lakes (composed of habitat areas that would 

support four sub-populations) adjacent to current yellow-legged frog populations in 

the Desolation wilderness by removing introduced trout species wby 2029. 

X X X X X 

Recreation Program

OBJ34. Evaluate visitor satisfaction and user trends by completing the 

National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey every 5 years. 

X X X X X 

Cultural Resources Program

OBJ35. Nominate for listing to the National Register of Historic Places - the 

Comstock Historic Logging District, Angora Lookout, Cave Rock, Hawley Grade, 

Camp Richardson Resort, Meiss Cabin and Barn, and Skunk Harbor on the 

National Register of Historic Places by 2029. 

X X X X X 

OBJ36. By 2019, develop a management plan for arborglyphs throughout the 

Lake Tahoe Basin. 

X X X X X 

OBJ37. Add new interpretive elements (i.e. signs, boards, graphics, or new 

publicly-available printed materials) highlighting historic or cultural areas not yet 

interpreted in the Lake Tahoe Basin, by 2029. 

X X X X X 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix I ■ I-7 

Comparison of Alternatives by Objective Alt

A

Alt

B

Alt

C

Alt

D

Alt

E

Tribal Relations Program

OBJ38. Revise the consultation protocol defined in the 1996 

Memorandum of Understanding between the LTBMU and the Washoe 

Tribe by 2019. 

X X X X X 

Access and Travel Management Program

OBJ39. Implement BMP retrofits on 285 miles of NFS roads by 2025. X X X X X 

OBJ40. Implement BMP retrofits on 370 miles of NFS trails by 2025. X X X X X 

Built Environment Program

OBJ41. Implement BMP retrofits at all USFS facilities (including visitor 

centers, campgrounds, and parking lots.) by 2029. 

X X X X X 

OBJ42. Develop, plan and schedule to adoption for retrofitting five developed 

facilities rated as Development Scale 3-5 to include universally accessible features 

by 2025. 

X X X X X 

OBJ43. Maintain 15 administrative sites to standard by 2029. X X X X X 

OBJ44. Maintain 44 recreation sites to standard by 2029. X X X X X 

Santini-Burton Acquired Lands/Urban Forest Parcels

OBJ45. Complete initial fuels reduction and forest health restoration 

treatments as needed on all urban forest parcels by 2019. 

X X X X X 

OBJ46. Conduct follow-up fuels treatments every 10-15 years in urban forest 

parcels. 

X X X X X 

OBJ47. Restore and vegetate areas of existing disturbance on up to 20 urban 

forest parcels annually 

X X X X X 

 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

I-8 ■ Comparison of Alternatives by Objective 

Page Intentionally Blank 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Alternative J ■ J-1 

APPENDIX J – 

ALTERNATIVE A STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-2 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

1 FP IV-18 

In resolving conflicts, the following list of resources or uses are in 

normally apply: a) Highest priority will be given to the protection of water quality anthe clarity of water in Lake Tahoe. b) Protection of threatened and endangered plant and animal specc) Preservation of cultural resources determined or believed to be 

d) Achievement of air quality standards for health, and visibility, anadverse impacts of atmospheric deposition upon water quality; e) Maintenance of viable populations of wildlife; f) Achievement of diverse vegetation communities; g) Establishment of a variety of outdoor recreation facilities and u

assures a "fair share" of the basin capacity; h) Harvesting and treatment of timber stands to maintain health anvegetation and to provide for the safety of people and property; i) Lowest priority will be given to forage grazing. 

2 FP IV-18 

Selection of management practices to achieve forest goals and obproblems will be made at the project level based upon site specific procedures established in the National Environmental Policy Act a

Council of Environmental Quality 40CFR 1500-1508 will be used fdocumentation. 

3 FP IV-18 

Program and project development will be guided by both this foresRegional Plan for the Tahoe Basin. Define the process for TRPA activities by Memorandum of Understanding between the two age

4 FP IV-18 

Support the attainment of the Environmental Thresholds establish(see Appendix E). Operate within Forest Service authority toward thresholds regardless of the status of regional government in the a

5 FP IV-18 

Assist adjoining national forest in assessment of projects outside twhere there is potential for adverse affects upon achievement of estandards. Recommend mitigation measures. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

6 FP IV-19 1 Give priority for recreation uses that are the most highly dependen

resources of the area. 

7 FP IV-19 2 Protect and enhance potential recreation sites for future developm8 FP IV-19 3 Locate new recreational facilities on class 4-7 land capability and 

necessary access and utilities. 

9 FP IV-19 4 Evaluate potential hazards and determine necessary mitigations d

projects. 

10 FP IV-19 5 Locate visitor information services in areas of concentrated use or 

basin. 

11 FP 

IV-19 6 Base the type, location, and rate of recreation development on de

will not exceed the 'fair share' of 4,550 PAOT of additional develop

this capacity may be provided by private concessionaire. 

12 FP 

IV-19 7 Prepare a traffic analysis for each new recreation site which would 

200 trips per day. Prepare a traffic analysis when existing sites thatraffic are proposed for reconstruction. TRPA criteria for a traffic a

including modeling that estimates the effects of the project upon le

intersections, effects upon air quality, and effects upon traffic flowmitigation measures for the impacts. 

13 FP IV-19 8 Design facilities for service by transit operation. Those facilities tha

shore should also be serviceable by shuttle type boats. 

14 FP 

IV-19 9 Provide open space between developed sites and between sites a

space should be sufficient to keep the effects of one from diminishexperiences in the other. In situations where there is insufficient sp

including alternative sites, should be considered to buffer effects. 

15 FP IV-19 10 Locate recreation uses which produce high noise levels away from 

where low noise levels are important and away from critical wildlife 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-4 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

16 SNFPA 

62 82, 87, 89 Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturban

site from existing recreation, off highway vehicle route, trail, and romaintenance). Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off highwarecreational and other developments for their potential to disturb n

17 2. Dispersed Recreation Facility Construction 18 FP 

IV-19 1 Plan for and construct approximately 2,230 PAOT of facilities such 

support of dispersed recreation. (Nearly 80% of this development existing use rather than to expand use). Such facilities may be loc

classes 1-7. When located on class 1-3 land, the following findingThe project by its very nature must be sited on environmentally seno feasible alternative which avoids encroachment on these landsare fully mitigated through the application of BMP and restoration land at the rate of 1.5 to 1 for disturbance beyond that which is alloCapability System (added by FP amendment #1, 6/1/1990) 

19 FP 

IV-19 2 Increase opportunity for hiking and riding outside of Desolation Wi

attention to those areas which have been, for lack of access or pu

accessed in the past. 

20 3. Development and Administration of Private Sector Recreat21 FP 

IV-20 1 Consider new private sector recreation use proposals including re

merits of each case. Applicants must demonstrate that private lan

capable, or suitable. Proponents will normally be expected to do t

analysis and submit the documentation in an environmental asses

statement acceptable to the Forest Supervisor. 

22 FP IV-20 2 Manage developed sites so that the number of occupants at any o

exceed the designed capacity. 

23 FP 

IV-20 3 Continue existing resort developments so long as they serve a pu

met on non-national forest system lands or where the resort devel

need for substantial capital investment by the Forest Service to mdemand. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

24 FP IV-20 4 Allow new organization camps to be located in the Mt. Tallac Trac25 FP 

IV-20 5 Arrange for removal of existing private structures (piers, boathous

on lakeshore unless: a) they are necessary for the reasonable enj

special use permits that are planned for continued use, and b) the reasonably be met through community or public facilities. 

26 FP 

IV-20 6 Allow new public use facilities on lakeshore as necessary to provid

to and enjoyment of the lake and shore areas. New structures for be allowed on lakeshore or other waterfront. 

27 FP IV-20 7 Do not permit new recreation residences including those upon uno

existing recreation residence tracts. 

28 FP IV-20 8 Evaluate the suitability of recreation residence reconstruction case 

by fire, snowloading, or other causes. 

29 FP 

IV-20 9 Permits for recreation residences within 100-year flood plain, aval

areas, or other hazardous situation, require a clause stating that scaused by the hazard will cause the permit to be revoked. No add

improvements will be authorized for residences in such circumstan

30 FP 

IV-20 10 Continue existing recreation residences until a future use determin

more of the following conditions exist: a) The site is suitable for prservices for which there is a demonstrated current or projected pu

location; b) Substantial physical or psychological conflict with publor is probable in the future, that cannot be mitigated in other waysenvironmental effects upon water, air, or scenic quality, cultural reand endangered species that cannot be mitigated or that the permmitigate; d) Significant natural hazards to the users of the site, now 

31 FP 

Recreation residences will not be allowed to expand in size to hanpeople or allowed additional impervious surface coverage. The exForest Service or other regulatory agencies require additions to thimprovements as toilet facilities. Modifications to assist persons w

considered. If the required addition cannot be accommodated witcoverage, additional coverage may be authorized. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-6 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

32 FP 

IV-20 13 Manage the waiver to total waste water export granted by the Lah

Control Board for Echo Lakes; Angora Lakes; Lily Lake; Fish Hatc19-23, 33, 35, and 62-63 of Fallen Leaf Lake Tract. (Order #6-70-4

the waiver are: a) Seasonal occupancy be normally limited to the sToilet wastes be exported from the Lake Tahoe Basin or incinerateexported from the Lake Tahoe Basin; d) No automatic washing maor garbage disposals be used; e) Only natural soaps or phosphate be used; f) Food wastes be exported from the Lake Tahoe Basin o

waters be discharged to leaching areas located a minimum of 100 water with a soil mantle adequate for percolation. 

33 FP 

IV-20 14 If the Lahontan Water Quality Control Board waiver (order # 6-70-

the permittees to find acceptable methods for treating sewage or tten years. The basis for the waiver was the finding that: a) The co

septic tanks, cesspools, or other means of waste disposal in such 

individually or collectively, directly or indirectly affect the quality of 

Tahoe, and b) The sewering of such area would have a damaging environment. 

34 FP 

IV-21 15 Uses accessory to a permitted use, such as old privies, buildings a

storage of building materials, etc. will be evaluated as to need and site. Inclusion or removal of the accessory uses in the permit, will evaluation. 

35 FP 

IV-21 16 When renewing permits or making significant amendments, provis

incorporate the latest requirements for mitigating the environmentaor installation. These requirements will include, but are not limited 

Management Practices, visual improvements, noise management 

and traffic impacts. 

36 FP 

IV-21 17 Arrange for a program for sharing maintenance costs on roads an

special use sites and general public use, on a basis proportionate will be developed with individual permittees or associations of permmaintenance. 

37 4. Downhill Skiing 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

38 FP 

IV-21 1 Expansion of existing ski facilities shall be permitted based upon a

plan for the future facilities. The plan must demonstrate that: 1) th

consistent with the availability of accommodations and infrastructuwhen they are off the ski area, 2) the expansion does not result in total parking facilities for personal automobiles in the Lake Tahoe expansion is consistent with all other goals and policies of the TRPall other standards and guidelines of this forest plan. Existing masamended to account for the above criteria. Expansion shall not exadditional capacity from all ski areas on national forest land 

39 FP 

IV-21 2 Proposals for ski area development at any sites not approved in th

considered until this plan is revised in the next round of planning. Waterhouse Peak, Blackwood and Freel were potential ski areas tconsidered. 

40 5. Developed Recreation and VIS Site Operation, Maintenance 41 FP 

IV-21 1 Manage developed sites so that the number of occupants does no

capacity. Provide standard service level throughout the primary u

through Labor Day). Sites may be operated at low standard or clooutside of this primary use period. 

42 FP 

IV-21 2 Provide a coordinated system of interpretive facilities and program

the needs of target audiences. Develop interagency interpretive fawhere feasible. 

43 FP 

IV-21 3 Stress understanding of the natural and cultural environment and 

practices in interpretive programs. Emphasize self-guided interprepeople as an integrated part of the natural environment. Use the i

aid in understanding the special management required to protect L

44 6. Dispersed Recreation and VIS Site Operation, Maintenance 45 FP 

IV-22 1 Manage developed sites so that the number of occupants does no

capacity. Provide standard service level throughout the primary u

through Labor Day). Sites may be operated at low standard or clooutside of this primary use period. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-8 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

46 FP 

IV-21 2 Provide a coordinated system of interpretive facilities and program

the needs of target audiences. Develop interagency interpretive fawhere feasible. 

47 FP 

IV-21 3 Stress understanding of the natural and cultural environment and 

practices in interpretive programs. Emphasize self-guided interprepeople as an integrated part of the natural environment. Use the i

aid in understanding the special management required to protect L

48 7. Dispersed Recreation Management - Summer 49 FP 

IV-22 1 Give priority to the following actions to facilitate dispersed recreati

a variety of environmental conditions (ROS classes) to satisfy diffe

(see ROS map); b) Minimize adverse resource impacts from concby developing resource or social carrying capacity limits as needelocations offering dispersed recreation attractions where environmconditions permit; d) Provide information to visitors about the varieopportunities and regulations regarding the management of nation

Enhance the opportunities by building and maintaining where apptrailheads, and other support facilities to provide for multiple kinds recreational opportunities; f) Identify potential summer and winter developed consistent with environmental and management guidelprotection of water quality and critical wildlife habitat, with special minimizing conflicts between users and urban areas. 

50 FP 

IV-22 2 Allow opportunities for dispersed undeveloped camping. Annually 

closures, through an interdisciplinary process, to assure that the p

is being achieved. Revise Forest Supervisor's orders for closures 

51 FP IV-22 3 Hazard tree removal will meet the standards required for develope

of dispersed use is comparable to a developed site. 

52 FP 

IV-22 4 Cooperate with other jurisdictions to manage highway traffic for en

Generally, peak use traffic flow shall not exceed level of service 'C

ROS Class Areas and level of service 'D' within Rural ROS Class Federal Highway Administration Standards.) 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

53 FP 

IV-22 5 Minimize conflict between dispersed recreation user groups, includ

under special use permits. Deny a special use when such use wowith desired ROS class of the area or where public recreation use 

level. 

54 FP 

IV-22 6 Manage density of use so as not to exceed the level where resour

unacceptable on the lower Truckee River, at the east shore beach

environmentally sensitive but highly attractive dispersed recreation number of recreationists results in unacceptable degradation of thsolution would be to develop facilities inappropriate to the target R

rationing may be imposed. 

55 FP 

IV-22 7 Allow mountain bicycles on system roads and trails except within w

they are prohibited. Further study the impacts of this relatively new 

determine the environmental effects and appropriate regulations. prevent environmental degradation or user conflict, trails may be cuse. Encourage mountain bikes to remain on developed roads an

56 FP 

IV-22 8 Develop direction for management of the Tahoe Rim Trail includin

the trail, facility and signing design, maintenance and patrol, and eDefer issuance of outfitter guide permits on completed segments ofor five years after construction or until completion of a Rim Trail mever occurs first. 

57 FP 

IV-22 9 Provide a system of system roads and trails designed to meet the 

of off-highway vehicles. Allow summer off-highway vehicle use on(marked) forest system roads and trails that are managed for this is not permitted on Forest System roads and trails that have been 

and marked as such by gates, signing, fencing or other means of OHV use will not be permitted on trails unless they are signed or omotorized trail. OHVs will only be permitted to access the nationadesignated trailheads or roadways. Random access through publallowed 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-10 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

58 FP 

IV-23 10 Roads and trails will be closed when there is a finding that advers

occurring that cannot be reasonably mitigated, and where OHV us

conflicting with established urban areas adjacent to the national foother resource monitoring will be instituted as part of the Unit OHV 

59 FP 

IV-23 11 Summer OHV road and trail system opportunities will be provided 

identified in the Management Area Directions for the LTBMU and Management Map. Emphasis of the OHV system will be to divert sensitive areas, to direct use away from private land interface and encourage access to suitable OHV use areas. Consistent monitorwill be maintained. 

60 FP 

IV-23 12 Suitable conditions for summer OHV use of designated roads and 

road or trail surface is sufficiently dry to prevent resource damageare closed to motorized use when wet conditions would lead to res

61 FP 

IV-23 13 Maintain a public information program to inform and involve OHV 

implementation of OHV regulations and direction. Maintain an actand maintenance on designated routes, and of law enforcement to OHV use. 

62 SNFPA 

59 69 Prohibit wheeled vehicle travel off of designated routes, trails, and 

vehicle(OHV) use areas. Unless otherwise restricted by current fospecific area standards and guidelines, cross-country travel by ovcontinue. 

63 SNFPA 

62 82, 87, 89 Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturban

site from existing recreation, off highway vehicle route, trail, and romaintenance). Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off highwarecreational and other developments for their potential to disturb n

64 8. Dispersed Recreation Management - Winter 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

65 FP 

IV-23 1 Give priority to the following actions to facilitate dispersed recreati

a variety of environmental conditions (ROS classes) to satisfy diffe

(see ROS map); b) Minimize adverse resource impacts from concby developing resource or social carrying capacity limits as needelocations offering dispersed recreation attractions where environmconditions permit; d) Provide information to visitors about the varieopportunities and regulations regarding the management of nation

Enhance the opportunities by building and maintaining where apptrailheads, and other support facilities to provide for multiple kinds recreational opportunities; f) Identify potential summer and winter developed consistent with environmental and management guidelemphasis placed on minimizing conflicts between users and urban 

66 FP 

IV-23 2 Allow opportunities for dispersed undeveloped camping. Annually 

closures, through an interdisciplinary process, to assure that the p

is being achieved. Revise Forest Supervisor's orders for closures 

67 FP IV-23 3 Hazard tree removal will meet the standards required for develope

of dispersed use is comparable to a developed site. 

68 FP 

IV-23 4 Cooperate with other jurisdictions to manage highway traffic for en

Generally, peak use traffic flow shall not exceed level of service 'C

ROS Class Areas and level of service 'D' within Rural ROS Class Federal Highway Administration Standards.) 

69 FP 

IV-23 5 Minimize conflict between dispersed recreation user groups, includ

under special use permits. Deny a special use when such use wowith desired ROS class of the area or where public recreation use 

level. 

70 FP 

IV-23 6 Manage density of use so as not to exceed the level where resour

unacceptable on the lower Truckee River, at the east shore beach

environmentally sensitive but highly attractive dispersed recreation number of recreationists results in unacceptable degradation of thsolution would be to develop facilities inappropriate to the target R

rationing may be imposed. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-12 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

71 FP 

IV-23 7 Allow mountain bicycles on system roads and trails except within w

they are prohibited. Further study the impacts of this relatively new 

determine the environmental effects and appropriate regulations. prevent environmental degradation or user conflict, trails may be cuse. Encourage mountain bikes to remain on developed roads an

72 FP 

IV-23 14 The winter OHV management map shows those areas where snow

over-the-snow vehicles are permitted and those areas closed to wOver-the-snow vehicles are permitted only where at least six incheground. Modifications of the Winter OHV Management Map may project level planning and preparation of an environmental analysi

73 Visual and Cultural Resources 74 9. Visual Quality Restoration or Improvement 75 FP 

IV-24 1 Schedule rehabilitation of sites that do not meet the adopted Visua

except where natural processes are expected to provide adequate 

2005. 

76 FP IV-24 2 Increase opportunities to view Lake Tahoe or other scenic attractio

vista points, and other planned locations. 

77 FP IV-24 3 Include mitigation measures for all activities where the activity wou

beyond the adopted Visual Quality Objective. 

78 FP 

IV-24 4 Participate with State and local jurisdictions in the design of highw

an aesthetically pleasant drive through the basin, opportunities to 

focal point, and to emphasize the natural rather than the man' madenhancement action as well as restorative action. (Refer to the TR

system for roadways.) 

79 FP 

IV-24 5 Establish procedures with local governments that encourage depo

authorized disposal site and discourages unauthorized dumping cinconveniences resulting from mandatory export from the basin. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

80 FP 

IV-24 6 Design recreation or special use construction on the lakeshore (ab

preserve the visual character of shorezone. (Refer to the TRPA vthe shorezone.) 

81 FP IV-24 7 Signs installed on the forest will be maintained, removed, or replac

distracting to near view visual standards. 

82 10. Cultural Resource Management 83 FP 

IV-24 1 Conduct surveys and inventories to identify the presence or absen

historical, or other cultural resource properties, giving priority to pla manner consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act. Pdocumenting survey coverage, methods, and recordation using gu

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Forest Service, and the 

Historic Preservation (ACHP). 

84 FP 

IV-24 2 Evaluate properties to assess their scientific, ethnic, or historic sig

the National Register of Historic Places criteria of eligibility. Asses

undertaking on significant historic properties. In consultation with 

ACHP if necessary, develop mitigation measures alleviate adverse properties. 

85 FP 

IV-24 3 Protect all identified cultural properties until they are evaluated, wi

properties being treated as eligible for nomination to the National Places and afforded the same consideration as national register p

historical and architectural significance of all buildings scheduled f

86 FP 

IV-24 4 Conduct compliance inspections of special use operations and pro

stipulations or conditions regarding known cultural resources. Ensmost site locations to minimize threat of thefts and vandalism. Predeterioration where possible. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-14 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

87 FP 

IV-24 5 Enhance cultural resources through scientific study and interpreta

values, for increased public education and enjoyment. Avoid and/American religious or burial sites; and encourage the reestablishm

Lake Tahoe by the Washoe Tribe through such means as the concenter near Taylor Creek. Rehabilitate or restore historic structure

other purposes. 

88 Wilderness 89 11. Management of Wilderness Resource 90 FP 

IV-25 1 Provide the opportunity for public use, enjoyment, and understand

a level of visitation that assures availability of solitude, and a primirecreation experience. Maintain stable watersheds, indigenous plother features essential to preserving natural conditions. 

91 FP IV-25 2 Maintain a high level of freedom for movement and activity once a 

wilderness. Employ constraints when necessary to maintain the w

92 FP IV-25 3 Reduce the impact of nonconforming activities or improvements s

these works is not noticeable. 

93 FP IV-25 4 Require outfitter guides to participate in the maintenance of wilder94 FP 

IV-25 5 Evaluate the need to set an upper limit on the number of outfitter g

permits within designated Wilderness. Issue no new outfitter guidDesolation Wilderness. Issue no permits for competitive recreatio

Wilderness areas. 

95 FP 

IV-25 6 Evaluate major emission sources which might affect the Class I ai

sources not on Federal land. Inventory and assess identified air q(AORV) and the effects of air pollution on them. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

96 FP 

IV-25 7 Consider insect and plant disease control only when necessary to 

unacceptable or unnatural loss of the wilderness resource due to eunacceptable damage to resources on adjacent lands, and c) any 

lawful uses of, or activities in, the area. If control is necessary, it wtechniques which have the least adverse impact on the wilderness 

compatible with wilderness management direction. 

97 Wildlife and Fish 98 12. Nonstructural Wildlife Habitat Management 99 FP IV-26 1 Protect or improve habitat through coordination with other manage

100 FP 

When timber management is selected to modify forest habitat, the openings and the potential for type conversion, reforestation, and improvement will be evaluated and selected as necessary to ensuobjectives are achieved. 

101 SNFPA 

51 10 Determine down woody material retention levels on an individual p

desired conditions. Emphasize retention of wood in the largest sizclasses 1, 2, and 3. Consider the effects of follow-up prescribed fidown woody material retention levels 

102 SNFPA 

51-52 11 Determine snag retention levels on an individual project basis for 

Design projects to implement and sustain a generally continuous sdecadent trees suitable for cavity nesting wildlife across a landscaand large diameter live trees that are currently in decline, have suor that have desirable characteristics (teakettle branches, large dialarge cavities in the bole) to serve as future replacement snags anstructure. 

103 FP 

IV-26 Provide cover for a variety of species by retaining at least two slas

areas lacking other suitable wildlife cover except where fire hazard standards would be exceeded. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-16 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

104 FP 

IV-26 Provide adequate advance posting and notification when seasona

protect habitat, especially nesting sites, of species sensitive to humof closure will be as short as feasible where recreation opportuniti

105 FP IV-26 Require non-degradation of existing deciduous tree types, wetland

Increase the acreage in these riparian associations where opportu

106 FP 

IV-26 Maintain the present acreages of the seven seral stages in the mix

fir timber types while producing increases in seral stages 1 & 2 thrmanagement activities. 

107 FP 

 Evaluate opportunities to manage and improve diversity through ti

wildlife habitat improvement activities on a watershed or managemas basinwide. 

108 FP 

 In created openings larger than two acres, 4 – 6 % of the green st

dispersed clumps, will be retained for snag recruitment, except in 

conflict with objectives for type conversion. In openings smaller thof trees for snag recruitment will be considered in project planning

109 FP 

IV-26 Establish maximum beaver population levels for zones or watersh

not to exceed the level as described in the Beaver Management P

1980. Decisions for population control in a zone will be based upocolony size estimates, or upon the new occupancy of areas undes

110 SNFPA 

54 33 Conduct surveys in compliance with the Pacific Southwest Region

during the planning process when proposed vegetation treatments habitat quality in suitable California spotted owl habitat with unknoDesignate California spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs) based on survey results 

111 SNFPA 

59 71 Within the assessment area or watershed, locate fuels treatments 

PACs. PACs may be re-mapped during project planning to avoid itreatment areas, provided that the re-mapped PACs contain habita

include known nest sites and important roost sites. Document PAC biological evaluations 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

112 SNFPA 

59 71 When treatment areas must intersect PACs and choices can be m

to enter, use the following criteria to preferentially avoid PACs thacontribution to owl productivity. 

113 SNFPA 

60 72 Mechanical treatments may be conducted to meet fuels objectives 

centers (PACs) located in WUI defense zones. In PACs located in mechanical treatments are allowed where prescribed fire is not feaavoiding PACs would significantly compromise the overall effectiv

fire and fuels strategy. Mechanical treatments should be designed structure and function of the PAC. 

114 SNFPA 

60 73 While mechanical treatments may be conducted in protected activ

located in WUI defense zones and, in some cases, threat zones, t

within a 500-foot radius buffer around a spotted owl activity center PAC. Prescribed burning is allowed within the 500-foot radius bufincluding handline construction, tree pruning, and cutting of small inches dbh), may be conducted prior to burning as needed to protof owl habitat. Treatments in the remainder of the PAC use the forguidelines for mechanical thinning. 

115 SNFPA 

60 74 In PACs located outside the WUI, limit stand-altering activities to r

ladder fuels through prescribed fire treatments. In forested stands 

inches dbh and greater, design prescribed fire treatments to have length of 4 feet or less. Hand treatments, including handline consand cutting of small trees (less than 6 inches dbh), may be conducneeded to protect important elements of owl habitat. 

116 SNFPA 

53 16 Outside of WUI defense zones, salvage harvests are prohibited in 

sites unless a biological evaluation determines that the areas proprendered unsuitable for the purpose they were intended by a catasevent 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-18 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

117 SNFPA 

60 75 For California spotted owl PACs: Maintain a limited operating peri

vegetation treatments within approximately 1⁄4 mile of the activity cbreeding season (March 1 through August 31), unless surveys conspotted owls are not nesting. Prior to implementing activities within California spotted owl PAC and the location of the nest site or acticonduct surveys to establish or confirm the location of the nest or 

118 SNFPA 

60 76 For northern goshawk PACs: Maintain a limited operating period (

vegetation treatments within approximately 1⁄4 mile of the nest site season (February 15 through September 15) unless surveys configoshawks are not nesting. If the nest stand within a protected actiunknown, either apply the LOP to a 1⁄4- mile area surrounding the determine the nest stand location. 

119 SNFPA 

60 77 The LOP may be waived for vegetation treatments of limited scop

biological evaluation determines that such projects are unlikely to 

disturbance considering their intensity, duration, timing and specifbiological evaluation concludes that a nest site would be shielded by topographic features that would minimize disturbance, the LOP modified 

120 SNFPA 

61 78, 79 Breeding season limited operating period restrictions may be waiv

allow for use of early season prescribed fire in up to 5 percent of Cand northern goshawk PACs per year on a forest. 

121 SNFPA 

61 80 For California spotted owl PACs: Conduct vegetation treatments in 

percent per year and 10 percent per decade of the acres in Califoin the 11 Sierra Nevada national forests. Monitor the number of PAbioregional scale. 

122 SNFPA 

61 81 For northern goshawk PACs: Conduct mechanical treatments in n

per year and 10 percent per decade of the acres in northern goshaSierra Nevada national forests. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

123 SNFPA 

54 34 Conduct surveys in compliance with the Pacific Southwest Region

during the planning process when vegetation treatments are likely quality are proposed in suitable northern goshawk nesting habitat existing California spotted owl or northern goshawk PAC. Suitable nesting habitat is defined based on the survey protocol 

124 FP 

IV-26 Identify potential bald eagle nesting sites and manage to encourag

four pairs. Sites will consist of mature or overmature conifer stand

large bodies of water, and with relative freedom from human distu

125 FP 

IV-27 Reintroduce one Peregrine falcon pair to a potential nest site. Pro

nesting cliffs between April 1 and July 31. Construct no trails or roof nesting cliffs. 

126 FP 

IV-27 Manage wetlands suitable for waterfowl nesting for low level huma

March 1 to June 30, excepting the Pope Beach recreation site, whbeginning Memorial Day weekend. Harassment of nesting waterfo(especially dogs) must be controlled. 

127 FP 

IV-27 Protect mule deer fawning areas by constructing no permanent ro

meadow edges and by avoiding meadow crossings. Keep road delinear miles per square mile of land area. 

128 FP IV-27 Work with local communities to control domestic animals that conf129 SNFPA 

54 32 Detection of a wolverine or Sierra Nevada red fox will be validated 

specialist. When verified sightings occur, conduct an analysis to dwithin 5 miles of the detection have a potential to affect the specie

limited operating period from January 1 to June 30 to avoid adversbreeding. Evaluate activities for a 2-year period for detections not site. 

130 SNFPA 54 35 Conduct additional surveys to established protocols to follow up re

gray owls. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-20 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

131 SNFPA 

54 60 For historically occupied willow flycatcher sites, assess willow flyc

within the meadow. If habitat is degraded, develop restoration objeappropriate actions (such as physical restoration of hydrological c

re-directing grazing activity, and so forth) to move the meadow tow

132 SNFPA 

58 56 For occupied and historically occupied willow flycatcher sites: Initia

willow flycatcher surveys. Conduct surveys to established protocoyear. Second year surveys will be conducted in those sites where not found. Surveys will not be conducted in the third and fourth yewill then be repeated. For conditionally occupied sites: Surveys w

first year. If willow flycatchers are found, these sites will be managnot found, these sites will be surveyed in the second year. If birds second year, these sites will be dropped from the willow flycatcher 

133 SNFPA 58 57 In meadows with occupied willow flycatcher sites, allow only late-s

August 15) in the entire meadow. 

134 SNFPA 

58 58 Standard and guideline #57 above may be waived if an interdiscip

developed a site- specific meadow management strategy. This stdeveloped and implemented in partnership with the affected grazinstrategy objectives must focus on protecting the nest site and assthe breeding season and the long-term sustainability of suitable haIt may use a mix of management tools, including grazing systems, improvements, and other exclusion by management techniques to flycatcher . 

135 SNFPA 

58 61 Evaluate site condition of historically occupied willow flycatcher sit

longer contain standing water on June 1 and a deciduous shrub cbe reasonably restored may be removed from the willow flycatche
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

136 SNFPA 

58 62 As part of the project planning process, survey emphasis habitat w

occupied willow flycatcher sites to determine willow flycatcher occhabitat is defined as meadows larger than 15 acres that have stanand a deciduous shrub component. Use established protocols to cIf these surveys determine willow flycatcher occupancy, add these occupied willow flycatcher sites and include them in the 4-year suflycatcher sites described above 

137 SNFPA 

62 83 Apply a limited operating period, prohibiting vegetation treatments 

within 1⁄4 mile of an active great gray owl nest stand, during the neMarch 1 to August 15). The LOP may be waived for vegetation trescope and duration, when a biological evaluation determines that 

unlikely to result in breeding disturbance considering their intensityspecific location. Where a biological evaluation concludes that a nshielded from planned activities by topographic features that woulthe LOP buffer distance may be reduced 

138 SNFPA 

61 84 In meadow areas of great gray owl PACs, maintain herbaceous ve

commensurate with site capability and habitat needs of prey speciguidance to determine potential prey species and associated habiproject level 

139 SNFPA 

61 85 Protect fisher den site buffers from disturbance with a limited oper

March 1 through June 30 for vegetation treatments as long as habuntil another Regionally-approved management strategy is implembe waived for individual projects of limited scope and duration, whevaluation documents that such projects are unlikely to result in brconsidering their intensity, duration, timing, and specific location 

140 SNFPA 

61 86 Avoid fuel treatments in fisher den site buffers to the extent possib

site buffers must be treated to achieve fuels objectives for the urbazone, limit treatments to mechanical clearing of fuels. Treat laddeachieve fuels objectives. Use piling or mastication to treat surface 

treatment. Burning of piled debris is allowed. Prescribed fire may bno other reasonable alternative exists. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-22 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

141 SNFPA 

62 88 Protect marten den site buffers from disturbance from vegetation t

operating period (LOP) from May 1 through July 31 as long as habuntil another Regionally-approved management strategy is implembe waived for individual projects of limited scope and duration, whevaluation documents that such projects are unlikely to result in brconsidering their intensity, duration, timing, and specific location. 

142 SNFPA 

63 98 Within 500 feet of known occupied sites for the California red-legg

Yosemite toad, foothill yellow-legged frog, mountain yellow-legged leopard frog, design pesticide applications to avoid adverse effecthabitats. 

143 13. Early Successional Stage Vegetation Management 144 FP 

IV-27 1 Develop and maintain a watershed by watershed inventory of whe

openings up to five acres in size could be introduced to produce gvegetative diversity and wildlife habitat. Use this inventory to estatimber management program. 

145 FP 

IV-27 2 Schedule treatments to produce early successional stages throug

precommercial cutting or other methods if the minimum desired acby 1996) cannot be achieved through the timber program. 

146 SNFPA 

58 60 For historically occupied willow flycatcher sites, assess willow flyc

within the meadow . If habitat is degraded, develop restoration objappropriate actions (such as physical restoration of hydrological c

re-directing grazing activity, and so forth) to move the meadow tow

147 14. Old Growth Management 148 FP 

IV-27 1 Maintain 5% or more of the land area in the mixed conifer type, an

old growth (seral stage 4C) to support dependent wildlife species avariety. Continue to preserve most of the 4G stands and size 6 tre

149 FP IV-27 2 Old growth stands that are larger than 40 acres and are within 1/2 

protected and maintained for wildlife. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

150 SNFPA 53 27 Minimize old forest habitat fragmentation. Assess potential impact

old forest associated species (particularly fisher and marten) in bio

151 SNFPA 54 28 Assess the potential impact of projects on the connectivity of habi

associated species. 

152 SNFPA 54 29 Consider retaining forested linkages (with canopy cover greater th

interconnected via riparian areas and ridgetop saddles during proj

153 SNFPA 54 31 Identify areas for acquisition, exchange, or conservation easemen

connectivity of habitat for old forest associated species. 

154 15. Nonstructural Fish Habitat Management 155 FP Where beaver populations are negatively impacting the fishery res

measures will be taken in cooperation with the State to control the 

156 FP Large woody debris will be left or repositioned in stream channels 

needs dictate otherwise 

157 FP IV-27 Obtain water availability assurance for instream flows sufficient to 158 FP 

IV-28 Determine with the TRPA and State fish and wildlife agencies the 

maintained as excellent habitat and those that will be maintained iSchedule restoration to improve streams that are below the desire

159 FP IV-28 Removal of debris from streams in order to stabilize the channel w

maximum improvement for fish habitat. 

160 FP IV-28 Maintain stream channel entrances to Lake Tahoe and Fallen Lea

unobstructed access of fish to upstream spawning sites. 

161 FP 

IV-28 Maintain shaded bank conditions on rainbow trout streams by mai

the stream bank site potential for herbaceous and shrub cover and site potential for tree cover. Where natural tree cover is less than 

potential should be retained. Thirty five to 70% of the stream shou11:00 AM to 4:00 PM. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-24 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

162 FP IV-28 Manage lakeshore activities to keep disturbance from power boats 

shallow water areas, especially prime lake spawning areas. 

163 SNFPA 

63 101 Ensure that culverts or other stream crossings do not create barrie

downstream passage for aquatic-dependent species. Locate wateadverse effects to in stream flows and depletion of pool habitat. Wand restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inunda

elevation in meadows, wetlands, and other special aquatic feature

164 SNFPA 

63 104 In stream reaches occupied by, or identified as “essential habitat” 

assessment for, the Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout and the Llimit streambank disturbance from livestock to 10 percent of the ochabitat” stream reach. (Conservation assessments are described 

decision.) Cooperate with State and Federal agencies to develop 

standards for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Use streambank assessment protocol. Implement corrective action whhave been exceeded. 

165 SNFPA 

64 108 Determine if the level of coarse large woody debris (CWD) is withi

variability in terms of frequency and distribution and is sufficient to physical complexity and stability. Ensure proposed management aconditions toward the range of natural variability. 

166 16. Structural Wildlife Habitat Improvement 167 FP IV-28 1 Secure water rights for wildlife water impoundments and other imp168 17. Structural Fish Habitat Management 169 FP IV-28 1 Assure fish movement past dams and other structures on streams 

feasible and cost effective. 

170 FP IV-28 2 Secure water rights for dam construction and operation. 171 18. Protection and Enhancement of Threatened and Endange

Plant Habitat 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

172 FP 

IV-28 Manage sensitive plants to ensure that species do not become thr

because of Forest Service activities. Prepare recovery plans for npopulations. 

173 Establish Grass Lake as a Research Natural Area. 174 FP IV-28 Permit no collection of sensitive plant species except when author

Forester. 

175 FP IV-28 Manage uncommon plant communities to preserve their natural ch

specifically Osgood Swamp, Grass Lake, and Freel Cushion Plant 

176 FP IV-28 Modify or exclude uses not compatible with survival of threatened 177 FP IV-28 Require use of plant species native to the area or species approve

revegetating disturbed sites and landscaping improvements. 

178 FP 

IV-28 Protect known populations of Rorippa subumbellata on beaches re

recreation use by fencing or other means to exclude disturbance. natural propagation on natural habitat. Details of management are Interim Management Prescriptions for this species, 1982. 

179 FP 

IV-28 Protect known populations of Lewisia pygmaea subsp. longipetala

Draba asterophora v. asterophora; and Draba asterophora v. macLTBMU Interim Management Prescriptions, 1981. 

180 SNFPA 

65 118 Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing activities that adversely affe

that maintain water flow, water quality, or water temperature criticafen ecosystems and plant species that depend on these ecosystem

analysis, survey, map, and develop measures to protect bogs and activities as trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, and whee

181 Range 182 19. Range Allotment Management 183 FP 

IV-29 1 Reserve sufficient forage for grazing by recreation livestock (horse

allotments used by cattle and sheep. The amount to be reserved based upon estimates of current and projected equestrian or pack
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-26 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

184 FP IV-29 2 Limit grazing or modify the grazing management system on deteri

recovery. 

185 FP IV-29 3 Administer existing grazing allotments to achieve proper use and c

resource values. 

186 FP IV-29 4 Do not fill an allotment when non-use is taken by the permittee. 187 FP IV-29 5 Consider the effects upon water quality, riparian areas, wildlife and 

grazing on a vacant allotment. 

188 20. Range Pasture Management 189 FP 

IV-29 1 Study pastures near the lakeshore, or in other areas where meado

a last filtering system for sediment and nutrients carried by surface special utilization standards or management practices should be a

190 FP IV-29 2 Do not permit pastures for individually owned private livestock. 191 SNFPA 

58 59 In willow flycatcher sites receiving late-season grazing, monitor ut

regional range analysis and planning guide. Monitor willow flycatcyears using the following criteria: rooting depth cores for meadow 

intercepts for shrub foliar density, and strip transects for shrub recMeadow condition assessments will be included in a GIS meadow conditions are not supporting the willow flycatcher or trend downwgrazing. 

192 SNFPA 

58 63 Evaluate proposals for new concentrated stock areas (for example

management facilities, pack stations, equestrian stations, and corrmiles of occupied willow flycatcher sites. 

193 SNFPA 

65 117 Assess the hydrologic function of meadow habitats and other spec

during range management analysis. Ensure that characteristics of 

a minimum, at Proper Functioning Condition, as defined in the appReports (or their successor publications 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

194 SNFPA 

65 118 Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing activities that adversely affe

that maintain water flow, water quality, or water temperature criticafen ecosystems and plant species that depend on these ecosystem

analysis, survey, map, and develop measures to protect bogs and activities as trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, and wheedefining bogs and fens include, but are not limited to, presence of(Spagnum spp.), (2) mosses belonging to the genus Meessia, and 

spp.) Complete initial plant inventories of bogs and fens within actprior to re-issuing permits 

195 SNFPA 

65 119 Locate new facilities for gathering livestock and pack stock outside 

riparian conservation areas. During project-level planning, evaluatrelocating existing livestock facilities outside of meadows and ripaissuing grazing permits, assess the compatibility of livestock mana

located in riparian conservation areas with riparian conservation o

196 SNFPA 

65 120 Under season-long grazing:For meadows in early seral status: lim

grass and grass-like plants to 30 percent (or minimum 6-inch stubmeadows in late seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass and 

maximum of 40 percent (or minimum 4-inch stubble height; Determ

on all key areas monitored for grazing utilization prior to establishi

Regional ecological scorecards and range plant list in regional randetermine ecological status. Analyze meadow ecological status evmeadow ecological status is determined to be moving in a downw

suspend grazing. Include ecological status data in a spatially expliInformation System database; intensive grazing systems (such as deferred rotation) where meadows are receiving a period of rest, uhigher than the levels described above if the meadow is maintaineand meadow-associated species are not being impacted. Degradethose in early seral status with greater than 10 percent of the meaand active erosion) require total rest from grazing until they have rmoved to mid- or late seral status. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-28 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

197 SNFPA 

66 121 Limit browsing to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader gr

shrubs and no more than 20 percent of individual seedlings. Remarea of an allotment when browsing indicates a change in livestocgrazing herbaceous vegetation to browsing woody riparian vegeta

198 21. Range Improvements 199 FP 

IV-29 1 Permanent fences constructed in significant foreground view area

corridors, recreation sites or urban fringes) will be of rustic designpreferable to wire on wood post. Steel post and wire is generally uvisibility areas, but useable when set back inconspicuously in heav

200 FP 

IV-29 2 Prevent livestock from entering recreation and urbanized areas, h

of steep or otherwise sensitive soils, and where riparian and other be damaged. 

201 FP IV-29 3 Consider snow conditions when designing type and stoutness of f202 SNFPA 

55 50 To protect hardwood regeneration in grazing allotments, allow live

more than 20 percent of annual growth of hardwood seedlings and regeneration. Modify grazing plans if hardwood regeneration and r

not being met 

203 SNFPA 

56 51 Grazing utilization in annual grasslands will maintain a minimum o

Where grasslands are in satisfactory condition and annual precipiinches, manage for 700 pounds residual dry matter (RDM) per acrare in satisfactory condition and annual precipitation is less than 1400 pounds RDM per acre. Where grasslands are in unsatisfactoprecipitation is greater than 10 inches, manage for 1,000 pounds Rfor 700 pounds RDM per acre where grasslands are in unsatisfactprecipitation is less than 10 inches. Adjust these standards, as negrassland condition. This standard and guideline only applies to g

204 SNFPA 

56 52 Where professional judgment and quantifiable measurements find 

are maintaining range in good to excellent condition, the grazing uabove may be modified to allow for the Forest Service, in partnerspermittees, to rigorously test and evaluate alternative standards 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

205 Timber 206 22. Timber Management (General) 207 

When timber management is selected to modify forest habitat, the openings and the potential for type conversion, reforestation, and 

improvement will be evaluated and selected as necessary to ensuobjectives are achieved and to achieve optimum benefits for visuaand watershed protection. 

208 

In created openings larger than two acres, 4 – 6% of the green stadispersed clumps, will be retained for snag recruitment, except in conflict with objectives for type conversion. In openings smaller thof trees for snag recruitment will be considered in project planning 

209 FP 

IV-30 1 Use a full range of timber management practices including openin

maintain or enhance the multiple use values that have been identiAppendix D for additional discussion of silvicultural systems. Revtimber production at least every 15 years. 

210 FP 

IV-30 2 Planning for where, when and how timber will be cut will be condu

watershed basis. Introduction of forest openings shall be based on successional stage needs (see practice 13). 

211 FP IV-30 3 Utilize as much of a harvested tree as possible to keep residual tre212 FP IV-30 4 Tractors may normally operate on slopes up to 30%. Cable and a

normally be used on slopes greater than 30%. 

213 FP IV-30 5 Prohibit tractors in SEZ except where a firm, protective base of co

present or where crossings exist that are designed to prevent adv

214 FP IV-30 6 Avoid commercial log hauling on weekends and holidays. 215 FP 

IV-30 7 Treat conifer stumps with borax within four hours of cutting to redu

Fomes annosus in developed recreation sites, administrative sites

areas where losses to this disease threaten the special value of th
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-30 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

216 FP 

IV-30 8 Provide firewood users with information that assists in achievemen

standard through particulate control. Included would be use of BeTechnology (BACT) such as preparation of firewood for burning, ustoves, control of combustion, and information on special devices 

woodburning appliances. 

217 FP 

IV-30 9 Close temporary roads, or access ways created through public or 

management activities, to prevent vehicle travel as soon as practiccompletion of the use. 

218 FP 

IV-30 10 Incorporate Best Management Practices into the construction of la

temporary improvements for logging that involve earth moving, to revegetate upon completion of logging activities. 

219 FP 

 11 Selection of any particular method for pest treatment will be made 

based upon a site-specific analysis of the relative effectiveness, theffects, and the cost of the feasible alternatives. 

220 SNFPA 

60 75 For California spotted owl PACs: Maintain a limited operating peri

vegetation treatments within approximately 1⁄4 mile of the activity cbreeding season (March 1 through August 31), unless surveys conspotted owls are not nesting. Prior to implementing activities withiCalifornia spotted owl PAC and the location of the nest site or acticonduct surveys to establish or confirm the location of the nest or 

221 SNFPA 

60 76 For northern goshawk PACs: Maintain a limited operating period (

vegetation treatments within approximately 1⁄4 mile of the nest site season (February 15 through September 15) unless surveys configoshawks are not nesting. If the nest stand within a protected actunknown, either apply the LOP to a 1⁄4- mile area surrounding the determine the nest stand location. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

222 SNFPA 

60 77-78 The LOP may be waived for vegetation treatments of limited scop

biological evaluation determines that such projects are unlikely to 

disturbance considering their intensity, duration, timing and specifbiological evaluation concludes that a nest site would be shielded 

by topographic features that would minimize disturbance, the LOP 

modified. 

223 SNFPA 

61 79 Breeding season limited operating period restrictions may be waiv

allow for use of early season prescribed fire in up to 5 percent of Cand northern goshawk PACs per year on a forest. 

224 SNFPA 

61 80 For California spotted owl PACs: Conduct vegetation treatments in 

percent per year and 10 percent per decade of the acres in Califoin the 11 Sierra Nevada national forests. Monitor the number of PAbioregional scale. 

225 SNFPA 

61 81 For northern goshawk PACs: Conduct mechanical treatments in n

per year and 10 percent per decade of the acres in northern goshaSierra Nevada national forests. 

226 SNFPA 

61 83 Apply a limited operating period, prohibiting vegetation treatments 

within 1⁄4 mile of an active great gray owl nest stand, during the neMarch 1 to August 15). The LOP may be waived for vegetation trescope and duration, when a biological evaluation determines that 

unlikely to result in breeding disturbance considering their intensityspecific location Where a biological evaluation concludes that a nshielded from planned activities by topographic features that woulthe LOP buffer distance may be reduced. 

227 SNFPA 

62 88 Protect marten den site buffers from disturbance from vegetation t

operating period (LOP) from May 1 through July 31 as long as habuntil another Regionally-approved management strategy is implembe waived for individual projects of limited scope and duration, whevaluation documents that such projects are unlikely to result in brconsidering their intensity, duration, timing, and specific location. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-32 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

228 23. Regeneration Harvest (Selection Cutting) 229 FP IV-30 1 Allow this practice to be applied on land capability classes 3, 4, 5, 

accessed or can be efficiently accessed in the future. 

230 FP 

IV-30 2 Do not allow openings created by timber harvesting to exceed five 

created when most of the vegetation is removed from an area largNaturally occurring areas of permanent low growth vegetation or b

considered openings. 

231 FP 

IV-30 3 Regeneration openings will no longer exist when the average tree 

height and the number of trees free to grow exceeds 200 per acre forest and 150 per acre in mixed conifer forest. 

232 FP 

IV-31 4 Disperse openings throughout the forest setting. Preferably, open

adjoining. Where this is not practical, openings may have up to 15

periphery. 

233 FP IV-31 5 Allow the use of harvest techniques to maintain old growth conditi

wildlife except during the nesting period or other critical periods. 

234 24. Sanitation Salvage Cut 235 FP IV-31 1 Allow this practice to be applied on all land capability classes inclu

environment zones that are accessed. 

236 SNFPA 

52 13 Determine the need for ecosystem restoration projects following la

disturbance events (wildfire, drought, insect and disease infestatiounforeseen events) . Objectives for restoration projects may incluover the long term, restoring habitat, and recovering economic valtrees. In accomplishing restoration goals, long-term objectives are objective of reducing hazardous fuel loads in the short term. 

237 SNFPA 

52 13 Salvage harvest of dead and dying trees may be conducted to rec

value of this material and to support objectives for reducing hazarforest health, reintroducing fire, and/or re-establishing forested con
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

238 SNFPA 

52 13 Design projects to reduce potential soil erosion and the loss of soi

loss of vegetation and ground cover. Examples are activities that adequate soil cover in the short term; (2) accelerate the dispersal 

(3) reduce the potential impacts of the fire on water quality; and (4restoration/salvage activities to minimize additional short-term effe

239 SNFPA 

52 13 Design projects to protect and maintain critical wildlife habitat. Ex

that would: (1) avoid areas where forest vegetation is still largely in

sufficient quantities of large snags; (3) maintain existing large woo(4) provide for additional large woody material and ground cover aaccelerate development of mature forest habitat through reforestameans; and (6) provide for a mix of seral stages over time. 

240 SNFPA 

52 13 Design projects to manage the development of fuel profiles over ti

activities that would: (1) remove sufficient standing and activity gebalance short-term and long-term surface fuel loading; and (2) pro

structure (surviving large trees, snags, and large logs) from high ssevere disturbance events in the future. 

241 SNFPA 

52 13 Design projects to recover the value of timber killed or severely inj

disturbance. Examples are activities that would: (1) conduct timbetimely manner to minimize value loss; (2) minimize harvest costs wresource constraints; and (3) remove material that local managers needed for long-term resource recovery needs. 

242 SNFPA 

52 14 In post fire restoration projects for large catastrophic fires (contigu

to high fire lethality of 1,000 acres or more), generally do not condat least 10 percent of the total area affected by fire 

243 SNFPA 52 15 Use the best available information for identifying dead and dying t

purposes as developed by the Pacific Southwest Region Forest H

244 SNFPA 

53 16 Outside of WUI defense zones, salvage harvests are prohibited in 

sites unless a biological evaluation determines that the areas proprendered unsuitable for the purpose they were intended by a catasevent 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-34 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

245 SNFPA 53 17 Consider ecological benefits of retaining small patches of mortality 

areas 

246 25. Special Cut 247 FP 

IV-31 1 This practice may be applied on all land capability classes, includi

zones, following analysis and documentation in an environmental demonstrates the project is necessary to meet resource objectives treatment methods provide adequate resource protection. 

248 26. Thinning 249 FP 

IV-31 1 Allow this practice to be applied on land capability classes 3, 4, 5, 

accessed, or can be efficiently accessed in the future, where the charvested for consumptive purposes. 

250 SNFPA 50 6 For all mechanical thinning treatments, design projects to retain al

dbh or larger. Exceptions are allowed to meet needs for equipme

251 SNFPA 

51 7 The following 8 items apply to mechanical thinning treatments in m

(CWHR types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6) outside WUI defense zone, 

eastside pine type 

252 SNFPA 51 7 Design projects to retain at least 40 percent of the existing basal a

area should generally be comprised of the largest trees 

253 SNFPA 51 7 Where available, design projects to retain 5 percent or more of the 

lower layers composed of trees 6 to 24 inches dbh within the treat

254 SNFPA 

51 7 Design projects to avoid reducing pre-existing canopy cover by mo

within the treatment unit. Percent is measured in absolute terms (fcover at 80 percent should not be reduced below 50 percent. 

255 SNFPA 51 7 Within treatment units, at a minimum, the intent is to provide for an 

treatment. 

256 SNFPA 51 7 Where existing vegetative conditions are at or near 40 percent can

to be designed remove the material necessary to meet fire and fue
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

257 SNFPA 

51 7 Within California spotted owl Home Range Core Areas: Where ex

conditions permit, design projects to retain at least 50 percent canwithin the treatment unit. Exceptions are allowed in limited situatiotrees must be removed to adequately reduce ladder fuels, provide equipment operations, or minimize re-entry. Where 50 percent cancannot be met for reasons described above, retain at least 40 percaveraged within the treatment unit. 

258 SNFPA 

51 7 Outside of California spotted owl Home Range Core Areas: Where 

conditions permit, design projects to retain at least 50 percent cantreatment unit. Exceptions are allowed where project objectives remodification (such as the need to adequately reduce ladder fuels, efficient equipment operations, minimize re-entry, design cost efficsignificantly reduce stand density.) Where canopy cover must be rpercent, retain at least 40 percent canopy cover averaged within t

259 SNFPA 51 7 Within California spotted owl PACs, where treatment is necessary

needed to meet project fuels objectives. Focus on removal of surfa

260 SNFPA 

51 8 For mechanical thinning treatments outside defense zones in the 

mature forest habitat (CWHR types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6), desig

percent of the existing basal area . The retained basal area should comprised of the largest trees. Projects in the eastside pine type retention standards and guidelines 

261 SNFPA 

51 9 Standards and guidelines # 6, 7, and 8 above apply only to mecha

specifically designed to meet objectives for treating fuels and/or codensities 

262 27. Timber Stand Improvement 263 FP 

IV-31 1 Allow this practice to be applied on land capability classes 3, 4, 5, 

accessed, or can be efficiently accessed in the future, except with

sites. 

264 28. Reforestation 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-36 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

265 Created openings will not be reforested when type conversion for 

determined appropriate in the project level planning 

266 FP 

IV-32 Site preparation before reforestation will disturb only enough of the 

(grasses, forbs, shrubs and litter) to provide a planting bed. On hadisturbance from the logging operation should provide adequate gAdditional preparation may be planned if determined necessary foanalysis. 

267 SNFPA 

49-50 Where young plantations (generally Pacific Southwest Region size 

included within area treatments, apply the necessary silvicultural atreatments to: (1) accelerate the development of key habitat and o

(2) increase stand heterogeneity, (3) promote hardwoods, and (4) wildland fire . In size class 2x plantations, treatments should be deintensity, rate of fire spread and tree mortality. Design a sequence projects to achieve the following standards: 3 inches and smaller sthan 5 tons per acre, less than 0.5 foot fuel bed depth, stocking le

spaced tree crowns (for example, approximately 200 trees per acr

less than 50 percent surface area with live fuels (brush); tree mortpercent of the existing stocking under 90th percentile fire weather only). 

268 SNFPA 52 12 Promote shade intolerant pines (sugar and Ponderosa) and hardw269 Water 270 29. Water Use Management 271 FP 

IV-33 1 

Arrange for and secure water rights for existing and foreseeable fuconsumptive uses, including administrative, recreation, agricultureirrigation, and evaporative losses. 

272 FP 

IV-33 2 

Obtain water availability assurances for existing and foreseeable fuses, including minimum instream flows and reservoir level mainteboating, swimming, and aesthetics. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

273 FP 

IV-33 3 

Prevent loss of groundwater quality and quantity, and where possdevelopment of a groundwater management plan in cooperation wWhere groundwater is found to be degrading, initiate measures to effects and mitigation measures. 

274 FP IV-33 4 Conduct a geologic and geotechnical analysis of all groundwater d

which may adversely impact the groundwater table. 

275 FP 

IV-33 5 

Work towards connecting domestic water supply systems at develadministrative sites to commercial water systems, if quality, volum

significantly improve existing conditions. 

276 FP IV-33 6 Implement water conservation measures at developed recreation 277 FP IV-33 7 Use plants which do not require long term irrigation in order to con

revegetation projects. 

278 30. Water Quality Maintenance and Improvement 279 FP 

IV-33 Utilize the land capability system as described in Land Capability C

Lake Tahoe Basin, Calif/Nev, A Planning Guide, Bailey, 1974, as planning the kind and intensity of management activities. 

280 FP 

IV-33 Ensure that permanent land disturbance and impervious surface c

exceed that recommended by the land capability system. Conside

partially and/or temporarily impairs the ability of soil to resist erosioand store nutrients as recoverable and not subject to the same limcoverage. 

281 FP 

IV-33 Implement Best Management Practices (BMP) to meet water qual

maintain and improve the quality of surface water on the forest. Mfor applying the BMP will be identified during project level environmand incorporated into the associated project plan and implementatAppendix H). 

282 FP 

IV-33 Prohibit soil disturbing activities from October 15 to May 1 of each 

granted individually. Assure that permanent or temporary erosion 

place for the winter season. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-38 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

283 FP IV-33 Manage existing naturally functioning stream environment zones (

natural hydrologic condition with few exceptions. 

284 FP 

IV-33 Identification and mapping of stream environment zone (SEZ) will 

determination of: a) Wetlands, meadows, and other areas of riparihundred year flood plain; c) Ephemeral stream courses and soil arhigh runoff or high water tables; and d) Area within 25 feet of first 

second order stream, and 100 feet of third order stream. 

285 FP 

IV-33 Permit outdoor recreation facilities in SEZ and on land capability c

they are a part of long range development plans, where the nature so sited, where there is no feasible alternative, where it is fully mit

disturbed SEZ beyond allowed coverage is restored at 150% of th

286 FP 

IV-34 Permit public works projects (roads, trails, utilities, etc.) in SEZ an

classes 1, 2 and 3 where necessary for health, safety or environmthere is no reasonable alternative, where the impacts are fully miti

disturbed SEZ beyond allowed coverage is restored at 150% of th

287 FP IV-34 Permit replacement of existing land coverage in SEZ where the pr

impacts on SEZ and will not impede restoration efforts. 

288 FP IV-34 Insure that temporary erosion control measures will be in place pr

soil disturbing activities. 

289 FP 

IV-34 Do not allow solid and liquid wastes to be discharged on or in the 

exception of vegetative debris from forest management practices, disposed of in approved locations, and wastes for which special w

granted by state water quality protection agencies. 

290 FP IV-34 Permit no effluent disposal areas or dumps on national forest land291 FP IV-34 Maintain emergency caches for hazardous material cleanup in coo

agencies. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

292 FP 

IV-34 Ensure that vegetation and soil remain undisturbed in the unstable 

except as necessary for public safety or to provide for uses that by location within the shorezone. (The unstable area of the shorezonand/or wave action processes have their greatest influence. The aconsiderably in width.) 

293 FP IV-34 Manage the use of chemical and biological materials used to aid in 

to degrade either surface or groundwater. 

294 FP 

IV-34 Restore damaged watersheds and sites contributing to water qual

Schedule restoration of land identified in the watershed improvembe completed within 20 years. The priority for restoration will be 1

zones; 2) shorezones; and 3) high hazard land. 

295 FP IV-34 Attain an overall 5% increase in the acreage of naturally functionin

by restoring disturbed SEZ land. 

296 FP IV-34 Use fertilizer only where necessary to establish vegetation associa

disturbed areas and to maintain existing turf. Utilize the TRPA gu

297 FP IV-34 Assist special use permittees in the planning and design of Best M

to apply to the area of their permitted use to meet water quality sta

298 SNFPA 

63 95 For waters designated as “Water Quality Limited” (Clean Water Ac

participate in the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMImplementation Plans. Execute applicable elements of completed Plans. 

299 SNFPA 63 96 Ensure that management activities do not adversely affect water t

for local aquatic- and riparian-dependent species assemblages 

300 SNFPA 63 97 Limit pesticide applications to cases where project level analysis in

applications are consistent with riparian conservation objectives. 

301 SNFPA 

63 99 Prohibit storage of fuels and other toxic materials within RCAs and 

designated administrative sites and sites covered by a Special UsProhibit refueling within RCAs and CARs unless there are no othe

that spill plans are reviewed and up-to-date. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-40 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

302 31. Road or Trail Closures 303 FP IV-34 1 Use temporary road closures where necessary to protect water qu

reconstructed to suitable standard. 

304 FP 

IV-34 2 Employ seasonal closure to restrict vehicle travel when the road s

or water quality may be adversely effected. Specific information croads by gates is contained in the LTBMU Gate Management Planperiodically amended. Location of the gate, period of closure, type authorization for entry are contained in the plan. 

305 32. Water Flow Timing 306 FP IV-34 1 Coordinate with California Department of Fish and Game in the op

maintenance of small water regulating dams installed to maintain 

307 33. Water Yield Improvement 308 FP 

IV-34 1 Permit weather modification to increase precipitation unless it is sh

modification will produce permanent substantial changes in the lanadverse environmental effects. 

309 Minerals 310 34. Minerals Management 311 FP 

IV-35 1 Approve locatable mineral operations under a plan of operations w

quality and other environmental factors can be maintained or enhasite specific basis through NEPA procedures. 

312 FP 

IV-35 2 Authorize extraction of leasable minerals through lease document

quality and other environmental factors can be maintained or enhasite specific basis through NEPA procedures. 

313 FP 

IV-35 3 Approve no extraction of common variety minerals on currently un

Extraction may be authorized on sites where material had been prprovided that (1) the plan for removal demonstrates partial or full rand (2) that water quality and other environmental factors will be m

throughout the extraction process. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

314 FP 

IV-35 4 Stockpiling of rock, soil and other earthen material, removed from 

may be approved. Measures will be employed that prevent stockpwashed into stream channels or adding nutrients to, or otherwise agroundwater. Preferred locations for stockpiling will be on sites w

be used in onsite rehabilitation if not reused elsewhere. 

315 FP 

IV-35 5 Insure that mineral operators meet appropriate laws and regulatio

293.14) that apply. Work with the state, regional and local governdevelopment and review of "Plans of Operation". 

316 FP 

IV-35 6 Prior to authorizing operations within withdrawn areas, valid existin

Valid existing rights will be recognized, but the integrity for which twill be maintained. 

317 SNFPA 

58 64 Ensure that plans of operation, reclamation plans, and reclamation 

costs of: (1) removing facilities, equipment, and materials; (2) isolaremoving toxic or potentially toxic materials; (3) salvaging and reppreparing the seed bed and revegetating to meet the objectives of which the operation is located 

318 SNFPA 

59 65 Ensure that mine owners and operators limit new road constructio

unnecessary roads, and maintain needed roads consistent with Fopolicy and management direction for the land allocation 

319 SNFPA 59 66 Require mine reclamation to be conducted in a timely manner 320 SNFPA 

59 67 Inspect and monitor mining-related activities on a regular basis to 

laws, regulations, and operating plans. Base the frequency of inspon the potential severity of mining activity-related impacts 

321 SNFPA 

59 68 During mining-related activities, limit the clearing of trees and othe

minimum necessary. Clearing of vegetation should be pertinent to 

mineral exploration and development 

322 Lands 323 35. Land and Resource Management Planning 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-42 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

324 FP 

IV-35 Augment the Interior Department's National Natural Landmark pro

the Park Service) by: a) cooperating in the evaluation of the entire Priority 1 rated candidate for status in the river and lakes major theGrass Lake Moss Bog for status if it does not become a part of the 

Area system; c) considering the addition of national forest land to Park registered area; d) considering the inclusion of Osgood Bog Cushion Plant Community into the system. 

325 FP 

IV-35 Direct the Special Interest Area program by:a) managing the Talla

b) evaluating Emerald Bay, Osgood Bog, Freel Peak Cushion PlanTaylor Creek Wetlands during this planning period for inclusion intmonitoring Grass Lake Moss Bog, Hell Hole, Floating Island LakeMarshes, Cave Rock, Glacial Moraine Deposits, and Ward and Blmanaging them to protect their special features for possible future identifying new areas having promise for inclusion. 

326 FP 

IV-36 Plan recreation development with the states of Nevada and Califo

goals: a) Compatibility of development; b) Comparable fees; c) Cowhich the public must comply (Laws governing national forest landstate laws governing the state parks and therefore exact uniformit

327 FP IV-36 To the extent feasible, data should be assembled and measured i

with that used by the TRPA. 

328 

Implement the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by conducting an eligibTruckee River. If the river, or segment thereof, is eligible, schedulassessment. Until a decision is made regarding the river’s status, management will be in effect: 

329 

1.To the extent that the Forest Service is authorized under law to 

impoundments and diversions, the free flowing characteristics of t

not be modified. 

330 2. Outstandingly remarkable values for the Truckee River will be id

to the extent practicable, enhanced. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

331 

3. Management and development of the Truckee River and its cormodified to the degree that potential eligibility or classification will be changed from wild to scenic or scenic to recreational) 

332 36. Special Land Use (Non-Recreation) 333 FP 

IV-36 1 Consider new land use proposals on the merits of each case. App

demonstrate that private land is not available, capable, or suitable

normally be expected to do their own environmental analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or impact statemeForest Supervisor. (Utilities necessary to provide adequate, reliab

development approved in the TRPA Regional Plan will be consideservices). 

334 FP IV-36 2 Consider applications for electronic facilities and antenna sites diff

sites on a case by case basis. 

335 FP IV-36 3 Direct applicants for major trans-Sierra right-of-way to established 

Interstate 80 as the preferred location. 

336 FP IV-36 4 Obligate the minimum amount of land for a period no greater than 

privileges granted. Improvements will be designed to utilize a min

337 FP 

IV-36 5 Locate all types of transmission lines outside of view areas where 

joint use of existing rights-of-way unless the proponent can clearly practical. 

338 FP 

IV-36 6 Install power distribution lines up to 33kv underground in existing o

unless the proponent can clearly show that this is not practical or ainstallation would cause less long term environmental damage. 

339 FP IV-36 7 Insure that existing above ground utilities will normally be undergr

established in the R-5 Undergrounding Master Plan. 

340 FP 

IV-36 8 Coordinate the review of applications for power licenses with FER

agencies. Process applications for uses associated with a license procedures. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-44 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

341 FP 

IV-36 9 Represent permittees in deliberations with the TRPA for project re

this rule include, but are not confined to, cases where the project inational forest land. 

342 FP IV-36 10 Require a permit applicant to obtain permission to cross private la

of way does not exist. 

343 37. Withdrawals 344 FP 

IV-37 1 In compliance with PL 94-579 (Section 204), review all existing wi

with the Secretary of Interior to determine the need and validity for Recommend revocation of those no longer needed. Complete the 

1991. 

345 FP 

IV-37 2 Initiate withdrawals from mineral and other forms of entry for admi

developed public recreation areas, special interest areas, national wetlands, and areas highly valued for use by the public. 

346 SNFPA 

66 123 Determine which critical aquatic refuges or areas within critical aq

suitable for mineral withdrawal. Propose these areas for withdrawaentry under U.S. mining laws, subject to valid existing rights, for a 

347 SNFPA 66 124 Approve mining-related plans of operation if measures are implem

toward the attainment or maintenance of aquatic management stra

348 38. Rights-of-Way 349 FP IV-37 1 Acquire rights-of-way for roads, trails, or utilities where those of St

or special service jurisdictions are inadequate for Forest Service u

350 FP IV-37 2 Obtain full public access except in the few instances where admin

sufficient. 

351 39. Property Boundary Location 352 FP IV-37 1 Maintain corner and boundary markers. 353 FP IV-37 2 Maintain land title and survey records. 354 40. Cooperative Technical Assistance 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

355 FP IV-37 1 Serve as part of the Advisory Planning Commission of the Tahoe 

Agency. 

356 FP IV-37 2 Serve on all technical review teams involving wildland resource m357 41. Landownership Adjustment - L&WCF and other Authority 358 FP 

IV-38 1 Expand national forest land ownership in the basin through purcha

exchange in order to achieve the balance of long term public beneand that of the TRPA Regional Plan. 

359 FP 

IV-38 2 Allow national forest land in the basin to be exchanged for other la

public use. In such exchanges, preference will be given to other pdevote land to public use. 

360 FP IV-38 3 Insure that recreation capacity acquired through acquisition will be 

increase to the national forest "fair share". 

361 42. Land Acquisition Santini-Burton Act 96-586 362 FP 

IV-38 1 Acquire tracts of land that are eligible because of environmental s

are: stream environment zone; land capability class 1, 2 and 3; un

land causing unacceptably high rates of sedimentation; and shore3. For details, reference the 63 Land Acquisition Program maps. 

363 FP 

IV-38 2 Coordinate the Forest Service acquisition program with the similar 

and Nevada so as not to duplicate effort. Offers to purchase will bseller. 

364 FP 

IV-38 3 Decide transfers to state or local jurisdiction on a case-by-case ba

developed. The Act authorizes the Forest Service to transfer parc

local governments where such parcels are found unsuitable for na

administration. 

365 Soils 366 43. Soil Resource 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-46 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

367 FP IV-39 1 Maintain surface litter, duff, and adequate coarse woody debris to 

reserves and recycle nutrients. 

368 FP 

IV-39 2 Maintain protective groundcover (duff, litter, or slash) or vegetative 

erosion. Areas in which the soil resource is continuously impacted be considered an ongoing priority. 

369 FP IV-39 3 Minimize soil displacement when grading slopes or when piling br370 FP 

IV-39 4 Where past management activities have reduced soil productivity, 

productivity by respreading displaced topsoil, by using tillage to inincreasing nutrient supplies through the addition of fertilizer (utilizifor fertilizer use), or by increasing nutrient holding capacity througmatter. 

371 FP IV-39 5 Where soils are susceptible to compaction and puddling, minimize 

heavy equipment or operate when soils are least susceptible to da

372 SNFPA 

52 13 Design projects to reduce potential soil erosion and the loss of soi

loss of vegetation and ground cover. Examples are activities that 

adequate soil cover in the short term; (2) accelerate the dispersal (3) reduce the potential impacts of the fire on water quality; and (4restoration/salvage activities to minimize additional short-term effe

373 SNFPA 

66 122 Recommend restoration practices in: (1) areas with compaction in 

standards, (2) areas with lowered water tables, or (3) areas that acutting or that have historic gullies. Identify other management praroad building, recreational use, grazing, and timber harvests, that 

the observed degradation 

374 Facilities 375 44. Road Construction and Reconstruction 376 FP 

IV-40 1 Prohibit road building in areas of high mass soil instability. Areas 

will be engineered to protect water quality and scenic value. Site sanalysis will be used to provide recommendations for road building
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

377 FP IV-40 2 Integrate parking facilities with a road system at wilderness and ot

viewpoints, special attractions, and recreation sites. 

378 FP 

IV-40 3 Limit construction to slopes of less than 30% except for short segm

to bridge steep terrain within otherwise moderately sloped areas. roads on slopes exceeding 30% where BMP are fully utilized to m

379 FP 

IV-40 4 Prioritize forest system road reconstruction in following order:1. Pu

of known hazards; 2. Correction of water quality problems; a. Redimpacts in stream environment zones; b. Installation of drainage; csurface, ditches, cuts and fills; 3. Protect road investment; 4. ProdImprove quality of recreation and administrative services; 6. Expa

380 FP IV-40 5 Stabilize soils along the existing transportation system, obliterate a

roads. 

381 FP IV-40 6 Share construction and reconstruction costs on roads serving both 

general public use sites or areas on a basis proportionate to use. 

382 FP 

IV-40 7 Roads that are managed to provide OHV opportunities will be reco

challenging experience for recreationists while providing resource cases roads presently passable to passenger cars will be reconstrpassable only to four-wheel drive or high clearance vehicles. 

383 SNFPA 

59 70 To protect watershed resources, meet the following standards for 

reconstruction, and road relocation: (1) design new stream crossinstream crossings for at least the 100-year flood, including bedload stream crossings to minimize the diversion of streamflow out of throad in the event of a crossing failure; (3) design stream crossings of natural hydrologic flow paths, including minimizing diversion of interception of surface and subsurface water; (4) avoid wetlands onatural flow patterns in wetlands; and (5) avoid road construction i

384 SNFPA 

61 82 Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturban

existing recreation, off highway vehicle route, trail, and road uses maintenance). Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off highwrecreational and other developments for their potential to disturb n
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-48 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

385 SNFPA 

61 83 Apply a limited operating period, prohibiting vegetation treatments 

within 1⁄4 mile of an active great gray owl nest stand, during the neMarch 1 to August 15) . The LOP may be waived for vegetation trescope and duration, when a biological evaluation determines that 

unlikely to result in breeding disturbance considering their intensityspecific location. Where a biological evaluation concludes that a nshielded from planned activities by topographic features that woulthe LOP buffer distance may be reduced. 

386 SNFPA 

62 87, 89 Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturban

existing recreation, off-highway vehicle route, trail, and road uses maintenance). Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off-highwrecreational and other developments for their potential to disturb d

387 45. Temporary Road Construction 388 FP 

IV-40 1 Construct temporary roads when there is only a one-time need for 

Obliterate the road and return to resource production within one yeone-time need is fulfilled. 

389 FP 

IV-40 2 Locate and design temporary roads with the least amount of cut a

stream or water channel crossings, so that the land can be restoreimpact. 

390 46. Road Maintenance 391 FP 

IV-40 1 Give priority for maintenance the following order:1. Public safety - 

hazards. 2. Correction of water quality problems. a. Reduce or elimstream environment zones. b. Installation of drainage. c. Stabilize 

cuts and fills. 3. Protect road investment. 4. Produce planned outp

of recreation and administrative services. 6. Expand recreation se

392 FP IV-41 2 Stabilize cut and fill slopes; protect drainage structures and draina

sediment trapping devises; install infiltration trenches. 

393 FP IV-41 3 Obilterate and stabilize unneeded roads. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

394 FP 

IV-41 4 Share maintenance costs on roads serving both special use sites 

sites and areas on a basis proportionate to use. Develop agreempermittees, or associations of permittees, to perform the maintena

395 47. Trail Construction/Reconstruction 396 FP 

IV-41 1 All trails receiving significant use will be managed as part of the tra

the Trails Management Handbook, or closed and rehabilitated. Trconstruction standards will be reconstructed. Special use permitteuse only system trails. Where construction or reconstruction of tra

under permit, permittee will bear cost of required work. 

397 FP IV-41 2 Increase the trail system outside of wilderness for recreation use. 398 FP 

IV-41 3 Construct the Rim Trail to encircle the Lake Tahoe Basin approxim

hydrographic boundary as described in concept within a Decision July 1983. The trail and primary feeders will be all-purpose design 

and maintenance will be through the Tahoe Rim Trail Association, 

399 FP 

IV-41 4 The Summer Off Highway Vehicle Management Map shall provide 

where and in what priority OHV routes will be studied for construct

normally provide no summer OHV opportunities and no new routeZone 3 presently provides OHV opportunities and the construction designed to enhance existing routes by the creation of loops will bexisting roads and trails may be designated for OHV use, no majobe constructed. Zone 4 presently provides OHV opportunities and for constructing major OHV systems after study. In this zone, trail construction will have highest priority to be considered as part of sthe first decade. In zones 3 and 4, many routes presently being urevegetated where unacceptable social or environmental affects abe mitigated. The Summer OHV Management Map will be updatetransportation system planning results in changes in management 

400 FP 

IV-41 5 Determine priorities and establish a schedule to rehabilitate system 

quality standards applicable in the basin. The standard requires m

protective surfacing than would be typical on system trails. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-50 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

401 FP 

IV-41 6 OHV trails will be designed and managed to ensure that trails will 

design width to only accomodate ATV, quad or smaller sized OHVdesignated away from urban areas and away from foot trails when

conflicts with residents. OHV trails shall be signed to a level that c

route as designated throughout its length. Unauthorized trails thadesignated routes will be identified and closed to OHV use. 

402 FP 

IV-41 7 OHV trails will be designed when appropriate and environmentally 

"loops," to enhance user enjoyment. Access to OHV trail systems designated trailheads with opportunities for limited parking where systems will require bridges or similar structures when designated and similar barriers will be constructed as appropriate to minimize OHV trail system. 

403 FP 

IV-41 8 OHV trails will be monitored for resource impacts, especially conc

quality. Trails will be closed if user impacts create resource impac

mitigated. 

404 FP IV-41 9 Trails constructed through unstable terrain will utilize geologic eva

geotechnical design to minimize potential impacts. 

405 48. Trail Maintenance 406 FP IV-42 1 Use the LTBMU Trail Management Plan, Nov. 25, 1980, as a guid

range direction for maintenance of trails. 

407 FP 

IV-42 2 Define each system trail by design class (All-purpose, Principal W

Hiker-Horse, Primitive Hiker, or Special Purpose) and assign a mato 5. Existing trails not presently in the system will be evaluated in

appropriateness of inclusion. Existing non-system trails determine

standards for inclusion in the system shall be closed and rehabilitadegradation. 

408 FP IV-42 3 Manage the Hawley Grade Trail and the Pope-Baldwin Bicycle Tra

Recreation Trails. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

409 FP IV-42 4 Manage the Pacific Crest Trail as described in the Pacific Crest Tr

LTBMU and Eldorado National Forest, September 1981. 

410 FP 

IV-42 5 OHV system trails will be managed in accordance with standards 

in FSH 7709 Trails Handbook. OHV trails must be carefully maintsigning is well maintained throughout the system. Vandalized or w

replaced as a priority maintenance element whenever they are dismaintenance inspections unauthorized OHV trail routes will be idedevelop, and will be closed as appropriate. Emphasis will be placOHV trail width to 48". Reverse grading will be encouraged over twaterbars on OHV trail systems to divert water runoff. Logs of suff

a "backstop" will be used to stabilize deep banking turns on OHV the tread has been displaced by OHV activity will be stabilized whcinder blocks or similar tread stabilizing materials. Routes will be to change grade or slope where OHV activity is creating adverse r

411 FP 

IV-42 6 Trails that are developed and used primarily by special use permit

to Forest Service standards by the permittees. Where special use general public share the use of trails, expense of maintenance wilproportionate to use. 

412 49. Facility Construction/Reconstruction 413 FP IV-42 1 Comply with state energy efficiency standards; install TRPA appro

stoves and other appliances; and encourage the use of solar ener

414 FP 

IV-42 2 Confine developments to land capability classes 4-7 except where 

improvement requires development in environmentally sensitive a

and SEZ). 

415 FP 

IV-42 3 Locate, design and maintain structures, signs, and lighting to harm

natural features or to enhance the characteristics of the manmade such is dominant. 

416 50. Facility Operation and Maintenance 417 FP IV-42 1 Utilize appropriate BMP to provide soil stability, runoff infiltration, a
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-52 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

418 FP 

IV-42 2 Retrofit facilities to comply with State energy efficiency standards 

TRPA approved woodburning stoves and other appliances when ereplaced; and encourage the use of solar energy. 

419 FP IV-42 3 Retrofit all administrative sites to incorporate BMP's when constru

occurs, or by the year 2000, whichever occurs first. 

420 Protection 421 51. Fire Prevention 422 FP IV-43 1 Manage vegetation and plan uses with full recognition of the need 

protection from wildfire. 

423 FP 

IV-43 2 Give priority to fireproofing and fuel reduction measures in develop

areas of concentrated public use, areas adjacent to urbanized devfuel concentration that exceed established standards. 

424 52. Fire Detection and Suppression 425 FP 

IV-43 1 The wildfire response strategy for areas within or adjacent to urba

associated high values at risk is "Control" of all wildfires at Fire Intwith a maximum size objective of 1/4 acre or less and at FIL 2-5 cacres or less. 

426 FP 

IV-43 2 The wildfire response strategy for areas of forested lands outside 

not including high elevation alpine areas, is "Containment" of fires 

maximum size objective of 10 acres. 

427 FP 

IV-43 3 The wildfire response strategy for high elevation alpine areas exhi

fuels and natural barriers is "Confinement" of all fires at all FIL with objective of 25 acres. 

428 FP 

IV-43 4 Fire intensity, fire spread potential, the probability of adverse reso

quality considerations will dictate the maximum wildfire size and reforested lands outside of urbanized areas and on high elevation a
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

429 FP 

IV-43 5 Use all types of firefighting equipment in emergencies when there 

and property or where the resource value saved is clearly greater through its use. In other than these conditions, disturbance to soil environment zones and to visual quality, will be minimized. 

430 FP IV-43 6 Coordinate fire management with other protection agencies and d431 FP IV-43 7 Take prompt measures after forest fires to reduce adverse effects 

quality, recreation use, wildlife, and timber health. 

432 FP IV-43 8 Encourage all private development within the national forest to be 

district. 

433 FP 

IV-43 9 Respond to structural fires in situations involving threat to life, prop

resources when local suppression forces are inadequate or non exstructural fire suppression is the responsibility of local fire service 

434 FP 

IV-43 10 Follow federal, state, and local air quality rules and regulations wh

planned for disposal. Utilize BACT to assure that air quality effectlevel. 

435 53. Fuel Treatment 436 FP IV-44 1 Assist in maintaining the clear, clean air important to the aesthetic 

and the health of the people through the regulation of open burnin

437 FP IV-44 2 Adhere to Federal, State, regional and local guidelines regarding a

LTBMU Smoke Management Plan. 

438 FP 

IV-44 3 Employ techniques for managing the generation of smoke includin

complete combustion, and proper timing for venting to highest elevfrom the basin. Fuels will normally not be burned for one summer allow sufficient time for drying. 

439 FP IV-44 4 Use nonburning techniques, such as lopping and scattering, when

will be acceptable, especially where the slash will help to protect t

440 FP IV-44 5 Leave at least two slash piles per acre for wildlife cover. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-54 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

441 FP 

IV-44 6 Treat activity fuels in the near view of high use travel corridors, rec

urbanized areas. Cleanup need not be 100%. The debris, after twor utilization for campfires, should not appear dominant in the landfuels will be preferable, but unburned piles at a density of five per normally be acceptable where a forest canopy remains. 

442 FP IV-44 7 Slash will not normally be buried. 443 FP IV-44 8 Locate activity fuel burning beyond 50 feet of any stream channel 444 SNFPA 

49 1 Strategically place area fuels treatments across the landscape to i

achieve conditions that: (1) reduce the size and severity of wildfire densities necessary for healthy forests during drought conditions. level design of area treatment patterns prior to project-level analyspatterns using a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach. Determand orientation of area fuels treatments at a landscape-scale, usinhistory, existing vegetation and fuels condition, prevailing wind dirsuppression resources, attack times, and accessibility to design apattern. The spatial pattern of the treatments is designed to reducand fire intensity at the head of the fire. 

445 SNFPA 

49 1 Strategic placement of fuels treatments should also consider objec

treatment areas to overlap with areas of condition class 2 and 3, h

pockets of insect and disease. Avoid PACs to the greatest extent parea treatments. Incorporate areas that already contribute to wildf

modification, including timber sales, burned areas, bodies of wate

into the landscape treatment area pattern. Identify gaps in the landfire could spread at some undesired rate or direction and use treamaintenance treatments and new fuels treatments) to fill identified 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

446 SNFPA 

50 4 Vegetation within treatment areas should be modified to meet des

crown fuel conditions as well as stand densities necessary for headrought conditions. Site specific prescriptions should be designed rate of fire spread, crown fire potential, mortality in dominant and ctree density. Managers should consider such variables as the toptreatment area, slope steepness, predominant wind direction, and 

arrangement of surface, ladder, and crown fuels in developing fueprescriptions 

447 SNFPA 

49 2 Design mechanical treatments in brush and shrub patches to rem

necessary to achieve the following outcomes from wildland fire unweather conditions: (1) wildland fires would burn with an average less and (2) fire line production rates would be doubled. Treatmenfor more than 5 to 10 years 

448 SNFPA 

50 5 Design a sequence of fuel reduction treatments in conifer forest ty

plantation types) to achieve the following standards within the treaaverage of 4-foot flame length under 90th percentile fire weather cladder fuels removed as needed to meet design criteria of less thain dominant and co-dominant trees under 90th percentile weather conditions. •tree crowns thinned to meet design criteria of less thaof initiation of crown fire under 90 th percentile weather conditions

449 SNFPA 

59 71 Within the assessment area or watershed, locate fuels treatments 

PACs. PACs may be re-mapped during project planning to avoid itreatment areas, provided that the re-mapped PACs contain habita

include known nest sites and important roost sites. Document PAC biological evaluations. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-56 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

450 SNFPA 

60 72 When treatment areas must intersect PACs and choices can be m

to enter, use the following criteria to preferentially avoid PACs thacontribution to owl productivity. Lowest contribution to productiunoccupied and historically occupied by territorial singles only; PAunoccupied and historically occupied by pairs, PACs presently occ

singles; PACs presently occupied by pairs. Highest contribution 

currently or historically reproductive. Historical occupancy is consi1990. Current occupancy is based on surveys consistent with surv

1992) in the last 2-3 years prior to project planning. These dates wencompass the majority of survey efforts and to include breeding p1990s when many sites were found to be productive. When designintersections with PACs, limit treatment acres to those necessary placement objectives and avoid treatments adjacent to nest stand

451 SNFPA 

60 72 If nesting or foraging habitat in PACs is mechanically treated, mitig

to the PAC, equivalent to the treated acres, using adjacent acres o

wherever possible. 

452 SNFPA 

60 72 Mechanical treatments may be conducted to meet fuels objectives 

centers (PACs) located in WUI defense zones. In PACs located in mechanical treatments are allowed where prescribed fire is not feaavoiding PACs would significantly compromise the overall effectiv

fire and fuels strategy. Mechanical treatments should be designed structure and function of the PAC. 

453 SNFPA 

60 73 While mechanical treatments may be conducted in protected activ

located in WUI defense zones and, in some cases, threat zones, t

within a 500-foot radius buffer around a spotted owl activity center PAC. Prescribed burning is allowed within the 500-foot radius buffincluding handline construction, tree pruning, and cutting of small inches dbh), may be conducted prior to burning as needed to protof owl habitat. Treatments in the remainder of the PAC use the forguidelines for mechanical thinning. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

454 SNFPA 

60 74 In PACs located outside the WUI, limit stand-altering activities to r

ladder fuels through prescribed fire treatments. In forested stands inches dbh and greater, design prescribed fire treatments to have length of 4 feet or less. Hand treatments, including handline constand cutting of small trees (less than 6 inches dbh), may be conducneeded to protect important elements of owl habitat. 

455 SNFPA 

60 75 For California spotted owl PACs: Maintain a limited operating peri

vegetation treatments within approximately 1⁄4 mile of the activity cbreeding season (March 1 through August 31), unless surveys conspotted owls are not nesting. Prior to implementing activities within California spotted owl PAC and the location of the nest site or acticonduct surveys to establish or confirm the location of the nest or 

456 SNFPA 

60 76 For northern goshawk PACs: Maintain a limited operating period (

vegetation treatments within approximately 1⁄4 mile of the nest site season (February 15 through September 15) unless surveys configoshawks are not nesting. If the nest stand within a protected actiunknown, either apply the LOP to a 1⁄4- mile area surrounding the determine the nest stand location 

457 SNFPA 

60 77 The LOP may be waived for vegetation treatments of limited scop

biological evaluation determines that such projects are unlikely to 

disturbance considering their intensity, duration, timing and specifbiological evaluation concludes that a nest site would be shielded by topographic features that would minimize disturbance, the LOP modified. 

458 SNFPA 

61 78 Breeding season limited operating period restrictions may be waiv

allow for use of early season prescribed fire in up to 5 percent of CPACs per year on a forest. 

459 SNFPA 

61 79 Breeding season limited operating period restrictions may be waiv

allow for use of early season prescribed fire in up to 5 percent of nper year on a forest. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-58 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

460 SNFPA 

61 80 For California spotted owl PACs: Conduct vegetation treatments in 

percent per year and 10 percent per decade of the acres in Califoin the 11 Sierra Nevada national forests. Monitor the number of PAbioregional scale. 

461 SNFPA 

61 81 For northern goshawk PACs: Conduct mechanical treatments in n

per year and 10 percent per decade of the acres in northern goshaSierra Nevada national forests. 

462 SNFPA 

60 85 Protect fisher den site buffers from disturbance with a limited oper

March 1 through June 30 for vegetation treatments as long as habuntil another Regionally-approved management strategy is implembe waived for individual projects of limited scope and duration, whevaluation documents that such projects are unlikely to result in brconsidering their intensity, duration, timing, and specific location. 

463 SNFPA 

60 86 Avoid fuel treatments in fisher den site buffers to the extent possib

site buffers must be treated to achieve fuels objectives for the urbazone, limit treatments to mechanical clearing of fuels. Treat ladder achieve fuels objectives. Use piling or mastication to treat surface 

treatment. Burning of piled debris is allowed. Prescribed fire may no other reasonable alternative exists. 

464 SNFPA 

62 88 Protect marten den site buffers from disturbance from vegetation t

operating period (LOP) from May 1 through July 31 as long as habuntil another Regionally-approved management strategy is implembe waived for individual projects of limited scope and duration, whevaluation documents that such projects are unlikely to result in brconsidering their intensity, duration, timing, and specific location. 

465 54. Prescribed Fire 466 FP IV-44 1 Do not use unplanned ignition prescribed fire. 467 FP IV-44 2 Adhere to Federal, Regional, State and local guidelines regarding 

LTBMU Smoke Management Plan. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

468 FP 

IV-44 3 Employ techniques for managing the generation of smoke includin

complete combustion and proper timing for venting to highest elevfrom the basin. 

469 FP 

IV-44 4 Design prescribed fire activities to avoid adverse affect on soil and 

minimize charring of downed woody material retained for wildlife. F

exceed two feet within 50 feet of stream courses or on wetlands u

are required to achieve specific objectives. 

