United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Pacific 

Southwest 

Region 

R5-MB-231A 

August 

2011 

Final 

Environmental Impact Statement

South Shore Fuel Reduction 

and Healthy Forest Restoration

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a 

complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call 

(800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer. 

Cover photo: 

Wildland-Urban interface/intermix of National Forest System lands 

managed by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and 

neighborhoods within the City of South Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe, as 

viewed to the northwest from the intersection Ski Run Blvd and 

Pioneer Trail. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Preamble a

FINAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

South Shore Fuel Reduction and 

Healthy Forest Restoration 

El Dorado County, California 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Responsible Official: Nancy J. Gibson, Forest Supervisor 

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 

Information Contact: Duncan Leao, Team Leader 

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 

(530) 543-2660 

e-mail: comments-pacificsouthwest-ltbmu@fs.fed.us

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

b Introduction 

Abstract: The South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) documents the analysis of three alternatives (1, 2, and 3) to manage fuel 

loading and forest health in the wildland-urban intermix (WUI). 

Alternative 1 proposes no action; fuel loads would continue to increase and urban areas would 

remain at risk for high intensity wildfire. 

Alternative 2 would reduce hazardous fuel and improve forest health on 10,671 acres. 

o Alternative 2 emphasizes thinning to change wildfire behavior from high intensity crown 

fires to low intensity surface fire by removing smaller trees that act as fuel ladders and 

increasing spacing between trees. 

o Forest health would improve by reducing basal area to attain forest densities with 

improved resistance to drought, insects, and disease. 

o Alternative 2 would use mechanical equipment on more acres, including within SEZs and 

wildlife areas of the three alternatives. 

Alternative 3 was developed in response to public comments received during scoping on the 

Proposed Action. 

o Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to watersheds and wildlife compared to Alternative 2, 

while still reducing the risk of high-intensity crown fire. 

o Alternative 3 reduces hazardous fuel and improves forest health in the WUI on 10,112 

acres. 

 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Preamble c

Figure 1. South Shore Project Vicinity within the Lake Tahoe Basin
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

d Introduction 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ............................................................................................... i 

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action .......................................................... 1-1 

Document Structure ............................................................................................................ 1-3 

Background ......................................................................................................................... 1-6 

Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................................ 1-12 

Proposed Action ................................................................................................................ 1-12 

Decision Framework ......................................................................................................... 1-13 

Public Involvement ........................................................................................................... 1-14 

Issues ................................................................................................................................. 1-15 

Forest Plan Consistency .................................................................................................... 1-16 

Laws, Regulations, and Policies ....................................................................................... 1-17 

Permits and Coordination ................................................................................................. 1-19

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

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2-1 

Alternatives Considered in Detail ....................................................................................... 2-2 

Alternative 1 – No Action ............................................................................................ 2-2 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action .................................................................................. 2-2 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative ........................................................................ 2-16 

Resource Protection Measures ................................................................................... 2-20 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ......................................... 2-49 

Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................................. 2-55 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences .............. 3-1 

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

Fire Behavior and Fuels ...................................................................................................... 3-5 

Forest Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 3-33 

Geology and Soil Resources ............................................................................................. 3-59 

Water and Riparian Resources .......................................................................................... 3-81 

Aquatic Wildlife .............................................................................................................. 3-121 

Terrestrial Wildlife .......................................................................................................... 3-139 

TRPA Special Interest Species ....................................................................................... 3-243 

Management Indicator Species ....................................................................................... 3-258 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Table of Contents e

Sensitive Plants ............................................................................................................... 3-297 

Noxious Weeds ............................................................................................................... 3-313 

Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 3-317 

Heritage and Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 3-325 

Scenic Resources ............................................................................................................ 3-329 

Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 3-335 

Transportation ................................................................................................................. 3-343 

Economics ....................................................................................................................... 3-349 

Special Designated Areas ............................................................................................... 3-353 

Required Federal Considerations and Disclosures ......................................................... 3-355 

Environmental Justice .............................................................................................. 3-355 

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity .......................................................... 3-355 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects .................................................................................. 3-355 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ...................................... 3-356 

Chapter 4. Monitoring ................................................................................................... 4-1 

Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination, Acronyms, Glossary, and 

References Cited........................................................................................ 5-1 

Index .................................................................................................................. In-1 

Maps ................................................................................................................. Map #3 – 17 

Appendix A 

Other Projects Considered in Project Level Effects Analysis ................. A-1 

Appendix B 

Summary of South Shore Hazardous Fuel and Healthy Forest 

Restoration Project Best Management Practices (BMPs) ................ B-1 

Appendix C 

South Shore SEZ Risk Rating System ....................................................... C-1 

Appendix D 

South Shore Soil Moisture Protocol .......................................................... D-1

Appendix E 

Public Comments and Responses ............................................................. E-1 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

f Introduction 

List of Tables and Figures 

Tables 

Table ES-1. Acres of Ownership in Project Analysis Area.......................................... i 

Table ES-2. Comparison of Alternatives............................................................. vii 

Table ES-3. Fuel Treatment Methods by Alternative............................................. viii 

Table 1-1. Acres of Ownership in Project Analysis Area............................................ 1-16 

Table 2-1. Summary of Thinning Method Acres Proposed in Alternative 2................... 2-3 

Table 2-2. Estimated Follow-up Treatments Proposed in Alternative 2........................... 2-4 

Table 2-3. Summary of Thinning Method Acres Proposed in Alternative 3...................... 2-17 

Table 2-4. Estimated Follow-up Treatments Proposed in Alternative 3........................... 2-18 

Table 2-5. Changes in treatment types for SEZ and upland areas by alternative.............. 2-55 

Table 2-6. Comparison of fuel treatment type acres by alternative................................ 2-56 

Table 2-7. Comparison of wildlife treatment acres by alternative.................................. 2-56 

Table 2-8. Decrease in proposed road construction and landings 

between Alternatives 2 and 3................................................................................ 2-57 

Table 2-9. Comparison of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives by Measurement 

Indicator.......................................................................................................... 2-58 

Table 3-1. 90th Percentile Fire Weather Data for Meyers, California.............................. 3-9 

Table 3-2. Average Fuel Loads............................................................................. 3-15 

Table 3-3. Alternative 1: Modeled Fire Type Results Under Existing Conditions.............. 3-16 

Table 3-5.Current and Future Predicted Surface Fuel Loading: Alternative 1 

(No Action)...................................................................................................... 3-18 

Table 3-6. Predicted Post-treatment Surface Fuel Loading......................................... 3-22 

Table 3-7. Alternative 2: Modeled Fire Type Results Post Treatment............................ 3-23 

Table 3-8. Alternative 2: Predicted Flame Lengths Post Treatment.............................. 3-23 

Table 3-9. Alternative 3: Surface Fuel Loading........................................................ 3-27 

Table 3-10. Alternative 3: Modeled Fire Type Results.............................................. 3-28 

Table 3-11. Alternative 3: Modeled Flame Length Results......................................... 3-28 

Table 3-12. Summary of Alternatives for Fire Behavior and Fuels.............................. 3-29 

Table 3-13. Project Analysis Area Existing Vegetation............................................. 3-35 

Table 3-14. Project Treatment Area Cover Types.................................................... 3-37 

Table 3-15. Current and Predicted Stand Densities for the Project Area...................... 3-39 

Table 3-16. Typical Stand Conditions over 20 Years Based on a Representative 

Stand............................................................................................................ 3-40 

Table 3-17. Post Treatment Values, and then After 10 and 20 Years (Hand)............... 3-42 

Table 3-18. Post Treatment values, and then After 10 and 20 Years (Mechanical)........ 3-43 

Table 3-19. Stand 28 Pre- and Post-Thinning Summary Conditions Over 20 Years.......... 3-48 

Table 3-20. Comparison of Total Acres of Treatments for Both Alternatives.................... 3-48 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Table of Contents g

Table 3-21. Comparison of Total Acres of treatments within Wildlife Areas for Each 

Alternative..................................................................................................................... 3-48 

Table 3-22. Post Treatment Values and After 10 and 20 Years (Hand)....................................... 3-49 

Table 3-23. Post Treatment Values and After 10 and 20 Years (Mechanical).............................. 3-50 

Table 3-24. Summary of Roads and Landings Needed between Alternatives 2 and 3.................... 3-50 

Table 3-25. Stand Density Summary for All Alternatives.......................................................... 3-52 

Table 3-26. Activities within the Project Area from 1986 to 2010.............................................. 3-53 

Table 3-27. Total Acres of Past and Proposed Activities in the Project Area............................... 3-55 

Table 3-28. Total Acres of Past and Proposed Activities in the Project Area............................... 3-57 

Table 3-29. Geologic Hazard Areas for Alternative 2............................................................. 3-60 

Table 3-30. Geologic Hazard Areas for Alternative 3............................................................ 3-60 

Table 3-31. Temperature Ranges for changes in Several Soil Properties.................................. 3-64 

Table 3-32. Estimated Acres of SEZ soils by Treatment Type for the Project Area..................... 3-65 

Table 3-33. Summary of Soil Field Surveys by Proposed Treatment Type for the Project 

Area........................................................................................................................... 3-65 

Table 3-34. Ocular Estimates of Linear Disturbance Features in the South Shore Treatment 

Units................................................................................................................................................ 3-66 

Table 3-35. Past Vegetation Treatments in the South Shore Project Area.................................. 3-76 

Table 3-36. Resource Protection Measures and BMPs that would limit Potential Impacts to Soil 

Productivity.................................................................................................................. 3-78 

Table 3-37. Treatment Acreage for HUC7 Watersheds in the South Shore Project 

Area............................................................................................................................ 3-84 

Table 3-38. Surface Water Discharge Limitations................................................................ 3-91 

Table 3-39. Forest Service Roads and Road Density in the South Shore Project Area 

Watersheds................................................................................................................. 3-98 

Table 3-40. National Forest Road Miles Within RCAs in the South Shore Project 

Area........................................................................................................................... 3-100 

Table 3-41. Total Number of Landings for Alternatives 2 and 3 within and outside of 

RCAs.......................................................................................................................... 3-101 

Table 3-42. Acres of RCA, SEZ (based on 1b soils), and Aspen Treated in Alternatives 2 and 3, for Each 

Watershed................................................................................................................... 3-106 

Table 3-43. HUC7 Watersheds, Total Acreage and Threshold Of Concern Values...................... 3-109 

Table 3-44. Equivalent Roaded Acre Coefficients Used for Different Management Activities in the South Shore 

CWE Analysis................................................................................................................ 3-110 

Table 3-45 Wildfires and Affected Watersheds in this CWE Analysis......................................... 3-113 

Table 3-46. Assumed Road Widths for CWE Analysis of Roaded Acres.................................... 3-114 

Table 3-47. CWE Results Summary for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3..................................... 3-117 

Table 3-48. Existing Instream Habitat within Project Area....................................................... 3-123 

Table 3-49. Existing Large Woody Debris (>.3m diameter) within project area 

tributaries...................................................................................................................... 3-125 

Table 3-50. Species Accounts by Stream within the South Shore project Area......................... 3-127 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

h Introduction 

Table 3-51. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species for the LTBMU, and Effects Determinations for 

Project Level Analysis..................................................................................................... 3-136 

Table 3-52. Existing acres of high and moderate capability bald eagle habitat within the project wildlife analysis 

area............................................................................................................................ 3-164 

Table 3-53. Results of bald eagle mid-winter counts in the Lake Tahoe Basin, 2000-

2010........................................................................................................................... 3-165 

Table 3-54. Number of active bald eagle nests and juveniles fledged in the Lake Tahoe Basin 1999-

2010............................................................................................................................ 3-165 

Table 3-55. Existing acres of high and moderate capability northern goshawk habitat within the project wildlife 

analysis area................................................................................................................. 3-167 

Table 3-56. Existing acres of high and moderate capability habitat within northern goshawk PACs in the wildlife 

analysis area................................................................................................................ 3-169 

Table 3-57. Summary information for northern goshawk Protected Activity Centers within the wildlife analysis 

area............................................................................................................................ 3-171 

Table 3-58. Existing acres of high and moderate capability California spotted owl habitat 

within the project wildlife analysis area............................................................................... 3-176 

Table 3-59. Existing acres of high and moderate capability habitat within California spotted owl PACs in the wildlife 

analysis area................................................................................................................. 3-178 

Table 3-60. Existing acres of high and moderate capability habitat within California spotted owl HRCAs in the 

wildlife analysis area........................................................................................................ 3-179 

Table 3-61. Summary information for California spotted owl Protected Activity Centers within the wildlife analysis 

area............................................................................................................................ 3-181 

Table 3-62. Existing acres of high and moderate capability great gray owl habitat within the project wildlife analysis 

area............................................................................................................................. 3-183 

Table 3-63. Existing acres of high and moderate capability willow flycatcher habitat within the project wildlife 

analysis area.................................................................................................................. 3-185 

Table 3-64. Summary of historically and recently occupied willow flycatcher habitats within the wildlife analysis 

area............................................................................................................................. 3-187 

Table 3-65. Habitats surveyed for willow flycatcher within the wildlife analysis area since 1992 where detections of 

this species have not occurred.............................................................................................. 3-190 

Table 3-66. Estimated acres of high and moderate capability wolverine habitat within the South Shore project area 

before and after implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 in comparison to the wildlife analysis 

area........................................................................................................................... 3-192 

Table 3-67. Estimated acres of high and moderate capability Sierra Nevada red fox habitat within the project area 

before and after implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 in comparison to the wildlife analysis 

area............................................................................................................................. 3-194 

Table 3-68. Estimated acres of high and moderate capability marten habitat within the project area before and 

after implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3 in comparison to the wildlife analysis 

area............................................................................................................................. 3-196 

Table 3-69. Estimated acres of high and moderate capability bald eagle habitat within the project area before and 

after implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3 in comparison to the wildlife analysis area................... 3-203 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Table of Contents i