470 SNFPA 

64 109 Within CARs, in occupied habitat or “essential habitat” as identifie

assessments for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species, ev

role, timing, and extent of prescribed fire. Avoid direct lighting with

prescribed fires may back into riparian vegetation areas. Develop avoid impacts to these species whenever ground-disturbing equip

471 SNFPA 

64 110 Use screening devices for water drafting pumps. (Fire suppression 

during initial attack.) Use pumps with low entry velocity to minimizspecies, including juvenile fish, amphibian egg masses and tadpohabitats 

472 SNFPA 

64 111 Design prescribed fire treatments to minimize disturbance of groun

vegetation in RCAs. In burn plans for project areas that include, oidentify mitigation measures to minimize the spread of fire into ripadetermining which mitigation measures to adopt, weigh the potentmeasures, for example fire lines, against the risks and benefits of riparian vegetation. Strategies should recognize the role of fire in eidentify those instances where fire suppression or fuel managemedamaging to habitat or long-term function of the riparian communi

473 SNFPA 

64 112 Post-wildfire management activities in RCAs and CARs should em

native vegetation cover, stabilizing channels by non-structural meaeffects from the existing road network, and carrying out activities ianalyses. Post-wildfire operations shall minimize the exposure of 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-60 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

474 SNFPA 

64 113 Allow hazard tree removal within RCAs or CARs. Allow mechanica

fuels treatments, salvage harvest, or commercial fuelwood cutting when the activity is consistent with RCOs. Utilize low ground presshelicopters, over the snow logging, or other non-ground disturbing of existing roads when needed to achieve RCOs. Ensure that exisand skid trails meet Best Management Practices. Minimize the con

trails or roads for access into RCAs for fuel treatments, salvage hafuelwood cutting, or hazard tree removal 

475 SNFPA 

65 114 As appropriate, assess and document aquatic conditions following 

Condition Inventory protocol prior to implementing ground disturbi

suitable habitat for California red-legged frog, Cascades frog, Yosmountain yellow-legged frogs, and northern leopard frog 

476 SNFPA 

65 115 During fire suppression activities, consider impacts to aquatic- and 

resources. Where possible, locate incident bases, camps, helibashelispots, and other centers for incident activities outside of RCAs suppression planning, determine guidelines for suppression activiavoidance of potential adverse effects to aquatic-and riparian-dep

goal 

477 SNFPA 

65 116 Identify roads, trails, OHV trails and staging areas, developed recr

campgrounds, special use permits, grazing permits, and day use s

analysis. Identify conditions that degrade water quality or habitat dependent species. At the project level, evaluate and consider acconsistency with standards and guidelines or desired conditions 

478 55. Law Enforcement 479 

 Review and amend the LTBMU Law Enforcement Action Plan ann

interdisciplinary process. Forest Supervisors orders issued to probeyond the general provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations annually. 

480 56. Forest Pest Management 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

481 FP 

IV-45 1 Follow an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach during the 

implementation of resource management activities, particularly thovegetation. Under this IPM approach, a full range of pest manageincluding cultural, biological, mechanical and chemical methods, wanalyzed on a site-specific, project level basis. The treatment methrough the environmental analysis process which will consider thtreatment efficacy and cost effectiveness of each alternative. Mon

enforcement plans to implement specific measures will be determ

project-specific process. Pest detection, surveillance, evaluation, 

suppression, and post-action evaluation are integral components omanagement approach (36 CFR 219.27 (a) (3)). 

482 57. Geologic Inventory & Evaluation, Geotechnical Investigati483 FP 

IV-45 1 Identify and give priority to areas that need more detailed geologic 

Complete the Forest Geologic Resource Inventory, including landsassessment, earthquake and volcanic hazard assessment, snow aassessment, and geologic special interest area inventory and ana

484 FP 

IV-45 2 Use the Geologic Resource Inventory, when completed, or other a

hazard and resource information for preliminary assessment of pro

unstable land or snow avalanche areas, disturb the land surface, oresources. Provide geologic and geotechnical evaluation of projecinitiate or accelerate landslide or snow avalanche. Avoid or providunstable areas to avoid triggering mass movement. 

485 FP IV-45 3 Allow no land disturbing activities on highly unstable areas. 486 FP IV-45 4 Avoid earthquake fault zones whenever possible when designing 

facilities. 

487 FP IV-45 5 Develop site-specific mitigation measures where potential slope in488 58. Riparian and Stream Environment Zone (SEZ) Managemen
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-62 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

489 SNFPA 

62 91 Designate riparian conservation area (RCA) widths as described i

appendix. The RCA widths displayed in Part B may be adjusted a

landscape analysis has been completed and a site-specific RCO a

need for different widths. 

490 SNFPA 

62 92 Evaluate new proposed management activities within CARs and R

environmental analysis to determine consistency with the riparian at the project level and the AMS goals for the landscape. Ensure tmitigation measures are enacted to (1) minimize the risk of activityentering aquatic systems and (2) minimize impacts to habitat for adependent plant and animal species. 

491 SNFPA 

62 93 Identify existing uses and activities in CARs and RCAs during land

time of permit reissuance, evaluate and consider actions needed fRCOs. 

492 SNFPA 

62 94 As part of project-level analysis, conduct peer reviews for projects 

disturbing activities in more than 25 percent of the RCA or more thCAR. 

493 SNFPA 

63 95 For waters designated as “Water Quality Limited” (Clean Water Ac

participate in the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMImplementation Plans. Execute applicable elements of completed Plans. 

494 SNFPA 63 96 Ensure that management activities do not adversely affect water t

for local aquatic- and riparian-dependent species assemblages. 

495 SNFPA 63 97 Limit pesticide applications to cases where project level analysis in

applications are consistent with riparian conservation objectives. 

496 SNFPA 

63 99 Prohibit storage of fuels and other toxic materials within RCAs and 

designated administrative sites and sites covered by a Special UsProhibit refueling within RCAs and CARs unless there are no othe

that spill plans are reviewed and up-to-date. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

497 SNFPA 

63 100 Maintain and restore the hydrologic connectivity of streams, mead

other special aquatic features by identifying roads and trails that in

disrupt natural surface and subsurface water flow paths. Implemenwhere necessary to restore connectivity. 

498 SNFPA 

63 101 Ensure that culverts or other stream crossings do not create barrie

downstream passage for aquatic-dependent species. Locate wateadverse effects to in stream flows and depletion of pool habitat. W

and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundaelevation in meadows, wetlands, and other special aquatic feature

499 SNFPA 

63 102 Prior to activities that could adversely affect streams, determine if 

characteristics are within the range of natural variability. If charactrange of natural variability, implement mitigation measures and shactions needed to prevent further declines or cause an upward treEvaluate required long-term restoration actions and implement thestatus among other restoration needs. 

500 SNFPA 

63 103 Prevent disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond sh

resource activities (for example, livestock, off-highway vehicles, an

from exceeding 20 percent of stream reach or 20 percent of naturashorelines. Disturbance includes bank sloughing, chiseling, trampexposing bare soil or cutting plant roots. This standard does not arecreation sites, sites authorized under Special Use Permits and d

vehicle routes. 

501 SNFPA 

63 104 In stream reaches occupied by, or identified as “essential habitat” 

assessment for, the Lahontan and Paiute cutthroat trout and the Llimit streambank disturbance from livestock to 10 percent of the ochabitat” stream reach. (Conservation assessments are described 

decision.) Cooperate with State and Federal agencies to develop 

standards for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Use streambank assessment protocol. Implement corrective action whhave been exceeded. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-64 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

502 SNFPA 

64 105 At either the landscape or project-scale, determine if the age class

composition, and cover of riparian vegetation are within the range the vegetative community. If conditions are outside the range of naconsider implementing mitigation and/or restoration actions that w

trend. Actions could include restoration of aspen or other riparian conifer encroachment is identified as a problem. 

503 SNFPA 

64 106 Cooperate with Federal, Tribal, State and local governments to se

needed to maintain, recover, and restore riparian resources, chanaquatic habitat Maintain in stream flows to protect aquatic systemuniquely adapted. Minimize the effects of stream diversions or othfrom hydroelectric projects on threatened, endangered, and sensi

504 SNFPA 

64 107 For exempt hydroelectric facilities on national forest lands, ensure 

language provides adequate in stream flow requirements to maintfavorable ecological conditions for local riparian- and aquatic-depe

505 SNFPA 

64 109 Within CARs, in occupied habitat or “essential habitat” as identifie

assessments for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species, ev

role, timing, and extent of prescribed fire. Avoid direct lighting with

prescribed fires may back into riparian vegetation areas. Develop avoid impacts to these species whenever ground-disturbing equip

506 SNFPA 

64 110 Use screening devices for water drafting pumps. (Fire suppression 

during initial attack.) Use pumps with low entry velocity to minimizspecies, including juvenile fish, amphibian egg masses and tadpohabitats. 

507 SNFPA 

64 111 Design prescribed fire treatments to minimize disturbance of groun

vegetation in RCAs. In burn plans for project areas that include, oidentify mitigation measures to minimize the spread of fire into ripadetermining which mitigation measures to adopt, weigh the potentmeasures, for example fire lines, against the risks and benefits of riparian vegetation. Strategies should recognize the role of fire in eidentify those instances where fire suppression or fuel managemedamaging to habitat or long-term function of the riparian communi
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

508 SNFPA 

64 112 Post-wildfire management activities in RCAs and CARs should em

native vegetation cover, stabilizing channels by non-structural meaeffects from the existing road network, and carrying out activities ianalyses. Post-wildfire operations shall minimize the exposure of b

509 SNFPA 

64 113 Allow hazard tree removal within RCAs or CARs. Allow mechanica

fuels treatments, salvage harvest, or commercial fuelwood cutting when the activity is consistent with RCOs. Utilize low ground presshelicopters, over the snow logging, or other non-ground disturbing of existing roads when needed to achieve RCOs. Ensure that exisand skid trails meet Best Management Practices. Minimize the co

trails or roads for access into RCAs for fuel treatments, salvage hafuelwood cutting, or hazard tree removal. 

510 SNFPA 

64 114 As appropriate, assess and document aquatic conditions following 

Condition Inventory protocol prior to implementing ground disturbi

suitable habitat for California red-legged frog, Cascades frog, Yosmountain yellow-legged frogs, and northern leopard frog. 

511 SNFPA 

65 115 During fire suppression activities, consider impacts to aquatic- and 

resources. Where possible, locate incident bases, camps, helibashelispots, and other centers for incident activities outside of RCAs suppression planning, determine guidelines for suppression activiavoidance of potential adverse effects to aquatic-and riparian-dep

goal. 

512 SNFPA 

65 116 Identify roads, trails, OHV trails and staging areas, developed recr

campgrounds, special use permits, grazing permits, and day use s

analysis. Identify conditions that degrade water quality or habitat dependent species. At the project level, evaluate and consider acconsistency with standards and guidelines or desired conditions. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-66 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

513 SNFPA 

65 117 Assess the hydrologic function of meadow habitats and other spec

during range management analysis. Ensure that characteristics of 

a minimum, at Proper Functioning Condition, as defined in the appReports (or their successor publications): (1) “Process for Assessi(1993), “PFC for Lotic Areas” USDI TR 1737-15 (1998) or (2) “PFC Wetland Areas” USDI TR 1737-11 (1994). 

514 SNFPA 

65 118 Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing activities that adversely affe

that maintain water flow, water quality, or water temperature criticafen ecosystems and plant species that depend on these ecosystem

analysis, survey, map, and develop measures to protect bogs and activities as trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, and wheefor defining bogs and fens include, but are not limited to, presence (Spagnum spp.), (2) mosses belonging to the genus Meessia, and spp.) Complete initial plant inventories of bogs and fens within actprior to re-issuing permits. 

515 SNFPA 

65 119 Locate new facilities for gathering livestock and pack stock outside 

riparian conservation areas. During project-level planning, evaluatrelocating existing livestock facilities outside of meadows and ripaissuing grazing permits, assess the compatibility of livestock mana

located in riparian conservation areas with riparian conservation o
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

516 SNFPA 

65 120 Under season-long grazing:For meadows in early seral status: lim

grass and grass-like plants to 30 percent (or minimum 6-inch stubmeadows in late seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass and maximum of 40 percent (or minimum 4-inch stubble height). Deteon all key areas monitored for grazing utilization prior to establishi

Use Regional ecological scorecards and range plant list in regionadetermine ecological status. Analyze meadow ecological status ev

meadow ecological status is determined to be moving in a downwsuspend grazing. Include ecological status data in a spatially expliInformation System database. Under intensive grazing systems (s

and deferred rotation) where meadows are receiving a period of re

be higher than the levels described above if the meadow is maintaand meadow-associated species are not being impacted. Degradthose in early seral status with greater than 10 percent of the meaand active erosion) require total rest from grazing until they have rmoved to mid- or late seral status. 

517 SNFPA 

66 121 Limit browsing to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader gr

shrubs and no more than 20 percent of individual seedlings. Remoarea of an allotment when browsing indicates a change in livestocgrazing herbaceous vegetation to browsing woody riparian vegeta

518 SNFPA 

66 122 Recommend restoration practices in: (1) areas with compaction in 

standards, (2) areas with lowered water tables, or (3) areas that acutting or that have historic gullies. Identify other management praroad building, recreational use, grazing, and timber harvests, that 

the observed degradation. 

519 59. Forest-Wide Noxious Weed Management 520 SNFPA 54 36 Inform forest users, local agencies, special use permittees, groups

communities near national forests about noxious weed prevention 

521 SNFPA 

54 37 Work cooperatively with California and Nevada State agencies an

(for example, Cooperative Weed Management Areas) to: (1) preveestablishment of noxious weed infestations and (2) control existing 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-68 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

522 SNFPA 

55 38 As part of project planning, conduct a noxious weed risk assessm

for weed spread (high, moderate, or low) associated with different management activities. Refer to weed prevention practices in the 

Management Strategy to develop mitigation measures for high anactivities. 

523 SNFPA 

55 39 When recommended in project-level noxious weed risk assessme

off-road equipment and vehicles (both Forest Service and contracimplementation to be weed free. Refer to weed prevention practicNoxious Weed Management Strategy. 

524 SNFPA 

55 40 Minimize weed spread by incorporating weed prevention and cont

ongoing management or maintenance activities that involve groun

possibility of spreading weeds. Refer to weed prevention practiceNoxious Weed Management Strategy. 

525 SNFPA 55 41 Conduct follow-up inspections of ground disturbing activities to en

Regional Noxious Weed Management Strategy. 

526 SNFPA 

55 42 Encourage use of certified weed free hay and straw. Cooperate w

the public in developing a certification program for weed free hay a

program as certified weed free hay and straw becomes available. guideline applies to pack and saddle stock used by the public, liveoutfitter guide permittees, and local, State, and Federal agencies. 

527 SNFPA 

55 43 Include weed prevention measures, as necessary, when amendin

(including, but not limited to, livestock grazing, special uses, and p

permits. 

528 SNFPA 

55 44 Include weed prevention measures and weed control treatments in 

operation and reclamation plans. Refer to weed prevention practiNoxious Weed Management Strategy. Monitor for weeds, as apprproject implementation (assuming no weed introductions have occ

529 SNFPA 

55 45 Conduct a risk analysis for weed spread associated with burned a

rehabilitation (BAER) treatments. The BAER team is responsible analysis. Monitor and treat weed infestations for 3 years after the 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

530 SNFPA 55 46 Consult with American Indians to determine priority areas for weed 

where traditional gathering areas are threatened by weed infestati

531 SNFPA 55 47 Complete noxious weed inventories, based on regional protocol. R

these inventories on an annual basis. 

532 SNFPA 

55 48 As outlined in the Regional Noxious Weed Management Strategy, 

infestations are detected, emphasize eradication of these infestatithe safety of field personnel. 

533 SNFPA 

55 49 Routinely monitor noxious weed control projects to determine succ

need for follow-up treatments or different control methods . Monitoinfestations, as appropriate, to determine changes in weed populaspread. 

534 Blackwood IV-58 Expand Kaspian campground by 50 PAOT. 535 Blackwood IV-58 Restrict OHV use in this management area to roads and designate

users of the sensitivity of the watershed. 

536 Blackwood IV-58 Keep management area open to over-the-snow vehicle use. Issue 

outfitter guide permits. 

537 Blackwood IV-58 Protect suitable habitat for goshawk and spotted owl. 538 Blackwood IV-58 Improve the ability for fish to migrate in this stream past the concre

and improve limited habitat. 

539 Blackwood 

IV-58 

Prohibit livestock grazing for at least the duration of this plan. Con

crossing from the Tahoe NF to a truck loading site in Blackwood in 

no watershed damage occurs as a result. 

540 Blackwood IV-58 Intensive timber management activities will not occur during this p541 Blackwood IV-58 Allow this practice where necessary to prevent insect and disease 

escalating into epidemic proportions. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-70 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

542 Blackwood 

IV-58 

The Barker Pass road will be utilized as a major log haul route from Forest. However, it will not be realigned or upgraded to a standarnew trans-Sierra highway. Existing OHV roads will be managed to 

quality OHV opportunities. 

543 Desolation IV-64 Maintain closure to OHV use and mountain bicycles. Issue no new 

or competitive recreation events permits. 

544 Desolation IV-64 Use the Desolation Wilderness Management Plan except for the f

to specifically guide management activities for the area. 

545 Desolation 

IV-64 

Evaluate major emission sources which might affect the Class I aisources not on Federal land. Inventory and assess identified air q(AQRV) of visibility, bryoria lichen species and acidity of water. 

546 East Shore Beaches IV-69 Construct a boat-in day use site at Skunk Harbor, with capacity of 547 East Shore Beaches IV-69 Provide parking and associated improvements for 850 PAOT at su

Highway 28 to eliminate the roadside parking. Plan parking nodes Department of Transportation and the Division of Parks and Recre

548 East Shore Beaches IV-69 Designate scenic vista points along Highway 28. 549 East Shore Beaches IV-69 Assure that not all the parking is used by beach users, but that so

emergency roadside stops and for scenic viewing. 

550 East Shore Beaches IV-69 Prohibit overnight camping and OHV use. Emphasize managemen

littering along the beaches and trails. Regularly maintain trail impr

fragile soils and vegetation from heavy public use. 

551 East Shore Beaches IV-69 Maintain closure to over-the-snow vehicles north of Skunk Harbor

motorized outfitter guides will be issued. 

552 East Shore Beaches IV-69 Restore the highway foreground view with nodal parking. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

553 East Shore Beaches IV-69 Evaluate and interpret the Newhall house and outbuilding at Skun

appropriate through recordation, interpretation, and/or preservatioof Slaughterhouse Canyon railroad grade, and interpret grade if de

554 East Shore Beaches IV-69 Maintain roads for administrative purposes and allow for access to 

Secret Harbor. 

555 East Shore Beaches IV-69 Install barriers or other devices to prevent roadside parking where 

to be a visual, safety and water quality management problem. 

556 Echo Lakes IV-75 Develop an Echo Summit vista with a capacity of 50 PAOT. 557 Echo Lakes IV-75 Expansion will not exceed 40 PAOT above the current level for Ec

Summit parking. 

558 Echo Lakes IV-75 Recreation residences, organization camps, and resorts will not be 

or in land coverage. 

559 Echo Lakes 

IV-75 

A single future use determination will be made for all the private sethis management area since all term permits expire on January 31continuance substantially determines the character of the area for 

560 Echo Lakes 

IV-75 

Manage the old Camp Harvey West site at the west end of Upper dispersed recreation area. Maintain use at a level that allows natuvegetation rehabilitation to progress. 

561 Echo Lakes IV-75 Maintain the closure to OHV activity. Vehicles may travel on fores562 Echo Lakes IV-75 Maintain the camping closure. 563 Echo Lakes 

IV-75 

Maintain the closure to over-the-snow vehicles. Owners of private residences may travel on the forest development roads when they 

gain access, but not for recreational purposes. No permits for winguides will be issued. 

564 Echo Lakes IV-75 Cooperate with El Dorado County on their ordinance that closes a

along Highway 50 to over-the-snow travel (motorized or nonmotor

565 Echo Lakes IV-75 Maintain the camping closure. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-72 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

566 Echo Lakes IV-75 Continue to work with CalTrans to improve the appearance of the 

Echo Summit to enhance the highway entry corridor to Lake Taho

567 Echo Lakes IV-75 Develop cost sharing arrangements with cabin and resort owners 

Lake that was removed from county maintenance in 1984. 

568 Echo Lakes IV-75 No sewer collection line will be constructed to serve the recreatio

Echo Lake. 

569 Emerald Bay 

IV-81 

Maximum expansion of developed facilities will be limited to 25 PAInspiration Point. At the same time, upgrade the interpretation at t

environmental impacts and make it safer. 

570 Emerald Bay IV-81 Plan the future use of the Emerald Bay recreation residence tract 

of the permits in 1991. 

571 Emerald Bay IV-81 Recreation residences will not be enlarged in capacity or in land c572 Emerald Bay IV-81 This area is closed to OHV use. 573 Emerald Bay IV-81 Overnight camping is permitted only in designated Forest Service 

campgrounds. No new outfitter guide permits will be issued. 

574 Emerald Bay IV-81 This area is closed to over-the-snow vehicle use. No new winter o

will be issued. 

575 Emerald Bay IV-81 Continue to explore efficient and effective ways to restore the larg

visual quality objectives. 

576 Emerald Bay IV-81 Cut trees if necessary to maintain or improve the view from Inspira577 Emerald Bay IV-81 Support CalTrans' efforts to explore effective, efficient and visually 

stabilize the highway cuts and fills and the landslide area. 

578 Emerald Bay IV-81 Work with the California Department of Parks and Recreation and 

mix of uses in this management area. 

579 Emerald Bay 

IV-81 

Evaluate the national forest lands around the bay in this planning 

they warrant classification as a Special Interest Area. These lands 

potential inclusion into the State Park's National Natural Landmark 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

580 Emerald Bay IV-81 Explore opportunities to improve management through land excha

Parks. 

581 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Increase recreation capacity by the following amounts: 582 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Camp Richardson Campground 770 PAOT 583 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Fallen Leaf Boat Launch 43 PAOT 584 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Fallen Leaf Picnic/Vista 72 PAOT 585 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Expand capacity beyond the present level of use at trailhead park586 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Angora Ridge Winter 15 PAOT 587 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Mt Tallac 48 PAOT 588 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Glen Alpine 50 PAOT 589 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Consider opportunities for use of public transit, or other alternative

or reconstructing parking sites. 

590 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Proposed new development will include: Washoe Cultural Center 591 Fallen Leaf IV-87 New organization camp 360 PAOT 592 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Manage Camp Richardson Resort under the terms of the decision 

28,1982. 

593 Fallen Leaf 

IV-87 

Plan the future use of the recreation residences prior to the expira

The permits at Spring Creek, Alpine Falls, Stanford, and Fallen Le

in 2001. Those at Lily Lake, Fish Hatchery, Angora Lakes, and paexpire in 1991. 

594 Fallen Leaf 

IV-87 

Because of the high cost and environmental effects of sewering ththe unsewered tracts will not be connected to the STPUD system. 

someday be required, and if alternate technological solutions are uresidences in those affected tracts will be terminated. Enforce the 

existing waiver. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-74 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

595 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Electrical service will not be extended to Lot 6 of Fish Hatchery Tr

remote from other development. 

596 Fallen Leaf 

IV-87 

Manage Camp Richardson Corral under terms of the special use ppermittee to develop a plan for shared management and maintenaby the permittee. 

597 Fallen Leaf 

IV-87 

Implement the plan for the Tallac Historic Site approved in 1980, t

and enjoyment, while preserving the historically significant aspects 

it doesn't conflict with public access the structures and grounds wi

a variety of adaptive uses to help generate restoration and mainte

main house will be used as a community resource, managed by thAssociation, to accomo- date non-profit cultural and educational eperformances, meetings or exhibits appropriate to its scale and haambient atmosphere desired for the complex. Encourage the Tah

evaluate the feasibil- ity of converting the boathouse into a small cBegin restoring and refurnishing the Pope main house and kitchen interpretive example of a 1920's summer resort at Lake Tahoe in smay also be used for a variety of adaptive uses. The outbuildings interpretation, public demonstration and exhibition, storage, office barracks. The Baldwin/McGonagle Estate main house will contain 

collections curation, and office and work space for interpretive and The outbuildings will be used for educational, interpretive, historicamaintenance or storage purposes. 

598 Fallen Leaf 

IV-87 

Visitor information and interpretive services in this area will be focVisitor Center and will include programs and activities throughout environmental education program will be expanded to year round. 

599 Fallen Leaf 

IV-87 

Maintain the existing parking at Pope and Baldwin beaches for the Consider opportunities for use of shuttle service that might lead to 

on the barrier beach. 

600 Fallen Leaf 

IV-87 

Vehicle use will be limited to Forest Service system roads, subject OHV routes or trails will be designated in this management area. prohibited except in developed campgrounds and designated disp
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

601 Fallen Leaf 

IV-87 

This management area is open to over-the-snow vehicles except n

Angora Lakes; from Fallen Leaf Road east to South Lake Tahoe a

Mountain; and west of Lily Lake. No outfitter guide permits for winbe issued. 

602 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Protect the Washoe Cemetery from damage that could occur as a 

recreation use and other activities. 

603 Fallen Leaf 

IV-87 

Complete National Register Nominations for Glen Alpine Springs RRichardson, and Angora Lookout. Evaluate the significance of FreMill, the prehistoric sites, and the Tallac Resort site. Manage thesestates in a manner appropriate to their historic significance throuresearch, interpretation, rest- oration, preservation and/or approprmaintenance. Work with cooperating associations such as the Ta

the Lake Tahoe Historical Society, and the Historic Preservation oIncorporated to accomplish necessary work on these buildings. 

604 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Assist the Washoe Tribe in reestablishing their ties with the Lake T605 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Preserve the Washoe cultural resource values along Taylor Creek

Highway 89, for potential interpretation. 

606 Fallen Leaf 

IV-87 

Manage the bald eagle winter forage area at Taylor Creek for low from mid-October to February. Maintain large dominant trees and 

especially those near water. 

607 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Evaluate the suitability of the two storied stands near Fallen Leaf L

sites. 

608 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Restrict recreation use in the Pope and Baldwin wildlife sanctuarie

season. 

609 Fallen Leaf 

IV-87 

Implement the Pope Marsh Management Prescription, approved owhich calls for installation of nesting islands or platforms and othewater- fowl habitat. Develop similar plans for Taylor Creek and Ba
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-76 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

610 Fallen Leaf 

IV-87 

Seek modifications in the MOU with the Fallen Leaf Protection Ass

of Fallen Leaf Lake outflow if monitoring indicates that proper cond

maintained in Taylor Creek for Kokanee salmon spawning and eghabitat for brown trout. 

611 Fallen Leaf 

IV-87 

Maintain the fish barrier between Taylor Creek and Fallen Leaf Lato Lake Tahoe of a whirling disease caused by Myxosoma cerebra

Fallen Leaf Lake. 

612 Fallen Leaf 

IV-87 

Continue management efforts to protect existing and potential hab

subumbellata on the lakeshore. Prohibit mechanical raking and clon these habitat sites. 

613 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Consider the long term effects on the marsh ecosystem before ap

of water into Pope Marsh from the Tahoe Keys treatment plant. 

614 Fallen Leaf IV-87 The Tallac Historic Site would be designated a Special Interest Ar

Wetlands would be evaluated for future SIA designation in this pla

615 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Enlarge the Baldwin employee mobile home park. 616 Fallen Leaf 

IV-87 

Manage the reservoir at Fallen Leaf Lake to fulfill four objectives. the objectives are: 1) abide by rules set forth in our Memorandum the Fallen Leaf Protection Association, 3/6/72; 2) provide for instreCreek; 3) provide for flood protection; and 4) provide for other spedesired by the protection association. No objective of lower order whigher ones are fulfilled. 

617 Fallen Leaf IV-87 Supporting documents are: EA for Low Water Management 5/3/81

for Taylor Creek 6/81; Hydrologic Analysis and Operating Plan for 

618 Freel IV-97 Proposed expansion is 65 PAOT for Fountain Place Trailhead. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

619 Freel 

IV-97 

OHV activity is allowed on designated system roads and trails. Ex

include the Fountain Place Road, and Hell Hole Jeep Trail. Armst(18E09), Tucker Flat Trail (18E02), Hell Hole Trail (18E12), Star L

the Tahoe Rim Trail will be managed for non-motorized summer resummer OHV opportunities will be considered only in the area mamaintenance. 

620 Freel 

IV-97 

The area north of Fountain Place road is closed to over-the-snow south of Fountain Place road, including the trail to Armstrong Passsnow vehicles. 

621 Freel IV-97 Maintain option to introduce Lahontan cutthroat trout into upper re

Trout Creek. 

622 Genoa IV-102 Provide trailhead parking for approximately 35 PAOT, in the vicinit623 Genoa 

IV-102 

Allow OHV activity on designated routes only. Maintain the Genoa 

clearance and four wheel drive use only. Add roughness and cha

protecting water quality. 

624 Genoa IV-102 Allow over-the-snow vehicles throughout the entire area. Issue no 

permits for motorized winter use. 

625 Genoa IV-102 Enhance the mule deer habitat with vegetation management. 626 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Revise the 1966 Heavenly Valley Ski Area Master Development P

requirements of the revised forest plan and the revised TRPA Reg

627 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Allow an aerial tramway or other conveyance from the casino core 

the California base facilities to be considered for skier access to th

628 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Maximum enlargement of the ski area will be 5,400 SAOT over th

the basin and 3,600 SAOT outside the basin. 

629 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Use the "Summer Site Operation Plan", 1984 and as annually ame

administration of erosion control projects, visual rehabilitation, run construction or reconstruction. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-78 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

630 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Use the "Operation and Avalanche Plan", 1973, as amended, as a 

administration of winter activities within the ski area. 

631 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Explore opportunities to make the area more accessible for non-m

recreation. 

632 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Maintain the OHV closure. 633 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Maintain the camping closure. 634 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Maintain the OHV closure. 635 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Defer tree removal for visual enhancement until there is substantia

vegetation on ski trails in the areas planned for visual treatment. 

636 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Use a test section to determine effectiveness of visual restoration 

employing on all trails. 

637 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Structures and improvements will be attractive and harmonious wi

development setting as viewed in the foreground. 

638 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Assure that the major mule deer migration corridor is not obstructe639 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Aerial techniques or over-the-snow skidding will be the standard m640 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Obtain water rights sufficient to irrigate stabilization projects and fo641 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Continue to treat the sources of soil erosion. 642 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Emphasize use of native drought-tolerant species in revegetation 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

643 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Assure that use of fertilizer, snow augmenta- tion chemicals and ir

excessive. 

644 Heavenly Valley IV-107 Activities designed to enhance the quality of skiing, such as run w

modification, will proceed in concert with stabilization of disturbed 

645 Lower Truckee River 

IV-113 

Coordinate the development of recreational facilities and uses on governments and citizen groups and with the State Parks, CalTranDevelopment of the 64 Acres will accommodate no more than 245 recreation use. 

646 Lower Truckee River IV-113 Recreation residences will not be allowed to enlarge in capacity or 647 Lower Truckee River IV-113 No overnight camping in this management area. No permits for w

be issued. 

648 Lower Truckee River IV-113 Use the EIS prepared for the 64 Acre tract by the Bureau of Recla

Service EA "A Plan for the Sixty-four Acre Tract" (Nov. 1986) as a 

development on the tract. 

649 Lower Truckee River IV-113 Allow the "chimney" portion of the 64 Acres tract north of the river 

services. 

650 Lower Truckee River 

IV-113 

Title to national forest and private lands along the river had been c

Deed", which claimed for Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPP) titl

feet of the river. In a suit and appeal filed by Sierra Pacific (May & found that SPP Company's rights consist of no more than an ease

power purposes. 

651 Marlette IV-118 Proposed expansion is 200 PAOT in the vicinity of Spooner Lake. 

campgrounds, visitor center, trailhead and snow play area. 

652 Marlette IV-118 Direct overnight camping to areas outside the Marlette Lake water653 Marlette IV-118 Maintain the OHV closure. Vehicles may travel on forest developm

Highways 50 and 28. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-80 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

654 Marlette IV-118 Provide parking for winter access at Spooner Summit including a s

area. 

655 Marlette IV-118 The management area is closed to over-the-snow vehicles except 

Canyon area. No new outfitter guide permits will be issued. 

656 Marlette IV-118 Continue to improve the visual appearance of the Spooner Summ657 Marlette 

IV-118 

In cooperation with the Nevada State Parks, evaluate the significaSlaughterhouse Canyon and associated railroad grade, and providgrade. 

658 Marlette IV-118 Assure that activities occurring within the Marlette Lake watershed 

the domestic water supply of Carson City. 

659 Marlette IV-118 Seek withdrawal of the Marlette Lake watershed from mineral pros

development. 

660 Marlette IV-118 Work with the State of Nevada toward public ownership of the ent

watershed to protect the domestic water supply. 

661 Marlette IV-118 Cooperatively plan and implement land exchanges with the Nevad

improve each agency's ability to serve the public. 

662 Marlette 

IV-118 

Cooperate with the State of Nevada in the maintenance of a foresfor administrative purposes. Keep vehicular travel, such as to Snoelectronic site (Toiyabe National Forest), at a low level so as not to 

nonmotorized recreation experience. 

663 Marlette IV-118 Reconstruct the abandoned road from Highway 28 to Marlette Lak

nonmotorized hiking and riding trail. 

664 Marlette IV-118 Develop a historic/recreation trail from Highway 28 into Slaughterh665 Marlette IV-118 Either construct a new fire station at Spooner Summit administrati

locate with the Tahoe-Douglas Fire District Station nearby if the op
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

666 Martis 

IV-125 

Recreation capacity is proposed to increase by 750 PAOT. Precisfacilities will be determined in project level planning. Potential sitepreserve options for future development. 

667 Martis 

IV-125 

The Kings Beach OHV area should be managed as described in tAssessment Report. The Kings Beach OHV area will be limited to Brockway Summit Trailhead parking will be limited to 90 PAOT. 

668 Martis 

IV-125 

The Rim Trail and associated staging area, feeder trails, and trailhconsideration in planning this area but should not overly constrain wildlife habitat improvement, watershed restoration or timber harv

669 Martis 

IV-125 

A system of summer OHV routes will be designated to provide hig

away from residential areas where resource concerns can be mitig

be designated on existing roads, however short segments may be complete loops and avoid highly sensitive areas. 

670 Martis IV-125 The area is open to over-the-snow vehicles. Issue no new outfitte

motorized use. 

671 McKinney IV-130 Maximum capacity for facilities on national forest land will not exce672 McKinney IV-130 Approval of new skiing improvements will be through a master dev673 McKinney 

IV-130 

Recognize the national significance of the McKinney-Rubicon Roa

for the road standard. OHV use will be limited to system roads. Darea for the McKinney-Rubicon Road. 

674 McKinney IV-130 Maintain area open to over-the-snow vehicles. Issue no motorized 675 McKinney IV-130 Upgrade McKinney Creek to excellent condition for migratory fish 676 McKinney IV-130 Coordinate with the Tahoe National Forest in administration of the 

to assure BMP and compliance with water quality standards. 

677 McKinney IV-130 Follow up as necessary until the revegetation is established to ens

are maintained. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-82 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

678 Meeks IV-134 Design and construct trailhead parking for the Meeks Creek trail in

should be off of the highway to improve the scenic corridor. 

679 Meeks IV-134 Maintain closure to OHV use. 680 Meeks IV-134 Maintain closure to over-the-snow vehicles. 681 Meeks IV-134 Evaluate the historical significance of the older structures at Meek

cabins across Highway 89 from the resort, and manage them app

682 Meeks IV-134 Evaluate potential for managing a portion of the area for bald eagl683 Meeks IV-134 Create openings throughout the Meeks Creek meadow to improve 

riparian habitat needs. 

684 Meeks IV-134 Remove barriers to fish migration along Meeks Creek. 685 Meeks IV-134 Construct water impoundments in Meeks Creek meadow to enhan

and foraging. 

686 Meeks IV-134 Install a structure in Meeks Creek below the highway bridge to aid 687 Meeks IV-134 Use this practice to create wildlife openings and to utilize the timbe

meadow. 

688 Meeks IV-134 Obtain the necessary water rights to water impoundments for wate689 Meeks IV-134 Install water quality improvement measures at the resort and on ro690 Meeks IV-134 Maintain the road closure to Lost Lake. 691 Meeks IV-134 Obtain an unrestricted administrative right-of-way along the south 

meadow for resource management. 

692 Meeks IV-134 Work with the California State Parks and Recreation Department t

management through land adjustments. 

693 Meiss IV-140 Establish capacities for use in areas that attract visitation beyond 

of the land or the ability of the land to produce a quality experience

694 Meiss IV-140 Closed to all vehicles. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

695 Meiss IV-140 Closed to all vehicles. Issue no new winter outfitter guide permits696 Meiss IV-140 Provide for management and protection of the historic Meiss Mead

while still allowing its use by the range permittee and outfitter guid

697 Meiss IV-140 Protect or improve wildlife habitat in meadow areas. 698 Meiss IV-140 Assist the California Department of Fish and Game in the reintrod

cutthroat trout. 

699 Meiss IV-140 Improve fish habitat in meadow areas. 700 Meiss IV-140 Limit timber management activities to prevention of catastrophic lo701 Mt. Rose IV-144 Provide parking for dispersed recreation facilities in the vicinity of T

exceed 100 PAOT. 

702 Mt. Rose IV-144 Open to OHV activities on system roads only. 703 Mt. Rose IV-144 Open to over-the-snow vehicles except within designated wilderne

for winter motorized outfitter guides. 

704 Mt. Rose IV-144 Assure that dispersed recreation use does not reach a level dama

in high elevation areas. 

705 Roundhill 

IV-149 

Expansion of the Nevada Beach recreation area will be limited to aPAOT. Expansion of Zephyr Cove Resort will be limited to an addAmount of expansion for Round Hill Pines Resort is to be determindevelopment plan. Development at the Zephyr Cove North site neat 130 PAOT. 

706 Roundhill IV-149 Require the permittee to reconstruct, maintain, and operate the Ze

accordance with the direction in the future use determination, Janu

707 Roundhill IV-149 Allow the Zephyr Cove Resort permittee to prepare and submit a m

expansion of the resort within the standards of this and the TRPA 

708 Roundhill IV-149 Work with the Zephyr Cove Resort permittee to develop a plan for 

and maintenance of trails used as part of the stable operation. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-84 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

709 Roundhill IV-149 Maintain closure to OHV activity. Maintain closure to overnight cam

developed sites. 

710 Roundhill IV-149 Snowmobile activities are allowed except in Rabe Meadow and th

Pines Resort. Issue no outfitter guide permits for motorized winte

711 Roundhill 

IV-149 

Evaluate the historical significance of the Round Hill Pines ResortLookout to the National Register of Historic Places, and preserve, its historical values. 

712 Roundhill IV-149 As part of the water use evaluation and resolution, consider reduc

to increase stream flows for fish. Obtain domestic water supply fro

713 Roundhill IV-149 Reintroduce Rorippa subumbellata populations to historic sites su

and Zephyr Cove. 

714 Roundhill IV-149 Utilize TRPA Instream Flow Study data to set flow levels for one s

area. File for appropriate water rights. 

715 Roundhill IV-149 Study the feasibility of interconnecting public recreation sites with 716 Tahoe Valley 

IV-158 

Recreation expansion is proposed to add an additional 545 PAOT Develop project level plans to determine the precise nature, locatiat the Saxon Creek site. Work closely with other agencies in provinformation programs and facilities for travelers entering the Tahoe 

717 Tahoe Valley IV-158 Construct parking and other facilities to accommodate 315 PAOT 

an expansion over present use outside of an improved facility). 

718 Tahoe Valley 

IV-158 

Based upon the analysis conducted by the Forest Service, as docEnvironmental Assessment for the proposed Rainbow Tract land e1979, the subject area will remain in public ownership and will con

the Forest Service. Permits will authorize continued recreation usnew permits will be subject to modifications or mitigating measureto protect the environment or to conform to then current Forest Se
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

719 Tahoe Valley 

IV-158 

Conduct a future use determination (FUD) for Bridge Recreation Rthe permits terminate in 1991, and for Upper Truckee Tract before in 1989. 

720 Tahoe Valley IV-158 Recreation residences will not be allowed to enlarge in capacity or 721 Tahoe Valley 

IV-158 

OHVs are permitted on designated roads and trails only. Routes w

where conflicts between existing residential areas and users may Resource monitoring and law enforcement programs will be expanaccessed from designated system roads and trailheads only; randresidential streets will be discouraged. Maintain closures of ChristHarootunian tract, and Al Tahoe to Ski Run areas to summer OHV 

722 Tahoe Valley IV-158 Camping permitted in developed campgrounds and designated dis723 Tahoe Valley 

IV-158 

The area is open to over-the-snow vehicles except for Grass LakeWaterhouse Peak, the western side of Christmas Valley, and in thTrail and Black Bart. 

724 Tahoe Valley 

IV-158 

Continue to allow cross country skiing on Grass Lake Moss Bog wdesignated as a Research Natural Area as long as the bog is not sthis activity. 

725 Tahoe Valley IV-158 Cooperate with El Dorado County and the local community in Mey

and implementation of the Highway 50 corridor scenic restoration 

726 Tahoe Valley IV-158 Interpret the historic Hawley Grade Trail. Evaluate the historical s

Truckee Ranger Station, and protect and interpret its historic value

727 Tahoe Valley IV-158 Improve conditions on the Upper Truckee River for migratory and 728 Tahoe Valley 

IV-158 

Waterfowl nesting islands and tubs at Pope Marsh will be maintainreplaced by nesting islands in cooperation with the California DepGame. 

729 Tahoe Valley 

IV-158 

Maintain the Upper Truckee Ranger Station pasture and the Cookprimarily for Forest Service administrative use. Develop and implerehabilitate both pastures to improve forage and watershed condit
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-86 ■ Stand

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

730 Tahoe Valley 

IV-158 

Assist the Regional Research Natural Area committee in preparing management of Grass Lake Moss Bog when the area is included Area System by the Chief. In the meantime, manage the area as 

731 Tahoe Valley IV-158 Evaluate Osgood Bog in this planning period for potential Special 

designation. 

732 Urban Lots IV-164 Closed to OHV activities. Vehicles may travel on system roads de733 Urban Lots IV-164 Closed to overnight camping. 734 Urban Lots IV-164 Closed to over-the-snow vehicle activity. 735 Urban Lots IV-164 Closed to overnight camping. 736 Urban Lots 

IV-164 

Limit tree cutting to those posing an identified threat to life or prop

threaten the health of the adjoining forest until a management plan 

community forest. 

737 Urban Lots IV-164 Where case-by-case analysis identifies a parcel to be transferred 

government, other nearby parcels should also be transferred as a 

738 Ward IV-169 Development of new recreation facilities is projected at 280 PAOT 739 Ward IV-169 Expansion of winter parking at Page Meadows will be 14 PAOT ov740 Ward IV-169 A vista point and trailhead parking for access along Stanford Rock 

in the SE 1/4 of Section 23, and will be served by the road 15N47

741 Ward 

IV-169 

Approve new skiing improvements for the Alpine Meadows/Deer Parea through a master development plan meeting Forest Service aMaximum capacity for new facilities on national forest land at the sBase facilities will be limited to warming huts, food service, first aidstorage. Construction of new lodges, public parking lots, or ticket allowed within the basin. 

742 Ward IV-169 OHV use is allowed only on designated system roads. All trails ar

use. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the F

Alternative J 

■ 

Reference 

Number 

Source 

(ForestWide, Mgmt 

Area, 

SNFPA) 

Page S&G number Standard/Guideline 

743 Ward IV-169 Until ski area expansion occurs, Stanford Ridge will be managed f

nonmotorized forms of recreation. 

744 Ward IV-169 Allow over-the-snow vehicles except in Page Meadow. 745 Ward IV-169 Remove barriers to migratory fish in Ward Creek. 746 Ward 

IV-169 

Road 15N47 to Stanford Rock will remain closed until an adequate constructed over Ward Creek. Upon completion of the stream cro

of the road, public access will be allowed to a vista point and trailh1/4 corner for Sections 23 and 24. From this point to Stanford Roadministrative use only. 

747 Watson IV-175 Development is projected at 425 PAOT at Cedar Flat and at 750 P748 Watson IV-175 10 PAOT expansion at Watson Lake undeveloped campground is 749 Watson IV-175 Expansion of Northstar ski area is limited to 1,000 PAOT. 750 Watson 

IV-175 

This management area is open to overnight camping; however, soclosed following project level planning. Demand for OHV use will roads and trails. No new OHV trails will be constructed. 

751 Watson 

IV-175 

The area is open to over-the-snow vehicles. Coordinate public andispersed winter sports opportunities to prevent conflict between mnonmotorized activities. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

J-88 ■ Stand

Page Intentionally Blank 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Previous Decisions That Remain in Place ■ K-1 

Appendix K – Previous Decisions 

That Remain in Place 

The following existing Plan direction remains in place. Subsequent projects and activities must 

be consistent with the direction listed here. 

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

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

2. Desolation Wilderness Management Guidelines, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

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

LTBMU. 

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

USDA Forest Service, LTBMU. 

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

USDA Forest Service, LTBMU. 

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

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

a. East Peak 

b. Angels Roost 

c. Ward Peak 

d. Spooner Summit 

e. Brockway Summit 

f. Zephyr Heights Lookout 

g. Meeks water tank 

h. Tahoe Mountain 

i. Angora Lookout 

6. Land Acquisition Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin Final EIS, January 1982,as amended 

 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

K-2 ■ Previous Decisions That Remain in Place

This page intentionally blank 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-1 

Appendix L – References Cited 

The material listed throughout this section refers to documents and other sources of 

information that may be obtained from the government entities who published it 

(see location codes listed in table below), online (when listed), at the public libraries in 

the Lake Tahoe area (South Lake Tahoe, CA; Zephyr Cove and Carson City, NV) or by 

writing directly to the journal in which the article was published. 

Table L1. Specific common locations of materials published by government entities 

Location Codes: Information may be obtained at: 

LTBMU - U.S. Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit office. 35 College Drive, South 

Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ltbmu/landmanagement/?cid=fsm9_046474

Region 5 (R5) - U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Regional Office (National Forests in California), 

1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/

PSW - U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 800 Buchanan Street, West 

Annex Building, Albany, CA 94710-0011. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/

FSM & FSH - U.S. Forest Service Manuals (FSM) and Forest Service Handbooks (FSH) 

Office of the Chief of the Forest Service, 1400 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, D.C. 20250-0003. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/

SWRCB - State of California Water Resources Control Board office, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 

95814 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/

TRPA - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency office, 128 Market Street, PO Box 5310, Stateline, NV 

89449. 

http://www.trpa.org/

Publishers of professional journal articles (e.g, Society of American Foresters, Journal of Wildlife Management) 

offer article abstracts and topic summaries from third-party online database services (and may require 

organizational subscriptions or purchase of individual articles). These databases of available journal articles 

are commonly called “science citation” and “social science citation” indexes. Two popular online sources to 

access professional journal articles are: 

 JSTOR (Journal Storage) database - http://www.jstor.org/

 Thomson-Reuters Web of Science - http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-2 ▪ References Cited

Abella, S. 2009. Smoke-Cued Emergence in Plant Species of Ponderosa Forests: Contrasting Greenhouse 

and Field Results. Fire Ecology Special Issue. Vol.5, No 1, 2009. pp22-37. 

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Agee, J. K., B. Bahro, M. A. Finney, P. N. Omi, D. B. Sapsis, C. N. Skinner, J. W. van Wagtendonk, and C. 

P. Weatherspoon. 2000. The use of shaded fuel breaks in landscape fire management. Fire Ecology and 

Management. 127: 55-66. 

Ager, A.A., N.M. Vaillant, M.A. Finney. 2010. A comparison of landscape fuel treatment strategies to 

mitigate wildland fire risk in the urban interface and preserve old forest structure. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 259: 1556-1570. 

Ahuja, S. 2006. Fire and Air Resources. In: Fire in California Ecosystem (edited Neil et al 2006).Univ. of 

CA. Press Berkley. pp. 481-498. 

Air and Radiation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality.2002.Regulatory announcement: Frequently asked questions from snowmobile 

owners (EPA420-F-02-040). Retrieved from website: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/epa-420-f-02-

038.pdf 

Air Resource Specialists, Inc.1996. Carbon Monoxide and Particulate Matter Levels at Yellow Stone 

National Park. Results of an Ambient Air Quality Study. Draft report Prepared for the National Park 

Service. 

Akagi, S.K., R.J. Yokelson, C. Wiedinmyer, et al. 2011. Emission factors for open and domestic biomass 

burning for use in atmospheric models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 4039-4072, doi:10.5194/acp-11-4039-

2011, 2011. www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/4039/2011/. 

Akweeds. Online resource. Online summaries for several weed species from University of Alaska; 

individual authors not listed. [On-line] Available at: http://akweeds.uaa.alaska.edu/ (Accessed 

12/28/2009). 

Al-Shehbaz, Ihsan A. 2003. Boechera rectissima. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 

1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 16+ vols. New York and Oxford. Vol. 7, pp. 40. 

Allen, E.O. 1968. Range Use, Foods, Condition, and Productivity of White-Tailed Deer in Montana. The 

Journal of Wildlife Management 32, no. 1: 130-41. 

Allen, A.W. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Marten. FWS/OBS-82/10.11, Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. USDA Forest Service 

GTR- INT-122, 22p. 

Angwin, Peter A., D.R.. Cluck, P.J. Zambino, B.W. Oblinger and W.C. Woodruff. 2012. Hazard Tree 

Guidelines For Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region. Report #RO-12-01 

(April 2012). USDA Forest Service. CA: Vallejo. Region 5 Forest Health Protection. 

Anthony, B. and D. A. Clark. 2008. Burned Landscapes of Southwestern Oregon: What’s in it for Northern 

Spotted Owls? Fire Science Brief , Issue 15 (October), pp. 1-6. 

Arnold J. and T. Koel. 2006. Effects of snowmobile emissions on the chemistry of snowmelt runoff in 

yellowstone national park, Final Report, Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Section, Center for Resources, 

Yellowstone National Park. 

Arnold, R.M. 1982. Pollination, Predation and Seed Set in Linaria Vulgaris (Scrophulariaceae). American 

Midland Naturalist 107, no. 2: 360-69. 

Auble, G. T., J. M. Friedman, and M. L. Scott. 1994. Relating riaparian vegetation to present and future 

streamflows. Ecological Applications 4: 544-554. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-3 

Assessment and Standards Division. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality. 2002. Final regulatory support document: Control of emissions from unregulated nonroad 

engines (EPA420-F-02-022). Retrieved from website: 

http://yosemite1.epa.gov/ee/epa/ria.nsf/vwAN/A.2002.10-A.pdf/$file/A.2002.10-A.pdf 

Bailey, R. 1974. Land-Capability Classification of the Lake Tahoe Basin, California-Nevada: A Guide to 

Planning. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the Tahoe Regional 

Planning Agency. South Lake Tahoe, Calif. 

Baker, M., M. Lacki, G. Falxa, P. Droppelman, R. Slack, and S. Slankard. 2008. Habitat use of pallid bats 

in coniferous forests of northern California. Northwest Science 82(4). 

Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The 

Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. In: Ruggiero, L.F. Aubry, K.B. Buskirk, S.W. Lyon, et al (eds). The scientific 

basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western 

United States. General Technical Report RM-254. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Barbour, M., E. Kelley, P. Maloney, D. Rizzo, E. Royce, and J. Fites-Kaufmann. 2002. Present and past oldgrowth forests of the Lake Tahoe Basin, Sierra Nevada, US. Journal of Vegetation Science 13: 461-472. 

Baron, J. C. Driscoll, et al. 2011. Empirical Critical Loads of Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposittion for 

Nutrient Enrichment and Acidification of Sensitive US Lakes, BioScience, August 2011 Vol. 61 No. 8, 

doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.8.6 http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1525/bio.2011.61.8.6 

Barton, D.C., A. L. Holmes. 2007. Off-Highway vehicle trail impacts on breeding songbirds in northeastern 

California, Journal of Wildlife Management 71(5): 1617-1620. 

Batra, S.W.T. 1979. Insects Associated with Weeds in the Northeastern United-States .2. Cinquefoils, 

Potentilla-Norvegica and Potentilla-Recta (Rosaceae)." Journal of the New York Entomological Society 

87, no. 3: 216-22. 

Battye, W., R. Battye, 2002. Development of emissions inventory methods for wildland fire. Final report to 

the U.S. EPA OAQPS, EPA Contract No. 68-D-98-046. Available at: 

/http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/related/firerept.pdf. 

Beaty, R. M., and A. H. Taylor. 2007. Fire disturbance and forest structure in old-growth mixed conifer 

forests in the northern Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Vegetation Science 18: 879-890. 

Beaty, R. M., and A. H. Taylor. 2008. Fire history and the structure and dynamics of a mixed conifer forest 

landscape in the northern Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe Basin, California, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management 255: 707–719. 

Beck, K.G. 2001. Russian knapweed. Fact sheet. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension, 

Natural Resources. Online resource. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/NATRES/03111.html 

Beier, P. 1989. Use of habitat by mountain beaver in the Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 53: 649-654. 

Belanger, L., and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 54:36-41. 

Bell, B.D., S. Carver, N.J. Mitchell, and S. Pledger. 2004. The recent decline in a New Zealand endemic: 

How and why did populations of Archey’s frog crash over 1996-2001? Biological Conservation, 

120:189-199. 

Belnap, J. and S.L. Philips. 2001. Soil biota in an ungrazed grassland: response to annual grass (Bromus 

tectorum) invasion. Ecological Applications 11 (5): 1261-1275. 

Benavides-Solorio J, MacDonald LH (2005) Measurement and prediction of post-fire erosion at the 

hillslope scale, Colorado Front Range. International Journal of Wildland Fire 14, 457–474. 

doi:10.1071/WF05042. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-4 ▪ References Cited

Benson, N.C., and L.L. Kurth. 1995. Vegetation establishment on rehabilitated bulldozer lines after the 

1988 Red Bench Fire in Glacier National Park. Pages 164-167 in Symposium on fire in wilderness and 

park management, 1993 March 30-April 1. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 

Missoula, MT. 

Bent, A.C. 1961. Life histories of North American birds of prey, part 1. Dover Publications, Inc. New York, 

New York. Pp. 321-349. 

Berg, N.H. and D. L. Azuma. 2010. Bare soil and rill formation following wildfires, fuel reduction 

treatments, and pine plantations in the southern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Int. J. Wildland Fire 

19:478-489. 

Berger L., A.D. Hyatt, R. Speare, J.E. Longcore. 2005. Life cycle stages of the amphibian chytrid 

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Dis Aquat Org 68: 51–63. 

Berger, L., Speare, R., Daszak, P., Green, D.E., Cunningham, A.A., Goggin, C.L., Slocombe, R., Ragan, 

M.A., Hyatt, A.D. McDonald, K.R., Hines H.B., Lips, K.R., Marantelli, G., and Parkes, H. 1998. 

Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with population declines in the rain forest of 

Australia and Central America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95:9031-9036. 

Beschta, R.L., C.A. Frissell, R. Gresswell, R. Hauer, et al. 1995. Wildfire and salvage logging: 

Recommendations for ecologically sound post-fire salvage logging and other post-fire treatments on 

Federal lands in the West. Rep. to Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene, OR. 14 p. 

http://pacificrivers.org/science-research/resources-publications/wildfire-and-salvage-logging-thebeschta-report. 

Beyer, C. 2010. Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Treatment Project Environmental Assessment. South 

Lake Tahoe, CA: Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pgs 188. 

Bias, M.E. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1992. Habitat associations of California spotted owls in the central Sierra 

Nevada. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:584-595. 

Bibbo, M. 2010. Results of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) inventory for Rabe Meadow. (Unpub). On file 

at: LTBMU Supervisor’s Office. 

Blakesley, J.A. Noon, B.R. and D.R. Anderson. 2005. Site occupancy, apparent survival, and reproduction 

of California spotted owls in relation to forest stand characteristics. J. Wildl. Manage. 69(4):1554-1564.

Blakesley, J. A., M. E. Seamans, M. M.Conner, A. B. Franklin, G. C. White, R. J.Gutiérrez, J. E.Hines, J. 

D. Nichols, T. E. Munton, D. W. H. Shaw, J. J. Keane, G. N. Steger, T. L. McDonald. 2010. Population 

dynamics of spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada, Californnia, Wildlife Monographs, 174:1-36. 

Bland, J.D. 1993. Forest grouse and mountain quail investigations: A final report for work completed 

during the summer of 1992. Unpubl. report, Wildl. Mgmt. Div., Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, 1416 Ninth 

St., Sacramento, CA. 

Bland, J.D. 1997. Biogeography and conservation of blue grouse Dendragapus obscurus in California. 

Wildlife Biology 3(3/4):270. 

Bland, J. D. 2002. Surveys of Mount Pinos Blue Grouse in Kern County, California, Spring 2002. Unpubl. 

report, Wildl. Mgmt. Div., Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, 1416 Ninth St., Sacramento, CA 95814. 

Bland, J.D. 2006. Features of the Forest Canopy at Sierra Sooty Grouse Courtship Sites, Summer 2006. 

CDFG Contract No. S0680003. 

Blumenthal, D., and N. Jordan. 2001. Weeds in Field Margins: A Spatially Explicit Simulation Analysis of 

Canada Thistle Population Dynamics." Weed Science 49, no. 4: 509-19. 

Bombay, H. L., M. L. Morrison, and L. S. Hall. 2003. Scale perspectives in habitat selection and animal 

performance for willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii) in the central Sierra Nevada, California. 

Studies in Avian Biology 26: 60-72. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-5 

Bond, M. L., R. B. Siegel, and D. Craig, editors. 2012. A conservation strategy for Black-backed 

Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) in California. Version 1.0. The Institute for Bird Populations and 

California Partners in Flight. Point Reyes Station, California. 

Bond, M. L., D. E. Lee, R. B. Siegel, J. P. Ward Jr. 2009. Habitat use and selection by California spotted 

owls in a postfire landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7): 1116-1124. 

Bond, M. L., R. J. Gutiérrez, A. B. Franklin, W. S. LaHaye, C. A. May, M. E. Seamans. 2002. Shoter-tern 

effects of wildfires on spotted owl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30(4): 1022-1028. 

Bond, M.L. Seamans, M.E. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 2004. Modeling nesting habitat selection of California 

spotted owls (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) in the central Sierra Nevada using standard forest 

inventory metrics. Forest Science 50: pp.773-780. 

Bond, T.C., D.G. Streets, K.F. Yarber, S.M. Nelson, J.H. Woo, and Z. Klimont. 2004. A technology based 

global inventory of black and organic carbon emissions from combustion. Journal of Geophysical 

Research, 109, D14203, doi:10.1029/2003JD003697 

Borgmann, K. L. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Chapter I – Cookhouse Meadow Restoration Project. Annual 

Report for the USDA Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 69pp 

Borgmann, K. L., J. Groce and M.L. Morrison. 2006. Restoration and wildlife inventory and monitoring at 

Meeks creek, Blackwood creek and Ward creek and inventory and monitoring at control sites: Burton 

creek, McKinney creek and General creek in the Lake Tahoe basin, California. USDA Forest Service 

unpublished report, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, South Lake Tahoe, CA. 

Borman, M.M., D.E. Johnson, G.L. Kiemnec, et al. 1992. Ecology and Management of Rangeland Weeds. 

Agricultural Experiment Station and Oregan State University. 

Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky, eds. 2000. Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. 

University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. University of California Press, Ltd., 

London, England. 360 pp. 

Bosworth, D. 2003. Invasive Species. Letter to all employees; July 16, 2003, USDA Forest Service. 

Bozek, M. A., and F. J. Rahel. 1991. Assessing habitat requirements of young Colorado River cutthroat 

trout by use of macrohabitat and microhabitat analyses. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

120:571-581. 

Bradley, G.A., P.C. Rosen, M.J. Sredl, T.R. Jones, and J.E. Longcore. 2002. Chytridiomycosis in native 

Arizona frogs. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 88:206-212. 

Brooks, M. 2007. Effects of Land Management Practices on Plant Invasions in Wildland Areas. Pages 147-

162 in W. Nentwig, editor. Biological Invasions. 

Brooks, M.L. 2003. Effects of increased soil nitrogen on the dominance of alien annual plants in the 

Mojave Desert. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:344-353. 

Brooks, M.L., C.M. D'Antonio, D.M. Richardson, J.B. Grace, J.E. Keeley, J.M. DiTomaso, R.J. Hobbs, M. 

Pellant, and D. Pyke. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. Bioscience 54:677-688. 

Brookshire, E. N.J., J. B. Kauffman, D. Lyten, and N. Otting. 2002. Cumulative effects of wild ungulate 

and livestock herbivory on riparian willows, Oecologia, 132: 559-566. 

Brown, B.J., R.J. Mitchell, and S.A. Graham. 2002. Competition for Pollination between an Invasive 

Species (Purple Loosestrife) and a Native Congener. Ecology 83, no. 8: 2328-36. 

Bruns, V.F., and L.W. Rasmussen. .1953. The Effects of Fresh Water Storage on the Germination of Certain 

Weed Seeds: I. White Top, Russian Knapweed, Canada Thistle, Morning Glory, and Poverty Weed. 

Weeds 2, no. 2: 138-47. 

Bruns, V.F., L.W. Rasmussen. 1957. The Effects of Fresh Water Storage on the Germination of Certain 

Weed Seeds. II. White Top, Russian Knapweed, Canada Thistle, Morning Glory, and Poverty Weed." 

Weeds 5, no. 1: 20-24 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-6 ▪ References Cited

Budy, P., G. P. Thiede, and P. McHugh. 2007. Quantification of the vital rates, abundance, and status of a 

critical, endemic population of Bonneville cutthroat trout. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 27:593-604. 

Bradford, D.F. 1989. Allotopic distribution of native frogs and introduced fishes in the high Sierra Nevada 

lakes of California: Implication of the negative effects of fish introductions. Copeia, 1989:775-778. 

Bradley, N. L., A. C. Leopold, J. Ross and W. Huffaker. 1999. Pheological changes reflect claimte change 

in Wisconsin. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences 96(17): 9701-9704. 

Brown, C. 2008. Summary of Pacific Treefrog (Pseudacris regilla) Occupancy in the Sierra Nevada within 

the range of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (Rana muscosa). Sierra Nevada Amphibian Monitoring 

Program draft assessment, January 18, 2008. 

Bull, E. L. and T. W. Heater. 2000. Resting and denning sites of American martens in northeastern Oregon. 

Northwest Science 74(3): 179-185. 

Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pages 283–296 

In: Buskirk, S.W., A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, et al (eds). Martens, sables and fishers: biology and 

conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA. 

Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. American Marten. In: Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry,. S.W. Buskirk, et 

al (eds). The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and 

wolverine in the western United States. General Technical Report RM-254. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

Busse, M.D., Shestak,C.J., and K. R. Hubbert. 2013. Soil heating during burning of forest slash piles and 

wood piles. International Journal of Wildland Fire Vol. 22-6, pp. 786-796. 

Busse, M.D., Shestak, C.J., Hubbert, K.R. and E.E. Knapp. 2010. Soil physical properties regulate lethal 

heating during burning of woody residues. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 74:947–955 (2010). 

Byer, P.H., and J.S. Yeomans,. 2007. Methods for Addressing Climate Change Uncertainties in Project 

Environmental Impact Assessments. Impact assessment and project appraisal. Vol. 25, no. 2 (June 

2007): p. 85-99. 

Bytnerowicz, A. 2011. Distribution of ozone, ozone precursors and gaseous components of atmospheric 

nitrogen deposition in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Annual Progress report for FY 2011. 

Bytnerowicz, A. 2012. Personal communication: Air Quality resource discussion. 

Bytnerowicz, A., M. Arbaugh and P. Padgett. 2004. Evaluation of Ozone and HNO3 Vapor Distribution and 

Ozone Effects on Conifer Forests in the Lake Tahoe Basin and Eastern Sierra Nevada. Final Report to 

CARB, Contract No. 01:334. 

Bytnerowicz, A., M. Fenn, A. Gertler, H. Preisler and B.Zielinska. 2013. Distribution of ozone, ozone 

precursors and gaseous components of atmospheric nitrogen deposition in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Draft 

Final Report to SNPLMA, Contract No P063 

Finkral, A.J. and Evans, A.M. 2008. The effects of a thinning treatment on carbon stocks in a northern 

Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management 255 (2008) 2743-2750, doi: 

10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.041. 

CNDDB. California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch. 2011. California Natural 

Diversity Database. Sacramento, CA. Data downloaded November 2011. 

CWHR. California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2008. 

CWHR version 8.2 personal computer program. Sacramento, CA. 

Caduto. M. J. 1990. Pond and brook: a guide to nature in freshwater environments. University Press of 

New England, Hanover. 

Cain, J. W., K. S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, H. L. Loffland. 2006. Influence of mammal activity on 

nesting success of passerines. Journal of Wildlife Managament 70(2):522-531. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-7 

Caires, A.M., S. Chandra, B.L. Hayford, M. E. Whittmann. 2013. Four decades of change: dramatic loss of 

zoobenthos in an oligotrophic lake exhibiting gradual eutrophication. Freshwater Science, 32(3): 692-

705. 

Cairns, J., Jr. and J. R. Pratt. 1993. A history of biological monitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. 

Pages 10-27 in D. M. Rosenberg and V. H. Resh, ed. Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic 

Macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York. 

Caldwell, B. A. 2006. Effects of Invasive Scotch Broom on Soil Properties in a Pacific Coastal Prairie 

Soil." Applied Soil Ecology 32, no. 1: 149-52. 

Calflora. 2000. Information on Wild California Plants for Conservation, Education, and Appreciation. 

[Online]. Digital Library Project, UC Berkeley. Available: http://www.calflora.org/. [2011, December 

19]. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2004a. Resident Game Bird Hunting Final 

Environmental Document. August 5, 2004. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of 

Fish and Game. 182 pp + appendices. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2004b. Report of the 2004 Game Take Hunter Survey. 

State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 20pp. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2005. California Department of Fish and Game and 

California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) 

version 8.1. personal computer program. Sacramento, California. On-Line version. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.asp. (Accessed: January 3, 2008). 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Natural Diversity Data Base. California Department of 

Fish and Game. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/plants_and_animals.asp. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Natural Diversity Data Base. Available at: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/plants_and_animals.asp (Accessed 12/9/2011) 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Available at: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/Protocols_for_Surveying_and_Evaluating_Impacts.pdf 

(Accessed 12/9/2011) 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Rarefind 4. Available at: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp (Accessed 12/9/2011). 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Natural Diversity Data Base. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/plants_and_animals.asp 

California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base. California Department of Fish and 

Game. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/plants_and_animals.asp 

California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch. 2011. (CNDDB) California Natural 

Diversity Database. Sacramento, CA. Data downloaded November 2011. 

California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2008. CWHR 

version 8.2 personal computer program. Sacramento, CA. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), California Interagency Task Group. 2005. California 

Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) version 8.1 personal computer program. Sacramento, CA. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2008. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 

personal computer program updated April 1, 2008. Sacramento, CA. From web at 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/rf_ftpinfo.asp 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009. RAREFIND database. Available at: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. 

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). “Common St.Johnswort. “ [Online] Available 

at: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/weedinfo . 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-8 ▪ References Cited

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). “Russian knapweed. “ [Online] Available at: 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/weedinfo . 

California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board (CARB). 2009a. California regional 

Haze Plan. Final Adoption Jan. 22, 2009 and Approved by the EPA Jun 14, 2011. 

California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board (CARB). 2009b. 2008 Estimared 

Annual Average Emissions. Lake Tahoe Air Basin. Almanac Emission Projection Data (published in 

2009). 

California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010. Proposed Regulation to 

Implement the California Cap-and-Trade Program Part V Staff Report and Compliance Offset Protocol 

U.S. Forest Projects, October 28, 2010, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA 

(www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/cappt5.pdf). 

California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board (CARB). 2013a. California 

Enviornmental Protection Agency.- Emissions inventory for recreational vehicles. Power Point 

Presentaion. March 6, 2013 pp39 

California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board (CARB). 2013b. Emissions Estimation 

Methodology for Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles. CA. Air Res. Board, Planning and Technical 

Support Division. 86p. 

California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2011. Prioritizing Regional Response to Invasive Plants in the 

Sierra Nevada Region. [Online:] Berkeley, CA: Cal-IPC. Available at: http://www.calipc.org/ip/mapping/sierra/pdf/SierraRecommendationsReportWeb.pdf 

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2009. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of 

California. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp CA: Sacramento. 

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2010. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, 

v7-10c). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Available at: http://www.cnps.org/inventory 

(Accessed 12/9/2011) 

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2010. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, 

v7-10c). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed on Thu, Oct. 14, 2010 from 

http://www.cnps.org/inventory. 

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2011. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, 

v7-10c). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Available at: http://www.cnps.org/inventory. 

[2011, December 19]. 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Lahontan Region (LWRQCB). 1995. Water Quality 

Control Plan for the Lahontan Region. State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 

Lahontan Region. 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Lahontan Region (LWRQCB). 2005. Water Quality 

Control Plan for the Lahontan Region. Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2006. Water Quality Assessment of the 

Condition of California Coastal Waters and Wadeable Streams: Clean Water Act Section 305b Report 

2006. Sacramento, CA: California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Surface Water Ambient 

Monitoring Program, State Water Resources Control Board. 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/docs/factsheets/305breport2006.pdf 

Call, D.R. Gutiérrez, R.J. and J. Verner. 1992. Foraging habitat and home-range charcteristics of California 

spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada. Condor Vol. 94:880-888. 

Cameron, S.A., J.D. Lozier, J.P. Strange, J.B. Koch, N. Cordes, L.F. Solter and T.L. Griswold. 2011. 

Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences 108:662-667. See http://www.pnas.org/content/108/2/662.full.pdf+html . 

Campbell, J.E., and D.J. Gibson. 2001. The effect of seeds of exotic species transported via horse dung on 

vegetation along trail corridors. Plant Ecology 157:23-35. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-9 

Cardno ENTRIX 2011. Heavenly Mountain Resort Annual Report for the 2010 Water Year. Cardno 

ENTRIX, 1048 Ski Run Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. 

Carlson, C. 2009. Angora Fire Vegetation Monitoring Annual Progress Report. On file at: LTBMU 

Supervisor’s Office. 

Caro, T.M., and G.O’Doherty 1999. On the Use of Surrogate Species. Conservation Biology 13(4):805-

814. 

Carpenter, A. and T. Murray. 1998. Element stewardship abstract for Acroptilon repens (L.) DeCandolle 

(Centaurea repens (L.)) Russian knapweed. 

http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documents/acrorep.pdf 

Carpenter, A.T., and T.A. Murray. 1999. Element Stewardship Abstract for Bromus Tectorum L. (Anisantha 

Tectorum (L.) Nevski). www.invasive.org/gist/esadocs/documnts/bromtec.pdf. 

Carpenter, Alan and Thomas Murray. 1998. Element stewardship abstract for Linaria genistifolia ((L.) P. 

Miller ssp. dalmatica (L.) Maire & Petitmengin and Linaria vulgaris P. Miller. Dalmatian toadflax, 

broad-leaved toadflax and yellow toadflax, butter and eggs, wild snapdragon, common toadflax. 

http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documents/linadal.pdf. 

Carroll, C. 2010. Role of climatic niche models in focal-species-based conservation planning: Assessing 

potential effects of climate change on northern spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Biological 

Conservation 143:1432-1437. 

Certini, G. 2005. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: a review. Oecologia 143: 1–10. 

Chandra, S. 2013. Invasive Species: Understanding the Spread of Warm-Water Fishes in Lake Tahoe. 

http://www.ag.unr.edu/research/impact_details.aspx?ImpactID=76. University of Reno, NV. September 

9, 2013. 

Chatfield, A.H. 2005. Habitat selection by a California spotted owl population: a landscape scale analysis 

using resource selection functions. Dept. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of 

Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota. 59pp. 

Chen, H. J., R. G. Qualls, and G.C. Miller. 2002. Adaptive Responses of Lepidium Latifolium to Soil 

Flooding: Biomass Allocation, Adventitious Rooting, Aerenchyma Formation and Ethylene 

Production." Environmental and Experimental Botany 48, no. 2: 119-28. 

Choi, Y. D., V. M. Temperton, E. B. Allen, A. P. Grootjians, M. Halassy, et al. 2008. Ecological restoration 

for future sustainability in a changing environment. Ecoscience 15: 53-64. 

Choromanska, U. and T. H. DeLuca, 2001. Prescribed Fire Alters the Impact of Wildfire on Soil 

Biochemical Properties in a Ponderosa Pine Forest. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65:232-238 (2001). 

Christensen, G. A.; S.J. Campbell, J.S. Fried, tech. eds. 2008. California’s forest resources, 2001–2005: 

five-year Forest Inventory and Analysis report. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-763. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 183 p. 

Clark, D. A. 2007. Demography and habitat selection of Northern Spotted Owls in post-fire landscapes of 

southwestern Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA. 

Clark, D. A., R. G. Anthony, L. S. Andrews. 2011. Survival rates of northern spotted owls in post-fire 

landscapes of southwest Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research, 45 (1): 38-47. 

Clarkson, R.W., and J. R. Wilson. 1995. Trout biomass and stream habitat relationships in the White 

Mountains area, east-central Arizona. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:599-612. 

Clary, W.P, E.D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt (compilers), Proceedings-Symposium on 

ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289. 

Coats. R. 2010. Climate change in the Tahoe basin: regional trends, impacts and drivers. Climate Change. 

102: 435-466. 

Coburn, J. 2006. How riparian ecosystems are protected at Lake Tahoe. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association. 42: 35-43. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-10 ▪ References Cited

Coggins, S.T. and M. R. Conover. 2005. Effects of pocket gophers on aspen regeneration. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 69: 752-759. 

Cole, D. N., E. S. Higgs, and P. S. White. 2010. Historical fidelity, maintaining legacy and connection to 

heritage. Pp. 125-141, in: D. N. Cole and L. Yung (eds). Beyond naturalness: rethinking park and 

wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Cole, D. N., C. I. Millar, and N. L. Stephenson. 2010. Responding to climate change: a toolbox of 

management strategies. Pp. 179-198, in: D. N. Cole and L. Yung (eds). Beyond naturalness: rethinking 

park and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Cole, D. N. and L. Yung (eds). 2010. Beyond naturalness: rethinking park and wilderness stewardship in an 

era of rapid change. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Collins, B.M., M. Kelly, J.W. van Wagtendonk, et al. 2007. Spatial patterns of large natural fires in Sierra 

Nevada wilderness areas; Landscape Ecology. 2007, 22, 545-557. DOI 10.1007/s10980-006-9047-5. 

Collins, B.M. , J.D. Miller, A.E.Thode, et al. 2008. Interactions Among Wildland Fires in a LongEstablished Sierra Nevada Natural Fire Area. Ecosystems. Vol. 12 No. 1 ,pp. 114-128. 

Collins, B.M., J. D. Miller, A. E. Thode, M. Kelly, J. W. van Wagtendonk, S. L., Stephens. 2009. 

Interactions among wildland fires in a long-established Sierra Nevada natural fire area. Ecosystems. 12: 

114-128. 

Collins, B.M. and S. Stephens. 2007. Managing natural wildfires in Sierra Nevada wilderness areas. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2007; 5(10): 523–527. 

Collins, B.M., and S. L. Stephens. 2010. Stand-replacing patches within a ‘mixed severity’ fire regime: 

quantitative characterization using recent fires in a long-established natural fire area. Landscape 

Ecology: DOI 10.1007/s10980-010-9470-5. 

Conner, M. M., J. J. Keane, C. V. Gallagher, G. Jehle, T. E. Munton, P. A. Shaklee, R. A. Gerrard. 2013. 

Realized population change for long-term monitoring: California spotted owl case study. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 77(7): 1449-1458 

Cope, Amy B. 1993a. Abies magnifica. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2011, September 7]. 

Cope, Amy B. 1993b. Pinus contorta var. murrayana. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory 

(Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2011, September 7]. 

Copeland, J. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in Central Idaho. M.S. Thesis: University of Idaho, Moscow. 

138pp. 

Copeland, J. P., K. S. McKelvey, K. B. Aubry, A.Landa, J. Persson, R. M. Inman, J. Krebs, E. Lofroth, H. 

Golden, J.R. Squires, A. Magoun, M. K. Schwartz, J. Wilmot, C. L. Copeland, R. E. Yates, I. Kojola, 

and R. May. 2010. The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine (Gulo gulo): do climatic constraints limit 

its geographic distribution?, Canadian Journal of Zoology, 88:233-246. 

Cordell, H.K., C.J. Betz, G. Green, and M. Owens. 2005. Off-highway Vehicle Recreation in the United 

States, Regions and States: A National Report from the National Survey on Recreation and the 

Environment (NSRE). USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station. GA: Athens. 

Covington, W.W., P. Z. Fule, M.M. Moore, S.C. Hart, T.E. Kolb, J.N. Mast, S.S. Sackett, and M.R. Wagner. 

1997. Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the southwest. Journal of Forestry 95:23-

29. 

Crimmins, S. M., S. Z. Dobrowski, J. A. Greenberg, J. T. Abatzoglou, A. R. Mynsberge. 2011. Changes in 

Climatic Water Balance Drive Downhill Shifts in plant Species’ Optimum Elevations. Science. 331: 

324-327. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-11 

Cronquist, Arthur., Holmgren, Arthur H., Holmgren, Noel H., Reveal, James L., Holmgren, Patricia K.. 

1989. Intermountain Flora, Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. New York Botanical 

Garden, Bronx, New York. 

Crossman, N.D., B.A. Bryan, and D.A. Cooke. 2008. An Invasive Plant and climate Change Threat Index 

for Weed Risk Management: Integrating habitat Distribution Pattern and dispersal Process. Ecol. 

Indicat. (2008), doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.10.011. 

Curren and Kohler, 2008 Natural Hazard Study for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Lake Tahoe 

Basin Management Unit. South Lake Tahoe, CA. 

D’Antonio, C. M., J. Levine, and M. Thomsen. 2001. Ecosystem resistance to invasion and the role of 

propagules supply: a California perspective. Journal of Mediterranean Ecology 2:233-245. 

D’Antonio, C.M., and P.M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological Invasions By Exotic Grasses, The Grass Fire Cycle, 

And Global Change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:63-87. 

Dallmann, P. R. 1998. Plant Life in the World’s Mediterranean Climates. University of California Press, 

Berkeley, CA. 

Dark, S.J. 2004. The biogeography of invasive alien plants in California: an application of GIS and spatial 

regression analysis. Diversity and Distributions 10:1-9. 

Daszak, P., L. Berger, A.A. Cunningham, A.D. Hyatt, D.E. Green, and R. Speare. 1999. Emerging 

Infectious Diseases and Amphibian Declines. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 5:735-748. 

Davidson, CC., H.B. Shaffer and M.R. Jennings. 2002. Spatial tests of the pesticide drift, habitat 

destruction, UV-B, and climates-change hypotheses for California amphibian declines. Conservation 

Biology 16:1588-1601. 

Dawson, N. G. and J. A. Cook. 2012. Behind the genes: Diversification of North American Martens 

(Martes americana and M. cuarina) pp 23-38 in Biology and Conservation of Martens, Sables, and 

Fishers: A New Synthesis (Ed. Aubry, K. B., Zielinksi, W. J., Raphael, M. G., Proulx, G., Buskirk, S. 

W.), Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 

DeBano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P.F. Ffolliott, 1998. Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems. John Wiley and Sons, 

Inc. New York, NY. 

Delaney, D. K., T. G. Grubb, P. Beier, L. L. Pater, and M. H. Reiser. 1999. Effects of helicopter noise on 

Mexican Spotted Owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:60–76. 

Department of the Interior. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants; 12-month finding for a petition to list the California spotted owl (Stirx occidentalis 

occidentalis) as threatened or endangered. Federal Resigter. Vol 71, No 100, May 24, 2006. 

Department of the Interior. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American 

Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States, Federal Register. Vol. 78, No. 23, Monday, 

February 4, 2013. 

Dickens, S.J. M.,F. Gerhardt, and S.K. Collinge. 2005. Recreational portage trails as corridors facilitating 

non-native plant invasions of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (USA). Conservation 

Biology 19:1653-1657. 

Dillon, G.K., Holden, Z.A., Morgan, P., Crimmins, M.A., Heyerdahl, E.K., and C. H. Luce. 2011. Both 

topography and climate affected forest and woodland burn severity in two regions of the western US, 

1984-2006. Ecosphere 2(12), doi: 10.1890/ES11-00271.1. 

DiTomaso, J.M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: Species, impacts, and management. Weed Science 

48:255-265. 

DiTomaso, J.M., and E.A. Healy. 2007. Weeds of California and Other Western States. 2 vols. Vol. 1 & 2. 

Berkely, CA: University of California. 

DiTomaso, J.M. and D.W. Johnson. 2006. The Use of Fire as a Tool for Controlling Invasive Plants. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-12 ▪ References Cited

Dixit S.S., A.S. Dixit, and J.P. Smol, 2002. Diatom and chrysophyte function and inferences of postindustrial acidification and recent recovery trends in Killarney lakes. Ontario, Canada: Journal of 

Paleolimnology 27: 79-96. 

Downie, D.2013. Snow Mobile Types and use data for two LTB sites. Personal Communication. Air 

Quality resource discussion. April 8, 2013. 

Downie, D.2013.Personal Communication. Air Quality resource discussion. June 5, 2013. 

Dull, R. A. 1999. Palynological evidence for 19th century grazing-induced vegetation change in the 

southern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography. 26(4): 899-912. 

Dutson, V.J., 1974. The Association of the Roof Rat (Rattus Rattus) with the Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus 

Discolor) and Algerian Ivy (Hadera Canariensis) in California." In Vertebrate Pest Conference: 

University of Nebraska –Lincoln. 

EDAW et al., 2005. Taylor, Tallac, and Spring Creek Watershed Ecosystem Assessment Report. Prepared 

for the U.S. Forest Service - Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Eagleston and Rubin. 2013. Non-motorized winter recreation impacts to snowmelt erosion, Tronsen Basin, 

Eastern Cascades, Washington. Environmental Management (2013) 51:167-181. 

Easterling, D.R., G.A. Meehl, C. Parmesan, S.A. Changon, T.R. Karl, and L.O. Mearn. 2000. Climate 

Extremes: Observations, Modeling, and Impacts. Science 289: 2068-2074. 

Egan, J. M., D.P. Fournier, H.D. Safford, J. McLean Sloughter, T. Cardoso, P. Trainor, and J. Wenz. 2012. 

Assessment of a Jeffrey Pine Beetle Outbreak from 1991-1996 near Spooner Junction, Lake Tahoe 

Basin. USFS, State & Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection, Report: SS11-09. 

Egan, D., and E.A. Howell (eds). 2001. The historical ecology handbook. A restorationist’s guide to 

reference ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC. 457 pp. 

El Dorado County Noxious Weed Projects. 2008. [On-line] Available at: 

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/IPC/weedmgtareas/pdf/08/wma08_supplemental_eldorado.pdf 

(Accessed 12/5/2009). 

Elliot-Fisk, D. L., T. C. Cahill, O. K. Davis, L. Duan, C. R. Goldman, G. E. Gruett, R. Harris, R. cattleman, 

R. Lacey, D. Leisz, S. Lindstrom, D. Machida, R. A. Rowntree, P. Rucks, D. A. Sharkey, S. L. Stephens, 

D. S. Ziegler. 1997. Lake Tahoe case study in Erman, D. C., ed. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project; final 

report to Congress. Addendum. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 40, Davis, CA: University of 

California: 217-276. Vol. 13. 

Endress, B.A., and C.G. Parks. 2004. Element Stewardship Abstract for Sulfur Cinquefoil, 

www.imapinvasives.org/GIST/ESA/esapages/documnts/poterec.pdf. 

Engelhardt, B., and S. Gross. 2011. LTBMU Sensitive Plant Species and Habitat – 2010 Monitoring 

Report (Unpub). On file at: LTBMU Supervisor’s Office. 24 pp. 

Engelhardt, B.M. and Gross, S.E. 2011a. Long-term monitoring plan: Draba asterophora var. asterophora & 

Draba asterophora var. macrocarpa. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, USDA Forest Service, South 

Lake Tahoe, CA. 

Engelhardt, B.M. and Gross, S.E. 2011b. Long-term monitoring plan: Lewisia longipetala. Lake Tahoe 

Basin Management Unit, USDA Forest Service, South Lake Tahoe, CA. 

Ensign, W. E., R. J. Strange, and S. E. Moore. 1990. Summer food limitation reduces brook and rainbow 

trout biomass in a southern Appalachian stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

119:894-901. 

Entrix, Inc. 2009. Noxious Weed Risk Assessment for the Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration 

Project on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. USFS internal document. 21 pp. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. Subalpine Marsh Plant Communities as Early Indicators of 

Ecosystem Stress. Available at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/5993/report/F 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-13 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Wadeable Streams Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of 

the Nation’s Streams, Office of Research and Development, Office of Water Washington, DC 20460; 

EPA 841-B-06-002. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/streamsurvey/ 

Evans, R.D., R. Rimer, L. Sperry, and J. Belnap. 2001. Exotic plant invasion alters nitrogen dynamics in an 

arid grassland. Ecological Applications 11:1301-1310. 

Executive Order 12898 - Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations. February 11, 1994. FR 7629: Vol. 59, No. 32, February 16, 1994. Amends: 

EO 12250, November 2, 1980. Amended by: EO 12948, January 30, 1995. 

Executive Order 13057 - Federal Actions in The Lake Tahoe Region. July 26, 1997. FR 7629: Vol. 73, No. 

186, February 16, 1994. 

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species. February 3, 1999. FR 6183: Vol. 64, No. 25, February 8, 1999; 

Amended by: EO 13286. 

Fairfull, S. and Witheridge, G. 2003. Why do fish need to cross the road? Fish passage requirements for 

waterway crossings. NSW Fisheries, Cronulla, 16pp. 

Field, C.B., G.C. Daily, F.W. Davis, et al. 1999. Confronting climate change in California. Ecological 

impacts on the Golden State. Union of Concerned Scientists and Ecological Society of America, 

Cambridge, MA. Online at: www.ucsusa.org 

Feller, G.M. and C.A. Drost. 1993. Disappearance of cascade frogs (Rana cascadae) at the southern end of 

its range, California. Biological Conservation, 65:177-181. 

Fellers., G.M., D.E. Green, and J.E. Longcore. 2001. Oral Chytridiomycosis in mountain yellow-legged 

frogs (Rana muscosa). Copeia, 2001:945-953. 

Fellows, A.W., and M.L. Goulden. 2008. Has fire suppression increased the amount of carbon stored in 

western U.S. forests? Geophysical Research Letters, Vol.35, L12404. DOI: 10.1029/2008GL033965. 

Fenn, M.E., S. Jovan, F. Yuan, et al. 2008. Empirical and simulated critical loads for nitrogen deposition in 

California mixed conifers. Environmental Pollution 155 (2008) 492-511, DOI: 

10.1016/j.envpol.2008.03.019. 

Fenn, M.E., K.F. Lambert, T.F. Blett, et al. 2011. Setting Limits: Using Air Pollution Thresholds to Protect 

and Restore U.S. Ecosystems, Report Number 14, Fall 2011. Issues in Ecology, Ecological Society of 

America, Washington, DC (esa.org/science_resources/issues/FileEnglish/issuesinecology14.pdf). 

Ferguson, H., and J. Azerrad. 2004. Pallid bat In Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority 

Species – Volume V: Mammals. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 

Field, C.B., G.C. Daily, F.W. Davis, et al. 1999. Confronting climate change in California. Ecological 

impacts on the Golden State. Union of Concerned Scientists and Ecological Society of America, 

Cambridge, MA. Online at: www.ucsusa.org 

Finkral, A.J. and A.M. Evans. 2008. The effects of a thinning treatment on carbon stocks in a northern 

Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management 255 (2008) 2743-2750, DOI: 

10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.041. 

Finlay, J. C., and V. T. Vredenburg. 2007. Introduced trout sever trophic connections in watersheds: 

consequences for a declining amphibian. Ecology 88:2187-2198. 

Fites, J. 1993. Ecological guide to mixed conifer plant associations. Northern Sierra Nevada and Southern 

Cascades. Publication R5-ECOL-TP-001. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San 

Francisco, CA. 

Fites-Kaufman, J., P. Rundel, N. Stephenson, et al. 2007. >>>>> Pp. - , in: M.G. Barbour et al. (eds). 

Terrestrial vegetation of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Flannigan, M.D., B.J. Stocks, and B.M. Wotton. 2000. Climate change and forest fires. The Science of the 

Total Environment Vol. 262: 221-229. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-14 ▪ References Cited

Flora of North America. 2011. . [Online]. Flora of North America Association. Available: 

http://www.efloras.org/. [2011, December 19]. 

Fogg, A., R.D. Burnett, and L.J. Roberts. 2012. Occurrence patterns of Black-backedWoodpecker in 

unburned National Forest land in the Sierra Nevada. PRBO ConservationScience Contribution Number 

1872. 

Fore, L. 2007. Development and testing of biomonitoring tools for stream macroinvertebrates in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin. Final Report submitted to the U.S. Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, 

South Lake Tahoe. 

Forister, M. L., A. C. McCall, N. J. Sanders, et al. 2010. Compounded effects of climate change and habitat 

alteration shift patterns of butterfly biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 

2088-2092. 

Forsman, E.D. E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon. 

Wildlife Monographs No. 87;1-64. 

Fowler, C.S., and J.E. Bath. 1981. Pyramid Lake Northern Pauite Fishing: The Ethographic Record. Journal 

of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3:176-186. 

Frazier J.W., K.B. Roby, J.A. Boberg, et al. 2005. Stream Condition Inventory Technical Guide. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region - Ecosystem Conservation Staff. Vallejo, CA. 111 pp. 

Froehlich, H.A., Miles, D.W.R., and Robbins, R.W. 1985. Soil bulk density recovery on compacted skid 

trails in central Idaho. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49: 1015–1017. 

Fryer, Janet L. 2011. Quercus wislizeni. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis [2011, December 19]. 

Fulé, P.Z. 2008. Does It Make Sense to Restore Wildland Fire in Changing Climate? Restoration Ecology 

Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 526-531. December 2008, DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00489.x. 

Fulé, P. Z., W. W. Covington, and M. M. Moore. 1997. Determining reference conditions for ecosystem 

management of southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Ecological Applications 7:895–908. 

Furnish, J. 2010. Progress report on monitoring of aquatic management indicator species (MIS) in the 

Sierra Nevada Province: 2009-2010 Field Seasons. December 2010. 6pp. 

Gage, E., and D.J.Cooper, 2009. Winter recreation impacts to wetlands, a technical review. Submitted to 

Arapaho Roosevelt national Forests, White River National Forests, and Black Hills National Forest. 

Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2). CO: Fort Collins. 

Gancz, A.Y., I. K. Barker, R. Lindsay, et al. 2004. West nile virus outbreak in North American owls, 

Ontario. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 10(12): 2135-2142. 

Gaskin, J. F. 2006. Clonal Structure of Invasive Hoary Cress (Lepidium Draba) Infestations." Weed Science 

54, no. 3: 428-34. 

Geiser, L.H., S. Jovan, D. A. Glavich, et al. 2010. Lichen-based critical loads for atmospheric nitrogen 

deposition in Western Oregon and Washington Forests, USA. Environmental Pollution 158 (2010) 

2412-242 (doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2010.04.001). 

Geiser, Linda. 2011. personal communication. Air Quality resource discussion. 

Gertler, A.W., A. Bytnerowicz, T.A. Cahill, M. Arbaugh, S. Cliff, J. Kahyaoğlu-Koračin, L. Tarnay, R. 

Alonso, and W. Fraczek. 2006. Local air quality threatens Lake Tahoe’s clarity. Calif. Agric., 60, 53-58. 

Glenn, E. M., R. G. Anthony, and E. D. Forsman. 2010. Population trends in northern spotted owls: 

Associations with climate in the Pacific Northwest. Biological Conservation 143:2543-2552. 

Glenn, E. M., R. G. Anthony, E. D. Forsman, and G. S. Olson. 2011. Local weather, regional climate, and 

annual survival of the northern spotted owl. The Condor 113:159-176. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-15 

Goeden, R.D., and D.W. Ricker. 1982. Poison Hemlock, Conium-Maculatum, in Southern-California -an 

Alien Weed Attacked by Few Insects." Annals of the Entomological Society of America 75, no. 2: 173-

76. 

George, T. L., S. Zack. 2001. Spatial and temporal consideration in restoring habitat for wildlife. 

Restoration Ecology 9 (3): 272-279. 

Gerstung, E.R. 1988. Status, life history, and management of the Lahontan cuttriut trout, American 

Fisheries Society symposium 4:93-106. 

Gertler, A.T,.A. Bytnerowicz, T.M. Cahill, et al. 2006. Local air quality threatens Lake Tahoe’s clarity. 

Calif. Agric., 60, 53-58. 

Gibilisco, C.J. 1994. Distributional dynamics of modern Martes in North America. Pages 59-71 In: 

Buskirk, S.W., A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, et al (eds). Martens, Sables, and Fishers: Biology and 

Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA. 

Gilbert, J. H., J. L. Wright, D. J. Lauten, et al. 1997. Den and rest-site characteristics of American marten 

and fisher in Northern Wisconsin. Pages 135-145 In: Proulx, G., H. N. Bryant, and P. M. Woodward 

(eds). Marten: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. Provincial Muse-um of Alberta, 

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 

Gluesenkamp, D. 2009. A cost-effective approach to controlling invasive plants. CNPS Bulletin (39) 4: p.1. 

Goldman, C. R., and E. Byron. 1986. Changing Water Quality at Lake Tahoe. University of California 

Institute of Ecology, Tahoe Research Group. Davis. 

Gomez, A., Powers, R.F., Singer, M.J., et al. 2002. Soil compaction effects on growth of young ponderosa 

pine following litter removal in California’s Sierra Nevada. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66: 1334–1343 

Goodwin, K. and R. Sheley. 2006. Protecting Prioritized Rangelands from Invasive Weed Spread. 

Montana State U. 

Goulson, D., G.C. Lye and B. Darvill. 2008. Decline and Conservation of Bumble Bees. Annual Review of 

Entomology 53:191–208 

Gower, S.T. 2008. Are horses responsible for introducing non-native plants along forest trails in the eastern 

United States? Forest Ecology and Management 256:997-1003. 

Graf, M. 1999. Plants of the Tahoe Basin: Flowering Plants, Trees, and Ferns. University of California 

Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Graya, A. N. and D. L. Azuma. 2005. Repeatability and implementation of a forest vegetation indicator. 

Ecological Indicators 5: 57–71. 

Green, D. M. and J.B. Kauffman. 1995. Succession and livestock grazing in a northeastern Oregon riparian 

ecosystem / Douglas M. Green and J. Boone Kauffman.Journal of range management. Vol. 48, no. 4 

(July 1995). p. 307-313. 

Green, G.A. Bombay, H.L. and M.L. Morrison. 2003. Conservation assessment of the willow flycatcher in 

the Sierra Nevada. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation and the University of California. 67 pp. 

Greer, K. and B. Meneghin. SPECTRUM: An analytical tool for building natural resource management 

models. 

Grenfell Jr., W. E. 1988. Montane Riparian. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/pdfs/MRI.pdf 

Grinnell, J., J. S. Dixon, and J. M. Lindsdale. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of California: their natural 

history, systematic status, and relations to man, Vols. I and II. University of California Press, Berkeley, 

California. 777 pp. 

Grinnell, J and T.I. Storer. 1924. Animal Life in Yosemite: An Account of Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, and 

Amphibians in a Cross-section of the Sierra Nevada. University of California Press, Berkeley, 

California. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-16 ▪ References Cited

Gross, S., and E. Olin. 2011. Development of a Management Ranking System for Terrestrial Noxious 

Weeds / Invasive Plant Species. USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, South 

Lake Tahoe, CA. 

Grubb, T.G., A.E. Gatto, L.L. Pater, D.K. Delaney. 2012 (May 8). Response of nesting northern goshawks 

to logging truck noise, Kaibab National Forest, Arizona. Final Report to Southwest Region 3 (USDA 

Forest Service) 

Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8:27-38. 

Grumbine, R. E. 1997. Reflections on ecosystem management. Conservation Biology 11:41-47. 

Gucker, Corey L. 2007. Pinus jeffreyi. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2011, September 7]. 

Gundale, M.J., T.H. DeLuca, C.E. Fiedler, P.W. Ramsey, M.G. Harrington, and J.E. Gannon. 2005. 

Restoration treatments in a Montana ponderosa pine forest: Effects on soil physical, chemical and 

biological properties. Forest Ecology and Management 213:25-38. 

Gutiérrez, R. J., M.Z. Peery, D. J. Tempel, W.J. Berigan. 2012. Population Ecology of the California spotted 

owl in the central Sierra Nevada: Annual Results 2011. Annual Progress Report for US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 5. 39pp. 

Gutiérrez, R.J., D.J. Tempel, and W. Berigan. 2008. Population ecology of the California spotted owl in 

the Central Sierra Nevada: Annual Results 2007: Region 5, USDA Forest Service (CR Agreement: 06-

CR-11052007-174). June, 2008. 29pp. 

Gutiérrez, R.J., D.J. Tempel, and W. Berigan. 2009. Population ecology of the California spotted owl in 

the Central Sierra Nevada: Annual Results 2008: Region 5, USDA Forest Service (CR Agreement: 06-

CR-11052007-174). April 2000. 29pp. 

Gutiérrez, R.J., D.J. Tempel, and W. Berigan. 2010. Population ecology of the California spotted owl in 

the Central Sierra Nevada: Annual Results 2009: Region 5, USDA Forest Service (CR Agreement: 06-

CR-11052007-174). March 2010. 29pp. 

Han, S.K., Han, H. S., Johnson, L. R. and D. S. Page-Dumroese. [Year Unk]. Unpublished. Impacts on soils 

from cut-to-length and whole tree harvesting. 

Hansen, J., S. Makiko, P. Kharecha, et al. 2008. Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? 

The Open Atmospheric Science Journal 1 (2008): 217-31. 

Harper, J.A. 1962. Daytime Feeding Habits of Roosevelt Elk on Boyes Prairie, California." The Journal of 

Wildlife Management 26, no. 1: 97-100. 

Harrod, R.J., and R.J. Taylor. 1995. Reproduction and Pollination Biology of Centaurea and Acroptilon 

Species, with Emphasis on Centaurea-Diffusa." Northwest Science 69, no. 2: 97-105. 

Hawkins, C.P., R.H. Norris, J.N. Hogue and J.W. Feminella. 2000. Development and evaluation of 

predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecological Applications 10:1456-

1477. 

Heisey, R.M. 1990. Allelopathic and Herbicidal Effects of Extracts from Tree of Heaven (AilanthusAltissima). American Journal of Botany 77, no. 5: 662-70. 

Helms, J.A. (ed). 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry. Bethesda, MD: The Society of American Foresters. 

Harris, J. A., R. J. Hobbs, E. Higgs, and J. Aronson. 2006. Ecological restoration and global climate 

change. Restoration Ecology 14: 170-176. 

Harris, R.N., R. M. Brucker, J.B. Walke, M.H. Becker,C.R. Schwantes, D.C. Flaherty, B.A. Lam, D.C. 

Woodhams, C.J. Briggs, V.T. Vredenburg and K.P. Minbiole. 2009. The ISME Journal 3, 818–824; 

doi:10.1038/ismej.2009.27; published online 26 March 2009 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-17 

Harrod, R.J., W.L. Gaines, W.E. Hartl, et al. 1998. Estimating historical snag density in dry forests east of 

the Cascade Range. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-428. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Haugo, R. D. and C. B. Halpern. 2007. Vegetation responses to conifer encroachment in a western Cascade 

meadow: a chronosequence approach. Canadian Journal of Botany. 3: 285-298. 

Heibert, R.D. and J. Stubbendieck. 1993. Handbook for Ranking Exotic Plants for Management and 

Control. Online. National Park Service. Available at: http://especes-envahissantesoutremer.fr/pdf/methode_hierarchisation_hiebert.pdf 

Helms, John A (ed). 1998 The Dictionary of Forestry. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD. 210 

p. 

Henderson, E. B. 2008. Development of State and Transition Model Assumptions Used in National Forest 

Plan Revision. Eric B. Henderson1In: Havis, Robert N.; Crookston, Nicholas L., comps. 2008. Third 

Forest Vegetation Simulator Conference; 2007 February 13–15; Fort Collins, CO. Proceedings RMRSP-54. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 

Herbst, D.B. 2005. Review of TRPA Stream Bioassessment Data Sets for Ward, Blackwood, Meeks and 

General Creek – Patterns of Invertebrate Communities Along Longitudinal Transects. Appendix G, 

pages 150-156 in Ward Creek Watershed Restoration Project: Technical Assessment. Prepared for the 

California Tahoe Conservancy by Hydro Science and River Run Consulting, Vacaville, CA. 216 pp. 

Herbst, D.B. 2009. Trout Creek Restoration Monitoring: Changing Benthic Invertebrate Indicators in a 

Reconstructed Channel. Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory, Mammoth Lakes, CA. 

Herbst, D.B., E.L. Silldorff and L.W. Tamay. 2006. A meta-analysis of stream bioassessment data in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin: synthesis of aquatic invertebrate responses to local and watershed-scale stressor 

gradients and outline for a long-term monitoring program. Unpublished report prepared for the Tahoe 

Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), South Lake Tahoe, CA. 

Herbst, D.B. and E.L. Silldorff. 2009. Development of a benthic macroinvertebrate index for stream 

assessments in the eastern Sierra Nevada of California. Accessed at State Water Resources Control 

Board website: 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/swamp/docs/east_sierra_rpt.pdf 

Herbst, D.B. and S.D. Cooper. 2010. Before and after the deluge: rain-on-snow flooding effects on aquatic 

invertebrate communities of small streams in the Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of the North 

American Benthological Society 29:1354-1366. 

Herbst, D.B., M.T. Bogan, S.K. Roll et al. 2012. Effects of livestock exclusion on in-stream habitat and 

benthic invertebrate assemblages in montane streams. Freshwater Biology 57:204-217. 

Hermanson, J., and T. O’Shea. 1983. Antrozous pallidus. Mammalian Species. No. 213.Pages 1-8. 

Published by the American Society of Mammalogists. 

Hessburg, P.F., J. K. Agee, J. F. Franklin. 2005. Dry forests and wildland fires of the inland Northwest 

USA: Contrasting the landscape ecology of the pre-settlement and modern eras. Forest Ecology and 

Management 211: 117–139. 

Heyvaert, A. 1998. The Biogeochemistry and Paleolimnology of Sediments from Lake Tahoe, CaliforniaNevada. PhD dissertation. University of California, Davis. 

Hickman, J.C. (ed). 1993. The Jepson Manual of Higher Plants of California.University of California Press. 

Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. 

Hillman, J.M. 1997. Potentially Allelopathic Effects of Poison Hemlock (Conium Maculatum) on Native 

Plant Revegetation at Wilder Ranch State Park." Paper presented at the California Exotic Pest Plant 

Council Symposium, 

Hobbs, R.J., and L.F. Huenneke. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for conservation. 

Conservation Biology 6:324-337. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-18 ▪ References Cited

Hodkinson, I. D. and J. K. Jackson. 2005. Terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates as bioindicators for 

environmental monitoring, with particular reference to mountain ecosystems. Environmental 

Management 35:649–666. 

Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecosystems. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4: 1-23. 

Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwest Montana. Canadaian Journal 

of Zoology. 59:1286-1301. 

Hoshovksy, M. (Unk Date). Element Stewardship Abstract for Rubus Discolor (Rubus Procerus). 

House, R. 1996. An evaluation of stream restoration structures in a coastal Oregon stream, 1981–1993. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management16 (2):272-281. 

Howard J.K. & K.M. Cuffe. 2003. Freshwater mussels in a California North Coast Range river: occurrence, 

distribution, and controls. Journal of The North American Benthological Society, 22, 63–77. 

Hubert, W.A., R.P. Lanka, T.A. Wesche, et al. 1985. Grazing management 

influences on two brook trout streams in Wyoming. p. 290-293. In: R.R. Johnson, 

C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, and others (tech. coords.), Riparian ecosystems and their 

management: reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-120. 

Huff, M.H., R.D. Ottmar, E. Alvarado, et al, 1995. Historical and current forest landscapes in eastern 

Oregon and Washington. Part II: Linking vegetation characteristics to potential fire behavior and related 

smoke production. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-355. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtrs.shtml 

Hull, A.C., and J.O. Evans. 1973. Musk Thistle (Carduus-Nutans) -Undesirable Range Plant." Journal of 

Range Management 26, no. 5: 383-85. 

Hull, J. M., J. J. Keane, W. K. Savage, et al. 2010. Range-wide genetic differentiation among North 

American great gray owls (Strix nebulosa) reveals a distinct lineage restricted to the Sierra Nevada, 

California, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 56: 212-221. 

Hull, J. M., J. J. Keane, L. Tell, and H. B. Ernest. 2010. West Nile Virus antibody surveillance in three 

Sierra Nevada raptors of conservation concern. The Condor 112:168-172. 

Hunter, Malcolm L. 1990. Wildlife, forests, and forestry. Prentice-Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 370 

p. 

Hurteau, M.D., G.W. Koch, and B.A. Hungate. 2008. Carbon Protection and Fire Risk Reduction: Toward a 

Full Accounting of Forest Carbon Offsets, Front Ecol. Environ. 2008, 6(9), 493-498, 

DOI:10.1890/070187. 

Hurteau, M., and M. North. 2009. Fuel treatments effects on tree-based forest carbon storage and emissions 

under modeled wildfire scenarios. Front Ecol Environ 2009; 7(8): 409-414,DOI:10.1890/080049. 

Hurteau, M.D and M.L. Brooks, 2011. Short and Long-term Effects of Fire on Carbon in US Dry 

Temperate Forest Systems. BioScience 61: 139-146. 

Hutto, R.L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in Northern Rocky 

Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9(5):1041-1058. 

Hutto, R. L. and S. M. Gallo. 2006. The effects of postfire salvage logging on cavity-nesting birds. Condor 

108: 817-831. 

Hydro Science and River Run Consulting. 2005. Ward Creek Watershed Restoration Project Technical 

Assessment prepared for: California Tahoe Conservancy. December, 2005. Prepared for: California 

Tahoe Conservancy by Hydro Science and River Run Consulting, Vacaville, CA. 216 pp. 

IMPROVE. 2011. Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments Spatial and Seasonal Patterns 

and Temporal Variability of Haze and its Constituents in the United States Report V June 2011. 

Cooperative Institute for Research in Atmosphere, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-

1375. ISSN 0737-5352-87. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-19 

The Institute for Bird Populations (IBP). 2002. IBP's Sierra Nevada Bird Observatory. Black-backed 

Woodpecker Monitoring and Management.http://www.birdpop.org/Sierra/bbwo.htm. May 23, 2013. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate change 2007: the physical science 

basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 

IPCC. 2001. Houghton, J.T.,Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, et al (eds.). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm 

IPCC. 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, fourth assessment report, climate change 2007: 

Synthesis report. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm. 

Irwin, L.L., L.A. Clark, D.C. Rock, et al. 2007. Modeling foraging habitat of California spotted owls. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4):1183-1191. 

Jackson, S.T., and R.J. Hobbs. 2009. Ecological restoration in the light of ecological history. Science 325: 

567-568. 

Jacobs, J. Ecology and Management of Oxeye Daisy [On-line] Available at: 

http://www.msuextension.org/ruralliving/Dream/PDF/oxeye.pdf Accessed 11/29/2009. 

Jenness, J. S., P. Beier, J. L. Ganey. 2004. Associations between forest fire and Mexican spotted owls. 

Forest Science 50(6): 765-772. 

Jenning, M. and M. Hayes. 1994. Amphibians and reptile species of special concern in California. 

California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 

Jennings, M.R. 1995 Native ranid frogs in California. Pp. 131-134. In LaRoe, E.T., G.S. Fariis, C.E. 

Puckett, P.D. Doran and M.J. Mac (Eds), Our Living Resources: A Report t the Nation on the 

Distribution, Abundance, and Health of US Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, D.C. 

Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, et al (tech. coords). 1985. Riparian ecosystems 

and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RM-120. 

Johnson, D., L. Kershaw, A. MacKinno, et al. 1995. Plants of the Western Boreal Forest and Aspen 

Parkland. Lone Pine Publishing. 392 pp. 

Johnson, D.W., J.D. Murphy, R.F. Walker, and W.W. Miller. 2007. Wildfire effects on forest carbon and 

nutrient budgets. Ecological Engineering 31, 183–192. 

Johnston, D., and J. Gworek. 2006. [ABS]. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) habitat use in a coniferous forest 

in northeastern California. Bat Research News 47:4,. 

Jones, B.E., T. H. Rickman, A. Vasquez, et al. 2005 Removal of encroaching conifers to regenerate aspen 

stands in the Sierra Nevada. Restoration Ecology. 13(2): 373-379. 

Joyce, L.A., and R. Birdsey (tech. eds.). 2000. The impact of climate change on America’s forests: A 

technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-59. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications/titles/rmrs_gtr.html. 

Joyce, L.A., G.M. Blate, J.S. Littell, S.G. et al. 2008. National Forests. In: Preliminary review of adaptation 

options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, 

B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, pp. 3-1 to 3-127. Online at: 

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/saps/306 

Kalamandeen, M. and L. Gillson. 2007. Demything “wilderness”: implications for protected area 

designation and management. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:165-182. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-20 ▪ References Cited

Kamerath M, S. Chandra, & B.C. Allen. 2008. Distribution and impacts of warm water invasive fish in 

Lake Tahoe, CA-NV, USA. Aquatic Invasions. 3: 35-41. 

Karam, Sarah L., P.J. Weisberg, R.M. Scheller., D.W. Johnson, and W.W. Miller. 2013. Development and 

evaluation of a nutrient cycling extension for the LANDIS-II landscape simulation model. Ecological 

Modelling 250 (2013) 45–57. 

Karlstrom, E.L. 1973. Bufo canorous. Pp 132.1-132.2. Catalogue of American Amphibian and Reptiles. 

Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, St. Louis, Missouri. 

Kartesz, John Thomas. 1987. A Flora of Nevada. PhD Dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno. 

Kattelmann, R. 1996. Hydrology and water resources. Pages 855-920 In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: 

Final Report to Congress, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options, Vol II, chp 30. 

University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Davis. 

Kauffman, J.B. and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock Impacts on Riparian Ecosystemsand Streamside 

Management Implications: A Review. Journal Of Range Management 37(5). 

Keane, J. J. 1999. Ecology of the northern goshawk in the Sierra Nevada, California. PhD. Dissertation. 

University of California, Davis, CA. 123 pp. 

Keane, J. January 2013. California spotted owl: Scientific consideration for forest planning (draft). 

Chapter 7.2 in Science Synthesis to Support Land and Resource Management Plan Revision in the 

Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades. Pacific Southwest Research Station 

Keane, J. 2013 (April 16). Email to Patti Krueger about the 2012 results for Meadow Valley spotted owl 

study. 

Keane, R. E., P. F. Hessburg, P. B. Landres, et al. 2009. The use of historical range and variability (HRV) in 

landscape management. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 1025-1037. 

Keeley, J. E., T.W. McGinnis, and K.A. Bollens. 2005. Seed Germination of Sierra Nevada Postfire 

Chaparral Species. Madrono Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 175-181, 2005. 

Keinath, D.A. 2004. Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/fringedmyotis.pdf. 

Kiemnec, G. L., and M.L. McInnis. 2002. Hoary Cress (Cardaria Draba) Root Extract Reduces 

Germination and Root Growth of Five Plant Species." Weed Technology 16, no. 1: 231-34. 

Kinter, C.L., B.A. Mealor, N.L. Shaw, et al. 2007. Postfire Invasion Potential of Rush Skeletonweed 

(Chondrilla Juncea)." Rangeland Ecology & Management 60, no. 4: 38694. 

Kirk, T. A. and W. J. Zielinski. 2009. Developing and testing a landscape habitat suitability model for the 

American marten (Martes Americana) in the Cascades mountains of California. Landscape Ecology 24 

(6): 759-773. 

Kjar, J. Craig. 2011. Travel Analysis Process. Boise, Idaho. Prepared for U.S. Forest Service Lake Tahoe 

Basin Management Unit, South Lake Tahoe, California. 

Klinger, R.,E. C. Underwood, and P.E. Moore. 2006. The role of environmental gradients in non-native 

plant invasion into burnt areas of Yosemite National Park, California. Diversity and Distributions 

12:139-156. 

Klinkhamer, P.G.L., T. J. Dejong, and E. Vandermeijden. 1989. Production, Dispersal and Predation of 

Seeds in the Biennial Cirsium-Vulgare." Journal of Ecology 76, no. 2: 403-14. 

Knapp, E.E, Estes, B.L., and C.N. Skinner. 2009. Ecological effects of prescribed fire season: a literature 

review and sysnthesis for managers. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station; 

General Technical Report PSW-GTR-224. 

Knapp, R. A., K. R. Matthews, H. K. Preisler, and R. Jellison. 2003. Developing probabilistic models to 

predict amphibian site occupancy in a patchy landscape. Ecological Applications 13:1069-1082. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-21 

Knapp, R. A., D. M. Boiano, and V. T. Vredenburg. 2007. Removal of nonnative fish results in population 

expansion of a declining amphibian (mountain yellow-legged frog, Rana muscosa). Biological 

Conservation 135:11-20. 

Knapp, R. A., and K. R. Matthews. 2000. Effects of nonnative fishes on wilderness lake ecosystems in the 

Sierra Nevada and recommendations for reducing impacts. Pages 312-317 in Proceedings: Wilderness 

Science in a Time of Change. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 

Knapp, R. A., and H.K. Preisler. 1999. Is it possible to predict habitat use by spawning salmonids? A test 

using California golden trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 56: 1576-1584. 

Knapp, R.A., C.P. Hawkins, J. Ladau and J.G. McClory. 2005. Fauna of Yosemite National Park lakes has 

low resistance, but high resilience to fish introductions. Ecological Applications 15: 835–847. 

Knight, R. L. and S. K. Knight. 1984. Response of Wintering Bald Eagles to Boating Activity. Journal of 

Wildlife Management, 48 (3): 999-1004. 

Koch, J., J. Strange and P. Williams. 2012. Bumble Bees of the Western United States. U.S. Forest Service 

and the Pollinator Partnership, Washington, D.C. 144 pp. 

Kocis, Zarnoch, and Arnold. 2002 Recreation, Heritage & Wilderness Programs, National Visitor Use 

Monitoring Program. Southern Research Station; May 2002 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum). 

Kohler T. and T. Curren. 2007. Natural Hazard Study of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. USDA 

Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 

Kotliar, N.B., S.J. Hejl, R.L. Hutto, et al. 2002. Effects of fire and post-fire salvage logging on avian 

communities in conifer-dominated forests of the western United States. Studies in Avian Biology 

No.25:49-64. 

Kowarik, I., and M. Von der Lippe. 2007. Pathways in Plant Invasions. Pages 29-47 in W. Nentwig, editor. 

Biological Invasions. Springer, Bern, Switzerland. 

Krueger-Mangold, J., R. L. Sheley, and B.D. Roos. 2002. Maintaining Plant Community Diversity in a 

Waterfowl Production Area by Controlling Canada Thistle (Cirsium Arvense) Using Glyphosate." Weed 

Technology 16, no. 2: 457-63. 

Kucera, T. 2004. Ecology of American martens on the Mammoth Mountain Ski area, Inyo National Forest, 

California. Inyo National Forest, Bishop, California. 

Kuhn, I., and S. Klotz. 2007. From Ecosystem Invasibility to Local,Regional and Global Patterns of 

Invasive Species. Pages 181-196 in W. Nentwig, editor. Biological Invasions. Springer, Bern, 

Switzerland. 

Kunz, T.H. and R.A. Martin. 1982. Plecotus townsendii. The American Society of Mammalogists, 

Mammalian Species, No. 175. 6 pp. 

Lacey, J. R., C.B. Marlow, and J.R. Lane. 1989. Influence of Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea-Maculosa) on 

Surface Runoff and Sediment Yield." Weed Technology 3, no. 4: 627-31. 

Lagerlöf, J., and H. Wallin. 1993. The Abundance of Arthropods Along Two Field Margins with Different 

Types of Vegetation Composition: An Experimental Study. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 43, 

no. 2: 141-54. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-22 ▪ References Cited

Lake, F.K. and J.W. Long. 2013. Fire and tribal Cultural Resources. Final Draft. Sept 9, 2013. In: Long, 

Jonathan; Skinner, Carl; North, Malcolm; Winter, Pat; Zielinski, Bill; Hunsaker, Carolyn; Collins, 

Brandon; Keane, John; Lake, Frank; Wright, Jessica; Moghaddas, Emily; Jardine, Angela; Hubbert, 

Ken; Pope, Karen; Bytnerowicz, Andrzej; Fenn, Mark; Busse, Matt; Charnley, Susan; Patterson, Trista; 

Quinn-Davidson, Lenya; Safford, Hugh; chapter authors and Synthesis team members. Bottoms, Rick; 

Hayes, Jane; team coordination and review. Meyer, Marc; Herbst, David; Matthews, Kathleen; 

additional contributors. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. 2013. Science 

synthesis to promote resilience of social-ecological systems in the Sierra Nevada and southern 

Cascades. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 504 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/reports/psw_sciencesynthesis2013/ 

Lake Tahoe Basin Weeds Coordinating Group. 2011. Priority Invasive Weeds of the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

December 2011 (unpublished). On file at: Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, 35 College Drive, 

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. 

Lake Tahoe Basin Weed Coordinating Group. 2013. Invasive Weed Data 2012, Unpublished data provided 

to author by LTBWCG on 11 March 2013. 

Landauer, Lynn. 1995. The Mountain Sea: A History of Lake Tahoe. Flying Cloud Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Landres, P. B., P. Morgan, and F. J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in 

managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9: 1179-1188. 

Landres, P.B., J.Verner, and J.W.Thomas. 1988. Ecological uses of vertebrate indicator species: a critique. 

Conservation Biology 2:316-328. 

Lanford, B.L. and B.J. Stokes. 1995. Compaction of two thinning systems: Part 1. Stand and site impacts. 

For. Pro. J. 45(5):74-79. 

Lang, N. L. and C. B. Halpern. 2007. The soil seed bank of a montane meadow: consequences of conifer 

encroachment and implications for restoration. Canadian Journal of Botany: 85: 557-569. 

Larson, L., G. Kiemnec, and T. Smergut. 2000. Hoary Cress Reproduction in a Sagebrush Ecosystem. 

Journal of Range Management 53, no. 5: 556-59. 

Larsen, S. and S. J. Ormerod. 2010. Low-level effects of inert sediments on temperate stream invertebrates. 

Freshwater Biology 55: 476–486 

Latham, Don J., Schlieter, Joyce A. 1989. Ignition probabilities of wildland fuels based on simulated 

lightning discharges. Res. Pap. INT-411. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 16 pp. 

Lauk C et al. 2012. Global socioeconomic carbon stocks in long-lived products 1900-2008. Environmental 

Research Letters 7(3), Article Number 034023. 

Laves, K.S. and J.S. Romsos. 1998. Wintering bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and human 

recreational use on the south shore of Lake Tahoe. USDA Forest Service – Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit, South Lake Tahoe, California. 31 pp. 

Lawler, J. J., H.D. Safford, and E. H. Girvetz. 2011. Martens and fishers in a changing climate. Pp. XX[need info from Hugh], in K.B. Aubry (ed). Biology and Conservation of Martens, Sables, and 

Fishers: A New Synthesis. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. In Press 

Lawler, J. J., S. L. Shafer, D. White, et al. 2009. Projected climate-induced faunal change in the Western 

Hemisphere. Ecology. 90(3): 588-597. 

Lawler, J. J., T. H. Tear, C. Pyke, M. R. Shaw, P. Gonzalez, et al. 2010. Resource management in a 

changing and uncertain climate. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 35-43. 

LeBlanc, John W. 2001. Getting a handle on broom – Scotch, French, Spanish, and Portuguese brooms in 

California. Publication 8049. University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources. Oakland, 

CA http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-23 

Lee, D. C. and L. L. Irwin. 2005. Assessing risks to spotted owls from forest thinning in fire-adapted 

forests of the western United States. Forest Ecology and Management 211: 191-209. 

Lehmann, J, J. Gaunt, and M. Rondon. 2006. Bio-char Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems -A Review. 

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change (2006) 11: 403-427 DOI: 10.1007/s11027-005-

9006-5. 

Lehmann, J. 2007. A Handful of Carbon. Nature Vol. 447, 10 May 2007, 143-44. 

Lenihan JM, Drapeck R, Bachelet D, Neilson RP. 2003. Climate change effects on vegetation 

 distribution, carbon and fire in Califonia. Ecol Appl 13: 1667–81. 

Lepori, F., D. Palm, E. Brannas, and B. Malmqvist. 2005. Does restoration of structural heterogeneity in 

streams enhance fish and macroinvertebrate diversity? Ecological Applications 15:2060–2071. 

Lee, D. E., M. L. Bond, R. B. Siegel. 2012. Dynamics of breeding-season site occupancy of the California 

Spotted Owl in burned forests,Condor, 114(4):792-802. 

Liddle, M.J. 1991. Recreation ecology: Effects of trampling on plants and corals. Trends in Ecology & 

Evolution 6:13-17. 

Liechty, H.O., M.G. Shelton, K.R. Luckow, et al. 2002. Impacts of shortleaf pine–hardwood forest 

management on soils in the Ouachita Highlands: a review. South. J. Appl. For. 26: 43–51. 

Lindstrom, S. P. Rucks, and P. Wigand. 2000. A contextual overview of human land use and environmental 

conditions. In: Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment. PSW-GTR-175. 

Lockwood, J.L., P. Cassey, and T. Blackburn. 2005. The role of propagule pressure in explaining species 

invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20:223-228. 

Lofroth, E. C., C. M. Raley, J. M. Higly, et al. 2010. Conservation of Fishers (Mates pennanti) in SouthCentral British Columbia, Western Washington, Western Oregon, and California – Volume I: 

Conservation Assessment. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado, USA. 

Lofroth, E. C., J. M. Higly, R. H. Naney, et al. 2011. Conservation of Fishers (Mates pennanti) in SouthCentral British Columbia, Western Washington, Western Oregon, and California – Volume II: Key 

Findings from Fisher Habitat Studies in British Columbia, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and California. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado, USA. 

Loft, E. R., J. W. Menke, J. G. Kie. 1991. Habitat shifts by mule deer: the influence of cattle grazing. 

Journal of Wildlife Management. 55: 16-26. 

Lõhmus, A. 2005. Are timber harvesting and conservation of nest sites of forest-dwelling raptors always 

mutually exclusive? Animal Conservation 8:443-450. 

Long, Jonathan; Skinner, Carl; North, Malcolm; Winter, Pat; Zielinski, Bill; Hunsaker, Carolyn; Collins, 

Brandon; Keane, John; Lake, Frank; Wright, Jessica; Moghaddas, Emily; Jardine, Angela; Hubbert, 

Ken; Pope, Karen; Bytnerowicz, Andrzej; Fenn, Mark; Busse, Matt; Charnley, Susan; Patterson, Trista; 

Quinn-Davidson, Lenya; Safford, Hugh; chapter authors and Synthesis team members. Bottoms, Rick; 

Hayes, Jane; team coordination and review. Meyer, Marc; Herbst, David; Matthews, Kathleen; 

additional contributors. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. 2013. Science 

synthesis to promote resilience of social-ecological systems in the Sierra Nevada and southern 

Cascades. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 504 p. 

Longcore J.E., A.P. Pessier, D.K. Nichols. 1999. Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis gen. et sp. nov., a chtyrid 

pathogenic to amphibians. Mycologia 9: 219–227. 

Lonsdale, W.M. 1999. Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 80:1522-

1536. 

Loudermilk E.L., R.M. Scheller, P.J. Weisberg, J. Yang, T.E. Dilts, S.L. Karam, and C. Skinner. 2013. 

Carbon Dynamics in the Future Forest: The Importance of Long-Term Successional Legacy and 

Climate-Fire Interactions. Glob Chang Biol. 2013 Jul 2. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12310. 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12310/pdf 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-24 ▪ References Cited

Lovich, J. E., and D. Bainbridge. 1999. Anthropogenic degradation of the southern California desert 

ecosystem and prospects for natural recovery and restoration. Environmental Management 24:309–326. 

Low, G., D. Cameron, K. Klausmeyer, J. Mackenzie, et al. 2011. Forescasting the response of terrestrial 

habitats to climate change in the northern Sierra: adaptation strategies for the Northern Sierra 

Partnership. The Nature Conservancy, Reno, NV. Online at: 

http://www.conservationgateway.org/file/forecasting-response-terrestrial-habitats-climate-changenorthern-sierra-climate-adaptation-str. 

Luckenbach, R. A., and R. B. Bury. 1983. Effects of off-road vehicles on the biota of the Algodones Dunes, 

Imperial County, California. Journal of Applied Ecology 20:265–286. 

Lym, R.G. 2002. Dalmatian Toadflax and Yellow Toadflax: Identification and Control, 

www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/weeds/w1239w.htm. 

MacKenzie, D. I., M. E. Seamans, R. J. Gutiérrez, and J. D. Nichols. 2012. Investigating the population 

dynamics of California spotted owls without marked individuals. Journal of Ornithology 152:597-604. 

Machnicki, N. et al. 2006. Russula crassotunica identified as host for Dendrocollybia racemosa. Pacific 

Northwest Fungi 1:9: 1-7. 

Mack, R.N. 1981. Invasion Of Bromus-Tectorum L Into Western North-America - An Ecological 

Chronicle. Agro-Ecosystems 7:145-165. 

Magee, J. P., T. E. McMahon, and R. F. Thurow. 1996. Spatial variation in spawning habitat of cutthroat 

trout in a sediment-rich stream basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125 (5):768-779. 

Manley, P., J. A. Fites-Kaufman, M. G. Barbour, et al. 2000 Biological Integrity. In: Lake Tahoe Watershed 

Assessment. PSW-GTR-175. 

Manley, P.N. 2004. The Future of Biodiversity in the Sierra Nevada through the Lake tahoe Basin Looking 

Glass in Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada Science Symposium, Science for Management and 

Conservation. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, General technical report PSWGTR-193. Pp 207-217. 

Manley, P. N., D. D. Murphy, S. Bigelow, et al. 2010. Chapter 6: Ecology and Biodiversity in An 

Integrated Science Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin: Conceptual Framework and Research Strategies, 

USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical Report PSW-GTR-226. 

Pp.237-301. 

Manley, P.N., J. A. Fites-Kaufman, M. G. Barbour, M. D. Schlesinger, D. M. Rizzo. 2000. Biological 

Integrity (Chapter Five) in Lake tahoe Watershed Assessment: Volume I. USDA Forest Service Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-175. pp 403-598. 

Manley, P. N, and G. Tarbill. 2012. Ecological succession in the Angora fire: The role of woodpeckers as 

keystone species. Final Report to the South Nevada Public Lands Management Act. U.S. Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, Davis, California. 

Marra, P. P., S. Griffing, C. Caffrey, A. M. Kilpatrick, R. McLEAN, C. Brand, E. Saito, A. P. Dupuis, L. 

Kramer, and R. Novak. 2004. West Nile virus and wildlife. BioScience 54:393-402.

Masters, R. A., and R. L. Sheley. 2001. Principles and Practices for Managing Rangeland Invasive Plants. 

Journal of Range Management 54:502-517. 

Mathewson, H.A., H.L. Loffland, M.L. Morrison, L. Vormwald, and C. Cocimano. 2007. 2007 annual 

report and preliminary demographic analysis for willow flycatcher monitoring in the central Sierra 

Nevada, in partial fulfillment of cost share agreement 06-CR-11052007 between Texas A&M 

University and U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Region 5. Tahoe National Forest. December 31, 2007. 59 pp. 

Mathewson, H. A., H. L. Loffland, M. L. Morrison. 2011. Demographic Analysis for Willow Flycatcher 

Monitoring in the Central Sierra Nevada, 1997–2010: Final Report for USDA Forest Service (May 15). 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-25 

Mathewson, H. A., M. L. Morrison, H. L. Loffland, P. E. Bussard. 2012. Ecology of willow flycatchers 

(Empidonax trailli) in the Sierra Nevada, California: Effects of meadow characteristics and weather on 

demographics. Ornithological Monographs 75L1-32. 

McBride, J. R. Jeffrey Pine. 1988. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/pdfs/JPN.pdf. 

McCarl, B.A., and R.D. Sands. 2007. Competitiveness of terrestrial greenhouse gas offsets: are they a 

bridge to the future? Climate Change (2007) 80:109-126 DOI: 10.1007/s10584-006-9168-5. 

McDaniel, M. 2013. Semivolatile Organic Compounds in Snowmobile Emissions and in the Snowpack and 

Surface Water in Blackwood Canyon, Lake Tahoe, CA. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of 

the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Atmospheric Science, University of Nevada, 

Reno. Available upon request (Submitted July 4, 2013). 

McDaniel, M. and B. Zielinska. 2013. Determination of Chemical Composition and Fate of Snowmobile 

Emissions. Final Report for USDA Forest Service, Award No. 5-CR-11052008-044. 

McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D. L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and conservation. 

Conservation Biology 18: 890–902. 

McKnight, S and Engelhardt, B. 2013. LTBMU Rare Plant Species & Fungi Diversity- 2012 Monitoring 

Report. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, USDA Forest Service, South Lake Tahoe, CA. 

McNeel, T.F. and H.M. Ballard. 1992. Analysis of site stand impacts from thinning with a harvesterforwarder system. J. For. Eng. 4(1):23-29. 

McNulty, S.G., E.C. Cohen, J.A. Moore, et al. 2007. Estimate of critical acid loads and exceedences for 

forest soils across the conterminous United States. Environmental Pollution 149, pp. 281-292. 

Merriam, K.E., J.E. Keeley, and J.L. Beyers. 2006. Fuel breaks affect nonnative species abundance in 

California plant communities. Ecological Applications 16:515-527. 

Meyer, Marc. 2013. Natural Range of Variation of Subalpine Forests in the Bioregional Assessment Area. 

Draft USDA, USFS PSW Document for Forest Planning Process. 

Millar, C. I., Barbour, M. G., Elliott-Fisk, D. L., et al. 1996. Sierra Nevada Ecosystems Project. Sierra 

Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 40. Davis. 

University of California. pp. 217-268. 1997. Lake Tahoe Case Study. Status of the Sierra Nevada 

Addendum. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress. Wildland Resources Center 

Report No. 40. University of California, Davis. pp. 217-268. 

Millar, C.I., N. L. Stephenson, and S. L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: 

managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17: 2145–2151. 

Millar, C. I., and W. B. Woolfenden. 1999. The role of climate change in interpreting historical variability. 

Ecological Applications 9: 1207-1216. 

Miller, C. 2003. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Miller J.D. 2007. Moonlight and Wheeler Fire Severity Maps. 

Miller, J.D., and H.D. Safford. 2008. Sierra Nevada fire severity monitoring, 1984-2004. Publication R5-

TP-027. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 

Miller, J.D., H.D. Safford, M. Crimmins,, et al. 2008. Quantitative Evidence for Increasing Forest Fire 

Severity in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada, USA; 

Ecosystems. 2008, DOI: 10.1007/s10021-008-9201-9. 

Miller, J. D., H. D. Safford, M. Crimmins, and A. E. Thode. 2009. Quantitative evidence for increasing 

forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada, USA. 

Ecosystems 12:16-32. 

Miller J. D. and A. E. Thode. 2007. Quantifying burn severity in a heterogeneous landscape with a relative 

version of the delta Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR). Remote Sensing of Environment, 109: 66-80. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-26 ▪ References Cited

Miller, P. R., K.W. Stolte, D.M. Duriscoe, and J. Pronos [technical coordinators]. 1996. Evaluating ozone 

air pollution effects on pines in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW–GTR–155. Albany, 

CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 79 p. 

Miller, R.M., Colbert, S.R., and L.A. Morris, 2004. Effects of heavy equipment on physical properties of 

soils and on long-term productivity: a review of literature and current research. National Council for 

Air and Stream Improvement, Technical Bulletin No. 887, October, 2004, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

Miller, W.W., D.W. Johnson, S.L. Karam, R.F. Walker, and P.J. Weisberg. 2010. A synthesis of Sierran 

forest biomass management studies and potential effects on water quality. Forests 1:131-153. 

Miner, K., and D. Stokes. 2005. Bats in the south coast ecoregion: status, conservation issues, and research 

needs. In: Planning for Biodiversity: Bringing Research and Management Together. Kus, B., and J. 

Beyers, technical coordinators. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-195. US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. Albany, CA. 274 pages. 

Minnich, R. A., M. G. Barbour J. H. Burk, and J. Sosa-Ramirez. 2000. Californian mixed-conifer forests 

under unmanaged fire regimes in the Sierra San Pedro Martir, Baja California, Mexico. Journal of 

Biogeography 27: 105-129. 

Minor, T. and M. Cablk 2004. Estimation of Hard Impervious Cover in the Lake Tahoe Basin Using 

Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems. Submitted to Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 

Desert Research Institute, University and Community College System of Nevada 

Moghaddas, J.J., B.M. Collins, K. Menning, E.E.Y. Moghaddas, S.L. Stephens. 2010. Fuel treatment effects 

on modeled landscape-level fire behavior in the northern Sierra Nevada. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 40: 1751-1765. 

Morefield, J. D. (editor). 2001. Nevada Rare Plant Atlas. Carson City: Nevada Natural Heritage Program, 

compiled for the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon and Reno, 

Nevada. 

Morehouse E.A., T.Y. James, A.R. Ganley, R. Vilgalys, L. Berger, P.J. Murphy, et al. 2003. Multilocus 

sequence typing suggests the chytrid pathogen of amphibians is a recently emerged clone. Mol Ecol 12: 

395–403. 

Moreira, B., J. Tormo, E. Estrelles, et al. 2010. Disentangling the role of heat and smoke as germination 

cues in Mediterranean Basin flora. Annals of Botany 105: 627-635, 2010. 

Morgan J.A., V.T. Vredenburg, L.J. Rachowicz, R.A. Knapp, M.J. Stice, T. Tunstall, et al. 2007. Population 

genetics of the frog-killing fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 

13845–13850. 

Moriarty, K.M. 2009. American Marten Distributions over a 28 Year Period: Relationships with 

Landscape Change in Sagehen Creek Experimental Forest, California, USA. Thesis for Master of 

Science, Oregon State University; Presented August 19, 2009, Commencement June 2010. 108pp. 

Moriarty, K. M., W. J. Zielinksi, E. D. Forsman. 2011. Decline in American marten occupancy rates at 

Sagehen Experimental Forest, California, Journal of Wildlife Management, 75(8): 1774-1787. 

Moriarty, K.M. Zielinski, W.J. Gonzales, A.G. Dawson, T.E. Boatner, K.M. Wilson, C.A. Schlexer, F.V. 

Pilgrim, K.L. Copeland, J.P. and M.K. Schwartz. 2009. Wolverine Confirmation in California after 

Nearly a Century: Native or Long-Distance Immigrant? Northwest Science 83(2):154-162. 

Moritz, C., J. L. Patton, C. J. Conroy, J. L. Parra, G. C. White, S. R. Beissinger. 2008. Impact of a century 

of climate change on small-mammal communities in Yosemite National Park, USA. Science. 322: 261-

943. 

Morrison, M. L., R. J. Young, J. S. Rosmos, R. Golightly. 2011. Restoring forest raptors: Influence of 

human disturbance and forest condition on northern goshawks. Restoration Ecology 19(2): 273-279. 

Moser, S., G. Franco, S. Pittiglio, W. Chou, and D. Cayan. 2009. The future is now: An update on climate 

change science impacts and response options for California. California Climate Change Center Report 

CEC-500-2008-071 (May 2009). California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-27 

Moyle, P.B. and J.E. Williams. 1990. Biodiversity loss in the temperate zone: decline of the native fish 

fauna of California. Conservancy Biol. 4, 275–284. 

Moyle, P.B., R.M. Yoshiyama, J.E. Williams and E.D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish Species of Special 

Concern of California, second ed. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 

Moyle P. B., R. M. Yoshiyama, and R. A. Knapp. 1996. Status of fish and fisheries. In Sierra Nevada 

Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. II, chap. 33. Davis: University of California, Centers 

for Water and Wildland Resources. 

Moyle, P.B., 2002. Inland Fishes of California, Revised and Expanded. University of California Press, 

Berkeley. 502 pp. 

Moyle, P.B., J.V.E. Katz, and R.M. Quiñones. 2011. Rapid decline of California’s native inland fishes: A 

status assessment. Biological Conservation 144:2414–2423. 

Mozingo, Hugh N. and Margaret Williams. 1980. Threatened and Endangered Plants of Nevada. U.S. 

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of 

Land Management. 

Munz, Philip A. 1968. A California Flora. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 

California. 

Murphy, D.D. and C.M. Knopp (eds). 2000. Lake Tahoe watershed assessment: Volume I. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PSW-GTR-175. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture; 736 pp. 

Murphy, J. D., D. W. Johnson, W. W. Miller, R. F. Walker, E. F. Carroll, and R. R. Blank. 2006. Wildfire 

Effects on Soil Nutrients and Leaching in a Tahoe Basin Watershed Published in J. Environ. Qual. 

35:479–489. 

Murphy, K., Rich, T., and T. Sexton. 2007. An Assessment of Fuel Treatment Effects on Fire Behavior, 

Suppression Effectiveness, and Structure Ignition on the Angora Fire. United States Department of 

Agriculture R5-TP-025, August 2007. 

Nagel, T. A. and A. H. Taylor. 2005. Fire and persistence of montane chaparral in mixed conifer forest 

landscapes in the northern Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe Basin, California, USA. Journal of the Torrey 

Botanical Society. 132:3 442-457. 

The National Invasive Species Council (NISC). 2008. National Invasive Species Management Plan (2008-

2012). Washington D.C.: NISC. 

National Research Council. 2011. Climate stabilization targets: emissions, concentrations, and impacts over 

decades to millennia. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA. 

Natureserve: A Network Connecting Science with Conservation. 2011. [Online]. NatureServe Arlington, 

VA. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/. [2011, December 19]. 

NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. 

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: December 

22, 2011). 

Neary, D.G., Ryan, K.C. and L.F. DeBano, eds. 2005. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems; Effects of Fire on Soil 

and Water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 p. 

Negron, J. F., J. D. McMillin, J. A. Anhold, and D. Coulson. 2009. Bark beetle-caused mortality in a 

drought-affected ponderosa pine landscape in Arizona, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 

1353–1362. 

Nevada Department of Agriculture. 2013. Nevada's Noxious Weed Seed Free Certification Program. 

Nevada Natural Heritage Program. 2006. Nevada rare plant and lichen list. Carson City, NV. Available at: 

http://heritage.nv.gov/ (Accessed 12/9/2011). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-28 ▪ References Cited

Norman, S. 1996a. McKinney Rubicon road monitoring report for 1995. January 1996. USDA Forest 

Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 

Norman, S. 1996b. Watson Creek salvage timber sale water quality monitoring report: water years 1990-

1994. June 1996. USDA Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 

Norman, S. 1997. Wasiu I and Wasiu II Timber Sale: Water Quality Monitoring Report 1980-1995. April 

1997. USDA Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 

Norman, S. 2000. Brockway Salvage Timber Sale water quality monitoring report, water years 1991 

through 1998. November 2000. USDA Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 

Norman, S. 2012. Analysis of Relative Impacts of Blackwood Creek Reach 6 Stream Channel and 

Floodplain Restoration Construction on Sediment Loading from the Blackwood Watershed during the 

2009 and 2010 Water Years. USDA Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Ecosystem 

Conservation Department. 

Norman S, C. Oehrli. And D. Immeker. 2009 Cookhouse Meadow Restoration Monitoring Report. Lake 

Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

North, M., M. Hurteau, and J. Innes. 2009. Fire suppression and fuels treatment effects on mixed-conifer 

carbon stocks and emissions. Ecological Applications, 19(6): 1385-1396, 2009. 

North, M., P. Stine, K. O’Hara, W. Zielinski, and S. Stephens. 2009. An ecosystem management strategy 

for Sierran mixed-conifer mixed-conifer forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 p. 

Norton, J.B., T.A. Monaco, J.M. Norton, D.A. Johnson, and T. A. Jones. 2004. Soil morphology and 

organic matter dynamics under cheatgrass and sagebush-steppe plant communities. Journal of Arid 

Environments 57:445-466. 

Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators of monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology. 4: 

355-364. – trying to track down (was from George Washington NF documents) 

Noss, R.F. 1995. The ecological effects of roads, or the road to destruction, pp. 11-21. Unpublished Report. 

Wildlands CPR, U.S.A. 

NSW Department of Primary Industries. 2006. Reducing the impact of road crossings on aquatic habitat in 

coastal waterways – Northern Rivers, NSW. Report to the New South Wales Environmental Trust. NSW 

Department of Primary Industries, Wollongbar, NSW. 

Nunery, J.S., and W.S. Keeton. 2010. Forest carbon storage in the northeastern United States: net effects of 

harvesting frequency, post-harvest retention, and wood products. Forest Ecology and Management 259: 

1363-1375. 

Ode, P.R. 2007a. Ecological condition assessment of California’s perennial wadeable streams. Report to the 

State Water Resources Control Board’s Non-Point Source Program. California Department of Fish and 

Game Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory, Rancho Cordova, California. 42 pp. Available at 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/docs/reports/cmap_conditionassessment.pdf 

Ode, P.R. 2007b. Standard Operating Procedures for Collecting Benthic Macroinvertebrate Samples and 

Associated Physical and Chemical Data for Ambient Bioassessments in California. California State 

Water Resources Control Board Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioassessment 

SOP 001. Available at http://swamp.mpsl.mlml.calstate.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2009/04/swamp_sop_bioassessment_collection_020107.pdf 

Ode, P.R. and K. Schiff. 2009. Recommendations for the development and maintenance of a reference 

condition management program (RCMP) to support biological assessment of California’s wadeable 

streams. Report to the State Water Resources Control Board’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring 

Program (SWAMP), Sacramento, CA. Available at 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/docs/qamp/wadestreams_rcmpfinal.pdf . 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-29 

Oehrli C. and S. Norman, 2009. Interim Monitoring Report for Blackwood Creek Restoration Phase I and 

II:Fish Ladder Removal and Barker Pass Road Crossing Replacement. Lake Tahoe Basin Management 

Unit. 

Olin, E. 2009. 2008 Annual Invasive Weed Report for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. USDA 

Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, South Lake Tahoe, CA. 

Olin, E. 2010. Annual Invasive Weed Report for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Unpub. On file 

at: South Lake Tahoe, CA: USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 

Oliver. A.A., M.T. Bogan, D.B. Herbst, R.A. Dahlgren. 2012. Short-term changes in-stream 

macroinvertebrate communities following a severe fire in the Lake Tahoe Basin, California. 

Hydrobiologia, June (II) 689. 

Omi, P. N. and E. J. Martinson 2002. Effect of Fuels Treatment on Wildfire Severity. Western Forest Fire 

Research Center, Colorado State University. 

Oregon Institute for Natural Resources (INR). 2007. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon. 

[Online:] Portland, OR: INR and Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center Available at 

http://oregonstate.edu/ornhic/2004_t&e_book.pdf (Accessed 2008, August 12). 

Ornduff, R., P. M. Faber, T. Keeler-Wolf, and P. Gaede. 2003. Introduction to California Plant Life, Revised 

Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Ottmar, R. 2001. Smoke Source Character. In Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire 

2001 edition. Edited by Hardy.C., Ottmar, R., Peterson, J., Core, J., Seaman, P. National Wildfire 

Coordination Group. NFES 1279. pp226. 

Pacala, S., and R. Socolow. 2004. Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years 

with Current Technologies. Science, 305, 968 (2004), DOI: 10.1126/science.1100103. 

Page-Dumroese, D.S., M.F. Jurgensen, A.E. Tiarks, F. Ponder, Jr., F.G. Sanchez, R.L. Fleming, J.M. 

Kranabetter, R.F. Powers, D.M. Stone, J.D. Elioff, and D.A. Scott. Soil physical property changes at 

the North American Long-Term Soil Productivity study sites: 1 and 5 years after compaction. Can. J. 

For. Res. 36: 551–564 (2006). 

Pallid Bat Recovery Team. 2008. Recovery Strategy for the Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) in British 

Columbia. Prepared for the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria B.C. 18 pp. 

Pardo, L.H., M.E. Fenn, CL. Goodale, et al.. 2011. Effects of nitrogen deposition and empirical nitrogen 

critical loads for ecoregions of the United States. Ecological Applications, 21(8), 2011, pp. 3049–3082. 

Ithaca, NY: Ecological Society of America. 

Parameter, J. and B. Uhrenholdt. 1975. Some Effects of Pine Needles or Grass Smoke on Fungi. 

Phytopathology. Vol 65:28-31 

Parendes, L.A., and J.A. Jones. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion along 

roads and streams in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conservation Biology 14(1):64-

75. 

Parmesan. C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual review of 

Ecology and Systematics. 37: 637-669. 

Parmesan, C. and G. Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural 

systems. Nature. 421: 37-42. 

Parmeter, J.R., Jr. and B. Uhrenholdt. 1974. Some Effects of Pine-Needle or Grass Smoke on Fungi. 

Phytopathology 65:28-31. 

Pauchard, A., C. Kueffer, H. Dietz, C.C. Daehler, J. Alexander, P.J. Edwards, J.R. Arevalo, L.A. Cavieres, 

A. Guisan, S. Haider, G. Jakobs, K. McDougall, C. I Millar, B.J. Naylor, C.G. Parks, L.J. Raw, and T. 

Seibel. 2009. Isn’t no mountain high enough: plant invasions reaching new elevations. Frontiers in 

Ecology and the Environment. (7) [Online] Available at: http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/31764 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-30 ▪ References Cited

Pavlik, B. et al. 2002. Conservation Strategy for Tahoe Yellow Cress (Rorippa susubumbellata). Tahoe 

Regional Planning Agency, Lake Tahoe, NV. Online: http://heritage.nv.gov/reports/rosu_CS.pdf, 

Accessed: July, 12 2011. 

Peery, M. Z., R. J. Gutiérrez, R. Kirby, O. E. LeDee, and W. LaHaye. 2012. Climate change and spotted 

owls: potentially contrasting responses in the Southwestern United States. Global Change Biology 

18:865-880. 

Perrine, J.D. 2005. Ecology of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in the Lassen Peak region of California, USA. Ph.D. 

Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. 251pp. 

Perrine, J. D., L. A. Campbell. G. A. Green. 2010. Sierra Nevada red Fox (Vulpes vulpes necator): A 

Conservation Assessment. US Department of Agriculture General Technical Report R5-FR-010. 42 pp. 

Peterson, A. 1986. Habitat suitability index models (breeding season). US Dept. Inter. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 

Biol. Rep. 82(10.126). 25 pp. 

Piaggio, A. 2005. Western Bat Working Group Species Account (Corynorhinus townsendii) Townsend’s 

big-eared bat. http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/coto.pdf 

Piotrowski J.S., S.L. Annis, J.E. Longcore. 2004. Physiology of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, a chytrid 

pathogen of amphibians. Mycologia 96: 9–15. 

Point Blue Conservation Science. Date Unknown. Bioregional Management Indicator Species. Sierra 

Nevada Avian Monitoring Information Network. http://data.prbo.org/apps/snamin/. May 23, 2013. 

Postovit, H. R., and B. C. Postovit. 1987. Impacts and mitigation techniques. Pages 183–213 In: Pendleton, 

G., B. A. Millsap, K. W. Cline, et al (eds). Raptor management techniques manual. National Wildllife 

Federation, Washington, D.C. 

Potito, A.P., and S.W. Beatty. 2005. Impacts of recreation trails on exotic and ruderal species distribution in 

grassland areas along the Colorado Front Range. Environmental Management 36:230-236. 

Potter, D.A. 1998. Forested communities of the upper montane in the central and southern Sierra Nevada. 

General Technical Report PSW-GTR-169. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

Albany, CA. 

Potyondy J, and T Geier. 2011. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide, FS-978. USDA 

Forest Service. 

Potyondy J et. al. 2011. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide, FS-977. USDA Forest 

Service. 

Powers, R. F., D.A. Scott, F.G. Sanchez, R.A. Voldseth, D. Page-Dumroese, J.D. Elioff, and D. M. Stone. 

2005. The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: Findings from the first decade of 

research. Forest Ecology and Management 220 (2005) 31–50. 

Price, M.J. 1985. Impacts of recreational activities on alpine vegetation in western North America. 

Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1985, pp. 263-277. 

Public Law 96-586 (Santini-Burton Act) of December 23, 1980. 

Purcell, K.L., C.M. Thompson, and W.J. Zielinski. 2012. Fishers and American Martens in PSW-GTR-237 

Managing Sierra Nevada Forests, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

Quinn, T.R., C.D. Canham, K.C. Weathers, et al. 2009. Increased Tree Carbon Storage in Response to 

Nitrogen Deposition in the US. Nature Geoscience 3 (2009): 13-17. 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n1/full/ngeo721.html 

Quiñones, R. M,, and T. J. Mulligan. 2005. Habitat use by juvenile salmonids in the Smith River estuary, 

California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134 (5):1147-1158. 

Raddum G.G., and A. Fjellheim. 1984. Acidification and early warning organisms in freshwater in western 

Norway. International Association of Theoretical and Applied Limnology 22: 1973-1980. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-31 

Radosevich, S. Plant Invasions and Their Management, Chapter 3. In: CIPM Online Invasive Plant 

Management Textbook. OR: Corvalis. Oregon State University. Available at: 

http://www.weedcenter.org/textbook/pdf_toc.html (Accessed 11/21/2009). 

Rambaldini, D. 2005. Species account for the pallid bat (2005 update on the 1998 account by R. Sherwin). 

Western Bat Working Group. 

Randall, J.M., M. Rejmánek, and J.C. Hunter. 1998. Characteristics of the exotic flora of California. 

Fremontia 26:3-12. 

Raphael, M. G. and L. L. C. Jones. 1997. Characteristics of resting and denning sites of American marten in 

central Oregon and western Washington pages 146-165 in Proulx, G., H. N. Bryant, and P. M. 

Woodward (eds). Marten: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. Provincial Muse-um of 

Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 

Rasmussen, C., Southard, R.J., and W.R. Horwath. 2008. Litter type and soil minerals control temperate 

forest soil carbon response to climate change Global Change Biology (2008) 14, 2064–2080. 

Rauscher, S. A., J. S. Pal, N. S. Diffenbaugh, M. M. Benedetti. 2008. Future changes in snowmelt-driven 

runoff timing over the western US. Geophysical Research Letters 35, L16703. 

Reah, D. et al. 2005. Polycyclic Aromatic hydrocarbons in water, sediment, and snow, from Lakes In Grant 

Teton National Park, Wyoming. USGS-CERC-91344. WY: Jackson. 

Reed, C. 2007. 2006 Annual Invasive Weed Report for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. USFS 

internal document. 8 pp. 

Reed, C. 2008. 2007 Annual Invasive Weed Report for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. USFS 

internal document. 11 pp. 

Reed, C. 2009. 2008 Annual Invasive Weed Report for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. USFS 

internal document. 26 pp. 

Reed, C. 2009. 2009 Annual Invasive Weed Report for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. USFS 

internal document. 21 pp. 

Regan, K. 2004. The Need for a Comprehensive Approach to Protecting Rare Plants: Florida as a Case 

Study. Natural Resources Journal 44:125-162. 

Rehn, A.C. 2009. Benthic macroinvertebrates as indicators of biological condition below hydropower dams 

on west slope Sierra Nevada streams, California, USA. River Research and Applications 25:208-228. 

Relyea, C.D., G.W. Minshall and R.J. Danehy. 2012. Development and validation of an aquatic fine 

sediment biotic index. Environmental Management 49:242–252. 

Renz, M.J. 2005. Perennial pepperweed, Lepidium latifolium L. Alaska Natural Heritage Program, 

Environment and Natural Resources Institute, University of Alaska Anchorage.. Available at: 

http://akweeds.uaa.alaska.edu/pdfs/potential_species/bios/Species_bios_LELA.pdf 

Resh, S.C, L.A. Joyce, and M.G. Ryan. 2007 Fuel Treatments by Mulching – A Synthesis of the Ecological 

Impacts. [Online:] Fort Collins, CO: Department of Forest, Rangeland, and Watershed Stewardship. 

Available at: 

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~mryan/Publications/Resh_Joyce_Ryan_Mulching_Ecol_Effects_WJAF_Sub

mitted.pdf 

Resh, V.H. and D.G. Price. 1984. Sequential sampling: a cost-effective approach for monitoring benthic 

macroinvertebrates in environmental impact assessments. Environmental Management 8:75-80. 

Resh, V.H. and D.M. Rosenberg. 1989. Spatial-temporal variability and the study of aquatic insects. 

Canadian Entomologist 121:941-963. 

Ribe, T., and T. Ingalsbee. 2011. Smoke Signals: The Need for Public Tolerance and Regulatory Relief for 

Wildland Smoke Emissions. Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology (FUSEE) August 2011. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-32 ▪ References Cited

Rich, A. 2007. Territory status of California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) following fuel 

reduction treatments: management case studies from the Stanislaus National Forest, Poster presented at 

Raptor Research Foundation. 

Richardson, T. W. 2007. Avian use, nest-site selection, and nesting success in Sierra Nevada Aspen. Ph.D. 

Dissertation. University of Nevada, Reno, NV. 

Richardson, T. W., D.S. K. Heath. 2004. Effects of conifers on aspen-breeding bird communities in the 

Sierra Nevada. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 39: 68-81. 

Rieman, Bruce E. and Isaac, Daniel J. 2010. Climate change, aquatic ecosystems, and fishes in the Rocky 

Mountain West: implications and alternatives for management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-250. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 46p. 

Rinne, J.N. 1988. Effects of livestock grazing exclosure on aquatic macroinvertebrates in a montane 

stream, New Mexico. Great Basin Nat. 48:146-153. 

Rippy, Raini C.; Stewart, Jane E.; Zambino, Paul J.; Klopfenstein, Ned B.; Tirocke, Joanne M.; Kim, MeeSook; Thies, Walter G. 2005. Root diseases in coniferous forests of the Inland West: potential 

implications of fuels treatments. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-141. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 32 p. 

Risser, R. J. and M. E. Fry. 1988. Montane Chaparral. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/pdfs/MCP.pdf 

Rixen, C., Stoeckli, V., and W. Ammann. 2003. Does artificial snow production affect soil and vegetation 

of ski pistes? A review. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, Vol 5/4, 219-230 

(2003). 

Roberts, L. Jay. 2013. Personal Comm. Sierra Nevada MIS Forest-specific population distribution data. 

April 12, 2013. 

Roberts, S. and M. North. 2012. California Spotted Owls. Chapter 5 in PSW-GTR-237 Managing Sierra 

Nevada Forests, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

Roberts, S. L., J. W. van Wagtendonk, A. K. Miles, D. A. Kelt. 2011. Effects of fire on spotted owl site 

occupancy in a late-successional forest. Biological Conservation. 144: 610-619. 

Robichaud P, Beyers JL, Neary DG. 2000. Evaluating the effectiveness of post-fire rehabilitation 

treatments.USDAForest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRSGTR-63. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Rogers, J. A. Jr. and H. T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds 

from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 25(1):139-145. 

Rollins-Smith L.A., J.M. Conlon. 2005. Antimicrobial peptide defenses against chytridiomycosis, an 

emerging infectious disease of amphibian populations. Dev Comp Immunol 29: 589–598. 

Root, T. L., J. T. Price, K. R. Hall, S. H. Schneider, C. Rosenzweig, and J. A. Pounds. 2003. Fingerprints of 

global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature (421): 57-60. 

Rothermel, R. C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. GTR INT-143. 

Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. GTR-INT-143. 161 p. 

Rotta, G. W. 2011. Assessment of Impacts of the Moonlight Fire on Sensitive Wildlife Species Habitat, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, unpublished report. 29 pp 

Rowe, C.J., D. Uzes, and B.E. Engelhardt. 2013. Initial Assessment of Invasive Plant Introduction and 

Spread after Project Implementation, Unpublished report on file at:. USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe 

Basin Management Unit, South Lake Tahoe, Ca. 

Rowe, H.I., Brown, C.S., and M. W. Paschke. 2008. The Influence of Soil Inoculum and Nitrogen 

Availability on Restoration of High-Elevation Steppe Communities Invaded by Bromus tectorum 

Restoration Ecology Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 686–694. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-33 

Ruggiero, L. F., E. Pearson and S. E. Henry. 1998. Characteristics of American marten den sites in 

Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 62 (2): 663-673. 

Ryan, Maria. 1998. Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) in southern Nevada. University of 

Nevada Cooperative Extension. Reno, NV. www.unce.unr.edu/tallwhitetop/. 

Saab, V.A., R. E. Russell, J. G. Dudley. 2009. Nest-site selection by cavity nesting birds in relation to 

postfire salvage logging. Forest Ecology and Management, 257: 151-159. 

Safford, H.D. 2010. A summary of current trends and probable future trends in climate and climate-driven 

processes in the Lake Tahoe Basin and the neighboring Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region Ecology Program (Dec 15, 2010), Vallejo, CA. Online at: 

http://fsweb.r5.fs.fed.us/program/ecology/. 

Safford, H. D., G. Hayward, N. E. Heller, and J. Wiens. 2012 (in press). Historical ecology, climate change 

and resource management: can the past still inform the future? Pages __, in: J. Wiens, G. Hayward, H. 

Safford, and C. Giffen (eds). Historical environmental variation in conservation and natural resource 

management: Past, present and future. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 

Safford, H.D., K. van de Water, and D. Schmidt. 2011. California Fire Return Interval Departure (FRID) 

map, 2010 version. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region and The Nature ConservancyCalifornia. URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/clearinghouse/r5gis/frid/ 

Safford, H. D., J. Miller, D. Schmidt, B. Roath, A. Parsons. 2008. BAER soil burn severity maps do not 

measure fire effects to vegetation. A comment on Odion and Hanson (2006). Ecosystems 11: 1-11. 

Safford, H. D., and D. A. Schmidt. 2007. Historic reference condition mapping: Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, Regional Ecology Program, and 

The Nature Conservancy, California. Vallejo, CA. 20 pp. 

Safford, H. D., D. A. Schmidt, and C.H. Carlson. 2009. Effects of fuel treatments on fire severity in 

 an area of wildland–urban interface, Angora Fire, Lake Tahoe Basin, California. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 258(5):773-787. 

Sands, R., Greacen, E.L., and Gerard, C.J. 1979. Compaction of sandy soils in radiata pine forests: I. A 

penetrometer study. Aust. J. Soil Res. 17: 101–113. 

Saracco, J.F., R.B. Siegel, and R.L. Wilkerson. 2011. Occupancy modeling of black-blacked woodpeckers 

on burned Sierra Nevada forests. Ecosphere 2(3): art31. doi:10.1890/ES10-00132.1. 

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2007. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and 

Analysis 1966 - 2006. Version 10.13.2007. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. 

Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf, 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, 

Sacramento, California. 

Scheller, R.M., W.D. Spencer, H. Rustigian-Romsos, A.D. Syphard, B.R. Ward, J.R. Strittholt. 2011. Using 

stochastic simulation to evaluate competing risks of wildfires and fuels management on an isolated 

forest carnivore. Landscape Ecology 26: 1491-1504. 

Schlesinger, M. D., P. N. Manley, M. Holyoak. 2008. Distinguishing stressors acting on land bird 

communities in an urbanizing environment. Ecology 89(8): 2302 -2314. 

Science Advisory Team. 2011. Scientific Assessment of Yellowstone National Park Winter Use. Prepared in 

support of the Yellowstone National Park Winter Use Plan. 190pp. 

Scott, E. B. 1957. The Saga of Lake Tahoe. Volume I. Crystal Bay: Sierra-Tahoe Publishing Company. 

Scott, J.H. and E.D. Reinhardt. 2001. Assessing Crown Fire Potential by Linking Models of Surface and 

Crown Fire Behavior. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Research Paper RMRSRP-29. 

Scott, M. L., S. K. Skagen, and M. F. Merigliano. 2003. Relating geomorphic change and grazing to avian 

communities in riparian forests. Conservation Biology 17: 284-296. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-34 ▪ References Cited

Society for Ecological Restoration International (SER). 2004. SER International Primer on Ecological 

Restoration, Version 2, October, 2004. Science & Policy Working Group. 

http://www.ser.org/resources/resources-detail-view/ser-international-primer-on-ecologicalrestoration#3. Accessed 13 September, 2013. 

Seamans, M. E., J. Corcoran, and A. Rex. 2004. Southernmost record of a spotted owl x barred owl hybrid 

in the Sierra Nevada. Western Birds 35:173-174. 

Seamans, M. E. and R. J. Gutiérrez. 2007. Habitat selection in a changing environment: the relationship 

between habitat alteration and spotted owl territory occupancy and breeding dispersal. The Condor 109: 

566-576. 

Sears, C.L. 2006. Assessing distribution, habitat suitability, and site occupancy of great gray owls (Strix 

nebulosa) in California. M.S. Thesis, University of California, Davis. 88pp. 

Sheley, Roger L. and Janet K. Petroll, eds. 1999. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis OR. 438 pp. 

Shepperd, W. D., P. C. Rogers, D. Burton, D. L. Bartos. 2001. Ecology, Biodviersity, Management, and 

Restoration of Aspen in the Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain research Station 

General technical report RMRS-GTR-178. 

Sheppard, W.D., P.C. Rogers, D. Burton, and D.L. Bartos. 2006. Ecology, Biodiversity, Management, and 

Restoration of Aspen in the Sierra Nevada. RMRS General Technical, RMRS-GTR-178 Report. 

Shetter, D.S. 1961. Survival of brook trout from egg to fingerling state in two Michigan trout streams. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 90: 252-258. 

Shimamoto, K. 1988. White fir. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship. 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/pdfs/WFR.pdf 

Siegel, R.B. and D.F. DeSante. 1999. Version 1.0. The draft avian conservation plan for the Sierra Nevada 

Bioregion: conservation priorities and strategies for safeguarding Sierra bird populations. Institute for 

Bird Populations report to California Partners in Flight. Available on-line: 

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/sierra.html. 

Siegel, R. B., J. F. Saracco, and R. L. Wilkerson. 2010. Management indicator species (MIS) surveys on 

Sierra Nevada national forests: Black-backed Woodpecker. 2009 annual report. Report to USFS Pacific 

Southwest Region. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA. PDF 

Siegel, R.B., M.W. Tingley, and R.L. Wilkerson. 2011. Black-backed Woodpecker MIS Surveys on Sierra 

Nevada National Forests: 2010 Annual Report. The Institute for Bird Populations’ Sierra Nevada Bird 

Observatory. 65pp. 

Siegel, R. B., M. W. Tingley, and R. L. Wilkerson. 2012. Black-backed Woodpecker MIS Surveys on Sierra 

Nevada National Forests: 2011 Annual Report. Report to USFS Pacific Southwest Region. The Institute 

for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA. PDF 

Siegel, R. B., M. W. Tingley, and R. L. Wilkerson. 2011. Black-backed Woodpecker MIS surveys on Sierra 

Nevada National Forests: 2010 annual report. Report to USFS Pacific Southwest Region. The Institute 

for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA. PDF 

Siegel, R. B., M. W. Tingley, R. L. Wilkerson, M. L. Bond, and C. A. Howell. 2013. Assessing home range 

size and habitat needs of Black-backed Woodpeckers in California: Report for the 2011 and 2012 field 

seasons. Report to USFS Pacific Southwest Region. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes 

Station, CA. 

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP). 1996. Summary of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Report 

(Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996). 

Sierra Nevada Research Center. 2007. Plumas Lassen Study 2006 Annual Report. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, Sierra Nevada Research Center, Davis, California. 182pp. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-35 

Sierra Nevada Research Center. 2008. Plumas Lassen Study 2007 Annual Report. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, Sierra Nevada Research Center, Davis, California. 310pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/snrc/forest_health/plas_annual_report_2007.pdf 

Sierra Nevada Research Center. 2009. Plumas Lassen Study 2008 Annual Report. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, Sierra Nevada Research Center, Davis, California. 223pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/ecosystem_processes/sierra/forest_health/plas/plas_annual_report_200

8.pdf 

Sierra Nevada Research Center. 2010. Plumas Lassen Study 2009 Annual Report. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, Sierra Nevada Research Center, Davis, California. 184pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/ecosystem_processes/sierra/forest_health/plas/plas_annual_report_200

9.pdf 

Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: Is single-species management passé in the 

landscape era? Biological Conservation 83(3): 247-257. 

Sikes, K., D. Roach, J. Evens. 2011. Plant Community Characterization and Ranking of Fens in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. Available at: 

http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/pdf/tahoe_basin_fen-sikes2011.pdf. 

Skerratt L.F., L. Berger, R. Speare, S. Cashins, K.R. McDonald, A.D. Phillott, et al. 2007. Spread of 

chytridiomycosis has caused the rapid global decline and extinction of frogs. EcoHealth 4: 125–134. 

Skinner, C. N., J. H. Burk, M. G. Barbour, E. Franco-Vizcaíno, and S. L. Stephens. 2008. Influences of 

climate on fire regimes in montane forests of north-western Mexico. Journal of Biogeography. Volume 

35, Issue 8, pages 1436–1451. 

Skinner, C.N.; Chang, C. 1996. Fire regimes, past and present. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final 

report to Congress, Vol. II. Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Water Resources 

Center Report No. 37. Davis, CA: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California; 

1041-1069. 

Slauson, K. M. 2011. Personal Communication. (September 9). Email with USDA Forest Service Wildlife 

Biologist Stephanie Coppeto regarding status of martens in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 

Slauson, K.M. 2013. Personal Communication. March 22. Email exchange with Stephanie Coppeto 

(wildlife biologist at Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit) regarding comments on the Limited 

Operating Period for marten and importance of female reproductive habitat. 

Slauson, K.M., W. T. Zielinski, J.P. Hayes. 2007. Habitat selection by American Martens in Coastal 

California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(2): 458-468. 

Slauson, K.M. and W. J. Zielinksi. 2008. A Review of the effects of forest thinning and fuels reduction on 

American martens (Martes Americana) pertinent to the southern cascades region of California. Final 

Report, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood 

Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA. p. 15 

Smith, G. 1984. A flora of the Tahoe basin and neighboring areas and supplement. University of San 

Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 

Smith, H.A., Johnson, W.S., Shonkwiler, J.S., and S. R. Swanson. 1999. The implications of variable or 

constant expansion rates in invasive weed infestations. Weed Science 47: 62-66. 

Smith, T.F.; D.M. Rizzo, and M. North. 2005. Patterns of mortality in an old-growth mixed-conifer forest of 

the southern Sierra Nevada, California. Forest Science. 51: 266-275. 

Smucker, K.M., R.L. Hutto, B.M. Steele. 2005. Changes in bird abundance after wildfire: importance of 

fire severity and time since fire. Ecological applications 15(5):1535-1549. 

Spencer, W. and H. Rustigian-Romsos. 2012. Decision-Support Maps and Recommendation for Conserving 

rare Carnivores in the interior mountains of California. Conservation Biology Institute. August 2012. 

http://consbio.org/products/reports/decision-support-maps-and-recommendations-conserving-rarecarnivores-interior-mountains-california 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-36 ▪ References Cited

Sohi, S., E. Lopez-Capel, E. Krull, et al. 2009. Biochar, Climate Change and Soil: A Review to Guide 

Future Research. CSIRO Land and Water Science Report (2009). 

Solomon, A.M. 2008. Forests and global climate change. Compass 10: 1-2. 

Springsteen, B., T. Christofk, S. Eubanks, et al. 2011. Emission Reductions from Woody Biomass Waste for 

Energy as an Alternative to Open Burning, Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 

Volume 61, 63-68, 2011. 

Stalmaster, M.V. and J.L. Kaiser. 1998. Effects of recreational activities on wintering bald eagles. Wildlife 

Monographs 137 

Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral Responses of Wintering Bald Eagles to Human 

Activity. Journal of Wildlife Management, 42 (3): 506-513. 

Stam, B.R., J.C. Malechek, D.L. Bartos, J. E. Bowns, E. B. Godfrey. 2008. Effect of conifer encroachment 

into aspen stands on understory biomass. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 61: 93-97. 

Stanley, T. R. and F. L. Knopf. 2002. Avian responses to late-season grazing in a shrub-willow floodplain. 

Conservation Biology 16:225-231. 

Stark, D. T., D. L. Wood, A. J. Storer, and S. L. Stephens. 2013. Prescribed fire and mechanical thinning 

effects on bark beetle caused tree mortality in a mid-elevation Sierran mixed-conifer forest. Forest 

Ecology and Management 306: 61-67. 

Stebbins, R.C. 1966. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company, 

Boston, Massachusetts. 

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin 

Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 

Steger, G., L. Werner, and T. Munton. 2006. First documented record of the barred owl in the southern 

Sierra Nevada. Western Birds 37:106-109. 

Stephens, S.L. 2004. Fuel loads, snag abundance, and snag recruitment in an unmanaged Jeffrey pine–

mixed conifer forest in northwestern Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 199: 103–113. 

Stephens, S.L., D.L. Fry, and E/ Franco-Vizcaíno. 2008. Wildfire and spatial patterns in forests in 

northwestern Mexico: the United States wishes it had similar fire problems. Ecol. Soc. [serial online], 

13(2): 10. Online at: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art10/ 

Stephens, S.L., D.L. Fry, E. Franco-Vizcaíno, B.M. Collins, and J.M. Moghaddas. 2007. Coarse woody 

debris and canopy cover in an old-growth Jeffrey pine-mixed conifer forest from the Sierra San Pedro 

Martir, Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 240: 87–95. 

Stephens, S. L. and P. Z. Fulé. 2005. Western pine forests with continuing frequent fire regimes: possible 

reference sites for management. Journal of Forestry Oct/Nov: 357-362. 

Stephens, S.L., and Gill, S.J. 2005. Forest structure and mortality in an old-growth Jeffrey pine-mixed 

conifer forest in north-western Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 205: 15–28. 

Stephens, S.L., R.E. Martin, and N.E. Clinton. 2007. Prehistoric fire area and emissions from California’s 

forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. Forest Ecology and Management 251: 205-216. 

Stephens, S.L., R.E. Martin, and N.E. Clinton. 2007. Prehistoric Fire Area and Emissions from California’s 

Forests, Woodlands, Shrublands, and Grasslands, Forest Ecology and Management. 2007, 251, 205-216. 

Stephens, S.L., C.I. Millar, and B.M. Collins. 2010. Operational approaches to managing forests of the 

future in Mediterranean regions within a context of changing climates. Environmental Research Letters 

5 (2010) 024003 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024003. 

Stephens, S.L., J.J. Moghaddas. 2004. Fuel treatment effects on snags and coarse woody debris in a Sierra 

Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management Vol. 214: 

53–64 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-37 

Stephens, S.L. and J.J. Moghaddas. 2005. Fuel treatment effects on snags and coarse woody debris in a 

Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 214: 53-64. 

Stephens, S.L., J.J. Moghaddas, C. Edminster, C.E. Fiedler, S. Hasse, M. Harrington, J.E. Keeley, E.E. 

Knapp, J.D. McIver, K. Melton, C.N. Skinner, and A. Youngblood. 2009. Fire treatment effects on 

vegetation structure, fuels, and potential fire severity in western U.S. forests. Ecological Applications 

19(2), 305-320. 

Stephens, S. L., C.N. Skinner, and S.J. Gill. 2003. Dendrochronology-based fire history of Jeffrey pinemixed conifer forests in the Sierra San Pedro Martir, Mexico. Canadian Journal of Forestry 33: 1090-

1101. 

Stephenson, J., and G. Calcarone. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: habitat 

and species conservation issues. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-PSW-175. US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. Albany, CA. 402 pages. 

Stephenson, N.L., C. I. Millar, and D.N. Cole. 2010. Shifting environmental foundations: the 

unprecedented and unpredictable future. Pp. 50-66, in: D. N. Cole and L. Yung (eds). Beyond 

naturalness: rethinking park and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change. Island Press, 

Washington, DC. 

Stevens, D.L., Jr. and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially Balanced Sampling of Natural Resources Journal of the 

American Statistical Association 99: 262-278. 

Stevens, R., E.D. McArthur, and J.N. Davis. 1992. Reevaluation of vegetative cover changes, erosion, and 

sedimentation on two watersheds--1912-1983. p. 123-128. In: W.P. Clary, E.D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, 

and C.L. Wambolt (compilers), Proceedings-Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub 

communities. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289. 

Stewart, I.T., D. R. Cayan, and M. D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes toward earlier stream flow timing across 

western North America. Journal of Climate 18: 1136-1155. 

Stoddart, L.A., and A. Smith. 1955. Range management, 2nd Ed, McGraw-Hill Book Co., NY, 433 pp. 

Stralberg, D., D. Jongsomjit, C. A. Howell, M. A. Snyder and J. D. Alexander. 2009. Re-shuffling of 

species with climate disruption: a no-analog future for California birds? PLoS ONE 4(9): e6825. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006825. 

Strong, D. H. 1984. Tahoe: An Environmental History. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1999. Tahoe: 

From Timber Barons to Ecologists. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 

Stuart, S.N., J.S. Chanson, N.A. Cox, B.E. Young, A.S.L. Rodriques, D.L. Fischman, R.W. Waller. 2004. 

Status and Trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306: 1783-1786. 

Stuber, R.J. 1985. Trout habitat, abundance, and fishing opportunities in fenced vs. unfenced riparian 

habitat along sheep creek, Colorado. p. 310-314. In: R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, and others 

(tech. coords.), Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest 

Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-120. 

Sudder, B.C., L.C. Chasar, D.A. Wentz, et al. 2009. Mercury in fish, bed sediment, and water from streams 

across the United States, 1998-2005: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2009. 

Sugihara N. G., J. W. van Wagtendonk, K. E. Shaffer,J. Fites-Kaufman, and A. E. Thode (eds). 2006. Fire 

in California’s ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Sullivan, J., K. Bollinger, A. Caprio, M. Cantwell, et al. 2011. Enhanced sorption of PAHs in natural fireimpacted sediments from Oriole Lake (CA), Environ Sci Technol 2011, 45, 2626-2633. 

Swanson, 2006. Big Meadow Watershed Ecosystem Assessment Report. Prepared for the U.S. Forest 

Service - Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit). 

Swanson Hydrology and Geomorphology. 2004. Upper Truckee River Upper Reach Environmental 

Assessment. Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation, Tahoe Resource Conservation District, and the 

Regional Water Quality Control Board - Lahontan Region. March 23, 2004. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-38 ▪ References Cited

Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology. June 29, 2007. Ecological Assessment Report for High meadow 

Complex for United States Forest Service - Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 

Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology. June 2006. Meeks Creek Watershed Ecosystem Assessment 

Report for United States Forest Service - Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 

Swanson et al. 2003. Blackwood Creek Stream Restoration Project Final Design Report. Prepared for the 

U.S. Forest Service - Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Swetnam, T. W., C. D. Allen, and J. L. Betancourt. 1999. Applied historical ecology: using the past to 

manage for the future. Ecological Applications 9: 1189-1206. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 1987. Regional Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin: Code of 

Ordinances, Rules of Procedures (Chapter 78 &79). Zephyr Cove, NV: Tahoe Regional Planning 

Agency.Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 1988. Water Quality Management Plan for the Lake 

Tahoe Region, Volume III. SEZ Protection and Restoration Program. Zephyr Cove, NV: Tahoe Regional 

Planning Agency. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 1996. Regional Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin: Threshold 

Evaluation. Zephyr Cove, NV: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 1998. Regional Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin: Code of 

Ordinances. Section IX. Resource Management Provisions, Chapter 75: Sensitive and Uncommon Plant 

Protection and Fire Hazard Reduction. The TRPA Special Interest Species are indentified in the TRPA 

Code of Ordinances, Chapters 74 and 75 (TRPA 1987), and the TRPA Regional Plan for the Lake Tahoe 

Basin: Goals and Policies (TRPA 1986), and the TRPA Threshold Evaluation (TRPA 2002). Zephyr 

Cove, NV: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2000. (unpubl.). A GIS habitat model developed by Shane 

Romsos. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2002. Regional Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin: Threshold 

Evaluation. Zephyr Cove, NV: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2004a. Chapter 12 Wildlife, Draft Lake Tahoe Shorezone 

Ordinance Amendments Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), July 2004. Zephyr Cove, NV: 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2004b. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Code of Ordinances. 

Zephyr Cove, NV: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2006. Threshold Evaluation Report. May 2006. Zephyr Cove, 

NV: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2007a. 2006 Threshold Report. Chapter 5. Vegetation. Tahoe 

Regional Planning Agency and USDA Forest Service, Zephyr Cove, Nevada. Available at: 

http://www.trpa.org/default.aspx?tabindex=1&tabid=174 Accessed 12/9/2011. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2007b. Fuel Reduction and Forest Restoration Plan for the Lake 

Tahoe Basin WUI . Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and USDA Forest Service, Zephyr Cove, Nevada. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2011a. Regional Plan Update. Draft Descriptions of Project 

Alternatives, Vegetation Subelements. Available at: 

http://www.trpa.org/documents/rp_update/Draft_PD/1.10.1_Vegetation.pdf 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2011b. Chapter 8 Wildlife in Threshold Evaluation Report 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2012. Code of Ordinances. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

and USDA Forest Service, Zephyr Cove, Nevada. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and USDA Forest Service. 1971a. Fisheries of Lake Tahoe and 

its tributary waters: a guide for planning. Unpublished report. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and 

USDA Forest Service, Zephyr Cove, Nevada. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-39 

Takemoto, B., and T. Procter. 1996. Government Agencies’ Need for Data on Ozone Injury to Western 

Pines. In Miller, P. et al. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW–GTR–155. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 79 p. 

Tausch, R. J., P. E. Wigand, and J. W. Burkhardt. 1993. Plant community thresholds, multiple steady states, 

and multiple successional pathways: legacy of the Quaternary? Journal of Range Management 46: 439-

447. 

Taylor, A. H. 2000. Fire regimes and forest changes in mid and upper montane forests of the southern 

Cascades, Lassen Volcanic National Park, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography 27: 87-104 

Taylor, A. H. 2004. Identifying forest reference conditions on cut-over lands, Lake Tahoe Basin, USA. 

Ecological Applications. 14:1903-1920. 

Taylor, Alan H. 2006. Historic and Future Trends. Forest Changes In Lake Tahoe Basin. USDA Forest 

Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-203. 

Taylor, A. H., and C. N. Skinner. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a late-successional reserve, 

Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 111: 285-301. 

Taylor, A. H., and M. N. Solem. 2001. Fire regimes and stand dynamics in an upper montane forest 

landscape in the southern Cascades, Caribou Wilderness, California. Journal of the Torry Botanical 

Society 128: 350-361. 

Taylor, A.H. 2004. Identifying forest reference conditions on early cut-over lands, Lake Tahoe Basin, USA. 

Ecological Applications 14, 1903–1920. 