Table 3-70. Estimated acres of high and moderate capability goshawk habitat within the project area before and 

after implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3, with comparison to the wildlife analysis 

rea..................................................................................................................................................... 3-206 

Table 3-71. Acres of treatments within current goshawk PACs in the wildlife analysis area by treatment type and 

alternative.................................................................................................................... 3-207 

Table 3-72. Acres added to current goshawk PACs in the wildlife analysis area as mitigation for mechanical 

treatments within these land allocations by action alternative ................................................. 3-208 

Table 3-73. Acres of high and moderate capability habitat within current and remapped northern goshawk PACs in 

the analysis area by alternative.......................................................................................... 3-210 

Table 3-74. Estimated canopy cover (acreage with ≥60% tree canopy cover and mean tree canopy cover) for 

northern goshawk PACs.................................................................................................. 3-213 

Table 3-75. Summary of direct and indirect effects of the action alternatives to northern goshawks and their habitat 

within wildlife analysis area PACs...................................................................................... 3-215 

Table 3-76. Estimated acres of high and moderate capability California spotted owl habitat within the project area 

before and after implementation of Alternative 2 or 3, with comparison to the wildlife analysis 

area........................................................................................................................... 3-221 

Table 3-77. Acres of treatments within current California spotted owl PACs in the wildlife analysis area by 

treatment type and alternative......................................................................................... 3-222 

Table 3-78. Acres of treatments within current California spotted owl HRCAs in the wildlife analysis area by 

treatment type and alternative.......................................................................................... 3-222 

Table 3-79. Acres added to current California spotted owl PACs in the wildlife analysis area as mitigation for 

mechanical treatments within these land allocations by action alternative.................................. 3-223 

Table 3-80. Acres of high and moderate capability habitat within current and modified California spotted owl PACs 

in the wildlife analysis area by alternative............................................................................ 3-224 

Table 3-81. Acres of high and moderate capability habitat within California spotted owl HRCAs in the wildlife 

analysis area by alternative.............................................................................................. 3-226 

Table 3-82. Estimated canopy cover (acreage with ≥60 percent tree canopy cover and mean tree canopy cover) 

for California spotted owl PACs in the wildlife analysis area by alternative................................. 3-228 

Table 3-83. Estimated canopy cover for California spotted owl HRCAs in the wildlife analysis area by 

alternative................................................................................................................... 3-229 

Table 3-84. Summary of direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and alternatives to California spotted 

owls and their habitat within wildlife analysis area PACs........................................................ 3-231 

Table 3-85. Summary of direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and alternatives to California spotted 

owls and their habitat..................................................................................................... 3-233 

Table 3-86. Estimated acres of high and moderate capability great gray owl habitat within the project area before 

and after implementation of the Action Alternatives............................................................... 3-238 

Table 3-87. Estimated acres of high and moderate capability willow flycatcher habitat within the project area 

before and after implementation of the action alternatives in comparison to the wildlife analysis 

area............................................................................................................................ 3-240 

Table 3-88. W-1 Standard Threshold for wildlife special interest species................................... 3-245 

Table 3-89. Osprey nesting activity in the wildlife analysis area, 2010 field season...................... 3-248 

Table 3-90. MIS for project-level habitat analysis.................................................................. 3-259 

Table 3-91. Selection of MIS for Project-Level Habitat Analysis for the South Shore 

Project......................................................................................................................... 3-261 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

j Introduction 

Table 3-92. Alternative 2 Treatments and effects to understory shrub cover. Acres are not additive as some 

treatments overlap............................................................................................. 3-275 

Table 3-93. Alternative 3 treatments and effects to understory shrub cover. Acres are not additive as some 

treatments overlap............................................................................................. 3-276 

Table 3-94. Alternative 2 treatments and effects to understory shrub cover in late seral open coniferous forest. 

Acres are not additive as some treatments overlap................................................... 3-280 

Table 3-95. Alternative 3 treatments and effects to understory shrub cover in late seral open coniferous forest. 

Acres are not additive as some treatments overlap.................................................. 3-280 

Table 3-96. Summary of pre-treatment MIS habitat acres as a result of each 

alternative....................................................................................................... 3-293 

Table 3-97. Summary of MIS habitat acres within the South Shore project wildlife analysis area and acres with 

changes to individual habitat factors as a result of each alternative............................ 3-294 

Table 3-98. Noxious and invasive weed species within the project area....................... 3-314 

Table 3-99. ROS Classifications in South Shore project area, by acres........................ 3-338 

Table 3-100. Jurisdiction of Roads within the Project Area......................................... 3-343 

Table 3-101. Costs and Revenues for The South Shore Project, by Alternative.............. 3-350 

Table 3-102. Present Value Costs, Revenue, Net Value and Benefit-Cost Ratio by 

Alternative....................................................................................................... 3-351 

Table 3-103. Comparison of Employment Related Effects......................................... 3-351 

Table 3-104. Special Designated Areas.................................................................. 3-353 

Table 3-105. Inventoried Roadless categories and activity acres................................. 3-353 

Figures

Figure 1. South Shore Project Vicinity within the Lake Tahoe Basin............................. c 

Figure 2. Forest Service sign within an urban lot..................................................... 1-6 

Figure 3. Current fuel loading example within the South Shore project area, woody debris greater than 40 

tons/acre......................................................................................................... 1-7 

Figure 4. Desired condition within a Stream Environment Zone (SEZ) of a meadow with an Aspen 

Stand.............................................................................................................. 1-8 

Figure 5. Examples of current (left) and desired condition (center and right) conifer stand comparison – before and 

after treatment.................................................................................................. 1-10 

Figure 6. South Shore Project Area Map................................................................. 1-11 

Figure 7. Prescribed (Rx) fire follow up operation – pile burning................................... 1-12 

Figure 8. Example of cut to length mechanical SEZ treatment.................................... 2-12 

Figure 9. Example of prescribed fire, pile burning, after treatment................................ 2-15 

Figure 10. Condition Class 1 in Mixed Conifer within the South Shore Project Area......... 3-13 

Figure 11. Condition Class 2 in Mixed Conifer within the South Shore Project Area......... 3-14 

Figure 12. Condition Class 3 in Mixed Conifer within the South Shore Project Area......... 3-14 

Figure 13. Condition Class 3 in Mixed Conifer within the South Shore Project Area......... 3-15 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Table of Contents k

Figure 14. Example of current (left) and desired condition (right) conifer stand comparison – before and after 

treatment.......................................................................................................... 3-19 

Figure 15. Stand conditions at year 2007 and 2027 with no treatment........................... 3-40 

Figure 16. Stand conditions post-treatment and after 20 years.................................... 3-47 

Figure 17. Average Daily Temperatures for Trout Creek and Upper Truckee River between 1999-

2002................................................................................................................ 3-124 

Figure 18. Smoke at the start of the 2007 Angora wildfire........................................... 3-318 

Figure 19. Smoke darkens the sky during the 2007 Angora wildfire.............................. 3-319 

Figure 20. Example of understory burning............................................................... 3-321 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

l Introduction 

This page intentionally left blank. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Executive Summary i

Executive Summary 

The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) proposes to reduce the risk of high intensity 

wildfire on National Forest System lands in the wildland urban interface (WUI) in order to 

provide a defense zone between the Forest and urban and/or suburban development. Removing 

surface and ladder fuels in the WUI would provide space for an oncoming crown fire to drop to a 

surface fire where deployment of hand crews could be expected to succeed in controlling the 

spread of the fire. Equally important is thinning trees to achieve forest density more resistant to 

drought, insects, and disease which is included in the action alternatives, along with removal of 

conifer encroachment in riparian areas, aspen groves, and meadows. The action alternatives were 

developed using the best available science and are in compliance with, and would implement, the 

direction in the LTBMU Forest Plan, including amendments. 

Background 

Project Area 

The South Shore project analysis area extends from Cascade Lake on the northwest to the 

Heavenly Mountain Resort special use permit boundary and the Nevada State line on the 

northeast, and from Lake Tahoe on the north to the LTBMU boundary on the south. The table 

below lists the acres by ownership in the project analysis area. 

Table ES-1. Acres of Ownership in Project Analysis Area 

Ownership Acres 

 Private Ownership 

 Water and Other (State, County) 

 National Forest System lands 

Total Project area, all ownerships 

8,088 

8,121 

70,581 

86,790 

LTBMU Fuels and Healthy Forest Restoration Direction 

The Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) authorizes projects on federal lands to 

reduce fuel loads and increase or maintain healthy forest conditions. It provides a foundation to 

work collaboratively with at-risk communities to reduce wildfire hazards caused by fuel loads 

within the wildland urban interface (WUI) that exceed desired conditions as defined by the Forest 

Plan (Sec.102 (b)). The Act requires federal agencies to consider recommendations made by atrisk communities that have developed community wildfire protection plans (Sec. 101 (3)). An 

updated list of wildland urban interface communities within the vicinity of federal lands that are 

at high risk from wildfire was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2001. The 

community of South Lake Tahoe is listed in the Federal Register as a community at-risk. The 

South Lake Tahoe Fire Department, Lake Valley Fire Protection District, Tahoe Douglas Fire 

Protection District, and Fallen Leaf Fire Department have developed Community Wildfire 

Protection Plans (CWPPs). 

Coordination and collaboration with CWPPs are important parts of the HFRA analysis for this 

project. The community fire safe councils worked with corresponding fire departments and fire 

protection district personnel to design these CWPPs for effective defensible space across all land 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

ii Introduction 

ownerships, including National Forest System lands. The LTBMU collaborated with the fire 

districts and fire safe councils to design fuel reduction activities that coordinate with the CWPPs 

and provide the defensible space identified in the CWPPs where it occurs on National Forest 

System land. 

The LTBMU, State, and local agencies have reduced fuel hazards on approximately 18,000 acres 

from 2000-20010. In 2007, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) published their Fuel 

Reduction and Forest Restoration Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin WUI. This report synthesizes 

the CWPPs for the seven fire protection districts (FPD) to identify Basin-wide fuel reduction 

needs and the resources needed to implement a Basin-wide hazardous fuels reduction Plan. The 

TRPA report states “Although 18,000 acres have been treated in the Lake Tahoe Basin since 

2000, increased efforts are needed to protect values at risk and restore forest health” (Fuel 

Reduction and Forest Restoration Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin WUI, Executive Summary, pg. 

E-4, TRPA, 2007). 

 

Existing Situation 

A major public concern in the Lake Tahoe Basin is the threat of catastrophic fire. The cessation of 

Native American burning practices followed by Comstock-era logging, in addition to over 60 

years of fire suppression in the Basin have resulted in dense forests susceptible to fires that would 

burn severely and result in a high incidence of tree mortality. The combination of large amounts 

of hazardous fuels and the Tahoe Basin having one of the highest ignition rates in the Sierra 

Nevada, particularly in urban areas, contributes to the risk of a devastating wildfire (Murphy & 

Knopp 2000, pg. 435). The LTBMU Stewardship and Fireshed Assessment used basin-wide fire 

modeling to evaluate the likely effects of unplanned fires on urban areas and found that the most 

severe fires, and therefore effects, would occur in lower elevation pine and mixed conifer forests 

(Ten-year Integrated Vegetation and Fuels Management Program of Work, USDA Forest Service, 

2007, unpublished). Crown fires are not easily controlled and could result in potential loss of life, 

loss of private property, significant impacts on natural resources, including lake clarity, and 

adverse effects to recreational opportunities and tourism (TRPA 2007, Executive Summary, pg. 

E-1). The wildfire behavior predicted by the Fireshed Assessment, the Lake Tahoe Watershed 

Assessment, the TRPA Fuel Reduction and Forest Restoration Plan, and the South Shore 

Landscape Analysis were verified by the intensity and severity of the 2007 Angora Fire. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Executive Summary iii

Purpose and Need for Action 

1. Improve Defensible Space – 

There is a need for defensible space adjacent to communities (on National Forest System 

lands) in the South Shore area where fire suppression operations can be safely and effectively 

conducted in order to protect homes and communities from wildfires. (Citygate Associates 

2004; Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Lake Valley Fire Protection District, 2004; 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Fallen Leaf Fire Department, 2004, Tahoe-Douglas 

2004; Murphy and Knopp, eds. 2000a; USDA FS LTBMU 2004; TRPA 2007; USDA FS 

LTBMU 2007a). 

2. Reduce Risk of Catastrophic Wildfire – 

There is a need to reduce tree density and surface fuel loading, because stands of trees have 

become overly dense and surface fuels have accumulated to such a degree that wildfires with 

sustained crown fire and long range spotting could quickly develop. This causes severe 

resource damage and threatens human life and property. Figure 3 provides an example of 

what this condition looks like. 

3. Improve Forest Health – 

There is a need for restoration of forest health in the South Shore area where stands of trees 

have become overly dense, which subjects them to widespread forest dieback from insects 

and diseases. In addition, forest stands that are overly dense suffer stress from drought and 

competition for nutrients. (Murphy and Knopp, eds. 2000a; USDA FS LTBMU 2004; TRPA 

2007; USDA FS LTBMU 2007a). Existing overcrowded stands have higher than average 

mortality which leads to ever-increasing fuel loads and high intensity wildfire risk. 

4. Improve SEZ Vegetation and Habitat –

There is a need for restoration of stream environment zones (SEZs), including aspen stands in 

the South Shore area, in order to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire to spread 

through these areas. There is also a need to promote maintenance of meadows and aspen 

stands consistent with the Forest Plan, in addition to the LTBMU and Pacific Southwest 

Research Station’s “Aspen Community Mapping and Condition Assessment Report”. There 

is also a need to provide habitat for wildlife and plant species that are dependent on SEZs 

and/or aspen (Shepperd et al 2006). The photo in Figure 4 is an example of aspen treatment 

and SEZ desired conditions for the South Shore project.