Taylor, A. R. and R. L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor perceptions. 

Ecological Applications 13(4): 951-963. 

Taylor, D.W. 1981. Freshwater mollusks of California: a distributional checklist. California Fish and Game 

67:140-163. 

Taylor, A. H., A.M. Vandervlugt, R.S. Maxwell, R.M. Beaty, C. Airey, and C.N. Skinner. 2013. Changes in 

forest structure, fuels and potential fire behavior since 1873 in the Lake Tahoe Basin, USA. Applied 

Vegetation Science. 

Tempel, D.J. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 2013. Relation between occupancy and abundance for a territorial species, 

the California spotted owl. Conservation Biology. 27(5): 1087-1095. 

Thompson, C. M., W. L. Zielinski, K. L. Purcell. 2011. Evaluating management risks using landscape 

trajectory analysis: a case study of California fisher. Journal of Wildlife Management 75 (5): 1164-1176. 

Thurow, R. F., and J. G. King. 1994. Attributes of Yellowstone cutthroat trout redds in a tributary of the 

Snake River, Idaho. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123 (1):37-50. 

Tiarks, A.E., and Haywood, J.D. 1996. Effects of site preparation and fertilization on growth of slash pine 

over two rotations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60: 1654–1663. 

Tiehm, A. 1989. Status report for Arabis rigidissima var. demota. Carson City, NV. Nevada Natural 

Heritage Program. Available at: http://heritage.nv.gov/atlas/arabirigiddemot.pdf 

Tingley, M. W., W. B. Monahan, S. R. Beissinger, C. Moritz. 2009. Birds track their Grinnellian niche 

through a century of climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 19367-

19643. 

Tommasi, D., A. Miro, H. A. Higo and M. L. Winston. 2004. Bee diversity and abundance in an urban 

setting. The Canadian Entomologist 136: 851–869. 

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic 

communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30. 

Trumbore, S.E. and C.I. Czimczik. 2008. An uncertain future for soil carbon. Science. Vol 321, p 1455-56. 

www.sciencemag.org. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-40 ▪ References Cited

Tu, Mandy, Callie Hurd, and John M. Randall. 2001. Weed control methods handbook: tools and 

techniques for use in natural areas. Wildland Invasive Species Program. The Nature Conservancy. 

http://www.invasive.org/gist/handbook.html. 

Unger, N., and L. Pan. 2012. New Directions. Enduring Ozone. Atm. Environ. 456-458. 

Ulery, A. L. and R. C. Graham. 1993. Forest fire effects on soil color and texture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 57:11 

135-140 (1993). 

U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President. D.C.: 

Washington. December 10, 1997. 

U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2010. February 18, 2010 Memorandum for Heads of 

Federal Departments and Agencies. From Nancy Sutley, Chair, CEQ. 

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/Consideration_of_Effects_of_GHG_Draft_NEPA_Guidance_FINAL_

02182010.pdf 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2001. Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative 

Employment. Washington D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Civil Rights. Pp. 14. 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2007. Soil survey of the Tahoe Basin Area, 

California and Nevada. Accessible online at: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/printed_surveys/. 

USDA Forest Service. 1973. National forest landscape management, Volume 1. USDA Forest Service, 

Agriculture Handbook 434. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 

USDA Forest Service. 1982. ROS Users Guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service; 37p. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture 

Handbook No. 701. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Forest Service Handbook 2080. National Foest Resource Management 

Noxious Weed Management, U.S.D.A. Forest Service Washington, D.C. 

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Biological Evaluation and Assessment and impact analysis check list. Updated 

January 1996 by John C. Robinson. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA. 16 

pages. 

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Eight Eastside Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Report and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Tahoe National Forest and Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 

Pacific Southwest Region, July 1998. 

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Stemming the Invasive Tide: Forest Service Strategy for Noxious and 

Nonnative Invasive Plant Management. Washington D.C. 31 pp. 

USDA Forest Service 2000a. Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California: Best 

Management Practices. Pacific Southwest Region, September 2000. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000b. Region 5 Noxious Weed Strategy. Page 14 in P. S. R. (R5), editor., Vallejo, 

CA. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001a. Pacific Southwest Region: Noxious Weed Strategy and Plan; 

http://fsweb.r5.fs.fed.us/unit/nrm/range.htm 

USDA Forest Service. 2001b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. January 2001. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/library/archives/feis/index.htm 

USDA Forest Service. 2001c. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Chapter 3, Part 4. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-41 

USDA Forest Service. 2001d. The Built Environment Image Guide for the National Forests and Grasslands. 

Publication FS-710. Pub September 2001. Online. Washington D.C: USDA Forest Service. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/beig/01_frontmatter.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2003. National ROS Inventory Mapping Protocol. Forest Service Internal Memo. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 2004. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/final-seis/. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement, Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004c. Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation: Methods Information 

Profile: Manual. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/fid/pubsweb/94manual.pdf) 

USDA Forest Service. 2004d. Accessibility Guidebook for Outfitters/Guides Operating on Public Lands. 

GS-757. Washington D.C: Accessibility Program, USDA Forest Service, Recreation Program, pp. 46. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004e. National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species 

Management. FS-805. Washington D.C. 17 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004f. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Facility Master Plan. USDA Forest 

Service R-5. CA: Vallejo. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2004. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-026. 8pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Conservation Guidelines for Seven Sensitive Fungi Species. Pacific 

Southwest Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2005. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-000. 12pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Pacific Southwest Region, Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List, 2005 

list (amended 2006). Vallejo, CA. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5). 

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment FEIS. 

U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. R5-MB-159. December, 2007. 410pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfmisa/feis/dat/feis-entire.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species 

Amendment. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December, 2007. 18pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfmisa/rod/dat/rod-entire.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species 

Amendment. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December, 2007. 18pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfmisa/rod/dat/rod-entire.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2007c. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2006. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-149. 12pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

Report: Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada National 

Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe National 

Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. January 

2008. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfmisa/pdfs/2008_Sierra_Nevada_Forests_MIS_Report_January_2008.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Sierra Nevada Fire Severity Monitoring 1984-2004. USDA Forest Service 

Pacific Southwest Region R5-TP-027. September, 2008. 102pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Updated sensitive species accounts. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 

South Lake Tahoe, CA. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-42 ▪ References Cited

USDA Forest Service. 2008d. Updated sensitive species accounts. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 

South Lake Tahoe, CA. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008e. Forest Service strategic framework for responding to climate change, Version 

1.0. (October 2008). USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. Online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/advisor/products.html 

USDA Forest Service 2008f. Spectrum Overview. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Inventory and Monitoring Institute. 34 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2007. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. On-line version. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/monitoringreport2007/. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Climate Change Resource Center. PNW-GTR 789. [On-line] Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/ (Accessed 12/21/2009). 

USDA Forest Service. 2009b. Region 5 Scenery Management System Implementation Process, May 20, 

2009. Vallejo, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009c. Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis, U.S. Forest 

Service, Washington D.C., January 13, 2009 

(www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/climate_change/.../cc_nepa_guidance.pdf). 

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

Report: Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada National 

Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe National 

Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 

December 2010. 132pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2008. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. On-line version. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/monitoringreport2008/. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010c. Wildfire risk and hazard: procedures for the first approximation. RMRSGTR-235. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010d. In Integrated Science Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin: A Conceptual 

Framework and Research Strategies. PSW-GTR-226. 370 pp. 

USDA Forest Service 2010e. Forest Service Manual Chapter 2550 - Soil Management. Amendment No. 

2500-2010-1. Effective 11/23/2010. 

USDA Forest Service 2010f. 2009 Best Management Practices Evaluation Program Report . USDA Forest 

Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Ecosystem Conservation Department. 

USDA Forest Service 2010g. Best Management Practices Evaluation Program; Annual Report December, 

2010. USDA Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Ecosystem Conservation Department. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010h. Environmental Assessment. Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Treatment 

Project. USDA Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010i. Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Treatment Project, Finding of 

No Significant Impact. USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, South Lake Tahoe. 

 USDA Forest Service. 2011a. USDA Forest Service Water Quality Management Handbook for National 

Forest System Lands in California (revised). Vallejo, CA: Pacific Southwest Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2900, Invasive Species Management. USDA 

Forest Service, National Headquarters (WO), Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service. 2013a. Letter from Regional Forester (R. Moore) to Forest Supervisors Regarding 

Update to the Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List, Dated 03 July 2013, File Code: 2670. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-43 

USDA Forest Service. 2013b. Natural Resource Information System (NRIS), Taxa Dataset for LTBMU. 

http://fsweb.nris.fs.fed.us/products/Wildlife/index.shtml 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 1988. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit. South Lake Tahoe, CA: USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 1994. Tallac Historic Site Master Plan, FEIS and Record of Decision 

(Published July 14, 1994). South Lake Tahoe, CA: USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit. 

USDA Forest Service, LTBMU. 2000. ATM and Roads Analysis Report. Lake Tahoe Basin Management 

Unit (unpublished). 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 2003. Cave Rock Management Direction Record of Decision and FEIS 

(Published Aug. 2003). South Lake Tahoe, CA: USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management 

Unit. 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 2007a. Multi-Species Inventory and Monitoring: A Foundation for 

Comprehensive Biological Status and Trend Monitoring in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Final Report. Lake 

Tahoe Basin Management Unit. September 30, 2007. 116pp. 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 2007b. Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire 

Prevention Strategy –10 Year Plan, September 20, 2007. 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 2008. Recreation Facilities Analysis, LTBMU 2008 (Unpub). For Niche 

Statement, p.35. On file at: LTBMU Supervisor’s Office. 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU 2009. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the 

Baldwin Grazing Allotment Management Project (Signed on 9/29/09.). USDA Forest Service, Lake 

Tahoe Basin Management Unit. CA: South Lake Tahoe. 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 2010. Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire 

Prevention Strategy –10 Year Plan, September 20, 2007 (Unnpub). On file at: LTBMU Supervisor’s 

Office. 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 2011. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Scenery Management System 

Inventory, 2011 (Unpub). On file at: LTBMU Supervisor’s Office. 

USDA Forest Service, LTBMU et al. 2001. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, California 

State Historic Preservation Officer and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 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. 

USDA Forest Service NRM/ Natural Resource Information System (NRIS). 2008. Threatened, Endangered, 

& Sensitive Plants - Invasive Species User Guide. [Online:] USDA Forest Service NRIS, October 27, 

2008 Revised January, 2012] . Available at: http://fsweb.nris.fs.fed.us/. 

USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region (R5). 2000. Noxious weed management strategy. Vallejo, 

CA: USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. 12 pp. 

USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region (R5). 2013. Update the Region 5 Regional Forester’s 

Sensitive Species List, Letter from Regional Forester to Region 5 Forest Supervisors on July 3, 2013. 

USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW). 2009. Effects of Fuels Management in 

the Tahoe Basin: A Scientific Literature Review. Davis, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station and the Tahoe Science Consortium. [Online:] Pacific Southwest Research Station and 

the Tahoe Science Consortium. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/partnerships/tahoescience/documents/Effect_of_Fuels_Management_Final_12

_09.pdf. Accessed 7/8/2011. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-44 ▪ References Cited

USDA Forest Service Tahoe National NF. 1999. Eight East-Side Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study 

Report, Record of Decision and FEIS (Published Feb. 1999). USDA Forest Service, Tahoe NF and 

LTBMU. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and United States Department of Interior (USDI). 1995. 

Federal Wildland Fire Management: Policy and Program Review: Final Report. Washington, D.C. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and United States Department of Interior (USDI). 2001. 

National Fire Plan: Managing the Impact of Wildfires on the Communities and the Environment. 

Washington, D.C. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. American Peregrine falcon recovery plan (Rocky 

Mountain southwest populations) prepared by the Rocky Mountain/Southwestern Peregrine Falcon 

recovery team: U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service,140pp 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 160 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-

month Finding for a Petition to List the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) as 

Threatened or Endangered. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Part 17. 

Federal Register: May 24, 2006, Volume 71, Number 100, pages 29886-29908. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Managing Invasive Plants. [Online] Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/invasives/staffTrainingModule/methods/biological/practice.html#part1 (Accessed 

12/30/2009). 

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in 

or May Be Threatened by Project in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacrametno, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013.50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine 

Occurring in the Contiguous United States, Federal Register. Vol. 78, No. 23, Monday, February 4, 

2013. 

USDI National Park Service (NPS). 2011. Scientific Assessment of Yellowstone National Park Winter US 

March 2011. Prepared in support of the Yellowstone National Park Winter Use Plan/ Environmental 

Impact statement. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. Subalpine Marsh Plant Communities as Early 

Indicators of Ecosystem Stress. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/5993/report/F 

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Part III, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR 

Chapter 1, Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under 

Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Proposed Rule. Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 78, Friday, April 24, 

2009/Proposed Rules. www.epa.gov/climatechange/.../EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-0001.pdf) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. National Forest System Invasive Species Management 

Policy. Federal Register 76 (December 5, 2011), pp. 75860-75866. 

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. 2012 Draft Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

and Sinks: 1990 – 2009,April 15, 2011, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. 

(http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ). 

2002a. Frequently asked questions: Enviornmental impacts of newly regulated nonroad 

engines (EPA420-F-02-033). Retrieved from website: http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/2002/f02033.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ). 

2002b. Regulatory announcement: Emissions standards for new nonroad engines (EPA420-F-02-037). 

Retrieved from website: http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/2002/f02037.pdf 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-45 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Database of special-status species for the Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit. Updated September 18, 2011, accessed on November 4, 2011 at 

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/y_old_site/es/spp_lists/NFForm.Page.htm. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. Ground-Water Resources Inventory of the Lake Tahoe Basin, 2007. 

US Geological Survey, Carson City, Nevada 

U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). 2002. LEEDTM Rating System Version 2.1 (Leadership in Energy 

and Environmental Design: Green Building Rating System (November 2001, Revised 1/16/03)). 

Washington, D.C: U.S. Green Building Council. 

van Mantgem, P.J., N.L. Stephenson, J.C. Byrne, et al. 2009. Widespread Increase of Tree Mortality Rates 

in the Western United States. Science 23January 2009 323:521-523. 

Veloz, S., Anacker, B., and Safford, H. 2010. Predictive Modeling of Cheatgrass Invasion Risk for the Lake 

Tahoe Basin. March 15, 2010. Dept. Env. Sci. & Policy UC Davis and USDA USFS PSW Region. 

Available online at: http://fsweb.r5.fs.fed.us/program/ecology/presentations/ 

Verner, J., K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutiérrez, G.I. Gould, Jr., and T.W. Beck., tech. coord. 1992. 

The California Spotted Owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR133, US Forest Service, Albany, CA. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/rsl/projects/wild/gtr_133/gtr133_index.html 

Verner, J., and K. L. Purcell. (Yr Unk) Subalpine conifer. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. 

California Department of Fish and Game. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/pdfs/SCN.pdf 

Vredenburg, V. T. 2004. Reversing introduced species effects: Experimental removal of introduced fish 

leads to rapid recovery of a declining frog. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 

101:7646-7650. 

Vredenburg, V. T., R. A. Knapp, T. S. Tunstall, et al. 2010. Dynamics of an emerging disease drive largescale amphibian population extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 

107:9689-9694. 

Vredenburg, V. T., G. M. Fellers, and C. Davidson. 2005. The mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana 

muscosa). Pages 563-566 in Lannoo, M. J. (ed). Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United 

States species. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA. 

Waddell, K.L. 2002. Sampling coarse woody debris for multiple attributes in extensive resource 

inventories. Ecological Indicators 1: 139-153. 

Warner, P.J., C.C. Bossard, M.L. Brooks, et al. 2003. Criteria for Categorizing Invasive Non-Native Plants 

That Threaten Wildlands. Available online at www.caleppc.org and www.swvma.org. California Exotic 

Pest Council and Southwest Vegetation Management Association. 24 pp. 

Warner, RE, and KM Hendrix (eds). 1984. California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation, and 

Productive Management. 1035pp. 

Warren Jr, M. & Pardew, M. 1998. Road crossings as barriers to small-stream fish movement. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society. 127:637-644. 

Washoe Cultural Office. 2004. Lake of the Sky: Washoe Stewardship of Lake Tahoe. The Washoe Tribe of 

Nevada and California. NV: Gardnerville. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5354995.pdf 

Way, C. M., D. J. Hornbach, C. A. Millerway, et al. 1990. Dynamics of filter feeding in Corbicula fluminea 

(Bivalvia, Corbiculidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue Canadienne De Zoologie 68:115-120. 

Weaver, J. C. 1995. Indicator species and scale of observation. Conservation Biology 9: 939-942. 

Weaver, T.M.; Fraley, J.J. 1993. A method to measure emergence success of westslope cutthroat trout fry 

from varing substrate compositions in a natural system channel. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management. 13: 817-822. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-46 ▪ References Cited

Weixelman, D. and D. Atwood. 1990. Toiyabe National Forest Sensitive Plant Field Guide. Forest Service 

Intermountain Region. UT: Ogden. 

Weller, T. 2005. Species account for the fringed myotis (2005 update on the 1998 account by P. Bradley and 

M. Potts). Western Bat Working Group.

Weller, T. and C. J. Zabel. 2001. Characteristics of fringed myotis day roosts in northern California, Journal 

of Wildlife Management, 65(3): 489-497. 

Wells, F.H., W.K. Lauenroth, and J.B. Bradford. 2012. Recreational Trails as Corridors for Alien Plants in 

the Rocky Mountains, USA. Western North American Naturalist 72:507-533. 

Wenger, S.J., D.J. Isaac, C.H. Luce, et al. 2011. PNAS. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1103097108. 

West, W. 2012. Certified Weed Free Forage and Straw Available in California. University of California, 

Agriculture and Natural Resources, Davis, CA. 

Westerling, A.L. and B. P. Bryant. 2008. Climate change and wildfire in California. Climatic Change 87 

(Suppl 1): S231-S249. 

Westerling, A. L., H. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, et al. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increases western US 

forest wildlife activity. Science. 313:940-943. 

White, S. M., and F. J. Rahel. 2008. Complementation of habitats for Bonneville cutthroat trout in 

watersheds influenced by beavers, livestock, and drought. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 137:881-894. 

Whitlock, C., Shafer, S.L., Marlon, J. 2003. The role of climate and vegetation change in shaping past and 

future fire regimes in the northwestern US and the implication for ecosystem management. Forest 

Ecology and Management 178: 5-21. 

Wiedinmyer, C., and J. Neff, 2007. Estimates of CO2 from Fires in the United States: Implications for 

Carbon Management. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, 2008. 

Wilbert, C. J. 1992. Spatial scale and seasonality of habitat selection by martens in southeastern Wyoming. 

M. S. Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 

Wiener, J.B. 2006. Think globally, act globally: the limits of local climate change policies. University of 

Pennsylvania Law Review 155: 101-119. 

Wiens, J. A., G. Hayward, H. D. Safford, and C. Giffen (eds). 2012 (In press). Historical environmental 

variation in conservation and natural resource management: Past, present and future. John Wiley and 

Sons, New York, NY. 

Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled 

species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607-615. 

Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS). 2013. USDA Forest Service. CO: Lakewood. 

http://wfdss.usgs.gov/wfdss_help/index.htm?page=WFDSSHelp_Non-LANDFIRE_CAv082710.html 

Williams, P. J., R. J. Gutiérrez, and S. A. Whitmore. 2011. Home range and habitat selection of spotted 

owls in the central Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management, 75 (2): 333-343. 

Williamson, J.R., and W.A. Neilsen. 2000. The influence of forest site on rate and extent of soil compaction 

and profile disturbance of skid trails during ground-based harvesting. Can. J. For. Res. 30: 1196–1205. 

Willis, K. J., and H. J. B. Birks. 2006. What is natural? The need for a long-term perspective in biodiversity 

conservation. Science 314: 1261-1265. 

Wittmann, M., J. Reuter, G. Schladow, et al. 2008. Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) of Lake Tahoe: 

Preliminary scientific findings in support of a management plan. 

Woodhams, D.C., R.A. Alford, C.J. Briggs, M. Johnson, L.A. Rollins-Smith. 2008. Life-history trade-offs 

influence disease in changing climates: strategies of an amphibian pathogen. Ecology 89: 1627–1639. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix L ▪ L-47 

Woodhams, D.C., K. Ardipradja, R.A. Alford, G. Marantelli, L.K. Reinert, L.A. Rollins-Smith. 2007a. 

Resistance to chytridiomycosis varies among amphibian species and is correlated with skin peptide 

defenses. Anim Conserv 10: 409–417. 

Woodhams, D.C., V.T. Vredenburg, M.A. Simon, D. Billheimer , B. Shakhtour, Y Shyr, et al. 2007b. 

Symbiotic bacteria contribute to innate immune defenses of the threatened mountain yellow-legged 

frog, Rana muscosa. Biol Conserv 138: 390–398 

Yan, N.D., B.K. Leun, W. Keller,et al. 2003. Developing conceptual frameworks for the recovery of aquatic 

biota from acidification. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 32(3): 165-169 2003 doi: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-32.3.165. 

Young, J.A., D.E. Palmquist, R.S. Blank, et al. 1995. Ecology and control of perennial pepperweed 

(Lepidium latifolium L.). California Exotic Pest Plant Council Symposium. 1995. Available at: 

http://www.caleppc.org/symposia/95symposium/young2.html 

Young, M.K., W.A. Hubert, T.A. Wesche. 1991. Selection of measures of substrate composition to estimate 

survival to emergence of salmonids and to detect changes in stream substrates. North American Journal 

of Fisheries Management. 11: 339-346. 

Ziebell, C.D, D.R. Patton, and others (tech. coords), Riparian ecosystems and their management: 

reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-120. 

Zielinski, W.J. T.E. Kucera, and R.H. Barrett. 1995. The current distribution of the fisher, Martes pennanti, 

in California. California Fish and Game 81:104–112. 

Zielinksi, W. J., K. M. Slauson, A. E. Bowles. 2008. The Effects of Off-Highway Vehicle Use on the 

American marten in California, USA. Final Report to the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region, and California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation 

Division, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, 

Arcata, California 

Zielinksi, W. J. 2013. (In Press) The Forest Carnivores: Fisher and Marten, Chapter 7.1 

In: Science Synthesis to Support Land and Resource Management Plan Revision in the Sierra Nevada 

and Southern Cascades (January 2013). Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, F.V. Schlexer, et al. 2005. Historical and contemporary distributions of 

carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography 32:1385-1407. 

Zimmerman, G.T., and R.D. Laven. 1987. Effects of Forest Fuel Smoke on Dwarf Mistletoe Seed 

Germination. October 1987 Great Basin Naturalist Vol. 47, No. 4. 

Zouhar, K., J. Smith, S. Sutherland, and M. Brooks. 2008. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems; Fire and 

Nonnative Invasive Plants. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6., U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Reasearch Station, Ogden UT. 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

L-48 ▪ References Cited

Page Intentionally Blank 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS

Appendix M ▪ M-1 

Appendix M – Glossary of Acronyms 

and Terms 

M.1. Abbreviations and Acronyms 

ac. 

acres 

C Celsius (centigrade) 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

cm Centimeter 

cu Cubic 

dv Deciview 

e.g. exempli gratia [for example] 

Ed(s) Editor(s) 

Et al et alii [and others] 

F Farenheit 

FS Forest Service 

gen. general 

govt. government 

i.e. id est [that is] 

in. inch(es) 

lb. pound (libra) 

kg kilogram(s) 

km kilometer(s) 

LWRQCB Regional Water Quality Control 

Board, Lahontan Region 

m meters 

mi. miles 

mm millimeters 

pub. published 

rev. revised 

RSL Remote Sensing Laboratory 

S&PFFHP 

State and Private Forestry, Forest 

Health Protection 

sq. square 

TRPA Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

unk. unknown 

USDA United States 

Department of Agriculture 

yd. yard 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

M-2 ▪ Glossary of Acronyms 

M.2. Defnition of Selected Acronyms 

BMP Best Management Practice: 

 Forest Service definition: Procedures, methods, and controls that protect, restore, or 

mitigate water quality impacts from activities on NFS lands. BMPs provide the basis 

of the Forest Service water quality management program. 

 TRPA (Code of Ordinances) definition: Alternative structural and nonstructural 

practices proven effective in erosion control and management of surface runoff in 

Lake Tahoe Region. 

The term BMP is used in various ways in the Lake Tahoe Basin, primarily in relation to 

water quality and erosion control. A BMP may be an accepted practice, such as installing 

drainage structures on a road to control runoff, or the term may refer to the structure 

itself. Locally, BMP may also describe an action – to BMP a site means to implement 

practices and structures that are considered BMPs.

CWD Coarse woody debris: Material usually 12 inches or larger in diameter within stream 

channels or floodplains. Provides fish habitat and floodplain roughness. 

CWHR California Wildlife Habitats Relationships computer program: Functions as a 

predictive model of habitat suitability for wildlife species, describing vegetation 

conditions through metrics such as tree size classes and canopy closure.

EIP Environmental Improvement Program: An interagency partnership among the public 

land management entities of the Lake Tahoe Basin, to manage projects needed to stem the 

degradation of Lake Tahoe, funded by Federal, California, Nevada, and local jurisdictions. 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement: A NEPA compliance document used to evaluate a 

range of alternatives when solving the problem would have a significant effect on the 

human environment. The EIS is more than a document, it is a formal analysis process 

which mandates public comment periods. An EIS covers purpose and need, alternatives, 

existing conditions, environmental consequences, and consultation and coordination.

FMP Fire Management Plan: A plan, which identifies and integrates all wildland fire 

management and related activities within the context of approved land/resource 

management plans. 

FMU Fire Management Unit: May be any land management area definable by objectives, 

management constraints, topographic features, access, values to be protected, political 

boundaries, fuel types, major fire regime groups, and so on, that set it apart from the 

management characteristics of an adjacent FMU. The FMUs may have dominant 

management objectives and pre-selected strategies assigned to accomplish these 

objectives. 

HUC Hydrologic unit code: Designation by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) that 

labels watersheds based on their relative size (from 1, being major river systems, to 12 

(being very small subwatersheds of only a few acres). 

LEED TM Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design: National standard rating system for 

what constitutes a “green building.” Through the Green Building Council’s use as a design 

guideline and third-party certification tool, it aims to improve occupant well-being, 

environmental performance and economic returns of buildings. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS

Appendix M ▪ M-3 

LOP Limited operating period: A restriction placed on a management action within a specific 

defined area, as to when during the year an event can take place; a management strategy to 

reduce disturbance to wildlife species and habitats. 

LTRA Lake Tahoe Restoration Act: Public Law 106-506, Nov. 13, 2000 (at time of publication, 

the renewal bill has been introduced in Congress as 

“S. 432: Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2011”), States that the Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit shall be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through 

the Chief of the Forest Service, in accordance with this Act and the laws applicable to the 

National Forest System, in cooperation with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 

LTRA Provisions include: 

 Developing an environment restoration priority list for the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

Sets forth project areas, including: (1) erosion and sediment control; (2) 

acquisition of environmentally sensitive land; (3) fire risk reduction; (4) cleaning 

up methyl tertiary butyl ether contamination; and (5) parking and traffic 

management 

 Authorizing appropriations for priority projects. 

Coordinating fire risk reduction activities with State and local agencies, including local 

fire departments and volunteer groups.

ML Maintenance level: Roads are classified into maintenance levels 1-5 depending on the use 

of the road. Level 1 roads are project roads generally closed to public access, while level 

5 roads are paved two-land roads accessible by passenger cars for public use. 

MOU Memorandum of understanding: A document describing a bilateral or multilateral 

agreement between parties, to include management actions carried out by the Forest 

Service, Tribal governments, U.S. government agencies at all levels, and private business 

entities.

MVUM Motor Vehicle Use Map: A single-purpose, black-and-white paper map that displays 

those roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use. Routes not designated for 

motor vehicle use (such as non-motorized trails, single-purpose roads and trails, 

unauthorized roads and trails, and temporary roads and trails) will not be shown on a 

Motor Vehicle Use Map. Motor vehicle use is allowed only on designated roads and trails 

and in designated areas. The Motor Vehicle Use Map does not replace visitor maps, travel 

maps, or other maps intended to convey visitor information.

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act: Law that requires federal agencies to disclose major 

actions and their environmental consequences to the public. 

NFS National Forest System: Federally owned reserves of 191 million acres (77.4 million 

hectares), administered by the Forest Service of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. The system 

is made up of 155 national forests and 19 national grasslands in 41 states and Puerto Rico 

(USDA et al 1984).

NVUM National Visitor Use Monitoring: U.S. Forest Service national monitoring and reporting 

system that provides estimates of the volume of recreation visitation to National Forests 

and Grasslands, and includes descriptive information about that visitation, including 

activity participation, demographics, visit duration, measures of satisfaction, and trip 

spending connected to the visit. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

M-4 ▪ Glossary of Acronyms 

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV): Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of crosscountry 

travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other 

natural terrain (36 CFR 212.1).

OSVUM Over Snow Vehicle Use Map: A single-purpose, paper map that displays those areas 

which contain roads, trails designated for over snow vehicle (e.g. snowmobile) use. The 

map identifies restrictions or prohibitions on over-snow vehicle use within defined 

geographic areas Over-snow vehicle use other than in accordance with the restrictions or 

prohibitions of the OSVUM is prohibited (36 CFR 261.14).

PAC Protected activity center: Approximately 300 acre area designated as centered on a nest 

tree to be managed as nesting habitat for CA spotted owls.

RAWS Remote Automated Weather Stations: A network of stand-alone dispersed stations on 

Forest Service and BLM managed lands that monitor the weather and provide weather 

data assists land management agencies with a variety of projects such as monitoring air 

quality, rating fire danger, and providing information for research applications. RAWS 

stations are powered by battery, solar energy, or generator, and broadcast atmospheric and 

system data at regular intervals.

RCA Riparian conservation area: A buffer for streams, special aquatic features and other 

hydrological depressions as defined by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

(SNFPA) 

ROD Record of decision: A concise public record of decision is required by the Forest Service 

at the time the responsible official makes a formal environmental impact statement (EIS) 

decision, (§1506.10). The record, which may be integrated into any other record prepared 

by the Forest Service, will include: 

(a) The decision made; (b) Identification of all alternatives considered by the Forest 

Service in reaching the decision, specifying the alternatives which were considered to be 

environmentally preferable (which may include factors for economic and technical 

considerations that were balanced in the decision making, stating how those 

considerations entered into the decision); and (c) Stating whether all practicable means to 

avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted, 

and if not, why they were not. A monitoring and enforcement program shall be adopted 

and summarized where applicable for any mitigation.

RNWMS Regional Noxious Weed Management Strategy: Management strategy for the U.S. 

Forest Service in California, developed to address this threat, and to work cooperatively 

with partners check the spread of weeds statewide. Published in August 2000. Reference: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/noxiousweeds/ 

SEZ Stream environment zone: Biological communities, as defined by TRPA and the 

Lahontan Water Board, that owe their characteristics to the presence of surface water or a 

seasonally high groundwater table. The criterion for defining SEZs includes indicators of 

vegetation, hydrology, and/or soil type (State of CA WQCP 2005).

SIA Special Interest Areas: Geographically defined federally protected management area 

consisting of archaeological, botanical, geological, historical, scenic, paleontological and 

zoological or other special characteristics or unique values.; recreation or cultural 

significance; or historic importance.
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS

Appendix M ▪ M-5 

SNFPA Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment: Amendment to the Forest Plans of 11 national 

forests in the Sierra Nevada mountain range, including the LTBMU. Published in January, 

2004 by the Pacific Southwest Region (National Forests in California), Vallejo, CA. Also 

known as the Sierra Nevada Framework. 

Reference: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/final-seis/index.html

SNYLF Sierra Nevada (mountain) yellow-legged frog (Rana sierra): a candidate species for 

listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and as Sensitive on the Region 5 

Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List. See the Aquatic Wildlife section in Chapter 3.

SPLAT Strategically placed area treatment: Fuel reduction treatments placed in a pattern to 

interrupt fire progression such that the fire reduces in intensity and becomes a surface fire 

in these areas. The overall pattern impedes fire spread. 

TOC Threshold of Concern: Watersheds have a natural sensitivity, or threshold, to absorb 

disturbance, human or natural, specific to geology, soil, and slope.

WUI Wildland urban interface (intermix): An area where human habitation is mixed with 

areas of flammable wildland vegetation. It extends out from the edge of developed private 

land into Federal, private, and State jurisdictions. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

M-6 ▪ Glossary of Terms 

M.3. Glossary of Terms 

Access A function of the transportation system on Forest Service lands 

managed by the LTBMU to provide for safe travel that reflects 

appropriate access, considers needs of adjacent landowners, and 

meets public demand. This occurs through the management of 

Recreation and Engineering resources, to include: 

dispersed/developed parking and trailhead facilities, snow removal, 

and proper signage. 

Aggradation Aggradation involves the raising of the streambed elevation, an 

increase in width/depth ratio, and a corresponding decrease in 

channel capacity. Over-bank flows occur more frequently with lessthan-high-water events. Excess sediment deposition in the channel 

and on floodplains is characteristic of the aggrading river. Often, the 

cause of aggradation is an increase in upstream sediment load and/or 

size of sediment exceeding the transport capacity of the channel. (US 

EPA: 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/tools/warsss/sedsource_index.cfm).

Alternatives Alternatives to the proposed action have been Identified and 

explored. Comments received have been considered in preparation of 

the draft environmental impact statement. The listed range of 

alternatives are considered after public comments have been received 

and analyzed. One of those considered will be a ``No Action'' 

alternative. (36 CFR 219.12(f)) 

Aquatic Ecosystem An ecosystem in a body of water. Communities of organisms that are 

dependent on each other and on their environment live in aquatic 

ecosystems. Aquatic ecosystems are categorized in freshwater 

ecosystem types (e.g. Lake Tahoe) as well as marine ecosystem 

types. 

There are three basic types of freshwater ecosystems: 

 Lentic: slow-moving water, including pools, ponds, and 

lakes. 

 Lotic: rapidly-moving water, for example streams and rivers. 

 Wetlands: areas where the soil is saturated or inundated for 

at least part of the time. 

Basal area The cross-sectional area of a single stem, including the bark, 

measured at breat height (4.5 feet above the ground). Also, the crosssectional area of all stems of a species or all stems in a stand 

measured at breast height and expressed per unit of land area. (Helms 

1998). 

Backing fire A fire spreading, or ignited to spread, into (against) the wind, in the 

absence of wind, or downslope. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS

Glossary of Terms ▪ M-7 

Bog A wet, poorly drained, highly acid, nutrient poor, peat-accumulating 

wetland with surface vegetation of acidophilic mosses (particularly 

Sphagnum) and possibly some shrubs or trees. 

Climate Climates – and climate change – are mentioned explicitly in the 

management principles chapter of the [agency’s FY 2007–2012] 

strategic plan. Strategic goals would directly or indirectly contribute 

toward enhancing the resilience of forest and grassland resources to 

the impacts of climate change. (USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan, 

FY 2007–2012 Climate Change Companion Document, Oct. 14, 

2008).

Collaboration A structured manner in which a collection of people with diverse 

interests share knowledge, ideas, and resources while working 

together in an inclusive and cooperative manner toward a common 

purpose. Collaboration, in the context of this part, falls within the full 

spectrum of public engagement described in the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s publication: Collaboration in NEPA—A 

Handbook for NEPA Practitioners. The Forest Service retains 

decisionmaking authority and responsibility for all decisions 

throughout the process.

Composition The proportion of each tree species in a [forest] stand expressed as a 

percentage of the total number, basal area, or volume of all tree 

species in the stand. (Helms 1998)

Connectivity Pertaining to the extent to which conditions exist or should be 

provided between separate national forest or grassland areas to ensure 

habitat for breeding, feeding, or movement of wildlife and fish within 

their home range or migration areas.

Deciview An index of atmospheric haziness based on the logarithm of the light 

extinction coefficient. A given change in deciviews is assumed to be 

perceived approximately the same by a human observer, independent 

of the absolute level of the haziness (Air Resource Specialists, 1993). 

Desired basal area The spacing or stocking levels used to guide thinning in order to 

leave a desired density in developing stands. 

Dead fuels (Fire 

Behavior and Fuels) Estimating the moisture content of dead woody fuels is critical when 

predicting fire behavior. Dead fuels are divided into four size classes: 

1 hour (flashy fuels), 10 hour (1⁄2-inch diameter), 100 hour 3-inch 

diameter) and 1,000 hour (8-inch diameter). In general, the larger 

fuels take longer to absorb or lose moisture. 

In general, drier fuels increase the rate of fire spread, fireline 

intensity, and fuel consumption. Prescribed burns are used to meet a 

number of resource management objectives. Fire managers rely on 

fire behavior prediction to determine the optimum conditions for 

prescribed burning. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

M-8 ▪ Glossary of Terms 

Disturbance Any relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystem, 

watershed, community, or species population structure and/or 

function and changes resources, substrate availability, or the physical 

environment. 

Ecological 

Restoration 

See Restoration

Ecosystem Diversity The variety and relative extent of ecosystem types, including their 

composition, structure, and processes. 

Ecosystem Services Benefits people obtain from ecosystems, including: 

1) Provisioning services, such as clean air and fresh water, as 

well as energy, fuel, forage, fiber, and minerals; 

2) Regulating services, such as long term storage of carbon; 

climate regulation; water filtration, purification, and storage; 

soil stabilization; flood control; and disease regulation; 

3) Supporting services, such as pollination, seed dispersal, soil 

formation, and nutrient cycling; and 

4) Cultural services, such as educational, aesthetic, spiritual, 

and cultural heritage values, as well as recreational 

experiences and tourism opportunities. 

Endlining Moving logs using cables where the log is in full or partial contact 

with the ground 

Ephemeral stream A stream or portion of a stream that flows only in direct response to 

precipitation, receiving little or no water from springs and no longcontinued supply from snow or other sources, and whose channel is at 

all times above the water table. 

Fen A peat-accumulating wetland that receives some drainage from 

surrounding mineral soils and usually supports marshlike vegetation 

including sedges, rushes, shrubs, and trees. Fens are less acidic than 

bogs, and derive most of their water from groundwater rich in 

calcium and magnesium versus a bog which receives all of the water 

and nutrients from precipitation (ombrotrophic). 

Fire Management 

Plan (FMP) A plan, which identifies and integrates all wildland fire management 

and related activities within the context of approved land/resource 

management plans. It defines a program to manage wildland fires 

(wildfire, prescribed fire, and wildland fire use). The plan is 

supplemented by operational plans, including but not limited to 

preparedness plans, preplanned dispatch plans, and prevention plans. 

Fire Management Plans assure that wildland fire management goals 

and components are coordinated. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS

Glossary of Terms ▪ M-9 

Fire Management 

Unit (FMU) May be any land management area definable by objectives, 

management constraints, topographic features, access, values to be 

protected, political boundaries, fuel types, major fire regime groups, 

and so on, that set it apart from the management characteristics of an 

adjacent FMU. The FMUs may have dominant management 

objectives and pre-selected strategies assigned to accomplish these 

objectives. (USDA & USDI 2004) 

Flag and avoid The hanging of flagging in order to identify for the purpose of 

avoidance of a special feature in an area. 

Forest an ecosystem characteriszed by a more or less dense and extensive 

tree cover, often consisting of stands varying in characteristics such 

as species, composition, structure, age class, and associated 

processes, and commonly including meadows, streams, fish, and 

wildlife. (Helms 1998)

Forest Development 

Road See Road Categories 

Forest Health The perceived condition of a forest derived from concerns a bout 

such factors as its age, structure, composition, function, vigor, 

presensce of unusual levels of insects or disease, and resilience to 

disturbance. (Helms 1998). See also Resilience. 

Forest Land Land that is at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees of any size, 

including land that formerly had such tree cover and that will be 

naturally or artificially regenerated (Helms 1998). 

Forest 

Transportation Atlas A display of the system of roads, trails, and airfields of an 

administrative unit, including: a. Road and trail management 

objectives; b. Identification of needed and unneeded NFS roads; 

c. Travel management decisions; and d. Road management priorities 

(FSM 7700 – Travel Management). 

Forest-wide Scale The greatest, most expansive spatial management scale, incorporating 

management emphasis areas, and may incorporate multiple uses and 

resources within the NFS lands managed by the Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit. 

Grapple piling Use of a track-laying low-ground pressure excavator with a with a 

thumb and claw, typically mounted on articulating arm. This 

machine is capable picking up created slash or other material to pile 

on slopes up to 30%. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

M-10 ▪ Glossary of Terms 

Group Selection With 

Reserves From Helms (1998): Group Selection with Reserves is a form of 

uneven-aged (selection) methods to regenerate and maintain a multiaged structure by removing some trees in all size classes either singly, 

in small groups, or in strips 

—group selection trees are removed and new age classes are 

established in small groups 

—group selection with reserves some trees within the group are not 

cut to attain goals other than regeneration within the group 

Hand removal or 

thinning Consists of removing trees with chain saws or lopping shears and 

piling or scattering the debris in open areas for later burning. 

Hazard Tree Tree hazards include dead or dying trees, dead parts of live trees, or 

unstable live trees (due to structural defects or other factors) that are 

within striking distance of people or property (a target). Hazard trees 

have the potential to cause property damage, personal injury or 

fatality in the event of a failure. 

Heterobasidion 

(annosus) root 

disease 

Annosus root disease, caused by Heterobasidion annosum

(Fr.) Bref., is found in many temperate coniferous forests 

around the world. It is an endemic pathogen that is common 

and widely distributed in North America. (FSH 3409.11, Ch. 60, R5 

Supplement No.: 3409.11-2010-1). 

Common symptoms of annosus root disease are the same as 

for many other root diseases and include yellowing or thinning 

of crowns, reduction in tree height and lateral branches, and stress 

cone crops (Rippy et al, 2005, p. 11). 

Heterogeneity Biometrics term related to Forest Vegetation structure and 

composition: the state of being not identical in some or all parameters 

in one or more samples or populations (Helms 1998).

Hydrophobicity Resistance to water absorption by severely burned soils. 

Intermittent stream A stream or portion of a stream, that does not flow year-round but 

only when it (a) receives base flow solely during wet periods, or (b) 

receives groundwater discharge or protracted contributions from 

melting snow or other erratic surface and shallow subsurface sources 

Invasive Species Plants, animals, and other organisms that are both nonnative to the 

ecosystem in which they are found and capable of causing 

environmental, economic, or human harm. Invasive species may 

compete so successfully in new ecosystems that they displace native 

species and disrupt important ecosystem processes. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/invasives/
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS

Glossary of Terms ▪ M-11 

Inventoried Roadless 

Area 

The formal process for Inventoried Roadless Area designation varies 

by state; In general, geographic areas qualify for placement on the 

inventory to be designated if they meet one or more of the following 

criteria: 

1. They contain 5,000 acres or more. 

2. They contain less than 5,000 acres, but 

a. Due to physical terrain, natural conditions can be 

preserved. 

b. They are self-contained ecosystems, such as an 

island, that can be effectively managed as a separate 

unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

c. They are contiguous to existing wilderness, primitive 

areas, Administration-endorsed wilderness, or 

potential wilderness in other federal ownership, 

regardless of their size. 

3. They do not contain improved roads maintained for travel by 

standard passenger-type vehicles, except as permitted in areas 

east of the 100th meridian. 

Lacustrine Lake ecosystem; includes the lake and lake shore. 

Landscape Character A combination of physical, biological, and cultural images that gives 

an area its visual and cultural identity and helps to define a ‘‘sense of 

place.’’ Landscape character provides a frame of reference from 

which to determine scenic attractiveness and to measure scenic 

integrity. 

Lentic Stream ecosystem; includes the stream and stream bank. 

Lotic Stream ecosystem; rapidly-moving water, for example streams and 

rivers. 

Maintenance Levels 

(Road management) 

Level 5 – Roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and 

convenience. These roads are normally double-lane, paved facilities. 

Level 4 – Roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and 

convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane 

and aggregate surfaced. However, some roads may be single lane. 

Level 3 – Roads open and maintained for travel by prudent drivers in 

a standard passenger cars. User comfort and convenience are low 

priorities. 

Level 2 – Roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles . Passenger 

car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually 

consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, 

dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. 

Level 1 – Intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to 

vehicular traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic 

custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent 

resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to 

facilitate future management activities. 

( Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.58,10,12.3) 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

M-12 ▪ Glossary of Terms 

Managed Wildfire The management of naturally ignited fires to achieve resource desired 

conditions and objectives where fire is a major component of the 

ecosystem.

Mesic Of sites or habitats characterized by intermediate moisture 

conditions, i.e., neither decidedly wet nor dry. 

Monitoring A systematic process of collecting information over time and space to 

evaluate effects of actions or changes in conditions or relationships. 

National Forest 

System

A nationally significant system of Federally owned units of forest, 

range, and related land consisting of national forests, purchase 

units, national grasslands, land utilization project areas, 

experimental forest areas, experimental range areas, designated 

experimental areas, other land areas, water areas, and interests in 

lands that are administered by the USDA Forest Service or designated 

for administration through the Forest Service. (USDA Forest Service 

FS-383 2012) 

National Wild and 

Scenic River Area designated by Congress as part of the National Wild and 

Scenic River System. (USDA Forest Service FS-383 2012) 

Objection The written document filed with a reviewing officer by an individual 

or organization seeking pre-decisional administrative review of a 

plan, plan amendment, or plan revision. 

Over-snow Vehicle A motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow and that runs on a 

track or tracks and/or a ski or skis, while in use over snow. (36 CFR 

Part 212 Sec. 1)

Potential Wilderness 

Area All areas within the National Forest System lands that satisfy the 

definition of wilderness found in section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness 

Act. Inventory criteria are listed in Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12—Land Management Planning Handbook, Chapter 70—

Wilderness Evaluation. 

Perennial stream A creek or river that flows all year (see intermittent and ephemeral). 

Plan Components See Desired Condition, Objective, Program Strategy, and Standards 

& Guidelines.

Prescription Direction given for land and resource management in a given area. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS

Glossary of Terms ▪ M-13 

Reference 

Conditions The range of historic (or natural) variability in ecological structures 

and processes, reflecting recent evolutionary history and the dynamic 

interplay of biotic and abiotic conditions and disturbance patterns that 

form the basis for comparison with contemporary ecosystem 

processes and structures and are a frame of reference for designing 

ecological restoration treatments and conservation plans (adapted 

from Fulé et al. 1997). 

Regeneration 

Method A cutting procedure by which a new age class is created. The major 

methods are clearcutting, seed-tree, shelterwood, selection, and 

coppice. Regeneration methods are grouped into four categories: 

coppice, even-aged, two-aged, and uneven-aged (FSM 2400 Ch. 

2470). 

Region An administrative area containing units of the National Forest 

System. There are nine NFS Regions: The Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit is administered by the Pacific Southwest (R5) 

Regional Office, also referred to as the “National Forests in 

California”. (USDA Forest Service FS-383 2012) 

Resilience The capacity of a community or ecosystem to maintain its essential 

characteristics, taxonomic composition, structures, or regain normal 

ecosystem function and development following disturbance. (Helms, 

1998, Holling, 1973). See also Forest Health. 

Resistance The capacity of the ecosystem to absorb disturbances and remain 

largely unchanged. (Holling, 1973) 

Restoration The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been 

degraded, damaged, or destroyed. Ecological restoration focuses on 

re-establishing the composition, structure, pattern, and ecological 

processes necessary to facilitate terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem 

sustainability, resilience, and health under current and future 

conditions. (SER 2004) 

Riparian areas Referring to the interface between freshwater habitats and the 

terrestrial landscape. (Environmental Management Glossary). 

Ripping A process to mitigate soil compaction. Using equipment with a 

toothed blade or set of heavy tines mounted at the front or rear of the 

equipment to break up hard ground or to tear out stumps and 

boulders; can be synonymous with subsoiling and tilling. 

Riverine Pertaining to rivers and river bank environments. 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

M-14 ▪ Glossary of Terms 

Road activity Road Construction – Supervising, inspecting, building, and all 

expenses incidental to the construction or reconstruction of a forest 

development transportation facility, including: location, surveying, 

and mapping (including the establishment of temporary and 

permanent geodetic markers in accordance with the specifications of 

the Coast and Geodetic Survey in the Department of Commerce), 

costs of rights-of way, and elimination of hazards. (36 CFR 212.1(h)). 

Road Maintenance – The upkeep of the entire forest development 

transportation facility including surface and shoulders, parking and 

side area structures, and such traffic-control devices as are necessary 

for its safe and efficient utilization. (36 CFR 212.1(I)). 

Road Reconstruction - Activities that result in betterment, restoration, 

or realignment of a road as defined below. 

 1. Betterment – Investment in construction activity that raises the 

traffic-service level of a road or improves its safety or operating 

efficiency. 

 2. Restoration – Investment in construction activity required to 

rebuild a road to its approved traffic-service level. 

 3. Realignment – Investment in construction activity that results 

in the new location of an existing road or portion thereof. 

Road categories Forest Development Road – A road wholly or partially within or 

adjacent to NFS boundary that the Forest Service has authorized and 

maintains jurisdiction over and that is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and use of lands under the agency's jurisdiction. 

Temporary road – A road associated with timber sale contracts, fire 

activities, or other short-term access needs that are unnecessary for 

future resource management and not intended to be part of the forest 

development transportation plan. 

Unclassified road – A road that is not constructed, maintained, or 

intended for long-term highway use. Such roads include all temporary 

access construction and other remnants of short-term use roads 

associated with fire suppression, timber harvest, and oil, gas, or 

mineral activities as well as travel ways resulting from off-road 

vehicle use. 

Roadless Area See Inventoried Roadless Area
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS

Glossary of Terms ▪ M-15 

Special Area Areas of National Forest System pulic lands designated by law, or 

administratively, and managed to emphasize recreational and other 

specific related values. Other uses are permitted in the areas to the 

extent that these uses are in harmony with the purpose for which the 

area was designated. The law or order designating each area provides 

area specific management objectives and guidelines. An area may be 

nominated locally (at the unit level), and then designated for 

management under one of the following Special Area categories: 

National Recreation Areas – Areas that have outstanding 

combinations of outdoor recreation opportunities, aesthetic 

attractions, and proximity to potential users. They may also have 

cultural, historical, archaeological, pastoral, wilderness, scientific, 

wildlife, and other values contributing to public enjoyment. 

National Monuments – Areas of unique ecological, geologic, 

historical, prehistorical, cultural, and scientific interest. 

National Scenic Areas – Areas that contain outstanding scenic 

characteristics, recreational values, and geologic, ecologic, and 

cultural resources. 

National Scenic Research Areas – Areas that contain outstanding 

scenic values for research, scientific, and recreational purposes. 

National Management Emphasis Areas – All other areas that 

contain unique or outstanding physical features and that contain 

specific physical, cultural, or political characteristics receiving 

specific emphasis in the legislation. (FSM 1920 and FSM 1950). 

Special Interest Area 

(SIA) Geographically defined federally protected management area, 

consisting of archaeological, botanical, geological, historical, scenic, 

paleontological and zoological or other special characteristics or 

unique values. SIAs are designated to protect and manage for public 

use and enjoyment and may include the protection and management 

of threatened, endangered or sensitive species and other elements of 

biological diversity; recreation or cultural significance; or historic 

importance. 

Special Use Permit A locally administered special use authorization to occupy National 

Forest System lands for Recreation Use (such as Outfitter and Guide, 

campground or resort operations or commercial filming) and 

Recreation Resident Use. The laws, regulations, and policies 

governing the use and maintenance of recreation residences are those 

necessary to comply with federal, state, and county ordinances, 

building, and sanitation codes to safeguard the national forests’ 

resources. Restrictions and special rules are designed to fit local 

conditions. The Forest Service generally is required to obtain fees 

that reflect fair market value for the rights and privileges authorized 

by the permits (Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2705, Forest Service 

Handbook [FSH] 2709.11). 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

M-16 ▪ Glossary of Terms 

Stand A contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age-class 

distribution, composition, and structure, and growing on a site of 

sufficiently uniform quality, to be a distinguishable unit. 

(Helms 1998) 

Stand Structure The horizontal and vertical distribution of componenets of a forest 

stand including the height, diameter, crown layers, and stems of trees, 

shrubs, herbaceous understory, snags, and down woody debris. This 

is based on development stages rather than absolute age. (Helms 

1998). 

Susceptibility The probability that a tree or stand will be attacked by, or incur an 

outbreak of, an insect or pathogen. (Helms 1998)

Sustainability Capability of meeting the needs of the present generation without 

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. 

Sustainable 

Recreation The set of recreational opportunities, uses and access that, 

individually and combined, are ecologically, economically, and 

socially sustainable, allowing the responsible official to offer 

recreation opportunities now and into the future. Recreational 

opportunities can include non-motorized, motorized, developed, and 

dispersed recreation on land, water, and air. 

Terrestrial 

Ecosystems A community of organisms and their environment that occurs on the 

land. Four primary terrestrial ecosystems exist: tundra, taiga, 

temperate deciduous forest, and grassland. 

Trail Management 

Class The prescribed scale of development for a trail, representing its 

intended design and management standards. Trail prescriptions 

describe the desired management of each trail, based on Forest Plan 

direction. These national prescriptions take into account user 

preferences, setting, protection of sensitive resources, and other 

management activities. To meet prescription, each trail is assigned an 

appropriate Trail Class. These general categories are used to identify 

applicable Trail Design Parameters and to identify basic indicators 

used for determining the cost to meet national quality standards. 

1) Trail Class 1 – Minimal/Undeveloped Trail 

2) Trail Class 2 – Simple/Minor Development Trail 

3) Trail Class 3 – Developed/Improved Trail 

4) Trail Class 4 – Highly Developed Trail 

5) Trail Class 5 – Fully Developed Trail 

(Ref. FSH 2309.18 – Trail Management Handbook – Trial Class 

Matrix, http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/rhwr/ibsc/docs/trails/trail-classmatrix-2005-01-31.doc). 

Underburn Fire in the forest understory; a prescribed or wildfire that consumes 

surface fuels but not trees 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS

Glossary of Terms ▪ M-17 

Vernal pool A contained basin depression lacking a permanent above ground 

outlet. An ephemeral (temporary) pool that fills with snowmelt and 

spring run-off. 

Wild and Scenic 

River 

See National Wild and Scenic River

Wilderness Any area of land designated by Congress as part of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System that was established in the 

Wilderness Act of 1964. (16 U.S.C. 1131– 1136). 

Wildland Urban 

Interface (WUI) 

An area where human habitation is mixed with areas of flammable 

wildland vegetation. It extends out from the edge of developed 

private land into Federal, private, and State jurisdictions. The WUI is 

comprised of two zones, the Defense Zone and the Threat Zone: 

WUI Defense Zone – the buffer in closest proximity to 

communities, areas with higher densities of residences, 

commercial buildings, and/or administrative sites with 

facilities (urban core). Defense zones generally extend 

roughly 1⁄4 mile out from these areas; however, actual defense 

zone boundaries are determined at the project level following 

national, regional and forest policy. 

WUI Threat Zone – typically buffers the defense zone; 

however, a threat zone may be delineated in the absence of a 

defense zone under certain conditions, including situations 

where the structure density and location do not provide a 

reasonable opportunity for direct suppression on public land, 

but suppression on the private land would be enhanced by 

fire behavior modification on the adjacent public land. 

Threat zone boundaries are determined at the project level following 

national, regional and forest policy. Threat zones generally extend 

approximately 11⁄4 miles out from the defense zone boundary; 

however, actual extents of threat zones are based on fire history, local 

fuel conditions, weather, topography, existing and proposed fuel 

treatments, and natural barriers to fire. 

Woody biomass The wood product obtained (usually) from in-woods chipping of all 

or some portion of trees including limbs, tops, and unmerchantable 

stems, usually for energy production 

 
 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

M-18 ▪ Glossary of Terms 

Page Intentionally Blank 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-1 

Appendix N – Response to Comments 

Contents 

 N.1. Introduction and Process ................................................................ N-2

Content Analysis .................................................................................. N-2 

Response Process ................................................................................. N-3 

N.2. Response to Comments .................................................................. N-5 

Planning .............................................................................................. N-5 

Access and Travel Management ............................................................ N-27 

Air Quality ......................................................................................... N-35 

Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species ...................................................... N-36 

Botany .............................................................................................. N-38 

Climate Change .................................................................................. N-39 

Cultural Resources .............................................................................. N-46 

Tribal Relations .................................................................................. N-47 

Fire and Fuels .................................................................................... N-47 

Forest Vegetation ............................................................................... N-56 

Interpretive Services, Conservation Education, and Visitor Services ........... N-77 

Lands Program ................................................................................... N-77 

Recreation ......................................................................................... N-79 

Scenic Resources ..............................................................................N-107 

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species, Including Management Indicator Species 

(MIS) ...............................................................................................N-108 

Water Quality and Soil Erosion; Watershed Condition ..............................N-149 

Wilderness .......................................................................................N-154 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences .............................................N-154 

N.3. Comments Received from Federal, State, Local Agencies, and Elected 

Officials ............................................................................................. N-165 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-2 ■ Response to Comments 

N.1. Introduction and Process 

This appendix summarizes and presents the Forest Service response to public comment 

received during the official comment period for the LTBMU DEIS and Revised Forest 

Plan, which ran from June 1, 2012 to August 29, 2012. The Forest Service received 

17,958 letters and emails during this period. 

The concerns expressed in the comments range in nature from broad issues to technical 

specifics. The extensive public response demonstrates the intense interest, depth of 

feeling, and level of concern regarding the management of NFS lands in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin. The comments we received assisted us in improving both our Revised Forest Plan 

and the accompanying environmental analysis. We are grateful to all who commented 

and thus helped us shape the Forest Plan for management of NFS lands in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin. 

As a federal agency, we are required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

to solicit public comment on our draft plans involving significant actions. We are directed 

to "assess and consider comments both individually and collectively." The Content 

Analysis and Response Process sections explain the process we followed in assessing 

and considering comments. The responses follow in the main body of the appendix, and 

are arranged by subject matter. Thus, if a letter included comments on several topics, the 

responses will be found in different parts of the document. 

All original comment letters/emails, and other supporting documents are available in the 

administrative record at the LTBMU Supervisor's Office in South Lake Tahoe, CA. 

Letters from federal, state, and local agencies and elected officials are reproduced in this 

appendix, as required by Forest Service policy. 

Content Analysis 

The process of identifying comments in a letter/email and grouping them according to 

their content is called content analysis. Content analysis is a systematic process of 

logging, reading, numbering, and coding all public comments. The process ensures that 

every comment is read, analyzed, and considered. Content analysis helps to organize the 

comments in a logical manner so a meaningful response can be prepared. 

Both original and form letters and emails were received. Original letters/emails include 

both those submitted by individuals and those from agencies and organizations. Form 

letters are two or more letters/emails that contain identical text but are submitted by 

different people. 

Each letter or email may contain anywhere from one to several hundred comments. A 

comment is an identifiable expression of concern within a letter or email. The 17,958 

letters and emails we received contained over 3,300 individual comments. 

The initial phase of content analysis was completed by a specialized Forest Service unit, 

the NEPA Services Group. Each original letter/email and each form letter/email was 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-3 

entered in a database, read in its entirety and discrete comments identified within them. 

If a commenter added information to a form letter, and the additional information was not 

redundant to the comment already in the form itself, this content was also analyzed. Each 

comment was assigned a unique tracking number and coded (i.e. grouped) according to 

content. 

In the second phase, LTBMU Planning staff read each of the comments and refined the 

content groupings. Comments on the same subject were grouped and summarized into 

public concern (PC) statements that captured the essence of similar comments. A total of 

520 PC statements were drafted. 

The main body of this document consists of the Forest Service response to the comments, 

summarized and organized by the PC statements. Due to the volume of comments and 

the similarity of many comments, we chose to summarize the Forest Service response to 

the comments. All comments associated with a PC statement were considered in the 

response. The PC statements and our responses are organized by sections that mirror the 

order of the resource topics in the FEIS. 

Response Process 

The Forest Service has a responsibility under NEPA to first "assess and consider 

comments both individually and collectively" and then to "respond...stating its response 

in the final statement." The content analysis process described in the previous section 

considers comments received "individually and collectively." The main body of this 

document provides the required response to the comments, summarized and grouped by 

PC statements. 

While the vast majority of the comments were relevant, a few fell outside the scope of 

decision-making for the LTBMU Plan revision. Generally, the types of comments and 

concerns that were considered outside of the scope include those that: 

 Do not address the purpose, need, or goals of the LTBMU Plan (e.g., propose 

an action in areas outside the LTBMU) 

 Do not directly relate to the actions proposed in the alternatives 

 Suggest an action not appropriate for the current level of planning (e.g., sitespecific decisions to construct new roads, campgrounds or facilities, to offer 

special use permits)

 Relate to day- to-day operational issues such as law enforcement procedures 

or road maintenance

 Propose untenable restrictions on management of the LTBMU or 

conflict with approved plans not being revised in the LTBMU planning 

process

The NEPA encourages all interested parties to submit comment as often as they wish 

regardless of age, citizenship, or eligibility to vote. Respondents may include businesses, 

people from other countries, children, and people who submit multiple responses. Every 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-4 ■ Response to Comments 

substantive comment and suggestion has value, whether expressed by one respondent or 

many. 

It is important to recognize that the consideration of public comment is not a votecounting process in which the outcome is determined by the greatest number of 

comments on a particular issue. Relative depth of feeling and interest among the public 

can serve to provide a general context for decision-making. However, it is the relevance, 

specificity, and factual accuracy of comment content that serves to provide the basis for 

modifications to planning documents and decisions. Further, those who respond do not 

constitute a random or representative public sample because they are self-selected, unlike 

scientifically designed surveys or polls. 

The results of this process serve two related purposes in public land management 

planning. The first is to fulfill the legal mandate of the NEPA and accompanying CEQ 

regulations. These statutes require planning teams to seek public comment on proposed 

actions and use them to clarify, modify, or revise analyses and conclusions in order to 

improve agency decision-making. The public thus provides a vital contribution to 

planning efforts. 

The second goal is to provide the public a review of the range of concerns, background 

issues, and substantive comment submitted on a project, and to inform each commenter 

about what actions may have been taken in response to his or her comments. 

The Forest Service responded to the comments in the following ways, as prescribed in 40 

CFR 1503.4: 

 Modifying alternatives

 Supplementing, improving, or modifying the analysis documented in the 

DEIS

 Making factual corrections

 Explaining why the comments do not need further agency response
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-5 

N.2. Response to Comments 

Planning 

Planning Regulations 

PC 162: The Forest Service should clarify which planning regulations they are using. 

Response: Section 1.3 of the FEIS discloses which planning regulations are being used 

for this Forest Plan Revision Process 

PC 519: The Forest Service should ensure that requirements of planning regulations are 

met 

Sample Comment: The 1982 Rule sets out “minimum requirements for integrating 

individual forest resource planning into the forest plan” at Sections 219.14 through 

219.26. See 36 CFR § 219.13. In addition, Section 219.27 provides the “minimum 

specific management requirements to be met in accomplishing goals and objectives for 

the National Forest System.” 

Response: The intent of Sections 219.14 through 219.27 of the 1982 Planning Rule have 

been met with this Forest Plan Revision. 

Evaluations have been completed for Timber Suitability (Appendix G) and for 

Wilderness (Appendix C), including lands designated as Inventoried Roadless Areas. 

Standards and Guidelines in the plan ensure that resources, such as vegetation, 

Recreation, Minerals, Water, Soils, Cultural and Historic, and Fish and Wildlife are 

protected. 

Grazing allotments on this forest are currently vacant. Conditions that have changed since 

the 1988 Forest Plan, such as land purchases, have not affected those allotments. At the 

project level, the suitability and capability of those lands for grazing would be evaluated. 

Effects from grazing were analyzed in Section 3.4.18 of the FEIS. 

Grass Lake has been designated as a Research Natural Area (March 12, 1992). 

Diversity of plant, animal and tree species has been accounted for in developing the 

desired conditions for this forest plan. 

Management Requirements set out in 36 CFR Section 219.27 have been met throughout 

the forest plan. Desired conditions as well as standards and guidelines lay out how 

resource protection, vegetation manipulation, silvicultural practices, riparian areas, and 

soil and water resources will be protected. Even-aged management is not considered as a 

silvicultural practice in this forest plan. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-6 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 517: The Forest Service should meet requirements of planning regulations for 

riparian protection 

Response: The Plan includes numerous desired conditions and standards and guidelines 

designed to protect riparian areas, primarily in the Physical Resources and Biological 

Resources sections. Some, but not all, of the Forest Plan components that address 

riparian areas are found under section headings for Stream Environment Zones (SEZs). 

The SEZ concept includes riparian areas as well as other wet areas such as bogs and fens, 

meadows, and marshes. 

In requiring Plans to provide “special attention” for riparian areas, The 1982 Planning 

Regulations (219.27e) do not, as suggested by the commenter, prescribe a “buffer” 

intended to exclude management practices; rather they require consideration of a number 

of factors when “determining what management practices may be performed within these 

areas or the constraints to be placed upon their performance.” 

PC 65: The Forest Service should include a "no grazing" alternative and should analyze 

effects of grazing as required in planning regulations. 

Response: Effects from grazing were analyzed in section 3.4.18 of the FEIS. Changes in 

the range resource were analyzed and any new land acquisitions within the 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 no grazing is occurring, 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 that is why it was 

not analyzed in detail. 

Decision Process 

PC 29: Citizens or Congress should vote on changes to public use of NFS lands 

Response: Decisions regarding use of NFS lands managed by the LTBMU are made by 

the Forest Supervisor of the LTBMU. Authority to make decisions is outlined in Forest 

Service Manual 1230 – Delegations of Authority and Responsibility. 

Projects and plans are developed and analyzed according to the National Environmental 

Policy Act, which requires public involvement. The LTBMU lists current projects on the 

Schedule of Proposed Actions, which is available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forestlevel.php?110519. The list is updated regularly and includes contact information for the 

project manager. It is a good way to stay informed on what is happening on the LTBMU 

and to make your voice heard on projects that interest you. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-7 

PC 158: the Forest Service should give more weight to the comments of local residents 

than to comments of those living outside the Tahoe Basin. 

Sample Comment: “There are far too many people who live out of the area who try to 

govern our life style here at Tahoe...They don't understand the environment and get 

carried away over certain issues without seeing the complete picture.” 

“It is my understanding that the majority of persons requesting additional wilderness 

areas are not residents of the Lake Tahoe area but live out of the region.” 

“People that do not live in this area should not be able to write the rules for us.” 

Response: 36 CFR 219.4 (1)(i) requires that the responsible official engage the public, 

including those interested at the local, regional, and national levels; which we have done. 

The process and procedure for responding to public comments is set forth in the NEPA 

and the CEQ implementing regulations (40 CFR 1503.4, 1506.6) as described in FSH 

1909.15. 

All comments on the DEIS were compiled, organized, read, and analyzed. Individual 

comments that relate to a particular topic of concern or resource consideration are 

identified, as well as the reason or rationale for the comments. It is the relevance, 

specificity, and factual accuracy of comments that serve to provide the basis for 

modifications to planning documents and support for making an informed decision. We 

do recognize that decisions and management actions for a national forest can directly 

affect those living in or near it. We appreciate your comments which include your 

personal and local knowledge of the LTBMU. 

PC 160: The Forest Service should ensure that decisions are not made in haste and are 

given due consideration. The Forest Service should provide equal consideration to 

views of individuals and special interest groups with lots of money. 

Response: Before decisions are made, resource specialists and Forest leadership review 

and respond to these comments, revise the preferred alternative in response to the 

comments, complete any additional analysis needed. This process requires considerable 

time and thought. We do give equal consideration to all views. 

Purpose and Need 

PC 268: The Forest Service should include species viability in the Purpose and Need. 

Response: The Purpose and Need for Forest Plan Revision is described in Section 1.4 of 

the FEIS. Species viability was not identified as a new issue, trend or management 

concern which would change from those identified in the 1988 Forest Plan. We do 

however, believe that the Forest Plan provides for species viability as is required in the 

regulations. 

Maintaining species viability, like other concepts within the 1982 regulations, is a 

background principle and guiding force that influences all alternatives, even though they 

are not specifically called out in the Purpose and Need. It is unnecessary and would be 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-8 ■ Response to Comments 

impractical to include every regulatory concept in the 1982 rules as part of the Purpose 

and Need. 

Management of NFS Lands 

PC 27: The Forest Service should use tax dollars efficiently and manage forest land 

properly. 

Sample Comment: “This taxpayer would like to voice the concern that his dollars go 

towards resource preservation, wildlife preservation and equitable shared use of the land 

that is used for recreation throughout the four seasons.” 

Response: Opinions varied widely on appropriate use of tax dollars and proper forest 

management. We are in agreement with the comment above. 

PC 52: The Forest Service should actively promote use of best practices. 

Response: Use of best practices is actively promoted and will continue to be actively 

promoted under the Revised Forest Plan. The Strategies and Standards and Guidelines 

for all resource areas are designed to promote best practices. Best practices include the 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water quality management prescribed by the 

Pacific Southwest Region and the Forest Service National Core Best Management 

Practices. Use of these practices is required by the water quality standards and guidelines 

in the Revised Forest Plan. 

PC 92: The Forest Service should preserve and protect NFS lands for current and future 

generations 

Sample Comment: “I believe you have an important decision ahead of you as the 

National Forest is so important to the many residents and visitors to our area. My 

parents first brought me to Tahoe in 1960 and I fell in love with the woods. It is 

important to me that it’s preserved for my children and grandchildren.” 

“The Forest Service often has a difficult mandate - but I grew up believing in the ideal of 

public wild lands for nature to carry on in perpetuity and The Forest Service as the 

guardian of that ideal. My husband and I moved to the foothills of the Sierra to be closer 

to the places we love to recreate; hike, camp, ski, boat, and bicycle. The solitude, quiet, 

and beauty rekindle my camaraderie with the earth and fill my heart with joy and awe. I 

feel very fortunate to have such locations to visit right in my ‘backyard.’ The hopeful 

child in me wants to believe that careful consideration will be given for these ideals, that 

I hope you share...” 

“As a citizen who cares about the environment and the wildlife that inhabits it, I believe 

we must do everything within our power to protect both. Future generations deserve to 

inherit a healthy environment and a thriving wildlife population.” 

Response: We are pleased to see so many people expressing this concern. We have done 

our best to develop a Revised Forest Plan that reflects our role as public land stewards. 

We believe the Revised Forest Plan balances natural resource conservation and 

management with a variety of dispersed and developed recreation opportunities. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-9 

We also agree with the commenter who stated “While Multiple Use management is a 

goal of the Forest Service, it does not mean that all the uses need to be accommodated in 

one place at the same time. The Lake Tahoe Basin is finite and fragile. It cannot be sliced 

and diced by unlimited demand for recreation.”

PC 121: The Forest Service should focus on illegal marijuana growing on NFS lands. 

Response: While illegal marijuana growing significantly impacts National Forest Lands 

in California, it is a relatively rare issue in the Lake Tahoe Basin, due to the short 

growing season and high level of public land use. 

PC 175: The Forest Service should provide a balance between environmental protection 

and economic health. 

Sample Comment: “What would Lake Tahoe be without the forests, clear waters and 

fresh air? Just another barren place with a bit of gambling and drinking going on. 

Management with both economic and environment involved, will still leave pristine, 

healthy wilderness.” 

Response: As stated in the Planning for Sustainability section of the Plan Introduction, 

the Revised Forest Plan addresses ecological, social, and economic sustainability. 

Management direction in the Revised Forest Plan focuses on both the natural and human 

environments. The Tahoe Basin economy is largely based on recreation and tourism, and 

we recognize the importance of National Forest lands as a setting for this economy. We 

agree with this commenter that we can contribute to the Basin’s economic health while 

providing adequate environmental protection. In the Social and Economic section of the 

FEIS (3.4.21) we have added additional analysis of the economic contribution of the 

National Forest to the local economy. 

PC 38: The Forest Service should ensure that management practices are the best for 

the land and not just more practical economically 

Sample Comment: “The USFS needs to apply sound science to the management of forest 

lands and not merely follow the whims of commercial loggers.” 

“...harvesting larger trees makes the economics of forestry activities less expensive, but 

the “usual” way of doing business may not be the right way, given USFS objectives” 

Response: No portion of the LTBMU has been identified as suitable for timber 

production. Therefore, economics are not a primary consideration for forest management 

at the LTBMU. Consequently, cut trees will only be removed for public health and 

safety or ecological restoration purposes. 

PC 106: The Plan should provide safeguards to prevent opening up the lands to those 

that would exploit the resources for their own economic gain 

Sample Comment: “Your purpose is to maintain the environment, not support 

corporations.” 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-10 ■ Response to Comments 

“...but this ignores the economic benefits of keeping Tahoe the jewel of the Sierra.” 

“...protect our public lands from private profit's exploitation.” 

Response: The LTBMU has no mining or active range uses at this time, as well as no 

lands identified as suitable for timber production. In addition, our recreation and lands 

special uses are controlled by a permitting process that is outlined in law, regulation and 

Forest Service policy. Recreation and lands special uses help us to deliver a diverse 

number of recreation opportunities. Development on private lands is outside the scope of 

this Forest Plan, but would be regulated by the TRPA and other local and state agencies. 

With this in mind, exploiting the land for economic gain is not a major concern with this 

Forest Plan. 

PC 122: The Forest Service should have more staff on the ground to reduce damage 

and conflicts 

Sample Comment: “Recreation use has increased at the Lake on National Forest... I've 

yet to see a USFS ranger or other person at a trailhead parking area or along any trail 

on National Forest land.” 

“More should also be done to ensure that OSVs adhere to current restrictions and stay in 

designated areas and marked routes.” 

Response: The LTBMU has staff and law enforcement on the ground during busy times 

of year, such as during the 4th of July. Providing staff on the ground is constrained by our 

budgets. While we do believe that having ‘boots on the ground’ in order to enforce our 

rules and regulations is very important, it is not always possible. Therefore, we focus our 

efforts on the areas where there is potential for resource damage and conflicts. All of our 

field-going staff are encouraged to act as forest protection officers and reports any 

resource damage or conflicts when they feel it is safe to do so. We also encourage the 

public to report the same damage or conflicts, when it is safe to do so, so that we can 

appropriately determine where to concentrate our staff time. 

PC 176: The Forest Service should make the environment the first priority. 

Sample Comment: “FS should prioritize public safety over environmental issues.” 

“FS should make Lake Tahoe the first priority” 

“Lake Tahoe’s environment has been degraded by heavy human use and development 

throughout the years, and frankly, it’s time to give back to the lake by strengthening 

protection of the public lands around the Basin.” 

“The environment there is unique and extremely precious and valuable.’ 

“...we need to ensure that any future change we make includes the concerns of all of 

those who can't speak for themselves (flora, fauna, water, soil).” 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-11 

“You have the power in your hands to protect the life of the forest and by doing that 

protect the health of so many, many people.” 

Response: The Forest Service is mandated to manage NFS lands for multiple-uses. As 

such, we are asked to balance environmental protection and use of resources (including 

recreation). We believe that the preferred alternative does strike a good balance between 

these considerations. 

PC 181: The Forest Service should recognize its limited ability to control nature 

Sample Comment: “We do not rule the planet, it rules us! It would be wise to remember 

that.” 

Response: We do recognize that we cannot control nature. The Revised Plan emphasizes 

restoring natural ecosystem processes. This concept recognizes that nature is ultimately 

in control, and our role is to implement projects that better enable natural systems to 

adapt to change. Restoring fire to the landscape, or management that mimics the effects 

of fire, is emphasized. The roles of natural disturbances such as drought, insect 

outbreaks, and changing climate are recognized and accounted for in management 

strategies. 

PC 206: The Forest Service should include criteria for determining if actions would 

compromise sustainability 

Response: The overall Desired Conditions in the Forest Plan are intended to describe 

sustainable social, economic and ecological conditions. Objectives are milestones in 

meeting the Desired Condition, Standards and Guidelines act as the boundaries, and the 

monitoring plan is designed to gauge where we are at in meeting the Desired Conditions 

and determine if we need to make any adjustments. Therefore, when taken as a whole, 

the Forest Plan is designed to determine whether our actions would compromise 

sustainability. 

PC 515: (Many respondents expressed their love of the forests of the LTBMU and 

advocated for their protection as well as the protection of Lake Tahoe itself.) 

Response: We thank you for your comments and believe that the preferred alternative 

will provide those protections to the lake and the forests for the life of the plan and into 

the future. 

PC 520: The Forest Service should address its relationship with TRPA 

Response: The Forest Service relationship with TRPA is described in the Forest Plan 

Introduction (Volume II of the FEIS), under the heading “Relationship to Plans of Other 

Agencies.” 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-12 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 211: The Forest Service should encourage humans and animals to live in harmony 

with each other. 

Response: The Forest Service is a land manager and does not manage wildlife itself, only 

habitat. Conservation education programs inform residents and visitors of all ages about 

the natural environment in which they live, work, and play. There are no programmatic 

differences in conservation education between alternatives. 

PC 226: The Forest Service should protect and respect the land and all creatures. 

Response: The Draft Management Plan contains management direction that aids in the 

protection of terrestrial and aquatic species as well as associated habitat. The specific 

direction can be reviewed in Desired Conditions in the Revised Forest Plan as well as the 

Objectives and Standards and Guidelines that are intended to aid in the attainment of 

those Desired Conditions. 

Forest Plan Management Direction 

PC 64: The Forest Service should clarify the relationship of the Draft Plan to the other 

alternatives - what applies in which alternative. 

Response: The Revised Forest Plan applies to Alternative E – The Preferred Alternative. 

To further aid the reader in understanding how the Forest Plan would differ by 

Alternative, we have included two Appendices. Appendix H compares the management 

strategies by Alternative. Appendix I compares the Alternatives by Objective. Appendix 

J is also included to show the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines from the existing 

Forest Plan, which is Alternative A. 

PC 134: The Forest Service should include specific standards and guidelines to protect 

the Upper Truckee River until Congress acts on the agency’s recommendation. 

Response: A Forest Plan Standard has been added that requires management of the 

recommended segment of the Upper Truckee River to protect its free-flowing status and 

the outstandingly remarkable river values identified in the Record of Decision for the 

Eight Eastside Rivers FEIS (1999). The specific management requirements are in FSH 

1909.12, Chapter 82.5 – Interim Management of Eligible or Suitable Rivers. 

PC 195: The Forest Service should identify smoke management BMPs in the Forest 

Plan. 

Response: Smoke management BMPs are developed at the project specific level. 

Because of the variability in both weather as well as placement on the landscape involved 

in planning prescribed fire it does not make sense to identify smoke management BMPs 

in the Forest Plan. However, the Forest Plan does identify desired conditions, objectives, 

strategies and standards and guidelines which aid in the development of project specific 

smoke management BMPs. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-13 

PC 274: The Forest Service desired conditions should incorporate the range of natural 

disturbances (this does not include disturbances caused by logging) that comprise a fully 

functioning, healthy ecosystem, including fire and insect pests and the contribution of 

resulting dead standing and fallen trees to soil productivity and wildlife habitat. 

Response: The desired ranges of structural classes for each major forest type are a 

reflection of disturbances in a more naturally functioning ecosystem where such 

disturbance regimes can occur without human intervention. The current forest conditions 

stem from the Comstock-era logging, as well as efforts over the past 100 years to 

suppress wildfires. Therefore, one of the primary natural drivers that would have shaped 

the landscape while the post-Comstock-era forest was re-initiating (i.e. fire) did not 

occur. Likewise, other disturbance factors such as drought related mortality are quickly 

removed to lower the risk of nearby trees becoming infested by bark beetles. Natural and 

historic ranges of variability are discussed during project development to best prescribe 

surrogate treatments that more closely resemble what would be expected if a naturally 

occurring disturbance were to occur. Prescriptions do include standing snags, down 

woody debris, and other resource protection measures. 

PC 58: The Forest Service should make the time periods for attainment for objectives 

more specific - "the life of the Plan" is not specific enough. 

Sample Comment: “The planning horizon of the Plan is stated as the “next 10 to 15 

years” on page 1- 6 of the EIS. However, the current Plan has been in effect for the past 

24 years. Therefore, the LTBMU could be required to implement actions by 2023 

(assuming the Plan is adopted in 2013 and has a 10 year life), by 2028 (assuming the 

Plan is adopted in 2013 and has a 15 year life) or by whenever if there is a lack of 

funding or policy direction to prepare a new Plan as required by law. These problems 

must be addressed by stating specific dates (month, day and year) or specific time (e.g. 5 

years) from Plan adoption for implementing these Objectives. Also, the Plan should 

indicate how implementation would be staged so as to avoid potential significant impacts 

and to judge progress towards full implementation of the Objective.” 

Response: We have revised the Objectives to make them more consistent. It is our belief 

that future funding will primarily be allocated by Congress. While we have estimated 

future funding levels for analysis purposes, in fact, we cannot know with certainty what 

level of funding we will receive in any given year. Changing conditions such as wildfires 

can shift priorities, adding additional uncertainty. Thus it is not possible to be as precise 

as the commenter has requested. The details of staging implementation will be covered in 

project-specific NEPA analysis. 

PC 85: The Plan should include the nonurban Santini-Burton parcels in surrounding or 

adjacent management areas instead of having them in their own management area 

Response: Parcels acquired under the Santini-Burton Act were designated as a separate 

management area in the 1988 Forest Plan and this designation is continued in the Revised 

Forest Plan, largely because the Santini-Burton Act restricts the uses of these lands. 

Treating them as a management area helps to ensure that the provisions of the Act are 

followed. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-14 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 208: The Forest Service should ensure that all standards are specific enough to 

preclude exceptions. 

Response: While some Forest Plan S&Gs are very specific, others are broader to 

accommodate a wide range of conditions; in these cases more specific direction is 

prescribed at the project level. We have updated standards and guidelines to improve the 

process by which resources are considered by interdisciplinary planning teams in project 

design. 

PC 81: The Forest Service should demonstrate that Plan components are supported by 

science. 

Response: The FEIS explains the effects of implementing the Plan components in an 

analysis that is backed by science. The FEIS also incorporates the results of a science 

review that evaluated the use of science in the FEIS. 

PC 508: The Forest Service should clarify management direction with respect to Alpine 

Meadows and Northstar Ski Area boundaries. 

Response: Ski area permit boundaries are described in the special use permits. The 

Revised Forest Plan does not alter any special use permits currently in effect. The FEIS 

has been clarified by removing information that may have been confusing. 

Backcountry Management Area 

PC 4: The Forest Service should expand backcountry management areas. 

Sample Comment: “The Draft Plan fails to classify lands as backcountry that are, in 

fact, used primarily for backcountry recreation. Additional lands should be classified as 

“backcountry” and “semi-primitive non-motorized”, including areas north and south of 

the Mt. Rose highway, the area east of Brockway Summit, and Blackwood Canyon.”

Response: As described in Chapter 2 of the FEIS, Alternative E proposes to increase the 

amount of acreage managed as Backcountry Management Area by approximately 3,800 

acres from what is proposed in Alternatives A, B, and C. The Stanford Rock Backcountry 

area lies between Blackwood and Ward Creeks. A number of other factors, other than 

solely recreation use, are considered when designating lands as Backcountry. This area 

was proposed because it only has one road, at this time the need for more roads is not 

anticipated for future management, it contains PACs, its boundaries were drawn to 

exclude the WUI, and it is directly adjacent to wilderness and roadless areas. Additional 

Backcountry areas were proposed in Alternative D. 

In the DEIS, some IRA lands were incorrectly mapped as General Conservation. This 

mistake has been corrected in the FEIS. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-15 

PC 15: The Forest Service should prohibit all development and motorized use in 

Backcountry 

PC 383: The Forest Service should provide more protective management direction to 

maintain the wilderness character of roadless areas. 

Sample Comment: “The backcountry and semi-primitive non-motorized designations in 

the Draft Plan arbitrarily exclude over-snow vehicles from their non-motorized 

designations.”

Response: Alternatives B, C, D and E propose to manage Backcountry Management 

Areas as described in the Revised Forest Plan Part 2.3 Management Areas and Suitable 

Uses. Development of these lands is generally prohibited. Exceptions are noted in the 

Suitable Uses and Management Activities Table in the Revised Forest Plan. Management 

activities are minimal, but may have a limited influence on the landscape. Native surface 

roads are present in some backcountry areas and road re-construction may be permitted in 

some Backcountry areas where additional restrictions do not apply. OSV use is limited 

to designated areas (see Revised Forest Plan Map 18). 

Backcountry Management Areas fill a recreation niche between designated Wilderness 

and General Conservation management areas. Most Backcountry Management Areas are 

also Inventoried Roadless areas, which must be managed such that future Wilderness 

designation is not precluded. 

The 1988 Plan included exceptions to the Semi Primitive Non-Motorized ROS class for 

OSV use in several IRAs. These exceptions are carried forward in all of the alternatives, 

which retain current open and closed designations for OSV use. 

The ROS Users Guide describes types of access and facilities, lists typical uses for each 

class, and other information, including recreational settings. ROS classes are not 

designations or management prescriptions but serve as a guide for designing management 

prescriptions (in this case, backcountry). The ROS classes provide planning guidance, but 

should not be construed as absolute direction. The ROS Users Guide recognizes the 

potential for seasonal differences in setting classes. Activity setting and experience 

opportunities may change between the seasons, for example, OHV use versus OSV use. 

PC 76: FS should retain all roadless areas in their current status and manage them to 

retain roadless character. 

Response: Each alternative proposes retaining all previously identified Inventoried 

Roadless Areas (IRAs) and will manage them as Backcountry Management Areas. 

Backcountry Management Area management concepts (e.g. natural landscapes, dispersed 

recreation, and limited management) are described in Section 2.3 of the Revised Forest 

Plan (See PC -15). Alternative D proposes adding additional areas to the Backcountry 

MA; these would be managed in relatively the same way as IRAs. The Preferred 

Alternative, Alternative E would add roughly 3,600 acres of Backcountry between Ward 

and Blackwood Creeks (Stanford Rock). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-16 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 118: The Forest Service should update the roadless area maps. 

Response: The Inventoried Roadless Area maps used in the Revised Forest Plan are 

current. They are the maps contained in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 

CFR 294). Due to ongoing litigation it is outside the scope of this plan revision to alter 

the published Inventory Roadless Areas that are part of the 2001 Roadless Rule. 

Adaptive Management 

PC 49: The Forest Service should implement adaptive management and amend the 

Plan as needed to be consistent with current science and to respond to changing trends 

in natural resource conditions.

Response: It is Forest Service policy to implement adaptive management. The current 

Plan has been amended numerous times and we expect the Revised Forest Plan will also 

be amended in response to changing conditions and new science. Several commenters 

expressed concerns that we would not be able to change the Forest Plan; however, the 

Forest Supervisor will be able to amend the Forest Plan as needed, with the exception of 

decisions such as Wilderness or Wild and Scenic River designation which require higher 

level approvals. 

PC 111: The Forest Service should incorporate the adaptive management programs set 

forth in the 2001 and 2004 Framework decisions. 

Response: The adaptive monitoring program specified in both the 2001 and 2004 Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Records of Decision is accomplished at the Regional 

Office level in coordination with the research station. Broadscale monitoring will 

continue to be accomplished at the regional level even after the forests of the Sierra 

Nevada have undergone Forest Plan Revision. 

The 2001 and 2004 Framework Decisions amended the 1988 LTBMU Land and 

Resource Management Plan. The Record of Decision for this Forest Plan Revision will 

put in place a new Forest Plan for the LTBMU, which includes a monitoring plan as 

Appendix A. The monitoring plan will be adjusted as needed to respond to new 

information and unanticipated changes in conditions which meets the intent of adaptive 

management. 

Use of Science 

PC 159: The Forest Service should always use science in planning even if it is not the 

most important consideration. 

Response: Science is used in all Forest Service planning that involves natural resource 

management. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a systematic, 

interdisciplinary approach to ensure integrated application of the natural and social 

sciences and the environmental design arts in any planning and decision making that 

affects the human environment (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(A)). 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-17 

Alternatives 

PC 67: The Forest Service should analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. 

PC 69: The Forest Service should include an alternative that takes a more moderate 

approach to fuel management and restoration. 

Sample Comments: “...the DEIS should have considered an alternative that corresponds 

to the 2001 Framework decision, which generally allows substantial forest thinning of 

trees up to 20” dbh 

“...that would institute an active management approach that would result in more active 

management than Alts. B and C (and A), but would do so in a non-commercial, 

ecological approach that would focus on actively managing forests, including mature 

trees, to accomplish ecological goals, but by actively creating habitat structures without 

commercial logging—i.e., without removing wood commodities (sawtimber or biomass)” 

“The alternatives presented in the DEIS fail to meet the requirements of NEPA and 

NFMA because they only propose activities at the extremes and do not include a more 

moderate approach to fuel management and restoration.” 

“The draft plan, to approach a full range of alternatives as called for by NEPA, should 

have contained an alternative that required less intensive fuel treatments in order to 

retain many more medium to large diameter trees and a higher degree of canopy cover, 

to the benefit of wildlife. Some wildlife, such as the California spotted owl, definitely 

depend on a closed canopy cover.” 

Response: Chapter 2 of the FEIS describes the alternatives and explains the process used 

to develop them. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 describe the alternatives that were considered in 

detail and how they address the issues. Based on the comments received during the 

comment period we added Alternative E to the alternatives that are considered in detail. 

Section 2.5 briefly describes the alternatives that were considered but not analyzed in 

detail along with the rationale for why they were excluded from detailed analysis; Section 

2.5 has been updated to include 8 alternatives. We believe that with the alternatives 

presented that we have analyzed a range of alternatives that meets the requirements of the 

planning regulations and the CEQ requirements. 

PC 70: The Forest Service should include the document "National Forests in the Sierra 

Nevada: A Conservation Strategy" as an alternative. 

Response: Chapter 2, Section 2.5.8 describes the rationale for why this alternative was 

not considered in detail. This document is regionwide in nature and not as site-specific as 

the proposed LTBMU Forest Plan. In addition, this document is focused on habitat and 

species management and does not adequately take into account the other multiple use 

mandates that are the foundation of Forest Service management. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-18 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 344: The Forest Service should modify the preferred alternative to allow 15% 

expansion in ski areas. 

Response: The 15% expansion amount is identified in Alternative C. The preferred 

alternative, Alternative E, includes approximately a 10% expansion in ski areas based on 

current expected needs for expansion. Recreation expansion has been defined in Section 

2.2 of the Revised Forest Plan. Effects from expansion of ski areas have been updated in 

Chapter 3, Section 3.4.19 - Recreation. 

PC 61: The Forest Service should consider combining elements of alternatives. 

Response: The Preferred Alternative, Alternative E, was developed in response to 

comments and combines elements of several alternatives. Alternative E is described in 

Chapter 2 of the FEIS. 

PC 66: The Forest Service should consider an alternative like the 2001 Framework 

decision that 1) retains large trees; 2) allows for thinning of small to medium size trees; 

and 3) limits recreational expansion into wildlife habitat. 

Response: Please see Section 2.5 of the FEIS, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 

from Detailed Study. 

PC 71: The Forest Service should explain why an alternative was not considered that 

recommends wilderness designation for all roadless areas and wild and scenic river 

recommendations for all eligible rivers 

Response: All Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) were evaluated for wilderness 

potential; this analysis is presented in Appendix C. IRAs were evaluated based on 

Capability, Availability, and Need, using the process described in Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70. Based on this evaluation, the two IRAs with the highest 

ratings were included in the alternatives - Dardanelles and Freel/Jobs Peak. 

Wild and Scenic River recommendations are based on two determinations: eligibility and 

suitability, which are defined in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 Chapter 80. To be 

eligible, a river must be free-flowing, and must possess one or more “outstandingly 

remarkable values” (ORVs), as defined in the Handbook. The suitability criteria defined 

in the Handbook are applied to determine whether an eligible river should be 

recommended. These criteria include a number of land ownership and management 

considerations. Thus, not all eligible rivers are suitable and may not be recommended. 

See Appendices B and C and Section 2.5 in the FEIS for further discussion. 

PC 228: The Forest Service should select an alternative that includes more aggressive 

forest management than Alternative C. 

Sample Comment: “My only complaint with Alt. C regarding forest management is that 

it is not aggressive enough. Our forests are in bad shape. They are much, much too 

crowded and will catastrophically burn if something isn't done soon. We should be 

spending all available resources on managing our forests. Stand health is much more 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-19 

important to the long-term health and economic prosperity of the Tahoe basin than any 

other factor affecting our forests.” 

Response: We agree that there is an urgent need to continue reducing hazardous fuels and 

restore forest health, and our current fuels program was developed in collaboration with 

all land ownerships and jurisdictions in the Lake Tahoe Basin - the 2007 Lake Tahoe 

Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Restoration and Wildfire Prevention Strategy. We have 

treated close to half the WUI at this time. Alternative B would continue this work at our 

current pace. The vegetation management parameters in Alternative C represent the most 

aggressive vegetation management program that we think we can reasonably accomplish. 

PC 371: The Forest Service should consider an alternative that separates winter 

motorized and non-motorized users. 

Response: All alternatives provide for separation of winter motorized and non-motorized 

users on the approximately 48% of NFS lands managed by the LTBMU that are closed to 

motorized use. Lands open to motorized use are also open to non-motorized use, which 

means that non-motorized uses are allowed on all NFS lands managed by the LTBMU. 

PC 510: I support Alternative A

Sample Comment: “...would best serve the environment by allowing needed active 

management to reduce fuel loads and promote forest health. These alternatives would 

also best meet the needs of the community by allowing for continued and expanded 

recreation access.” 

“I support fuels management practices.” 

“...would appreciate if we are allowed to enjoy the forest as we do now as a multiuse 

area, which includes all current forms of non-motorized and motorized recreation!” 

“...neither of these alternatives will impact snowmobiling in the basin”.

Response: There were multiple commenters who expressed their support for Alternative 

A for various reasons ranging from support for fuels management activities to continuing 

to provide for both motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. Comments 

that state a position for or against a specific alternative are appreciated as this gives the 

Forest Service a sense of the public's feeling and beliefs about a proposed course of 

action. Such information can only be used by the decision maker(s) in arriving at a 

decision and not for improving the environmental analysis or documentation. 

PC 511: I support Alternative B. 

Thank you for your support. We have modified Alternative B to reflect many of the 

comments we received, and believe that Modified Alternative B (FEIS Chapter 2) is an 

improvement. We believe this alternative provides the best balance of recreation 

opportunities and natural resource protection and management, and is the best choice 

overall to maintain or achieve our desired conditions. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-20 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 512: I support Alternative C. 

Sample Comment: “...it supports the most aggressive forest management.” 

“I support alternative C because it would add more parking on the East shore.” 

“...we believe Alternative C provides the best approach to managing the LTBMU for the 

users.”

Response: There were multiple commenters who expressed their support for Alternative 

C for various reasons ranging from the more aggressive nature of fuels management to 

providing more parking along the East Shore. Comments that state a position for or 

against a specific alternative are appreciated as this gives the Forest Service a sense of the 

public's feeling and beliefs about a proposed course of action. Such information can only 

be used by the decision maker(s) in arriving at a decision and not for improving the 

environmental analysis or documentation. 

PC 513: I support Alternative D 

Response: Alternative D is the result of a variety of suggestions received during scoping 

and would provide the lowest level of active management of any of the alternatives. 

While this approach would benefit some resources, analysis showed that it did not 

provide the best balance when considering a range of recreation opportunities and 

management of multiple natural resources. Wilderness designation would eliminate 

opportunities for mountain biking and snowmobiling in some popular areas. Effective 

fuels reduction would be very challenging given the tree removal limitations outside the 

WUI defense zone. This alternative also relies heavily on prescribed fire for vegetation 

management; analysis revealed that air quality restrictions and fire safety considerations 

would limit our ability to move towards our desired conditions for forest vegetation. 

PC 170: The Forest Service should include an active management, non-commercial 

alternative. 

Response: The majority of treatments proposed in the plan are non-commercial for a 

variety of reasons. These include limited accessibility to remove woody material(i.e no 

roads, steep slopes), no product value to the wood being cut and/or removed, and 

sensitivity of various habitats (e.g. spotted owl or goshawk protected activity centers) that 

limits treatments to hand only. 

The Forest Service is reducing higher than natural fuel loads, meaning that some fuels 

can be removed while other must be altered in place or burned. Re-introducing the role 

of fire that has been absent from many forest stands is a primary goal as well. Although 

some wood is removed in the form of a sale, these treatments are generally not a 

commercial operation. There are extremely few instances where such material removed 

from one location can be utilized on barren areas to increase nutrient cycling. We do, 

however, utilize such materials for dust abatement, mulch, slope stabilization and control 

of regeneration. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-21 

See wildlife comment response to use of coarse woody debris and snags. These features 

are retained in forest health and hazardous fuels treatments and analyzed for during 

project development and analysis. 

We agree that some trees can be girdled or otherwise killed in place for use as snags by 

wildlife. This option has been added to forest vegetation S&Gs in the Revised Forest 

Plan. 

PC 499: The Forest Service should consider an alternative that relies more on biomass 

removal and strategies other than prescribed fire; and should develop markets for 

chipped wood instead of burning piles which causes air pollution and deposition into 

Lake Tahoe. 

Response: Wood products do not drive the alternatives; rather the desired conditions and 

principle methods for achieving them are the drivers. As much as feasible, biomass 

strategies are a part of projects that have the possibility for wood removal. In addition to 

a biomass emphasis in the forest plan, there are multi-jurisdictional strategies in place to 

which the LTBMU is a participant; there is a Coordinated Resource Offering Protocol 

(http://www.crop-usa.com/tahoe/) evaluation in place for the Lake Tahoe Basin; and 

there is a Master Stewardship Agreement in place between the US Forest 

Service/LTBMU and Placer County for the removal of biomass. 

Conducting research and developing markets for wood products that could be utilized 

from management treatments on national forest system lands is beyond the scope of this 

plan. Staff has participated in coordination with researchers and on multi-jurisdictional 

teams to identify potential sources and outlets for woody materials. The unit has also 

contributed to a Coordinated Resource Offering Protocol, which is done every 5 years to 

assist wood purchases in determining likelihood of availability of wood material sources. 

Complicating the removal of utilizable woody material is the restrictiveness of state 

regulatory agencies, resulting in either avoiding areas or leaving the material for 

prescribed burning. 

We agree that it is preferable to remove and utilize woody material that in the absence of 

any market or other use will be burned in piles. Past project treatments have utilized 

woody material even when the transportation cost of delivering such material exceeded 

the value of the material at the facility. This was the case when outlets for woody 

material existed but when they do not exist, it is infeasible to make such deliveries. The 

proposed biomass-to-energy facility at Cabin Creek landfill in Placer County would 

provide such an outlet and the LTBMU has a Master Stewardship Agreement in place 

with the County to allow for biomass utilization from projects on NFS lands. However, 

the planning of this facility has been contested by individuals and organizations and may 

end up in court. In a few instances small quantities of wood logs, chip or mulch have 

been diverted from burning to be used in support of stream and meadow restoration, road 

decommissioning, hill slope stabilization, and dust abatement. 

The LTBMU must comply with air regulations and would not prescribe burn more than is 

permitted. In addition, the capacity of the unit and other sources of qualified human 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-22 ■ Response to Comments 

resources to conduct prescribed burning would limit the amount burned each burn period. 

The FEIS assumes that all piles created would be burned, but for reasons mentioned 

above, this would not actually be the case. Instead, a backlog of piles would persist in 

project areas until regulatory requirements, the burn plan prescription, and the capacity of 

the unit to conduct the burn all coincides. 

PC 492: The Forest Service should consider an alternative that attempts to establish a 

fire regime in the Basin comparable to that which occurred prior to large scale fire 

suppression. 

Response: As stated by the commenter, the Revised Forest Plan and FEIS disclose 

historic fire regime characteristics. The alternative proposed by the commenter is already 

within the scope of the alternatives being considered. As stated in the desired conditions, 

acceptable fire effects, fire frequency, and acres of fire can be met in all the action 

alternatives. However, prescribing acres of managed wildfire, or over-reaching objectives 

of prescribed fire could prove to be unreasonable given limited opportunities as disclosed 

in the Fire and Fuels analysis. Further, the current situation in the LTBMU is no longer 

the same situation that existed when the pre-settlement fire regime was established. 

Today the LTBMU is a WUI forest, and risk management is the primary concern when 

managing fire. Further, LTBMU is constrained by a host of regulations and uncertainties 

related environmental conditions. Alternatives B and E provide the flexibility to make the 

most progress toward desired conditions using fire when appropriate, and using 

surrogates when necessary. 

PC 223: The Forest Service should include an alternative similar to Alt D that also 

utilizes high and mixed severity fire to create early and mid-seral habitat outside of the 

defense zone, and prohibits post-disturbance (e.g., fire, beetle kill, etc.) salvage logging 

outside of the Defense Zone. 

Response: The suggested alternative is so similar to Alternative D that it was not 

considered in detail. The main difference between what is suggested and Alternative D is 

the use of high and mixed severity fire. Under current vegetation/fuels conditions we 

consider use of high severity fire too great of a risk. While we design prescribed fire 

treatments to generally burn at low severity, sometimes treatments result in patches of 

mixed or high severity. 

Analysis 

PC 11: The Forest Service should take into account impacts resulting from BMP failure. 

Response: FEIS Section 3.3 lists the assumptions common to all alternatives. For the 

analysis in the FEIS it was assumed that BMP’s would be implemented and that they 

would be effective under all of the alternatives. This assumption is made because it is 

impossible to predict when properly designed BMP’s will fail. 

Implementation monitoring is used to identify any deficiencies in BMPs as soon as they 

are recognized, and measures are then implemented to correct the deficiencies. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-23 

PC 50: The Forest Plan should identify high risk issues. 

Response: The issues that were identified through scoping are described in detail in 

Section 1.10 of the FEIS. The four major issue areas include Watershed Health and 

Aquatic Ecosystems, Terrestrial Ecosystems, Recreation and Access and Travel 

Management. 

PC 60: The Forest Service should provide more detailed analysis when changing 

suitable uses.

Sample Comments: “To the extent the Final Plan reflects “zoning” changes, Standards 

or “suitable uses” designations that would alter existing management prescriptions, the 

Forest has not conducted sufficient site-specific analysis.” 

“Implementation of any action alternative analyzed in this DEIS that eliminates 

snowmobile, motorized and mountain bike use is premature without such site-specific 

analysis.” 

Response: Suitable Uses for Alternative E are described in the Revised Forest Plan 

(FEIS, Volume II) in Chapter 2.3 – Management Areas and Suitable Uses and in Table 5 

of the Revised Forest Plan. Changes in suitable uses are reflected in the effects analysis. 

Analysis of suitable uses determinations can be found in the effects analysis in each 

resource section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Impacts due to changes in management area 

and/or wilderness recommendation can be found in each individual resource section of 

Chapter 3. As a programmatic document, this FEIS has analyzed the suitable uses to that 

scale. Analysis specific to land use designations can be found in the Recreation and 

Access sections of the FEIS (3.4.1 and 3.4.19). 

PC 172: The Forest Service should provide an evaluation of how well current plan goals 

were achieved. 

Response: At the beginning of the Forest Plan Revision Process, the LTBMU completed 

a Comprehensive Evaluation Report (CER) and an Analysis of the Management Situation 

(AMS) was also prepared in support of Plan revision. The CER and AMS evaluate 

current conditions and trends in the Forest Plan area that contribute to social, economic, 

and ecologic sustainability as well as whether or not the desired conditions, objectives, 

and guidelines are still appropriate. Using this information, the CER then identifies 

needed changes to the Forest Plan that will better facilitate achieving the revised desired 

conditions, goals, and objectives. The current CER covers the time period from the 

implementation of the 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan to the present. In Chapter 3 of the CER, 

the current conditions and trends (including how well current plan goals were achieved) 

are discussed for each resource area. 

PC 24: The Forest Service should provide rationale for changes in management areas. 

Sample Comment: “Can you explain more about the new land allocations in the plan 

and how you made the decision to collapse them? Especially the old growth forest 

emphasis area and how old growth will continue to receive protection?”
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-24 ■ Response to Comments 

Response: The term land allocation is specific to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment (SNFPA); the 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan and the Draft LTBMU Forest Plan 

use a management area system. The SNFPA land allocations have been incorporated into 

the Revised Forest Plan in several ways, as described in FEIS Section 2.6.1, in the 

subsection The Identification of the Suitable Uses for Each Management Area. 

While the SNFPA amended the 11 Sierra Nevada Forest Plans for several resource areas, 

the current revision covers all resource areas. Any given project decision needs to 

consider not only the resources covered in the SNFPA, but a host of others, including 

special area designations, scenic integrity, and special use permit areas. We believe the 

most practical way to do this is to include maps (resource overlays) that show the 

location of resources that require special consideration, and then link the areas on the 

maps to Desired Conditions, Strategies, Objectives, and Standards and Guidelines. (Note 

that locations on the maps are shown for planning purposes and generally must be fieldverified.) Removing the term “land allocations” does not in itself lessen the protection 

provided to any given resource. Resource protection is provided through the 

interworking of the Desired Conditions, Strategies, Objectives, and Standards and 

Guidelines. 

The 1988 Forest Plan included 21 geographic-based management areas (e.g. Fallen Leaf, 

East Shore Beaches). While we ensure that projects are consistent with this direction, 

this system has proved less useful over time. Working with 21 management areas plus 10 

SNFPA land allocations proved unwieldy and somewhat confusing at times. We found 

that a system of 4 management areas plus the resource overlays best meets our current 

business needs. (see PC 25 for further discussion of the Old Forest Emphasis Areas.)

PC 57: The Forest Service should address how current practices and other factors have 

or have not contributed to movement toward or away from Desired Conditions. 

Sample Comment: “The three key topics which relate to Volume 2 are Part 1: Vision, 

Part 2: Strategy, and Part 3: Design Criteria. What is missing in this formulation is 

“Assessment”. The USFS should address how current practices and other factors have or 

have not contributed to movement toward or away from Desired Conditions.” 

Response: The assessment phase of the revision process culminated with the publication 

of the Comprehensive Evaluation Report (CER), which is available on our website. The 

findings and results in the CER were then updated and summarized in Chapter 3 of the 

FEIS in the Affected Environment sections for each resource area, which describe the 

current conditions and trends. The effects of the alternatives, including the No Action 

alternative (Alternative A) are summarized at the end of each Chapter 3 resource section 

and discussed in terms of how effectively each of the alternatives would maintain or 

move the resource towards attainment of the desired conditions. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-25 

PC 93: The Forest Service should evaluate the potential environmental impacts 

associated with every aspect of all alternatives that increase the need for maintenance 

or enforcement to maintain conditions if funding for these additional needs is reduced or 

eliminated. 

Response: We have analyzed reasonably foreseeable effects, and have avoided 

speculative conclusions, as directed by the NEPA regulations. The analysis is based on a 

set of assumptions listed in Section 3.3 of the FEIS, which include assumptions about 

budget. The level of detail in a programmatic EIS such as this one is always less than in 

an EIS that analyzes specific actions. 

PC 171: The Forest Service should explain why there are competing goals/objectives in 

the Forest Plan. The Forest Service should provide scientific rationale for Forest Plan 

components 

Response: We recognize that it is not possible to make progress towards every Desired 

Condition on every project. This is explained in the Forest Plan Consistency section of 

the Plan Introduction. The effects of implementing the plan components are disclosed in 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS; best available science was used for this analysis and a science 

review was conducted to ensure science was used appropriately. The report prepared as a 

result of the science review is available in the project record along with responses to the 

review comments. 

PC 518: The Forest Service should improve its analysis to comply with NEPA 

Response: The FEIS has been written to comply with NEPA. Analysis for programmatic 

plans such as this one is somewhat different than analysis for a specific action; the 

Revised Forest Plan does not authorize projects or activities. Analysis for programmatic 

plans is further discussed in Appendix O. 

Communication and Collaboration 

PC 46: The Forest Service should consider a management strategy similar to the Quincy 

Library Group, where interest groups come together and compromise for the benefit of 

all. 

Response: The use of collaborative planning (similar to the Quincy Library Group) is 

becoming more common in project planning in the Forest Service. At the LTBMU we 

have used collaborative planning in developing the 10 year multi-jurisdictional fuels 

reduction strategy and have initiated a collaborative effort among winter recreationists in 

the Mt. Rose corridor. We expect to continue to use this type of planning in those 

circumstances where there is a great deal of controversy over our management activities. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-26 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 34: The Forest Service should encourage the use of partnerships and volunteers to 

achieve management goals 

PC 55: The Forest Service should collaborate more with the public and advocacy 

organizations 

Response: Grassroots stewardship is critical to sustainability and promises to become 

even more critical in the future as financial resources become uncertain. Private dollars, 

volunteer efforts and leveraging resources through partnerships will be increasingly 

necessary to achieve a sustainable Lake Tahoe. 

The following are a few examples of how grassroots stewardship currently helps the 

Forest Service achieve sustainability: 

1. Volunteers help with conservation education in the local schools or at interpretive 

sites 

2. Tahoe Rim Trail Association and Tahoe Area Mountain Biking Association 

volunteers help to ensure a trail system that provides a sustainable recreation 

experience. 

3. Tahoe-Tallac Association and the Tahoe Heritage Foundation volunteers 

contribute to sustainable recreation on the South Shore by providing the volunteer 

workforce at the Tallac Estates and Valhalla. 

4. Desolation Wilderness volunteers help to preserve one of our nation’s most 

popular wilderness areas through trailhead and backcountry naturalist programs, 

visitor education, wilderness staff support for office and field projects and 

backcountry trail maintenance and campsite restoration. 

PC 28: The Forest Service should communicate better with public and attempt to better 

understand user's views, and should maintain ongoing communication with the public to 

update policies. 

Response: We strive continuously to improve our communication with the public on 

proposed actions and new policies. A wealth of information can be accessed on our 

website at http://www.fs.usda.gov/ltbmu. We also regularly provide news releases to 

local and regional newspapers, and give radio and television interviews. 

Public involvement for the Forest Plan revision is summarized in section 1.9 of the FEIS. 

Public involvement began in 2004 with an interagency collaborative process called 

Pathway 2007 and continued with public meetings and workshops in 2008, 2010, and 

2012. 

PC 33: The Forest Service should collaborate with adjacent forests on a broad array of 

management issues including wildlife corridors and climate change. 

Sample Comment: “...many natural resource issues must be addressed across 

administrative boundaries, including protecting and re-connecting habitat for wide 

ranging species, ensuring that range-wide climate adaptation efforts are facilitated, and 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-27 

ensuring that natural processes such as wildfire are managed consistently across the 

range.” 

Response: The Forest Service is beginning to incorporate more landscape scale planning 

in response to a broad range of issues. We have collaborated with adjacent forests during 

this revision process and expect to continue, especially on these issues in the near future. 

It is worth noting that, due to the geographic nature of the Lake Tahoe Basin, most of the 

boundary is in remote, high elevation areas. 

PC 35: The Forest Service should collaborate with TRPA and the state and local 

agencies to reduce environmental impacts in the Tahoe Basin. 

Response: The Forest Service coordinates with TRPA and state and local agencies on a 

regular basis. The Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) is one of many examples. 

Several commenters suggested that collaboration could be used to resolve a number of 

issues, such as parking and congestion at popular recreation sites, as well as 

environmental impacts. While we understand the frustration, Forest Plan Revision does 

not address site-specific issues, but we will consider these comments as we move 

forward. 

PC 516: The Forest Service should have held additional public meetings outside the 

Tahoe Basin for the release of the DEIS and Draft Plan. 

Response: In addition to the four meetings held within the Lake Tahoe Basin, the 

LTBMU also held a webinar which included the same presentations that were given at 

the public meetings, and provided an opportunity for the audience to phone or email 

questions which were answered live during the webinar. The webinar presentations were 

then made available to the public on the LTBMU website. The webinar format was used 

to reach as many people as possible while minimizing energy consumption and costs. 

Access and Travel Management 

PC 476: The Forest Service should clarify their ATM planning process. 

Response: Refer to the Access and Travel Management strategy in the Revised Forest 

Plan. The ATM planning process involves a strategic plan where the basin was divided 

into planning areas which subsequently became a project area for NEPA analysis. 

Through the NEPA process each ATM area is developed into a proposed action. 

Collaborative processes are used to involve agencies, stakeholders, and the public for the 

development of alternatives. After analysis and public input are complete the Forest 

Service selects an alternative and implements the ATM in that area. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-28 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 472: The Forest Service should complete subparts A and B of the Travel 

Management process. 

Response: The LTBMU Travel Analysis, which identifies the minimum road system, 

was completed in 2011 and the LTBMU MVUM was established in 2010. These two 

processes complete subparts A and B of the Travel Management process. 

Roads and Trails 

PC 26: The Forest Service should maintain current public uses (not prohibit any existing 

uses) and should not close roads and trails. 

Response: Alternatives A, B and E (the preferred alternative) do not include closures. 

PC 489: The Forest Service should maintain a transportation system that is adequate to 

manage the forest. 

Response: The LTBMU Travel Analysis Process confirmed that the ATM process has 

identified the minimum road system necessary to manage the forest. Adjustments to the 

road and trail system are made on a project basis as needs are identified, to mitigate 

resource concerns or provide access for specific management needs. 

PC 190: The Forest Service should evaluate the need for roads that may detrimentally 

impact streams or wildlife and minimize impacts. 

PC 409: The Forest Service should consider the effects of more trails on natural 

resources. 

PC 408: The Forest Service should ban mountain bikes in natural areas. 

Sample Comments: “Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills 

small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out 

of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's 

NOT!). What's good about THAT?” 

Response: Refer to the Access and Travel Management strategy in the Revised Forest 

Plan. See discussion of ATM Program Strategy- the LTBMU developed a Water Quality 

Risk Analysis Process in 1998 as part of the Access and Travel Management Plan 

(ATM), and has been continuously evaluating roads for potential to adversely affect 

water quality. Approximately 180 miles of roads have received BMP upgrades in 

addition to the 106 miles of roads that have been decommissioned to protect water 

quality. Roads have been relocated away from surface water and riparian zones. In 

addition, through monitoring and evaluation BMPs have been modernized to increase 

maintenance frequency and improve effectiveness. By increasing the maintenance 

frequency the 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 stormwater 

concentration and maximizes natural drainage within the landscape. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-29 

Effects of trail construction and use on natural resources are analyzed in Chapter 3 of the 

FEIS. While mountain bike use results in some degradation of resources and affects some 

wildlife species, the consequences are not serious enough to warrant banning this popular 

activity. 

PC 468: The Forest Service should clearly state the miles of roads and trails that will be 

added under each alternative. 

Response: None of the alternatives propose building any new roads; increases shown in 

FEIS Table 2-1 reflect existing gated roads that could be opened to public use. 

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. 

PC 7: The Forest Service should maintain open status of areas currently open to 

mechanized recreation. 

PC 23: The Forest Service should add more detail to EIS on effects to mountain biking 

and OSV use. 

Response: Effects to mountain biking and OSV will vary by alternative. Alternatives A, 

B, and E would provide the maximum opportunities for mountain biking and OSV and 

would maintain currently open areas. Alternatives C and D would reduce opportunities 

should Congress choose to designate Wilderness. 

PC 362: The Forest Service should increase the roads, trails and areas open to 

motorized use. 

PC 479: The Forest Service should increase roads and trails. 

Response: Alternative D would open the most roads to motorized use; Alternative C 

would open the most trails to motorized use. Alternative D would provide the least 

amount of trails for motorized use. Alternatives A, B, and E maintain existing levels of 

motorized road and trail use. 

All alternatives propose adoption and improvement to standards of up to 30 miles of nonmotorized trails. No programmatic expansion of the road system is proposed in any 

alternative; the LTBMU has decommissioned many miles of roads to address water 

quality concerns and there is no identified need to expand the road system. The Forest 

Service may consider changes to the road and trail system in future project-specific 

decisions. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-30 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 469: The Forest Service should disclose how additional roads and trails will be 

managed to meet TMDL targets. 

Sample Comments: “Is the management (including implementation and maintenance of 

BMPs and/or design measures) and de-commissioning or obliteration of such roads 

considered a part of the ATM program? If so, this should be explicitly stated and 

sufficient program resources should be allocated to achieve the Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL) and Land Management Plan (Forest Plan) objectives...” 

“...the discussion in Sec. 3.4.1.3, Environmental Consequences of Vegetation & 

Fuels Management (p. 3- 20) does not adequately address the potential impacts of new, 

expanded and more intensively used roads as a result of fuels reduction projects, 

particularly under Alternative C which includes a greater emphasis on mechanical 

thinning.”

Response: The USFS will continue to utilize best management practices related to road 

and trails, as defined in the USFS National and Regional Water Quality Management 

Handbooks (cite the new handbooks here) to ensure progress towards achieving TMDL 

targets for Upland Sources is achieved. This includes BMPs appropriate for existing 

road/trails, new road and trails, and decommissioning/obliterating roads and trails. The 

USFS will report accomplishments through the Upland TMDL tracking and reporting 

program, when development of the program is completed, and implementation is initiated 

by the TMDL regulatory agencies (NDEP, LRWQCB, and TRPA. 

Environmental consequences of roads are discussed in the water quality, soils, and 

wildlife sections of the FEIS (3.4.24, 3.4.22 and 3.4.23). 

PC 391: The Forest Service should designate some trails for hiking only or hiking and 

horses only. 

Response: While our policy is generally to provide multiple use trails, Wilderness Areas 

and the Pacific Crest Trail provide non-motorized and non-mechanized trail opportunities 

(hikers and horses only). Alternatives C and D would increase those opportunities, while 

Alternatives A, B, and E would maintain the current opportunities. 

PC 393: The Forest Service should consider innovative trail system designs such as a 

"hub and spoke" system to connect popular areas, and stacked loops. 

Sample Comments: “It would be nice to see additional multi-use trail connections from 

population centers with access points into the forests. A recent example is the Van Sickle 

Trail which now connects the population base of Stateline and South Lake Tahoe up to 

the Rim Trail. Additionally I would like to see more single track trails replace old 

vehicular roads that are no longer being used such as the Star Lake Connector Trail built 

in 2011.” 

Response: These practices have been and will continue to be implemented during project 

planning under all of the alternatives, but are beyond the scope of this analysis. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-31 

PC 3: The Forest Service should expand trails and improve trailheads. 

PC 412: The Forest Service should commit more resources to bicycle recreation. 

PC 397: The Forest Service should consider the growth of mountain biking in the past 3 

decades and the status of Tahoe as an international destination. 

PC 406: The Forest Service should engage in a comprehensive non-motorized trail 

planning effort. 

Response: Over generations 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, International Mountain Bike Association, 

Tahoe Area Mountain Bike Association, League to Save Lake Tahoe, Tahoe Area Sierra 

Club, Back Country Horsemen, and the Blue Ribbon Coalition. The emergent trail 

system provides for recreation opportunities that reflect the demographics of the user 

groups in the Tahoe region. 

Since 1998 the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act has provided a conduit for which funding 

(SNPLMA since 2004) has been awarded to improve the trail system. The result has 

been the adoption or decommissioning of unauthorized trails and the establishment of a 

whole trail system planned to compliment the natural environment, minimize trail 

maintenance needs, and meet public recreation needs. Future developments to the shared 

use trail system will follow the strategies in the Revised Forest Plan. 

PC 396: The Forest Service should allow an all dirt mountain bike trail that 

circumnavigates the Lake. 

Response: Such a proposal would require a large site-specific planning effort, but could 

potentially be implemented in the future. 

Mountain bike use is compatible in most management areas on NFS lands except within 

wilderness areas and in certain natural areas such as the Pacific Crest Trail. 

PC 394: The Forest Service should designate some trails for human-powered activities 

only (no equestrian use). 

Response: The Forest Service is a multiple use agency and has a policy of managing for 

multiple uses on trails. 

PC 32: The Forest Service should prescribe management direction for the PCT that will 

ensure management meets the requirements of the National Trails System Act and other 

relevant direction. 

Response: Specific standards and guidelines have been included in the plan to ensure that 

the PCT is managed to meet requirements of the National Trails System Act. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-32 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 310: The Forest Service should limit use of mountain bikes and off road vehicles to 

minimize environmental damage. 

Response: Motor Vehicles are limited to the routes shown in the LTBMU Motor Vehicle 

Use Map 2010. Mountain bikes are limited to areas outside of wilderness and are not 

allowed on the Pacific Crest Trail. 

PC 354: The Forest Service should recognize the need to regulate ORV use to prevent 

damage to natural resources and historic sites. 

Response: ORV use is regulated by 36 CFR subpart B sections 212.50 through 212.57, 

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 designated trails, roads, and open 

areas providing protection of resources. 

PC 356: The Forest Service should decrease the roads and trails available for ORV use. 

PC 372: The Forest Service should not provide any additional motorized trails or roads. 

PC 378: The Forest Service should not increase areas open to motorized off road 

vehicles. 

PC 379: The Forest Service should ban OHV use in the Basin. 

Response: While we recognize that some people prefer not to share trails with motorized 

vehicles, OHV use is recognized as a valid recreational use. Off Highway Vehicle 

(OHV) use is limited to routes and areas shown on the LTBMU Motor Vehicle Use Map 

(2010). OHV use off designated roads or trails is prohibited. OHV use is managed and 

the routes are maintained to protect natural resources. The miles of available routes vary 

by alternatives, as described in Chapter 2 and Table 2-1 of the FEIS. 

PC 377: The Forest Service should eliminate unneeded roads. 

PC 400: The Forest Service should do more road to trail conversions. 

Response: The LTBMU Travel Analysis Process confirmed that the ATM process has 

identified the minimum road system necessary to manage the forest. In future project 

specific analysis roads identified would be considered for elimination or conversion to 

trails. Since 1998, the LTBMU has identified and eliminated 108 miles of unneeded 

roads and few unneeded roads exist. 

PC 425: The Forest Service should avoid building roads in IRAs. 

Response: The final rule of 36 CFR Part 294 prohibits road building within IRAs. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-33 

PC 478: The Forest Service should not reconstruct roads to accommodate passenger 

vehicles. 

PC 514: The Forest Service should not convert OHV roads for use by passenger 

vehicles. 

Response: Roads are managed and maintained to provide for access for recreation and 

management. An increase in roads open to passenger vehicles is proposed in Alternative 

C, recognizing that many visitors come to Lake Tahoe in passenger vehicles and this is 

their preferred means of accessing the National Forest, either by choice or because of 

physical limitations. Alternative D would decrease the mileage, while Alternatives A, B, 

and E would maintain existing levels of passenger vehicle roads. 

PC 2: The Forest Service should expand road system. 

Response: LTBMU Travel Analysis 2011 identifies the needed road system for 

management and recreation access to the forest. Any expansion would be done at the 

project level and not through this Forest Plan Revision. 

PC 477: The Forest Service should clarify their road maintenance strategies. 

Response: Road maintenance strategies are described in FSH 7709.59 Road System 

Operation and Maintenance Handbook. 

It is necessary to perform condition surveys and maintain approximately 20% of the road 

system per year to keep the road system in a condition that is protective of water quality 

and open for administrative and in many cases public access. The consequences of 

accumulating deferred maintenance upon the road system is that road may not be 

available for other projects such as fuel reduction and ecologic restoration. Strategies in 

the Forest Plan include managing the road system to achieve environmental goals and 

prioritize maintenance of the road system relative to public benefit and ability to 

eliminate deferred maintenance. 

Parking 

PC 4: The Forest Service should expand parking. 

PC 138: The Forest Service should maintain current parking areas. 

PC 473: The Forest Service should evaluate how much parking is needed and the size 

of parking areas. 

Response: Expanded parking is evaluated in Alternative C, and small increases in 

parking are included in Alternatives B and E. The demand for increased parking access 

must be considered in the light of construction and maintenance costs and potential 

impacts to the natural setting. The Forest Service will conduct project specific analysis to 

determine parking needs prior to implementing changes. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-34 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 36: The Forest Service should improve winter parking. 

Response: Development of winter parking is identified in the strategies of the Revised 

Forest Plan. 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. 

PC 509: The Forest Service should continue to allow unmanaged parking. 

Response: All alternatives would allow for unmanaged parking to continue in areas 

where use is compatible with the setting. The intent of shifting to managed parking is to 

address impacts in areas that receive heavy use. 

PC 467: The Forest Service should wait until transit is improved before decreasing 

parking. 

Response: During project specific planning the Forest Service would define how to 

maintain access to the forest prior to eliminating parking, not as a part of this Forest Plan 

Revision. 

PC 337: The Forest Service should provide more access points (trailheads) to spread 

out people and impacts. 

Response: Trailheads would stay relatively the same under alternatives A, B, and E, 

increase in C and decrease in D. 

PC 466: The Forest Service should centralize parking and implement a shuttle system to 

access recreation sites. 

Response: The use of transit is promoted in all alternatives. Transit requires the balance 

of convenience and cost of transit to be more favorable than the private automobile for it 

to become efficient and effective. Even in the best scenarios transit does not function 

without subsidies. Ridership for transit may be increased with incentives to use transit 

and disincentives to use the private automobile. Examples that could be expanded at 

Lake Tahoe include fee parking (which is often used to subsidize transit), combined 

entrance/transit fees, timely service, sheltered transit stops, decreased parking, and 

connected trail systems. Additional transit service must be strategically implemented 

along with monitoring. Goals for transit include reduce congestion, improve safety, 

reduce roadside parking, and meet ridership goals. 

Use of centralized parking and transit may be feasible at developed recreation sites where 

demand for access is great and needs for private automobile are low. For example, 

centralized parking and transit has proven to be very effective within the urban core to 

access ski resorts on NFS lands. In any event, transit and parking are interrelated and 

both must be considered when planning for access to developed recreation sites. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-35 

PC 470: The Forest Service should explain how unmanaged roadside parking would be 

eliminated and controlled. 

Response: Management for roadside parking would vary depending upon the area and 

jurisdiction. Roadside parking along highways is generally the jurisdiction of the 

department of transportation managing the roadway. Along forest roads the jurisdiction 

is the LTBMU. Strategies for management of roadside parking would be defined in 

project level analysis. See response to PC 138 for comparison of relative amounts of 

parking by alternative. 

PC 407: The Forest Service should provide public transit at trailheads. 

Response: All alternatives would allow for transit opportunities to develop in partnership 

with other agencies. 

Air Quality 

PC 194: The Forest Service should address the contributions of OSV use to greenhouse 

gases. 

PC 351: The Forest Service should consider the average pollutant load contributed by 

OSVs. 

Response: The FEIS Air Quality section (3.4.2) has been updated to include an analysis 

of the effects of OSV use to air quality. 

PC 196: The Forest Service should improve the air quality analysis. 

Sample Comments: “Given the nature of the comparison, it is appropriate to use 

identical units in the figures. However, the draft EIS uses tons x 10,000 for the vertical 

axis on two figures and tons x 1,000 on one figure.” 

Response: Figure 3-21 uses tons x 1,000 because at the scale of tons x 10,000 it would be 

impossible to show the difference between the alternatives. 

PC 485: The Forest Service should include measures to reduce or control emissions. 

Response: The Forest Service has incorporated numerous measures to reduce emissions, 

including purchasing hybrid vehicles and requiring special use permittees to use 4-stroke 

engines on snowmobiles. These measures, however, are outside of the scope of this 

Forest Plan Revision. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-36 ■ Response to Comments 

Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species 

PC 56: The Forest Service should expand Lahontan cutthroat trout populations in Lake 

Tahoe and its tributaries as described in both the USFWS 2003 Short Term Action Plan 

and 1995 Recovery Plan. 

Response: All alternatives support recovery efforts for Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) as 

directed by the Endangered Species Act. Specifically all alternatives support the 

continued recovery efforts in the headwaters of the Upper Truckee River (10 miles), 

Fallen Leaf Lake, and initiate recovery of an additional two subpopulations (see LCT 

objectives in the Revised Forest Plan). 

The Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan (1995) identified the Western Lahontan 

Basin (comprised of the Truckee, Walker, and Carson River basins) as one of three 

distinct population segments (DPS) of LCT. Several of the lacustrine populations within 

the Western DPS (Lake Tahoe, Pyramid Lake, Independence Lake, and Walker Lake) 

were identified by the LCT Recovery Plan as potentially important to the recovery of the 

species. In 1999, Recovery Implementation Teams (RIT) for the Truckee and Walker 

River basins were formed to develop action plans (as identified in the Recovery Plan) to 

establish recovery implementation strategies for LCT. These teams, comprised of 

representatives from Tribal, Federal, and State agencies, completed their action plans in 

2003. In their respective basins, the action plans identified conservation and restoration 

measures to further LCT recovery while improving recreational fishing opportunities for 

this native trout. Although a Tahoe Basin RIT was not formed at the same time as the 

other RIT teams, recent planning efforts conducted within the Tahoe basin (Pathway 

2007) have shown an enhanced public interest in the restoration of native species. A 

Tahoe Basin RIT was needed for the development and implementation of this process. 

In April 2007, the Tahoe Basin Recovery Implementation Team (TBRIT) formed as part 

of the ongoing restoration efforts and in response to the growing interest for native 

species restoration. The TBRIT is comprised of representatives from the U.S. Forest 

Service-LTBMU, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

California Tahoe Conservancy, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Washoe Tribe, and 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. This team is developing an action plan to 

identify opportunities to recover and restore lacustrine LCT populations within the basin 

based on the most complete biological, geographical, and hydrological information 

available for the Tahoe basin. The action plan will assist team members in identifying 

and prioritizing actions for recovery of LCT as well as determining the role of LCT in the 

management of the recreational fisheries in the basin. Additionally, the action plan will 

describe a long-term strategy for LCT recovery and fishery restoration. 

PC 277: The Forest Service should prevent introduction of new AIS. 

PC 140: The Forest Service should use education, monitoring, and incentives to help 

control aquatic invasive species. 

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 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-37 

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. Additionally, specific management direction that is compatible with the goals of the 

coordinated effort mentioned above is incorporated into the Revised Forest Plan in the 

form of Desired Conditions, Strategies, and Standard and Guidelines. 

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. Alternative D differs 

in that it only includes strategies that limit management of AIS to high priority species. 

Alternatives B and C 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. These Alternatives set a framework for AIS management 

(prevention, control, eradication and interagency collaboration) to guard against wide 

spread ecological, social and economic impacts. 

The purpose of the Lake Tahoe Region AIS Management Plan (where USFS is a partner) 

is to facilitate coordination of regional, state, and federal programs and to prioritize and 

guide implementation of AIS prevention, monitoring, control, education, and research 

actions in the Lake Tahoe region. This plan is helping to coordinate and set timelines for 

actions to preserve and protect the environmental, economic and human health in the 

Lake Tahoe Region. 

PC 199: Aquatic and terrestrial invasive species should be aggressively exterminated. 

All boats should be checked. 

Response: Mandatory watercraft inspections are in place to stop aquatic invasive species, 

such as quagga mussels, before they enter the water. All boats, including brand new boats 

are required to have an inspection prior to launching into Lake Tahoe, Fallen Leaf Lake 

or Echo Lake. The USFS and AIS partners recognize that watercrafts are the largest 

source for spreading AIS into new waterways. Inspections are an essential part of 

preventing this inadvertent transport of alien species into the pristine waters of Lake 

Tahoe. 

PC 209: The Forest Service should collaborate with other entities on invasive species 

management. 

Response: 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 (maybe in the Nation) and 

we are working with the many partner agencies and public groups to control, prevent, and 

treat AIS. 

The Forest Service also cooperates with the multi-agency Lake Tahoe Basin Weed 

Coordinating Group Program. Strategies include prioritizing invasive plant species and 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-38 ■ Response to Comments 

infestations, placing highest priority on new species and new, small infestations. Risk to 

NFS resources and feasibility of control are among the prioritization factors. Priorities are 

then reassessed based on new information. 

 Additionally, specific management direction that is compatible with the goals of the 

coordinated efforts mentioned above is incorporated into the Revised Forest Plan in the 

form of Desired Conditions, Strategies, and Standard and Guidelines. 

PC 236: The Forest Service should consider conflicts between humans and animals. 

Sample Comment: “ALL of the wildlife in the Tahoe basin will be adversely affected 

leading to ever-increasing human-animal conflicts, already a problem! I feel this is 

perhaps one of the most important considerations of all” 

Response: We recognize that conflicts between humans and animals are inevitable. We 

have included specific management direction for some species, including bears and 

Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, Candidate, and Proposed species. In addition, we 

have included management direction to protect, enhance, and restore all habitat types. 

PC 301: The Forest Service should allow beavers to maintain their dams and not 

remove them. 

Response: The USFS manages habitat rather than species. The USFS, however, generally 

does not manage beaver dams. The USFS considers the presence of beavers a part of the 

natural environment. Although their presence is somewhat controversial, pending 

location, in most cases they create habitat that is beneficial to riparian and aquatic species 

and aid in trapping downstream movement of sediment and nutrients. However, in some 

cases, dam locations are causing a threat to natural resources or structures. In these 

situations, some type of management action is required, which sometimes entails the 

removal of the dam. Prior to removal, all options are considered, including but not 

limited to, installing flow devices to alleviate flooding and/or wrapping vegetation. 

PC 147: The Forest Service should protect habitat values in riparian areas and should 

not allow recreationists to degrade them. 

Response: The USFS manages land for multiple uses and also has the obligation of 

protecting the NFS lands for future generation. The USFS also recognizes that part of the 

recreational experience is the enjoyment of the unique natural environment, and the 

Revised Forest Plan includes management direction specific to protection of riparian 

habitats. 

Botany 

PC 438: The Forest Service should require, not just encourage the use of certified weedfree hay and straw. 

Response: Use of certified weed-free hay and straw has been addressed in the FEIS and 

Forest Plan. The DEIS guideline was developed when neither CA nor NV had weed-free 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-39 

certification programs. Now both have programs, so the guideline has been changed to 

reflect phasing in of state certification programs. 

PC 439: If the Forest Service plans to use herbicides to control vegetation in early seral 

habitat, we should say so and should analyze effects. 

Response: The Forest Service has analyzed the effects of herbicide use in a 

programmatic EA; this decision will remain in place under the new Plan and herbicide 

use will be consistent with the EA decision. The LTBMU will continue to use 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 NFS resources. The effects of site-specific treatment methods would 

be conducted as part of the project planning process. 

PC 330: The Forest Service should evaluate motorized vehicle use, including 

snowmobiles, in areas known to have plants and animals that are threatened or listed 

species such as Lahontan cutthroat trout, pine marten, pika, and white bark pine. 

Response: The effects of OHV use on listed plants are addressed in the FEIS. OHV use 

is restricted to an established trail system and is unlikely to further degrade these habitats. 

OSV are unlikely to affect listed plants because occurrences are covered by snow during 

use season. Specific to whitebark pine, in its 12-month finding on whitebark pine, 

USFWS did not consider OSV use to be a threat contributing to considerations for listing 

under ESA. OSVs are not likely to affect whitebark pine directly or indirectly: a) 

individuals are not likely to be trampled or damaged to the point of affecting 

reproduction; b) habitat is not likely to be degraded as it is covered by snow during use 

season and OSV use is not allowed during season of seedling establishment. 

PC 426: The Forest Service should clarify Plan direction for whitebark pine and species 

refuge areas in general. 

Response: The direction for whitebark pine has been addressed in FEIS. We have added 

whitebark pine specific desired conditions, objectives, and design criteria. The resource 

overlay section in Part 2 of the Plan now includes more details about Species Refuge 

Areas. These areas are intended to identify the best and/or critical habitat for identified 

special status species. Species Refuge Area maps (FEIS Maps 11, 13 and 14) will be 

continuously updated as habitat identification changes. For example, new spotted owl 

and goshawk PACs were added between the DEIS and FEIS and are reflected on the 

FEIS map (number 11). 

Climate Change 

PC 40: Creating resiliency should be the highest management priority due to adverse 

effects of extended periods of higher than normal temperatures. 

Response: The Forest Plan Introduction states: “Natural resource management on the 

LTBMU is focused on restoring watershed and forest health and resiliency, fire and fuels 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-40 ■ Response to Comments 

management, providing ecosystem conditions that support native plant and animal 

communities, and protecting special status plant and animal species.” 

The Planning for Sustainability section has been updated to further explain adaptation 

that will lead to resilience in the face of a changing climate: “Ecosystems will be 

managed for resiliency to prepare for uncertain future outcomes with approaches that 

support adaptation to changing future conditions.” The Plan recognizes that: “Adaptation 

strategies increase the resilience of ecosystems and resources to climate change impacts.” 

The Plan is not hierarchal in nature – management actions are not prioritized, however 

resiliency is a theme throughout the Plan: Hydrologic and Geomorphic Processes section

focuses on watershed resilience; forest vegetation, fuels, and fire management focuses on 

forest resilience to fire addressed through desired conditions and strategies: “Vegetation 

management activities adhere to ecologically-based management strategies and are 

integrated, ultimately to restore or maintain forest resiliency. For example, forest 

vegetation treatments around communities (thinning that alters density, structure, and 

species composition) to restore forest resilience to wildfire also meet the goals of 

reducing forest stand susceptibility to bark beetle-caused tree mortality.”; Forest 

Vegetation and Fuels management objectives recognize that “The amounts of acres by 

treatment and forest type represent the first small steps in a long-term process aimed at 

achieving forest restoration goals. Given the focus of current program of work in the 

WUI, objectives related to these treatments will generally occur in the first 10 years of 

plan implementation and treatments related to restoring forest type structure, 

composition, and resiliency will occur in the latter 10 years of plan implementation.” 

Aquatic habitat strategy: “Use historical sedimentation regimes as a guide for ecosystem 

resiliency and/or vulnerability.” 

In addition, the FEIS analyzes adaptation actions related to resiliency in Section 3.4.7 – 

Climate Change. 

PC 48: The Plan should include more adaptive management strategies for climate 

change. The Plan should emphasize the full adaptive management cycle by acting on 

the results of monitoring. 

PC 108: The Forest Service should fully integrate climate concerns in the adaptive 

management framework, with explicit performance measures. 

Response: Appendix A of the FEIS is the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. The objective 

of the monitoring is to act on the results of the monitoring: “Periodic evaluations 

summarizing the monitoring results will be reviewed by the Forest Supervisor and other 

managers to determine if any changes are needed in management actions or plan 

guidance. This monitoring plan is intended to inform resource management on the unit, 

by testing relevant assumptions, tracking relevant changes, and measuring management 

effectiveness and progress toward achieving or maintaining desired conditions or 

objectives.” 

Measurements of the desired conditions are an indirect measure for our management 

strategies for climate change. We are managing for climate change currently with 6 

adaptation or mitigation management strategies, which were included in the FEIS and 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-41 

have been added into the Plan as well under Planning for Sustainability. Our Forest Plan 

monitoring plan has monitoring associated with desired conditions linked to each of these 

6 management strategies (See FEIS Section 3.4.7 – Climate Change for effects to each of 

these strategies): (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 science-management 

partnerships and public education, thus allowing adaptive management. In addition, two 

of the monitoring measures in habitat and species diversity are specifically looking at 

changes in climate and the influence of those on wetland trends and one is specifically 

looking at changes in stream temperature. This combination of indirect and direct Forest 

Plan monitoring provides the LTBMU with the ability to manage adaptively for climate 

change. 

In addition, the LTBMU will continue to manage for climate change based on national 

policies and guidance. The plan notes under the Planning for Sustainability section: “The 

Forest Service is developing national policy for addressing the uncertainties associated 

with management in the face of a changing climate. The LTBMU climate change 

assessment and strategy will be updated as additional guidance is provided by the 

agency.” 

The FEIS Section 3.4.7 – Climate Change has been updated to summarize the current 

framework that the Forest Service is following as an agency to address climate change. 

Specific to this comment, the FS CC scorecard is addressing: 

 Identify critical research questions guiding adaptive management: Element 7 

adaptation activities 

 Prioritize Science Needs: Element 4 Science and Management and Element 5 

External Partnerships 

 Science-Management Partnerships: Element 4 Science and Management and 

Element 5 External Partnerships 

PC 83: The Forest Service should use the term climate warming instead of climate 

change. 

Response: Appendix D and section 3.4.7 of the FEIS discuss the expected climatic 

changes. These changes include more than just an increase in temperature and therefore 

the term climate change is more appropriate than climate warming. 

PC 148: Analysis of the effects of global warming should be included in any resource 

management plans and should be included in assumptions in FEIS. 

Response: The FEIS section 3.3 Assumptions Common to All Alternatives, includes 

assumption: “Climate Change –Assumptions regarding climate change are described in 

detail in Appendix D – Climate Change.” Future resource management plans 

incorporation of climate change assumptions will be based on regional and national 

direction/guidance. 

PC 149: The Forest Service should specify that climate change is not wholly natural. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-42 ■ Response to Comments 

Response: Language was changed in the FEIS (Section 3.4.7 – Climate Change 

(Reducing Existing Stresses) to “climate change” rather than “natural climatic 

variability.” It is outside of the scope of this document to identify why climate change is 

occurring, however section 3.4.7 does recognize that “Healthy forests are directly linked 

to sustainable consumption,” and that the Forest Service is focused on reducing its 

environmental footprint. 

PC 153: The Forest Service should analyze the effects of multiple climate change 

scenarios. 

Response: The Forest Service analyzed the effects of multiple climate change scenarios 

and presents these in Appendix D (Volume III) of the FEIS. Section D3 in Appendix D 

under future predictions summarizes two Global Climate Models x 2 emission scenarios 

for statewide models, and the local models summarized are based on 2 emission scenarios 

(IPCC A2 and B1). 

PC 151: The Forest Service should conduct its own Forest-level vulnerability 

assessment for the Tahoe Basin and use it to prescribe management to mitigate effects 

of climate change. 

PC 152: The Forest Service should analyze the effects of climate change on species, 

including inter-species interactions, and should prescribe adaptation strategies to 

mitigate potential effects. 

PC 156: The Forest Service should follow up vulnerability assessments with analysis of 

key vulnerabilities for specific species and habitats and recommend a course of action. 

Response: The FEIS Section 3.4.7 – Climate Change has been updated to summarize the 

current framework that the Forest Service is following as an agency to address climate 

change. 

The LTBMU is currently following national and regional guidelines related to climate 

change vulnerability assessments. Element 6 of the National Forest Service Climate 

Change Scorecard is: Assessing Vulnerability 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/advisor/scorecard/scorecard-guidance-08-2011.pdf). 

Currently assessments are being conducted at the regional level. The regional office is 

working with partners to conduct a vulnerability assessment and develop an adaptation 

strategy for NFS lands in the Sierra Nevada Range of California. The Climate Adaptation 

Project is being led by EcoAdapt. The goal of the Climate Adaptation Project for the 

Sierra Nevada is to develop a large-scale vulnerability assessment and associated 

adaptation strategies for focal resources of the Sierra Nevada. The primary objectives of 

the project are: (1) assess the vulnerability of a suite of focal resources to climate change; 

(2) use spatial analysis and expert input to prioritize conservation areas and/or actions; 

and (3) identify implementable management responses to climate change in the Sierra 

Nevada. Once this information becomes available it will be incorporated into LTBMU 

management. While the LTBMU will not be conducting individual vulnerability 

assessments at this time, we do understand the vulnerability of some of the local 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-43 

resources based on the EIP program, which had public involvement, and the Sierra 

Nevada Framework. 

We have added climate change strategies to the Revised Forest Plan that identify how 

vulnerability assessments will be incorporated into management: 

 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. 

 Species restoration should be considered during habitat restoration, especially for 

vulnerable resources. 

PC 197: The Forest Service should include more than two strategies for responding to 

climate change. 

Response: We have added climate change strategies to the Revised Forest Plan that 

identify how new information related to climate change will be incorporated into 

management: 

 Collaborate on local and regional vulnerability assessments. Participate in a 

Regional vulnerability assessment for the Sierra Nevada. 

 Incorporate vulnerability assessments related to climate change into management 

on the LTBMU as information is synthesized. Consider and prioritize adaptation 

activities recommended for vulnerable resources based on funding. 

 Consider restoration of species and/or habitat identified as vulnerable to climate 

change during project planning. 

 Consider restoration of individual species during habitat restoration, especially for 

vulnerable resources. 

 Minimize management impacts to species that are vulnerable to climate change. 

Reduce stress (e.g. human activities, invasive species) related to management in 

order to reduce the additive effects of non-climate stress. 

 Incorporate adaptation actions into management to increase resiliency and 

adaptive capacity of vulnerable resources. 

PC 267: The Forest Service should address global biodiversity loss. 

Response: We cannot address global biodiversity loss at the Forest level; however we 

can and do address local biodiversity. Currently we have holistic approach to managing 

for diversity, with a focus on management of TESPC species. The protective measures 

we have proposed (through desired conditions and strategies) are "intended to contribute 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-44 ■ Response to Comments 

towards the conservation of our species" (which would mean biodiversity at the Plan 

level): 

 Desired Conditions specifically mention diversity: Hydrologic and geomorphic 

processes: habitat diversity); Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management: 

(diversity understory; Jeffrey pine), (diversity in Aspen), (plant and animal 

diversity aspen), (veg diversity); and (species diversity meadows) 

 In addition to the DC that specifically calls out diversity, there are many DCs in 

Habitat and Species Diversity which all move towards managing for biodiversity 

and multiple strategies found in Conservation of Habitat and Species Diversity. 

There are 4 strategies specific to diversity: Identify and map areas of high 

biological diversity, where multiple biological resources occur in the same habitat 

(e.g. a sensitive fish, TRPA special interest plant, and target wildlife species occur 

all within 200 meters of each other); 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); Promote actions that increase 

meadow wetness and diversity of native wetland species (i.e. obligate, facultativewet); Maintain, enhance, and/or restore terrestrial habitats to increase the 

diversity, abundance, and distribution of species and biological communities. 

 All management area concepts specifically mention diversity: Wilderness 

Management Area: These areas help sustain ecosystem function and species 

diversity by serving as habitat for fauna and flora and providing wildlife 

corridors; Backcountry Management Area: Backcountry areas contribute to 

ecosystem and species diversity and sustainability, serve as habitat for fauna and 

flora, and offer wildlife corridors. These areas provide a diversity of terrestrial 

and aquatic habitats, and support species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of 

land; General Conservation Management Area: These areas contribute to 

ecosystem and species diversity and sustainability; serve as habitat for fauna and 

flora; and offer wildlife corridors; Transition: These areas contribute to 

ecosystem and species diversity; physical and biological resource conditions are 

managed carefully due to the high level of use and close proximity to highly 

developed lands. 

 One standard and guide in Conservation of Species and Habitat specifically 

mentions diversity of plant and animal communities on project specific basis 

(guideline) 

PC 154: The Forest Service should analyze the effects of climate change on individual 

species. 

Response: Currently the FEIS has general sections for wildlife, aquatic, and plant species 

on climate change impacts that acknowledge our uncertainties. In addition there is 

mention that climate change may impact the following species specifically: Pacific fisher, 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-45 

northern goshawk, great gray owl, CA spotted owl, Sierra NV red fox, Pacific marten, 

CA wolverine, Yosemite toad, Tui chub, Great Basin rams-horn, northern leopard frog, 

Lahontan cut-throat trout, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, Whitebark pine, longpetaled Lewisia, and veined water lichen. In addition, specific language related to climate 

change was added for Tahoe Draba and Cup Lake Draba into the FEIS. 

PC 155: The Forest Service should analyze effects of climate change on evolutionary 

response of individual species. 

Response: This is outside the scope of this project. There is very little information on the 

evolutionary response of individual species related to climate change. The Plan and FEIS 

focus on adaptively managing for species diversity and habitat. Monitoring activities 

outlined in Appendix A (Volume III) will help provide information on the status and 

trend of these species. Evolutionary response may be conducted by researchers at 

universities if there is an identified need. 

PC 198: The Forest Service should evaluate the impacts of the entire range of human 

activities, and identify actions that would reduce the impacts and thus partially mitigate 

increased stress due to climate change. 

Response: The potential effects of climate change are discussed in multiple sections 

throughout the FEIS. The FEIS recognizes that the high visitation rate (5.7 million 

visitor per year) has the potential to increase stress on natural systems. The Plan balances 

natural resource protection with multiple uses. It is worth noting that the majority of the 

use and management activity takes place in the General Forest management area, which 

constitutes 43% of LTBMU lands in Preferred Alternative E. Human stressors are 

considerably less in the Backcountry and Wilderness management areas, which comprise 

48% of LTBMU lands. Santini-Burton/Urban Forest Parcels comprise the remaining 9% 

and have mixed uses, but are managed to protect the values for which they were acquired. 

PC 482: The Forest Service should implement a comprehensive climate change strategy 

to preserve the Basin and begin to address the worldwide climate change crisis. 

PC 483: Forest Plan should address climate change by preparing the Forest to respond 

to changing conditions in weather, landscape and budget while working towards desired 

conditions. 

Response: The list of relevant handbooks/guidelines related to climate change and the 

Forest Service’s strategy to addressing climate change has been added to the other 

sources of information section in the FS Plan. There is currently minimal guidance on 

how to address climate change in NEPA documents. Existing guidance has been 

summarized in the FEIS Section 3.4.7 – Climate Change. 

PC 271: The Forest Service should evaluate potential for changed flow regimes as a 

result of climate change to create barriers to aquatic species movement (include 

evaluation of the effect of dams, diversions, conveyances, and culverts) on aquatic 

connectivity. 

Response: Section 3.4.3 – Aquatic Wildlife of the FEIS discusses the potential for 

changed flow regimes and potential impacts on aquatic species in the climate section. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-46 ■ Response to Comments 

The LTBMU has completed an aquatic organism passage (AOP) survey of all NFS roads 

in the LTBMU. The LTBMU is currently in the process of prioritizing management of 

identified connectivity barriers and development of a monitoring plan which will assess 

the effectiveness of management activities and revisit a set of passages on a regular basis 

to monitor their effectiveness over time. While the AOP survey focuses on fish passage 

issues, the outcome is to identify opportunities to expand migration opportunities for 

native aquatic organisms including deep water habitat, pool and lakes, as climate change 

impacts stream flow and temperature. 

PC 150: The Forest Service should not use climate change to justify extensive forest 

treatment that could be harmful. 

Response: Climate change is not used to “justify” more aggressive or extensive forest 

treatments, but is one of a number of factors considered in proposed forest treatments. 

Desired Condition 22 in the Revised Forest Plan states in part, “Disturbance processes 

and/or their surrogates create and maintain forest conditions that are well-adapted to 

current and future climates.” 

Vegetation treatments are based on the specific desired conditions identified for each 

vegetation type that were developed based on pre-Comstock conditions, which are being 

used as a guide for the natural range of variability (Revised Forest Plan Table 1. Modeled 

Pre-Settlement Historical Reference and Current Conditions). These desired conditions 

may be met through natural fire, restoration, or fuels thinning as identified in the 

standards and guidelines for forest vegetation, and fire and fuels sections in the Forest 

Plan. Many of the current stand densities are too dense to allow for prescribed or wildfire, 

therefore thinning followed by prescribed burning are a management option to meet 

desired conditions, while minimizing impacts to resources. As information is gathered 

through monitoring and research on the effectiveness of current management actions, an 

adaptive management strategy may be developed to address more effective management 

actions that could meet the DCs under a different set of climate conditions. 

 

Cultural Resources 

PC 20: The Forest Service should identify National Register sites and Heritage priority 

Assets in the Forest Plan. 

Response: The Forest Plan provides a broad description of resources that occur on the 

basin without specific information that might compromise the confidentiality of the over 

150 resources that would comprise the list requested. Several Federal Regulations and 

agreements require the FS to maintain confidentiality of cultural resources. Sites actively 

managed by the LTBMU are advertised in various LTBMU or partners’ publications. 

PC 21: The Forest Service should actively manage and protect National Register Sites 

and Heritage Priority Assets. 

Response: Cultural Resources Desired Conditions 1 and 2 provide for proactive 

management of all cultural resources determined eligible or whose eligibility has not 

been determined. These Desired Conditions are consistent with all alternatives.
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-47 

Tribal Relations 

PC 464: The Forest Service should ensure that Special Forest Products and Forest 

Botanical Products regulations will be recognized in the updated forest plan for 

tribal/cultural uses. 

Response: 36 CFR 223 Subpart G – Special Forest Products, 36 CFR 223 Subpart H – 

Forest Botanical Products and other applicable regulations will be added to the Tribal 

Relations, Standards and Guidelines, Additional Information section of the Revised 

Forest Plan. This information is consistent among all alternatives. 

Fire and Fuels 

PC 496: The Forest Service should consider how their literature citations for fire/fuels 

are applied. 

Sample Comment: “The Draft Plan, Appendix D, claims that “all” scientific studies 

conclude that fire severity is increasing in forests of the Sierra Nevada management 

region, but doesn’t mention Schwind (2008), Collins et al. (2009), Dillon et al. (2011), or 

Miller et al. (2012), which each include all of, or a portion of, the Sierra Nevada 

management region and all of which conclude that fire severity is not increasing.” 

Response: The following paragraphs describe scientific papers and their relevancy to 

Forest Plan Revision: 

--Schwind 2008—Examine the Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest combined area 

in their analysis, indicating an increasing trend toward a larger proportion of burned area 

coming from large fires. There is also a significant trend toward larger mean fire size. 

Acknowledges increase in high severity over the last decade but no significant overall 

trend. Combines ALL forest types into a single analysis, ranging from temperate 

rainforest in WA to Joshua Tree desert woodlands in SE CA. Carries out no statistical 

analysis whatsoever. Has since been updated with more recent reports that statistically 

show increased fire area. 

--Collins et al. 2009--Illilouette Creek Basin is in Yosemite National Park, is largely 

unlogged, with over 30 years of managing natural ignitions for resource objectives. This 

paper describes how this management strategy leads to self-limiting fires that more 

resemble reference fire regimes (including severity) while acknowledging that fire 

severity is increasing in other parts of the Sierra Nevada where this management strategy 

has not been employed. This paper shows the importance of forest fuels in driving the 

higher fire severities on lands outside of YNP. 

--Dillon et al. 2011--This paper does not even consider Sierra Nevada management 

region, it only looks at Pacific North West and South West; only includes a small portion 

of the northern most portion of CA and none of the Sierra Nevada. Even so, Dillon’s 

results support the results of Miller et al. 2009 in the Sierra Nevada, because the areas in 

Dillon’s study most similar to the Sierra Nevada (SW US and southern Rockies) were the 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-48 ■ Response to Comments 

two regions they studied that also showed rises in fire severity and/or rises in the area of 

high severity fire. 

--Miller et a.l 2012--No trend in severity in northwestern California. The authors state 

this is in contrast to Sierra Nevada where the fire severity proportions are increasing. 

Miller et al. (2009) analyzed all of the data that were available at the time of analysis. 

More recently, Miller and Safford (2012) repeated the analysis for yellow pine, mixed 

conifer and red fir forests (which are most of the Sierra Nevada), using imagery covering 

98% of all fire area and extending the analysis by four years. They found the same trends 

as Miller et al. (2009). 

Sample Comment: “The DEIS’s fire/fuels section relies upon the concept of fire regime 

interval departure (FRID) to derive “Condition Class” categories, and assumes that 

higher Condition Class categories will burn predominantly at higher-severity levels, and 

at higher proportions of high-severity effects than areas with lower Condition Class”

Response: The Fire and Fuels report does not state fire severity increases with increases 

in FRID condition class. FRID simply measures the difference between time since last 

fire for a pixel on the landscape and the reference fire return interval of the presettlement 

fire regime of that pixel. The value is then categorized into one of the 3 condition classes. 

These are meant as metrics of the departure of current condition from that of the 

presettlement fire regime (see: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr292/2011_vandewater.pdf). While inferences can 

be made related to fire severity for some forest types and time since fire (long FRI 

regimes are often high severity regimes), the Fire and Fuels report makes no such 

inferences in relation to FRID. Rather, the Fire and Fuels section discusses the 

application of prescribed fire and managed wildfire in reducing the well documented fire 

deficit that has occurred over the last century. 

Sample Comment: “Appendix D cherry picks, and fails to also cite the studies that 

predict no fire increase, or a fire decrease, in Sierra Nevada forests due to future climate 

change (Krawchuk et al. 2009 [Fig. 3], Gonzalez et al. 2010 [Fig. 3b], Liu et al. 2010 

[Fig. 1]). Appendix D inaccurately cites McKenzie et al. (2004) for the proposition that 

fire will increase in California's forests in the future, when Figure 1 of that study projects 

a decrease in fire due to increasing summer precipitation.”

Response: Krawchuk, Gonzalez, and Liu are all global trend scale analyses. The scales 

of these analyses make application to Forest or Regional scale difficult. 

However: --Krawchuk Fig. 3 classifies current low probability of fire increasing to high 

probability as invasion, and the opposite for retreat. No category for high probability 

increasing higher. Krawchuk also states that theirs is a conservative estimate. Their 

purpose is to develop a useful model. And they only use a single general circulation 

model (of many). Krawchuk’s figures cover the entire globe and are such a scale as to 

render the location of the assessment area difficult. Even so, Fig. 2 shows pretty clearly 

that 5 of the 6 pictured scenarios project increased fire probability for the Sierra Nevada 

area. Also, the eastern edge of the Sierra Nevada area is a “fire invasion” area in Fig. 3, 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-49 

because it was historically dryland/desert vegetation that is seeing more fire due to 

cheatgrass invasion. This is immediately adjacent to the Lake Tahoe Basin on the east. 

Areas left blank in Fig. 3 are either those with already high fire potential that continue 

high in the future, or areas with low fire potential that continue low in the future. The 

Sierra Nevada is in the former class. Not being mapped as a fire invasion area does not 

mean that future fire potential is not high! 

--Gonzalez Fig. 3b projects changes in potential vegetation 1990-2100, without 

definitively disclosing the relationship to fire on those projected changes. Further, the 

results state "Temperate mixed forest, boreal conifer and tundra and alpine biomes show 

the highest vulnerability, often due to potential changes in wildfire”. Quite to the 

contrary of the commenter’s statement, Fig. 2c in Gonzalez refers to modeled change in 

fire, and after zooming into the figure (it is of the whole globe!!), one can see that 

southern and eastern California are dark brown, which is the highest value mapped for 

projected increase in fire frequency. 

-- The Liu paper maps the KBDI (Keetch-Byram Drought Index) and does not actually 

directly map fire potential. Liu et al.’s results project increasing drought potential across 

most of the contiguous US, including eastern and southern California, contrary to the 

commenter’s statement. 

-- McKenzie et al. (2004) calculated correlations between mean summer temperature and 

precipitation and annual burned area for eleven western states between 1916 and 2002, 

and then employed regression models to project burned area into the future under two 

emissions/climate scenarios. They found strong relationships between their summertime 

climate variables and fire area for all states but California and Nevada, and concluded 

that most of the western US was likely to experience large increases in annual area 

burned by wildfire in the 21st century. However, they conclude that “fire in California and 

Nevada appears to be relatively insensitive to summer climate, and area burned in these 

states may not respond strongly to changed climate.” In their study, McKenzie et al. 

(2004) make two errors with respect to their analysis in California. First, they neglect to 

account for California’s Mediterranean-type climate, which features a summer drought of 

3-6 months. Second, McKenzie et al.’s (2004) analysis bins southern and northern 

California, which each contribute about half of California’s total burned area in an 

average year but which are extremely different in their fire-climate relationships. Their 

analysis thus buries the relatively strong relationship that exists between fire and summer 

climate variables (in this case, temperature) in the assessment area and other parts of 

northern California (Westerling et al. 2006, Miller et al. 2009b) under the southern 

California fire-climate relationship, which is essentially independent of summertime 

temperature or precipitation (Keeley 2004). In summary, changes in summer temperature 

and precipitation are unlikely to have strong effects on southern California fire area, but 

McKenzie et al.’s (2004) predictions for the western US in general are likely to have 

validity for most of the assessment area. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-50 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 287: The Forest Service should require retention of at least 90% of any 

moderate/high-severity burn areas which are created by fire, wildland or otherwise, 

outside of the Defense Zone, and retain the maximum possible amount of such habitat 

that can be retained in the Defense Zone while ensuring protection of homes. 

Response: We recognize the value of moderate and high severity burned habitat and to 

better reflect that recognition, the Revised Forest Plan has been updated with a revised 

burned area standard, and now incorporates a strategy designed to promote this important 

habitat type. However, having a forest-wide standard regarding a snag retention 

requirement will be problematic. Standing snags often present safety hazards. Further, 

once snags fall to the ground, they can present serious fire control problems. Retention 

standards for burned areas are best set at the project level through an interdisciplinary 

process. 

PC 12: The Forest Service should disclose how climate change will affect the 

achievement of fuels objectives. 

Response: The desired conditions in the proposed forest plan describe forest conditions 

expected under a more natural disturbance regime. Forest Plan Table 1 also describes 

structural conditions related to seral-stage ranges expected to develop and be maintained 

by such a regime, in which reigning climate is a main factor regulating fire activity and 

fire effects. Forest conditions resembling the desired conditions described in the proposed 

forest plan would be much more resilient to climate change than current conditions. 

While it may be possible to meet short-term hazard reduction objectives by retaining all 

trees greater than 12 inch dbh, it would be difficult to meet forest restoration objectives, 

although the proposed 12 inch limit does not go into effect until the initial treatments of 

the collaboratively developed Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and 

Wildfire Prevention Strategy (the 10 year fuels strategy) are complete. Alternative D 

proposes a strategy where fire is the primary tool used to thin stands. While this is a 

viable strategy in more remote places, the fire and fuels analysis determined that the 

likelihood of conditions needed to implement such a strategy is overly reliant on 

conditions outside of our control. 

Some commenters expressed that Alternative D should be chosen over Alternative B since 

it did more to protect habitat and still met fuels objectives, as did all the alternatives.

Regarding the effectiveness of all alternatives meeting fuels and fire behavior objectives, 

this is largely because all the alternatives assume successful completion of the 

collaborative 10 year fuels strategy. The 12 inch diameter limit will not be in effect until 

completion of the strategy. At that time, Alternative D will eliminate the WUI threat zone 

and the 12 inch diameter limit will go into effect outside the defense zone. Then, in 

effect, fire will be the main tool allowed for further thinning of the forest. As stated 

above, this may be suitable in some circumstances. However, this strategy was shown to 

have higher risk and to have a lower probability of success compared to Alternatives B 

and E; primarily due to the associated uncertainties. Alternatives B and E provide 

substantial habitat protections, especially in light of recent changes and additions to 

various standards and guidelines in the Revised Forest Plan (Alternative E). 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-51 

Some commenters preferred Alternative D because it allows more area available to 

managed wildfire for resource objectives. While Alternative D (As well as B and E) 

proposed the most acres available for managed wildfire, Alt. D has more restrictions to 

other types of management options; thereby reducing the flexibility that will be needed 

should the environmental or regulatory conditions necessary for safe implementation not 

materialize and all the eggs are essentially in the same basket. Alternatives B and E 

proposes equal area open for managed wildfire, but allows more flexibility to use other 

tools to meet objectives should opportunities to use managed wildfire do not materialize. 

PC 99: The Forest Service should reintroduce natural processes such as fire. 

Response: Alternatives B and E provide appropriate flexibility to meet restoration 

objectives to achieve desired conditions including reintroduction of natural processes. 

Some commenters expressed support for managed wildfire but concern for community 

protection. All four alternatives place community protection as a primary objective. 

Managed wildfire decisions will be made only if risks to communities can be mitigated. 

Likelihood of affirmative managed wildfire decisions decrease with proximity to 

communities. 

PC 174: The Forest Service should provide a balance between native wildlife protection 

and fuels management. 

Response: Alternatives B and E provide a balanced approach reflecting the importance of 

wildlife and their habitats, reducing risk to communities and resource values, and the 

many uses and activities that occur on the forest. Any projects such as vegetation and fuel 

treatments implemented will be designed through the interdisciplinary process to achieve 

or maintain desired conditions described in the proposed forest plan. Creating and 

maintaining more fire resilient landscapes is a high priority. 

Some commenters expressed support for fuels reduction and said that the project slash 

should be used as biofuels. The LTBMU supports biomass utilization. The biofuels 

industry is generally market driven and market forces will determine whether slash or 

other biomass is utilized as such. 

PC 5: The Forest Service should implement a more aggressive fuels management 

program. 

Response: Alternative C is our most aggressive in terms of fuels management. 

Alternative D is the least aggressive. However, all the alternatives propose to follow the 

collaboratively developed Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and 

Wildfire Prevention Strategy (2007) for initial WUI treatments. All treatments, both 

inside and outside the WUI, will be designed on a project specific basis, and while fuels 

reduction may not be the primary objective outside the WUI, these projects will usually 

have fuels reduction as an ancillary benefit. 

Some commenters are long-time residents of the Tahoe area and are concerned about the 

apparent increasing fire activity in recent years. It is true that fire size and severity 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-52 ■ Response to Comments 

appears to be increasing in the Lake Tahoe Basin, as it is in other areas in the western US. 

The reasons for this are mainly because fuels continue to accumulate when we put all the 

fires out. Historical (presettlement) fires burning with relative frequency regulated fuel 

accumulation. Warming climate is also cited as a cause of increased fire size and severity. 

It is uncertain how much population increase is expected in the Lake Tahoe Basin but 

population size is usually well correlated with ignitions. 

Some commenters are concerned that managed wildfire is to dangerous due to the 

hazardous fuel conditions. While managed wildfire is allowed to some degree in all 

alternatives, in none is it allowed in the WUI defense zone (immediately adjacent to 

homes). Prescribed burning and managed wildfire will always be conducted under 

prescribed criteria. All the alternatives also propose to implement the 10 year fuels 

reduction strategy. 

Some commenters expressed concern that additional wilderness areas will compromise 

the ability to manage or suppress wildfires. Areas proposed for Wilderness designation 

are currently roadless areas. As such they have limited access for increased fuels 

reduction. Although Regional Forester approval is required to use some suppression 

techniques in Wilderness, approval is generally granted in a timely fashion when lives 

and property are at risk. Where adjacent to WUI and appropriate and necessary, roadless 

areas will be treated, but will most likely be limited to hand treatments. All fuels 

treatments are designed to meet minimum fire behavior objectives. 

PC 22: The Forest Service should ensure effective fuels management in areas where 

WUI overlaps the Backcountry Management Area. 

Response: Since WUI does not overlap most roadless areas, fuels treatment occurs 

infrequently in roadless areas. However, any portion of Inventoried Roadless Area that is 

located in WUI will be considered for fuel hazard reduction and project level planning 

will determine treatment design criteria. All fuels projects, in roadless areas and 

elsewhere, will meet minimum fire behavior modification objectives. Protection of 

communities receives top priority. 

PC 100: The Forest Service should reduce hazardous fuels. 

Response: All the alternatives propose to follow the collaboratively developed Lake 

Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy 

(2007). 

Other commenters expressed concern over changes in suppression and prevention 

capabilities. Suppression and prevention programs remain unchanged in any alternative. 

PC 282: The Forest Service should clarify the acres of managed wildfire in each 

alternative. 

Response: The 1988 Forest Plan as amended by the Desolation Wilderness Plan allows 

managed wildfire in the Desolation Wilderness. The LTBMU portion of the Desolation 

Wilderness is the only area where this management practice would be allowed under 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-53 

Alternative A (1988 Plan as amended). In Alternatives B, D and E, managed wildfire is 

allowed on all NFS lands except the WUI Defense Zone. In Alternative C, managed 

wildfire is allowed on all NFS lands except the WUI Defense and Threat Zones. 

In the Fire and Fuels section of the FEIS (3.4.10) we modeled potential managed wildfire 

acres based on historic lightning ignitions and weather conditions conducive to managing 

wildfires for resource objectives. The maximum annual acres of manage wildfire in the 

FEIS are estimates of maximum acres under optimal conditions and are intended as a 

best-case scenario. It would be unwise to prescribe a minimum managed wildfire target 

since there are a multitude of uncertain factors required for these decisions that are 

outside of our control such as weather and regulatory limitations. 

PC 488: The Forest Service should make fuels management the top priority. 

Response: All the alternatives propose to follow the collaboratively developed Lake 

Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy 

(2007). Fuels management is a high priority under all alternatives, because roughly 75% 

of the Lake Tahoe Basin is within the Wildland Urban Interface. 

Some commenters are concerned that roads needed for fire access would be eliminated.

Roads that are required for emergency access are retained. 

PC 491: Forest Plan should emphasize and ensure prescribed fire that mimics natural 

processes to the greatest extent possible (i.e., summer/fall burning), and discourages 

unnatural practices such as pile burning and artificial ignitions during the wet seasons 

(winter, spring). 

Response: The LTBMU recognizes the role of fire and the need to restore natural 

processes to enhance forest health and resilience. This point is emphasized throughout the 

Revised Forest Plan and the FEIS. We also acknowledge in the vegetation and fire and 

fuels sections (3.4.10 and 3.4.11) that pile burning and mechanical treatments are not 

natural. Mechanical treatments are often necessary precursors to applying fire treatments 

in a safe and effective manner. Pile burning is often the most feasible means to dispose of 

residual post-treatment fuels which then enables follow-up maintenance burns in the 

future. While the ecological effects of pile burning are mixed, it does put fire back into 

the system. When possible, fire is allowed to creep between piles, providing enhanced 

ecological benefit over just pile burning. Usually ecological underburning cannot be 

implemented until the piles are burned. As such, pile burning is a critical element in the 

effort to restore natural processes. Lastly, in regards to season of burning, as described in 

the Fire and Fuels chapter of the FEIS, a variety of constraints limit opportunities for 

prescribed burning. Missing any opportunity only exacerbates the backlog problem 

related to fire return interval departure. 

PC 493: The Forest Service should consider the limitations of FRCC in their fuels 

planning and analysis. 

Response: The plan does not use Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) data. The FEIS 

Fire and Fuels section (3.4.10) does use Fire Return Interval Departure (FRID) to derive 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-54 ■ Response to Comments 

condition classes based on current departure from reference pre-settlement fire regime 

mean point fire intervals. Please see: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/clearinghouse/r5gis/frid/California_FRID_graphic_2011b.pdf

PC 494: The Forest Service should explain their strategy for burning piles. 

Response: Pile burning is a significant component, and one of many options and tools 

used in the fuels reduction and forest restoration strategies. Where fuels have 

accumulated or grown to hazardous conditions, fuels reduction is often needed to reduce 

potential for undesirable fire activity. This usually requires cutting trees and piling the 

material as part of the phased treatment schedule. Alternatives to burning piles are 

considered, but due to costs, access limitations, or other constraints, burning the piles is 

often the most practical option. 

Some commenters asked why piles were created and burned so close to live trees. Some 

degree of overstory tree mortality is acceptable during prescribed burning, and may in 

fact, be desirable, as when trying to enhance wildlife habitat by creating snags. 

PC 495: The Forest Service should restore resilience to forests through reintroduction of 

fire. 

Response: The LTBMU recognizes the role of fire and the need to restore natural 

processes to enhance forest health and resilience. This point is emphasized throughout the 

Revised Forest Plan and the FEIS. Under current direction, the Forest Service is required 

to suppress all human caused wildfires, and naturally caused ignitions in the Desolation 

Wilderness may be managed for resource objectives if conditions permit. The new 

proposed plan allows substantially more opportunities to managed wildfire. However, all 

human caused ignitions will be suppressed as per National Fire Policy. 

Some commenters support reintroduction of fire but have concerns for community 

protection. All four alternatives place community protection as a primary objective. 

Alternatives B and E provide appropriate flexibility to meet restoration objectives to 

achieve desired conditions including reintroduction of natural processes. 

PC 497: The Forest Service should improve the analysis of fuels. 

Sample Comment: “the DEIS fails to divulge the fact that most of the fire that occurs in 

Sierra Nevada forests occurs at less extreme fire weather than 90th percentile, and fails 

to disclose the fact that current fires are strongly dominated by low/moderate-severity 

fire effects.” 

Response: As stated in the Fire and Fuels section "As with all models, FLAMMAP 

provides estimates of possible real-world processes. The model will never perfectly 

replicate actual events." However, models are sometimes useful. In this case, 

FLAMMAP is used to describe the relative fuel hazards throughout the LTB in terms of 

crown fire potential. We agree that fire under less severe burning conditions is less of a 

concern to fire managers trying to protect values at risk. But fire managers need to plan 

for conditions that are problematic such as expected fire behavior at or above 90th 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-55 

percentile weather conditions. Recent large fires in the Lake Tahoe Basin have burned at 

severities greater than the "low/moderate-severity" as stated in the comment. Modeling 

fire behavior at low fire weather conditions would not provide the type of information 

needed when planning to reduce the risk to communities and others values at risk. 

PC 500: The Forest Service should use natural ignitions for fuels reduction and forest 

health. 

Response: Restoring natural processes is a focus area of the Revised Forest Plan. The 

LTBMU will use fire when possible (prescribed fire and managed wildfire) to achieve 

desired conditions as described in the Revised Forest Plan, while mitigating safety 

concerns, and within regulatory environmental constraints. 

PC 507: The Forest Service should only conduct fuels treatments within less than 100 

meters of individual homes. 

Response: The effectiveness of WUI fuel treatments at reducing fire intensity and fire 

effects is well documented (Safford et al. 2012). The need for more fire resistant home 

construction is recognized. However, the Forest Service manages federal lands and has 

little influence on how private citizens construct their homes and must reduce risks near 

communities regardless of the flammability of structures. Cohen (2000) states that 

“Consequently if the community or home site is not considered in reducing WUI fire 

losses, extensive wildland fuel reduction will be required. For highly ignitable homes, 

effective wild-land fire actions must not only prevent fires from burning to home sites, 

but also eliminate firebrands that would ignite the home and adjacent flammable 

materials. To eliminate firebrands, wildland fuel reductions would have to prevent 

firebrand production from wildland fires for a distance of several kilometers away from 

homes”. Therefore, since the Forest Service cannot ensure homes will be fireproof, fuels 

treatment is required. The Forest Service intends to reduce risk to ALL homes, not just 

“most” homes. 

PC 506: The Forest Service should suppress all natural ignitions. 

Response: Restoration of natural processes, including fire, is essential components to the 

ecosystem restoration of the LTBMU. Prescribed fire and managed wildfire are the main 

tools used to meet these objectives. The proposed Forest Plan does not allow managed 

wildfire in the WUI defense zone. Use of prescribed fire or managed wildfire will occur 

only when safety issues can be mitigated. Heavy equipment and large air tankers will 

only be used during suppression actions. The exception to that will be if heavy equipment 

is used in pre-treating areas prior to use of fire. During prescribed fire and managed 

wildfire operations, spotting potential will be a consideration fire managers address prior 

to and during implementation. The Angora fire is a good example of conditions at which, 

and locations in which, suppression will be the obvious action taken. The 1988 wildfire 

use event in Yellowstone occurred within the natural range of variation for the lodgepole 

pine forest of that region. That is an infrequent and high severity fire regime, and as such, 

the fire behavior and effects were as expected for that type of regime. The forests of the 

LTBMU are mostly Jeffrey pine, mixed conifer, and red fir; forests that historically had a 

much more frequent fire regime of mostly low to moderate severity. Currently many of 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-56 ■ Response to Comments 

these forests are overstocked due to fire suppression and past logging. Managing natural 

ignitions and using prescribed fire are the tools we need to utilize to move the forest into 

a more natural and resilient condition. 

Forest Vegetation 

Old Growth/OFEA 

PC 25: The Forest Service should provide explanation of how old growth will continue to 

be protected without the OFEA 

PC 98: The Forest Service should protect and promote old growth forests 

PC 442: The Forest Service should maintain OFEAs

Response: The OFEAs in the current forest plan were not delineated by the local unit. 

Rather, they were delineated through a regional process and for the purpose of connecting 

habitats of old forest dependent species Sierra Nevada wide. However, these areas in the 

Basin do not contain all of the old or late seral forest stands. The Revised Forest Plan 

would emphasize the same concepts originally designed for the current plan, but apply 

them to each location of late-seral forest throughout the Basin. 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. 

Maintaining all late seral stands is more effective than OFEAs and the objectives and 

S&Gs are aimed at enhancing the longer-term health and resilience of these areas as well 

as provision for management adjacent to PACs and HRCAs (see Biological Resources 

Program Strategy for connectivity between Late Seral stands and in Forest Vegetation 

S&Gs regarding opening locations). 

Standards and Guidelines have been added and/or clarified to the Revised Forest Plan to 

ensure protection of late seral stands, with the result that the standards and guidelines in 

the Revised Plan now provide stronger protection than the current Plan as amended. 

PC 447: The Forest Service should consider how their literature citations for old growth 

are applied 

Sample Comment: “Appendix D (Volume III) cites to van Mantgem et al. (2009) for the 

proposition that old-growth forests are dying at increased rates, despite the fact that that 

study provided no data on old-growth trees (the largest size class was trees over 15.8 

inches in diameter), and did not find that old-growth trees were experiencing accelerated 

mortality.” 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-57 

Response: In Appendix D the Van Mantgem et al. (2009) citation is a broader look at 

mortality in old growth stands. They view mortality for the western USA and Sierrawide. Also, this section is in relation to climate change and the term old growth is not 

used in the other Forest Vegetation sections in this analysis. 

In Chapter 3.4.11 of the FEIS (Forest Vegetation) the annual mortality surveys in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin show overlap with Protected Activity Centers for Spotted Owls and 

Goshawks, which tend to be areas in or trending towards late seral. The quantification of 

mortality in the table and from personal observation indicates that the larger trees are 

succumbing to bark beetle infestations. The primary factors related to the mortality 

appear to be from high densities of competing trees in both over- and under-stories along 

with lower than average precipitation. 

The literature provided by commenters tends to focus on forest conditions more 

indicative of wetter forest conditions and different forest types of west slope orientation. 

For these reasons, this literature is problematic for establishing desired conditions in the 

late seral stages of development. The literature used for the analysis conducted in the 

FEIS focused primarily on studies in the Lake Tahoe Basin or areas in proximity to the 

Basin. 

There are two camps within the plethora of literature covering the topic of Old Growth. 

1) Quantitative, i.e. over a certain size tree, or 2) Qualitative, i.e. contain certain 

conditions. Neither camp looks at individual trees, but rather at a stand-level perspective. 

The analysis for the revision of the forest plan is based on late-seral forest rather than old 

growth as there are too many sometimes contradictory findings in how old growth as a 

condition is defined. Thus, where needed, qualitative conditions and quantitative 

conditions are given to describe desired conditions and design criteria. 

See Bouldin (1999) for comparative trend between increases in small to mid-sized trees 

versus a decline in larger trees across Forest Inventory & Analysis plots between 1935 

and 1992. This study has been corroborated by others (e.g. Dolanc et al., 2010). In 

addition to these studies, the USFS State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protections’ 

annual aerial mortality surveys of the Lake Tahoe Basin indicate a trend of mortality in 

pockets of large trees (aka old growth) due to drought stress, competition from high 

densities of trees, and bark beetles. 

PC 441: The Forest Service should re-evaluate the criteria used in identifying old growth 

stands and explain their rationale. 

These are found in Table 1 of Part 1 of the Revised Forest Plan. We do not use the term 

old growth, but rather use the term late seral open or late seral closed. The reason for this 

is that old growth generally is a small fraction of the late seral stage, is subject to a wide 

range of perceptions, and generally occurs as a condition that has escaped stand replacing 

fire or other disturbances often over a period of centuries. This condition in the lower 

elevations would be rare in the Basin given the high frequency of historic fire. Thus, late 

seral is used to identify habitats on which certain species are dependent. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-58 ■ Response to Comments 

The 2000 Lake Tahoe Basin Watershed Assessment used two definitions of old growth: 

one by Joanne Fites that used large trees over a certain size, and one by Michael Barbour 

that did not include stands where tree cutting had been done. We agree that by either 

definition, the late seral stages are below historic levels and our desired conditions seek 

to increase this stage within all of the major forest types. The criteria used for 

differentiating seral stages are quantitative, based in part on California Wildlife Habitat 

Relationships classification system as well as additional models integrated by R5 

Ecologist Hugh Safford. 