To meet the aforementioned needs for action, the proposed action would also be consistent with 

Forest Plan direction, desired conditions within the WUI and achieve the following purposes: 

• Maintain or improve habitat conditions for threatened, endangered, and Forest Service 

sensitive species of plants and animals, consistent with the Forest Plan. Within the WUI 

defense zone, and strategic area treatments of the WUI threat zone, achieve management 

direction for the desired condition of forests that “are fairly open and dominated 

primarily by larger, fire tolerant trees” (SNFPA pg. 40, USDA FS 2004b, (Murphy and 

Knopp, eds. 2000a; USDA FS LTBMU 2004). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

iv Introduction 

• Assure that treatments in SEZs promote the success of riparian species while providing 

for coarse woody debris recruitment and stream shading needs. (SNFPA pg. 64, USDA 

FS 2004b). 

• Protect water quality consistent with the Forest Plan, the requirements of the Clean Water 

Act, and the Lake Tahoe Basin Plan. 

• Reduce the risk for negative impacts to soil productivity and water quality from wildfire. 

• Meet scenic quality objectives and stabilize scenic resources over the long-term by 

reducing the risk of impacts from wildfire and achieving the desired condition of stands 

that “are fairly open and dominated primarily by larger, fire tolerant trees.” See Figure 5 

for a before and after comparison of current and desired stand conditions. 

• Meet air quality standards for the Lake Tahoe Basin by reducing the risk of impacts from 

wildfire. 

• Discourage post-treatment establishment of user-created motorized or non-motorized 

routes or trails. 

• Address public safety during implementation of the project. 

Public Involvement 

The proposed action was developed through coordination and collaboration with the Washoe 

Tribe of Nevada and California, the City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department, Lake Valley Fire 

Protection District, Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District, Fallen Leaf Fire Department, 

Lahontan Water Board, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), and the public during a series 

of meetings during February and March of 2007. The proposed action was mailed to interested 

and affected parties in July of 2007. Field trips to a series of three sites for an on-the-ground look 

at types of areas proposed to receive fuel treatments by the South Shore project were hosted by 

members of the interdisciplinary team on a Tuesday and a Saturday in August of 2007, along with 

an evening open house to provide the public an opportunity to ask questions and gather 

information about this project. A total of seven written comment letters were received. 

This initial scoping and preliminary environmental analysis phase revealed that there was 

uncertainty regarding the scope of effects from this project on the human environment largely due 

to the comparatively large area proposed for treatment. Therefore the responsible official elected 

to prepare a joint draft environmental impact statement/draft environmental impact report 

(DEIS/DEIR) in accordance with NEPA and CEQA. 

Scoping for the DEIS/DEIR was done in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

part 1501.7 – Scoping. The notice of intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal 

Register on January 16, 2008. The notice of public scoping meeting, notice of intent, and CEQArequired notice of preparation, notice of completion, site map, and a supplemental potential 

environmental effects and mitigations measures paper were mailed to the State clearinghouse, 

responsible agencies and interested persons. One letter was received in response to this scoping 

period. Two joint Lahontan Water Board and Forest Service scoping meetings were held. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Executive Summary v

There were no substantive changes to the proposed action initially scoped in July 2007. Scoping 

comments submitted previously on this project were retained and treated the same as those 

received subsequent to the publication of the notice of intent and notice of proposal. 

The Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS/EIR was published in the Federal Register and a 

legal notice was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on April 10, 2009. The 45-day comment 

period closed on May 26, 2009. Copies of the Draft EIS/EIR were mailed to the interested and 

affected public, as well as to required federal and state agencies on March 26, 2009. 

Twenty comment letters were received. The response to comments is contained in Appendix E. 

Issues 

Scoping comments from the public, other agencies, and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and 

California provided information used to define issues and formulate possible alternatives to the 

proposed action that responded to the issues. The Forest Service separated the issues into two 

groups: significant and non-significant issues. Significant issues are defined as concerns as to the 

effects that would be caused by implementing the proposed action that require additional 

alternative development to insure a reasoned decision can be made. Non-significant issues are 

identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, 

regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 

4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in 40 CFR, part. 1500, “...identify and 

eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by 

prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” A list of non-significant issues and reasons why 

they were found to be non-significant may be found in the South Shore project record, document 

E-2. Significant issues that were identified from the comments received during scoping on the 

proposed action are given below. These were used to frame alternatives. 

Issue: Watershed Impacts 

There was a concern whether implementation of the proposed action would result in adverse 

direct, indirect and/or cumulative effects to watershed conditions. Commenters expressed concern 

that the proposed action resulted in a risk to water quality and watershed condition due to the 

extent of the area and/or method of treatment in or near sensitive areas. There was particular 

concern about the cumulative effect of proposed activities in watersheds (HUC7) where the 

equivalent roaded acres (ERA) already exceed the threshold of concern (TOC). 

How this issue was addressed: 

An alternative to the proposed action was created (Alternative 3) which reduces the amount of 

total acres proposed for treatment. In addition, Alternative 3 proposes fewer acres of mechanical 

treatment methods shifting treatment to hand thinning. Proposed changes are primarily in 

sensitive areas (e.g stream environment zones). Changes in the amount and method of treatment 

resulted in corresponding changes in the follow up treatments such as the amount of prescribed 

burning. In response to the concern regarding the watersheds that already are over the TOC, 

Alternative 3 also redistributes the treatment acres proposed in each of these watersheds over all 

the years of the project as compared to the proposed action to reduce the maximum treatment 

acres in these watersheds in a given year, thereby reducing cumulative impacts. 

Issue: Wildlife Areas 

There was a concern that fuel reduction activities that reduce canopy closure would degrade 

California spotted owl and northern goshawk nesting and foraging habitat. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

vi Introduction 

How this concern was addressed: 

Alternative 3 responds to this concern by changing treatments based on evaluation of the 

following: spatial extent of northern goshawk and California spotted owl PACs, WUI zone 

(defense or threat), type of treatment proposed (mechanical or hand), stand survey data, and type 

of fire behavior predicted. Generally, the intensity of treatments proposed was reduced in PACs 

where models showed existing conditions were predicted to support only surface fires. There is 

one less PAC treated in Alternative 3. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

The three alternatives developed, (1, 2, 3) consider a full range of reasonable management 

options, including the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives. 

In Alternative 1, the No-Action alternative, no vegetative treatments would take place and ladder 

and surface fuel loads would continue to increase. The Forest and private property would 

continue to be at risk for high-intensity crown fire. 

In Alternative 2, the Proposed Action alternative, the Forest Service proposes 10,670 acres of 

vegetative treatments to reduce hazardous fuels. Most of the South Shore project acres will 

require activities extending over a period of three to seven years after initial treatment to attain 

fuel reduction conditions that would remain within desired condition for a period of 15 to 20 

years post treatment. Hazardous fuel reduction would occur in all three zones of the WUI: on 

National Forest-owned urban lots within the urban core of the WUI, on National Forest lands 

within the 1⁄4 mile WUI defense zone extending from the urban core, and on National Forest lands 

within the 11⁄4 mile WUI threat zone extending from the defense zone. Most areas would require 

two connected treatments, the first to remove trees and the second to reduce surface fuels.

Providing healthy wildlife habitat and restoration of a forest structure with increased resistance to 

drought, disease, and insects are objectives that also reduce hazardous fuels. The South Shore 

project includes objectives for tree spacing and basal area to increase forest health while retaining 

larger trees and emphasizing retention of Jeffrey/ponderosa and sugar pine species. Restoration 

and maintenance of meadows and aspen stands would be accomplished by removal of 

encroaching conifers, mainly lodgepole pine and white fir. 

In Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative is a modification of the Proposed Action. Vegetative 

treatments 10,112 acres would reduce hazardous fuels. This alternative was developed to address 

the issues raised in public scoping concerning watershed and wildlife effects. Alternative 3 

provides an action alternative that reduces environmental effects to the extent practical while 

meeting the purpose for the project and concerns for public health and safety. Alternative 3 

reduces impacts to watersheds and wildlife while meeting the purpose and need to effectively 

reduce fire risk in the WUI. In summary, environmental effects are reduced through a reduction in 

mechanical treatment units, a reduction in whole-tree mechanical units, an increase in cut-tolength units, an increase in hand thinning units, and an overall reduction in total project acres 

compared to Alternative 2. 

 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Executive Summary vii

Comparison of Alternatives 

This section provides a comparison of the alternatives, based on the proposed activities in each 

alternative, of how each alternative meets the Purpose and Need, how the alternatives respond to 

the significant issues, and the effects of implementing each alternative as represented by several 

key resources. 

Comparison Table 

Table ES-2. Comparison of Alternatives Alternative 1 (No-Action) 

Risk of high intensity wildfire would continue to increase as fuel continues to 

accumulate. 

No treatments would occur to reduce surface or ladder fuel loads. 

Overly dense forest conditions would contribute to tree mortality and continue to reduce 

resistance to drought, insects, and disease. 

Forest conifer species composition would continue trending toward white fir and 

lodgepole pine, with continuing loss of Jeffery, Ponderosa and sugar pines. 

Conifer encroachment would continue in meadows and riparian areas. 

Aspen stands at high risk for loss are likely to be lost to continued conifer 

encroachment. 

Two stream crossings currently causing resource impacts would not be repaired or 

improved. 

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) 

Risk of high intensity wildfire would be reduced by treating surface and ladder fuels on 

10,671 acres. 

Thinning would reduce basal area to densities that would increase resistance to 

drought, insects, and disease. 

Preferential retention of Jeffery, Ponderosa, and sugar pines would improve species 

composition toward the pre-settlement estimates of 50% pine. 

Meadow and riparian vegetation would recover as conifer encroachment is reduced. 

Aspen stands at high risk of loss would recover as conifer encroachment is reduced or 

removed. 

Two stream crossings currently causing impacts to water and fish passage would be 

replaced and improved 

Alternative 3 

 (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Risk of high intensity wildfire would be reduced by treating surface and ladder fuels on 

10,112 acres. 

Other items in Alternative 2 would apply to Alternative 3, but on fewer acres. 

Watershed impacts would be less that Alternative 2. 

Fewer acres of wildlife PACs would be thinned than Alternative 2. 

Fewer miles of roads would be needed than in Alternative 2. 

Mechanical treatment acres would decrease, hand thinning would increase. 

Alternative Response to the Purpose and Need and Issues 

This section provides a summary of how the alternatives respond to the purpose and need, and 

issues, discussed in Chapter 1 of the DEIS. 

The key elements of the Purpose and Need are: 

 There is a need for defensible space adjacent to communities in the South Shore area where 

fire suppression operations can be safely and effectively conducted in order to protect homes 

and communities from wildfires. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

viii Introduction 

 There is a need for restoration of forest health in the South Shore area where stands of trees 

have become overly dense and surface fuels have accumulated to such a degree that wildfires 

with sustained crown fire and long range spotting could quickly develop, causing severe 

resource damage and threatening human life and property. In addition, forest stands that are 

overly dense often suffer stress from drought and competition for nutrients, which subjects 

them to widespread forest dieback from insects and diseases. 

 There is a need for restoration of meadows and aspen stands in the South Shore area in order 

to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire to spread through these areas, and to promote 

maintenance of meadows and aspen stands. 

By maintaining the existing condition, Alternative 1, the no action Alternative, fails to provide 

defensible space adjacent to homes, businesses or communities. Alternative 1 perpetuates the 

existing forest density and the likelihood for high-intensity sustained crown fires causing severe 

resource damage and threats to human life and property. Ongoing mortality from drought, as well 

as dieback from disease and insects would continue or increase from current levels. Meadows 

with conifer encroachment are likely to experience lowering water tables and shrink in size as 

conifer encroachment continues. Riparian areas with conifer encroachment are likely to continue 

to see loss of vigor in riparian vegetation, and aspen stands at high risk for loss are likely to die 

out from conifer competition. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 both meet the key elements of the purpose and need. Both action alternatives 

would provide defensible space where fire suppression actions could be effective in protecting 

homes and communities from wildfire. Thinning overly dense stands would change fire behavior 

from a sustained high intensity crown fire to a surface fire in most areas. Thinning would reduce 

tree competition and improve forest health which would increase forest resistance to drought, 

insects, and disease. Removal of conifers that are encroaching on meadows and riparian areas 

would maintain or improve riparian vegetation vigor and water tables. Aspen stands where 

conifer encroachment is removed would show increased vigor and regeneration. The main 

differences between the two action alternatives are the acres treated, the treatment methods, and 

the environmental consequences. Acres and methods are displayed in table E-3; a discussion of 

the differences in environmental consequences for key resources follows. 

Table ES-3. Fuel Treatment Methods by Alternative 

Treatment Type Alternative 2 

Acres 

Alternative 3 

Acres 

Difference 

Acres 

Hand Thinning 4,942 5,962 1,020 

Cut-To-Length 1,910 2,010 100 

Whole Tree 3,818 2,140 -1,678 

TOTAL 10,670 10,112 -532 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Executive Summary ix

Key Resource Areas 

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects were analyzed for each resource area potentially affected 

by the alternatives. The following is a summary of the effects for these resource areas. The 

resource area effects discussed below are those raised by the public during scoping, or are 

resource areas with distinctive differences in effects between alternatives. This summary is not 

meant to capture all of the effects analyses for all resources. The detailed description of effects to 

resources resulting from implementation of each of the alternatives is provided in Chapter 3. 

Fire and Fuels 

The No Action alternative would be expected to result in increased surface and ladder fuel levels 

throughout the South Shore project area, and wildfire would be expected to result in sustained 

high-intensity crown fire in the majority of the area. 