PC 217: The Forest Service should include basal area retention requirements 

PC 218: The Forest Service should include canopy cover requirements for areas outside 

of PACs and HRCAs 

Response: Basal area and canopy cover retention percentages as per the current forest 

plan tend to interfere with meeting treatment objectives. The goal of such retention 

requirements, however, is espoused in the plan revision by targeting smaller understory 

trees for removal so as to enhance the larger overstory trees. Inadvertently limiting the 

target trees for removal jeopardizes the ability of the FS to improve the health and 

resilience of the overall stand. Forest Plan direction has been added to maintain habitat 

quality adjacent to PACs and HRCAs (see Wildlife response to comments), and to limit 

canopy cover removal in late seral closed stands. 

Openings/Early Seral Forest 

PC 446: The Forest Service should clarify strategies for maintaining openings and early 

seral forest. 

Sample Comment: “Also missing from the draft Plan is a science-based discussion of the 

difficulties of maintaining "early seral" treatments or "openings" in the forest when 

simple observation of "treated" areas reveals that both the understory and trees 

regenerate easily? How often will treated areas need to be "maintained" and at what 

costs to agency budgets? Are maintenance costs built into the treatment budgets?”

Response: There is no strategy for maintaining early seral treatments or openings. Early 

seral and forest openings are transitory conditions. We would expect them to continue 

growing and evolving into mid and late-seral conditions. If the LTBMU continues to be 

deficient in early seral, we would create more until the balance described in the desired 

conditions is achieved. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-59 

 PC 87: FEIS should explain why maximum opening is 10 acres when this is not a 

current practice in R5 

PC 215: The Forest Service should not create 10 acre clearcuts 

PC 498: The Forest Service should clarify the rationale for and the effects of creating 

openings 

Actually, this is a current practice and use of the group selection with reserves 

prescription comes from the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group forests within 

Region 5. In addition, the current forest plan calls for 7 acre openings to create early 

seral habitat. Throughout the implementation of this plan, the unit has not actively 

created such openings due to the need to address two major insect outbreaks (one in the 

late 1980s and the other throughout the 1990s) and the reduction of hazardous fuels (a 

national mandate) to reduce the threat of catastrophic fire around communities at risk (the 

Basin has numerous communities at risk throughout the Basin), and to address the 

restoration of the Angora Fire (2007) area. 

Clear cut logging is not mentioned in the FEIS or Plan because it is not a current practice 

on the LTBMU. The Plan does clarify what is in the FEIS regarding the Group Selection 

with Reserves prescription. This is primarily in the Wildlife and Vegetation sections 

(3.4.23 and 3.4.11). 

Guidance in the revision of the forest plan is to move some of the mid-seral stage of each 

major forest type, which is the most over-abundant seral stage in all types, to an earlyseral stage, which is the least abundant in all types. These seral stage adjustments will 

occur primarily in the second 10 years of the forest plan and on a small scale. Most 

openings will be 5 acres or less and only in a rare instance and in areas where projectspecific analysis warrants will an opening be 10 acres. Also, such openings may not 

appear to be openings as the preferred prescription to return some mid to early seral is 

called group selection with reserves. That is a group of trees are selected for removal 

while clumps or individual large (legacy) trees are reserved for structural heterogeneity 

and sources of seed for the regeneration of preferred species. 

From Helms (1998): Group Selection with Reserves is a form of uneven-aged 

(selection) methods to regenerate and maintain a multi-aged structure by removing some 

trees in all size classes either singly, in small groups, or in strips 

—group selection trees are removed and new age classes are established in small 

groups 

—group selection with reserves some trees within the group are not cut to attain 

goals other than regeneration within the group 

Agreed. The mid-seral stage of forest stand development is over abundant for all major 

forest types across the Basin. After considering other resource objectives, e.g. 

PACs/HRCAs, recreation sites, and cultural/historic sites, as well as visual quality 

objectives, some of this mid-seral stage would be treated on a site-specific basis and 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-60 ■ Response to Comments 

consistent with project-specific goals and objectives to return small portions to an early 

seral stage. 

The size of such openings would not exceed 10 acres and the majority would be 5 acres 

or less, depending on the topography and geographic features (streams, roads, etc.). The 

predominant prescription is called group selection with reserves, which allows for 

removal of some of the overstory while also retaining small clumps of trees that generally 

contains the largest trees to serve as seed trees. Over time these openings would grow 

from early seral to mid seral. Treatments scheduled from the early seral stage onward 

would allow greater flexibility to achieve late seral characteristics (>100 year timeframe). 

Openings made in white fir/mixed conifer stands could be planted with Jeffrey pine in 

order to restore historically occupied Jeffrey stands. Following the Comstock-era 

logging of pine at the turn of the last century, many pine stands grew back as fir and in 

the absence of fire have persisted as fir instead of pine. 

PC 234: The Forest Service should leave clumps of mid-seral forest in the large 

openings to create more varied wildlife habitat. 

Response: Agree. This is exactly what we intend in our forest plan. We have clarified 

the use of this type of feature, using the prescription for these opening called Group 

Selection with Reserves. This means that openings would retain some larger (legacy) 

trees and/or clumps of trees as well as some of the advanced regeneration of desirable 

species in the understory. 

Post Disturbance Tree Removal 

PC 10: The Forest Service should not implement salvage logging 

PC 73: The Forest Service should provide standards to prevent salvage logging after 

major disturbance events to protect habitats 

PC 130: The Forest Service limit the amount of entry into the burned landscape only to 

manage areas where hazard trees may hit homes or roads 

Response: Post-fire restoration treatments will be prescribed and evaluated on a projectspecific basis. In addition to analyzing for impacts (whether real or potential) from postdisturbance treatment, there are real and potential impacts of not treating the postdisturbance conditions. 

The Revised Forest Plan includes direction for restoration of burned areas and does not 

promote salvage logging of woody material. Rather, logging is a tool that may be used 

when other means would not be as effective. Not using such a tool could cause a trade 

off in terms of some other impacts from, e.g. hand piling and burning, which would mean 

more smoke in the air. The appropriate type of logging system can be chosen on the 

basis of resulting conditions from the wildfire. 

Generally, the objectives analyzed in the project-specific analysis include tree/woody 

material removed for public or worker safety, pro-active fuels reduction, or another 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-61 

objective, e.g. scenic. After safety considerations are met, wildlife habitat would be the 

next driver for retention of post-fire mortality. When post-disturbance wildlife 

considerations are met, e.g. 3-5 yrs., then removals/ fuel reduction could occur in WUI. 

Cost recovery would not be an objective, but could assist in reducing the overall cost 

impact to the tax payer if markets are available. 

PC 79: The Forest Service should acknowledge the scientific controversy: (1) logging is 

an effective way to mimic natural disturbances, (2) removing large trees reduces fire risk 

and increases vigor of remaining trees, (3) no ecological benefit from logging dead trees 

and replanting seedlings after natural disturbance 

Response: We disagree that the use of surrogate treatments in place of natural 

disturbance, primarily thinning and fire, in human-altered forests where past logging and 

fire exclusion have occurred is controversial. In fact, the impacts of such historic 

practices, if left to further degrade would result in completely unnatural wildfire, bark 

beetle outbreak, disease pockets, and lower vigor such that young to mid-seral stage 

forest stands would be unlikely to adapt to climate change and succeed to a late-seral 

stage. However, we acknowledge that there are potential impacts to both treatment and 

unplanned disturbance (natural or human-caused, e.g. wildfire from lightning or an 

abandoned campfire), but these are analyzed at a project-specific level. 

There is no disagreement that if the forest around Lake Tahoe were closer to the natural 

range of variability then the need for surrogate treatments would be less. Surrogates by 

their very nature do not represent the actual effects of natural disturbance. This is not 

disputed. Given the proximity of the forest to the developed interface, policy requires 

that human-caused wildfires be suppressed, thus limiting the use of this tool. 

To be clearer than we may have been in the Draft EIS/Plan, large trees greater than 30 

inches in diameter are cut, killed and/or removed as an exception in certain circumstances 

where doing so enhances the health of the residual stand of trees, public safety, or 

restores habitats (e.g. aspen). The analysis shows that there will be a greater occurrence 

of trees over 30 inches dbh in years to come. These stands will continue to grow and 

require thinning to remain resilient and healthy. Thus, trees greater than 30 inches will 

need to be cut. 

PC 37: The Forest Service should utilize all of the active management techniques, 

including mechanical treatment, available to the agency. 

Response: Where feasible and determined to be effective, mechanized equipment will be 

utilized to accomplish project objectives. Innovation to remove and utilize woody 

material from hand treatments rather than piling and burning it are also options to be 

determined on a project specific basis. In current projects consideration has been given 

to using cable systems that could partially suspend trees when sufficient road or trails are 

present to allow for such a system. Innovative systems could aid in the treatment of 

stream and other riparian zones as well as on steep slopes that are inaccessible to 

mechanized equipment. BMPs are determined during project planning and analysis. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-62 ■ Response to Comments 

Forest Health 

PC 178: The Forest Service should maintain forest health to promote a strong local 

economy 

Response: Agreed. Forest health in the plan is a desired condition that in turn improves 

scenic integrity (i.e., a healthy forest is generally considered at a low risk of bark beetle 

caused mortality at outbreak levels or low risk of large crown fires) and sustains a diverse 

array of wildlife habitats. Healthy ecosystems provide high quality recreation settings 

which in turn, support economic health. 

PC 205: The Forest Service should define forest health in the Forest Plan 

Response: Forest health is defined in the FEIS Glossary (Volume III, Appendix M). An 

exact definition of what constitutes forest health can be debated so it is important that for 

our forest plan we provide one that clarifies our intent relative to our desired conditions. 

From Helms, 1998: Forest Health – The perceived condition of a forest derived from 

concerns about such factors as its age, structure, composition, function, vigor, presence 

of unusual levels of insects or disease, and resilience to disturbance. 

When this definition is applied to a landscape, across all major forest types, a healthy 

forest would be one that is sustainable over the long run, i.e. centuries. Factors of forest 

health that are currently in a very poor state include the diversity of age and structure, 

vigor, and resilience to disturbance. These are the factors that the plan primarily seeks to 

address over the next 20 years and beyond. 

PC 97: The Forest Service should minimize tree removal during fire suppression 

activities 

Response: The FS when suppressing fire in the Basin most often utilizes MIST or 

minimum impact suppression tactics in order to lessen the impacts of fire suppression on 

the natural resources. Logging is not generally feasible during fire suppression, but the 

falling of trees hazardous to fire fighters or to return flaming trees to the ground are used. 

Perceptions of what does or does not constitute a hazard from large trees during fire 

suppression are beyond the scope of this plan. This is an operational decision that must 

weigh the administrative or resource advisory inputs, but yet remain an on-the-ground 

decision with suppression forces. 

PC 169: The Forest Service should explain why there is no timber production 

requirement for the LTBMU. 

Response: The current forest plan determined lands within the LTBMU did not meet 

national criteria for timber production. These include criteria for suitability or 

productivity. The FEIS conducted a similar analysis to determine whether lands within 

the LTBMU met these criteria and they did not (Volume III, Appendix G – Timber 

Suitability). Only lands that are suitable and productive are considered for allocation of 

timber volume targets established by the US Congress and meted out through the 

Regional Office. However, this does not mean that there are no wood products coming 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-63 

off of NFS lands within the Basin. Volume that might be sold as part of a “timber sale” or 

“service contract” for other objectives is not target driven. 

PC 224: The Forest Service should actively restore forested ecosystems suppressed by 

lack of fire. 

Response: Agreed. This is an important objective in the forest vegetation section of the 

Forest Plan and is essential to re-introduce fire in order for the ecosystem to function 

more naturally. 

Tree Removal 

PC 104: The Forest Service should eliminate logging and extractive industries from our 

public lands 

Response: The forest in the Lake Tahoe Basin, though green and beautiful today, is not 

the figure of good health. Over 90 percent of the lakeside forest was harvested to supply 

timbers to the silver mines in Nevada in the late 1800s and early 1900s. At the same 

time, suppression of wildfire was adopted as policy to protect natural resources, 

development and people. As a result, the forest around Lake Tahoe has not developed as 

it would have if natural processes such as fire occurred. To protect scenic values and 

ecosystem services as well as wildlife habitats, a proactive approach is necessary and 

logging is a tool used to manipulate forest vegetation to accomplish a variety of these 

resource goals/ objectives. The FS contracts work to be accomplished on NFS lands and 

it is the contractors’ prerogative as to whether wood removed from a project site is 

suitable or even economically feasible for deliver to a wood utilizing industry. 

There are currently no extractive industries located within the Lake Tahoe Basin on NFS 

lands. 

PC 216: The Forest Service should clarify standards for cutting trees greater than 30 

inches DBH. 

PC 233: The Forest Service should only remove trees greater than 30 inches DBH when 

absolutely necessary. 

Response: Agreed. The 30 inch diameter exceptions are intended to enhance and promote 

late-seral habitats as well as provide for public safety and in certain other cases. These 

cases need to be determined on a project/site-specific basis. Forest Vegetation Standards 

and Guidelines were updated for clarification in coordination with a wildlife biologist and 

fire ecologist to ensure a more cohesive integration of this item. In some instances, for 

example, it is not necessary to cut and remove a tree if killing it and leaving it in place as 

a feature of a habitat such as snags or down wood is the objective. 

PC 229: The Forest Service should prohibit felling of trees more than 150 years old. 

Response: Disagree. The majorities of trees in the four major forest types are already 

over 100 years of age and are classified as mid-seral stage of development. Many of the 

trees in this seral stage are likely to be 150 years old. However, if they are larger than 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-64 ■ Response to Comments 

other overstory trees, they would likely be retained during thinning and even where 

openings may be made as a reserve tree or part of a clump of reserved trees. 

What is important is the fundamental aspect of tree growth in older trees, which is that 

reducing competition, even in older groups, can show a positive growth response in the 

remaining trees, thus allowing them to continue growing to a much older age. In the case 

of the major forest types analyzed in the Basin, Jeffrey pine can typically reach an age of 

400-500 years if they have room to grow with some known cases of up to 600 year; red 

fir can likewise grow to more than 500 years; and in the case of white fir up to about 300 

years. Given the longevity of these tree species when growth conditions are adequate 

(i.e. room to grow), the current ages of the major forest types at Lake Tahoe are still on 

the younger side and appear to be correctly categorized from an age perspective primarily 

within the mid-seral stage of development. 

PC 230: The Forest Service should not cut trees. 

PC 437: The Forest Service should either eliminate most cutting or substantially reduce 

the area of the planning unit exposed to either scheduled or non-scheduled cutting. 

Response: Cutting trees is an essential piece of nearly all management aimed at 

sustaining Tahoe’s forest and associated benefits as well as reducing the risk of 

catastrophic fire to the adjacent communities. We recognize that cutting trees has an 

emotional, even spiritual effect on people who value them inherently. However, we also 

realize that our own habitation within and around the forest restricts the natural trajectory 

of forest growth and disturbances that would ordinarily shape the openings and thin the 

understory trees. In lieu of these natural disturbance processes, we bear the responsibility 

to emulate as close as possible what these processes would have done, following an 

ecosystem-based approach. 

The management of Lake Tahoe’s forests is not driven by forest industries; in fact, there 

hasn’t been a market for timber products since 2007. The role any market outlet has in 

terms of the forest management that is implemented on the Basin is to reduce the cost (of 

tax dollars) to reduce hazardous fuels, improve wildlife habitat and forest health, and 

restore fire into the ecosystem. 

PC 231: The Forest Service should focus on removing trees that are younger, ladder 

trees, or within the dripline of more mature, sturdy trees. 

Response: Agreed. This is one of the strategies employed to achieve conditions that 

would be similar to those if fire had periodically burned in the understory. In part, this 

strategy is to restore fire in the ecosystem and in the event of a wildfire, allow for 

suppression resources to safely operate and in part to provide growing space to the stand 

of trees in order to be more resilient to fire, bark beetles and other drought related causes 

of mortality. This strategy is used in both mid and late seral stages. 

See response to PC 229 for discussion of removing trees around more mature trees. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-65 

PC 232: The Forest Service should not cut trees >30 inches diameter. 

See response to PC 216. 

We disagree that trees greater than 30 inches should not be cut. However, we have 

improved the language in the forest plan to reflect our intent that the cutting of trees 

greater than 30 inches is an exception and not a general practice. The circumstances in 

which trees over this diameter would be cut are also explained in greater detail. 

The forest that has been growing back since the Comstock silver mining era removed 

most of the trees from around the Lake is essentially a single-aged forest that lost its 

structural heterogeneity as well as the ecological role of fire. Instead of frequent low 

intensity fire thinning and controlling shade-tolerant species in the understory as well as 

fire intolerant species in the overstory, the current forest has grown into an over-dense, 

single cohort of even-aged trees, which as they get larger require greater amounts of 

water to survive. As a result, the forest has had some growing pains in the form of two 

recent (late 1980s and throughout the 1990s) bark beetle outbreaks and three large fires 

(Gondola in 2002, Showers 2002, and Angora 2007) that burned at high severity. 

Although both forms of disturbance would occur naturally, these events were not what 

the research into historic conditions would describe as within the historic range of 

variability. 

Management that is not permitted to cut and/or remove trees greater than 30 inches will 

ultimately fail to sustain the forest at Lake Tahoe. More dramatic changes will be in 

store over the short and long term with potentially devastating effects on the people, their 

homes and business and infrastructure when bark beetle outbreaks and catastrophic fires 

occurs. 

PC 453: Forest Service vegetation management practices are too destructive. 

Sample Comment: “I live near Rabe Meadow, and the damage from the recent tractor 

logging was truly unconscionable.” 

Response: Regarding Rabe Meadows, the Round Hill Project utilized a cut-to-length 

system that uses low ground pressure equipment and fully suspends the material removed 

using a forwarder. Along scenic Highway 50 and along the Lam Wah Tah trail, more 

trees were left to retain edge effect and scenic quality. No logging was conducted in the 

meadow. This project achieved its stated purpose and need, and in the event of a 

wildfire, suppression efforts will be more safe and effective. 

Treatments to reduce hazardous fuels and restore forest health when conducted using 

mechanized equipment will appear disturbed for 3 to 5 years following the treatment. 

Although these treatments employ best management practices and resource protection 

measures, the result at the time of treatment stands out from untreated forest and it takes 

some time for those disturbances to return to a more natural appearance. There are 

certain trade-offs between the type of disturbance that occurs when a high intensity 

crown fire occurs versus a treatments meant to emulate a low intensity surface fire. What 

is considered destructive is a matter of perspective. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-66 ■ Response to Comments 

Thinning is conducted at various levels depending on the forest type, aspect, and slope. 

The amount of change to achieve the desired density for forest health depends on the pretreatment density. That is, some stands are excessively dense and require more thinning 

than stands that are closer to the desired condition. Opening the forest so that light 

reaches the forest floor allows rather than prevents understory vegetation growth. Not 

only does this enrich understory growth, but results in greater food sources and cover for 

rodents and other ground mammals (see biology sections) that in turn can benefit spotted 

owl and goshawks. 

PC 455: The Forest Service should conduct logging during winter to reduce impacts. 

Response: The Forest Service conducts most operations during the dry time of the 

summer, which permits fuller access to the forest stands and the ability to treat all surface 

fuels. In winter months, access is somewhat problematic and the surface fuels beneath 

the snow are inaccessible. Winter operations policy requires sufficient packed snow 

depths that are not predictable in some winters or location, especially on the east shore. 

Operations in wetter areas can become feasible in the winter when these areas freeze 

over. However, timing and duration of suitable operations become further complicated 

with the mobilization of equipment to accomplish the treatment needed. 

PC 456: The Forest Service should allow more public use of thinned trees. 

Response: Agree. However, this will depend on location of trees thinned, size of thinned 

trees, amount of trees to be thinned, and ability of the public to safely remove the thinned 

trees without damaging resources. In some instances a free use permit can be obtained to 

assist the Forest Service in treating forest stands adjacent to private property and in other 

cases a permit with qualifications is required. 

PC 457: The Forest Service should consider how their literature citations for vegetation 

management are applied. 

Sample Comment: “The EIS Does Not Discuss Literature that Concludes Harvesting 

Large Trees is Unnecessary to Increase Tree Vigor. The Design Criteria’s Standards and 

Guidelines contradict the rationale and conclusions of numerous scientific studies 

conducted in California forests regarding stand density and tree vigor. This is not a 

minor issue, as large trees are significantly more scarce on the Sierra Nevadan 

landscape than they were historically due to past logging practices (McKelvey and 

Johnston 1992, Franklin and Fites-Kauffman 1996) and large live and dead trees are 

critical habitat components for both California Spotted Owls and Black-backed 

Woodpeckers. Guideline SG33 of the Design Criteria (Volume II on page 96) states that 

trees 76 cm can be logged if “[s]hade tolerant trees larger than [76 cm] are increasing 

the rate of mortality or out-competing preferred species...Changes in SEZ conditions 

have allowed conifer encroachment to persist long enough to develop trees larger than 

[76 cm]..., [and] when creating early seral openings to accomplish vegetation desired 

conditions.” Several scientific studies counter the premise that logging large trees is 

necessary for reducing inter-tree competition. North et al. (2009 on pages 23–24) noted 

that “clusters of intermediate to large trees (i.e.,[48 cm] diameter...) are sometimes 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-67 

marked for thinning with the belief that they are overstocked and thinning would reduce 

moisture stress. Some evidence, however, suggests these groups of large trees may not be 

moisture stressed by within-group competition because they have deep roots that can 

access more reliable water sources....” In a long-term study of the large-tree component 

in treated versus untreated late-seral ponderosa pine forests in the Sierra Nevada, 

Ritchie et al. (2008) reported lower mortality of large trees60 cm in stands where no 

trees >50 cm had been harvested. These studies should be analyzed and considered 

with respect to Guideline SG33. Overall, the premise that logging is necessary to create 

early seral stage habitat, reduce fire risk, increase individual tree vigor, and “restore” 

forests after fire, must be weighed against the extremely adverse effects of logging to 

forest ecosystems, disruption of natural ecosystem processes, and degradation of habitat 

for Spotted Owls, Black-backed Woodpeckers, and other native species inhabiting the 

LTBMU. Any logging project, no matter how small the trees to be harvested, will 

adversely impact forest ecosystems through soil disturbance and compaction, disruption 

of nutrient cycling, damage to residual trees, and enhancement of root pathogens 

(Stephens and Moghaddas 2005). These adverse impacts must be properly disclosed and 

analyzed in a revised EIS.”

Response: 

McKelvey, K. S., and J. D. Johnston. 1992. Historical perspectives on forests of the 

Sierra Nevada and the Transverse Ranges of Southern California: Forest conditions at the 

turn of the century. In The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current 

status, technical coordination by J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutierrez, 

G. I. Gould Jr., and T. W. Beck, 225–46. General Technical Report GTR-PSW-133. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 

The reference to large trees is somewhat biased in the Sudworth inventory (1900) cited in 

the document, because Sudworth didn’t measure any trees less than 11 inches diameter 

and many of the areas without large trees were heavily grazed by sheep. There is no 

question that there were a greater preponderance of larger trees historically, i.e. prior to 

wide-scale logging to support the mining at that time. They also do not mention forest 

health or tree vigor in relation to the historic structure. Also, there is general agreement 

that due to burning by sheep herders and Native Americans, the forest was not considered 

pristine. 

McKelvey et al. An Overview of Fire in the Sierra Nevada. 1996. In Sierra Nevada 

Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for 

management options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland 

Resources, 1996. 

Additional Research by McKelvey indicates that the forest that came back following the 

Comstock logging was of greater density and greater risk of fire that would be 

uncharacteristic of the historic fire regime. He states that in the 20th century, the areal 

extent of fire was greatly reduced. This reduction in fire activity, coupled with the 

selective harvest of many large pines, produced forests which today are denser, with 

generally smaller trees, and have higher proportions of white fir and incense cedar than 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-68 ■ Response to Comments 

were present historically. The primary conclusion of this paper is that extensive 

modification of forest structure will be necessary to minimize severe fires in the future. 

Franklin and Fites-Kauffman. 1996. Assessment of Late-Successional Forests of the 

Sierra Nevada. 1996. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. 

II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis: University of 

California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996. 

This paper examines the current conditions of forest in terms of large tree metrics and as 

habitat for Late Seral/Old Growth (LSOG) associated species. There is no mention of 

“vigor” in this assessment. However, the authors suggest that if maintenance of highquality LS/OG forest ecosystems is adopted as public policy, a program needs to be 

initiated that will 1) maintain existing high-quality LS/OG forests; 2) restore such 

conditions where existing LS/OG forests are insufficient to achieve objectives; 3) restore 

fire as an important process and to reduce risks of catastrophic loss; and 4) restore 

structural complexity in the matrix. In addition, this assessment relates specific 

qualitative characteristics that have habitat niches, e.g. use of large snags by particular 

species within the context of other LSOG characteristics. 

The Revised Forest Plan seeks to enhance existing late seral structural classes and the 

connections of those stands that are in close proximity to one another or to other 

protected habitats. The S&G 33 has since been refined to better explain the exceptions 

under which large trees would be cut. 

North, Malcolm; Stine, Peter; O’Hara, Kevin; Zielinski, William; Stephens, Scott. 

2009. An ecosystem management strategy for Sierran mixed-conifer forests. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 p. 

Although I agree that large trees, as the author suggests can be found in groups and the 

thinning may not necessarily be due to water stress, the authors do go on to say in the 

same paragraph cited by the commenter that: These groups, however, can be at risk if 

intermediate and small trees grow within the large tree groups. Thinning these small and 

intermediate trees will reduce fire laddering. 

Ritchie, M. W., B. M. Wing, and T. A. Hamilton. 2008. Stability of the large tree 

component in treated and untreated late-seral interior ponderosa pine stands. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Resources, 38: 919-923. 

The conclusion of this paper is that untreated stands had elevated levels of mortality of 

large trees where smaller trees had grown into the understory as compared to treated 

stands that were thinned. Thus, the question still remains as to what level of thinning 

would produce the most stable and resilient stands of late seral ponderosa pine. 

Comparisons in this study are based on two prescriptions: overstory removal and thin 

from below (retaining all trees greater than 20” DBH with even spacing). In addition, the 

reference condition the authors are relating to are large trees that are widely spaced, a 

current condition that is very rare in the interior west. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-69 

This reference would appear to support the updated S&G 33 in those instances where 

stands with trees that become much larger than the ones studied in Ritchie et al (2008). 

Thinning from below that includes some level of thinning in the co-dominant and 

dominant positions with the aim of a stable and resilient stand of large trees is an 

important goal in meeting the desired conditions for forest vegetation, fire & fuels and 

wildlife habitat. 

Stephens, S. L. and J. J. Moghaddas. 2005. Fuel treatment effects on snags and coarse 

woody debris in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 

214: 53–64 

Stephens and Moghaddas (2005) conclude that long-term forest management goals 

should include the reintroduction of fire as an ecosystem process and creation of forest 

structures that can incorporate wildfire without tree mortality outside a desired range. 

Stephens, S.L., and J. J. Moghaddas. 2005. Experimental fuel treatment impacts on 

forest structure, potential fire behavior, and predicted tree mortality in a mixed conifer 

forest. Forest Ecology and Management 215: 21–36. 

This paper also supports the goal of treatments aimed at restoring forest structure and 

reintroducing fire into the ecosystem. There is no mention of the deleterious effects the 

commenter is associating with neither this article nor the article above. 

Stephens, S.L., and J. J. Moghaddas. 2005a. Silvicultural and reserve impact on 

potential fire behaviour and forest conservation: twenty-five years’ experience from 

Sierra Nevada Mixed conifer forest. Biol. Conserv. 125, 369–379 

Alternative views toward restoring fire-excluded forest have been characterized as a 

debate between ‘‘process restorationists’’ – who argue that restoration of key ecological 

processes, especially fire, will eventually restore natural ecological conditions, and 

‘‘structural restorationists’’ – who argue that forest structure and fuels must be restored 

before reintroduction of fire. One caveat to this argument is that where the restoration 

occurs could influence how the restoration is accomplished. That is, the areas 

surrounding communities would likely require the structural argument, given the risk of 

catastrophic fire to the community if fire alone were to be allowed to restore the 

ecosystem. 

The overall conclusion of this study as relates to the objectives analyzed in the EIS is that 

thinning from below, and old-growth and young-growth reserves were more effective at 

reducing predicted mortality in trees up to 51 cm DBH when compared with other 

treatments. There is no mention of the adverse impacts suggested by the commenter. 

PC 458: The Forest Service must disclose impacts from logging. 

Sample Comment: “Regardless, it should be explicitly stated that there might be 

situations where some level of environmental impact will occur due to the nature of the 

activity needed to accomplish the vegetation management actions needed to reduce the 

risk of catastrophic wildfire. The impact may occur, even with prescriptions that include 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-70 ■ Response to Comments 

best practices, as there may limitations on methods that can be used due to worker safety 

concerns or feasibility issues. The LTBMU should not be constrained by a Plan and 

supporting EIS that indicates that regardless of what is needed to address fuel loads, 

there will not be any environmental impacts.” 

Response: Effects of forest vegetation treatments are disclosed in multiple sections of the 

FEIS. The FEIS does not claim there would be no impacts; rather it states that there 

would be no significant impacts as defined by NEPA regulations. 

PC 459: The Forest Service should manage the forest to produce lumber. 

Response: Appendix G (Volume III) is the Timber Suitability analysis, which determined 

that there are no lands suitable for timber production in the Tahoe Basin. 

Determination of where wood is shipped or how the wood is processed is not up to FS 

staff, but the contractor who bids on the project/contract. Some of the wood removed is 

suitable for processing into lumber, but there are no lumber mills within 120 mile radius 

of Lake Tahoe. This makes it difficult for contractors to offset the cost of treatment as 

the cost of transportation alone is often more than the value of logs on a truck. Values of 

the main timber species in the Sierra Nevadas have been in decline for more than 20 

years and are near all-time lows. 

PC 465: The Forest Service should expand opportunities for non-commercial fuelwood 

collection. 

Response: Agree. We would prefer more wood become available to fuelwood gatherers 

than be burned in piles. Urban lots are often the most accessible areas to fuelwood 

cutters and treatments often do leave tree lengths (bucked up) for this activity. In project 

areas where fuel piles are created near access points (roads), fuelwood cutters can also 

remove useable wood from these piles and re-pile any remaining wood. 

Currently, fuelwood is offered to the public and the permits do not sell out in any given 

year. Some sources of fuelwood are behind closed gates for resource protection and 

public safety (during operations). Some of the fuelwood generated by our management 

treatment is decked in large piles at a landing or in the woods but allowing the public to 

climb on and cut firewood from these piles poses an unacceptable safety hazard. These 

piles are sometime sold under a commercial fuelwood permit to contractors with 

appropriate equipment to process these piles safely. 

We have used local 8a contractors to remove fuelwood from small areas. These are 

licensed operators who can meet all contractual obligations (administrative, operational, 

financial, etc.). 

PC 434: The Forest Service should protect and enhance vegetation species diversity. 

Response: Agree. None of our alternatives would jeopardize vegetation species 

diversity. In some instances there are threats to high elevation tree species, e.g. Western 

white pine and whitebark pine from an exotic pathogen called the white pine blister rust, 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-71 

which weakens and kills the 5-needle pines in the basin. Efforts to conserve these tree 

species have been underway for more than a decade, including research, monitoring, and 

testing for and planting of genetically resistant trees. The search for candidate trees and 

the collection of seed from these trees for testing has been accomplished through 

cooperative agreements with the Sugar Pine Foundation and the R5 Tree Nursery in 

Placerville, CA for this purpose. 

PC 435: Plan should include a more clearly defined and comprehensive restoration 

strategy for sugar pine, western white pine, and whitebark pine. 

Response: See response to PC 434. 

Agree. Separate from the forest plan is the recently signed Sugar Pine Action Plan 

document for the LTBMU. This action plan outlines means by which sugar pine can be 

conserved within their seed zones and within the Basin. 

Blister rust resistant sugar pines are currently included when deemed appropriate in 

reforestation efforts, including Penny Pines plantations around the Basin. 

Aside from the Sugar Pine Action Plan, the strategies in the Forest Plan favor the fiveneedle pine species, including rust resistant stock for planting when appropriate. The 

Forest Silviculturist is responsible for prescribing reforestation as needed on a projectspecific basis. 

PC 436: The Forest Service should list white pine blister rust as a terrestrial invasive 

species and should analyze its effects. 

Response: As an introduced pathogen that is having detrimental effects on 5-needle 

pines, we are not sure how such a designation would improve our ability to analyze its 

effects. Through research and monitoring, we have a good understanding of its rate of 

spread, extent, and incidence of mortality. In addition we have the Sugar Pine 

Management Plan for the LTBMU that includes all white pines and tiers to the regional 

effort through the Placerville Nursery where potentially rust resistant trees can be tested. 

The Revised Forest Plan includes Strategies related to WPBR. 

PC 440: The Forest Service should provide a more specific definition for hazard trees 

and clarify what level of risk would justify hazard tree removal. 

Response: Agree. We have added a more specific explanation of what constitutes a 

hazard tree in the Glossary – Appendix M of the FEIS. Essentially, a tree identified as a 

hazard has 1) a high likelihood of failure (i.e. falling tree or portion thereof), and 2) a 

target that could result in harm to people or property. Not all dead trees for example 

along a remote seldom used trail would need to be cut/mitigated as dead trees are a 

feature in the forest. However, a high incidence of dead trees along any trail could 

prompt some level of hazard tree mitigation. 

Specific hazard tree direction for USFS Region 5 comes from: Angwin, P., D. Cluck, P. 

Zambino, B. Oblinger and W. Woodruff. 2012. Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-72 ■ Response to Comments 

Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region. FHP-PSW-April 2012 

Report RO-12-01. 

PC 443: The Forest Service should evaluate any vegetation treatments so that they do 

not unintentionally harm wildlife habitat, watersheds, soils or other natural resources. 

Response: Agree. Typically maintaining or improving wildlife habitat is part of the 

purpose and need of our projects, even hazardous fuels reduction projects. Potential 

effects to all resources are evaluated during project specific analysis and appropriate 

resource protection measures and best management practices are incorporated in the 

project design to ensure protection of natural resources. 

PC 444: The Forest Service should emphasize restoration of native vegetation 

communities and habitats. 

Response: Agree. Lack of forest structural diversity is the greatest threat to the 

sustainability of the forest around the basin. Restoring this on a landscape scale will 

emphasize the importance of habitats that will change as a result of restoration 

management activities. 

Restoring some early seral forest from mid seral will allow for natural re-vegetation of 

pioneer plant communities that are currently at lower than historic levels. 

PC 445: The Forest Service should include information on effectiveness of current 

vegetation management. 

There have been several studies completed on the effectiveness of the pre-fire fuels 

reduction treatments through which the Angora fire burned. These studies all indicate 

that when fully implemented the treatments altered fire behavior as predicted. These 

same studies indicate that the fire burning through untreated areas also burned as 

predicted, a stand replacing crown fire. 

The unit has also conducted demonstration projects to determine whether or not 

mechanized treatments within stream zones can be done without permanent damage. The 

results indicated that such treatments conducted during the dry season can be done 

effectively and with little effect to soils or re-vegetation. 

Over many years, projects have utilized best management practices to minimize impacts 

to natural resources during vegetation management activities. The results of evaluating 

the effectiveness of these are conclusive that there is minimal effect to the resources. 

Following an adaptive management strategy the vegetation treatments have become more 

effective at meeting the purpose and need in each successive project. Managers on the 

LTBMU have also benefitted from research conducted in the Basin with emphasis on 

vegetation management activities related to fuels reduction, soils, wildlife habitat, air, 

and water quality. Some of these are cited in the EIS. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-73 

One of the goals in the Revised Forest Plan seeks to restore forest structure at the 

landscape level. Initiating such restoration treatments has not been done before and 

results will be assessed over time to determine whether the treatments are truly on a 

restoration trajectory. The short 20 year timeframe of the forest plan is very small in 

comparison to the timeframe for restoration to achieve the desired conditions, which 

could be more than a century. 

PC 448: The Forest Service should review their assumptions about historic forest 

conditions. 

Sample Comment: “...historic forests were far denser than previously assumed, had far 

more smaller trees and more fir relative to pine, and were largely dominated by mixedseverity and high-severity fire, not low-severity fire (Hessburg et al. 2007, Baker 2012, 

Williams and Baker 2012a, Williams and Baker 2012b).” 

Response: Partially agree. Not all forest types were characterized by large widely spaced 

trees. This was more characteristic in the Jeffrey pine and some mixed conifer type 

stands. The exact conditions would have varied at each stage of stand development with 

varying degrees of sizes, density, mortality, surface fuels and diversity. Thus, we do not 

assume all major forest types would have been late seral open with frequent low intensity 

fire. Some data indicate more open mid to late seral stages may not have fully accounted 

for the role of aboriginal fires, which are noted in the forest plan. The current conditions, 

though not limited to the Lake Tahoe Basin, have become considerably more dense and 

unbalanced with the majority of ages representative of a single cohort that originated 

from Comstock era logging. Relative to numerous basin-specific studies, this condition 

is what is novel. At higher elevations, the area near Angora ridge was characterized by 

periodic stand replacing fire every couple of hundred years. 

PC 449: The Forest Service should reconsider assumptions about resiliency based on 

recent research. 

Sample Comment: “The DEIS (p. 3-232) describes forest resiliency as the ability of the 

system to return from major natural disturbance, such as higher-severity fire. However, 

the DEIS fails to disclose the fact that recent research finds generally vigorous natural 

conifer regeneration in high-severity fire patches—even in large high-severity fire 

patches—indicating high ecosystem resilience, contrary to the assumptions of the DEIS 

(Donato et al. 2006, Shatford et al. 2007, Donato et al. 2009, Collins et al. 2011).” 

Response: Agree. More is coming from the climate change literature. When it becomes 

more available and applicable, we will consider alteration to our current planned 

guidance. 

Wider spacing would be inherently more resilient to fire in pine types. Also, there is 

more contemporary research that supports the desired conditions for the major forest 

types in the Basin, e.g. North et al 2012 on fire history of riparian zones. A fundamental 

fact about drought tolerance is also part of resiliency. That is, trees require sufficient 

water and nutrients to grow and that the greater the space available to capture these 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-74 ■ Response to Comments 

resources and grow, the better capable of fending off bark beetle attacks and maintaining 

vigor. 

In this EIS, resiliency assumptions are more generally applied across the basin. Specific 

instances of disturbance, e.g. fire, would be considered on a site-specific basis and project 

design would incorporate research available at that time. Assumptions about resiliency 

are based in part on historic conditions as a stepping stone towards what the disturbance 

regimes will be in the future and in part on fundamental ecological and forestry principles 

related to fire behavior and water cycles. 

Donato, D. C., J. B. Fontaine, J. L. Campbell, W. D. Robinson, J. B. Kauffman, and B. 

E. Law. 2006. Post-Wildfire Logging Hinders Regeneration and Increases Fire Risk. 

www.sciencexpress.org / 5 January 2006 / Page 1 / 10.1126/science.1122855. 

This brief does not explain the resilience of post-fire forest. It only portrays a post-fire 

logging activity without putting into context the broader goals of post-fire restoration. 

The EIS and Forest Plan Revision consider more elements to be addressed by an IDT 

following wildfire. 

Shatford, J.P.A., D.E. Hibbs, and K.J. Puettmann. 2007. Conifer Regeneration after 

Forest Fire in the Klamath-Siskiyous: How Much, How Soon? Journal of Forestry, 

April/May 2007: 139-146. 

This article refers to natural pine regeneration following stand replacing fire and that it 

can take very long periods of time and will be highly variable. They conclude that even 

with information from 20 years of forest dynamics, successional development can not be 

precisely predicted for specific locations. This highlights the challenge to integrate a wide 

range of forest conditions across a landscape to meet the diverse set of goals and needs 

imposed by society 

Donato, D.C., Fontaine, J.B., Campbell, J.L., Robinson, W.D., Kauffman, J.B. and Law, 

B.E. 2009. Conifer regeneration in stand-replacement portions of a large mixed-severity 

wildfire in the Klamath-Siskiyou Mountains. Can. J. For. Res. 39, 823–838. 

The lighter seed and more vigorous growth of Douglas fir in this post-fire situation are 

quite different from heavier Jeffrey pine seed and its slower initial growth. Given the 

large area burned, the mosaic of live trees across the burn area, the mesic growing 

conditions, and the distances traveled by Douglas fir seed, we would expect to see more 

vigorous establishment in that area for that forest type. Resilience in this case stems from 

the adaptation of Douglas fir to seed in after fire, since it does not resist fire very well. In 

the case of Jeffrey pine, its strategy is to resist fire and to regenerate from seed in situ. 

Collins, B. M., R. G. Everett, and S. L. Stephens. 2011. Impacts of fire exclusion and 

recent managed fire on forest structure in old growth Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer 

forests. Ecosphere 2(4):art51. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-75 

The authors note that their results are based on forests that have not undergone the 

extensive harvesting that has occurred throughout much of the Sierra Nevada, including 

the Lake Tahoe Basin. Given that the increases in density of 30.5 to 61.0 cm dbh trees far 

outweighs that for the larger size classes, and that there are concerns over the numbers of 

large trees where extensive harvesting has taken place, restoration based projects in 

mixed conifer forests similar to those studied here are likely justified in focusing on 

retaining trees .61.0 cm dbh. This would appear to support the premise of forest 

restoration in the EIS/Forest Plan Revision. 

As noted previously, exceptions to removing trees larger than 30 inches DBH have been 

clarified to reflect the situations in which they would be removed. 

PC 450: The Forest Service should explain why removing trees is necessary for aspen 

restoration. 

Response: Agree. We can further explain aspen growth requirements. Many of the aspen 

stands that were inventoried throughout the Basin exhibit severe conifer encroachment 

into the aspen and in many instances are overtopping them, causing aspen mortality. 

Given that aspen is clonal in its reproduction (reproduces from root clumps), the stands 

that exist are all that we have. Therefore, we aim to restore aspen as part of other 

projects, incorporating such treatments into overall project objectives. 

Aspen require open growing conditions as they are shade-intolerant. They are able to 

take advantage of openings in the forest that result from fire or other mortality event by 

rapid growth to capture the site. However, shade-tolerant species (fir) and other shadeintolerant species (pines), in the absence of fire, eventually out-compete aspen. 

PC 451: The Forest Service needs to clarify the assumptions about tree mortality from 

beetles and the rationale for the need to reduce stand densities. 

Response: The assumptions are nothing new to forestry. These are well supported in the 

literature. The question is really about whether or not bark beetle outbreaks are 

acceptable or not. Given the extensiveness of overly dense forest conditions, and the 

objectives for scenic quality in the Basin, beetle outbreaks and the tremendous tree 

mortality associated with them are not acceptable. Therefore, thinning the forest stands 

below maximum stand density index for each of the major forest types on a periodic basis 

will lower the risk of outbreaks and improve resiliency of the stands to withstand natural 

levels of beetle attack. 

In the FEIS the difference between alternatives B, C and E is the amount of thinning per 

acre (which is highest in Alternative C), not the number of acres treated over time. 

PC 452: Plan should clarify how the Plan considers the ecological role of beetles, 

disease, and fire in forest ecology. 

Response: The plan seeks to reduce beetle risk and fire effects that are outside of the 

natural and/or historic ranges of variability. Objectives aim to reduce forest stand 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-76 ■ Response to Comments 

densities from conditions that do not represent natural conditions and would result in 

extraordinary outbreaks and catastrophic fire. 

Forest vegetation management options reflected in the forest plan follow precepts of 

ecosystem-based management. Given that there are no lands suitable for timber 

production in the Basin, the practice of forestry is aimed at objectives other than timber, 

meaning wildlife, recreation, scenic, or other resource objective. After public safety has 

been addressed, snags and down wood that are created by natural processes are a 

desirable component in the forest. Additional considerations are covered in the forest 

plan when retaining snags. 

PC 487: The Forest Service should consider carbon sequestration in planning forest 

management activities. 

Response: Recent research can be conflicting over whether utilization of woody biomass 

in energy producing facilities is a net carbon offset or not. As research conflicts are 

resolved we expect Forest Service policy regarding carbon sequestration in planning to 

become more specific. 

PC 502: The Forest Service should clarify desired conditions for vegetation. 

Response: DC statements for forest structure, composition and health are broad and 

reflect conditions that may take a century or more to achieve. Forest changes, given the 

long length of time needed for trees to grow to large sizes, mean that as managers we 

cannot correct the issues of forest sustainability and health in 15-20 years. 

The purpose of the vegetation DCs is to establish the goal towards which we intend to 

establish a long-term trajectory. 

PC 503: The Forest Service should utilize thinning treatments that attempt to mimic 

natural processes. 

Response: Agree. The prescribed treatments are designed as surrogates for what natural 

processes would alter within the forest. We use an ecosystem-based approach to thinning 

that is reflective of bark beetle caused mortality and low intensity prescribed fire that 

reflects the role of fire as well. 

There is a study site at the Blodgett Forest in Georgetown, CA is part of a national study 

called the Fire & Fire Surrogate Study, to understand how management treatments can 

best mimic natural processes in different forest ecosystems across the country. The 

prescribed treatments in the LTBMU have benefited from these studies at the Blodgett 

Forest. 

PC 505: The Forest Service should limit fuels reduction to understory removal. 

Response: Partly agree that the reduction of surface fuels and small understory, shadetolerant trees and shrubs are needed to alter fire behavior in and around communities. 

However, aerial continuity of canopy fuels is also part of the equation when developing 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-77 

treatments. Canopy fires generally need some surface fuels to in order to continue 

burning in the crowns, however, canopy fires that enter a stand with treated surface fuels 

can continue to burn in the canopy when those fuels are high in density. 

In addition to fuels reduction to alter fire behavior, canopy thinning also is prescribed to 

improve resiliency of residual trees to bark beetle attack and overall vigor. A complete 

set of treatments includes the use of prescribed fire once all other treatments have been 

conducted. The prescribed fire further reduces the fuel loading and provides benefits to 

the residual vegetation including a more receptive seed bed for understory re-vegetation. 

Interpretive Services, Conservation Education, and 

Visitor Services 

PC 165: Forest Service should use environmental education and interpretation to instill 

conservation values in visitors and thus reduce impacts. 

Response: All alternatives propose using environmental education and interpretation to 

communicate conservation values to the public. This remains an important mission for 

the LTBMU. As stated in the Revised Forest Plan - Part 1 Vision Section for 

Interpretation: “The mission of the Interpretive Services program is to provide support 

and inspire high quality interpretation that instills respect and appreciation for the natural 

and cultural heritage of public and private lands and foster their protection and 

stewardship through time.” 

PC 166: Forest Service should require recreation special use permittees to provide 

environmental education and interpretation. 

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Currently, the Forest Service does not have a 

regulation in place that requires special use permit holders to provide environmental 

education and interpretation. The LTBMU, however, encourages permit holders to offer 

environmental education and interpretation services. 

Lands Program 

PC 164: The Forest Service should transfer management of NFS lands to the States and 

counties. 

Response: The Forest Service is responsible for management of all NFS lands. However, 

the Forest Service also considers transfer of NFS lands that will reduce fragmentation of 

public lands, increase public access to NFS lands and Lake Tahoe shoreline, and protect 

important natural and heritage resources. 

PC 413: The Forest Service should consolidate its ownership of urban subdivision lots. 

Response: The consolidation of the ownership of urban lots is emphasized in the plan, 

especially with Nevada State lands and the California Tahoe Conservancy. One of the 

specific lands strategies of the Revised Forest Plan states, “Seek opportunities for land 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-78 ■ Response to Comments 

adjustments with State and Local governments that consolidate ownership and improve 

management of urban lots”. In addition a second lands strategy continues the option of 

transferring urban lots to the grantees in erosion control projects when the improvements 

encumber more than 25% of the lot. However, in the FEIS, in section 3.4.13.2 under 

Land Acquisition and Land Adjustment Program, it is explained that land adjustments of 

urban lots with Nevada State Lands and CTC are preferred as they are both land 

management agencies with similar management objectives for their land in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin, and that such land adjustments offer the best opportunity to improve overall 

management and present the least concern for future monitoring of the deed restriction 

required by the Santini/Burton Act. Nothing in the plan or FEIS precludes continuing 

transfers to local governments. As stated in the same section of the FEIS, discussions on 

urban lot land adjustments are active and ongoing. Although the Santini/Burton Act did 

authorize transfers of lands acquired under the Act to local and state governments, it did 

not authorize the transfer to private ownership. This plan cannot create the authority to 

do so. 

PC 429: The Forest Service should manage lands surrounding Santini-Burton parcels as 

backcountry. 

Sample Comments: “The Draft Plan provides for preserving the environmental quality 

and public recreational use of Santini-Burton Urban Forest Parcels (SB Parcels) with 

management emphasis on protecting watershed conditions and community open space. 

Such classification is closely related to backcountry. Forest Service lands surrounding 

SB Parcels should be presumed as meriting backcountry designation unless other factors 

predominate.”

Response: The vast majority of Santini/Burton Parcels are small urban subdivision lots in 

developed subdivisions. They are usually adjacent to developed residential properties. 

They are in designated urban areas, and do not meet any of the criteria for backcountry 

designation. In the Revised Forest Plan, Program Strategy for Santini/Burton Acquired 

Lands/Urban Forest Parcels, it states, “The Forest Service manages urban forest parcels 

as undeveloped open space for the purpose of preserving the hydrologic function of 

sensitive lands and conserving natural forest conditions within the urban setting”. The 

first strategy listed on the same page states, “Manage urban forest as undeveloped parcels 

that provide open space and dispersed recreation opportunity”. So, although the lots are 

protected, they do not have wildland or backcounty characteristics and require more 

intense management due to all of the adjacent private properties. 

There are larger properties that were acquired under the Santini/Burton Act that are not in 

the urban areas, such as High Meadows. Under Lands Standards and Guidelines in the 

Forest Plan, it states, “For Planning purposes, acquired properties shall be included in the 

management area in which they are located”. Thus, if Santini/Burton properties are 

located in an area with a backcountry designation, they will be managed as such. 

In the Management Areas Section of the Revised Forest Plan the Santini-Burton and 

Urban Forest Parcels sections have been updated to explain the differences in 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-79 

management between these lands. Lands in the urban areas would be managed differently 

than those farther into the forest.

PC 462: The Forest Service should work to resolve conflicts between special use 

permittees using the same lands. 

Sample Comment: “Angel’s Roost and East Peak should be removed from the list of

communication sites shown in Map 8 of the Draft Plan.”

Response: The referenced map is of the existing designated communication sites on the 

LTBMU at the time of the Revised Forest Plan. In accordance with the FS Handbook, 

FSH 2709.11-90.3.1, Communication sites must be designated in a National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision document. Angel’s Roost and East Peak 

have been designated communications sites since at least the time of the 1988 Forest 

Plan. The two sites were designated as their locations were needed to provide 

communication services to the South Shore area for the public safety radio net, the Forest 

Service radio system, private two-way radio and Heavenly Ski Area’s operations. As 

long as these two sites are used for communication purposes, they cannot be 

undesignated. 

The same FS Handbook at FSH 2709.11-30.3.2. states: All designated communication 

sites must have a current communication site management plan that is consistent with the 

applicable LMP or with any separate NEPA Decision Document. The communication 

site management plan must provide site specific direction and guidance to Forest Service 

personnel, the communications site users, and the public. This direction is intended to 

ensure that the needs of all users are considered and avoid conflicts between their uses. 

There is a current site management plan for Angel’s Roost that limits additional uses of 

the site to those that are consistent with the use of the area for a ski area. In addition, 

when the current cellular provider was authorized at Angel’s Roost, a NEPA decision 

document determined that the new use was consistent with the ski area use. A new 

communication site management plan is in process for East Peak that will also protect the 

interests of Heavenly Mountain Resort. 

Recreation 

PC 323: The Forest Service should expand recreation infrastructure and opportunities as 

needed and as budget allows. 

Response: Some expansion of infrastructure is allowed under each of the alternatives. 

The FEIS analyzes five alternatives, each of which provides for a specific degree of 

construction, site modification, redevelopment, and/or decommissioning of developed 

recreation site infrastructure. Alternatives A, B, C, and E allow for a range of 

development between 5 and 15 percent in developed recreation opportunities and 

facilities. In comparison, Alternative D allows for a potential 15 percent decrease in 

developed recreation infrastructure in response to resource restoration objectives. All 

alternatives propose to provide a wide variety of recreation opportunities by focusing on 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-80 ■ Response to Comments 

deferred maintenance or modification of existing facilities to help achieve accessibility 

and sustainability of recreation opportunities in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Future site 

modification and/or redevelopment under any of the alternatives is subject to future 

funding levels. 

PC 95: The Forest Service should maintain a mix of recreation opportunities while 

protecting resources. 

Response: The USFS manages NFS Lands for multiple uses. In some cases uses are in 

conflict so specific guidelines are put in place to provide for these multiple uses while 

protecting and conserving habitat and species. The Revised Forest Plan, consistent with 

all alternatives, has multiple Standards and Guidelines in place that are intended to 

protect natural resources while providing both developed and dispersed recreation 

opportunities. 

PC 41: The Forest Service should carefully protect the few remaining old growth forests, 

large trees and streamside zones while not limiting the current use and access. 

Response: Perpetuating and promoting existing late seral stages is a forest strategy as 

stated in the Revised Forest Plan Section 2.1 - Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire 

Management Program Strategy: “Perpetuate and promote existing late seral stages in 

each project area and throughout the broader landscape , with primary emphasis on 

protecting/enhancing late seral depended wildlife habitat”. 

The Forest Service also encourages continued and improved access to public lands as 

described in Chapter 1 of the Revised Forest Plan, Public Access DC89: “Encourage 

additional access where lawful and feasible to high-quality natural areas and shorezones 

consistent with desired resource conditions.” Also in Section 2.2 Social and Economic 

Sustainability, the Access Strategy section discusses the importance to “Coordinate 

management activities and projects to minimize impacts to public access, and recreational 

experience”. 

PC 144: The Forest Service should address human and dog waste at Kiva beach. 

Response: The Forest Plan is strategic in nature and does not attempt to prescribe 

detailed management direction to cover every possible situation. It does not contain 

specific project and activity decisions; these must be accomplished in a separate, projectlevel decision and are subject to environmental analysis and public scoping under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

The Forest Service encourages responsible dog owners to pick up after their pets. Proper 

disposal of human and dog waste is enforced under 36 CFR 261.11(d). In support of that, 

flush toilets and dog waste stations are provided at the Kiva Picnic Area and portable 

toilets and dog waste stations are provided at Tallac Point. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-81 

PC 182: The Forest Service should utilize additional fees as needed to provide 

additional staff and maintain access. 

PC 475: The Forest Service should implement a parking pass program if fees are 

charged for new parking areas. 

PC 471: The Forest Service should not charge fees for parking. 

Sample Comment: “Additional fees to keep these areas open and to cover the costs of 

additional Rangers and Sheriffs is a welcome trade off. As long as these funds are not 

used against us and raided by others!” 

Response: Decisions regarding the establishment and allocation of fees on NFS lands are 

outside the scope of this planning effort. The authority to charge recreation-related fees 

on NFS lands is delegated to the U.S. Forest Service by Congress. In addition, existing 

regulation, law, and policy determines how the Forest Service may allocate fees collected 

on NFS lands. The delivery of recreation programs (e.g., access and facility upkeep) as 

well as the ability to increase additional law enforcement patrols is dependent on future 

funding levels. 

PC 45: The Forest Service should designate additional lands restricted to non-motorized 

use. 

Additional lands restricted to non-motorized use are evaluated in Alternatives C, D, and 

E. If wilderness were recommended and designated by Congress, areas proposed for 

wilderness in Alternatives C and D would be restricted to non-motorized use year-round. 

Alternative E, the FEIS Preferred Alternative adds 3,800 acres to the Backcountry 

Management Area; while winter motorized use would still be allowed there, summer 

motorized use would be prohibited. 

PC 44: Motorized and non-motorized uses should be separated. 

Sample Comment: “The plan should commit to creating substantial areas which are 

closed to motor vehicles summer and winter so that these areas can be enjoyed by hikers 

and cross country skiers” 

Response: Motorized and non-motorized uses are presently separated in many areas on 

the LTBMU. While all areas on the LTBMU are open to non-motorized recreation (e.g., 

cross-country skiing), OSVs are restricted to designated areas (52% of LTBMU lands). 

Summer motorized use is limited to one area (the “Sandpit”) and to designated routes. 

PC 84: The Forest Service should prevent "overuse" of East Shore beaches that 

degrades the environment and experience. 

Response: Strategies to prevent impacts to natural resources from recreation activities are 

present in all Alternatives. The Revised Forest Plan Part 2 - Strategies, includes the 

following Public Access strategy – “Manage recreation activities to avoid or mitigate 

environmental degradation in sensitive environments to ensure continued access”. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-82 ■ Response to Comments 

In an effort to prevent environmental degradation of East Shore Beaches, the Forest 

Service has provided parking lots, trails, toilets, and trash bins, and facility maintenance. 

Within the past ten years, new toilet units have been installed at Secret Cove and Logan 

Shoals, new bear proof trash bins have replaced all open trash cans, and the trail system 

has been upgraded to improve pedestrian circulation and to minimize soil erosion. These 

issues will continue to be addressed at the project level. 

PC 95: The Forest Service should maintain a mix of recreation opportunities while 

protecting resources. 

Response: The FEIS analyzes a range of alternatives, each of which provides for a mix of 

recreation opportunities while protecting resources with standards and guidelines in the 

Revised Forest Plan. In the Preferred Alternative (Alternative E), this objective is 

supported by DC 84 in Section 1.2. DC 84 specifically states, “A spectrum of high 

quality recreational opportunities are provided, while Lake Tahoe Basin’s natural setting 

as an outstanding recreation destination is maintained.” In addition to this Desired 

Condition, there are numerous standards and guidelines as well as laws, regulations and 

policies which support this concept. 

PC 161: The Forest Service should make a priority of providing public access. 

Response: Providing public access is one of our highest priorities. At the same time one 

of our biggest challenges is to provide opportunities to each user group. The FEIS 

analyzes a range of alternatives, each of which provides for a mix of recreation 

opportunities while maintaining public access. Under the Preferred Alternative 

(Alternative E), the Forest Service encourages continued and improved access to public 

lands as described in Part 1, DC 89: “Encourage additional access where lawful and 

feasible to high-quality natural areas and shorezones consistent with desired resource 

conditions.” In addition, Section 2.2 of the Revised Forest Plan, Social and Economic 

Sustainability, discusses the importance to “ Coordinate management activities and 

projects to minimize impacts to public access, and recreational experience.” 

PC 163: The Forest Service should provide a range of recreation opportunities including 

motorized. 

Response: The FEIS analyzes a range of alternatives, each of which provides for a mix of 

recreation opportunities. All alternatives provide for motorized and non-motorized uses, 

including hiking, biking, skiing, equestrian use, over snow vehicle use, and off-highway 

vehicle use. 

PC 179: The Forest Service should stop charging fees to use public lands. 

Response: The authority to charge recreation-related fees on NFS lands is delegated to 

the U.S. Forest Service by Congress. 

Decisions regarding the establishment of recreation fees on NFS lands are outside the 

scope of this planning effort. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-83 

The Forest Service offers a wide variety of recreation opportunities on the LTBMU that 

are accessible to the full spectrum of socioeconomic levels, including low-income 

households. These opportunities include: 

 Dispersed camping; 

 Dispersed recreation activities such as hiking, mountain biking, and cross-country 

skiing; 

 No or low fee beach and trailhead access; and 

 The availability of season passes to popular recreation sites that provide discounts 

for frequent visitors. 

The Revised Forest Plan will continue to support this objective as indicated in DC 84: “A 

spectrum of high quality recreational opportunities are provided, while Lake Tahoe 

Basin’s natural setting as an outstanding recreation destination is maintained.” 

PC 273: The Forest Service should consider feasibility of expanding outfitter-guide 

(fishing) concessions on the Forest. 

Response: Outfitter guide special use permits will continue to be issued under all 

alternatives in the FEIS. New special use permits, including guided fishing services, may 

be granted in the future. As with any special use authorization, the decision to issue a 

new permit would be made on a project-level basis and subject to environmental review 

and public comment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

PC 305: The Forest Service should consider the economic benefits of human powered 

recreation. 

PC 306: The Forest Service should consider the value of recreation to the local economy 

and the community at large. 

Response: Socioeconomic resources were analyzed in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. This 

section has been expanded to include recreation’s contribution to the regional economy 

by the addition of the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) data as part of the 

socioeconomic analysis. NVUM data includes human-powered (non-motorized) 

activities such as hiking, skiing, and biking. By continuing to provide a diversity of 

recreation opportunities the LTBMU contributes to the overall economic health of the 

local economy. 

PC 312: The Forest Service should allow camping on beaches to accommodate boat 

users and provide appropriate facilities for overnight use. 

Response: In order to protect natural resources in the Basin, dispersed camping 

opportunities are re-evaluated and adjusted regularly via the forest order process. 

Strategies for considering undeveloped camping in the future are provided in the Revised 

Forest Plan, Section 2.2 Recreation Opportunities Strategies “Provide opportunities for 

general forest undeveloped camping where applicable and where it meets management 

goals. Periodically review and update the forest camping order based on public health 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-84 ■ Response to Comments 

and safety, fire prevention goals, and resource protection and management capabilities” 

(e.g. provisions for sanitation, garbage collection, and noise management).” 

Decisions regarding the forest camping order are made at the project level and subject to 

separate environmental review and public scoping under the National Environmental 

Protection Act (NEPA). 

PC 316: The Forest Service should restrict horseback riding. 

Response: The decision to restrict equestrian use of trails on the LTBMU is made at the 

project level and subject to public scoping and separate environmental review under 

NEPA. At present, the majority of trails on the LTBMU are open to equestrian use; 

however, the maintenance level and primitive condition of some routes, as well as lack of 

available stock trailer parking and access at some trailheads limit accessibility to 

equestrian users on certain trails. 

The two special use permit holders who currently offer horseback riding opportunities on 

NFS lands are subject to additional restrictions per the terms and conditions of their 

special use permits. These terms and conditions include designation of a system of trails 

available for use by the permit holder as well as restrictions on season of operation and 

types of use. 

PC 318: The Forest Service should adequately maintain their recreation improvements, 

and modernize and enhance them as needed. 

Response: As described in the FEIS, Section 3.4.19.2, Recreation Development, the 

LTBMU has focused on eliminating deferred maintenance, modernization, meeting 

universal accessibility standards, and improving services and the quality of its recreation 

programs to enhance visitor experience. This trend is likely to continue for the life of the 

Forest Plan. In addition, Part 2.2 of the Revised Forest Plan identifies achieving 

ecological, social, and economic sustainability of recreation sites as a key component of 

the LTBMU recreation program strategy. Alternatives A, B, C, and E provide for 

varying degrees of additional developed recreation infrastructure, including parking and 

trails. Alternative D would most likely result in the greatest consolidation of recreation 

infrastructure as it describes potentially reducing recreation opportunities by up to 15%. 

Under all alternatives, however, the degree and extent to which these improvements are 

accomplished (or consolidated) are subject to future funding levels. Please see Section 

3.4.1 Access and Travel Management in the FEIS for a discussion on the effects of each 

alternative on access and parking. 

PC 319: The Forest Service should continue to provide diverse recreation opportunities 

for future generations. 

Response: The Forest Service strives to provide diverse recreation opportunities as 

described in the Revised Forest Plan Desired Conditions and Strategies. Alternatives A, 

B, C, and E will provide more opportunities to provide diverse recreation opportunities 

while Alternative D may provide fewer if some recreation sites are removed or reduced in 

size (See DEIS Chapter 3.4.17 Recreation). 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-85 

PC 324: The Forest Service should evaluate numbers of quiet recreationists compared 

to motorized users. Plan should allow for changes and trends and adapt to current 

needs. 

PC 380: The Forest Service should recognize NVUM methodology does not provide an 

accurate and complete picture of recreation uses. 

Sample Comment: “The Lake Tahoe Basin Forest Plan Revision fails to protect Lake 

Tahoe and its outstanding natural resources in the winter. The Plan does not address the 

need to manage snowmobile use and does not plan for winter recreation. I would also 

encourage you to more closely evaluate the visitor use numbers, and their accuracy. I 

fear that the USFS is basing management decisions on information that is either outdated 

or inaccurate. The categories for the NVUM seem to not account for snowshoeing and 

backcountry skiing, which are highly popular activities and continue to gain in 

popularity. And please create a feasible and sustainable balance of designated land that 

creates suitable areas for everyone to enjoy their respective activities.”

Response: The Forest Service monitors use via the National Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) survey program (Appendix A); Section 1.4 of the 2010 NVUM Survey 

discusses the limitations of the survey. While backcountry skiing and snowshoeing are 

not specific categories, they are accounted for by other categories such as cross-country 

skiing and Other Non-motorized activities. Here on the LTBMU, the NVUM surveys 

suggest that motorized and non-motorized recreation uses are very popular. While many 

commenters have expressed dissatisfaction, according to NVUM the majority of both 

motorized and non-motorized users have indicated that they are satisfied with their 

experience. As stated in the Revised Forest Plan Recreation Opportunities Strategy 

section, “As recreation trends and users change, recreation facilities and opportunities are 

adapted to provide intended user experience while being compatible with management 

goals.” However, the plan does not divide the use proportionately by number of users. 

Section 2.2 of the Revised Forest Plan has been updated to include a strategy that 

provides for managing recreational user conflicts 

PC 325: The Forest Service should manage recreation activities to avoid impacting 

water quality. 

Response: The desired conditions, strategies, objectives, standards, and guidelines for 

Water Quality are described in the Revised Forest Plan. They apply to all projects and 

activities and are designed to protect, maintain, and improve watershed health and water 

quality. Effects to water quality from recreation activities are described in Chapter 3 of 

the FEIS and are effectively mitigated through the use of BMPs. 

PC 326: The Forest Service should continue working to resolve recreation conflicts. 

Response: Section 2.2 of the Revised Forest Plan has been updated to express our current 

strategy for managing recreational user conflicts. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-86 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 328: The Forest Service should include enhancement of year-round world class 

recreation opportunities as a goal. 

Response: A strategy for addressing future recreation opportunities, which would include 

year-round uses, has been identified in Section 2.2 of the Revised Forest Plan, “As 

recreation trends and users change, recreation facilities and opportunities are adapted to 

provide intended user experience while being compatible with management goals.” This 

strategy is further supported by Desired Conditions. Opportunities to enhance or improve 

existing recreation facilities and services will be driven by available funding over the life 

of the Forest Plan. 

PC 331: The Forest Service should consider improving access to accommodate growing 

activities such as paddling. 

Response: Maintaining and enhancing public access opportunities to Lake Tahoe 

shorelines and NFS lands is a primary strategy on the LTBMU (Revised Forest Plan 2.2 

Social and Economic Sustainability, Access Strategies). 

Decisions on site specific improvements to accommodate paddling and other recreation 

activities would be accomplished at the project level subject to public scoping and 

separate environmental review under NEPA. 

PC 334: The Forest Service should provide increased recreation opportunities of all 

types to meet demands. 

Sample Comment: “The LTBMU has a substantial capacity to provide for more 

motorized (including additional parking), non-motorized, and back country recreation 

experiences. There is more than ample wilderness and inventoried roadless to assure that 

LTBMU can meet recreation demand for solitude and related back country experiences.” 

Response: The LTBMU offers recreational opportunities for a variety of uses, including 

motorized, non-motorized and backcountry. The alternatives present various mixes of 

opportunities. With 5.7 million visitors per year, there are no un-utilized areas to 

increase opportunities; only trade-offs are available, as presented in the alternatives. 

None of the alternatives however will be able to meet all future recreation demands 

during peak use seasons (See EIS Chapter 3 - Recreation). While capacity of individual 

sites may be increased, the resulting user satisfaction may be decreased. 

PC 335: The Forest Service should plan for recreation activities during all seasons and 

all the recreational purposes that might become available during the lifetime of the plan. 

Response: Suitable uses for each of the four management areas have been identified in 

Table 5 in Part 2 of the Revised Forest Plan. These uses include both summer- and 

winter-based recreation activities. 

Although none of the alternatives analyzed in the FEIS preclude consideration of new or 

changing recreational uses over the life of the Forest Plan, we cannot predict what new 

uses might arise over the life of the plan. For example, when the 1988 Plan was 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-87 

published, mountain biking was a new activity and no one knew how popular it would 

become. 

PC 336: The Forest Service should plan for the increasing visitor use from Nevada.

Response: The FEIS analyzes five alternatives, each of which considered recreation 

visitor growth trends as discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.4.19.2. The EIS acknowledges 

that visitation from our major market areas (200 mile radius from Lake Tahoe) to the 

Lake Tahoe Basin is projected to increase over the life of the plan (approximately 1.4% 

annually). Alternatives A, B C and E all provide for varying degrees of expansion in 

developed recreation opportunities for the Forest Service to respond to this projected 

increase in demand. In comparison, Alternative D would potentially reduce existing 

developed recreation infrastructure by up to 15%. None of the alternatives, however, will 

be able to meet all future recreation demands during our peak use seasons (See EIS 

Chapter 3.4.17 - Recreation). 

PC 345: The Forest Service should prohibit construction of additional piers on NFS 

lands. 

Sample Comment: “I ask: how do jet skis and power boats on the lake, additional buoys 

and piers, snowmobile traffic and ATV's assist Lake Tahoe in remaining clear and 

beautiful? I can accept that we have made compromises in the past and must fulfill our 

end of the deal. But, we must not allow further damage to occur.”

Response: The LTBMU only manages National Forest System lands adjacent to Lake 

Tahoe; it does not have jurisdiction over activities occurring on the Lake (jet skis and 

power boats). Construction of piers is a site specific decision that is outside the scope of 

this planning effort, and would be subject to regulation by the TRPA. 

As stated in the FEIS, NFS lands managed by the LTBMU will be guided by multiple use 

objectives and subject to applicable laws, regulations, and policies. 

PC 349: The Forest Service should require the Best Available Technology for all 

motorized use in the Basin. 

Response: Although motor vehicle regulations are under the jurisdictions of the states of 

Nevada and California and not the LTBMU, the Forest Service, in cooperation with State 

and Federal agencies, encourages off-highway motor vehicle recreationists to use 

equipment with the Best Available Technology. 

PC 355: The Forest Service should keep ORV trails open if they accept green sticker 

funds. 

Response: The Off-highway Vehicle (OHV) “Green Sticker” program is managed by the 

California Department of Parks and Recreation Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation 

Division. Decisions regarding the use of funds the LTBMU receives from the State of 

California from the “Green Sticker” program are subject to the State’s OHV funding 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-88 ■ Response to Comments 

regulations and are made at the project level (e.g., law enforcement, maintenance, 

signage, etc.) and are therefore outside the scope of this planning effort. 

PC 364: The Forest Service should put a ‘QR’ code on signs that would link to the 

LTBMU maps showing the allowed/disallowed areas. 

Response: None of the alternatives analyzed in the FEIS preclude consideration of new 

technologies for managing NFS lands on the LTBMU. The decision whether or not to 

include Quick Response (QR) codes on Forest Service signs is an administrative one and 

therefore outside the scope of this planning effort. Currently, the LTBMU includes QR 

codes on some new signs when old ones are replaced. Thank you for your suggestion. 

PC 374: The Forest Service should provide some beach areas that are closed to 

motorized watercraft. 

Response: The FEIS analyzed for a range of recreation opportunities under all 

alternatives. Beaches currently closed to motorized boats include Pope, Baldwin, Nevada, 

Meeks, and William Kent. The Revised Forest Plan does not; however, preclude the 

future designation of additional non-motorized beaches. This decision would be made at 

the project level and subject to public scoping and environmental review under NEPA. 

Additionally, the Forest Service manages land directly adjacent to Lake Tahoe but does 

not manage the lake. Any future changes in regulations regarding use on the lake are not 

under the authority of the USFS. 

PC 376: The Forest Service should provide road access in Dardanelles and Freel Peak 

IRAs to accommodate search and rescue vehicles, due to increased recreation use. 

Response: Search and rescue teams are generally allowed on all areas of the national 

forest dependent on the urgent needs of the team. Search and rescue access is achieved 

through multiple means, including by trail, road, over snow vehicles, and helicopter. 

Alternatives B, C, D and E propose to manage Backcountry Management Areas as 

described in the Revised Forest Plan Part 2.3 - Management Areas and Suitable Uses. 

Construction of roads is not a suitable use in Backcountry Management Areas. 

PC 381: The Forest Service should not place restrictions on any type of recreation use. 

Response: Not all recreation uses are appropriate on all NFS lands. Some recreation uses 

are prohibited by law in some areas. For example motorized uses are not allowed in 

congressionally designated Wilderness Areas in order to maintain the wilderness 

character of the area. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-89 

PC 382: The Forest Service should explain how the "fair share concept" is implemented. 

Sample Comment: “Motorized recreational vehicles are not receiving their “fair share” 

because traditionally the LTBMU has listened more attentively to environmental groups 

rather than the citizens of the basin.” 

Response: The “fair share” concept was developed by TRPA and first introduced in the 

Agency’s inaugural Regional Plan (1982). 

The “fair share” concept was introduced during a period of rapid development and was 

intended to ensure that public recreation opportunities would continue to be provided – 

that a “fair share” of the recreation opportunities would be available to the public. The 

fair share concept is not about providing different types of uses. 

PC 388: The Forest Service should provide direction for use of fixed anchors for 

climbing, especially in designated wilderness areas. 

PC 390: The Forest Service should include best management practices for climbing 

access and cultural resource protection. 

Response: Climbing activities in the Basin will be managed to provide a diversity of 

climbing opportunities while preserving and protecting natural resources and values. The 

climbing community will be engaged in cooperative stewardship when dealing with 

resource concerns. Stewardship will involve education and outreach, following protocols 

to minimize resource impacts, and complying with temporary or permanent closures of 

areas to protect resource values. 

Outside of wilderness areas, climbing activities on the LTBMU will continue to be 

subject to existing Forest Orders and may be subject to future restrictions in order to 

protect natural and cultural resources. Climbing activities in wilderness areas will be 

managed according to national policy or as prescribed in specific wilderness plans. 

Decisions regarding restrictions on fixed anchors are accomplished at the project level 

through a forest order, and thereby subject to public scoping and separate environmental 

review under NEPA. 

PC 395: The Forest Service should allow dispersed camping in more areas. 

Response: The potential for more dispersed camping opportunities is addressed in the 

Revised Forest Plan in Part 2 Recreation Opportunities Strategies section: “Provide 

opportunities for general forest undeveloped camping where applicable and where it 

meets management goals. Periodically review and update the forest camping order based 

on public health and safety, fire prevention goals, and resource protection and 

management capabilities.” 

The designation of additional dispersed camping areas on the LTBMU would be 

accomplished at the project level, subject to public scoping and separate environmental 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-90 ■ Response to Comments 

review under NEPA. None of the alternatives analyzed in the FEIS preclude future 

designation of dispersed camping areas. 

PC 398: The Forest Service should maintain opportunities for human-powered 

recreation. 

Response: All alternatives ensure that the majority of NFS lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin 

are open for human powered recreation opportunities. 

PC 399: The Forest Service should recognize the need to provide areas for more 

affordable recreation opportunities. 

Response: The Forest Service offers a wide variety of recreation opportunities on the 

LTBMU that are accessible to the full spectrum of socioeconomic levels, including lowincome households. These opportunities include: 

 Dispersed camping; 

 Dispersed recreation activities such as hiking, mountain biking, and cross-country 

skiing; 

 No or low fee beach and trailhead access; and 

 The availability of season passes to popular recreation sites that provide discounts 

for frequent visitors. 

PC 401: The Forest Service should include management of non-motorized watercraft 

activities and the Lake Tahoe Water Trail in the Forest Plan and EIS. 

Sample Comment: The Conservancy recommends that LTBMU include non-motorized 

watercraft activities and the Lake Tahoe Water Trail in the discussion of public access in 

the Forest Plan and EIS. By acknowledging the role LTBMU lands play in the viability of 

non-motorized activities in the Forest Plan, the needs of this large user group can be 

better recognized in sustainable recreation system planning and investment.. 

Response: None of the alternatives specifically preclude consideration of accommodating 

activities (such as dispersed camping and the development of additional facilities) on 

NFS lands in the future in support of the Lake Tahoe Water Trail. Specific proposals for 

facilities or changes in management to support the Lake Tahoe Water Trail could be 

considered at the project level. Since the LTBMU does not have jurisdiction over Lake 

Tahoe, inclusion of management direction for the Lake Tahoe Water Trail is not 

appropriate for inclusion in the Forest Plan. 

PC 403: The Forest Service should include equestrian uses in the Forest Plan. 

Sample Comments: “Also, as an equestrian, I have been saddened by the new trails that 

have been created that are downright dangerous to horses and riders. What's up with 

putting STAIRS on a back country trail? The Van Sickle trail is supposed to be a horsefriendly trail. However, it's too narrow, has blind corners where mountain bike 

encounters are extremely dangerous, and the water crossing is impossible. PLEASE take 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-91 

into consideration the safety of equestrians when developing new trails. The same goes 

for sections of the Star Lake Connector from High Meadows; and of course the Cold 

Creek Trail is NOT ride-able at all.” 

 “The loss of roadside parking would make equine activities nearly impossible without 

alternative parking areas for truck and trailer. Currently the only horse parking facility, 

located at Bay View is unmarked, unmaintained, and unusable for equine do to cars 

parked in the area original designated for horse trailers and corrals.... The LTBMU 

appears to have decided not to include the equine community in there multi-use 

management concept.” 

“In your Dispersed Recreational Use area of the Forest Plan, you do NOT mention 

Horseback riding as a recreation in the basin?”

Response: The FEIS analyzes five alternatives in detail, each of which provides for a 

range of recreation opportunities, including equestrian use. Site-specific considerations 

for equestrians, including trail construction and maintenance, parking, and overnight 

camping facilities, are accomplished at the project-level rather than at the Forest Plan 

level. Project design is subject to and often influenced by public comment. As 

described in Section 3.4.19 - Recreation of the FEIS, the LTBMU will continue to focus 

primarily on the redevelopment of existing sites and facilities by reducing or eliminating 

deferred maintenance or modifying existing facilities to help achieve accessibility and 

sustainability of recreation opportunities in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Opportunities to 

enhance or improve existing recreation facilities and services—including those designed 

for equestrian use—will be driven by available funding over the life of the Forest Plan. 

Future consideration of the addition of equestrian facilities would be subject to 

environmental review and public scoping under the NEPA. 

Please see Section 3.4.1- Access and Travel Management of the FEIS for a discussion of 

the effects of each alternative on parking and access. Designation of additional 

equestrian parking would be accomplished at the project level subject to public scoping 

and separate environmental analysis under the NEPA. 

Under 36 CFR 212 Subpart A, the Forest Service assigns Trail Class ratings to each of its 

trails. Trails are maintained to the standards identified in Forest Service Handbook 

2309.18, “Trails Management Handbook,” for each Trail Class. The ability of the Forest 

Service to maintain these trail standards year to year is dependent on available funding. 

The omission of horseback riding as a dispersed summer recreation activity in Chapter 3 

(Table 3-1 and Section 3.4.19 - Recreation” section) was an oversight. While equestrian 

use was analyzed as a recreation activity under all of the alternatives, Chapter 3 has been 

updated to more clearly identify this as a dispersed summer recreation opportunity. 

Equestrian use is also recognized in the Suitable Uses section of Part 2 in the Revised 

Plan. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-92 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 404: The Forest Service should establish horse camping areas. 

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The designation of additional equestrian 

camping areas and stock trailer parking on the LTBMU would be accomplished at the 

project level, subject to public scoping and separate environmental review under NEPA. 

None of the alternatives analyzed in the FEIS preclude future designation of equestrian 

camping areas and trailer parking. 

PC 410: The Forest Service should require that dogs be on a leash. 

Response: The Forest Service enforces leash regulations in developed recreation sites via 

existing Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 261.16(j). Outside developed recreation 

sites, leash laws are established and enforced by county ordinances unless restricted by a 

Forest Order. 

PC 419: The Forest Service should recommend the Lake Tahoe Basin for National 

Recreation Area status. 

Response: The LTBMU, though not a National Recreation Area, is already considered a 

National Special Recreation Management Area in its current designation as a National 

Management Emphasis Area as described in FSM 2371.01. Please see excerpts from 

Public Law 106-506 (Lake Tahoe Restoration Act) below which established Lake Tahoe 

as National Management Emphasis Area. 

(1) Lake Tahoe, one of the largest, deepest, and clearest lakes 

in the world, has a cobalt blue color, a unique alpine setting, 

and remarkable water clarity, and is recognized nationally and 

worldwide as a natural resource of special significance; 

(2)in addition to being a scenic and ecological treasure, Lake 

Tahoe is 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; 

(3)the economy in the Lake Tahoe basin is dependent on the 

protection and restoration of the natural beauty and recreation 

opportunities in the area; 

PC 430: The Forest Service should consider apparent conflicts between management 

area map and ROS map. 

Sample Comment: “The lands designated semi-primitive non-motorized appear to be 

heavily restricted by buffer zones around motorized routes. For the reasons stated above, 

such buffer zones are not appropriate in the LTBMU because they simply take too much 

of the available recreational land.” 

Response: The ROS map (Revised Forest Plan Map 9) was updated consistent with the 

criteria for establishing ROS classes. Adjacency to highways is one of the criteria 

considered. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-93 

PC 42: The Forest Service should expand developed recreation. 

Sample Comment: “I am in favor of enhancing recreational opportunities in our public 

lands, including improving trail-heads, providing parking areas and comfort facilities, 

improving and expanding sno-parks, and increasing environmentally friendly camping 

areas.” 

“Lake Tahoe's smaller outdoor and recreation based business can also be helped with a 

thoughtful look at granting those special use permit areas the ability to update and 

expand their facilities as needed to insure they also have the opportunity to provide great 

services to visitors and locals alike.” 

“I think Oneidas should be a snow park with parking, garbage cans, and bathrooms for 

snowmobilers and mountain bikers. It is a perfect spot to serve many different groups.”

Response: Each of the five FEIS alternatives, provides for a specific degree of 

construction, site modification, redevelopment, and/or decommissioning of developed 

recreation site infrastructure. Expansion beyond these limits would require a Forest Plan 

amendment. As described in FEIS Section 3.4.19.2 Overview of the Affected 

Environment for Recreation Resources, the LTBMU offers a wide variety of developed 

recreation sites that provide different levels of user comfort and convenience. These 

facilities have been constructed to offer sustainable recreation opportunities, protect 

resources, and otherwise manage visitor activities in different outdoor settings. All 

alternatives continue to support this objective by focusing on deferred maintenance or 

modification of existing facilities to help achieve accessibility and sustainability of 

recreation opportunities in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Future site modification and/or 

redevelopment under any of the alternatives is subject to future funding levels. 

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Oneidas Road. Designation of developed 

recreation sites, such as the establishment of additional parking and restroom facilities, 

must be accomplished in a project-level decision and would be subject to separate 

environmental analysis and public scoping under the NEPA. Therefore this comment is 

outside the scope of this planning effort. 

PC 75: The Forest Service should not expand developed areas. 

Sample Comment: “Most importantly, the few remaining undamaged wild areas we still 

have in the Tahoe Basin need to be preserved, for their value to wildlife, people, and 

water and air quality. There should be no expansion of developed areas, and all roadless 

areas should remain so”. 

“There is WAY TOO MUCH accommodation of human structural change and not nearly 

enough for the preservation of the gorgeous natural scenery and environment all those 

people claim they come to experience.” 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-94 ■ Response to Comments 

Response: The FEIS analyzes five alternatives in detail, each of which provides for a 

specific degree of construction, site modification, redevelopment, and/or 

decommissioning of developed recreation site infrastructure. Alternative D would 

address your comment and could potentially result in a 15% decrease in developed 

recreation opportunities and infrastructure on the LTBMU. 

Current management of Inventoried Roadless Areas would continue; these areas would 

comprise the majority of land in the Backcountry Management Area. Wilderness and 

Backcountry Management Areas would remain undeveloped under all alternatives, and 

these two management areas together range from 45% of LTBMU lands in Alternative B 

to 52% of LTBMU lands in Alternative D (assuming that recommended Wilderness areas 

were subsequently designated by Congress). Development is also extremely limited on 

Santini-Burton Urban Forest Parcels, which comprise an additional 9% of LTBMU lands. 

OSV 

Overall 

PC 59: The Forest Plan should address winter recreation. 

PC 321: The Forest Service should work to resolve the conflicts associated with winter 

recreation. 

PC 327: The Forest Service should manage winter recreation conflict by providing 

shared and single use trails and areas. 

PC 332: The Forest Service should balance motorized and non-motorized winter uses; 

one group should not take precedence over the other. 

PC 360: The Forest Service should evaluate and plan for winter recreation uses in more 

detail. 

PC 368: The Forest Service should ensure the Plan and EIS are in compliance with E.O 

11644 and E.O.11989. 

PC 402: The Forest Service should designate separate trailheads for motorized and 

non-motorized winter use. 

PC 431: The Forest Service should do winter travel management as soon as possible. 

Con OSV 

PC 120: The Forest Service should close more areas to OSV use. 

PC 157: Forest Service should decrease the area snowmobiles are allowed to use. 

PC 123: The Forest Service should step up enforcement to ensure that OSV's adhere to 

current restrictions and stay in designated areas and marked routes. 

PC 357: The Forest Service should improve enforcement of snowmobile closures. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-95 

PC 143: The Forest Service should consider the effects of OSV use on natural 

resources and the social, economic, aesthetic, historic, and cultural effects. 

PC 347: The Forest Service should limit snowmobile use to designated routes and 

should not allow open riding areas. 

PC 370: The Forest Service should eliminate OSV use in the Tahoe Basin. 

PC 392: The Forest Service should close the Mt. Watson road (Fiberboard Freeway) to 

OSVs. 

PC 387: The Forest Service should work to minimize conflicts between commercial OSV 

operations and human-powered recreationists. 

PC 375: The Forest Service should eliminate OSV use in Tahoe meadow, around Incline 

Lake, and adjacent to the Mt Rose Wilderness. 

PC 361: The Forest Service should designate routes and areas for OHV and OSV use to 

limit impacts. 

PC 309: The Forest Service should close the area between Hwy 267 and Hwy 50, 

including the Mt Rose corridor, to motorized winter use. 

PC 353: The Forest Service should recognize that snowmobiling is a high-impact form of 

recreation and is incompatible with many other forms of recreation. 

PC 359: The Forest Service should provide some areas that are closed to OSV use. 

PC 322: The Forest Service should not open more areas to OSV use. 

Pro OSV

PC 30: The Forest Service should maintain current OSV opportunities. 

PC 314: The Forest Service should allow OSV use of bike trails. 

PC 317: The Forest Service should provide areas that are closed to non-motorized 

winter recreation and non-mechanized summer recreation. 

PC 333: The Forest Service should increase the areas open to OSV. 

PC 386: The Forest Service should open all NFS lands to OSV use 

Sample Comment: “In closing, I would like to say that the continued practice of closing 

areas to Snowmobilers to keep Cross Country Skiers happy, is like teaching your children 

to not to play with others, no discipline makes for a spoiled and greedy society. So the 

next time you choose to close an area, close it to Cross Country Skiing!!” 

“Mixing motorized and non-motorized winter users creates an unsafe environment for 

pedestrian users.” 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-96 ■ Response to Comments 

“The Draft Plan fails to do winter travel management, defining areas open and closed to 

motorized vehicles in winter, as required by the Forest Service planning rule, Executive 

Orders and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.” 

Response: A large volume of the comments received surrounded the issue of winter Over 

Snow Vehicle (OSV) use. The term OSV commonly refers to snowmobiles but includes 

any other motorized vehicle designed to travel over snow. Comments ranged from one 

extreme to the other regarding OSV use, some wanting OSVs banned completely from 

NFS lands (PC 370) and others wanting all NFS lands open to their use(PC 386). While 

there is some variation in each comment based on personal experience, awareness of the 

actual contents of the Plan, and interpretation by others, there were fundamentally two 

positions. 

One group of commenters expressed that the areas currently designated for OSV use 

should be substantially reduced or eliminated entirely (PCs 120,157, 322, 347, 370, and 

359). This group advocated non-motorized (human powered) winter recreation, such as 

cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. They commented that OSV use and nonmotorized uses are not compatible because the noise, crowding, smell, sight and tracks 

left in the snow from OSVs are offensive and ruin their ability to experience the serenity 

and beauty of winter landscapes (PC 353). This group believes that OSVs are 

responsible for environmental damage to the soil, vegetation, water and air (PC143). In 

particular they recommended that the area from CA Hwy 267 and US Hwy 50 at Spooner 

Summit be identified as a “quiet quadrant”, free of OSVs (PC 309). The area at Tahoe 

Meadows, near the summit of the Mt. Rose Highway (NV Hwy 431), was frequently 

mentioned as an area of conflict (PC 309). This area is popular with both OSVs and nonmotorized users. Additionally, since the area is immediately adjacent to a major state 

highway there is also a lot of general snowplay (saucers, sleds, kids playing in the snow). 

Some of this area is open to OSVs and some is closed and a portion of this area is on the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and outside the jurisdiction of the LTBMU. 

Offering an opposing view, there was a group of commenters that supported OSV 

recreation and advocated the retention or expansion of existing areas open to OSV (PCs 

30, 314, 333, and 386). Generally this group does not mind the presence of nonmotorized users and so does not describe the issue so much as a conflict. This group’s 

major concern stems from the loss of areas to ride OSVs outside the Lake Tahoe Basin 

which creates the perception that there are fewer and fewer areas available to them. This 

increases the desire to keep areas open at Lake Tahoe. This group also was against any 

recommendations for additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System 

(proposed in Alternatives C and D), since these areas would be closed to all motor 

vehicle use if Congress were to act on the recommendations. 

The arguments presented by both groups actually have many positions in common. Both 

groups suggest that the Forest Service should do what is “fair”. Of course what is “fair” 

is a matter of perspective. The non-motorized group suggests that since they significantly 

outnumber the OSV users, they should have a greater proportion of the LTBMU to 

recreate free of OSVs. The OSV group also suggest the amount of use by OSVs justifies 

more area be opened to them. The OSV group believes they are being slowly squeezed 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-97 

out of public lands and further loss of areas open to OSVs is not reasonable and is 

unwarranted. Both groups suggest they are being “discriminated” against by public land 

managers and have a “right” to use public lands. One of the frequently mentioned 

problems, by both groups is the availability of parking especially in areas of high use. 

Both groups point to public lands and the LTBMU as the only place that provides the 

space necessary for the recreation experience they desire. For winter recreation, an 

elevation high enough to have consistent snow pack is necessary, which does limit the 

area available. The non-motorized group talks about the need for large expanses of land 

to find “quiet and peaceful surroundings, a needed respite for our mechanized and noisy 

world.” The OSV group portrays the need to use large expanses of land because of the 

distances their machines can travel. Both groups extoll the unique beauty of Lake Tahoe. 

Both groups suggest their use is on the upswing and cite their contribution to the local 

and regional economy based on the equipment and supplies they buy. They both believe 

their groups are major economic forces. 

The separation of these groups is not absolute, as there are some that enjoy both aspects 

of winter recreation along with downhill skiing at a resort. For example, there are now 

backcountry skiers who ride along on OSVs to gain quick access farther into the 

backcountry for remote skiing. 

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

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

52% is open to OSVs, which means 48% of LTBMU lands are free of OSVs. 

Additionally there are over 19,600 acres of state lands (CA State Parks, CA Tahoe 

Conservancy, and NV State Parks) open to non-motorized use but closed to OSV use. 

Cumulatively this increases the area in the Lake Tahoe Basin that is free of OSVs by 

about 12%. 

The 1982 Planning Rule (as well as Executive Orders 11644 and 11989)(PC 368) 

requires of the Forest Service that “Off-road vehicle use shall be planned and 

implemented to protect land and other resources, promote public safety and minimize 

conflicts with other uses of the National Forest System lands.” (§219.22 (g)). The Plan 

meets this requirement by reaffirming the current designation of areas open to OSV use 

that was contained in the 1988 LTBMU Forest Plan (PCs 59, 360, 321, 360, 431). There 

is no duty in the regulations to reevaluate OSV use upon revision of a plan. The Plan 

satisfies the regulatory requirement because OSV use is “planned and implemented” on 

the entire LTBMU and has been continuously in force for the past twenty-five years, and 

will continue to be, per this Plan. 

Commenters from both sides argue that the current designations are unfair (PCs 120, 317, 

332). As mentioned above, that is a matter of perspective. Both groups wanted the 

Forest Service to conduct further studies on the number of people that participated in 

non-motorized vs. OSV activities, believing the numbers would trigger changes in their 

favor. This Plan, and in general the Forest Service, does not manage any use by strict 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-98 ■ Response to Comments 

numerical proportions of use or demand. There are many examples where management 

is not gauged by use or demand. For example, the Plan does not even begin to meet the 

demand for overnight camping in the summer because the tradeoff of having significant 

increases in developed land is not acceptable. In the winter environment, developed ski 

areas do not occupy a portion of the landscape in proportion to the high use that occurs. 

(Downhill skiing accounts for 62.5% of the total annual use while cross country skiing 

and snowmobiling account for 9.8% and 6.2%, respectively.) 

In an argument similar to proportional management based on the number of users, both 

sides argue that not all lands available to them are suitable for their use due to access, 

terrain, parking, and conflicts with other users, and that strict percentages are misleading. 

Both suggest that more precise mapping would lead to a redistribution of the designated 

OSV areas when combined with use numbers. 

The Plan is based on Desired Conditions (DCs 84-87) that promote a range of 

recreational opportunities within the context of a rustic outdoor experience appropriate to 

National Forest System lands. On a small area such as the LTBMU (only about 155,000 

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

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

landscape they want to use (PCs 327, 402). In fulfillment of the Desired Conditions 

presented in the Plan, several major winter activities are accommodated on the LTBMU: 

downhill resort skiing, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, OSV use and snowplay. 

They are provided in proportions that allow participants full enjoyment at least 

somewhere within the boundaries of the LTBMU. There was no agreement amongst 

commenters as to what the appropriate proportion of each activity should be and no one 

proposed a systematic, science based method for developing an appropriate and fair 

allocation. 

The NVUM results for 2010 show that 98% of visitors to the LTBMU were “somewhat 

satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their recreational experience. The national target is 

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

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

satisfied group of users. 

Commenters advocated many site specific alterations to the existing OSV designations, 

from minor boundary changes to expansion or elimination of large areas (PCs 392, 375, 

309). The recreation program as defined by the Desired Conditions, Strategies, 

Objectives and Standards/Guidelines promotes a diverse range of recreational 

opportunities consistent with Forest Service policy. Regulations do not require, and the 

FEIS does not reopen all the decisions that over the years have created the current 

existing situation. Consequently, existing recreation developments and use designations 

are included in the FEIS as existing facilities and/or on-going activities. The Plan 

recognizes and affirms the presence of features such as Camp Richardson Resort, 

Heavenly Mountain Resort, Camp Concord, and recreation residences, to name a few. 

The FEIS also affirms past management decisions such as the prohibition of rock 

climbing on Cave Rock. The retention of the summer off-highway vehicle designation 

and the OSV designations are included and analyzed as part of the existing situation. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-99 

Many commenters suggested that the current OSV designations do not “minimize” 

conflict as required by the regulations (PCs 387, 321). The regulations do not require the 

elimination of all conflicts. The Plan does meet this part of the regulation. The 

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

involve only 52% of the LTBMU. By providing a range of recreational opportunities 

over the entire LTBMU, users are afforded choices to recreate in high use areas or find 

solitude in lesser traveled areas. Based on the extremely high satisfaction ratings from 

the 2010 NVUM survey conflict is not so pervasive as to ruin many visitors’ experience. 

Some non-motorized commenters suggest that OSVs damage the environment (PC 143, 

361). The FEIS analyses the on-going use of OSVs on the LTBMU based on the current 

use designations and finds there is no significant impact to the resources. (FEIS Chapter 

3, Sections 3.4.2 Air Quality, 3.4.3 Aquatic Wildlife Habitat and Species, 3.4.20 Soils 

Resource, 3.4.21 Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species, 3.4.23 Water Quality). 

Therefore the Plan meets the requirement “...to protect land and other resources,” 

PC 308: The Forest Service should manage winter motorized use areas the same as 

summer motorized use areas, and should prohibit all motorized use in IRAs. 

Response: Summer and winter uses have different effects and provide different kinds of 

recreation opportunities and are thus treated differently in the Draft Plan and FEIS. 

Future changes to designated motor vehicle routes and areas will be accomplished at the 

project level subject to public scoping and separate environmental review under NEPA. 

Please see also the response to PC 15 and PC 383. 

PC 352: The Forest Service should ban two stroke engines on snowmobiles. 

Response: The Forest Service will continue to support the use of over snow vehicles 

using industry developed Best Available Technology (BAT) by our special use permit 

holders, and encourage the general public to also use over snow vehicles with BAT. All 

OSVs should be compliant with existing Federal emissions standards. 

PC 384: The Forest Service should limit snowmobiles to developed areas except for 

search and rescue. 

Response: The use of OSVs by search and rescue teams is generally allowed on all acres 

of the national forest dependent on the urgent needs of the team. OSV use is considered a 

suitable recreation use in designated portions of Backcountry and General Conservation 

Management Areas of the LTBMU with specific restrictions depending on applicable 

legal, policy or permitting regulations (see Revised Forest Plan, Part 2, Table 5 - Suitable 

Uses and Management Activities by Management Area and response to comment 370). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-100 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 385: The Forest Service should restrict motorized vehicle use to electric powered 

vehicles. 

Response: In cooperation with State and Federal resource agencies, the Forest Service 

encourages the use of the Best Available Technology (BAT) off-highway motor vehicles 

and snowmobiles. Technology for Electric powered OHVs and OSVs is not currently 

available. 

PC 417: The Forest Service should eliminate the snowmobile concession on Brockway 

Summit. 

Response: As with any special use authorization, the decision to issue or terminate a 

special use permit is made at the project level and subject to environmental review and 

public scoping under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Therefore, the 

recommendation to terminate the existing snowmobile outfitter guide authorization at 

Brockway Summit is outside the scope of this planning effort. 

All special use proposals are reviewed for compatibility with public use of National 

Forest System (NFS) lands. Per 36 CFR 251.54 and Forest Service Handbook 2709.11, 

all proposals are subject to screening criteria, which include but are not limited to: 

 Use is consistent with law, regulations, orders, policies of NFS lands, and other 

federal laws and is applicable with state and local health and sanitation laws. 

 Use is consistent or can be consistent with Forest Land Management Plans. 

 Use does not pose serious or substantial risk to public health and safety. 

 Use does not unreasonably conflict or interfere with administrative use, other 

scheduled or existing authorized uses, or adjacent non-NFS lands. 

PC 311: The Forest Service should designate snowmobile routes for the first 1/2 mile in 

mixed use areas to separate motorized and non-motorized use. 

PC 338: The Forest Service should consider allowing motorized and non-motorized 

winter uses on alternate days. 

Response: The Revised Forest Plan does not prohibit these strategies, and they could be 

implemented at a future time based on site-specific analyses and decisions. 

PC 321: The Forest Service should work to resolve the conflicts associated with winter 

recreation. 

Sample Comments: “The LTBMU has not done it's diligence in managing conflict with 

winter recreation. Instead the LTBMU has sided with extreme environmentalist groups 

such as the Snowlands Network and the Winter Wildlands. These extreme 

environmentalist organizations spread fear of lawsuits in federal court if their agenda is 

not supported by the LTBMU. Also, I have work with these organizations and although 

some of their complaints have validity, many are fabricated or exaggerated. The LTBMU 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-101 

should be working to bring us together, find the truth and resolve the issues. The forest is 

for all to enjoy.” 

“I am concerned with how the Lake Tahoe Basin Forest Plan Revision will protect Lake 

Tahoe and its winter resources. Please manage snowmobile use including the noise, 

smell, and danger of conflicts between snowmobilers and skiers. One snowmobile 

impacts the recreation experience on many acres for self-propelled enthusiasts who are 

enhancing self-health.” 

Response: Section 2.2 of the Revised Forest Plan has been updated to include a strategy 

that provides for managing recreational user conflicts, which includes those associated 

with winter recreation activities. 

The current designations of areas open and closed to OSV use were based on input from a 

Working Group of representatives from ORV groups, conservation organizations, 

interested citizens, public agencies, and Forest Service specialists in the 1970s. The 

LTBMU initiated a collaborative process to resolve winter recreation conflicts in 2011; 

this process is ongoing. 

PC 365: The Forest Service should designate areas as closed unless open to 

snowmobiles. 

Response: Map 18 in the Revised Forest Plan designates areas as open to snowmobiles. 

PC 123: The Forest Service should step up enforcement to ensure that OSVs adhere to 

current restrictions and stay in designated areas and marked routes. 

PC 357: The Forest Service should improve enforcement of snowmobile closures. 

In all alternatives, OSV activities in the Basin are managed via the areas that are open 

and closed to OSV use as currently designated and are enforced through the existing 

Federal Code of Regulations. The Forest Service provides information to the public 

about the rules and regulations governing OHV and OSV use and enforces them 

throughout the year within our available resources. 

PC 367: The Forest Service should re-analyze areas open to OSV use before allowing 

additional OSV outfitter guide permits or expanding or renewing existing permits. 

Response: As with any special use authorization, the decision to issue, renew, or 

terminate a special use permit is made at the project level, is required to be consistent 

with the Forest Plan, and subject to environmental review and public scoping under the 

NEPA. Consistency with the Forest Plan requires that any OSV special use permits 

would be limited to designated areas where OSV use is allowed. 

PC 369: The Forest Service should recognize the value of powder snow as a natural 

resource. 

Response: Map 18 of the Revised Forest Plan depicts the many areas in the basin where 

motorized and non-motorized recreationists can choose to enjoy the unique recreation 

opportunities provided by new snowfall. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-102 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 411: The Forest Service should provide more marked trails for skiers. 

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Installation of additional trail signage for 

dispersed winter recreation activities is an administrative action and would be 

accomplished at the project level rather than at the Forest Plan level. 

PC 484: The Forest Service should analyze the effects of climate change on recreation 

opportunities. 

Response: A discussion of ways in which climate change may impact recreation 

opportunities can be found in Chapter 3 of the FEIS, Recreation – Consequences Related 

to Climate Change, and in the Climate Change Sustainable Operations section of Chapter 

3. 

PC 350: The Forest Service should evaluate the contribution of snowmobile use to the 

Vehicle Miles Traveled Threshold (TRPA). 

Response: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a proxy measure of traffic congestion, the 

production of nitrates, and entrainment of soil sediments from roads (TRPA, Threshold 

Evaluation Report, 2011) and does not apply to OSVs. 

Ski Areas and Slopes 

PC 340: The Forest Service should limit ski area development and expansion to existing 

permit areas. 

PC 96: The Forest Service should not expand ski resorts. 

Response: The FEIS has been updated to clarify that the LRMP makes no changes to the 

existing ski area special use permit boundaries. However, the FEIS anticipates additional 

development within the existing permit boundaries to varying degrees in Alternatives A, 

B, C, and E, and less development within the existing permit boundaries in Alternative D. 

Ski area expansion beyond the existing special use permit boundary may be considered if 

consistent with the Management Area and Suitable Uses table identified in the Revised 

Forest Plan (Table 5), but would require a Forest Plan amendment. 

PC 339: The Forest Service should include plan direction for year round use at ski 

areas. 

PC 320: The Forest Service should be flexible in expanding recreational opportunities to 

other seasons due to changing user preferences, technology, seasons of use, and other 

issues affecting recreational preferences at ski areas not only because of climate 

change. 

PC 343: The Forest Service should include plan direction for non-motorized summer use 

at ski areas. 

Response: The desired condition for ski areas is to deliver services in response to 

identified need and management objectives. The Revised Forest Plan does not require 

that the identified need or management objective be limited to climate change. Rather, 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-103 

the Recreation Program Strategy describes that the recreation program must have the 

ability to adapt to changing recreation preferences including user experiences and trends 

(Revised Forest Plan Section 2.2 and Suitable Uses section (2.3)). 

The FEIS anticipates additional development within existing ski area permit boundaries 

in Alternatives A, B, C and E in support of year round activities. Additional development 

may be in response to either winter or summer recreation uses as authorized by law, 

regulation, and agency policy including but not limited to the Ski Area Recreation 

Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011. (FEIS Chapter 3, Section 3.4.19). 

PC 341: The Forest Service should allow expansion of ski area permit boundaries. 

Response: The FEIS has been updated to clarify that the LRMP makes no changes to the 

existing ski area special use permit boundaries. However, the FEIS anticipates additional 

development within the existing boundaries in Alternatives A, B, C and E, and less 

development within the existing boundaries in Alternative D. Ski area expansion beyond 

the existing special use permit boundary may be considered if consistent with the 

Management Area and Suitable Uses table identified in the Revised Forest Plan (Table 

5), but would require a Forest Plan amendment. 

PC 346: The Forest Service should ensure that ski area development minimizes impacts 

to natural resources. 

Response: Under 36 CFR 251.56, all special use authorizations, which include ski area 

development, must include terms and conditions to minimize impacts to natural 

resources. As development activities are proposed, they are subject to public scoping and 

separate environmental review under NEPA. During this project level review, 

mitigations and design features are incorporated as necessary to protect natural resources. 

PC 463: The Forest Service should present the basis for determining that there is/was 

no need to consider the recreation residence sites for other public uses, and establish 

criteria for continuing a process for monitoring and analyzing the need for retrieving the 

privately used lands for public benefits in the Forest Plan. 

Response: Recreation residence permits were renewed in 2010 for a period of 20 years. 

The analysis completed for permit reissuance included the determination that the current 

use of these sites for recreation residences is still appropriate. 

Recreation residences are an authorized use of National Forest System lands under CFR 

251.50. Direction on administration of recreation residence special use permits—

including Forest Service policy on determining whether recreation residence permits may 

be issued for a new term at existing lots (i.e., permit continuance)—is outlined in Forest 

Service Manual (FSM) 2721.23e, “Recreation Residence Continuance.” 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-104 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 481: The Forest Service should clarify use of maintenance agreements with 

permittees. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The Revised Forest Plan has been revised to 

include a better description of what is meant by “maintenance agreements.” 

Wilderness 

PC 1: The Forest Service should not recommend additional wilderness. 

Response: The FEIS analyzes a range of alternatives, each of which provides for a mix of 

recreation opportunities. In Alternatives A, B, and E (FEIS Preferred Alternative), no 

additional wilderness areas are recommended. 

PC 6: The Forest Service should decrease or eliminate all wilderness. 

Sample Comment: “PLEASE OPEN ALL CURRENT EXISTING CLOSED AREAS TO 

RECREATION. I am against all 7(seven) of the proposed wilderness designation areas. 

In these areas with such designation the land becomes useless to us its owners not only 

for recreation but also with devastating consequences in the event of fire or other natural 

or human caused disasters.”

Response: Alternatives A, B, and E do not recommend additional Wilderness areas. 

Elimination of designated wilderness areas can only be accomplished by an Act of 

Congress. Therefore, this comment is outside the scope of this planning effort. 

Two areas were proposed for Wilderness recommendation (in Alternatives C and D). 

LTBMU lands include parts of 3 designated Wilderness areas (Desolation, Granite Chief, 

and Mt. Rose). 

PC 62: The Forest Service should recommend additional wilderness. 

Sample Comment: “Wilderness designation will preserve roadless areas and the quiet 

and undisturbed regions surrounding Lake Tahoe. It will protect sensitive and delicate 

habitat from the severe impacts caused by mountain bikes and OHV’s. There are literally 

hundreds of miles of dirt and primitive roads in the Lake Tahoe area. Plenty for the most 

avid mountain biker and four-wheeler. Sacrificing roadless lands is unacceptable.” 

“More wilderness is a good thing, not bad. We need to protect the area surrounding Lake 

Tahoe and it’s basin now, because if it isn’t done now it may be too late.” 

Response: Alternatives C and D recommend designation of additional wilderness areas 

on the LTBMU (see Chapter 2.3 of the FEIS). Final designation of wilderness areas can 

only be accomplished by an Act of Congress. 

Current protections for Inventoried Roadless Areas will be maintained through the 

activity and use restrictions in the Backcountry Management Area. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-105 

PC 94: The Forest Service should evaluate resource concerns in areas with potential for 

wilderness designation and address these concerns rather than waiting for designation 

to protect these lands. 

PC 428: The Forest Service should consider other means of protecting resource values 

than wilderness designation. 

Response: Lands are recommended for Wilderness designation because they exhibit 

wilderness characteristics (Volume III, Appendix C). In addition, lands that might be 

eligible for Wilderness designation are primarily located in the Backcountry Management 

Area, which restricts activities and uses to protect natural resources (Revised Forest Plan, 

Part 2, Management Area and Suitability sections). 

As outlined in Part 3 of the Revised Forest Plan, standards and guidelines have been 

developed for all resource areas to address resource concerns. As described in Part 3 

Design Criteria of the Revised Forest Plan, these standards and guidelines are applied 

together with applicable law, regulation and policy in order to provide sideboards for 

subsequent projects and activities to help achieve desired conditions and objectives 

forest-wide. Standards and guidelines set mandatory limits and constraints on 

management activities in order to ensure resource protection. 

PC 103: The Forest Service should retain and protect current wilderness areas. 

Response: As stated in Section 2.2 of the FEIS, all alternatives analyzed in the FEIS 

maintain current wilderness area designations within the LTBMU. 

PC 405: The Forest Service should prohibit dogs in designated wilderness areas. 

Response: The Wilderness Act does not prohibit dogs in wilderness areas. Leash laws, 

which apply in wilderness areas, are established and enforced by county ordinances 

unless restricted by a Forest Order. 

PC 416: The Forest Service should better explain their wilderness evaluation criteria and 

improve the analysis. 

Response: The “Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness” is found in Appendix C 

(Volume III) of the Revised Forest Plan. The criteria used in the evaluation are explained 

in the Introduction. The evaluation followed the national guidance provided in the Forest 

Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70. 

PC 418: The Forest Service should adjust boundaries for potential wilderness areas to 

avoid recreation use conflicts. 

Response: The boundaries of the existing Dardanelles and Freel Inventoried Roadless 

Areas were used in the wilderness analysis. If these recommended areas are advanced for 

wilderness designation by Congress, final boundary determinations will be addressed at 

that time. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-106 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 420: The Forest Service should prepare a joint wilderness recommendation for the 

entire Dardanelles roadless area along with the two adjacent forests. 

Response: Alternatives C and D both recommend wilderness designation for the 

Dardanelles Inventoried Roadless Area within the LTBMU boundaries. At this time, the 

adjacent Forests have not expressed interest in recommending Wilderness in this area. 

All five alternatives preserve the opportunity to recommend additional Wilderness in the 

future. 

PC 421: The Forest Service should manage lands under their current designation and 

not as wilderness. 

Sample Comment: “I strongly object to managing any public non-Wilderness lands as if 

they were already designated Wilderness. This creates de-facto new Wilderness and does 

not manage the lands under the proper, legal management designation.”

Response: Lands proposed for Wilderness recommendation are in the Backcountry MA 

and would continue to be managed as such until such time as they are designated by 

Congress. 

PC 433: The Forest Service should address how additional wilderness conflicts with the 

City of South Lake Tahoe's business/marketing plan. 

Sample Comment: “Another area of concern for the commission is that restricting some 

users from the proposed wilderness areas is in direct conflict with the City of South Lake 

Tahoe's business/marketing plan to increase outdoor recreation based tourism. Has the 

loss of revenue to the City of Lake Tahoe been taken into account? My understanding is 

that through the Pathway 2007 plan local agencies would be working together for the 

mutual benefit of the stake holders in the Tahoe basin.”

Response: The consequences of Wilderness recommendation are disclosed in the FEIS 

sections 3.4.19 and 3.4.27 (recreation and wilderness). We do not believe that 

Wilderness recommendation conflicts with the City of South Lake Tahoe’s 

business/marketing plan. 

PC 89: The Forest Service should complete an evaluation of areas suitable for 

wilderness designation. 

Response: As part of the Forest Plan Revision process, the LTBMU undertook an 

evaluation of areas for potential wilderness designation. This evaluation can be found in 

Appendix C of the Revised Forest Plan (Volume III). 

PC 168: Forest Service should provide more protections for wilderness in the Plan. 

Response: All wilderness areas in the LTBMU are managed in accordance to the 

standards and policy’s established in the 1964 Wilderness Act. Section 3.3 - Designated 

Special Areas Standards and Guidelines in the Revised Forest Plan, provides guidelines 

and other sources of management information for the Desolation, Granite Chief and Mt. 

Rose Wilderness Areas. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-107 

Scenic Resources 

PC 47: The Forest Service should maintain the scenic quality and consider the unique 

qualities of the Tahoe Basin in management decisions. 

Response: The Revised Forest Plan establishes management strategies for maintaining 

scenic quality and enhancing valued scenic attributes (including the unique visual 

qualities of the Tahoe Basin). The Revised Plan requires that future management 

activities meet or exceed identified minimum scenic integrity objectives. The 

environmental consequences of each alternative are discussed with respect to scenic 

integrity in FEIS Section 3.4.20 – Scenic Resources. Evaluation of scenic stability is also 

discussed in the context of perpetuating valued scenic attributes into the future. 

PC 86: The Forest Service should seek the return of that park-like quality which the 

pioneers experienced as they traversed the Sierra Nevada. 

Response: The Revised Forest Plan identifies forest vegetation desired conditions that 

approximate conditions prior to the area’s Comstock-era logging. A diversity of 

vegetation conditions, including those composed of larger trees with canopy covers that 

are generally more open than those seen today is a desired condition. 

PC 342: The Forest Service should revise Scenic integrity and Stability ratings to reflect 

reality of the built environment inherent in ski areas. 

Response: The Minimum Scenic Integrity Objectives (MSIOs) have been updated to 

more accurately reflect desired landscape conditions within developed ski areas and are 

displayed on Map #10 of the Revised Forest Plan. Existing scenic integrity in many of 

these areas is identified as “low” and the MSIO has been revised from “high” to 

“moderate” to reflect anticipated improvements in scenic integrity over the Plan Period. 

The Minimum Scenic Stability, Map #11 of the Revised Forest Plan has been correctly 

re-named as “Existing Scenic Integrity”. Scenic resource strategies continue to manage 

for achieving “high” scenic stability on a project-by-project basis over the Plan Period. 

PC 461: The Forest Service should recognize the need for local direction to supplement 

the Built Environment Image Guide in order to provide guidance better suited to an 

alpine environment. 

Response: The Revised Forest Plan requires that LTBMU activities related to the built 

environment be consistent with the Built Environment Image Guide and its North Pacific 

Province, which includes the central and northern Sierra Nevada. While the BEIG is 

general in its direction, the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines further identify the use 

of a “Tahoe architecture theme” to ensure that the LTBMU built environment is visually 

compatible with the local alpine physical and cultural environment. Meeting this 

standard is consistent with the perpetuation of the valued scenic attributes identified in 

FEIS section 3.4.20 – Scenic Resources. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-108 ■ Response to Comments 

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat and Species, Including 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

Post Fire/Burned Forest Habitat 

PC 238: The Forest Service should include forest-wide standards to maximize the 

protection of post-fire habitat from logging and measurable standards for closed canopy 

retention that are at least as protective as the standards enacted under the 2001 Sierra 

Nevada Framework. 

Sample Comments: “The LTBMU management plan should include specific and 

enforceable forest wide standards for closed canopy as well as protection of mature and 

old growth forests that are at least as strong as the 2001 Sierra Nevada Framework Plan. 

First and foremost the Sierra Club recommends that the management plan include an 

enforceable forest-wide standard requiring the Forest Service to maintain viable 

populations of all native wildlife species that live in the L TBMU, such as the California 

spotted owl and the black-backed woodpecker. In addition, the Sierra Club recommends 

strengthened forest-wide standards for protecting the forest habitat for these species. For 

example, the draft plan currently allows up to 90 percent of post-fire habitat to be 

logged, but unlogged post-fire habitat is needed by species such as the black-backed 

woodpecker, which has been designated as candidate for protection under the California 

Endangered Species Act. Therefore, we recommend that the LTBMU plan include forestwide standards to maximize the protection of post-fire habitat from logging. The draft 

management plan includes vague and potentially weaker standards for closed canopy 

retention, even though closed canopy forest habitat is important for wildlife such as the 

California spotted owl. The Forest Service has demonstrated that it can enact clearer and 

stronger standards for closed canopy retention, as evident in the 2001 Sierra Nevada 

Framework. Accordingly, the Sierra Club recommends that the LTMBU plan include 

measurable standards for closed canopy retention that are at least as protective as the 

standards enacted under the 2001 Sierra Nevada Framework. 

Response: Although there are situations following a fire in which removal of dead or 

dying trees would be required for public safety, abatement of long-term fuel hazards, 

ecological restoration, or to off-set restoration costs, the standard related to this resource 

has been revised to reflect the importance of this habitat to various wildlife species and 

the idea that a “one size fits all” approach isn’t preferable. We have revised the standard 

to clarify that the needs of local wildlife associated with components of this habitat (e.g., 

snags) would be a key driver in developing restoration projects in burned areas. The 

revised standard does not have fire size thresholds or percentage retention targets because 

it is important to consider during project development the location of fire events with 

respect to public safety concerns, the quality of the burned habitat for species normally 

associated with burned forests, species present in the project area, and other driving 

resource needs (e.g., water quality). 

It was determined that the 2001 Sierra Nevada Framework, as written, could not be 

meaningfully implemented. As a result, the Forest Service prepared the 2004 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and a Record of Decision (ROD) 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-109 

was issued. The SEIS addressed the same management issues as the 2001 Framework 

but the approach adopted in 2004 was implementable region-wide. The current proposed 

revision to the Forest Plan addresses these same management issues but in a way that is 

relevant to achieving desired conditions specific to the LTBMU. 

Responses regarding canopy retention, removal or large trees, and the creation of early 

seral stage openings can be found with responses to PC 74 (240), 216, 232, 87, and 25. 

PC 73: The Forest Service should provide standards to prevent salvage logging of postfire habitat. 

PC 214: The Forest Service should increase required snag densities to support spotted 

owls and BBWO. 

PC 243: The Forest Service should re-evaluate the standard for retaining snags in 

burned forest to ensure that habitat requirements will be met. 

PC 287: The Forest Service should Change the DLRMP to require retention, through a 

forest-wide standard (not a guideline), of at least 90% of any moderate/high-severity 

burn areas which are created by fire, wildland or otherwise, outside of the Defense Zone, 

and retain the maximum possible amount of such habitat that can be retained in the 

Defense Zone while ensuring protection of homes. 

PC 300: The Forest Service should include a standard that would retain all post-fire 

habitat outside the WUI. 

Sample Comments: “In light of the science clearly demonstrating the significant value of 

post-fire habitat to species like the back-backed woodpecker, the LTBMU Plan must 

include standards to protect this habitat and must do so in a way that is scientifically 

supportable. The only standard that thus far exists is the 10% standard, which, as 

already discussed above, is not supportable. Consequently, the Final Plan must include a 

scientifically supportable standard such as retaining all post-fire habitat outside the 

WUI.” (PC 300) 

“Moreover, given that black-backed woodpeckers have an extremely close affinity with 

postfire habitat, specifically high-severity post-fire habitat, the best and only way to 

protect the species is to adopt standards that ensure the protection of post-fire habitat, 

especially mid to high severity post-fire habitat. And the only way to effectively do that is 

to protect all post-fire habitat.” (PC 300) 

“Again, the only way to ensure the viability of the species is to protect its habitat and that 

means protecting post-fire habitat from salvage logging. Thus, until a scientifically 

supportable standard regarding salvage logging is established, the Plan will not be 

adequate.” (PC 300) 

“To provide more meaningful protections for Black-backed Woodpecker populations, 

and the populations of the many wildlife species associated with post-fire habitat, we 

suggest the following changes to the DLRMP: • Change the DLRMP to require 

retention, through a forest-wide standard (not a guideline), of at least 90% of any 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-110 ■ Response to Comments 

moderate/high-severity burn areas which are created by fire, wildland or otherwise, 

outside of the Defense Zone, and retain the maximum possible amount of such habitat 

that can be retained in the Defense Zone while ensuring protection of homes.” (PC 287) 

“The DEIS does not provide analysis of 1) what percentage of burned stands in areas 

less than 1,000 acres will be left; 2) how much planned burning in the Basin is likely to 

lead to burned forest habitat – i.e. large burned snags – that would be beneficial to the 

woodpecker; 3) how much and what quality burned habitat will likely result from Plan 

implementation; and 4) given the information in Nos. 1-3, whether the policy to retain 

only 10 percent of the burned forest in a large fire will provide adequate habitat for black 

backed woodpecker over time.” (PC 243) 

“We are deeply troubled by the lack of meaningful protections for snag forest habitat, 

and do not see any evidentiary/analytical basis in the DEIS for a conclusion that the 10% 

retention standard is remotely adequate to maintain viable populations; nor do we 

believe it is remotely adequate to maintain viable populations.” (PC 243) 

The emerging evidence indicates this to be the case for Spotted Owls, as data show that 

occupancy is harmed by logging (Seamans and Gutierrez 2007), the owls strongly tend to 

avoid mechanically thinned areas (Keane et al. 2011), and logging facilitates invasion of 

aggressive barred owls, which often out-compete Spotted Owls (Dugger et al. 2011). In 

contrast, mixed-severity fire, without post-fire logging, creates important suitable postfire foraging habitat for Spotted Owls, and the owls preferentially select unlogged 

moderate-severity and high-severity fire areas for foraging (Bond et al. (2009a). Mixedseverity fire, with an average of about 32% high-severity effects in home range core 

areas, does not reduce occupancy of Spotted Owls (Bond et al. 2012 in press). Similarly, 

both pre-fire and post-fire logging harm Black-backed Woodpeckers, while fire alone and 

very high snag densities in unburned forest (snag densities at levels similar to those 

found in moderate/high-severity burn areas) provide excellent suitable habitat (Goggans 

et al. 1989 [Table 8, showing almost complete avoidance of salvage logged areas among 

Black-backeds otherwise nesting in unburned forest with very high snag density from 

beetle mortality], Hanson and North 2008, Hutto 2008, Siegel et al. 2012a, Siegel et al. 

2012b [finding Black-backed selecting areas of highest post-fire snag basal area, while, 

in Fig. 10, almost completely avoiding salvage logged areas]). The Forest Service’s own 

data indicates that higher-severity post-fire conditions create unique and ecologically 

important habitat (Burnett et al. 2010, Burnett et al. 2011), and such habitat is not 

mimicked by mechanical thinning or clearcutting (Swanson et al. 2010). With regard to 

active snag creation, scientific data indicates that average snag densities in the natural 

condition on the LTBMU is about 8 snags per acre over 16 inches in diameter at breast 

height in unburned forest (Barbour et al. 2002), and Verner et al. (1992) recommend at 

least 8 large snags per acre for Spotted Owl foraging habitat, equating to at least 20 

square feet per acre of large snag basal area (and more for nesting habitat), and 

successful Black-backed Woodpecker nesting is associated with considerably higher snag 

densities than this—at least several dozen large snags per acre (Goggans et al. 1989, 

Bonnot et al. 2008, Bonnot et al. 2009, Siegel et al. 2012b). The Forest Service’s own 

recent technical report concludes that natural mortality levels in unburned conifer forests 

of the Sierra Nevada are about 8-14% (North 2012, p. 18), which equates to about 10 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-111 

large snags per acre on the LTBMU, given the DEIS’s estimate of an average of about 

100 trees per acre over 15 inches in diameter on the LTBMU (DEIS, p. 3-298). In 

contrast, there are only about 5-6 snags per acre on average currently on the LTBMU in 

unburned forest (DEIS, p. 3-296). Current science shows that higher snag densities do 

not result in higher fire severity when fire occurs (Bond et al. 2009b) and, in fact, will 

tend to result in lower fire severity (Simard et al. 2011), so creating additional large 

snags in the context of active ecological management is not inconsistent even with 

management in the WUI. (PC 214) 

“Allows salvage logging, the removal of large trees over 30 inches in diameter, and the 

creation of large openings in forest stands;” (PC 73) 

Response: For response to comments regarding the assessment of the Black-backed 

woodpecker (BBWO) population status (PCs 300 and 243), please see response to 

comments #283 and 275. For response regarding the removal of trees greater than 30 

inches in diameter and creation of early seral openings, see response to PCs 216, 232, 87. 

For the evaluation of viability, please see FEIS Appendix E (Volume III).

We agree that snags in burned habitat are an important habitat component of the LTBMU 

landscape and the originally proposed guideline was inadequate at clearly demonstrating 

this value. Although flexibility for retention of snags in burned forest habitat increases 

with distance from the WUI, including the Defense Zone, the level of habitat restoration 

is ultimately dependent upon specific conditions that can’t be predicted until a wildfire 

occurs. Therefore, following a review of our proposed guideline for post wildfire habitat 

restoration, we concluded that a one-size-fits- all approach isn’t feasible given the 

variability in fire effects, location and size of fires, suitability of pre-burned habitat for 

burned snags associated wildlife after fire, public safety needs, and generally meeting our 

multiple use mandate. Consequently, we have revised the standard related to possible 

restoration projects in post-fire habitat to focus more on the process of resource 

prioritization/consideration when identifying the need for restoration and developing 

restoration projects rather than simply applying a quantitative retention level that may not 

be supportable for all post-fire landscapes. 

The revised standard clarifies that the needs of local wildlife associated with components 

of this habitat (e.g., snags) would be a key driver in developing restoration projects in 

burned areas. The revised standard does not have fire size thresholds or percentage 

retention targets because it is important to consider during project development the 

location of fire events with respect to public safety concerns, the quality of the burned 

habitat for species normally associated with burned forests, species present in the project 

area, and other driving resource needs (e.g., water quality and accelerated restoration of 

burned areas to pre-habitat conditions for species at risk, e.g. Spotted Owl). 

We have used the best available science when preparing the Revised Forest Plan and our 

analysis of effects, but also taking into account that we are a multiple use agency and are 

mandated to manage the landscape to meet these varied needs. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-112 ■ Response to Comments 

The Forest Plan is not the appropriate place to assign acceptable mortality levels from 

planned burning activities as a one-size-fits all approach because this is a site specific 

prescriptive decision and influenced by numerous factors, including the vegetation types 

which have different growing conditions and fire return intervals. Therefore, it is not 

possible to predict quantitatively or qualitatively how much planned or wildfire burning 

would result in habitat with large burned snags and the quality of this habitat. This level 

of detail would be understood only at the project level when site-specific conditions, as 

well as the purpose and need of the project, are understood. 

PC 275: The Forest Service should maintain viable populations of MIS species. 

PC 283: The Forest Service should clarify the relationship between population 

distribution and population viability of MIS species. 

Sample Comments: “The DEIS’s conclusion that “current data indicate that the 

distribution of black-backed woodpecker populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable” 

(DEIS, p. 3-299) is essentially meaningless for assessing the conservation of the species. 

A species can be well distributed in an area but nonetheless be at severe risk of negative 

impacts. It is the DEIS’s job to take a “hard look” at the negative impacts of the Draft 

Plan irrespective of whether distribution is “stable” and that did not occur.” (PC 283) 

Forestwide Standards Fail to Ensure Viable Populations of Black-backed Woodpeckers 

As discussed above, the DEIS and DLRMP utterly fail to ensure viable populations of the 

Black-backed Woodpecker on the LTBMU, and fail to determine the quantity and quality 

of habitat necessary to maintain at least viable populations on the LTBMU planning 

area, contrary to the requirements of the 1982 NFMA regulations. Because of this, and 

because of the abysmal lack of protections for suitable Black-backed Woodpecker habitat 

in the DLRMP (e.g., 90% removal of suitable habitat allowed, and no limited operating 

periods), the Forest Service’s proposed management poses a threat to the viability of this 

species on the LTBMU and in the Sierra Nevada.” (PC 275) 

Response: The data for Black-backed Woodpecker 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). 

As described in the MIS section of the FEIS (Chapter 3, 3.4.14), distribution population 

monitoring tracks changes in the distribution of each MIS at the Sierra Nevada scale by 

monitoring the changes in the presence of the species across a number of sample 

locations, including sampling on the LTBMU. It is designed, in conjunction with habitat 

monitoring, to meet the regulatory requirement for MIS that "population trends of the 

management indicator species will be monitored and relationships to habitat changes 

determined” (1982: 36 CFR 219.19(a)(6)). This monitoring tracks the changes in the 

distribution of an MIS by monitoring the changes in the presence of the species across a 

number of sample locations to determine if: (a) the MIS continues to be distributed across 

the suitable habitat within its range, and (b) there is a stable population distribution in the 

Sierra Nevada. At the scale of the Sierra Nevada, changes in the distribution of species 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-113 

represent ecologically significant information on the status and change of populations 

(USDA Forest Service 2001, Appendix E Table E-5, p.E-22). For a discussion of 

viability, please see Appendix E. Monitoring of viability is not required for MIS. 

PC 54: The Forest Service should use the Forest Plan to explain the importance of post 

fire habitat. 

PC 80: The Forest Plan must describe importance of burned habitat. 

Sample Comments: “Finally, it is surprising that the Forest Service is not using the Plan 

as an opportunity to educate the public about the importance of post-fire habitat, 

including the importance of post high-severity fire habitat.” (PC 54) 

“The Forest Plan is an important opportunity to explain the ecological and evolutionary 

aspects of post-fire habitat so that the public will understand why such forest is to be 

protected and conserved (and to be clear, it is not just the black-backed woodpecker that 

relies on or finds sanctuary in post-fire habitat – many other species do as well). This is 

especially so given that a) Forest Plans only occur every 15 years or more, and b) Forest 

Plans represent the overarching guidance for the Forest and therefore should contain the 

educational information the public and decision-makers need to understand why 

particular habitats are important.” (PC 54) 

“For instance, the black-backed woodpecker relies on forest areas which have been 

burned. There should be some commentary in your plan that points out this fact. The 

public needs to be aware of the importance of burned forests for species such as this 

woodpecker. I see no language in your plan about this consideration.” (PC 80) 

Response: We agree that post fire habitat is one of many important habitats on the 

LTBMU and the Plan could benefit from additional clarification about the value of fire 

and burned habitat. Currently, the desired conditions for Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and 

Fire Management in the Plan describe the desire to reestablish fire (and other important 

ecosystem processes) in various habitat types within the Basin and achieve natural fire 

return intervals for each forest vegetation type. We have also revised the standard and 

guideline regarding post wildfire restoration projects to clarify that the needs of local 

wildlife associated with snags and other components of this habitat would be a key driver 

in developing restoration projects in burned areas. 

Although BBWO show a strong association with recently burned forest and occur in 

highest density in these habitat types, BBWO also occur in unburned forest types (Bond, 

Siegel, and Craig 2012; Fogg et al. 2012; Siegel et al. 2013). 

PC 129: The Forest Service should have a specific wildlife measures for at-risk wildlife 

such as the Black-backed woodpecker. 

PC 269: The Forest Service should include a standard that says - "NO logging of burned 

forest habitat from April through Sept., while the Black-backed woodpecker is nesting." 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-114 ■ Response to Comments 

Sample Comments: “These are very serious issues that should be fully addressed in the 

revised DEIS and Plan with an alternative with clear and enforceable standards that 

maintain all large snags and logs to benefit the recovering ecosystem, limit the amount of 

entry into the burned landscape only to manage areas where hazard trees may hit homes 

or roads, maintain strict water quality protections to limit erosion including clear limits 

on over-snow logging and slash production in or near streams, and add specific wildlife 

measures for at-risk wildlife such as the Black-backed woodpecker. (PC 129) 

“The Draft Forest Plan, as now written, does not have enforceable standards to ensure 

the survival of species in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) National 

Forest. This is not acceptable! After the experience this summer, when the Forest Service 

was originally set to kill Black-backed Woodpecker chicks in their nests, there is clearly 

a need for enforceable standards to protect that species and others! For this reason there 

should be an enforceable standard that states: "NO logging of burned forest habitat from 

April through Sept., while the Black-backed woodpecker is nesting."” (PC 269) 

Response: As an MIS, the Black-backed woodpecker represents a suite of species that 

use snags in burned forest habitat. The Black-backed woodpecker is not federally listed 

or a Forest Service Species of concern. Therefore, we do not think it is appropriate to 

assign species-specific protection measures, including a Limited Operating Period (LOP), 

for a species that is representative of a larger group (and a habitat component) and is not 

federally listed. Instead, we have revised the standard and guideline in the Plan related to 

post-wildfire restoration projects to clarify the process that would be undertaken in 

planning for these types of projects and evaluating the need for these projects (see 

Revised Forest Plan, Part 3: Design Criteria/3.1 Ecological Sustainability/Biological 

Resources Standards and Guidelines/Conservation of Species and Habitat). In addition, 

the revised standard and guideline clarifies that the needs of local wildlife associated with 

this habitat would be a key driver in developing restoration projects in burned areas. 

PC 289: The Forest Service should add a standard to the DLRMP stating that, within any 

5-year period, at least 4,000 acres of suitable Black-backed Woodpecker habitat would 

be maintained on the LTBMU, through a combination of managed wildfire, mixedintensity prescribed fire, and active snag creation. 

Sample Comment: “Add a standard to the DLRMP stating that, within any 5-year 

period, at least 4,000 acres of suitable Black-backed Woodpecker habitat would be 

maintained on the LTBMU, through a combination of managed wildfire, mixed-intensity 

prescribed fire, and active snag creation.” 

Response: It is infeasible to maintain 4,000 acres of burned forest habitat for the Blackbacked woodpecker within any five year period as suggested. The LTBMU is a small 

unit with insufficient land to sustain this level of burned forest without compromising the 

health of other habitat types on the landscape. The LTBMU manages approximately 

60,000 acres of land outside the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and Desolation 

Wilderness. Working under the conservative assumption that all of this land is in the 

appropriate seral stage for Black-backed woodpecker prior to burning, all of this land 

would have been consumed by moderate to high severity fire within 75 years if 4,000 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-115 

acres were burned every 5 years, leaving the LTBMU with a severe paucity of the 

multitude of other habitat types and seral stages, including late seral forest. Secondly, 

where prescribed burns are used, management can expect up to 10-20% mortality and 

these activities are not purposefully designed to create high severity burned forest habitat. 

Wildfire, the other source of habitat creation for Black-backed woodpecker, cannot be 

predicted to achieve this standard. As a multi-use forest, the proposal to maintain 4,000 

acres of burned forest habitat within any five-year period could feasibly limit other uses 

on NFS lands. The LTBMU also supports a variety of TECPS species (e.g., plants, fish, 

amphibians, etc.) that exhibit a variety of habitat preferences beyond those of burned 

forest habitat. 

Although maintaining 4,000 acres of moderate to high severity burned forest habitat 

every 5 years is infeasible, the Forest Plan includes a number of original, new, and 

revised strategies and standards and guidelines that are intended to provide burned forest 

habitat and important features such as snags and coarse woody debris. We have also 

revised the standard and guideline regarding post wildfire restoration projects to clarify 

that the needs of local wildlife associated with this habitat would be a key driver in 

developing restoration projects in burned areas. 

PC 504: The Forest Service should recognize the value of burned forest (snag) habitats 

and should be actively managing for this habitat type. 

Sample Comments: “Change the DEIS and DLRMP to say that prescribed fire would 

have less than 20% mortality in the Defense Zone, but could and should sometimes have 

higher levels of tree mortality outside of the Defense Zone in order to provide habitat 

(which would not be open to post-fire logging) for Black-backed Woodpeckers and other 

post-fire associates. The Forest Service should be actively managing for this extremely 

important, rare and highly bio-diverse habitat type.” 

Response: See response to comment PC 80 for a discussion of the importance of burned 

forest habitat. 

The range of acceptable fire conditions are described in the desired conditions for each of 

the major vegetation types. The desired conditions drive the Forest Plan. For example, 

the desired condition for the function of white fir-mixed conifer vegetation type states the 

following: 

“Fire and fire surrogates approximate a fire return interval of 10-30 years in white firmixed conifer stands. Frequent, low to mixed severity fires are characteristic in this type, 

including throughout spotted owl and goshawk PACs and HRCAs. Stand-replacing fire 

occurs on an average of 15% of burned acres, with occasional more severe fires driven by 

extreme weather. Fires burn primarily on the forest floor, rarely spreading between 

canopy trees as active crown fire. Crown torching leads to forest openings and generation 

of large snags. Except in rare events, contiguous areas of crown mortality after fire are 

less than 10 acres in size. High severity patches are principally confined to higher 

density, closed canopy stands and/or warm, upper slopes. Where this type overlaps the 

WUI, fires occur as surface fire due to fuels treatments. We can assume that if conditions 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-116 ■ Response to Comments 

are not favorable to those types of fire effects described in desired conditions, then we 

will put out.” 

In response to the comment regarding the lack of analysis of effects due to the loss of 

snag habitat since the 19th century, we have based our analyses of existing conditions on 

the current habitat conditions for all sensitive species and associated habitat. 

Late Seral Habitat and Species 

PC 74: The Forest Service should provide standards to protect the dense forest habitat 

that owls and martens rely upon, similar to the quantitative standards in the 1988 Plan, 

and analyze for effects from lack of quantitative standards in the DEIS. 

PC 218: The Forest Service should include canopy cover requirements for areas outside 

of PACs and HRCAs. 

PC 221: The Forest Service should provide standards to protect the dense forest habitat 

that owls and martens rely upon. 

PC 249: The Forest Service should clarify the analysis of impacts on late seraldependent species. 

Sample Comments: “In regard to California spotted owls and martens, the DEIS fails to 

appropriately address the adverse consequences to the late-seral closed-canopy forest 

these species rely upon. For instance, the 1988 Forest Plan (p. IV-27) contained specific 

quantitative protections for management of old forest habitat. Much research has 

transpired since then showing just how important closed canopy forest is for spotted owls 

and martens and yet there are no protections for such habitat in the Draft Plan or DEIS. 

Unlike the 1988 Plan, there are no specific requirements to protect old-growth forest, 

and there are not any requirements to retain minimum basal area levels associated with 

suitable habitat (Verner et al. 1992) in Spotted Owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) or 

Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs) (see Draft Plan, pp. 96, and 100- 101). Moreover, the 

Draft Plan (pp. 100-101) does not specify minimum canopy cover retention requirements 

for these Spotted Owl areas.” (PC 218) 

 “The DEIS does not take a hard look at the impacts of the draft Plan on wildlife species 

utilizing late seral habitats such as the spotted owl, marten and goshawk.” (PC 249) 

Response: See response to PC 216, 232, 87, and 25 for clarification on the approach for 

removing/killing/girdling ≥30 inch diameter trees, creation of early seral openings, and 

removal of the Old Forest Emphasis Area Management designation in the proposed Plan. 

See response to PCs 283, 300, 287, 243, 214, and 220 for post fire restoration. 

The desired conditions, strategies, objectives, and standards and guidelines described in 

the Plan are intended to maintain and enhance the suitability of habitat for all TECPS 

species (and MIS habitat), including marten and the California spotted owl. The 

approach in the proposed Plan does not assign quantitative limits on canopy cover and/or 

basal area retention because we believe this one-size-fits-all approach won’t allow us to 

achieve our desired conditions for forest vegetation, and protect and improve the habitat 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-117 

for sensitive species in the LTBMU. Although we are proposing an approach that allows 

for flexibility, we believe the management direction is appropriate and adequate to 

conserve late seral closed canopy habitat for associated species. However, we have 

added new and revised some current standards and guidelines to clarify the limitations on 

reducing canopy cover and basal area (in and outside of PACs) and clarify that current 

late seral closed canopy stands would be retained outside the WUI (and inside the WUI 

where fire behavior objectives can be met). These measures described in the Plan are not 

the sole set of protection measures for sensitive species and associated habitat. 

Additional resource protection measures based on site-specific resource needs and new 

available science would be incorporated as needed into projects as they are developed. 

All projects would be evaluated through the NEPA process in which a wildlife biologist 

would be part of the team and public comment is solicited. Furthermore, although the 

Plan limits the scope of activities, such as the creation of openings, we do not expect to 

reach these limits on every project. 

We acknowledge that the Plan could benefit from additional language that clarifies our 

intent to protect late seral closed canopy habitat (e.g., dense canopy cover and large trees) 

for associated wildlife species without incorporating one-size-fits-all quantitative 

parameters at the Plan level. See revised and new strategies and standard and guideline 

portions of the following sections: Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management 

Program Strategy and Biological Resources. We have also increased the canopy cover 

desired condition for goshawk and spotted owl PACs to 70% cover. Although the 

guidelines for PACs allow reduction of canopy cover below this desired condition, these 

circumstances would occur only to improve habitat over the long term by restoring 

structure and/or reducing risk from beetle outbreak and catastrophic fire, and would be 

evaluated in a project-specific basis. We have incorporated a standard that across a late 

seral closed canopy stand, treatments shall not reduce the canopy of the dominant and codominant trees by more than 10%. We agree with the commenter that spotted owl and 

marten are not simply associated with dense late seral closed canopy habitat but with 

certain features of these habitats such as snags and coarse woody debris (understory 

complexity) – both of which are the subject of revised and new standards and guidelines 

that protect and promote creation of these features on the landscape. We believe these 

revisions to the Plan have allowed us to be more transparent in our intention to conserve 

late seral closed canopy habitat for sensitive species like the spotted owl and marten in 

the LTBMU. 

Regarding the results of the SPECTRUM model, we incorrectly stated in the DEIS that 

late seral closed canopy would decrease as a result of thinning this seral stage to create 

late seral open canopy habitat. We also incorrectly interpreted the model output in the 

DEIS. We have reviewed and clarified the model data source and parameters 

(prescriptions, disturbances, restrictions) and can now more accurately explain the model 

output. The model output indicates that during a fifty year period following Plan 

implementation (excluding decade 1) late seral closed canopy forest for all of the major 

forest types combined would not change from current condition under Alternatives B and 

E. We have provided additional clarifying information for the SPECTRUM model in 

sections 3.4.11 (Forest Vegetation), 3.4.14 (Management Indicator Species), and 3.4.23 

(Terrestrial Wildlife Species and Habitat) of the FEIS. The FEIS analysis for the 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-118 ■ Response to Comments 

potential effects of vegetation treatments, fires, and post-fire treatments has been revised 

to clarify the potential effects of treatments proposed under the various alternatives. 

We agree that spotted owl PACs in the Basin are comprised primarily of what is 

considered “moderate capability” nesting habitat (including 4M) but have no data to 

suggest that this influences reproductive success since PACs with moderate capability 

habitat have produced young. We also have no data to explore if this habitat is selected 

in proportion to its availability on the landscape or if owls are showing a preference for 

this habitat type. 

Please refer to the monitoring plan for additional clarification about data that would be 

collected to monitor the effectiveness of the Plan’s elements. 

PC 265: The Forest Service should monitor potential impacts from management 

activities to marten and goshawk. 

Response: The Forest Plan Monitoring Plan (Appendix A) includes several monitoring 

questions which would provide information regarding potential impacts from 

management activities to marten and northern goshawk habitat. 

PC 261: The Forest Service should consider how their literature citations for marten are 

applied. 

PC 262: The Forest Service should acknowledge the potentially significant effect on 

marten population stability that may occur due to the Forest Service’s lack of knowledge 

of where den sites are located. 

Sample Comments: “the DEIS does not provide an adequate discussion of the west-side 

marten population. No information is given, for example, describing the importance of 

different habitat types to this population. Slauson’s review (2008) of past marten 

monitoring demonstrates that a considerable portion of the west-side population in the 

Basin is utilizing mixed conifer forest. See Slauson (2008), Figure 6. However, the DEIS 

does not contain a discussion of what type of habitat marten are using in this forest in 

terms of stand density, canopy cover or class size. The DEIS also does not describe the 

importance of the west side population to regional north south connectivity. See Slauson, 

2008.” (PC 261) 

“Third, the DEIS fails to take a hard look at how the loss of canopy coverage and 

complex forest may adversely affect marten. As discussed, the DEIS’s “impact analysis” 

comparison between the loss of “closed canopy” versus “open canopy” late seral forest 

is confusing in that it does not distinguish between marten foraging (where marten may 

utilize lower canopy habitats) and denning and resting habitat where canopy coverage 

and stand density must be high. As discussed, open canopy forests may be reduced all the 

way down to 10 percent canopy. The DEIS does not contain a meaningful assessment of 

this impact. ... As discussed, a substantial portion of the west-shore Tahoe marten 

population appears to be inhabiting late seral, mixed conifer forest, precisely the type of 

habitat where higher canopies are required. Yet the DEIS simply assumes that this 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-119 

marten population will remain stable despite the loss of quality overstory and understory 

habitat.” (PC261) 

“In PSW-GTR-203 Alan Taylor (2007) recommends that ecological restoration of the 

Lake Tahoe Basin should focus on reduction in basal area of mostly smaller trees and the 

reintroduction of frequent fire in the vegetation types of the Lake Tahoe Basin. The 

recommendation is based on the accepted science that this path is best suited to 

adequately reduce fire risk, while minimizing impacts to late seral species.” (PC 261) 

“The DEIS and BE proceed on the assumption that 4M habitat can offer moderate 

capability reproductive habitat for marten, without any on the ground information. Not 

only is this assumption contrary to the studies cited above, the Forest Service has no 

information about the reproductive success of marten in Tahoe, and thus can make no 

conclusions regarding the adequacy of existing or future habitat condition for this 

species. See Green 2007 (“presence-absence data cannot identify the roles that different 

habitats and geographic areas play in regional population demographics.”)” (PC 261) 

“It is well known in the literature that marten denning in forested habitats require high 

canopy, late seral habitat. See Spencer et al. 1983; Hargis and McCullough 1984; Ellis 

1998; Ruggiero et al. 1998; Bull and Blumton 1999; Bull and Heater 2000; Bull et al. 

2005; Slauson and Zielinski 2008) Denning and resting habitat are described as follows: 

- Late successional, old forests; - CWHR 5D and 6; - Canopy cover of at least 50 

percent, mostly 60 percent and greater on Westside Sierra Nevada; - Presence of large 

snags and logs on ground (coarse woody debris)” (PC 262) 

Response: We acknowledge the request for greater information about the west shore 

habitat and regional connectivity for marten. We have supplemented our information in 

the FEIS and Biological Evaluation (BE) regarding the west shore marten population to 

more clearly emphasize the importance of this area to marten from a regional 

connectivity perspective and also provide recent information from a publication by 

Spencer and Rustigian-Romsos of Conservation Biology Institute (2012). The 

publication results (modeling) indicate that the west shore of the Basin is part of a 

corridor but is not a sole corridor. Lastly, we would like to reiterate that the Plan does 

not prescribe treatments nor assign locations for such treatments. Therefore, the concern 

for the west shore habitat is noted, but we are not in a position to evaluate effects from 

specific actions to this exact portion of the LTBMU since it is not yet known where 

vegetation treatments, or any potential projects, would occur. 

We acknowledge the request for more information regarding marten habitat associations. 

This information is provided in detail in the Biological Evaluation (BE) for the Plan. We 

have also included in the FEIS the information that marten in the LTBMU have been 

found to use mixed conifer and also pine habitat. With reference to the commenter’s 

concern about the appropriateness of 4M habitat for marten, Moriarty et al. (2011) (Table 

1) indicates that various 4M habitat types (lodgepole pine, montane riparian, red fir, 

subalpine conifer, and white fir) are considered “high quality habitat” for marten. We 

have found marten denning with kits in 4M habitat in the LTBMU. Marten have been 

found elsewhere in habitat types not normally associated with their normal features such 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-120 ■ Response to Comments 

as closed canopy and complex understory (Green 2007). Regardless, our standards and 

guidelines are focused on the protection and perpetuation of late seral closed canopy 

habitat and key habitat elements (e.g., snags, coarse woody debris), not on any one 

particular CWHR type. Moreover, our standards and guidelines prioritize the 

maintenance of connectivity of late seral forested habitat for associated species. 

Regarding the “loss” of 5D habitat and effects to marten, we have added a table (3-35) to 

Chapter 3 section 3.4.11 Forest Vegetation of the FEIS that indicates that 5D does not 

comprise as much of late seral closed canopy habitat on the LTBMU as 5M and 6 habitat 

types under current conditions. Regardless, we incorrectly interpreted the model output 

in the DEIS. We have reviewed and clarified the model data source and parameters 

(prescriptions, disturbances, restrictions) and can now more accurately explain the model 

output. The model output indicates that during a fifty year period following Plan 

implementation (excluding decade 1) late seral closed canopy forest (of which 5D is a 

part) would not change from current condition under Alternatives B and E. The model 

output indicates that 5D habitat would increase under Alternatives B, C, and E in all of 

the major forest types. We have provided additional clarifying information for the 

SPECTRUM model in section 3.4.11 (Forest Vegetation) of the FEIS. We have also 

described predicted trends for the seral stages based on model output in section 3.4.23 

(Terrestrial Wildlife) of the FEIS and in the B E for Terrestrial Wildlife Species. 

We acknowledge the concern regarding marten habitat conditions and appreciate the 

referenced information. To clarify, the Plan does not propose a “loss of quality overstory 

and understory habitat”, “higher levels of logging”, or “extensive logging.” Spatially, the 

locations and scope of vegetation treatment projects are not assigned by the Plan so 

whether vegetation management treatments would be extensive or not is not knowable at 

this level of planning. The Plan does not prescribe treatments, including those that would 

modify the canopy or understory in any way. Likewise, the Plan does not propose 

reducing canopy cover by any specific percentage (commenter refers to opening a canopy 

down to 10% cover). If the commenter is concerned about late seral closed canopy 

habitat, reducing the canopy to 10% (the percent suggested by the commenter) would 

mean that that habitat would no longer be considered late seral habitat and this approach 

is simply not consistent with achieving our desired conditions as stated in the Plan. If the 

commenter is referring to the creation of early seral stage habitat which could have more 

open canopy conditions, the Plan and FEIS are clear that early seral stages would not be 

created in late seral habitat and that where there are concerns about potential for 

occurrence of late seral species in mature mid seral stands that could be influenced by 

early seral creation, these conditions would be evaluated on a project-specific basis. We 

understand that there may be some confusion related to the creation of early seral stages 

and have clarified in the guidelines that wildlife concerns, habitat connectivity, proximity 

to late seral forest, and other factors potentially influencing sensitive species (e.g., 

marten) would be considered during project development (see Part3: Design Criteria/3.1 

Ecological Sustainability/Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management Standards and 

Guidelines). 

We agree with the commenter that diseased trees can be important resting and denning 

structures for marten. Unfortunately, we are unable to locate where this statement was 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-121 

made in the FEIS. We also believe that the guideline in the Plan referring to the limited 

exceptions (including disease) under which a tree greater than 30 inches in diameter 

could be removed may have been ambiguous and we have revised this guideline. We 

have also clarified in our assumptions in the FEIS (Terrestrial Wildlife section, 3.4.23) 

that some of the circumstances under which a tree greater than 30 inches in diameter may 

be removed specifically include wildlife habitat objectives. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s concern regarding level of marten den information. 

The Plan focuses on the protection of habitat because the USFS manages habitat. The 

Plan includes standards and guidelines for the protection of late seral closed canopy 

habitat, snags, coarse woody debris, and other key habitat elements that are considered 

important to marten. We have added a number of standards and guidelines for the 

protection of late seral closed canopy habitat (see Part 3: Design Criteria/3.1 Ecological 

Sustainability/Biological Resources Standards and Guidelines/Conservation of Species 

and Habitat and Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management Standards and 

Guidelines). We believe that our desired conditions, objectives, strategies, and standards 

and guidelines in the Plan will assist in maintaining and enhancing the highest quality 

marten habitat, including resting and denning habitat. Furthermore, the Plan emphasizes 

the protection of habitat connectivity which is critical to the maintenance of suitable 

marten habitat since this species is known to be highly sensitive to habitat fragmentation. 

PC 241: The Forest Service should protect marten dens and know where dens are 

located, and have updated information on the health of the marten population in the 

LTBMU. 

Sample Comments: “One of the findings of Slauson’s analysis is that, due to the lack of 

marten on the east side or at lower elevations on the west side of the Sierra, Tahoe’s 

west-side marten population is a critical population segment connecting marten 

populations in the south to the dwindling population in the north. See Slauson (2008): 

“The west shore population represents the only known contiguous linkage for marten 

populations to the north and south of the Lake Tahoe Basin.”” 

“Fragmentation is considered detrimental to marten occurrence (Wildlife BE p.64). This 

higher level of fragmentation reflects existing conditions on the LTBMU and the higher 

potential for increased fragmentation under Alternatives B and C for the LTBMU (BE p. 

104). One of the most critical aspects of marten biology are den sites and their 

surrounding habitat, which comprise the reproductive habitat whose quality will 

determine whether marten remain a viable species in the Basin.” 

“To protect marten den sites, the 2004 SN Forest Plan Amendment (Record of Decision, 

p.39) (USDA 2004a) required a 100 ac buffer around all marten dens with the protection 

of the highest quality habitat surrounding den site in CWHR types 6, 5D, 5M, 4D, 4M in 

descending order of priority, based on availability, provide highest quality habitat for 

marten. This den buffer represents the best thinking on protection of important areas for 

marten and is the Regional direction. The draft Plan contains no protection for marten 

den sites. Even more problematic, the Forest Service does not know where the den sites 

are and thus are in no position to be able to protect these habitats.” 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-122 ■ Response to Comments 

Response: For a discussion of the updates to the FEIS based on the importance of the 

west shore for marten, see response to PC 261 and 262. For a discussion of the approach 

regarding knowledge of marten den locations, see response to PC 261 and 262. For 

viability, please see Appendix E. The effects of ski areas on marten are discussed in the 

FEIS. 

We agree with the commenter’s concern about ambiguity in marten den protection in the 

Plan. In addition to our LOP (Appendix E of the FEIS), which limits activities near dens 

during the breeding season, we have included a standard for a protective buffer around a 

marten den site (see Part 3: Design Criteria/3.1 Ecological Sustainability/Biological 

Resources Standards and Guidelines/Conservation of Species and Habitat). 

We would like to clarify that we do not propose to “conduct intensive logging in late 

seral marten habitat.” We suggest that the commenter refer to the desired conditions 

(including photographs) for each the major forest types described in the proposed Plan 

(see Part 1: Vision/1.2 Desired Conditions/Ecological Sustainability/Forest Vegetation, 

Fuels, and Fire Management) to more fully understand that intensive logging, particularly 

of late seral habitat, would be counter to achieving our desired conditions. We also 

disagree that any vegetation management activities would occur “without any knowledge 

of how marten – or the most critical marten habitat – is being affected.” The Plan does 

not assign specific management activities and does not assign specific locations for 

activities. This type of decision (i.e., what would be done and where) would be made on 

a project-specific basis when the specific resource needs, and potential effects, are more 

fully understood. The FEIS does describe potential effects of the proposed Plan and the 

various alternatives on marten habitat given the suite of potential activities that could 

occur. The FEIS and BE have been revised to further clarify the potential effects on 

marten, taking into account revisions that have been made to our standards and guidelines 

related to the protection of den sites and late seral habitat, structural features associated 

with this habitat, as well as connectivity of late seral habitat. Refer to the following 

sections of the Revised Forest Plan (Volume II) to view the original, revised, and new 

standards and guidelines: Part 3: Design Criteria/3.1 Ecological Sustainability/Forest 

Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management Standards and Guidelines and Biological 

Resources Standards and Guidelines/Conservation of Species and Habitat. 

We have used for our baseline condition and effects analysis the most recent and best 

available knowledge of martens in the Basin that we have at this time. We have 

incorporated additional science for marten threats and trends in the Sierra Nevada that 

has become available since the publication of the DEIS into the BE and FEIS. We also 

continue to interact with Keith Slauson (PSW researcher who has conducted extensive 

work on marten in the LTBMU) regarding the state of the marten population in various 

portions of the Basin. This new information has been added to the species discussion in 

the FEIS and BE. 

PC 260: The Forest Service should consider the connection between the loss of viable 

marten populations in the north and intensive logging. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-123 

Sample Comments: “The DEIS fails to take a hard look at the plan’s impacts on marten 

in several ways. First, the DEIS does not contain a meaningful description of the 

marten’s present imperiled situation in the northern Sierra Nevada or its causes. As 

discussed above, marten have largely disappeared from the Plumas National Forest – 

where considerable logging under the QLG plan has occurred – and most recently have 

disappeared from the Sagehen Experimental Forest, as described by Moriarty, 2009 

& 2011. The DEIS barely mentions these declines. See DEIS, p. 3-294: “detection 

rates have decreased in at least some localized areas (e.g., Sagehen Basin area of 

Nevada County).” The DEIS also does not conduct any analysis regarding the likelihood 

that logging proposed for the Tahoe Basin may have similar results in causing the loss of 

a viable marten population. As Moariarty (2011) describes: The most noticeable decline 

in marten detections at SEF occurred between 1983 and 1990. During that period, 39 

percent of the forested habitat in SEF experienced some form of timber harvest, including 

11 percent harvested with clear-cut or shelter-wood methods and 28 percent harvested 

with salvage sales (Fig. 5). As a result, we estimated that the percent cover of high 

quality marten habitat in SEF declined from approximately 27 percent in 1978 to 15 

percent by 1990. A number of other studies suggest that martens tend to disappear from 

an area after the percent of total forest cover is reduced below 45– 75 percent (Hargis et 

al. 1999, Potvin et al. 2000, Fuller 2006, Webb and Boyce 2009). Sagehen Experimental 

Forest currently falls within this range as 42 percent of the marten habitat in SEF 

changed from a suitable to unsuitable class from 1978 to 2007. The result of the DEIS’ 

lack of discussion is that no connection is made between the loss of viable marten 

populations in the north and intensive logging.” 

Response: We acknowledge the concern about the regional status of marten. First, we 

would like to clarify that the cause of the loss of marten distribution throughout their 

range is not clear (Zielinski 2013). Only in the case of the decline at Sagehen 

Experimental Forest (SEF) has a correlation been considered plausible – habitat 

fragmentation from harvest activity (Zielinski 2013), particularly salvage logging and 

clear cut or shelterwood harvest (Moriarty et al. 2011). We should note that SEF is an 

experimental forest where treatments occur in close proximity to one another. The 

proposed plan provides standards and guidelines to protect late seral habitat as well as 

connectivity between them. 

We realize that there could be challenges associated with balancing the need to move the 

major forest types towards desired conditions, protect sensitive resources (e.g., wildlife, 

fish, botanical, cultural), maintain access and opportunities for public use as part of our 

multi-use mandate, protect water quality, and reduce the risk of severe wildfire near our 

communities and in our mature stands. Therefore, our standards and guidelines in the 

Plan have focused on the protection of late seral closed canopy habitat and key elements 

within this habitat type (e.g., denning and resting features, snags, coarse woody debris), 

as well as connectivity of late seral habitat. These are not the sole set of protection 

measures, additional measures that could be developed and implemented on a projectspecific basis. We have added new standards and guidelines and revised a number of our 

current standards and guidelines to be clearer about our intentions to protect habitat for 

late seral species. See the Revised Forest Plan (Volume II), Part 3: Design Criteria/3.1 

Ecological Sustainability/Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management Standards and 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-124 ■ Response to Comments 

Guidelines and Biological Resources Standards and Guidelines/Conservation of Species 

and Habitat 

PC 296: The Forest Service should base general forest prescriptions on the wildlife that 

are occurring at treatment sites. 

Sample Comments: “Conversion from mid to early seral stage forest will decrease the 

prey base for American marten, goshawk and owls and mesocarnivores that compete 

within an unbalanced and fragmented trophic environment. This also has the potential to 

eliminate corridors for the sensitive wildlife species and decrease limited habitat for 

forest bats. The general forest prescriptions need to be based on wildlife that are 

occupying the treatment sites proposed for treatment.” 

Response: Agreed. Prescriptions are outside the scope of the Forest Plan but would be 

developed on a project-specific basis and take into account, through the efforts of IDT 

members during project development under NEPA, the presence of sensitive wildlife 

species and suitable habitat in the project area. At the time of project-development, 

additional resource protection measures beyond those included in the Plan, and based on 

the needs of sensitive wildlife and habitat types and based on new available science, may 

be incorporated into the project design. 

PC 82: The Forest Service should analyze how the effects of the exceptions to the 30" 

DBH requirement would impact wildlife. 

Sample Comments: “The Draft Plan (p. 96) allows numerous exceptions to the 30” dbh 

“limit” thus effectively swallowing the rule. And, in fact, the limit is not a limit, it is just a 

Guideline. The DEIS, however, contains no analysis of how this lack of a limit, or the fact 

that the exceptions are vast, will negatively impact the Forest, including wildlife like the 

black-backed woodpecker, California spotted owl and marten. Moreover, there is no 

analysis of how these negative impacts could be mitigated such as, at the very least, 

rather than removing these greater than 30” dbh trees, girdling and maintaining them in 

the Forest as snags, or as downed wood to provide for ecosystem value.” 

Response: As stated in the Forest Plan Consistency section of the Revised Plan 

Introduction, projects and activities are required to comply with Guidelines as well as 

Standards. The guideline related to the removal of trees 30 inches dbh or larger has been 

revised to clarify the limited exceptions under which these trees may (but not must) be 

removed, girdled for snag creation, or felled as coarse woody debris. The use of this 

guideline would be for circumstances that represent exceptions rather than common 

practice, and would be based on project-level purpose and need as well as on site-specific 

conditions. Therefore, there is no meaningful way to disclose impacts associated with 

this guideline except at the project-level, not at the level of the Forest Plan. However, we 

acknowledge the potential for the loss of some large trees and the FEIS effects analysis 

has been updated to reflect this potential. 

PC 200: The Forest Service should ban logging during nesting season (April through 

August) and retain at least 80 percent of all recently burned forest in order to safeguard 

the Tahoe Basin's biodiversity. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-125 

Sample Comments: “Your management plan for the Lake Tahoe region has a couple of 

flaws. First, it doesn't place any meaningful constraints on logging. Second, it doesn't 

adequately protect the wildlife indigenous to the area. In order to address these 

shortcomings, a revised plan would do the following: * ban tree logging during nesting 

season (April through August) * maintain 70 percent canopy cover in mature forest * 

retain at least 80 percent of all recently burned forest in order to safeguard the Tahoe 

Basin's biodiversity” 

Response: For response to comment regarding the retention of 80% of all recently 

burned forest, see response to PCs 220, 300, 287, 243, and 214. For response to the 

comment to maintain 70% canopy cover, refer to the response to PC 201. 

The Limited Operating Periods (LOPs) that preclude treatment in habitat occupied by 

California spotted owl and Northern Goshawk during the breeding season are described 

in Appendix E (Volume III). The limited conditions that would allow these LOPs to be 

waived for vegetation treatments or prescribed fire during the breeding season are also 

described in Appendix E. As described in the Plan, no vegetation treatments would be 

allowed if the proposed activity would potentially disturb breeding as determined by a 

thorough biological review of the proposed treatment intensity, duration, timing, and 

specific site. Likewise, no prescribed fire would be used in PACs unless reproduction 

has not occurred in at least the previous three years and the PAC was not occupied during 

the previous breeding season. 

PC 201: The Forest Service should maintain 70 percent canopy cover in mature forest. 

Sample Comments: “Your management plan for the Lake Tahoe region has a couple of 

flaws. First, it doesn't place any meaningful constraints on logging. Second, it doesn't 

adequately protect the wildlife indigenous to the area. In order to address these 

shortcomings, a revised plan would do the following: * maintain 70 percent canopy 

cover in mature forest” 

Response: We agree that dense canopy cover and large trees are key habitat features for 

spotted owls and that mature canopy cover (e.g., 70%) is strongly associated with owl 

occupancy in the literature. Spotted owl habitat in PACs and HRCAs, including key 

habitat elements, continues to be protected under the proposed Plan through the 

objectives, strategies, and standards and guidelines that assist in achieving the described 

desired conditions for these designated areas. We have revised a number of standards and 

guidelines related to late seral habitat as well as PACs to clarify the intention to protect 

late seral habitat where it occurs and PAC habitat. See revised and new strategies and 

standard and guideline portions of the following sections: Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and 

Fire Management Program Strategy and Biological Resources. We have also increased 

the canopy cover desired condition for goshawk and spotted owl PACs to 70%. Although 

the guidelines for PACs allow reduction of canopy cover below this desired condition, 

these circumstances would occur only to improve habitat over the long term by restoring 

structure and/or reducing risk from beetle outbreak and catastrophic fire, and would be 

evaluated in a project-specific basis. It should be noted that although we do have stands 

with ≥70% canopy cover, many of the forested areas in the LTBMU don’t have as much 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-126 ■ Response to Comments 

as 70% canopy cover in mature classes simply because of the geography and topography 

of the LTBMU (see Forest Vegetation section of the FEIS Chapter 3). Many of the 

PACs inhabited by spotted owls in the LTBMU have average canopy cover below 70%. 

PC 256: The Forest Service should clarify Plan and DEIS with regard to thinning of 

PACs and HRCAs. 

PC 270: The Forest Service should include the standard - "There should be NO logging 

permitted in CA Spotted Owl Protected Activity Centers." 

PC 454: The Forest Service should prohibit logging in CASPO PACs. 

Sample Comments: “Also, the Forest Plan does not provide adequate habitat protections 

for the California Spotted Owl. Both the CA Spotted Owl and the Black-backed 

Woodpeckers' main food supply is in burned forest areas. Therefore, another enforceable 

standard of the Forest Plan should be: "There should be NO logging permitted in CA 

Spotted Owl Protected Activity Centers."” (PC 270) 

“Some studies suggest that owls enjoy habitat that has been moderately burned. This is 

because their prey thrives in burned areas. In contrast when there is logging, studies 

show that spotted owls often abandon those degraded areas. This should be interpreted to 

mean that no logging should be allowed in areas where spotted owls live and this policy 

should be incorporated in all US Forest Service Forest Plans.” (PC 270) 

“PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW LOGGING IN THE CALIFORNIA SPOTTED OWL 

PROTECTED ACTIVITY CENTERS.” (PC 454) 

the DEIS misrepresents the potential impacts of the draft Plan in its assertion that 

“[w]hile canopy closure limits would only be retained for PACs and HRCAs, emphasis 

would be placed on maintaining and improving late seral habitats.” DEIS, p. 3-450 

(emphasis added). As discussed, the draft Plan standard authorizes logging in PACs 

which are unoccupied or, even if occupied, where necessary to the overall fire objective 

in the WUI or to reduce threats to adjacent forested stands caused by “pathogens, 

insects, disease and/or wildfire” anywhere in the Basin. See Plan, p. 101 (SG71.) 

Further, there are no “standards” for logging in HRCAs, and even the guideline for 

HRCAs states that “reduction in existing canopy cover in PACs and HRCAs” may be 

allowed “whenever the PACs and HRCAs do not meet the desired conditions for the Plan 

or whenever a reduction would improve habitat conditions to meet life history needs of 

the species.” See id. (SG69). The DEIS analysis completely ignores these gaping 

exceptions to maintenance of existing canopy cover, and thus does not meet NEPA’s 

informational requirements. (PC 256) 

“In regard to California spotted owls and martens, the DEIS fails to appropriately 

address the adverse consequences to the late-seral closed-canopy forest these species 

rely upon. For instance, the 1988 Forest Plan (p. IV-27) contained specific quantitative 

protections for management of old forest habitat. Much research has transpired since 

then showing just how important closed canopy forest is for spotted owls and martens 

and yet there are no protections for such habitat in the Draft Plan or DEIS.” (PC 256) 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-127 

Response: See response to PC 216, 232, 87, and 25 for clarification on the approach for 

removing/killing/girdling ≥30 inch diameter trees, creation of early seral openings, and 

removal of the Old Forest Emphasis Area Management designation in the proposed Plan. 

For response to comments regarding the retention of habitat for spotted owls and martens, 

please also see response to PC 74 (240). 

The standard related to vegetation treatments in PACs (see Part 3: Design Criteria/3.1 

Ecological Sustainability/Biological Resources Standards and Guidelines/Protected 

Activity Centers and Home Range Core Areas (PACs and HRCAs)) describes the limited 

circumstances under which vegetation treatments would be allowed in PACs. These 

circumstances include the following: when public safety is threatened within the 

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), to reduce threats to the persistence of stands, or when 

vegetation treatments (which could include mechanical treatment, hand thin treatment, 

and/or prescribed fire) would improve habitat condition for spotted owl [or Northern 

Goshawk]. Strategic treatments would be developed by IDT members (including a 

wildlife biologist) through the NEPA process and include resource protection measures to 

protect habitat features and habitat function for these species, and insure that PAC habitat 

continues to achieve or trend towards desired conditions. Where PAC habitat is 

deteriorating for the species, restoration treatments would be designed specifically to 

improve or maintain habitat condition and function for the spotted owl [or Northern 

Goshawk]. For example, restoration of PAC habitat could be undertaken if owls [or 

Northern Goshawk] have not reproduced in the previous three years, the PAC is not 

occupied and either desired conditions are not being met or treatments would help 

maintain desired conditions. Under this type of project, restoration prescriptions would 

be designed specifically to improve habitat features for the spotted owl (or Northern 

Goshawk). For example, treating a PAC stand could be designed to allow accelerated 

growth of the larger trees by reducing competition from smaller, pole sized trees and 

increasing the representation of important structural elements (e.g., snag and coarse 

woody debris creation) in the habitat. 

An LOP would be in effect for all treatments that are proposed within 1⁄4 mile of a spotted 

owl and/or northern goshawk nest or activity center, regardless of treatment purpose (e.g., 

restoration of PAC, wildland fire risk) unless it has been determined following a thorough 

biological review based on site-specific conditions that the activity would not disturb 

breeding (see Appendix E). 

We have updated the FEIS with recent analyses and syntheses of the effects of fires on 

spotted owls and used this information to update our analysis of effects from fire. We 

have also updated the FEIS with recent analyses and syntheses on the effects of 

vegetation management on spotted owls. The FEIS has also been updated to include 

additional analyses regarding the potential suite of activities proposed by the various 

alternatives keeping in mind that the Plan does not prescribe actions, and that any effects 

would be best understood at the project-level when the scope of activities and locations 

are fully understood. 

PC 174: The Forest Service should provide a balance between native wildlife protection 

and fuels management. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-128 ■ Response to Comments 

Sample Comments: “remember that national forests are supposed to managed for 

multiple uses -- including wildlife habitat -- and not just for timber harvesting.” 

“I am a member of the Sierra Club, but I do support selective logging of small areas (less 

than 17-20 acres) and allowing open space which reduces the danger of crown fires. The 

open space allows good forage for the spotted owls, and provides biodiversity. I support 

using the slash from logging for biofuel. This kind of logging supports local jobs as well 

as making the watershed safer from the destructive results of wildfire.” 

“We must establish a well balanced plan that protects the native wildlife and at the same 

time decrease wildfire endangerment of the Lake Tahoe region. Both can be 

accomplished with proper planning.” 

Response: Agreed. The Forest Plan has been designed to strike a balance between 

various multiple uses in the LTBMU, including the protection of habitat for sensitive 

wildlife species. The Plan includes a variety of desired conditions for wildlife habitat 

that the Plan’s objectives, strategies, and standards and guidelines would help achieve. 

Many of these measures are proactive in that they propose restoration of wildlife habitat 

and also integrative in that they address other potential management actions (e.g., fuels 

management) or uses in the context of wildlife habitat protection. The Plan includes a 

revised guideline (see Part3: Design Criteria/3.1 Ecological Sustainability/Forest 

Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management Standards and Guidelines) that states that 

wildlife objectives would increase in priority with increasing distance from communities 

and proximity to specific wildlife resources whereas fire and fuel objectives would 

increase in priority with increasing proximity to communities. Ultimately, the standards 

and guidelines are not the sole constraints on project-level activities, and project-level 

decisions generally include additional resource protection measures to minimize adverse 

impacts to sensitive species and habitat. 

PC 203: The Forest Service should protect and preserve old growth forest. 

Sample Comments: “The old growth forest needs protecting. Therefore, I ask you at 

least to recommend Wilderness protection for sensitive roadless areas in the Tahoe Basin 

including: Dardanelles-Meiss, Freel Peak, and Granite Chief Additions. Also, if you can, 

try to keep the surrounding roads and nearby areas as wild and natural as possible. The 

back-country areas need to be designated as "semi-primitive and non-motorized," 

prohibiting all motorized recreation, including snowmobiles. Old growth forests and the 

spotted owls go hand and hand and need to be protected.” 

“Fully protect old growth forests and the spotted owls and other wildlife that depend on 

them. Needed wildfire fuel reduction projects should retain large trees (over 30 inches in 

diameter) while focusing primarily on removing more fire-prone undergrowth adjacent to 

developed areas.” 

Response: For a response regarding Old Forest Emphasis Areas, please see the response 

to PC 25. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-129 

We agree that late seral habitat is important for many terrestrial wildlife species, 

especially the California spotted owl and American marten. We also agree that the Draft 

Plan was ambiguous about protective measures proposed for late seral habitat, especially 

given that we are not proposing to implement a one-size-fits all approach for quantitative 

upper limits on activities nor continue using the Old Forest Emphasis Areas (OFEA) 

designation. We realize that the approach in the proposed Plan is one that does not assign 

quantitative limits on canopy cover and/or basal area reduction. We believe this onesize-fits-all approach is infeasible for our current approach to manage vegetation as well 

as the species that utilize the variety of habitats in the LTBMU since each potential 

project will have different purposes and needs, site specific conditions, and resource 

protection needs. Still, we recognize that these activities required clarification in the Plan 

and our intent to protect late seral closed habitat, so we have revised and created new 

strategies and standards and guidelines for the protection of late seral habitat (see Revised 

Forest Plan, Section 3: Design Criteria/3.1 Ecological Sustainability/Forest Vegetation, 

Fuels, and Fire Management Standards and Guidelines and Biological Resources 

Standards and Guidelines/Conservation of Species and Habitat). 

PC 276: The Forest Service should only protect spotted owl populations as prescribed 

by science and true need. 

Sample Comments: “Spotted owl populations should be protected only as prescribed by 

science and true need, and the “established Protected Activity Centers and Home Range 

areas should be primarily managed to provide habitat for them. Maintain and evaluate 

the current management while updating the data to determine need.”” 

Response: We agree that science and the needs of spotted owl habitat condition in the 

LTBMU have, and will continue to drive the Forest Service’s approach for managing 

habitat for this species. We also agree that spotted owl PACs are managed to provide 

habitat for spotted owls. Indeed, PACS are designated areas on the landscape that are 

delineated around each territorial owl activity center and are maintained on the landscape 

for this species. With that said, the management approach for any resource in the 

LTBMU must consider the multiple uses that we as an agency are tasked to manage. 

Therefore, the management approach described in the proposed Plan represents a balance 

of numerous, very real needs facing the LTBMU. For example, in many instances, PACs 

overlap with the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) where the safety of the public is a 

priority. In addition, the habitat condition within some PACs has deteriorated over time 

such that these areas have not been found to support owls or in some cases reproduction. 

Therefore, in preparing our management approach, we considered protecting our 

communities while still maintaining the integrity of PAC habitat and also enhancing this 

habitat condition where possible. We have also used the scientific literature to guide the 

development of our desired conditions that also reflect the nature of the habitat in the 

LTBMU given our position on the crest of the Sierra Nevada. We believe our desired 

conditions, strategies, objectives, and standards and guidelines for spotted owl PACs 

represent the best possible management approach given all of our needs as a management 

unit. Furthermore, we heeded the information contained in the scientific literature when 

evaluating our desired conditions and potential actions to achieve them. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-130 ■ Response to Comments 

We also agree that monitoring spotted owl habitat and population trends will help us 

adapt our management approach as needed. Please see the Forest Plan Monitoring Plan 

(Appendix A). 

PC 501: The Forest Service should provide standards for how it was determined that 

selective thinning of trees below 30” (Alt A) and 12” (Alt D) would fail to perpetuate old 

growth habitat for associated species. 

Sample Comments: “Second, the DEIS fails to provide any objective standards for how 

it determined that selective thinning of trees below a maximum dbh (30” under Alt. A; 

12” dbh under Alt. D) would fail to meet the purpose and need of perpetuating “habitats 

which support old growth dependent species.”” 

Response: The DEIS emphasized that Alternatives B and C provided the greatest degree 

of flexibility in their ability to achieve desired conditions. In the absence of natural 

disturbance or alteration of disturbance schedules such as fire and pathogens, our forest 

stands are becoming increasingly dense and increasingly vulnerable to catastrophic, 

stand-replacing events at a level much higher than under a natural disturbance regime. 

Therefore, if the Revised Forest Plan (Alternative E) allows for some ability to remove 

larger trees (under limited circumstances), the stand has a greater chance of growing to 

late seral conditions because of the reduction in competition among overly stocked trees. 

PC 259: The Forest Service should support their conclusion that not implementing Alt B 

will result in inadequate owl habitat. 

Sample Comments: “DEIS also fails to take a hard look at impacts to spotted owls when 

it assumes, without any analysis or scientific support, that in the absence of implementing 

Alternative B, late seral closed canopy stands will not provide adequate habitat for owl 

(e.g., DEIS, p. 3-311).” 

Response: We acknowledge the comment and agree that the language in this section of 

the FEIS (Chapter 3/3.4.14Management Indicator Species/Environmental 

Consequences/Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat (California spotted 

owl, American marten, and northern flying squirrel)/Alternative B) could be improved 

with information from the analyses that were conducted as part of the Terrestrial Wildlife 

and Habitat section (3.4.23) that included more detailed analyses. Therefore, we have 

updated the analyses in this portion of the MIS section with analyses conducted for the 

Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat section. However, please refer to the Terrestrial Wildlife 

and Habitat section for additional analyses as well as additional supporting 

documentation for species accounts. 

PC 291: The Forest Service should incorporate as a forest-wide standard a limit on 

reducing more than 10% of the live tree basal area through forest management in 

nesting and roosting habitat, in order to avoid degrading high quality nesting/roosting 

habitat to minimally adequate habitat, and to prevent loss of occupancy (Seamans and 

Gutierrez 2007). 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-131 

Sample Comments: “We suggest the following changes to the DLRMP to provide more 

meaningful protections for Spotted Owls: ...Also, incorporate as a forest-wide standard 

a limit on reducing more than 10% of the live tree basal area through forest management 

in nesting and roosting habitat, in order to avoid degrading high quality nesting/roosting 

habitat to minimally adequate habitat, and to prevent loss of occupancy (Seamans and 

Gutierrez 2007). ...” 

Response: The reference provided by the commenter (Seamans and Gutierrez (2007)) 

evaluated the relationship (correlation) between the amount of mature conifer forest in a 

territory, alteration of mature conifer forest, and spotted owl territory occupancy and 

breeding dispersal. One model used in this study evaluated if the amount of mature forest 

altered in an individual territory had long term effects on colonization and extinction 

probability. This model included three categorical levels of treatment size: no alteration, 

between 0 and 20 hectare (ha) alteration, and ≥ 20 ha alteration of mature conifer forest. 