Both Alternative 2 and 3 would reduce surface and ladder fuel loads and change fire behavior to a 

surface fire in the majority of the project area. Alternatives 2 and 3 would combine with other 

fuel reduction efforts to provide a functional defense zone for homes and communities. Both 

action alternatives would reduce flame lengths to enable wildfire suppression efforts to be 

successful. 

Thinning small and suppressed trees in the action alternatives would reduce the risk of mortality 

for larger, more fire-resistant trees. The result would be more open forest conditions where fire 

could be allowed to play its ecological role. 

Alternative 2 treats more acreage than Alternative 3, and therefore changes fire behavior on more 

acres. Alternative 3 would have a shorter effective time frame because it contains more handthinned acres that would not remain effective for the same length of time as mechanical thinning. 

Forest Vegetation 

Alternative 1 makes no changes to either vegetation structure or composition. Stress-related 

mortality would be expected to continue from competition in over-crowded stands, along with 

low resistance to drought, insects, or disease. The current trend for pine species to decrease would 

continue, with a corresponding increase in white fir and incense cedar, resulting in a forest with a 

lower tolerance for fire and drought. The decline of aspen and riparian shrub species caused by 

conifer encroachment would continue. 

The action alternatives, 2 and 3, would reduce stand mortality by reducing stand density to 

sustainable levels. Increased spacing between trees would reduce competition for water and 

nutrients and help reduce the spread of insects and disease. Removal of the shade-tolerant fir and 

cedar, while retaining Jeffery, ponderosa, and sugar pines, would begin to restore the ecological 

species balance in the South Shore area. Removal of conifers encroaching into meadows would 

reverse the loss of meadow vegetation and maintain or enhance meadow water tables. Removal of 

conifers encroaching into riparian areas would encourage riparian vegetation growth and 

retention of water tables. With removal of encroaching conifers, aspen stands currently at risk of 

loss from overtopping and competition from conifers would respond with new growth. 

Alternative 2 produces these effects on more acres than Alternative 3. 

Soil Resources 

The No Action alternative would produce no direct effects to soils, however, because fire risk is 

increased for Alternative 1, the risk for detrimentally burned soils is also increased. 

Effects for soils from the action alternatives would differ both because of the amount of acres 

treated and the treatment methods. Alternative 2 operates on more acres, uses more whole-tree 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

x Introduction 

mechanical methods, more skid trails, and more roads than Alternative 3, which gives Alternative 

2 a higher potential for soil compaction. Alternative 2 uses more landings with more large landing 

burn piles with the potential for compaction and detrimentally burned soils under these large burn 

piles. Alternative 3 reduces total acres, uses more cut-to-length mechanical methods which 

operate on a bed of slash that reduces soil compaction, and includes a greater proportion of handthinning methods which also reduce the potential for soil compaction. There are fewer large 

landing burn piles with Alternative 3, but more small hand burn piles. This also reduces the 

potential for detrimentally burned soil because although there are more piles to burn, the burn 

temperatures, duration of the burn, and penetration of heat into the ground are less with the 

smaller hand piles. Alternative 3 has a lower potential for negative effects to soils than 

Alternative 2. 

Water and Riparian Resources 

The No Action alternative would produce no direct effects to water quality, however, because fire 

risk is increased for Alternative 1, the risk for negative effects to watersheds and water quality is 

also increased. Modeling of watershed effects from wildfire projected wildfire effects to be 3 to 5 

times greater than either action alternative depending on wildfire severity. 

Similar to soils resources, effects for water and riparian resources from the action alternatives 

differ both because of differences in the amount of acres treated and the treatment methods. 

Alternative 2 operates on more total acres, and more acres within streamside environment zones 

(SEZs) using mechanical equipment than Alternative 3. Additional roads would be needed, and 

together with skid trails and landings, the disturbance levels in Alternative 2 would increase the 

risk ratio (RR) to a larger degree on more watersheds than Alternative 3. Although neither action 

alternative would cause any watershed to be pushed over 100% of their threshold of concern 

(TOC), Alternative 2 would increase the RR more than 20% for both Tallac and Taylor Creek 

watersheds. Alternative 3 has a decrease in mechanical treatment acres and an increase in hand 

thinning acres, especially in SEZs, which reduces ground disturbance levels close to streams and 

lakes. Alternative 3 also requires fewer roads, landings, and skid trails, resulting in less ground 

disturbance. The changes for Alternative 3 reduce the increase in TOC for both Taylor and Tallac 

Creek watersheds below 20%. The Camp Richardson Frontal watershed is currently over 100% 

TOC due to urban development, and both action alternatives increase the TOC more than 5% in 

order to effectively reduce fuels in this watershed. Public comments on the watershed effects of 

the Proposed Action were a major factor in developing Alternative 3, along with public 

comments on wildlife effects. 

Aquatic Wildlife 

The No Action alternative would produce no direct effects to aquatic wildlife. However, because 

fire risk is increased for Alternative 1, the risk for negative effects to aquatic wildlife habitat from 

ash and sediment, as well as direct fish kill, is also increased. Under the No Action alternative 

conifer stands within riparian conservation areas (RCAs) and SEZs will continue to remain dense 

with high fuel loads. Fire model simulations across the South Shore project area showed a 

distribution of low burn severity (4%), moderate severity (62%) and high severity (32%). It is 

assumed in case of wildfire under existing conditions that a portion of the potential high severity 

areas would be distributed in the RCAs/SEZs. Wildfire impacts could occur to riparian 

vegetation, which in-turn may affect stream channel stability if vegetation was no longer 

available to provide bank stability. 

Both Alternative 2 and 3 would reduce conifer density in RCAs and SEZs adjacent to aquatic 

habitats which could reduce stream shading. Neither alternative is expected to reduce stream 

shading to an extent that would result in an increase in the temperature regime of streams. Both 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Executive Summary xi

alternatives would reduce conifer encroachment and encourage riparian shrub growth to enhance 

aquatic habitat quality. Alternative 3 affords greater protection for aquatic habitats with an 

increase in hand treatments in SEZs and a wider buffer for lake shores. 

Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT), a Threatened species, are known to occur in the Upper Truckee 

River above Christmas Valley upstream of the southern extent of activities in the South Shore 

project area. This adjacent Lahontan cutthroat trout population could be affected by the project if 

individual LCT migrate into the project area before implementation occurs. By decreasing the 

amount of combustible fuels within Upper Truckee River RCAs/SEZs the potential for future 

effects on LCT resulting from wildfire would decrease. 

Terrestrial Wildlife 

The No Action alternative would produce no direct effects to terrestrial wildlife. However, 

because fire risk is increased for Alternative 1, the risk for destruction of terrestrial wildlife 

habitat from high-intensity sustained crown fire is also increased. 

Alternative 2 would reduce fuels in wildlife areas, including PACs, where surface and ladder 

fuels exceed the desired conditions for the WUI. Under either action alternative scheduling would 

provide refuge areas during activities. Public comments on wildlife effects of the Proposed 

Action were another factor in developing Alternative 3, along with comments about watershed 

effects. In the development of Alternative 3, individual stands within PACs were modeled for fire 

behavior, and those stands that modeled as a surface fire were dropped from treatment. Stands 

where fire behavior modeling indicated a crown fire type were retained for fuel reduction. The 

result is that Alternative 2 would have slightly less risk of crown fire, but more reduction in the 

quality of wildlife habitat, while Alternative 3 would have a slightly increased risk for crown fire 

over the landscape, but would maintain more high quality wildlife habitat, especially nesting 

habitat for CA spotted owls and northern goshawks. Neither action alternative would lead toward 

a trend toward listing for any terrestrial wildlife candidate or Forest Service sensitive species. 

Details and discussion of other species are found in Chapter 3. 

TRPA Special Interest Species 

The No Action alternative would produce no direct effects to TRPA special interest species. 

However, because fire risk would increase for Alternative 1, the risk for habitat loss from highintensity wildfire would also increase. 

Both action alternatives would improve habitats for TRPA special interest species, both by 

reducing surface and ladder fuels, and by removal of conifer encroachment from meadows, 

riparian areas, and aspen stands. Northern goshawk TRPA disturbance zones prescriptions would 

retain habitat components needed by goshawks while reducing surface and ladder fuels, and are 

also considered as a Forest Service sensitive species. Both Alternative 2 and 3 retain existing 

winter roost trees within bald eagle winter habitat and all existing nest, roost, and perch trees for 

osprey while removing surface and ladder fuels. Critical deer fawning habitats within meadows 

would be improved with meadow improvement for both action alternatives, while forest hiding 

cover would be reduced by the removal of ladder fuels. Removal of encroaching conifers adjacent 

to wetlands would maintain or enhance water tables for waterfowl as well as increase sight 

distance for avoiding predators. BMPs and design criteria would conserve lake and stream fish 

habitats in the project area. The potential for fine sediment reaching the lake is greater in 

Alternative 2 than Alternative 3 because Alternative 2 has more acres of mechanical treatment 

and uses more road miles. However, any increases in fine sediment would not be measurable 

under either of the action alternatives. See Aquatic Wildlife above for Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

Summer nesting habitat would not be affected for either the bald or golden eagle. Indirect impacts 

to peregrine falcons may include slight changes in patterns of habitat use by prey species, subtly 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

xii Introduction 

changing peregrine foraging behavior, though overall prey abundance is not expected to be 

affected by any of the alternatives. 

Management Indicator Species 

Alternative 1 would produce no direct effects to any management indicator species or their 

habitats. However, because fire risk is increased for Alternative 1, the risk for loss of MIS 

habitats from sustained crown fire is also increased. 

Effects for riverine, wet meadow and riparian habitats are covered above under water and riparian 

resources, vegetation, and aquatic wildlife. 

There are effects to conifer habitats for MIS species not covered in other resource areas above. 

Because most treatments proposed under the action alternatives would focus on removal of 

understory, small diameter trees, and retention of larger trees within the stand, treatments are 

expected overall to result in an increase in the average tree diameter per stand, and a decrease in 

both understory tree cover and overall vertical vegetation structure. The net effect is to create a 

shift in habitats from early- and mid-seral habitats to open canopy late-seral habitats. Direct and 

indirect effects from Alternatives 2 and 3 to understory shrub canopy closure are primarily a short 

term reduction in total shrub cover due to one or several of the following: 1) physical disturbance 

of shrubs from equipment use during mechanical thinning operations, 2) removal of shrubs to 

create landings, 3) purposeful burning of shrubs during underburning treatments, or 4) incidental 

burning of shrubs during pile burning treatments. Shrub cover reduction resulting from vegetation 

treatments would be expected to recover within 3-10 years, with regrowth dependent on the 

dominant shrub species, treatment type, and site conditions. Due to vegetation treatments some 

early- and mid-seral coniferous forest would change to late-seral open and closed canopy 

coniferous forest. 

Vegetation management projects remove snags in green forests only when necessary to meet 

fuels reduction or safety objectives. On average, both action alternatives would retain a minimum 

of 3-8 medium to large snags per acre, per Forest Plan guidelines and project resource protection 

measures. These levels of snag retention are within the range of average snag densities observed 

across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. Removal of snags > 30 inches dbh is limited in both action 

alternatives, and would have minimal effect on large snag densities in burned forest in the 

wildlife analysis area; since only hazard trees would be removed adjacent to established 

infrastructure (e.g., houses, roads/trails, etc). Because burned forests contain higher snag densities 

than green forests in the wildlife analysis area, the potential reduction in snag density within 

burned forest would be greater than the reduction in green forest. 

Neither action alternative would cause a change in the existing trend for MIS habitats in the 

Sierra Nevada bioregion, nor would either action alternative modify the existing distribution for 

any associated MIS species. 

Sensitive Plants 

Alternative 1 would produce no direct effects to any sensitive plant species or their habitats. 

However, because fire risk is increased for Alternative 1, the risk for loss of sensitive plants or 

their habitats from high-intensity wildfire is also increased. 

Both action alternatives would protect sensitive plant populations by avoiding flagged areas 

during all ground-disturbing activities. Sensitive plant habitat would be enhanced by protecting 

water tables through removing conifers encroaching on their habitats, especially wet meadow and 

fen habitats. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Executive Summary xiii

Noxious Weeds 

Alternative 1 would produce no direct effects to any noxious or invasive plant species. However, 

because fire risk is increased for Alternative 1, the risk for spread of invasive plants and creation 

of new infestations of noxious/invasive plants from high-intensity wildfire is also increased. 

Both action alternatives contain resource protection measures to prevent the introduction and/or 

spread of invasive plants by avoidance of weed-infested areas and washing equipment before it is 

allowed into a new area if it is coming into the Lake Tahoe Basin, is coming from a known weedinfested site, or if the originating location is unknown. There is no difference in these features 

between the action alternatives. 

Air Quality 

The No Action alternative would produce no direct effects to air quality in the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

However, because fire risk is increased for Alternative 1, the risk for negative impacts to air 

quality and human health from high-intensity wildfire is also increased, as is the release of CO2

and other greenhouse gases. 

For either action alternative, all prescribed burning would be coordinated with the state and local 

air quality agencies to ensure that atmospheric stability and mixing heights are advantageous for 

dispersion of emissions. El Dorado County Air District is the permitting agency for a required 

smoke management plan. The smoke management plan would prescribe weather conditions 

(mixing heights and transport winds) that would avoid smoke effects as much as possible in the 

City of South Lake Tahoe and other communities in the South Shore projects area, and 

Desolation Wilderness, a Class 1 airshed. 

Pile burning and prescribed burning under either action alternative affects air quality in ways 

similar to wildfires; however, prescribed burning offers many advantages over wildfire. The 

effects of prescribed fire can be manipulated to reduce adverse effects to air quality. Smoke 

mitigation techniques include consideration of atmospheric conditions, season of burn, fuel and 

duff moisture, diurnal wind shifts, appropriate ignition techniques and rapid mop-up. These 

procedures would be followed and identified in burn plans to prevent adverse air quality effects. 