The study did not evaluate reduction in basal area as inferred by this comment nor the 

percent (10%) of a territory that experienced a reduction in basal area as inferred by this 

comment. As the authors point out: “However, our use of broad categories may not have 

adequately represented the effect of very large or very small changes in mature conifer 

forest. For example, alteration of 20 ha of mature conifer forest was considered the same 

as alteration of 80 ha.” Therefore, we are unable to evaluate the merit of selecting 10% as 

the limit on reducing live tree basal area. 

The desired conditions for basal area in the four major vegetation types is described in 

Table 2 of the Revised Forest Plan (Part 1: Vision/1.2 Desired Conditions/Ecological 

Sustainability/Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management). We acknowledge that 

the Plan’s standards and guidelines do not apply quantitative parameters for the amount 

(proportion) of required basal area retention. The reason for this omission is because we 

believe a one-size-fits-all approach on the landscape is not the most effective way to 

achieve our desired conditions for the major vegetation types (e.g., creation of early seral 

stage) and that this type of decision would be made on a project-specific basis when the 

scope, purpose and need, location, design, and sensitive resources are better understood. 

Still, we have added a number of new guidelines to the Plan to clarify the limitations on 

reducing basal area (and canopy cover), including a guideline that states that basal area 

would not be reduced beyond the level that would be required to maintain or improve 

habitat conditions for late seral-dependent wildlife species (see the Revised Forest Plan, 

Part 3: Design Criteria/3.1 Ecological Sustainability/Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire 

Management Standards and Guidelines). This guideline is not the sole constraint on 

potential projects. Rather, when a project is developed, new science regarding basal area 

retention (and other relevant habitat metrics) may become available and additional 

resource protection measures may be included in the design of a project at that time. 

PC 9: The Forest Service should improve the analysis of the effects to spotted owls. 

Sample Comments: “The DEIS (p. 3-230) states a goal of shifting forest types away from 

fir to pine-dominated forest, and away from dense forest to open forest. However, the 

DEIS does not divulge the adverse impacts of this on Spotted Owls, especially given that 

the Owls select highly dense, fir-dominated forests and tend to avoid pine-dominated 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-132 ■ Response to Comments 

forest (Verner et al. 1992, Irwin et al. 2007, Underwood et al. 2010 [Table 3 and Fig. 

4]). The adverse impacts of this goal on Spotted Owls are simply not adequately 

addressed.” 

Response: The Forest Vegetation section (3.4.11.) of chapter 3 of the FEIS states “The 

goal for forest vegetation in this plan is to restore forest structure and composition to 

conditions that are more resilient to future changes in climate and disturbance regimes.” 

Where the Plan and FEIS describe a goal of restoring the early seral stage, it is stated in 

both the FEIS and Plan that this stage would be created in the mid seral stage and not in 

late seral habitat. However, we have clarified in the Plan that locations for early seral 

creation would be selected as part of an IDT process in which important factors such as 

landscape connectivity and proximity to PACs or detections of late and mid seral 

associated species would be considered (see the Revised Forest Plan, Part 3: Design 

Criteria/3.1 Ecological Sustainability/Forest Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management 

Standards and Guidelines). Where the FEIS and Plan describe that restoration would 

include reducing stand densities and fuels periodically over the life of the Plan, the 

reduction would be achieved by primarily targeting smaller understory trees for removal 

so as to enhance the larger overstory trees. However, some larger trees could be removed 

in order to promote accelerated growing conditions for the stand and improve stand 

resiliency. Moreover, this restoration would be intended to reduce the risk of a stand 

replacing fire. We have added a guideline in the Plan to be clear that vegetation 

treatments would not reduce basal area (or canopy cover) of a stand beyond that which 

maintains or improves habitat conditions to support late seral associated species (see the 

Revised Forest Plan, Part 3: Design Criteria/3.1 Ecological Sustainability/Forest 

Vegetation, Fuels, and Fire Management Standards and Guidelines). 

As stated in the FEIS, spotted owl research indicates that “forests can be too dense as 

well as too open” for foraging spotted owls (Irwin et al. 2007) such that extremely dense 

stands typically are not used for foraging (Verner et al. 1992). 

White fir forests in the Sierra Nevada have become increasingly dense as well as 

common on the landscape. This shade tolerant species is now more abundant than some 

of the more fire-hardy species. The FEIS and Revised Forest Plan describe that 

restoration could include converting overabundant white fir types to more resilient pine 

or mixed conifer. To be clear, this conversion would not occur within late seral habitat 

and would include the conversion to mixed conifer, of which pine can be a major 

component. Restoration would not promote the homogenization of forest types on the 

landscape. Research in the Sierra Nevada has shown that spotted owls exist in mixed 

conifer forests that are also dominated by a mixture of pines (Seamans and Gutierrez 

2007, Williams et al. 2011). The Forest Service considers suitable California spotted owl 

habitat to include pine forests such as east-side pine. 

The Plan does not prescribe any restoration activities that could affect (positively or 

negatively) the spotted owl. Restoration projects would be evaluated at the project-level 

when the scope, location, sensitive resources, and potential resources are better 

understood. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-133 

PC 292: The Forest Service should add forest-wide standards and guidelines allowing 

and encouraging active snag creation in forest areas that otherwise meet the above 

definition of suitable California Spotted Owl nesting and roosting habitat but are deficient 

with regard to large snag basal area. 

Sample Comments: “We suggest the following changes to the DLRMP to provide more 

meaningful protections for Spotted Owls: ...Add forest-wide standards and guidelines 

allowing and encouraging active snag creation in forest areas that otherwise meet the 

above definition of suitable California Spotted Owl nesting and roosting habitat but are 

deficient with regard to large snag basal area...” 

Response: We agree with the comment that snags are an important habitat element for 

spotted owl and other wildlife in the LTBMU. The importance of this habitat component 

is already emphasized in the Plan, especially in the desired conditions (the drivers of the 

Plan) which reflect the conditions we strive to achieve. The desired condition for spotted 

owl habitat in PACs is described as having “higher than average levels of snags 

(preferably larger than 45 inches dbh) for the stand type...”(see the Revised Forest Plan, 

Part 1: Vision/1.2 Desired Conditions/Ecological Sustainability/Biological 

Resources/Protected Activity Centers and Home Range Core Areas (PACs and HRCAs)). 

In addition, we have amended language in the Plan to emphasize the active creation of 

snags (rather than tree removal) where trees larger than 30 inches in diameter are 

removed (see Part 3: Design Criteria/3.1 Ecological Sustainability/Forest Vegetation, 

Fuels, and Fire Management Standards and Guidelines). We believe all of the desired 

conditions, strategies, objectives, and standards and guidelines described in the Plan 

promote the creation and protection of snags in a way that benefits many species that 

prefer this habitat component while also allowing management of the LTBMU for 

multiple uses. 

PC 66: The Forest Service should consider an alternative like the 2001 Framework 

decision and 1) retains large trees; 2) allows for thinning of small to medium size trees; 

and 3) limits recreational expansion into wildlife habitat. 

PC 251: The Forest Service should provide canopy cover minimums for late seral “open” 

habitat, as were previously found by the CASPO Guidelines EA and 2001 Framework 

decisions. 

PC 290: The Forest Service should incorporate, as forest-wide standards, requirements 

to retain, in all current suitable Spotted Owl nesting and roosting habitat as defined in 

USDA (2001b [Volume 3, Table 4.4.2.1c]), at least 185-350 square feet per acre of live 

tree basal area, at least 20-30 square feet per acre of basal area in snags over 15 

inches in diameter, and at least 70% canopy cover, consistent with the description of 

suitable habitat in the scientific literature (Verner et al. 1992, USDA 2001b [Vol. 3, Table 

4.4.2.1c], Bond et al. 2004, Irwin et al. 2007). 

Sample Comments: “We suggest the following changes to the DLRMP to provide more 

meaningful protections for Spotted Owls: • Incorporate, as forest-wide standards, 

requirements to retain, in all current suitable Spotted Owl nesting and roosting habitat as 

defined in USDA (2001b [Volume 3, Table 4.4.2.1c]), at least 185-350 square feet per 

acre of live tree basal area, at least 20-30 square feet per acre of basal area in snags 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-134 ■ Response to Comments 

over 15 inches in diameter, and at least 70% canopy cover, consistent with the 

description of suitable habitat in the scientific literature (Verner et al. 1992, USDA 

2001b [Vol. 3, Table 4.4.2.1c], Bond et al. 2004, Irwin et al. 2007).”(PC 290) 

“As discussed, the draft Plan does not provide any canopy cover minimums for late seral 

“open” habitat, as was previously found by the CASPO Guidelines EA and 2001 

Framework decisions to be necessary to avoid significant adverse effects on late seral 

species.” (PC 251) 

“As discussed throughout our comments the draft Plan DEIS does not consider an 

alternative that reflects the full range of environmental resources uses and values that 

could be produced. For example, the DEIS does not consider an alternative that 

corresponds to the 2001 Framework decision, which generally allows substantial forest 

thinning of trees up to 20” dbh (USDA Forest Service 2001).” (PC 66) 

“ The Rule requirement is consistent with NEPA’s purpose that a full range of 

alternatives must be considered in relation to the most critical issues of forest 

management, including the preservation of wildlife viability. This range would be 

achieved by the Forest Service considering an alternative that 1) retains large trees; 2) 

allows for thinning of small to medium size trees; and 3) limits recreational expansion 

into wildlife habitat. In our view, Alternative D has been artificially constructed with 

unduly narrow constraints and is intended as a “dead-on-arrival” straw man choice 

rather than one of several rigorous attempts to balance wildlife protection with fire and 

forest health needs by exploring (for example: a 16” and a 20” cut limit coupled with 

higher levels of planned and managed fire) and modeling explicit fire behavior and forest 

health tree removal outcomes with these limits.” (PC 66) 

Response: The 2001 Framework was determined to be infeasible to implement because 

of the inability for adaptive management and was replaced by the 2004 SEIS. The 

LTBMU desired conditions for spotted owl PACs and other late seral associated species 

are based on those described in the 2004 SEIS. See Section 2.5 in the FEIS for further 

discussion of the limitations of the 2001 Framework decision. 

Refer to response to PC 253 for a discussion of estimating canopy cover reduction at the 

Forest Plan level and refer to responses to PCs 250, 254, 261 and 262 for a discussion of 

canopy cover definitions and potential modifications. 

PC 250: The Forest Service should evaluate the definition of closed canopy habitat. 

PC 254: The Forest Service should describe what is meant by moderate capability 

reproductive habitat and should cite to any established literature indicating that these 

late seral species have reproduced successfully in mixed conifer habitat at the lower 

margins of 4M. 

Sample Comments: “From a biological perspective, closed canopy forest would mean 

CWHR condition D, with canopy cover above 60 percent which is the required nesting 

habitat for owls and goshawks and, in mid-elevation forests such as in the mixed conifer 

forests of the Tahoe Basin, required denning habitat for marten. Yet the DEIS assumes 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-135 

the critical canopy threshold as either 40 percent or 50 percent, thereby providing no 

relevant information about the actual reproductive habitat that exists for late seral 

species i.e. late seral forest with canopy cover over 60 percent -- nor the amount of this 

habitat that will be reduced by Alternative B over time.” (PC 250) 

“the DEIS/BE fails to take a hard look at project impacts by characterizing CWHR 4M 

habitat as nesting or denning habitat of “moderate capability” for late seral, closed 

canopy species. The DEIS does not describe what is meant by moderate capability 

reproductive habitat and does not cite to any established literature indicating that these 

late seral species have reproduced successfully in mixed conifer habitat at the lower 

margins of 4M” (PC 254) 

Response: Table 3-42 in the Management Indicator Species section of the FEIS (Chapter 

3/3.4.14) describes late seral closed canopy forest as 5M/D as well as 6. With reference 

to meeting the needs of the species through our classification of habitat, Table 1 in 

Moriarty et al. (2011) describes high quality marten reproductive habitat as M (40-60%) 

and D (> 60%) canopy closure as well as 4 and 5 size classes. Marten have been found 

denning with kits in 4M habitat in the LTBMU. To clarify part of this comment related to 

marten habitat, the LTBMU would not be considered mid-elevation mixed conifer 

habitat; the LTBMU straddles the crest of the Sierra Nevada and ranges in elevation from 

6,225 feet at lake level to 10,881 feet at Freel Peak. Please see the Plan and FEIS Forest 

Vegetation Section for more information on the major forest types and elevation. The 

elevation, geography, and topography of the LTBMU influence the major forest types 

and features of these types. 

The Plan does not assume any critical thresholds for canopy cover. However, we do 

understand the value of dense canopy and mature forest structure to late seral species and 

have amended many of our standards and guidelines, and strategies to clarify the 

protection of this habitat. We have also increased the desired condition for PAC canopy 

cover to 70%. In terms of canopy cover, although we do have stands with ≥70% canopy 

cover, many of the forested areas here don’t have as much as 70% canopy cover in 

mature classes simply (see Forest Vegetation section of the FEIS Chapter 3). Many of 

the PACs in the LTBMU have average canopy cover between 40 and 59%. 

Moderate capability habitat is defined by CWHR and is described in the BE. 

For additional information on CWHR, please see responses to comments PC 201, 74, 

218, and 221. 

PC 252: The Forest Service should clarify the difference between open and closed 

canopy for wildlife. 

Sample Comments: “the DEIS lacks critical clarity in failing to identify what constitutes 

open versus closed canopy, terms that have no understood biological meaning for 

wildlife outside of the DEIS’s conflicting definitions.” 

Response: Table 3-42 in the Management Indicator Species section of the FEIS (Chapter 

3/3.4.14) describes late seral closed canopy forest as 5M/D and 6 and late seral open 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-136 ■ Response to Comments 

canopy habitat as 5S/P. We acknowledge that our definition of open and closed canopy 

habitat described for terrestrial wildlife using CWHR and the definition for open and 

closed canopy forest types is slightly different and wasn’t clearly described in the DEIS. 

We have included a description of this difference in the FEIS (Chapter 

3/3.4.22/Terrestrial Wildlife). 

PC 253: The Forest Service should assess how much late-seral closed canopy habitat 

will be lost due to forest thinning. 

Sample Comments: “Here, the public does not have adequate information about whether 

the Forest Service is considering 4M or 5M habitat to be “open” or “closed” or whether 

5M habitat should be considered partly within the “late seral - closed canopy” definition 

or not. This is particularly relevant due to the BE’s assertions that both spotted owl and 

marten can find acceptable nesting and denning habitat in 4M and 5M habitats. While we 

strongly disagree with that assertion, the DEIS does not even allow an assessment of how 

much of this habitat will be lost due to forest thinning.” 

Response: It is not possible to estimate the habitat loss since the Revised Forest Plan 

does not prescribe projects or management activities. Furthermore, alteration of habitat is 

not always considered loss. CWHR types (including 4M and 5M) and the lumping of 

these types into open and closed canopy and the various seral stages are described in an 

additional table (3-35) in section 3.4.11 (Forest Vegetation) of the FEIS. Section 3.4.23 

(Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat) includes additional clarifying information for the 

distinction in CWHR types as they are used in model output. 

Regarding the results of the SPECTRUM model, we incorrectly stated in the DEIS that 

late seral closed canopy would decrease as a result of thinning this seral stage to create 

late seral open canopy habitat. We also incorrectly interpreted the model output in the 

DEIS. We have reviewed and clarified the model data source and parameters 

(prescriptions, disturbances, restrictions) and can now more accurately explain the model 

output. The model output indicates that during a fifty year period following Plan 

implementation (excluding decade 1) late seral closed canopy forest for all of the major 

forest types combined would not change from current condition under Alternatives B and 

E. We have provided additional clarifying information for the SPECTRUM model in 

section 3.4.11 (Forest Vegetation) of the FEIS. We have also described predicted trends 

for the seral stages based on model output in section 3.4.23 (Terrestrial Wildlife) of the 

FEIS and in the Biological Evaluation for Terrestrial Wildlife Species. 

PC 102: The Forest Service should identify and protect wildlife habitats and corridors so 

native wildlife may thrive in changing climatic conditions. 

PC 302: The Forest Service should provide wildlife migration/movement corridors. 

Sample Comments: “Wildlife corridors need to be addressed.” (PC 302) 

“species and ecological communities will move in response to climate change. The 

Forest Service should facilitate these movements by working to connect discontinuous 

areas of similar terrestrial and aquatic habitat and by establishing protections for likely 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-137 

movement corridors. (See, e.g., USDA Forest Service 2010, p. 27–28: “Collaborate with 

partners to develop land management plans that establish priority locations for 

maintaining and restoring habitat connectivity to mitigate effects of climate change. Seek 

partnerships with private landowners to provide migration corridors across.”) In 

establishing these mitigation corridors, the Forest Service should ensure there is a 

continuous pathway between nearby core areas.” (PC 102) 

“The plan should provide corridors connecting protected areas, such as the Granite 

Chief and Desolation Wildernesses, so that native wildlife stressed by climate change 

may move to higher, cooler temperatures if this is indicated by the knowledge we have 

based on our experience and best practice;”. (PC 102) 

Response: We agree. The Plan contains a number of desired conditions, strategies, 

objectives, and standards and guidelines related to habitat connectivity, including 

movement corridors. The Plan has also been revised to include measures specific to 

climate change needs. 

PC 255: FS should recognize deficiencies in CWHR system. 

Sample Comments: “The California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CWHR), the 

basic classification system in the BE/DEIS used to establish baseline habitat conditions 

for late seral species, is a coarse system that fails to take into account the wide range of 

habitat conditions embodied by each of the habitat classes. This failing of the CWHR 

system has been identified by other scientists: The forest is broadly categorized using the 

dominant tree size class, and canopy cover is approximated through interpretation of 

aerial photographs or modeled indirectly with the Forest Vegetation Simulator into 

broad cover classes (see limitations of this approach in chapter 14 under “Canopy Cover 

and Closure”). These are rough estimates of a forest’s habitat taken at a fixed point in 

time and do not consider features such as snags, down wood, or understory diversity that 

are often linked to wildlife use. Consequently, the use of CWHR for making reliable, 

project level predictions on the potential habitat impacts of forest management activities 

on a wildlife community is limited (North 2012, p. 75).” 

Response: We chose to use the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) 

system because it a well-established, standardized system of wildlife habitat definitions 

and sampling protocols that has been tested and used for wildlife habitat monitoring by 

California Department of Fish and Game (Wildlife), the Forest Service, and many state 

and federal partners for over 20 years. Habitat trend data using CWHR definitions and 

protocols exists. 

The CWHR System includes a standardized habitat classification scheme for California, 

containing 59 habitats, structural stages for most habitats, and 124 special habitat 

elements, which is summarized in Mayer and Laudenslayer (1988). The 59 wildlife 

habitats in the CWHR System (27 tree, 12 shrub, 6 herbaceous, 4 aquatic, 8 agricultural, 

1 developed, and 1 nonvegetated) are used with predictive models for terrestrial 

vertebrate wildlife species. In addition, stages and special habitat elements are defined. 

Stages are defined for virtually all habitats. A stage is a combination of size and cover 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-138 ■ Response to Comments 

class for tree-dominated habitats, age and cover class for shrub habitats, height and cover 

class for herbaceous habitats, and depth and substrate for aquatic habitats. A field 

sampling protocol is well established for determining stages in all vegetated habitats. A 

complete description of the CWHR System can be found at 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata. 

The CWHR System was initiated in the early 1980s to provide a formalized and generally 

agreed-upon compendium of knowledge about the distribution and habitat preferences of 

California’s terrestrial vertebrates (Graber 1996). CWHR has been used for several large 

wildlife resource conservation efforts including California’s GAP effort, the legislatively 

authorized Timberland Task Force effort, and the Sierra Nevada Framework and Forest 

Plan Amendment efforts. It is one of the primary biological data sets used in an 

assessment of California’s biodiversity for the “Atlas of the Biodiversity of California.” 

CWHR is used in sustained yield planning efforts by several large private timber 

companies and is part of regulations adopted by the California Board of Forestry. 

PC 266: The Forest Service should consider how their literature citations for goshawk 

are applied. 

Sample Comments: “The DEIS Fails to Take a Hard Look at Impacts of the Plan on 

Northern Goshawk. For similar reasons as for marten and owl, the DEIS fails to take a 

hard look at how logging will adversely affect northern goshawk. Instead, the DEIS 

makes no distinction between nesting and foraging habitat for goshawk, and wrongly 

assumes that goshawks may nest successfully in mixed conifer, western slope forests 

down to 40 percent canopy cover. This approach directly contradicts the most relevant 

study, Keane (1999), which found that goshawk nest areas in Lake Tahoe (0.25 acre) 

characterized by high canopy closure (mean=70.4 percent). The literature cited in the 

BE on Goshawk demonstrates that forest thinning has the potential for significant effects 

on the nesting success of this species, yet the DEIS provides no analysis of how goshawks 

may survive over time, given the extent of logging proposed – including in PACs – and 

without any adaptive management monitoring plan in place to measure the cause and 

effect impacts.” 

Response: Many of the PACs in the LTBMU have an average cover below 70% and still 

have reproduction by goshawk pairs. However, we agree that canopy cover is an essential 

part of forest structure for goshawk and have increased our desired condition for canopy 

cover to 70%. In terms of effects analysis, impacts on goshawks are described in the 

FEIS and in detail in the Biological Evaluation. 

PC 258: The Forest Service should consider how their literature citations for California 

Spotted Owl are applied. 

Sample Comments: “The DEIS also fails to take a hard look at the available science in 

asserting that owl nesting may be successful in forests with 30 percent canopy, based on 

Chatfield, 2005. This study did not in fact find that owls may reproduce successfully in 

PACs with 30 percent canopy coverage. Instead, the 30 percent coverage in Chatfield 

2005 only refers to dominant late seral trees; the remaining sub-dominant canopy in 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-139 

these forests were over 70 percent. Further, subsequent studies in the same El Dorado 

study area have determined that owls require 70 percent overall canopy for successful 

reproduction. See Seamans (2005).” 

 “Finally, the DEIS mischaracterizes the existing setting for owls in describing their 

current regional population status as stable and fails to address recent studies showing 

owl disappearance from logged forests in Plumas and El Dorado County.” 

“The DEIS (pp. 3-310 and 3-311) claims that late-successional/old-growth stands with 

high basal area and high canopy cover—i.e., California spotted owl nesting and roosting 

habitat, such as that found in PACs and HRCAs (Verner et al. 1992, Bond et al. 2004, 

Irwin et al. 2007)—is at “a higher risk of vulnerability from bark beetles” and other tree 

mortality effects stemming ostensibly from dense forest conditions. The DEIS claims that 

restrictions on commercial logging in such Owl nesting/roosting habitat in Alt. A will 

“result in a more rapid decline in late seral conditions” than the intensive-logging 

alternatives, Alt. B and Alt. C. A similar statement is made on p. 3-312 of the DEIS with 

regard to Alt. D (“...dense stand conditions under this alternative could have disastrous 

consequences on the longevity and health of this habitat”). However, there are major 

analytical problems with these statements. First, the DEIS provides no citations to any 

scientific studies or other scientific analysis to support these statements. Second, the 

statements make no sense in light of the fact that, on the very same pages, the DEIS states 

that, in “late seral closed canopy forest”, Alt. A would result in an “increase by 

approximately 9% over the next 30 years” (DEIS, p. 3-310 [emphasis added]), and Alt. D 

would result in an “increase by approximately 7%...over the next 30 years” in such highquality Spotted Owl habitat (DEIS, p. 3-312 [emphasis added]). In contrast, the DEIS 

states that “late seral closed canopy forest” is expected to decline by 15% and 22% for 

Alt. B and Alt. C, respectively (DEIS, pp. 3-311 and 3-312). Third, these pages in the 

DEIS completely fail to account for, address, or acknowledge the following: a) highseverity fire is a minority of fire effects currently in Sierra Nevada conifer forests, and 

most fire effects are low/moderate (Odion and Hanson 2006, Odion and Hanson 2008, 

Collins et al. 2009, Collins and Stephens 2010); b) mixed-severity fire does not reduce 

Spotted Owl occupancy (Roberts et al. 2011, Bond et al. 2012 in press); c) mixed-severity 

fire increases Spotted Owl reproductive output by 60% (Roberts 2008 [43% 

moderate/high-severity fire, on average]); d) Spotted owls preferentially select 

unsalvaged moderate- and high-severity fire patches for foraging (Bond et al. 2009); e) 

long-unburned forests (i.e., those that have “missed” multiple fire return intervals) burn 

mostly at low/moderate-severity in the Sierra Nevada, and do not have higher levels of 

high-severity fire than less fire-suppressed forests (Odion et al. 2004, Odion and Hanson 

2006, Odion and Hanson 2008, Odion et al. 2010, Miller et al. 2012, van Wagtendonk et 

al. 2012); and f) current snag levels on the LTBMU are well below the optimal levels for 

Spotted Owls (i.e., owl habitat would benefit from additional snag recruitment from tree 

mortality), as discussed in detail above. 

 “The DEIS fails to adequately analyze the recent scientific evidence showing that all 

three California spotted owl demography study areas within national forest lands in the 

Sierra Nevada (i.e., within areas subjected to intensive mechanical thinning and post-fire 

logging) have lambda values below 1.0 now (lambda values below 1.0 are associated 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-140 ■ Response to Comments 

with declining populations), while the only study area that is in protected forest 

(Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Park) has a lambda value above 1.0 (lambda values 

above 1.0 are associated with increasing populations) (see Keane 2011, Sherer et al. 

2011, Gutierrez et al. 2012, and Munton et al. 2012).” 

“In light of recent science indicating that California Spotted Owls benefit from closedcanopied old forest for nesting and roosting and preferentially select unlogged moderateseverity and high-severity fire areas for foraging (Bond et al. 2009), and that mixedseverity fire (with an average of 32% high-severity effects) does not reduce California 

Spotted Owl occupancy in the Sierra Nevada, unlike post-fire logging (Bond et al. 2012, 

in press), the DEIS fails to articulate a sound or clear ecological rationale for intensively 

managing the suitable Spotted Owl habitat (including PACs AND HRCAs) to reduce 

stand density and canopy cover, as well as preclude high-severity fire in all fuels 

treatments and prescribed fire.” 

“Rather than address the issue of habitat loss, the Forest Service seems to be suggesting 

that high-severity fire will harm the owl and that therefore areas must be logged in order 

to prevent high-severity fire. The only cite that is provided for the assertion that “highseverity fires can have a pronounced negative effect on spotted owl populations” is Lee 

and Irwin 2005. However, Lee and Irwin 2005 is simply a modeling effort that assumed 

that fire is harmful to owls – the study itself did not investigate what the actual 

relationship is between fire and owls. “ 

Response: We agree that 30% canopy cover would be relatively low for successful 

nesting of owl pairs. We have updated the FEIS and BE species accounts and analyses of 

effects to indicate the potential effects of canopy reduction on spotted owls and other late 

seral associated species. We have also revised and created standards and guidelines to 

clarify our intent to protect late seral closed canopy habitat and PAC canopy closure. The 

desired condition for PAC canopy closure has been increased to 70%. Although there is 

a standard in the Plan that canopy may be reduced below the desired condition, this 

would occur where needed to improve habitat and/or set the trajectory for the 

improvement of late seral closed canopy habitat. That said, many of the PACs in the 

LTBMU, and with reproductively active pairs have average canopy cover less than 70%. 

The discussion of heterogeneity and spotted owl habitat use has been removed from the 

FEIS and modified in the BE to better reflect the benefits of habitat heterogeneity within 

the relevant context given that the benefit is dependent on locations and type of habitat 

structure that comprises a heterogeneous landscape. 

Regarding the results of the SPECTRUM model, we incorrectly stated in the DEIS that 

late seral closed canopy would decrease as a result of thinning this seral stage to create 

late seral open canopy habitat. We also incorrectly interpreted the model output in the 

DEIS. We have reviewed and clarified the model data source and parameters 

(prescriptions, disturbances, restrictions) and can now more accurately explain the model 

output. The model output indicates that during a fifty year period following Plan 

implementation (excluding decade 1) late seral closed canopy forest for all of the major 

forest types combined would not change from current condition under Alternatives B and 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-141 

E. We have provided additional clarifying information for the SPECTRUM model in 

section 3.4.11 (Forest Vegetation) of the FEIS. We have also described predicted trends 

for the seral stages based on model output in section 3.4.23 (Terrestrial Wildlife and 

Habitat) of the FEIS and in the Biological Evaluation for Terrestrial Wildlife Species. For 

a discussion of the regional status of spotted owls, please see response to PC 521. 

Regional trend information has also been added to the FEIS and BE. For a discussion of 

the potential for a decline in late seral conditions with limited ability to treat late seral 

stands, please see the Forest Vegetation section of the FEIS Chapter 3 and Table 2-3. 

We have revised the species account for spotted owls and effects analysis in the FEIS 

regarding fire effects (and vegetation treatment effects) on spotted owls to more 

accurately reflect current research findings. 

It appears that we were not clear in our discussion of PAC restoration in the DEIS (p. 3-

448) since the commenter interprets the language used to infer that the USFS proposes to 

convert nesting and roosting habitat to foraging habitat. On the contrary, restoration of 

PACs would be intended to improve nesting habitat. The paragraph creating the 

confusion, and citations used, was intended to report research findings that forest stands 

can be too dense (as well as too open) for a variety of spotted owl life history needs 

including nesting and foraging. We have removed this paragraph so that further 

confusion is avoided. 

PC 521: The Forest Service should consider the regional status of spotted owls and why 

the proposed Plan will not lead to a trend toward federal listing or jeopardize the 

persistence of spotted owl in the Tahoe Basin. 

Sample Comments: “As discussed, the draft Plan does not ensure the viability of 

spotted owls in the Tahoe Basin because it proposes significant amounts of logging in 

owl habitat that studies show will render much of this habitat unsuitable for owls. 

Meanwhile, the most recent monitoring for owls is showing that implementation of the 

2004 Framework fuel reduction logging may already be having negative population 

effects on owls at the regional level.” 

“The population of owls has been monitored on four study areas in the Sierra Nevada 

over the last 20 years. The results of the three demographic studies on national forests 

in the Sierra Nevada confirm the existence of a decline in the population over the last 20 

years (Keane et al.2011, Gutiérrez et al. 2012, Keane 2012, Munton et al. 2012, Scherer 

et al. 2012). In contrast, results from the single study in the Sierra Nevada on national 

park land indicate that the population is stable to increasing.” 

 “The biological evaluation (Wildlife BE) and DEIS for the LTBMU Forest Plan 

revision fails to explain how, given the backdrop of population declines, the adverse 

impacts to owl habitat being proposed – coupled with the paucity of high quality habitat 

currently in the landscape – will not lead to a trend toward federal listing or jeopardize 

the persistence of spotted owl in the Tahoe Basin.” 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-142 ■ Response to Comments 

Response: The Revised Plan focuses on the restoration of the major ecosystems within 

the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Part of these restoration efforts will be 

accomplished by conducting vegetation treatments. As stated in the Forest Vegetation 

section of the FEIS (Chapter 3), “the goal for forest vegetation in this plan is to restore 

forest structure and composition to conditions that are more resilient to future changes in 

climate and disturbance regimes.” The proposed Plan does not authorize or prescribe 

specific restoration projects to achieve this goal nor assign locations for projects. In other 

words, the Plan does not prescribe activities that may or may not affect sensitive 

resources, including wildlife. 

The late seral, dense forests in the Sierra Nevada are at risk to stand-replacing fire 

because of heavy fuel loading (Roberts and North 2013). Catastrophic fire is considered 

the greatest potential threat to the California spotted owl (DOI 2006). 

In the Sierra Nevada, between 1999 and 2002, 18 spotted owl PACs were severely 

affected by wildfire and could be considered “lost” (USDA Forest Service 2004, SEIS 

pp. 145). 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. 

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 (2007a) 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 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 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-143 

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”. 

It should be noted that the slide presented by John Keane (Figure 7) and used by the 

commenter was flawed as presented. There was a mistake in the calculation of 

confidence intervals around the annual estimates of realized population change because 

an incorrect error term was used (Keane and Conner 2012). Use of the correct error term 

does not change the annual point estimates, but fully accounts for the variation in these 

estimates and results in larger confidence intervals (Keane and Conner 2012). 

The 2001 and 2004 Framework allowed for potential short term modifications to habitat 

and impacts to reduce fuels and the risk of stand replacing, catastrophic fires and the 

USFWS indicated that short term effects of treatments could be incurred for the long term 

benefit of reducing the risk of catastrophic fire in owl habitat. The US Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) determined in the 12-month finding for petition to list the California 

spotted owl as threatened or endangered (2006) that the species did not warrant listing at 

that time and noted that wildfire was a major threat facing this species. At the time of the 

12-month finding, results from the draft meta-analysis reported in Blakeseley et al. 

(2006) indicated that the Lassen National Forest population could be experiencing a 

potential population decline but at that time the best available data indicated that the 

California spotted owl populations are stationary throughout the Sierras and there was no 

strong evidence for decreasing linear trends in lambda. 

A meta-analysis of spotted owl population data at four demography study areas (Sierra 

National Forest, Eldorado National Forest, Lassen National Forest, and Sequoia-Kings 

Canyon National Park) from 1990 to 2005 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 includes 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 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 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-144 ■ Response to Comments 

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 (lambda) 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. 

Even if there are declining population segments in some portions of the owl’s range, 

there is no clear evidence that the cause of such potential declines is recent vegetation 

treatment on National Forest System lands. Some factors adversely affecting the owl, 

such as harsh winters and urban encroachment could be factors. Another increasingly 

important factor is the barred owl (Strix varia), which displaces spotted owls from 

primate habitat. Barred owls were previously abundant in more northern latitudes, but 

have continued their southward expansion into the Sierra Nevada. As a result, barred 

owls have been out-competing spotted owls from British Columbia, Canada to central 

California. This is a particularly important factor in the Lassen National Forest study 

area where barred owls and spotted-barred hybrids have been documented. Gutierrez 

(2011) has stated that the cause of the potential decline in the Eldorado National Forest 

population is not known. Keane (2013) states that the cause(s) of the suspected declines 

is not known, but later goes on to say that timber harvest, fire suppression, and the 

expansion of the barred owl could be a factor. 

On the LTBMU we have predominantly moderate habitat for the spotted owl as indicated 

by the high proportion of moderate habitat in PACs (see Biological Evaluation for 

Terrestrial Wildlife Species), areas that have been selected by owls to nest and that have 

been subsequently protected. Still, the approach under the proposed Plan is one in which 

PACs would be protected as well as restored for the benefit of the species, to improve 

moderate capability habitat, sustain high capability habitat, and reduce the risk of a 

massive incident of catastrophic fire, drought stress, or insect outbreak. 

We realize that the potential for the killing of trees larger than 30 inches in diameter, 

reducing canopy cover, and restoration of PACs seems counter to the protection of the 

habitat components very strongly associated with spotted owl habitat. Our intention is to 

protect these habitat features into the future for sustained habitat quality, and improved 

habitat quality for spotted owls and other sensitive terrestrial wildlife species. We have 

revisee the Plan (Alternative E) and the FEIS to clarify that wildlife needs would be key 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-145 

drivers in the development of these projects and that all projects would be developed 

through the work of an interdisciplinary team and be subject to NEPA. 

For a discussion of viability, please refer to Appendix E. We would like to clarify that 

the San Bernardino spotted owl population is still in existence although no demography 

studies have been conducted since the mid-1990s. 

PC 237: The Forest Service should ensure the viability of cavity nesting birds. 

Sample Comments: “I am especially concerned about cavity nesting birds. In the area 

where I live, a checkerboard of private and Forest Service lands, near the Mt. Rose 

Highway, I have noticed over the years that with the clearing of much of the standing 

dead trees how quiet it has become. Ten and twenty years ago, sitting on my deck I 

constantly heard the sounds of chickadees and nuthatches and saw brown creepers 

moving along tree trunks. Today it is a real treat when I see one, because these birds that 

were once ubiquitous are not frequently seen in our neighborhood. I understand that this 

is only anecdotal evidence, and I fully accept the importance in a residential area to 

manage the potential fuel loads. For more rare species in undeveloped areas, however, 

it seems that fewer compromises need be made in terms of maintaining habitat for birds.” 

Response: Our measures are designed to protect habitat for wildlife. For an evaluation 

of species viability, please see Appendix E. 

We have greater flexibility outside the WUI where public safety concerns are fewer. In 

this area, many projects would be tailored towards achieving wildlife habitat desired 

conditions. We have a guideline in the Plan emphasizing that wildlife objectives increase 

in priority with increasing distance from communities and proximity to specific wildlife 

resources (e.g., nest and/or roost sites) (see Section 3: Design Criteria/3.1 Ecological 

Sustainability/Forest Vegetation, Fuels, Fire Management Standards and Guidelines). 

Moreover, we have a number of standards and guidelines (and a desired condition) 

related to the retention of snag habitat and consideration given to installing nest boxes for 

cavity nesting birds when snags are absent from a project site (on a project-specific 

basis). We have revised our standard related to restoration of habitat following a wild 

fire to more clearly articulate the role of wildlife objectives/concerns (including cavity 

nesting birds) in developing such projects and determining implementation timelines (see 

Section 3: Design Criteria/3.1 Ecological Sustainability/Biological Resources Standards 

and Guidelines/Conservation of Species and Habitat). 

PC 247: The Forest Service should ensure viability of willow flycatcher. 

Sample Comments: “The draft Plan proposes to drop willow flycatcher as an MIS 

species for wet meadows. As discussed above, the habitat needs of the flycatcher and MIS 

designated species, Pacific tree frog, are very different, and thus activities such as 

vegetation removal that might not affect the tree frog could have significant effects on the 

flycatcher. In the absence of MIS monitoring for this species, the potential management 

effects of management activities on flycatchers cannot be measured and viability not 

ensured.” 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-146 ■ Response to Comments 

Response: Willow flycatcher, a state-listed species, was not selected as the MIS for wet 

meadows because it is a rare species that has been detected in few areas on the LTBMU. 

It would not be expected to be found on all or even most of the wet meadows on the 

LTBMU nor in the Sierra Nevada. Because willow flycatcher does not always occur 

where one would expect based on habitat quality and quantity, it is likely that factors 

other than the effects of Forest Service management activities on habitat are influencing 

its population trends and relationship to habitat changes. 

The willow flycatcher is a Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) species. These species are 

managed by Forest Service policy to conserve the species so that they do not become 

endangered or threatened because of Forest Service actions. It is also Forest Service 

policy to manage NFS lands such that habitats of FSS species remain well distributed 

throughout their geographic range on NFS lands (FSM 2670.22). In addition, as a Forest 

Service Sensitive species, current monitoring data will continue to be collected and used 

to inform management, although the level and type of wildlife (and other) monitoring 

will depend on available funds, evolving protocols, available partnerships, etc. 

Monitoring of and survey for TES species have objectives that are different than the 

regulatory requirement for MIS (monitoring of population trends and determining 

relationship to habitat changes). These different objectives lead to differences in 

appropriate monitoring scales, protocols, sampling designs, etc. In addition, it is often 

difficult to determine population trends and relationship to habitat changes for rare 

species, such as TES species, because of difficulties in obtaining statistically significant 

sample sizes. 

As the forest plan is implemented through projects, Forest Service policy (FSM 2670.32) 

states that all programs and activities will be reviewed as part of the NEPA process to 

determine the potential effect of such proposed activities on sensitive species. Further, 

policy states that the impacts of such activities must be avoided or minimized and that 

any permitted activities must not result in a loss of viability or create significant trends 

toward Federal listing. For an evaluation of viability, please see Appendix E. 

PC 245: The Forest Service should ensure viability of Sierra Nevada yellow- legged frog. 

Sample Comments: “In our view, MIS monitoring for the Pacific tree frog will not be 

adequate to determine impacts to the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog due to their 

vastly different habitat requirements and greater sensitivity to aquatic pollution and 

pathogens.”

Response: Please refer to the FEIS MIS section of Chapter 3; we have included a 

statement that addresses why the list of MIS selected is appropriate for the LTBMU. 

PC 8&240: The Forest Service should ensure viability of spotted owls in the Basin. 

PC 207: The Forest Service should ensure the viability of species present on the 

LTBMU. 

PC 219: The Forest Service should ensure the viability of CASPO, BBW and marten on 

the LTBMU. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-147 

PC 240: The Forest Service should ensure viability of species relying on late seral, 

closed canopy forest, including California spotted owl, American marten, northern 

goshawk and northern flying squirrel. 

PC 244: The Forest Service should ensure viability of sensitive species affected by 

outdoor recreation. 

PC 245: The Forest Service should ensure viability of Sierra Nevada yellow- legged frog. 

PC 286: The Forest Service should use monitoring information to actually achieve 

species viability by adopting a viability standard. 

PC 288: The Forest Service should add a forest-wide standard (not a guideline) 

requiring the Forest Service to maintain at least viable populations of all MIS on the 

LTBMU planning area. 

PC 297: The Forest Service should provide adequate snags to ensure viability of 

California spotted owl. 

PC 298: The Forest Service should include a standard that protects dense closed 

canopy forest habitat from logging to ensure viability of the California spotted owl. 

“Most importantly, the new plan needs to include an enforceable forest-wide standard 

requiring the Forest Service to maintain viable populations of the native wildlife species 

that live in the LTMBU, such as the California spotted owl and the black-backed 

woodpecker.” (PC 207) 

“As discussed below, Alternative B proposes to expand recreation in the Basin, including 

the use of motorized vehicles and snowmobiles, and expansion of ski area development. 

This expansion has the potential to threaten the viability of species sensitive to 

recreational impacts, particularly noise, including but not limited to the bald eagle, 

osprey, peregrine falcon, Northern Goshawk and American marten (as discussed.)” (PC 

244) 

“The Sierra Nevada mountain yellow-legged frog is imperiled in Tahoe. However, the 

draft Plan does not contain any monitoring requirements to ensure that management 

activities will be effectively implemented and successful in ensuring continued viability of 

the remaining populations....Without monitoring to determine whether these measures 

are being effectively implemented, the LTBMU cannot ensure the future viability of this 

species.” (PC 245)

“The DEIS (pp. 3-277 through 3-280) discusses selection of MIS and monitoring of MIS. 

Yet, without a clear, substantive forest-wide standard requiring that viable populations of 

MIS be maintained on the LTBMU planning area, MIS populations could be monitored, 

but not maintained, thus leading to extinction or extirpation from this forest ...” (PC 286) 

“The revised plan needs to include a standard requiring the Forest Service to maintain 

viable populations of the native wildlife and plant species that occur on the LTMBU, and 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-148 ■ Response to Comments 

that provides flexibility should previously unidentified species be found, should new 

threats arise, or should new science emerge.” (PC 288) 

“In our view, the non-existent standards and loose guidelines do not ensure that future 

logging will avoid rendering existing late seral habitat unsuitable for late seral, closed 

canopy species for the foreseeable future, thus leading to the loss of viable and well 

distributed late seral species populations in the Basin.” (PC 8 (combined with 240)) 

 “The standards and guidelines that relate to the California spotted-owl are not 

scientifically supportable and will not ensure that the viability of this species will be 

maintained...” PC 8 (combined with 240) 

“...in order to ensure viability of martens, a standard should exist that maintains dense, 

late-seral forest and retains large snags, diverse tree structure, large downed woody 

material, and patches of decadent trees in marten habitat.”(PC 8 (combined with 240)) 

“Consequently, a standard that protects dense closed canopy forest habitat from logging 

is necessary to ensure viability of the owl.” (PC 298) 

“Yet the Draft Plan does not provide for such snag protection in spotted owl habitat thus 

further undermining the species’ viability.” (PC 297) 

“There is no analysis in the DEIS or Draft Plan that forms the basis for a rational 

conclusion that there exist sufficient standards and guidelines to ensure and maintain 

viable populations of species, including specifically the black-backed woodpecker, 

California spotted owl, and marten.”(PC 219, viability comment only) 

Response: The design of the Revised Forest Plan (LRMP) was created to maintain 

species viability where that is possible and it is based on the best available science at the 

time of writing. The LRMP’s standard and guidelines (S&G) with associated desired 

condition, strategies, objectives, and limited operating periods (Appendix E – E.2.5) 

have been developed for maintaining viability but effects on viability cannot be 

determined at this programmatic scale since the plan does not authorize any activities that 

might actually cause adverse impacts to species or habitats (refer to Appendix O). Rather, 

any impacts to species (beneficial or otherwise) only come from site-specific activities 

and project-level decisions, of which the scope, location, and design are unclear at the 

time of the LRMP approval. 

The specifications (i.e. desired conditions; S&Gs) in the LRMP have set the parameters 

on the scope of future project activities, and in no way require (or even encourage) 

projects to be designed to maximize outputs. The LRMP is not the sole constraint on 

project-level activities and project-level decisions can (and usually do) include additional 

design features to minimize adverse impacts to species. 

It is understood that new science is likely to be developed between the time of writing the 

LRMP and the time when projects are implemented, which can lead not only to different 

project design features but also to LRMP amendments as necessary to maintain viability 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-149 

of the selected species. It is also understood that the LTBMU is much smaller in size than 

most Forest Service units and it does not (cannot) provide for viability within the 

planning unit area for many of the wide ranging native vertebrate species based on its 

small size and geographic location between the Great Basin of Nevada and the Sierra 

Nevada mountain range. However, the LTBMU does function and provide for 

conservation of species over time by providing for habitat to support species reproductive 

individuals and provide for connectivity to surrounding habitat that allows for greater 

interaction and reproductive function for wide ranging species. 

Water Quality and Soil Erosion; Watershed Condition 

PC 184: The Forest Service should expand the water quality analysis in the EIS. 

Response: The LTBMU presented the results of numerous analyses related to water 

quality as described in the FEIS in Section 3.4.24. Analyses relevant to water quality 

include many metrics including water chemistry, soil quality, erosion modeling, and 

stream condition inventories. The results of these analyses are summarized in this section 

of the FEIS to describe the affected environment, as well as inform analysis of 

environmental consequences. Full reports containing the results of these analyses are 

available on the external LTBMU website, if they were completed in the past 10 years. 

Older reports can be obtained by request from the USFS, using the bibliography also 

posted on the external website publications page. Specific responses to EPA comments 

are included at the end of this Response to Comments following the Cumulative 

Environmental Consequences section. 

PC 186: The Forest Service should discuss how urban facility management will affect 

TMDL. 

Sample Comment: “Although not described in the Forest Plan or its Draft EIS, 

LTBMU's urban facilities, including administrative and recreational structures, 

contribute to the Lake Tahoe TMDL urban stormwater source category load..... In the 

Final EIS, EPA recommends that the Forest Service discuss how management of 

LTBMU's urban facilities will contribute to achievement of the Lake Tahoe TMDL urban 

stormwater source category wasteload allocations.” 

Response: Strategies and objectives for management of these facilities are described in 

Section 2.2 of the Forest Plan for the "Built Environment". Implementation of BMPs as 

described in this section is consistent with, and addresses goals established in the Lake 

Tahoe TMDL for the US Forest Service. 

PC 187: The Forest Service should include in the plan a requirement to meet TMDL 20-

year load targets. 

Response: Please see under Physical Resources Objectives, under Water Quality and Soil 

Quality strategies, and standards and guidelines under Water Quality in the Revised 

Forest Plan. It should be noted there are no specific load targets assigned in the Lake 

Tahoe TMDL implementation plan to a single land management agency. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-150 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 183: The Forest Service monitoring plan should provide more detailed information on 

TMDL load targets. 

Response: The USFS is actively engaged in the TMDL monitoring and reporting, which 

is currently in progress, and is consistent with, but separate from the LTBMU Forest Plan 

We disagree that the USFS monitoring plan should provide more detailed information on 

the TMDL load targets. As described in the Lake Tahoe TMDL document approved by 

EPA, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Nevada Department of 

Environmental Protection, TMDL targets have been established for various loading 

categories, not for specific agencies. As described in the Lake Tahoe TMDL document, 

the TMDL regulatory agencies are working with upland source category land managers 

to determine the monitoring and reporting that will be required on an annual basis, 

beginning in 2013. 

PC 114: The Forest Service should create a more effective BMP program and address 

current inadequacies of BMPEP. 

Response: As presented in Section 3.4.24.2, of the FEIS, under Soil Erosion, we believe 

the USFS BMP program has actually been quite effective at the LTBMU. We disagree 

that the BMPEP program is inadequate, as the BMPEP program has proven to be 

effective at identifying BMP implementation and effectiveness deficiencies when they 

occur, and triggering an adaptive management response before resulting in significant 

harm to water quality. Annual BMPEP reports are posted on our external website. At 

the Regional level the USFS has used the results of the BMPEP program to update and 

improve BMP program guidance, as described in the recently completed Region 5 USFS, 

Water Quality Management Handbook, in December of 2011. 

PC 185: The Forest Service should increase the BMP objective to 100% for 

effectiveness and implementation. 

Response: An annual 100% implementation and effectiveness rating for BMPs (as 

evaluated through the USFS BMPEP) is unrealistic and unreasonable. In addition, a 

100% standard is unnecessary to project the beneficial uses of water quality. A ‘not 

implemented’ and/or ‘not effective’ rating does not mean a discharge to water quality 

occurred and/or impacted beneficial uses. On the contrary, as documented in our annual 

reports, this has occurred rarely on the LTBMU. Typically a ‘not implemented’ or ‘not 

effective’ rating identifies a water quality threat, which is then resolved through adaptive 

management at that location. Annual BMPEP reports are posted on the LTBMU public 

website. 

PC 117: The Forest Service should monitor harmful impacts to soil and water. 

Response: Agreed. A variety of metrics are proposed in Appendix A. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-151 

PC 90: The Forest Service should complete an analysis of all future and ongoing stream 

restoration projects in the LTBMU that are connected to or flow through roadless areas 

and provide greater protection to these headwater areas. 

Response: Please see section 3.4.24.3 of the FEIS for analysis of the currently planned 

(defined as in planning phase currently and/ or implementation has been funded and 

initiated) and future stream restoration program. Project level analysis will occur through 

the project specific NEPA process, and ongoing strategic planning of the LTBMU 

watershed improvement program. 

PC 142: The Forest Service should use less intrusive techniques to restore stream 

channels. 

Response: The design of stream channel restoration projects occurs through a 

comprehensive and systematic process of ecosystem assessment and environmental 

analysis that ensures the least intrusive and most successful restoration approach to 

restore ecosystem function. Each stream channel restoration project is considered 

individually, and multiple options are considered for each project. Please see Part 2.1 

Ecological Sustainability strategies for Watershed Restoration in the Revised Forest Plan. 

PC 112: The terms of the Regional Waiver (timber waiver) should be incorporated into 

the Forest Plan in order to meet the monitoring requirements of the 1982 Planning Rule 

(water quality). 

Response: As stated in the Section for Relationship to Plans of other Agencies, the Forest 

Plan is consistent with Lahontan Basin Plan (and by inference any associated regulatory 

measures). It is not appropriate for the Forest Plan to incorporate Lahontan's specific 

regulatory measures, as these are the responsibility of Lahontan to define, enforce, and 

revise/update. The current Lahontan timber waiver will be updated in 2014. Forest Plan 

monitoring (Volume III, Appendix A) serves a different purpose than the Timber Waiver 

and was developed to meet the requirements of the Planning Rule. 

PC 125: The Forest Service should determine whether wilderness designation improves 

the clarity of Lake Tahoe. 

Response: Land use designation cannot be evaluated alone in regards to impacts to lake 

clarity, when not put into context with scale and effects of implementation of the 

strategies and objectives. Please see the Cumulative Watershed Effects of Alternatives 

discussion presented in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The source of major lake clarity impacts 

are disclosed in the TMDL documentation, which is the best current evaluation available. 

PC 126: The Forest Service should consider management effects on downstream water 

quality outside the Tahoe Basin. 

Response: The only outlet for downstream impacts is the Lower Truckee River. The 

Desired Conditions, Strategies and Standards and Guidelines described in the Revised 

Forest Plan under Water Quality protect the water quality of the Lower Truckee from 

USFS management activities at the same level as in-basin waterbodies. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-152 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 127: The Forest Service should take actions to protect and improve Lake Tahoe's 

clarity including clear limits on over-snow logging and slash production in or near 

streams, minimize winter and summer motorized use. 

Response: Numerous Desired Conditions, Strategies, Objectives, and Standards and 

Guidelines described in the Draft Plan under Water Quality and Forest Vegetation, Fire, 

and Fuels are designed to protect, and/or improve the water quality of tributaries and 

runoff draining to Lake Tahoe. The Revised Forest Plan also requires inclusion of 

additional project-specific buffers around water bodies and SEZs. 

PC 128: The Forest Service should address water quality by including in the Plan clear 

and enforceable standards. 

PC 131: The Forest Service should maintain strict water quality protections to limit 

erosion. 

PC 136: The Forest Service should protect Lake Tahoe. 

PC 141: The Forest Service should consider how its actions affect Lake Tahoe. 

Sample Comments: “Please consider the Lake (the reason there is a Lake Tahoe Basin!) 

The runoff from all the land in the Basin is affecting our Lake.” 

“Because the Lake Tahoe Area is so urbanized, I feel you must be very strict in your 

management plan. The health of the forest will insure the health of Lake Tahoe and my 

water.” 

“The forest plan will cover most of the Lake’s watershed, and thus Forest Service 

decisions could help or hurt the effort to keep Tahoe blue so policy needs to walk the fine 

line of impact on Recreation and the optimal forest health while achieving Lake Clarity.” 

Response: This comment is addressed in Section 3.1 Physical Resources Standards and 

Guidelines (of the Revised Forest Plan), and Section 1.2 Water Quality Desired 

Conditions (of the Revised Forest Plan). Water quality protection is achieved through a 

combination of Forest Plan direction and project specific Resource Protection Measures. 

PC 146: The Forest Service should not extend protection of SEZs to non-SEZ areas. 

Response: In some cases, buffers that extend beyond SEZ boundaries are needed to 

ensure adequate protection of SEZs and water quality. 

PC 188: The Forest Service should divert the Upper Truckee into settling ponds to 

collect sediment and thus improve lake clarity. 

Response: Specific design approaches and alternatives for restoring individual streams 

are addressed through project level NEPA analysis, not Forest Plan Strategies, Standards, 

and Guidelines. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-153 

PC 193: The Forest Service should analyze the impacts of roads and ORV trails on 

water quality. 

Response: Strategies and Standards and Guidelines described in the Revised Forest Plan 

under Water Quality are designed protect water quality equally under all the alternatives, 

related to both permanent and temporary roads. The analysis of direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects of roads and OHV trails, under all the alternatives is described in the 

FEIS under Section 3.4.24 under Water Quality and Soil Erosion and Section 3.5 under 

Cumulative Watershed Effects. 

PC 348: The Forest Service should mitigate the effects of OSV use on natural resources 

and document the effectiveness of the mitigations used. 

Response: The USFS is not aware there is any evidence of water quality impacts 

occurring in the Tahoe Basin tributaries that could be attributed to OSV use, such as 

evidence of excessive soil disturbance, detections of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

/semi-volatile compounds in Tahoe tributaries or lakes, or toxicity impacts on aquatic 

biota as measured through macro-invertebrate bioassessments. 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, indicates that 

overall the majority of Tahoe Basin streams are in good to excellent condition as it relates 

to macro-invertebrate health (O’Dowd and Stubblefield, in prep). Future analysis of these 

data could be performed to look at stream condition ratings that are downstream of high 

use OSV areas, to get even more specific understanding of macroinvertebrate community 

response to designated OSV areas. Therefore, we do not believe there is an effect that 

needs to be mitigated nor documented, based on the relatively small scale of OSV use 

that occurs within the LTBMU. It is very clear that the transition from two-stroke to 

four-stroke engines, results in less pollutant emissions. Four-stroke engines are currently 

required by LTBMU snowmobile permittees, which is where some of the highest 

concentration of OSV use occurs in the Basin. Designated areas for public OSV use are 

identified on a Snowmobile Area map in the Revised Forest Plan (number 18) and on the 

published LTBMU Snowmobile Guide map. 

PC 191: The Forest Service should better define how it will create resiliency in 

watersheds. 

Response: The strategies described under Watershed Restoration in the Revised Forest 

Plan describe how the Forest Service will create hydrologic and geomorphic resiliency in 

watersheds. 

PC 192: The Forest Service should emphasize the role of natural processes in 

watershed health. 

Response: Agreed; the Watershed strategies on page 47 of the Revised Forest Plan are 

designed to maintain and restore hydrologic and geomorphic processes within the natural 

range of variability. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-154 ■ Response to Comments 

PC 145: The Forest Service should protect watersheds and water quality. 

Response: Water quality and watershed management remain high priorities in the 

Revised Plan. Numerous Desired Conditions, Strategies, Objectives, and Standards and 

Guidelines described in the Revised Forest Plan are designed to protect, maintain, and 

improve watershed health and water quality. 

PC 414: The Forest Service should manage water quality on all lands, including urban 

lots. 

Response: The Desired Conditions, Strategies, Objectives, and Standards and Guidelines 

described in the Draft Plan under Water Quality apply to all USFS lands, including urban 

lots. 

Wilderness 

PC 18: The Forest service should examine the direct effects, indirect effects, and 

cumulative impacts of placing the majority of IRAs and CIRAs in zones where 

development is allowed, and ensure that Wilderness eligibility is maintained. 

Sample Comment: “In our scoping comments we requested that the LRMP and EIS 

include a thorough examination of the direct effects, indirect effects and cumulative 

impacts of a proposal to place an IRA or other roadless area in a management zone that 

allows activities that could impair its wilderness character.” 

Response: There is no development allowed in IRAs, which includes roads. CIRAs are 

not a management area and have no requirements to maintain wilderness eligibility. 

IRAs are managed to retain their roadless character which would also ensure that the 

wilderness character is maintained. The analysis in the FEIS has been updated to include 

effects to IRAs from the five alternatives considered in detail. 

PC 16: The Forest Service should analyze the eligibility and suitability of Citizens 

Wilderness Inventory (CWI) lands for wilderness recommendation 

Please see Section 2.5 in the FEIS – Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From 

Detailed Study. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

PC 13: The Forest Service should improve the cumulative effects analysis by including 

more projects in the analysis 

PC 173: The Forest Service should improve the analysis of cumulative impacts. 

Sample Comment: “The DEIS fails to adequately and accurately disclose and analyze 

the cumulative loss of snowmobile areas across the "Visitor Market Zone." 

“The 25,000 acres proposed for logging in the LTBMU” 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-155 

“Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuels Reduction Strategy. This strategy has 

characterized 68,000 acres as needing treatment in the Lake Tahoe Multi-Jurisdictional 

Fuels Reduction Strategy of 2007 which is embedded in a 208,800 planning landscape (p. 

vi).” 

“General statements about possible effects and some risk do not constitute a hard look 

absent a justification regarding why more definitive information could not be provided.” 

Response: The analysis of cumulative effects is included in Section 3.5 of the FEIS. As 

described in the opening paragraphs of this section, projects that are in the process of 

implementation and projects that have signed NEPA compliant decisions are listed in 

Appendix K and in the project record and accounted for in the effects analysis for each 

resource. The Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuels Reduction Strategy was 

included in the cumulative effects analysis for Forest Vegetation, Fire and Fuels with 

Section 3.5 of the FEIS. 

The analysis of cumulative effects is provided in Section 3.5 of the FEIS. The cumulative 

effects of treating approximately 25,000 acres over the next 15-20 years are disclosed in 

Section 3.5.2 under the Forest Vegetation, Fire and Fuels heading. Cumulative effects 

from OSV use have been added to Section 3.5.2 under the Recreation heading. 

PC 78: The Forest Service should provide more detailed info about past projects that 

affect current conditions. 

Response: As stated in Section 3.5 of the FEIS, it is neither possible nor useful to 

describe the cumulative effects of all past projects. As noted by the Council for 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) in an interpretive memorandum issued on June 24, 2005 

regarding analysis of past actions, 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, which is detailed in each individual 

resource section. 

PC 315: The Forest Service analysis should consider cumulative effects on access 

(incremental closures) for alternatives that propose wilderness. 

Sample Comment: “The DEIS fails to analyze and consider the cumulative loss of 

recreational opportunity across the Visitor Market Zone. Tens of thousands of acres of 

public recreational lands have been closed inch by inch without any subjective or 

objective consideration previously, or in the current project.” 

Response: Under all alternatives analyzed, the cumulative effects analysis for recreation 

was limited to the Lake Tahoe Basin region. In Section 3.4.27 of the FEIS, 

Consequences Related to Wilderness, the effects of wilderness designations on access are 

discussed. Effects to recreation access would be greatest under Alternatives C and D due 

to recommendation of additional wilderness areas, which would result in the prohibition 

of mechanized and motorized uses in those areas. Alternative C recommends that the 

Dardanelles Inventoried Roadless areas be given wilderness status and Alternatives D 

recommends that the Freel Inventoried Roadless Area in addition to the Dardanelles be 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-156 ■ Response to Comments 

given wilderness status. Under all of the other alternatives (including the preferred 

alternative) there would be no change in the amount or types of recreation access because 

no additional wilderness is proposed. 

PC 474: The Forest Service should consider the cumulative impacts of displacing 

mechanized users to different areas, necessitating additional travel. 

PC 373: The Forest Service should consider the cumulative air quality impacts of 

displacing OSV users to areas outside the Basin, necessitating additional travel. 

Response: Cumulative effects are found in Section 3.5 of the FEIS. That section has been 

updated to include the cumulative effects of displacing mechanized and OSV users, 

necessitating additional travel. 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-157 

Response to EPA Letter 

We believe that many of the EPA’s recommendations have been addressed in the revised 

Forest Plan. The following responses include many references to the Forest Plan that 

show how those recommendations have been addressed. Please note that the Forest Plan 

is a programmatic document and is essentially strategic in nature. The Plan provides 

guidance for project design and development, and lacks the specific resource protection 

measures found in project planning documents. Similarly, the analysis in the FEIS is 

programmatic in nature. It discloses the general effects of activities and uses but does not 

disclose site-specific effects because these are unknown. 

Please clarify what roads and trails are in the ATM plan and identify the roads and trails 

that may be a part of fuels treatment projects. 

Response: There is no single ATM for the LTBMU. ATM plans have been developed 

for specific areas of the basin as well as part of projects where access changes are needed 

to accomplish project goals. The road and trail system is described in the FEIS in Table 

2-1 and in the Access and Travel Management Section of the FEIS (3.4.1). 

As stated in Section 2.2 of the FEIS, no programmatic expansion of the road system is 

proposed in any alternative. However, if a need for a new road is identified in a project, 

the Forest Plan does not prohibit construction, but provides guidance on route location 

and resource protection measures to be included in the project. 

All roads in the system are potentially available for all administrative uses including 

vegetation management. Trails are generally not used for vegetation management 

projects. In the rare cases where trails are used by vehicles for a specific project, they are 

returned to their original width and condition after the project. 

Specific roads and trails used for vegetation management are described in the NEPA 

documents for individual projects. Specific future needs are unknown at this point. 

Where new roads are needed, they are nearly always temporary roads. An estimate of 

average temporary road construction is included FEIS Section 3.4.22-Soil Resource. 

Please include projections for the miles of roads and trails that will be added as a result of 

Alternative B. If this is quantified somewhere else in the document, please reference it 

here. If these are linked to the objectives, please state the objectives more clearly here (p. 

66 of the Forest Plan). 

Response: As stated in Section 2.2 of the FEIS, no programmatic expansion of the road 

system is proposed in any alternative. However, if a need for a new road is identified in a 

project, the Forest Plan does not prohibit construction, but provides guidance on route 

location and resource protection measures to be included in the project. 

The description of alternatives in Section 2.3 of the FEIS has been updated to include the 

projections of unauthorized biking, hiking and equestrian trails that could be adopted 

onto the system. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-158 ■ Response to Comments 

If any miles of roads or trails are added as a result of fuel reduction targets that are 

presented in this plan, please discuss how they will or will not be managed so as to 

contribute to meeting the 12% reduction in fine sediment loading for the Basin. 

Response: Under all alternatives classified roads, temporary roads, and trails will be 

designed retrofitted and maintained to minimize erosion and sediment transport potential, 

in accordance with relevant state and federal law, regulation, and policy (as already 

described in the Water Quality Section (3.4.24.3) of the FEIS). We have added 

additional references in this section to recently updated/developed Regional and National 

BMP handbooks, although these are already identified in our strategies section of the 

Forest Plan. Trails would not be added in response to fuel reduction objectives. 

Basin-wide the USFS has already implemented a large volume of road decommissioning 

and road BMP retrofits, which we believe has substantially contributed to achieving the 

upland TMDL goal (See FEIS Sections 3.4.24.2, Water Quality, Overview of the 

Affected Environment; and 3.4.1.1, Access and Travel Management, Background). 

Additional opportunities will continue to be implemented as identified through project 

level planning as described in section 3.4.24.3. 

For clarification the actual TMDL target is not clearly described in your letter. The 15 

year TMDL target is a 12% reduction in the 9% of fine sediment loading estimated to 

originate from all Forested uplands, not just NFS lands. 

The Forest Plan revision should specify actions for aggressively treating LTBMU lands 

to ensure the forest upland sources, on a basin wide scale, reduce fine sediment pollutant 

loads by 12 percent within twenty years and ultimately by 20 percent overall. 

Response: For clarification the actual 15 year TMDL target is a 12% reduction in the 9% 

of fine sediment loading estimated to originate from Forested uplands. The 60 year target 

is a 20% reduction of the 9% of fine sediment loading, which is equal to 1.8% total 

reduction in 60 years. 

The revised Forest Plan includes many Strategies for water quality protection (Section 

2.1, Physical Resources Program Strategy, Water Quality and Soil Quality) and an 

Objective (Section 2.1, Physical Resources Objectives) to implement actions towards 

achieving the load reduction targets for upland sources identified in the Lake Tahoe 

TMDL during the 15 year life of the Plan. This objective has been modified from the 

Draft you reviewed, and is restated below: 

“Track and report all activities to reduce sources of sediment and nutrient loading from 

USFS lands, through the Tahoe Basin Upland TMDL tracking and reporting program.” 

The revised Forest Plan also includes the following standard and guideline which when 

taken together will be used to prescribe project-specific resource protection measures:

“Design all Forest management activities to prevent violations of applicable water quality 

standards.” 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-159 

“For waters designated as “Water Quality Limited” (Clean Water Act Section 303(d)), 

participate in the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and TMDL 

implementation Plans. Execute applicable elements of completed TMDL implementation 

Plans.” 

The Forest Plan should include a requirement for the LTBMU to develop and implement 

a plan for achieving the 20-year pollutant load reduction targets. The plan should also 

include measures to reduce loads from discrete disturbances on the forested landscape 

(e.g. roads, ski runs, fuels management projects) as well as address pollutant loads from 

stream channel reaches managed by the LTBMU (see also first comment under 

"Monitoring" below). 

Response: The following Forest Plan guideline requires implementation of existing 

TMDL Implementation Plans: 

“For waters designated as “Water Quality Limited” (Clean Water Act Section 303(d)), 

participate in the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and TMDL 

implementation Plans. Execute applicable elements of completed TMDL implementation 

Plans.” 

In addition, all management activities and uses would be subject to the following:

“Design all Forest management activities to prevent violations of applicable water quality 

standards.” 

“Apply current version of the PSW Region Best Management Practices as described in 

Forest Service Handbook direction for Soil and Water Conservation, Water Quality 

Management, and Forest Service National Core BMP Technical Guide to all management 

activities.[Standard]” 

The Final EIS should discuss how roads and landings associated with fuel reduction 

projects will be monitored and modeled to achieve TMDL targets. 

Response: Modeling to estimate achievement of TMDL basin-wide targets can only be 

done by developers of the TMDL model. The USFS did not develop and does not have 

access to this model. 

Forest Plan level monitoring is described in Appendix A. Roads and landings are 

monitored using the Best Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP) 

protocols. BMPEP monitoring results demonstrate a 13% improvement in overall 

implementation and effectiveness over the life of the monitoring program (See FEIS 

Section 3.4.24.2, Water Quality, Overview of the Affected Environment). 

Results of our fuels reduction monitoring efforts and modeling we conducted at the 

hillslope scale is described in FEIS Section 3.4.24.2, Overview of the Affected 

Environment, and the monitoring reports are all available on our website 

(http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ltbmu/maps-pubs/?cid=FSM9_046480). That information 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-160 ■ Response to Comments 

can be used by the State Regulatory agencies to attempt to quantify TMDL load 

reductions. 

The final Forest Plan should include a requirement for LTBMU to develop a monitoring 

and modeling plan in order to, by the end of the planning period (20 yrs), 

comprehensively quantify TMDL loads from LTBMU lands (forested and urban) since 

2004. See "Monitoring and Modeling of SEZ Restoration Projects" and "LTBMU Urban 

Facility Stormwater Loading" sections below for additional comments concerning 

comprehensive TMDL tracking and accounting. 

Response: The Lake Tahoe TMDL has no requirement for managers to "quantify loads” 

from upland sources. Lahontan staff requested that the USFS take the lead, in 

coordination with other upland land managers, in developing a proposal (that would be 

consistent for all forest management agencies in the Basin) , for upland source area 

TMDL tracking and reporting. We are currently engaged and will continue to stay 

engaged in this process. The agreed upon outcome is that 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 has and will continue to provide data to the EIP performance measure tracking 

and reporting program. In addition, the LTBMU will provide key findings (and citations) 

developed through its internal monitoring programs, that provide useful information for 

evaluation of TMDL implementation. The LTBMU just provided this kind of input in 

May of 2013, in response to a request submitted by NDEP and Lahontan staff. 

Information regarding the upland tracking and reporting program has been added to the 

FEIS to clarify the situation. 

The Final EIS should discuss the measures that may be necessary to reduce nutrient 

loading from forested non-urban areas. 

Response: Sources of nutrients related to forested uplands are primarily tied to reducing 

erosion processes, which is addressed throughout the FEIS (see Section 3.4.24.3, Water 

Quality in particular) and in the Forest Plan, as described above. 

The final paragraph of page 3-479 states that stream channel erosion represents 2% of the 

total baseline fine sediment load to Lake Tahoe presented in the TMDL; the correct value 

is 4% (TMDL Report, p. 7-3). 

Response: The Lahontan Basin Plan TMDL amendment, Tahoe 5.18-2, cites 3%. This 

correction has been made. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-161 

EPA agrees with the statement that "Current TMDL targets [presumably of the 

Blackwood Creek bedded sediment TMDL] also need to be incorporated into the new 

Forest Plan," but seeks clarification on how this will be done (p. 3-480) 

Response: We have actually removed this statement, and provided the following 

clarifying language relative to the Blackwood TMDL. 

“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.” 

EPA recommends that project monitoring and analysis of ambient water quality data 

should have an additional objective incorporated into the Forest Plan for the estimation 

and quantification of TMDL loading for those projects. 

Response: This is not required in the TMDL adopted by your agency. Water Quality 

data for stream channel restoration projects is a very expensive and unreliable indicator 

of project level effectiveness related to TMDL loading. This is the reason the Blackwood 

Creek TMDL was based on geomorphic metrics. The LTBMU has and will continue to 

perform project level effectiveness monitoring on stream channel restoration projects (see 

also Appendix A, Forest Plan Monitoring), based primarily on geomorphic metrics. The 

results of this monitoring will be provided to the TMDL regulatory agencies, along with 

metrics required as part of upland TMDL tracking and reporting program. 

External information sources for soil erosion monitoring (such as that provided in 

Lahontan RWQCB Notices of Violation (NOVs)) should also be included 

Response: Regulatory actions such as NOVs do not constitute monitoring, they only 

document when permit conditions were not met, regardless of actual threat to water 

quality. In our past experience, the NOVs we have received often inaccurately 

characterized actual conditions, which we have documented in written responses to those 

NOVs. 

We include all validated and legitimate external sources of monitoring and research for 

consideration in our management decision making, for all resources (see Appendix A, 

Forest Plan Monitoring). 

The Final EIS should provide further details concerning how monitoring will inform 

TMDL reporting and tracking. 

Response: The Tahoe TMDL adopted by your agency provides little direction on this 

issue. Lahontan staff acknowledge that the Water Board has not determined how best to 

implement the tracking and reporting requirement. They have requested that the USFS 

take the lead, in coordination with other upland land managers, in developing a proposal 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-162 ■ Response to Comments 

(that would be consistent for all forest management agencies in the Basin) for the TMDL 

regulatory agencies to review and adopt if acceptable, for Upland TMDL tracking and 

reporting. We are currently and will continue to be engaged in this process. This 

information has been added to the FEIS to clarify the situation. 

Our suggested addition to Sec. 3.4.21[sic].2 is to the discussion of Heavenly Valley 

Creek on p. 3-498. This discussion should refer to the Heavenly Valley Creek TMDL, 

and the status of implementation. 

Response: The status of compliance with the Heavenly TMDL, as well as other 

Heavenly Creek water quality standards, is already described in this section (FEIS 

Section 3.4.24, Water Quality). It is provided here again for your convenience: 

“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.” 

Measures that will improve the rate of BMP implementation and effectiveness to 100% in 

both categories should be proposed and included in the Forest Plan. 

Response: We do not believe a 100% effectiveness rating is realistic, nor is it necessary 

to protect water quality. The USFS BMPEP monitoring program process implemented 

on the LTBMU, and as described in our Regional and National handbooks, includes rapid 

management response to ineffective ratings to correct identified deficiencies, as well as 

an internal evaluation to ensure lessons learned are incorporated in project design and 

implementation to minimize future deficiencies. We did correct the current Forest 

target in the FEIS, which is to achieve 95% effectiveness ratings. We also updated this 

section to identify the BMPEP results in 2011 and 2012 which reported 95% and 94% 

effectiveness ratings, respectively. 

The watershed condition assessments should be coordinated with implementation of the 

CRAM. 

Response: The watershed assessment process is a national Forest Service protocol for 

assessing large scale watershed condition, as described in FEIS Section 3.4.26, 

Watershed. CRAM is a regional methodology for assessing the condition of riparian 

ecotypes. Any coordination of these two methodologies would need to occur at the 

Regional and National level. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ■ N-163 

The discussion of cumulative water quality and watershed condition effects should be 

updated to reflect the 2011 TRPA Threshold Evaluation that is now available 

(http://www.trpa.org/default.aspx?tabid=l 74), although the updated information may not 

materially affect the conclusions reached concerning threshold attainment (p. 3-529). 

Response: The FEIS Section 3.5.2, cumulative effects, has been updated to include this 

information. 

In the Final EIS, EPA recommends that the Forest Service discuss how management of 

LTBMU's urban facilities will contribute to achievement of the Lake Tahoe TMDL urban 

stormwater source category waste load allocations. 

Response: The approach you describe above this recommendation is not required in the 

TMDL adopted by your agency, and has never been proposed to us by the Lahontan 

water board. The nature of many of these facilities, (i.e. campgrounds) are more upland 

than urban, because of the degree of forested buffer around them and lack of connectivity 

to urban stormwater drainages. Our management of these areas, in the context of 

reducing pollutant loads, includes continuing to implement BMP upgrades, as described 

in Section 2.2 of the FEIS. We will be tracking and reporting accomplishments as part of 

our Upland source area tracking and reporting program. 

We recommend that the Forest Service implement BMPs and work with the interagency 

Smoke Management Group to reduce emissions from prescribed bums and wildfires to 

the greatest possible extent and incorporate this into specific objectives in the Forest Plan. 

If these are in the Forest Plan, then they should be described completely and accurately in 

the Air Quality section of the EIS. 

Response: We do participate in interagency smoke management coordination. While we 

are not aware of a specific group for this purpose, we coordinate with many groups, 

including, but not restricted to CARB, adjacent Forests, private and state prescribed fire 

practitioners, air quality control districts, as well as the Regional Forest Service air 

quality staff. Air quality strategies are described on p45 of the Draft Forest Plan. Air 

quality is regulated by CARB, utilizing national EPA standards, and is enforced by the air 

quality control districts. We believe that adherence to current regulation is adequate to 

maintain air quality. 

Our fuels reduction program is designed to reduce smoke emissions from wildfires by 

removing fuels that could otherwise be consumed in a wildfire. 

Please clarify why prescribed burning emissions are between about twice to over four 

times that of wildfire emissions. Clarify the discrepancy between the tables and figures, 

and provide further information regarding the assumptions and data that are used to 

derive the conclusions. 

Response: The difference in the amount of acres of prescribed burning and wildfires 

primarily accounts for the difference in emissions. We have clarified this discussion in 

the FEIS, Section 3.4.2. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-164 ■ Response to Comments 

Consider how mitigation measures for black carbon and greenhouse gases can be 

incorporated into the Forest Plan. 

Response: Nationwide Forest Service policy for carbon and greenhouse gas management 

is still being developed. We will implement this policy when it is finalized and will 

amend the Forest Plan if needed. We have incorporated desired conditions that would 

allow us to implement these policies. Current policy includes the following, which are 

referenced in the Design Criteria section of the revised Forest Plan: 

 Forest Service Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change. Version 

1.0. 2008 National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change FS-957b 2011 

 Navigating the Climate Change Performance Scorecard. A Guide for National 

Forests and Grasslands (Version 2) 2011 

If it is still occurring, the Forest Service should vigorously manage grazing, especially in 

riparian and wetland areas that are functioning at risk in a static or downward trend in 

order to facilitate their recovery. If necessary, please discuss and incorporate protection 

measures and management actions in the Final Forest Plan/EIS. 

Response: We have no active grazing allotments at present. A range section has been 

added to the FEIS (Section 3.4.18). 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-165 

N.3. Comments Received from Federal, State, Local 

Agencies, and Elected Officials 

As required in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 (Sec 25.1), comments and views 

of the appropriate Federal, State and local agencies, which are authorized to develop and 

enforce environmental standards, are presented in their entirety in the following section; 

this also satisfies the requirement in NEPA Section 102 (c). 

Official comments to the Draft EIS were received from the following agency offices: 

 State of California Department of Fish and Game 

 California Tahoe Conservancy 

 Douglas County, NV 

 El Dorado County, CA 

 Lake Tahoe Basin Fire Chiefs

 State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of 

State Lands 

 State of Nevada Department of Wildlife 

 Placer County, CA 

 City of South Lake Tahoe – City Council 

 Tahoe/Douglas Fire Protection District 

 Tahoe/Douglas Visitors Authority 

 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

 Tahoe Tallac Association 

 United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary (Washington, 

DC.) 

 United States Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance, Pacific Southwest Region (San Francisco, CA) 

 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX 

 Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-166 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-167 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-168 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-169 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-170 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-171 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-172 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-173 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-174 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-175 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-176 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-177 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-178 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-179 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-180 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-181 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-182 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-183 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-184 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-185 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-186 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-187 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-188 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-189 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-190 ▪ Response to Comments 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-191 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-192 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-193 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-194 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-195 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-196 ▪ Response to Comments 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-197 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-198 ▪ Response to Comments 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-199 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-200 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-201 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-202 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-203 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-204 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-205 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-206 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-207 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-208 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-209 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-210 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-211 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-212 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-213 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-214 ▪ Response to Comments 

 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix N ▪ N-215 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

N-216 ▪ Response to Comments 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix O ■ O-1 

Appendix O – LTBMU Effects Analysis 

Prepared by USDA Office of General Counsel, Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional 

Office, and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 

Forest Service planning occurs at three levels: national strategic planning, NFS unit 

planning (forest planning), and project or activity planning. The LTBMU plan is a NFS 

forest plan that provides a framework for integrated resource management and for 

guiding subsequent project and activity planning. The forest plan does not result in 

direct, physical impacts to the environment, but it may constrain where and how projects 

or activities can occur. The forest plan does not authorize projects or activities or commit 

the LTBMU to take action. 

Forest plans cover broad geographic areas for a period of 15 years or more. As a result, 

the environmental impacts resulting from forest plans are removed in time and space 

because projects or activities guided by the plan occur throughout the 15 year period. 

Since future events and influences are largely unpredictable, the environmental analysis 

for forest plans is by its nature somewhat speculative. The analysis methods described in 

Chapter 3 of the EIS are designed to predict reasonable and consistent environmental 

impacts for the broad geographic area rather than site-specific impacts normally 

associated with much smaller areas. 

Environmental analyses for forest plans are intended to provide the responsible official 

with a reasonable estimate of effects taking into account the uncertainty and large 

geographic scale of a forest plan. Analysis methods are vetted through an 

interdisciplinary team of specialists and managers using extensive public collaboration 

and consider the best science available. This process includes a review of the draft 

documents by Forest Service specialists at the Regional level and final documents by 

independent scientists. Extensive public input is solicited through meetings, web input, 

and public comment on the draft forest plan and DEIS. This process results in a 

consistent and fair analysis that highlights the important differences between alternatives 

given the need to project into an unknown future and to do so within the time and budget 

allowed. 

After the LTBMU released the DEIS for public comment, the agency received several 

comments that requested a more detailed effects analysis. While the agency has added 

more detail in the FEIS, some members of the public may believe that the effects analysis 

in Chapter 3 is still too general. Therefore, this discussion has been added to describe the 

analytical methodology the Forest Service used in preparing Chapter 3 and to explain 

why a more detailed effects analysis is not practical. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

O-2 ■ LTBMU Effects Analysis

O.1. The Unpredictability of Natural Conditions 

and Human Values Over Time 

The effects predicted in the environmental analysis are unlikely to unfold exactly as 

predicted. There are numerous areas of environmental uncertainty, including: seasonal 

weather patterns, the scope and intensity of wildfires, the dynamics of bark beetle 

infestations, the spread of invasive exotic species, and, most significantly, climate 

change. There have been significant changes in such natural disturbance regimes in 

recent years, and it is likely that such changes will continue. However, it is extremely 

difficult to predict the rate and trajectory of such changes, particularly over the long term 

and with the synergistic impact of climate change. Given that the environmental context 

for forest plan implementation will be changing over time and in an unpredictable 

manner, environmental effects can only be predicted based on known values over broad 

geographic areas. Effects predictions are determined by IDT members who provide 

expert knowledge about the environment based on applicable scientific papers and their 

professional understanding of cause/effect relationships for the LTBMU. 

Natural conditions and human values are two of the main influences on land management 

decisions at the project level. However, neither natural conditions nor human values are 

static. Political priorities and associated funding will change over time and so too will 

the scope of Forest Service projects at the site-specific level. And, because the agency 

can only make general assumptions about the direction and magnitude of change in 

natural conditions or human values, the agency cannot presently forecast with accuracy 

the exact consequences of implementing forest plan alternatives in the future. 

Given the uncertainty of future events, attempts to provide greater detail will not result in 

any better prediction of environmental effects. Spending more public money on data and 

analysis would do little to improve effects predictions since more money cannot improve 

prediction of the inherent variables in the system. 

Further, our knowledge base is improving all the time and forest plan guidance is 

expected to change as we adapt to changes in climate, best available science, and public 

demand Over time, plan amendments are expected as more is learned through the project 

planning process, research and monitoring activities. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix O ■ O-3 

O.2. The Analytical Methodology Employed in 

Chapter 3 of the EIS 

While analytical methods vary by resource area, each resource uses a set of resourcespecific indicators to structure the analysis. Also included are a set of assumptions 

specific to the resource, while assumptions common to all resources are described at the 

beginning of Chapter 3. Where models are used, they are identified and their limitations 

are disclosed. 

For each topic in Chapter 3, the analytical methodology described is the most appropriate 

methodology the agency is aware of. While certain members of the public requested a 

more detailed effects analysis, which would include more forecasting of the physical 

effects of the various alternatives on the environment, none of those individuals or groups 

proposed any practical or reliable analytical methodologies. Therefore, based on the 

agency’s extensive history, experience, and technical expertise in conducting effects 

analyses, collaborative public involvement, science reviews and the lack of other 

practical solutions, the agency employed the various methodologies described in Chapter 

3 of the EIS, recognizing its limited ability to predict specific, future, physical impacts to 

the environment. These methodologies, while admittedly limited, strike a reasonable 

balance between forecasting reasonable broad-scale estimates of environmental 

consequences without drifting into the realm of unreasonable speculation. 

O.3. The Uncertainty and Risks Associated With 

Forecasting Environmental Effects 

There are several factors that influenced the agency’s decision to adopt the methodologies 

described in Chapter 3 of the EIS. These are as follows: 

The Forest Service’s Staged Decision-Making Process 

The Forest Service engages in a two-step decision-making process where general 

guidance and direction is provided at the forest plan level, and concrete commitments are 

made at the project level. This process is known as “tiering” where the forest plan 

addresses broad program-level questions of a general nature and the site-specific projects 

address direct effects of specific actions. In this sense the project “tiers” to the decision 

made in the forest plan since project scope is constrained by the forest plan (see the 

Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1508.28(a)). None of 

the decisions made by the LTBMU’s forest plan revision have direct environmental 

impacts. Rather, only at the site-specific, project level is it possible to determine with a 

high level of certainty if an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources is 

proposed and an analysis of actual expected physical effects generated. Given there are 

no direct impacts to the environment from this plan revision, it is difficult to predict, with 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

O-4 ■ LTBMU Effects Analysis

precision the environmental consequences that might flow indirectly from the adoption or 

revision of a forest plan. 

This explanation should not be construed to mean that the Forest Service’s decisionmaking structure avoids the analysis and disclosure of environmental effects. Rather, it is 

meant to clarify that certain stages of the decision-making process are more amenable to 

predictive, and useful, analysis. At the plan level, preparing a detailed and accurate 

effects analysis is problematic, since there remains great uncertainty about the scope and 

intensity of site-specific actions to be implemented pursuant to the forest plan. Only 

when site-specific decisions are being considered does the agency have sufficient details 

about land-management activities to engage in reasonably accurate predictive analysis. 

And, that is the stage where the bulk of Forest Service NEPA effects analysis has 

occurred and will continue to occur. Therefore, while the EIS does attempt to provide 

some projections of the environmental consequences of the various forest plan 

alternatives, the early stage of a forest plan in the agency’s two-step decision-making 

process precludes the type of detailed effects analysis that several commenters requested. 

At the forest plan level appropriate analysis considers the relative contributions of plan 

components of each alternative toward achieving desired future conditions. 

Forest Plans do not grant, withhold or modify any 

contract, permit or other legal instrument and do not 

authorize projects or activities 

All of the alternatives considered in the EIS do not commit the Forest Service to take any 

particular action at any particular time. Each alternative includes a combination of 

general goals and specific constraints, but leaves all decisions that cause direct 

environmental effects to the project level. The agency believes that retaining broad 

decision-making space at the project level is appropriate for several reasons, including: 

the variability of terrain and ecotypes within the LTBMU; the unpredictability of natural 

systems over time; and the ever-changing state of scientific knowledge related to natural 

systems and the management thereof. Based on these and other factors, the LTBMU 

concluded that a revised plan would be the most successful if it were flexible and could 

adapt to varying conditions in space and time. 

The plan establishes direction through desired conditions, objectives, land allocations, 

suitable uses and standards and guidelines that both guide and establish boundaries for 

Forest Service line officer discretion at the landscape level. This allows meaningful 

evaluation of environmental impacts at the scale of an entire National Forest. Further, the 

plan allows considerable management discretion at the project level. Individual line 

officers may opt to make decisions at the limit of what is permitted by the forest plan’s 

Standards and Guidelines; in other cases, individual line officers may opt to exercise their 

discretion by acting well below such limits. Available budgets and skills may limit what 

is possible. The collaborative process used to develop site-specific projects may result in 

improved local knowledge, expertise, and values included in the decision-making 

process. So better decisions are made, which promote ecological and social sustainability 

in ways that a Forest-level plan could not anticipate. 
 Revised LRMP – Appendices for the Forest Plan and FEIS 

Appendix O ■ O-5 

Although such discretion prevents us from accurately predicting environmental 

consequences at the project level at the time of plan revision, the “roadmap” established 

by forest plan direction is sufficient to determine reasonable cause and effect 

relationships for gauging meaningful differences between alternatives and their 

environmental effects. Given the broad latitude for collaborative decision-making at later 

stages in the decision-making process, the Forest Service cannot now reasonably predict 

what the results of such decision-making will be. 

The Forest Service’s multiple-use mandate under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act 

and National Forest Management Act is quite broad and was designed to accommodate a 

wide array of uses, depending on the prevailing values within and outside the agency. 

The forest plans are designed to be flexible and adaptable to changes in natural 

conditions, social conditions and human values over time. Therefore, the balance 

between the multiple uses – recreation, watershed protection, grazing, timber harvest, 

wildlife protection, mining, etc. – is likely to fluctuate over time, resulting in different 

environmental impacts as that balance changes. Plan amendments and revision will be 

conducted with the appropriate NEPA procedures and public collaboration.

The Risk of Speculation 

While some members of the public would like to see more detailed effects analysis in 

Chapter 3, that is not its purpose. Specific and detailed effects analyses are an outcome 

of projects and activities that comply with this plan will be subject to NEPA analysis 

when and where subsequent projects are proposed. Site-specific project proposals are 

readily analyzed in detail whereas the effects of the proposed management plan and 

alternatives in this EIS are necessarily broad scale approximations based on a variety of 

assumptions. 

The analytical methodology employed in Chapter 3 is intended to highlight the 

differences between alternatives with respect to many different issues. Since the effects 

of this decision will be felt for many years to come, it was necessary to forecast various 

trends and conditions based on past and current observations. In order to provide 

meaningful estimates of effects, making some assumptions is necessary, however the 

Forest Service refrained from over-reaching in this regard by striking a reasonable 

balance that provides information useful to the public and agency decision-makers 

without engaging in speculation that might convey a level of certainty regarding 

environmental effects that was misleading. Any attempt to portray effects in more detail 

would be highly speculative and misleading to the public. 

In the end, the agency tried to strike a reasonable balance, where Chapter 3 of the EIS 

would provide information that would be useful to the public and the agency decisionmakers, without engaging in speculation that might convey a level of certainty regarding 

environmental effects that was illusory.