Short duration production of smoke and associated emissions would occur during pile and 

understory burning. In comparison to a wildfire, prescribed burning produces much less smoke, 

and would release much less CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. 

Fugitive dust could result from thinning operations such as skidding and hauling during dry 

seasons in either action alternative. Fugitive dust caused by construction and use of unpaved 

roads can produce PM10 in quantities great enough to impair the visual quality of the air. Dust 

that is generated by skidding, loading, and site preparation activities also contributes to fugitive 

dust. These effects are localized and would be mitigated by effective dust abatement methods 

through contractual requirements for standard road watering to mitigate much of the dust. . 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

Alternative 1 would produce no direct effects to any cultural or heritage resource. However, 

because fire risk is increased for Alternative 1, the risk for loss or degradation of cultural 

resources from high-intensity wildfire is also increased. 

The action alternatives would protect heritage and cultural resources through both passive and 

active methods. Passive methods are to flag and avoid cultural or heritage sites. Active methods 

include hand thinning to reduce the risk of damage from high-intensity wildfire and removal of 

conifer encroachment in aspen stands to reduce competition for aspens with arborglyphs. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

xiv Introduction 

Scenic Resources 

The No Action alternative would not produce direct effects to any scenic resource. However, 

because fire risk is increased for Alternative 1, the risk for loss or degradation of scenic views 

from high-intensity wildfire is also increased. Long term and indirect effects of the No Action 

alternative could result in a decrease in the presence of valued scenic attributes, and may result in 

failure to meet visual quality objectives (VQOs). 

During vegetation treatment activities in both action alternatives, mechanical equipment or hand 

crew activities would cause a visual impact that exceeds VQO standards, but these activities 

would occur within short time durations. Clearing for landing areas is also considered a shortterm impact to VQOs. These areas would meet VQOs following restoration measures and one to 

three years of vegetative growth. 

Burn piles would remain in the landscape for one to three years following their creation and 

would meet the VQO of Retention or Partial Retention after they were burned. While smoke 

associated with prescribed burning of hand treated piles would have an effect on air clarity, this 

effect is also limited in scope and of short duration. 

An indirect effect of implementing either action alternative would be increased viewing distances 

through more open forest stands. Views that were previously blocked by dense vegetation may 

become visible following treatment activities. This is likely to result in positive visual effects, 

such as revealed views of Lake Tahoe or surrounding landforms, and in negative visual effects, 

such as exposed views of neighborhoods or community infrastructure. 

Implementation of either action alternative would have an indirect benefit to the scenic stability 

of the project analysis area. The reduced probability of landscape-scale tree mortality would 

increase the likelihood that the area would maintain compliance with Forest Plan VQOs. 

Additionally, the removal of conifers from aspen stands, meadows and riparian corridors would 

help perpetuate these scenic landscapes into the future. Any visual impacts to water clarity 

resulting from any sedimentation and erosion associated with treatment activities are anticipated 

to be short lived or non-evident. 

Historically the landscape within the project area experienced more frequent surface fires which 

resulted in a more open forest character compared to current conditions. The effects of 

implementing the vegetation treatments in either action alternative would mimic these historic 

conditions and would be consistent with the Forest Plan VQOs of Retention and Partial 

Retention. Cumulative effects of implementing either action alternative would build on previous 

treatments and result in change to the landscape of the WUI that would improve scenic stability 

over the next 10 to 25 years. 

Recreation 

The No Action alternative would result in no short term or direct effects to the recreation 

resources, access or quality of recreation experience within the project area. Existing patterns of 

recreation use would be expected to remain, and to increase in volume over time. The potential 

for establishment of user-created trails remains, as does the potential for wildfires being started 

by legal or illegal recreation campfires. However, because fire risk is increased for Alternative 1, 

the risk for loss of recreation site infrastructure and loss of recreation opportunities from highintensity wildfire is also increased. 

A short-term direct effect during project management activities for both action alternatives would 

be temporary area closures implemented to protect the public from safety hazards associated with 

tree removal and operation of mechanical equipment. During fuels management activities trucks 

and other equipment would be utilizing public travel routes and have the potential to increase 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Executive Summary xv

traffic congestion and negatively affect the driving experience of highway users. Since “driving 

for pleasure” is an identified recreation use within the project area, this user group, as well as 

those traveling to recreation destinations could be affected. Landing or staging areas associated 

with mechanical treatment units that are located near residential roads, especially those roads that 

provide public access to general forest areas, would alter the visual landscape and the experience 

of those recreating in these areas during and immediately following treatment. 

No changes to the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classification are anticipated as a result of 

implementing either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. Effects from Alternative 3 would be slightly 

less due to fewer acres treated, fewer trucks needed, and fewer roads and landings used. 

Transportation 

Alternative 1 would maintain the existing condition of the transportation system, including two 

existing stream crossings that are currently blocking water flow and fish passage. 

There would be no new permanent road construction under either action alternative. Both action 

alternatives would replace and improve two stream crossings currently blocking water flow and 

fish passage. The majority of South Shore project effects would be short-term, and occur during 

the 5-8 years of project implementation. Road maintenance and reconstruction would create 

ground disturbance that would be additive to other ongoing activities from other projects on both 

federal and private ownerships. Initial activities to maintain or create road surfaces would 

increase the potential for sediment creation, while improvements to both existing road surfaces 

and existing stream crossings would reduce the potential for sediment transport. The net effect is 

likely to be neutral or positive over the long term, because the improvements to road surface and 

stream crossings would be permanent, and the decommissioning and stabilization of temporary 

roads would reduce the potential for ongoing effects from these roads. Because Alternative 2 

would call for approximately four more miles of temporary road mileage than Alternative 3, road 

impacts and cumulative impacts would be less for Alternative 3. 

Social and Economic 

The No Action alternative would produce no direct costs or benefits. However, because fire risk 

is increased for Alternative 1, the risk for loss of existing economic values along with the risk for 

accumulating fire suppression costs from high-intensity wildfire is increased. 

Alternative 2 present value cost was estimated to be $12,233,000. The present net value for 

Alternative 2 was estimated at $-3,334,000 and a benefit-cost ratio of 0.73, which indicates that 

the project costs would exceed the value of commercial products. As this alternative produces 

revenues from thinning only, values generated from the sale of generally smaller trees would not 

cover the costs associated with tree removal and extensive cleanup of slash and past tree 

mortality. 

For Alternative 3, present value revenue was estimated to be $6,942,000. The present net value 

for Alternative 3 was estimated at $-8,674,000 and a benefit-cost ratio of 0.44, which indicates 

that project costs would exceed the value of the commercial timber by a larger factor than in 

Alternative 2. As this alternative also produces revenues from thinning only, values generated 

from the sale of generally smaller trees would not cover the costs associated with tree removal, 

extensive slash cleanup, and cleanup from past tree mortality. Alternative 3 would increase cutto-length harvesting over whole tree harvesting compared to Alternative 2. Cut-to-length 

harvesting systems are more expensive than whole tree systems, and when combined with fewer 

total acres of mechanical harvesting in Alternative 3, the ratio of costs to revenues is higher in 

Alternative 3. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

xvi Introduction 

The cumulative effects of either action alternative would include the maintenance costs associated 

with the various treatments. Maintenance of treatments within the defense zone of the wildland 

urban interface is estimated to cost $13,956,000. These treatments could be needed in twenty 

years where understory trees regenerate causing live fuel build up in the form of fire ladders. 

Maintenance treatments would consist of thinning or understory burning. The projected 

cumulative impacts of this project when combined with other projects would be to further 

increase employment and contracts to accomplish this work. 

Indirect effects of the action alternatives are additional public benefits such as local employment, 

income generated from the forest products industry, and energy from local cogeneration plants. 

Alternative 2 would create an estimated 25 full time jobs for timber industry employment during 

implementation. Based on a medium income of $70,516 for El Dorado County residents (US 

Census 2000, adjusted to 2006), the total employment-related income for Alternative 2 would be 

$1,762,900. During implementation, Alternative 3 would create an estimated 21 full time jobs for 

direct and induced employment. The total employment-related income for Alternative 3 would be 

$1,481,000. 

Environmental Justice 

Adverse environmental or human health conditions created by any of the alternatives would not 

disproportionately affect any minority or low income neighborhood. The activities proposed in all 

alternatives were based solely on the existing and desired condition of the vegetation, sensitivity 

of the environment, and practical treatment access in response to the purpose and need. In no case 

was the treatment prescription design based on the demographic makeup, occupancy, property 

value, income level or any other criteria reflecting the status of adjacent non-federal land. 

Monitoring Strategy 

The purpose of project monitoring is to track the implementation of the resource protection 

measures found in Chapter 2 with the prescribed BMPs, and to measure their effectiveness in 

protecting resources. Monitoring is critical for evaluating the effectiveness of management 

decisions and the accuracy of analysis assumptions and conclusions. It is also important for a 

monitoring strategy to meet two essential criteria: (1) be helpful in making effective management 

decisions in the future, and (2) be feasible to implement. 

Chapter 4 describes the monitoring that is required specific to the South Shore project. The 

description of monitoring is organized by resource. When a change in monitoring would be 

required by a difference between the action alternatives, a discussion of differences between 

alternatives is included. Specific resource areas for which monitoring would occur are: 

• Soil, Water and Riparian Resources Monitoring 

• Aquatic Resources Monitoring 

• Transportation Monitoring 

• Sensitive Plant Monitoring 

• Invasive Weed Monitoring 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Executive Summary xvii

Types of Monitoring 

Implementation monitoring consists of visual monitoring of project treatment areas, roads, 

stream crossings, landings, etc., to ensure that all management practices and project resource 

protection measures (termed “design features” in the DEIS) are implemented, including those 

designed to prevent sediment delivery and protect water quality (e.g., erosion control measures, 

riparian buffers, waterbars, critical dips) are in place as prescribed. 

Effectiveness monitoring consists of visual monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

prescribed resource protection measures and management practices at meeting their objectives. It 

includes evaluating the effectiveness of management practices designed to prevent sediment 

delivery and protect water quality (e.g., erosion control measures, riparian buffers, waterbars, 

critical dips). 

Required Monitoring for Soil, Water, and Riparian Resources 

• SEZ Pile Burning 

• BMP and Resource Protection Measure Implementation 

• BMP Evaluation Program 

• Additional BMPEP Monitoring 

• Forensic Monitoring

Required Monitoring for Aquatic Resources 

• Stream Temperature and Shade 

Required Monitoring for Transportation 

• Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program 

Required Monitoring for Sensitive Plants and Fungi 

• NRIS Database

Monitoring related to Invasive Weeds 

• NRIS Database 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

xviii Introduction 

This page intentionally left blank. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

 

Purpose and Need for Action 1-1

Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need for Action 

Document Structure 

The Forest Service has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other relevant Federal laws and regulations. This Final 

EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the 

proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. The document is organized into the following 

chapters consistent with NEPA regulations. 

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action 

This chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for 

the project, and a brief overview of the Forest Service proposal for achieving that purpose and need. 

This chapter also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the 

public responded. 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action 

This chapter provides detailed descriptions of the no-action alternative (Alternative 1), and the two 

action alternatives the Forest Service considered for this project, the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) 

and the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3). Chapter 2 includes the integrated design 

features/resource protection measures for each of the action alternatives. Finally, this chapter 

provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative 

(details are found in Chapter 3). 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

This chapter describes the existing conditions of the land and resources within the project area and 

discloses the environmental effects of implementing each alternative, including the no action 

alternative. This chapter is organized by resource area. 

Chapter 4. Monitoring 

This chapter describes the monitoring that would take place under the action alternatives. 

Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination, Acronyms and Glossary, and References Cited 

This section describes the coordination and consultation with Tribes and other Federal, State, and 

local agencies, provides aid to the reader for scientific and agency terms and acronyms, and details 

the literature references cited in the body of the EIS.

Appendices 

The appendix sections of the FEIS provide additional information as needed to support the analyses 

presented in this EIS. 

 Appendix A contains a summary of the past, present and foreseeable actions that were used 

in the cumulative effects analysis. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 1 1-2

 Appendix B lists the best management practices (BMP’s) applicable to this project. 

 Appendix C outlines criteria used to evaluate the sensitivity of stream environment zones 

(SEZ’s) within the project area. 

 Appendix D displays the soil moisture protocol. 

 Appendix E contains a list of all who commented on the DEIS, a consolidation of all 

comments (grouped by resource or interest area), and responses to each substantive 

comment. 

Additional documentation may be found in the project planning record located at the U.S. Forest Service, 

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Inquiries related 

to the South Shore project planning record may be directed to the Forest Service, LTBMU, via email at: 

comments-pacificsouthwest-ltbmu@fs.fed.us, or by phone: (530)543-2600. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

 

Purpose and Need for Action 1-3

Background

Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) Process 

The Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) authorizes projects on federal lands to reduce fuel 

loads and increase or maintain healthy forest conditions. It provides a foundation to work collaboratively 

with at-risk communities to reduce wildfire hazards caused by fuel loads within the wildland urban 

intermix (WUI) that exceed desired conditions as defined by the Forest Plan (HFRA Sec.102 (b)). The 

Act requires federal agencies to consider recommendations made by at-risk communities that have 

developed community wildfire protection plans (HFRA Sec. 101 (3)). An updated list of urban wildland 

interface communities within the vicinity of federal lands that are at high risk from wildfire was published 

in the Federal Register on August 17, 2001. The community of South Lake Tahoe is listed in the Federal 

Register as a community at-risk. The South Lake Tahoe Fire Department, Lake Valley Fire Protection 

District, Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District, and Fallen Leaf Fire Department have developed 

community wildfire protection plans (CWPP’s). 

Coordination with these agencies in the development and use of their CWPP’s is an important part of the 

HFRA analysis for this project. The community fire safe council worked with corresponding fire 

departments and fire protection district personnel to design these CWPP’s for effective vegetation and 

fuels treatments and defensible space across all land ownerships, including National Forest System lands. 

The U.S. Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) collaborated with the fire 

districts and fire safe councils to design fuel reduction activities that are consistent with the CWPP’s and 

provide the defensible space identified in the CWPP’s where it occurs on National Forest System lands. 

Land ownership patterns in the Lake Tahoe Basin present a challenge to project implementation. The 

CWPP’s identify fuels treatment needs across multiple ownership jurisdictions (federal, state, local, and 

private). Approximately 65 percent of the CWPP treatments include National Forest lands. A successful 

fuels reduction program requires effective coordination among land management and regulatory agencies. 

One purpose of HFRA is to promote collaboration that resolves issues and reduces both time and expense 

for preparation of environmental documentation in order to proceed with projects to reduce hazardous 

fuels and restore forest health in a shorter timeframe and with lower costs to the taxpayer (HFRA 2003). 

Pursuant to HFRA, instead of an appeal period (36 CFR 215), there will be an “objection process” before 

the final decision is made and after the environmental document is available (36 CFR 218). In order to be 

eligible to file an objection to the preferred alternative, specific written comments related to the project 

must have been submitted during scoping or other public involvement opportunities on this EIS (36 CFR 

218.6). Individual members of organizations must have submitted their own comments to meet the 

requirements of eligibility as an individual, objections received on behalf of an organization are 

considered as those of the organization only. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 1 1-4

Emphasis on Reducing Conifer Density and Treating Fuels 

The 2007 Angora Fire, started on National Forest System lands (NFS), burning approximately 3,100 acres 

and destroying or damaging more than 250 structures. This fire was a devastating fire to many people 

who live in the neighborhoods within the South Shore of Lake Tahoe. Lessons learned from the Angora 

Fire concluded that where fuels and vegetation treatments were completed prior to the fire, they worked 

as intended, by reducing fire intensity from a crown fire to surface fire, reducing ember spotting distances 

(to <50 feet), and ultimately increasing firefighters ability to take safe and "close-in" suppression actions, 

thus minimizing the overall potential fire damage to structures. In areas that were untreated, such as 

slopes and the Angora Creek Stream Environment Zone (SEZ), the fire burned as a crown fire consuming 

95-100 percent of the tree crowns and surface vegetation, it created ember spotting distances as far as 1⁄2 

mile, and suppression resources could not safely engage the fire due to rapid rates of spread and very high 

intensity caused by continuous dense stands of trees and high surface fuel loading (Murphy et al 2007). 

Ultimately, the areas that had prior vegetation/fuels treatments are currently in a healthier forest condition 

that is resilient to fire where intact stands of trees exist with lower surface fuel loads, and a diversity of 

surface vegetation and snags. 

The LTBMU, State, and local agencies have conducted thinning and fuels reduction efforts on 

approximately 30,000 acres within the Lake Tahoe Basin from 2000-2010. In 2007, the Tahoe Regional 

Planning Agency (TRPA) published their Fuel Reduction and Forest Restoration Plan for the Lake Tahoe 

Basin Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). This report synthesizes the CWPPs for the seven fire protection 

districts (FPD) to identify Basin-wide fuel reduction needs and the resources needed to implement a 

Basin-wide hazardous fuels reduction Plan. The TRPA report emphasizes the need for increased efforts in 

treating fuels and forest thinning to protect values at risk and restore forest health (TRPA 2007, Executive 

Summary pg. E-4). In addition to the 2007 TRPA report, several other studies identify the need to reduce 

conifer density and hazardous fuel loads in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The Lake Tahoe Watershed 

Assessment (Murphy & Knopp, editors 2000a) found that current tree density is approximately four times 

that of 150 years ago. They also found a pronounced shift in the species composition of younger trees 

away from pine and towards fir. The proportion of less fire-resistant white fir and incense cedar has 

doubled over the past 200 years, while the component of more fire-resistant Jeffrey pine has declined by 

half. The Watershed Assessment reported that there have been few fires in the 20th century mostly due to 

excellent fire detection and suppression, with response time to human-caused fire among the shortest in 

the Sierra Nevada. It was also noted that the Lake Tahoe Basin has one of the highest fire ignition rates in 

the Sierra Nevada, concentrated around the urban interface. The Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment 

projected that “should a fire escape initial control attempts under extreme wildfire conditions, at least 50 

percent of the area in the resulting burn would likely be crown fire, with overstory tree mortality greater 

than 50 percent... Even a small wildfire in the basin is potentially a significant event because of the 

juxtaposition of high ignition potential, high density and value of human developments, and high fuel 

hazard” (Murphy & Knopp, editors 2000a, pg. 15). The Watershed Assessment recommended “A 

combination of increased fire prevention, education, and strategic fuel hazard reduction will be most 

effective at reducing the likelihood of damaging fire in the basin” 

(Murphy & Knopp, editors 2000a, pg. 15). 

In 2004, the LTBMU prepared the South Shore Landscape Analysis (USDA FS LTBMU 2004), which 

also identified a need for cost-effective vegetation treatments to reduce hazardous fuel loads, particularly 

in the WUI. Recommended outcomes are to achieve conditions that (1) reduce the size and severity of 

wildland fires, and (2) result in stand densities necessary for healthy forests during drought conditions. 

This landscape analysis warns, “The consequences of doing nothing will result in continued high 

vegetation densities and species composition that is out of balance... This would lead to increases in 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

 

Purpose and Need for Action 1-5

surface, ladder, and crown fuels... with increased potential for insect infestation, disease outbreaks, and 

uncharacteristically severe wildfires” (USDA FS LTBMU 2004, pg. 5-43). 

The LTBMU Stewardship and Fireshed Assessment used Basin-wide fire modeling to evaluate the likely 

effects of unplanned fires on urban areas. The Fireshed Assessment found that the most severe fires, and 

therefore effects, would occur in lower elevation pine and mixed conifer forests (USDA FS 2007a). 

Crown fires are not easily controlled and could result in potential loss of life, loss of private property, 

significant impacts on natural resources, including lake clarity, and loss of recreational opportunities and 

tourism (TRPA 2007, Executive Summary, pg. E-1). The wildfire behavior modeled and predicted 

(within the Fireshed Assessment, the Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment, the TRPA Fuel Reduction and 

Forest Restoration Plan, and the South Shore Landscape Analysis) were verified by the intensity and 

severity of the 2007 Angora Fire. 

The South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project (known hereafter as the South 

Shore project) was initiated in response to public wildfire risk concerns and the existing hazardous fuel 

conditions. The project initiation letter established an interdisciplinary team of Forest Service specialists 

to evaluate opportunities to move from the existing conditions toward the conditions desired both in the 

Forest Plan (as amended) and in the CWPP’s of communities in the South Shore area. Collaborative 

efforts with local Fire Districts (Lake Valley Fire Protection District, Fallen Leaf Fire Department, Tahoe 

Douglas Fire Protection District, and South Lake Tahoe Fire Department), TRPA, Lahontan Water Board, 

the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, and the public provided input to the Forest Service (both 

during meetings and in writing) that was incorporated into the project design. The Proposed Action 

Alternative in this document is the product of the initial efforts in collaboration. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 1 1-6

Purpose and Need for Action

The following needs have been identified in this project area: 

1. Improve Defensible Space – There is a need for defensible space adjacent to communities (on 

National Forest System lands) in the South Shore area where fire suppression operations can be 

safely and effectively conducted in order to protect homes and communities from wildfires. 

(Citygate Associates 2004; Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Lake Valley Fire Protection 

District, 2004; Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Fallen Leaf Fire Department, 2004, 

Tahoe-Douglas 2004; Murphy and Knopp, eds. 2000a; USDA FS LTBMU 2004; TRPA 2007; 

USDA FS LTBMU 2007a). 

 

Figure 2. Forest Service sign within an urban lot. Photo 

depicts project treatments in proximity to homes and 

neighborhood in the Wildland Urban Interface. Located 

within the Bijou neighborhood, South Lake Tahoe.
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

 

Purpose and Need for Action 1-7

2. Reduce Risk of Catastrophic Wildfire – There is a need to reduce tree density and surface 

fuel loading, because stands of trees have become overly dense and surface fuels have 

accumulated to such a degree that wildfires with sustained crown fire and long range spotting 

could quickly develop. This causes severe resource damage and threatens human life and 

property. Figure 3 provides an example of what this condition looks like. 

3. Improve Forest Health – There is a need for restoration of forest health in the South Shore 

area where stands of trees have become overly dense, which subjects them to widespread forest 

dieback from insects and diseases. In addition, forest stands that are overly dense suffer stress 

from drought and competition for nutrients. (Murphy and Knopp, eds. 2000a; USDA FS 

LTBMU 2004; TRPA 2007; USDA FS LTBMU 2007a). Existing overcrowded stands have 

higher than average mortality which leads to ever-increasing fuel loads and high intensity 

wildfire risk. 

 

Figure 3. Current fuel loading example within the South Shore project area, 

woody debris greater than 40 tons/acre. Location: Off Hwy 50 at Upper Truckee 

River.
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 1 1-8

4. Improve SEZ Vegetation and Habitat – There is a need for restoration of stream environment 

zones (SEZs), including aspen stands in the South Shore area, in order to reduce the potential 

for catastrophic wildfire to spread through these areas. There is also a need to promote 

maintenance of meadows and aspen stands consistent with the Forest Plan, in addition to the 

LTBMU and Pacific Southwest Research Station’s “Aspen Community Mapping and Condition 

Assessment Report”. There is also a need to provide habitat for wildlife and plant species that 

are dependent on SEZs and/or aspen (Shepperd et al 2006). The photo in Figure 4 is an 

example of aspen treatment and SEZ desired conditions for the South Shore project. 

To meet the aforementioned needs for action, the proposed action would also be consistent with Forest 

Plan direction, desired conditions within the WUI and achieve the following purposes: 

 Maintain or improve habitat conditions for threatened, endangered, and Forest Service sensitive 

species of plants and animals, consistent with the Forest Plan. Within the WUI defense zone, and 

strategic area treatments of the WUI threat zone, achieve management direction for the desired 

condition of forests that “are fairly open and dominated primarily by larger, fire tolerant trees” 

(SNFPA pg. 40, USDA FS 2004b, (Murphy and Knopp, eds. 2000a; USDA FS LTBMU 2004). 

 Assure that treatments in SEZs promote the success of riparian species while providing for coarse 

woody debris recruitment and stream shading needs. (SNFPA pg. 64, USDA FS 2004b). 

Figure 4. Desired condition within a Stream Environment Zone (SEZ) of a 

meadow with an Aspen Stand. Location: Heavenly SEZ Demonstration Project, 

Pioneer Trail at Al Tahoe Blvd.
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

 

Purpose and Need for Action 1-9

 Protect water quality consistent with the Forest Plan, the requirements of the Clean Water Act, 

and the Lake Tahoe Basin Plan. 

 Reduce the risk for negative impacts to soil productivity and water quality from wildfire. 

 Meet scenic quality objectives and stabilize scenic resources over the long-term by reducing the 

risk of impacts from wildfire and achieving the desired condition of stands that “are fairly open 

and dominated primarily by larger, fire tolerant trees.” See Figure 5 for a before and after 

comparison of current and desired stand conditions. 

 Meet air quality standards for the Lake Tahoe Basin by reducing the risk of impacts from wildfire. 

 Discourage post-treatment establishment of user-created motorized or non-motorized routes or 

trails. 

 Address public safety during implementation of the project. 
Lake Tahoe Ba

1-10 

Figure 5. Examples of current (left) and desired condition (center and right) conifer stand comparison – before and 

Location: Heavenly SEZ Demonstration Project (Al Tahoe Blvd at Pioneer Trail, South Lake Tahoe). Middle photo w

following treatment; Photo at right illustrates vegetation conditions 4 years after treatment.
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

 

Purpose and Need for Action 1-11

Figure 6. South Shore Project Area Map
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 1 1-12

Proposed Action

The Forest Service proposes vegetation treatments on 10,670 acres to reduce hazardous fuels, improve 

forest health and restore aspen stands within the South Shore Project Area. Fuel reduction would occur in 

all three zones of the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI): 1) On Forest Service owned urban lots within the 

WUI urban core, and 2) on Forest Service lands within the WUI Defense and, 3) WUI Threat Zones. The 

Defense Zone generally extends 1⁄4 mile from the private land / Forest Service boundary and the Threat 

Zone extends approximately 11⁄4 miles beyond the Defense Zone. Consistent with SNFPA (USDA FS 

2004, ROD p. 40), in the project area, the WUI boundaries were refined based upon site-specific 

topography and other features that provide logical fireline placement during suppression, such as slope 

breaks, roads, and streams (See Map 5). 

Trees would be removed using a combination of mechanical and hand thinning methods. Mechanical 

methods would include using tracked and rubber-tired equipment designed to remove and process trees 

and vegetation. Residual fuels left following tree removal would be treated by a combination of 

prescribed burning, mechanical treatment (e.g. chipping and mastication) and/or removal. The proposed 

action also includes road crossing reconstruction at three locations. Implementation would be scheduled 

to start in 2011 and take approximately eight years to complete all the treatments proposed. 

A detailed description of the proposed action (Alternative 2) is presented in Chapter 2. 

Figure 7. Prescribed (Rx) fire follow up operation – pile burning
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

 

Purpose and Need for Action 1-13

Decision Framework 

Decision to be Made 

The Responsible Official (36 CFR 218.2) is Nancy J. Gibson, Forest Supervisor, Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. The Forest Supervisor will review 

the proposed action, the other alternatives, public, agency and tribal input, and the environmental 

consequences in order to decide whether to: 

 Implement the proposed action (Alternative 2) as described in Chapter 2 

 Implement the preferred alternative (Alternative 3) as described in Chapter 2 

 Implement a decision that combines a mixture elements from either Alterative 2 or 3 

 Take no action at this time 

The decision will be published in a Record of Decision signed by the Forest Supervisor at the conclusion 

of a 30 day objection period in accordance with HFRA (36 CFR 218.12). 

Scope of the Decision 

The scope of the decision would apply only to National Forest System lands within the South Shore 

project area managed by the LTBMU. This decision is within the authority delegated to the Forest 

Supervisor as the Responsible Official. There are no areas within designated Wilderness or Research 

Natural Areas proposed for treatment. Therefore approval by the Regional Forester or Station Director, 

respectively, is not required. 

Approximately 650 acres of area considered for fuel reduction treatment are included where the WUI 

overlaps Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) in the project area. Management of IRA’s on National Forest 

System lands is currently the subject of conflicting Federal Court decisions. On November 5, 2009, 

Regional Forester Randy Moore issued a letter outlining Roadless Area Management Direction for the 

Pacific Southwest Region (R5) based on delegations made by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to the 

Forest Service. Based on R5 direction the South Shore project is within a class of action that requires 

review by the Regional Office and notification to the State of California. The State of California has not 

filed a petition for these IRAs under the 2003 Roadless Rule. 

Revisions from DEIS/DEIR to FEIS 

This FEIS complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Since this project was initially 

conceived in 2006 there have been significant events that have influenced the creation of the final 

document. Notably the Angora Fire (June 2007) and the subsequent recommendations made in the 

California-Nevada Tahoe Basin Fire Commission report issued in May 2008. 

The LTBMU and Lahontan Water Board originally produced a joint Draft EIS/EIR, released in April 

2009. The DEIS was compliant with NEPA and the DEIR was compliant with the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). At the outset of the analysis there was concern that a project of this 

size may have significant environmental consequences. This uncertainty lead to the decision by the Forest 

Supervisor and the Lahontan Water Board that a joint DEIS/DEIR would be appropriate should the 

analysis find the project would have significant impacts. The subsequent detailed analysis as presented in 

the DEIS concluded that there are no significant impacts that would result in the implementation of either 

of the action alternatives. Comments on the DEIS did not uncover any issues that would lead to the 

conclusion that the proposed action alternatives, as described with the associated extensive resource 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 1 1-14

protection measures (mitigations), would not result in significant impacts. The FEIS continues to make 

the finding that either of the action alternatives will not result in significant impacts. Therefore, without 

significant impacts further development of an EIR (under CEQA) or EIS (under TRPA) is not warranted. 

Since the Forest Service started with an EIS it will continue under those NEPA regulations rather than 

issue an Environmental Assessment, Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. 

Based on a July 2011 court decision, the MOU between the TRPA and the Lahontan Water Board 

allowing single agency permitting for vegetation management projects is no longer valid. Consequently 

the Forest Service will seek the appropriate permits from both the TRPA and the Lahontan Water Board 

based on their respective authorities and, in the case of the TRPA, the vegetation management MOU that 

remains in place. This FEIS will be the basis for any environmental documentation. 

Public Involvement

The initial proposed action was developed through coordination and collaboration with the Washoe Tribe 

of Nevada and California, the City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department, Lake Valley Fire Protection 

District, Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District, Fallen Leaf Fire Department, Lahontan Water Board, 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), and the public during a series of nine meetings during 

February and March of 2007. The proposed action was mailed to interested and affected parties in July, 

2007. Field trips to a series of three sites for an on-the-ground look at types of areas proposed for fuel 

treatments by the South Shore project were hosted by members of the interdisciplinary team on Tuesday, 

August 21, 2007, and Saturday, August 25, 2007, from 10 am to 2 pm. An evening open house on August 

23, 2007, also provided the public an opportunity to ask questions and gather information about this 

project. Over 75 people visited the field sites, and seven people attended the open house. A total of seven 

written comment letters were received. 

As a result of this initial scoping and during the preliminary environmental analysis phase there were 

public and other agency concerns due to the complexity of the proposal over such a large project area. 

Since it was uncertain if a Finding of No Significant Effect could be made the Forest Supervisor decided 

to prepare an environmental impact statement and forego an environmental assessment. After a number 

of collaborative meetings with the TRPA and Lahontan Water Board, the Forest Supervisor in 

cooperation with Executive Director (Lahontan Water Board) elected to prepare a joint draft 

environmental impact statement/draft environmental impact report (DEIS/DEIR) in accordance with 

NEPA and CEQA. 

Scoping was done in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 1501.7 – Scoping. The 

Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on January 16, 2008. The 

comment period on the proposed action extended 30 days from the date the NOI was published in the 

Federal Register. 

The CEQA-required notice of preparation, notice of completion, site map, and supplemental potential 

environmental effects and mitigations measures paper were mailed to the State clearinghouse, responsible 

agencies and interested persons on January 14, 2008. The comment period for these documents extended 

30 days from the date they were mailed. One additional letter was received in response to this scoping 

effort. 

Two joint Lahontan Water Board and Forest Service scoping meetings were held; one on January 23, 

2008 from 10:00 am to noon in the Board Room at Lake Tahoe Community College, 1 College Dr. South 

Lake Tahoe, CA; and the second on February 14, 2008 from 1:00 to 3:00 pm at the Lahontan Water 

Quality Control Board office, 2501 Lake Tahoe Blvd, South Lake Tahoe, CA. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

 

Purpose and Need for Action 1-15

However, because there were no substantive changes to the proposed action initially scoped in July 2007; 

those who previously submitted comments on this project were not required to resubmit them. Scoping 

comments submitted previously on this project were retained and treated the same as those received 

subsequent to the publication of the notice of intent and notice of proposal. 

The Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS/EIR was published in the Federal Register and a legal notice 

was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on April 10, 2009. The 45-day comment period closed on May 

26, 2009. Copies of the Draft EIS/EIR were mailed to the interested and affected public, as well as to 

required federal and state agencies on March 26, 2009. Copies of the Draft EIS/EIR were posted at the El 

Dorado County Clerk’s office, the South Lake Tahoe public library, and at the LTBMU Forest 

Supervisor’s office and visitor’s centers. A total of 20 letters of comment were received on the Draft 

EIS/EIR; one from the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, three from government agencies, two 

from fire protection organizations, seven from environmental groups, and seven letters from individuals. 

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

Comments is found in Appendix E of this FEIS document. 

Issues

Scoping comments from the public, other agencies, and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 

provided information used to define issues and formulate possible alternatives to the proposed action that 

responded to the issues. The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and nonsignificant issues. Significant issues are defined as concerns as to the effects that would be caused by 

implementing the proposed action that require additional alternative development to insure a reasoned 

decision can be made. Non-significant issues are identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed 

action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to 

the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in 40 CFR, part. 1500, 

“...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been 

covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” A list of non-significant issues and reasons why 

they were found to be non-significant may be found in the South Shore project record, document E-2. 

Significant issues that were identified from the comments received during scoping on the proposed action 

are given below. These were used to frame alternatives. 

Issue: Watershed Impacts 

There was a concern whether implementation of the proposed action would result in adverse direct, 

indirect and/or cumulative effects to watershed conditions. Commenters expressed concern that the 

proposed action resulted in a risk to water quality and watershed condition due to the extent of the area 

and/or method of treatment in or near sensitive areas. There was particular concern about the cumulative 

effect of proposed activities in watersheds (HUC7) where the equivalent roaded acres (ERA) already 

exceed the threshold of concern (TOC). 

How this concern was addressed: 

An alternative to the proposed action was created (Alternative 3) which reduces the amount of total acres 

proposed for treatment. In addition, Alternative 3 proposes fewer acres of mechanical treatment methods 

shifting treatment to hand thinning. Proposed changes are primarily in sensitive areas (e.g stream 

environment zones). Changes in the amount and method of treatment resulted in corresponding changes 

in the follow up treatments such as the amount of prescribed burning. In response to the concern 

regarding the watersheds that already are over the TOC, Alternative 3 also redistributes the treatment 

acres proposed in each of these watersheds over all the years of the project as compared to the proposed 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 1 1-16

action to reduce the maximum treatment acres in these watersheds in a given year, thereby reducing 

cumulative impacts. 

Issue: Wildlife Areas 

There was a concern that fuel reduction activities that reduce canopy closure would degrade California 

spotted owl and northern goshawk nesting and foraging habitat. 

How this concern was addressed: 

Alternative 3 responds to this concern by changing treatments based on evaluation of the following: 

spatial extent of northern goshawk and California spotted owl PACs, WUI zone (defense or threat), type 

of treatment proposed (mechanical or hand), stand survey data, and type of fire behavior predicted. 

Generally, the intensity of treatments proposed was reduced in PACs where models showed existing 

conditions were predicted to support only surface fires. There is one less PAC treated in Alternative 3. 

Forest Plan Consistency 

The South Shore project analysis area extends from Cascade Lake on the northwest to the Heavenly 

Mountain Resort Special Use Permit boundary and the Nevada State line on the northeast, and from Lake 

Tahoe on the north to the LTBMU boundary on the south (Map 2). Table 1-1 lists the acres by ownership 

in the project analysis area. 

Table 1-1. Acres of Ownership in Project Analysis Area 

Ownership Acres 

Private Ownership 8,088 

Other (State, County) 8,121 

National Forest System lands 70,581 

Total Project area, all ownerships 86,790 

The proposed action and alternatives are guided by the LTBMU Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Forest Plan or LRMP) (USFS LTBMU 1988), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

(SNFPA, USDA FS 2004b) and other amendments. 

The LRMP, as amended, has been reviewed in consideration of the South Shore project. This project is 

responsive to guiding direction contained in the Plan, is consistent with the standards and guidelines 

contained in the Plan, and is consistent with the requirements for management prescriptions. The analysis 

for consistency with the Forest Plan is contained in the project planning record. The analysis for 

consistency with the Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCO) described in the SNFPA is contained in the 

RCO Analysis Report ( PR# J14). 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

 

Purpose and Need for Action 1-17

Laws, Regulations, and Policies 

All resource management activities described and proposed in this document would be implemented to 

the extent that they are consistent with applicable Federal law, United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) regulations, Forest Service policies, and applicable provisions of State law. The major laws and 

their applicability to the proposed action are as follows: 

Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500) 

All Federal agencies must comply with the provisions of the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act 

regulates forest management activities near federal waters and riparian areas. The proposed action meets 

the terms of the Clean Water Act for non-point sources of pollution, primarily pollution caused by erosion 

and sedimentation. 

Clean Air Act (Public Law 84-159) 

The following documents provide guidance and direction for smoke management to protect air quality: 

(1) Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires, issued by the Environmental Protection 

Agency in 1998; (2) Memorandum of Understanding between the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) and the USDA FS, signed on July 13, 1999; and (3) Smoke Management Guidelines in Title 17 

of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

The project area lies within the Lake Tahoe Air Basin and the El Dorado Air Quality Management 

District. As a matter of regional policy, a smoke management plan would be submitted to and approved 

by El Dorado Air Quality Management District, who would issue a Burn Permit to the LTBMU prior to 

any burning that would occur within the South Shore project area. Several communities lie within 

proximity of the areas where prescribed burning is proposed to occur. Adherence to the smoke 

management plan for pile and understory burning would reduce negative impacts to communities. By 

adhering to a smoke management plan approved by the LTBMU Forest Supervisor and the El Dorado Air 

Quality Management District, particulate matter emissions from pile or understory burning would not 

violate California Ambient Air Quality (CAAQ) emission standards. 

Dust abatement would be accomplished by applying water to roads, and landings, at a frequency that 

would control dust. 

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) 

Executive Order 12898 requires that all federal actions consider potentially disproportionate effects on 

minority and low-income communities especially if adverse effects to environmental or human health 

conditions are identified. Adverse environmental or human health conditions created by any of the 

alternatives considered would not affect any minority or low income neighborhood disproportionately. 

The activities proposed in all alternatives were based solely on the existing and desired condition of the 

vegetation, sensitivity of the environment, and practical treatment access in response to the Purpose and 

Need. In no case was the treatment prescription design based on the demographic makeup, occupancy, 

property value, income level or any other criteria reflecting the status of adjacent non-federal land. 

Federally owned lands proposed for treatment are distributed throughout the project area, and are 

intermixed with non-federal lands. Reviewing the location of the proposed treatments in any of the 

alternatives in relationship to non-federal land, there is no evidence to suggest that any minority or low 

income neighborhood will be affected disproportionately. Conversely there is no evidence that any 

individual, group or portion of the community will benefit unequally from any of the actions in the 

proposed alternatives. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 1 1-18

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205) 

Section VII of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to consult with the United States 

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the United States Department of 

Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), whichever is appropriate, during project planning 

when Threatened or Endangered species, or their associated critical habitat, may be affected by a project. 

Informal consultation was completed for the South Shore project because Lahontan cutthroat trout, a 

Threatened species, or their associated habitat, could potentially be affected by this project (see Chapter 3, 

Aquatic Wildlife). 

A discussion also occurred concerning whether technical assistance should be requested for the Candidate 

species mountain yellow-legged frog. Both FWS and the LTBMU agreed that although mountain yellowlegged frog habitat may exist within the project analysis area, recent amphibian surveys support that the 

species does not occur within the project treatment area; therefore technical assistance would not be 

required. 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; 

(7 U.S.C. 136 as amended) 

This act as amended is the authority for the registration, distribution, sale, shipment, receipt, and use of 

pesticides (collective for insecticides, fungicides, and rodenticides). The Forest Service may use only 

pesticides registered or otherwise permitted in accordance with this act. In addition, the Forest Service in 

Region 5 must comply with California State laws and regulations regarding pesticides. Also, Forest 

Service policy in Region 5 is to use only EPA and California-registered pesticides. The action alternatives 

include the use of an EPA registered borate compound on cut stumps that are 14 inches diameter and 

greater for the prevention of annosus root disease. The borate compound is considered a fungicide. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as amended (16 USC 703-712) 

The original 1918 statute implemented the 1916 Convention between the United States and Great Britain 

(for Canada) for the protection of migratory birds. Later amendments implemented treaties between the 

United States and Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union (now Russia). Specific provisions in the statute 

include the establishment of a Federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to "pursue, hunt, take, 

capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, 

deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be 

transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or 

carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of this 

Convention . . . for the protection of migratory birds . . . or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird." 

Because forestlands provide a substantial portion of breeding habitat, land management activities within 

the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit can have an impact on local populations, and are addressed in 

the terrestrial wildlife sections of Chapter 3. 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 [NFMA] (Public Law 94-588) 

The National Forest System lands affected by the South Shore project are subject to management 

direction in the 1988 LTBMU Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) as amended by the 2004 

SNFPA ROD. The LRMP, as amended, guides management of all National Forest lands and resources 

within the South Shore project area. It includes direction for forest management, goals and objectives, 

area management direction, and standards and guidelines. As stated above, the South Shore project 

complies with the LRMP. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

 

Purpose and Need for Action 1-19

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [NEPA] (Public Law 91-190) 

NEPA requires that Federal agencies complete detailed disclosure on proposed actions and alternatives to 

the proposed action that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The purpose of an 

environmental impact statement is twofold: 1) to provide decision makers with a detailed accounting of 

the likely environmental effects of a proposed action and any alternatives prior to adoption of an action, 

and 2) to inform the public and allow it to comment on those environmental effects. This EIS analyzes the 

alternatives and discloses their effects in detail. The procedural requirements of NEPA have been met. 

National Historic Preservation Act (Public Law 89-665) 

The proposed action is in conformance with regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), 1966, as amended (P.L. 89-665, 80 Stat.915); the National Environmental Protection Act 

(1969), Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA), Native American Grave Protection 

and Repatriation Act (1990: P.L. 101-601), and American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978: P.L. 95-

341), and as called for by the 1996 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 (Regional PA), and the 2004 Interim Protocol for Non-Intensive Inventory Strategies 

for Hazardous Fuels and Vegetation Reduction Projects (Interim Protocol). 

United States District Court, Eastern District of California Ruling – 11/4/09 

On November 4, 2009 Judge Morrison C. England issued a Memorandum and Order requiring that fuels 

projects that are under the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment and were not approved prior to 

November 4, 2009 must include a detailed consideration of a noncommercial funding alternative. The 

South Shore Project is compliant with this order because both of the action alternatives (Alternative 2 and 

3) represent noncommercial funding alternatives as described in the Court Order. Implementation of 

either alternative is not based, nor depends on, the commercial sale of wood fiber (e.g., saw timber, 

fuelwood and/or biomass). The prescriptions for tree removal and vegetation management are based 

solely on fuels and forest health objectives as described in Chapter 2 and not on any value in the products 

removed. It is not an objective of the South Shore Project to generate revenue (Chapter 1, Purpose and 

Need). It is anticipated that most of the funding for implementation will come from sources such as the 

Sierra Nevada Public Lands Management Act. However, this does not mean that wood fiber products 

will not be sold as a spin-off of project operations. Should markets exist at the time of implementation 

for wood fiber products, the Forest Service may elect to dispose of project generated fuels via sale to meet 

the ecological goals of the project. The potential revenues are displayed in Chapter 3, Economic 

Conditions and Effects. 

Permits and Coordination 

The Forest Service is actively consulting and coordinating with Federal, State, and local agencies, and 

tribes that have an interest in the project or could have a role in reviewing and/or providing permits or 

other approvals for aspects of the project. This includes coordination with Federal, County, and State of 

California regulatory agencies, including air quality management districts and water quality control 

boards. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 1 1-20

El Dorado Air Quality Management District 

Permits would be required from the El Dorado Air Quality Management District prior to prescribed 

burning. 

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan) 

The Basin Plan includes waste discharge prohibitions applicable within the Lake Tahoe Basin (Basin Plan 

section 5.2). ‘Waste’ includes, but is not limited to waste earthen materials (such as soil, silt, sand, clay, 

rock, or any other organic or mineral material) and any other waste as defined in the California Water 

Code section 13050(d). The Lahontan Water Board can grant exemptions to the prohibitions against 

discharges or threatened discharges attributable to new development or permanent disturbance in SEZs 

for erosion control projects, habitat restoration projects, wetland rehabilitation projects, SEZ restoration 

projects, and similar projects, programs, and facilities, if all of the following findings can be made: 

(a) The project, program, or facility is necessary for environmental protection or public health and 

safety; 

(b) There is no reasonable alternative, including relocation, which avoids or reduces the extent of 

encroachment in the SEZ; and 

(c) Impacts are fully mitigated. 

Based on the analysis presented in the FEIS, the South Shore Project meets the above criteria, and is 

eligible for enrollment in the 2009 Timber Waiver from Lahontan Water Board. Since this project will 

take several years to complete, the Forest Service will apply for enrollment under the 2009 Timber 

Waiver (or any successor waiver) and/or for permits prior to on-the-ground operations. The Lahontan 

Water Board would complete appropriate additional CEQA documentation required for any phase they 

find not eligible for the 2009 Timber Waiver. This adaptive approach will ensure that any necessary 

permitting is streamlined and contemporary with project operations. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) 

Since January 2009 the TRPA and the Lahontan Water Board have had a MOU that allowed one of the 

agencies to be the singular regulating agency. This was in compliance with the recommendations of the 

2008 California-Nevada Tahoe Basin Fire Commission for streamlining the permitting process. Under 

this MOU the Lahontan Water Board was designated as the permitting agency for the South Shore 

project. However in July 2011 the MOU between these agencies was found to be invalid by a state court, 

consequently the project will also need TRPA review. The TRPA and Forest Service, LTBMU have a 

MOU for vegetation management projects. The provisions of this MOU will apply to the South Shore 

project. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-1

Chapter 2 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Introduction 

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the South Shore Project. It describes 

the three alternatives considered in detail and those eliminated from detailed study. At the end of this 

chapter the alternatives are presented in tabular format so that the alternatives and their environmental 

consequences can be readily compared. 

Revisions of Chapter 2 for the FEIS 

Based on detailed review and comments received on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), 

Chapter 2 has been entirely reorganized for the final environmental impact statement (FEIS); however the 

changes are in presentation and format only. Much of the information has been consolidated into tables 

for clarity. There is no substantive change in the project actions as proposed on the ground in any of the 

alternatives from what was presented in the DEIS. The revised presentation reformatted acreages to be 

more consistent and comparable between the alternatives and for improved consistency for resource 

analysis, but they are based on the same treatment units and prescriptions that were the foundation for the 

DEIS. Definitions for all the activities were revised and expanded to provide greater clarity, but they 

describe the activities as proposed in the DEIS and do not represent any changes to the methods that are 

proposed. Some treatment prescriptions that appeared to be separate activities in the DEIS, but were 

really overlapping have been revised. For example, meadows and SEZ treatments were differentiated in 

the DEIS, but in the FEIS they are combined because the treatment prescription is the same. 

Overall the chapter has been streamlined to first present comprehensive descriptions of the actions 

proposed in the alternatives followed by the resource protection measures (formerly called design 

features) that would apply to both of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3). The background 

information that was presented in the DEIS Chapter 2 has been moved to Chapter 3 under each resource 

area. The resource protection measures have been collated into a tabular format by general resource area. 

Resource protection measures were edited to remove duplication and clarify the objective and intent of 

the measure. The source reference for each resource protection measure had been added. Appendix C 

which listed both BMPs and a replication of soil and water related resource protection measures (design 

features) has been streamlined to include only applicable BMPs from the FS Region 5 BMP handbook. 

All of the resource protection measures are now included in one place in this chapter. 

The analysis of comments on the DEIS (Appendix E) did not lead to the formation of any new 

alternatives considered in detail. However they did result in some additional information to clarify the 

alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed study (which begins on p. 2-49). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-2

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Three alternatives are considered in detail: 

 Alternative 1: No Action 

 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 

 Alternative 3: Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the No Action alternative, the South Shore project would not be implemented. There would be no 

landscape level treatment of vegetation and fuels on National Forest System lands in the wildland urban 

interface (WUI) within the analysis area. Thinning to reduce hazardous fuels, removal of excessive 

ground fuel, removal of conifer encroachment from meadows, or removal of conifer encroachment from 

aspen stands would not be implemented as described in the action alternatives. The current conditions of 

dense stands and high fuel loads would continue to decrease forest health conditions and fire suppression 

capabilities within the project area. 

However, there would be fuel reduction and forest health restoration activities ongoing within the project 

area under previously approved vegetation management activities. These activities include management 

of vegetation and fuels on Forest Service urban lots outside of SEZs, restoration of some aspen stands 

through the Aspen Community Restoration Project, vegetation and fuels treatments in the Big Meadow 

Creek Watershed Fire Regime Restoration Project, and fuels treatments in the High Meadow Restoration 

Project. In addition the Angora Fire Restoration Project which includes five major restoration activities: 

fire and fuels, vegetation and forest health, wildlife habitat, aquatic habitat and stream channel restoration, 

road and trail delineation and noxious weed detection and removal within the Angora Fire area was 

approved on July 9, 2010. 

No Forest Service System road maintenance activities associated with vegetation and fuels management 

would occur and only the routine annual road maintenance would continue. Ongoing vegetation 

management activities would use the existing road system. The three road crossings proposed for 

reconstruction in the action alternatives would be deferred or not constructed. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

This alternative was designed to meet the purpose and need identified in Chapter 1, by: 

 Creating defensible space, 

 Restoring forest health and resiliency, and 

 Restoring SEZs and aspen stands. 

It represents the initial proposed action presented during the scoping period. Prescriptions were further 

refined as a result of scoping for the DEIS. No changes in prescriptions were made in this alternative 

between the DEIS and FEIS. 

In Alternative 2 the Forest Service proposes to treat 320 units totaling approximately 10,670 acres within 

the 70,581 acres of National Forest System land in the South Shore Project analysis area. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-3

Vegetation Treatment 

Initially vegetation (trees and brush) would be thinned using one of the following methods: 

o Mechanical thinning using: 

 

 Whole-tree (WT) – Whole tree harvesting thins stands by felling and bunching cut trees 

and larger surface fuels and then skidding the material to a landing. When processed at 

the landing, the limbs and tops are either chipped for biomass removal or piled to be 

burned later. Logs are loaded onto trucks for removal. 

 Cut-to-length (CTL) - A CTL harvester simultaneously thins stands, processing logs and 

bunching biomass for removal while traveling over a portion of the limbs and tops from 

the trees harvested. A forwarder self-loads logs with or without branches for transport to 

a landing as well as biomass that will be removed from the project area usually in the 

form of chip. Logs are generally not skidded. A chipper at the landing usually processes 

material into clean chip for manufacturing into oriented stand boards and biomass 

utilization. 

o Hand thinning (HT) - This method involves hand crews using chainsaws to buck and pile 

surface fuels, cut and pile small diameter fuel ladders, and thin canopy trees (living and dead) 

up to approximately 20” diameter. 

Table 2-1. Summary of Thinning Method Acres Proposed in Alternative 2 

Mechanical Thinning 

Hand Thinning Total 

WT CTL 

Upland 3620 1463 4855 9938 

SEZ 1981 447 87 7322

Method Subtotal 3818 1910 

4942 10670 

Total 5728 

Notes: 1 Estimate of SEZ inclusions within WT units. These areas would be treated by endlining. 

2 Includes 290 acres of aspen and meadow treatments.

 

Implementation Schedule Limitations 

An important element to Alternative 2 is how the implementation of the thinning treatments would be 

spread over time within each of the watersheds. This distribution ensures only a limited number of acres 

would be treated within a watershed in any given year. This treatment design provides only a maximum 

limit on thinning activities. There is no minimum limit, as weather, contractor availability, or other 

unforeseen factors may dictate a slower pace than the maximum possible. It is anticipated that the South 

Shore Project could take as long as eight years to complete, depending on factors such as funding, 

weather, operating season and burning conditions. The distribution of treatments across watersheds in the 

project is analyzed in Chapter 3, Water and Riparian Resources section. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-4

Follow-up Treatments 

After vegetation is thinned, follow up treatments to reduce or redistribute residual fuel that was created by 

thinning, or present prior to thinning, would include the following methods: 

 Lop and Scatter – A hand method of reducing the upward extending branches from tops and 

limbs of felled trees to keep slash low to the ground (generally 12” to 18”) and spread out. 

Material is left or may be a pre-treatment to underburning. 

 Mastication/Chipping – Uses a variety of rotary or drum cutters that grind and spread 

remaining surface fuels disconnecting them from the tree canopy. In some areas where 

access is appropriate chipped material may be removed from the site. 

 Prescribed Fire 

o Pile & burn – Slash created by thinning treatments and existing dead woody 

debris are stacked in piles with the intent of burning when conditions in an 

approved burn plan are met, usually two to three years later. Piles are generally 

distributed throughout a treatment unit. Piles are most often created by hand 

crews but may be constructed in CTL units by using a grappler attachment to a 

forwarder (Grapple pile). 

 During pile burning fire is not confined to the pile. Fire is allowed to 

move through the unit to consume surface fuels that have not been piled. 

 Pile burning is normally conducted as opposed to underburning as an 

initial fuels treatment due to the high accumulations of fuels generated 

by thinning. 

o Underburning – Also termed broadcast burning, refers to burning residual fuels 

in place when conditions in an approved burn plan are met. 

o Landing pile burning – Woody material that remains on landings is typically 

machine piled and burned when conditions in approved burn plan are met. 

Table 2-2. Estimated Follow-up Treatments Proposed in Alternative 2 

Follow up Treatment 

Method 

Associated 

Thinning Method 

Upland 

Acres SEZ Acres Total Acres 

Lop & Scatter WT, CTL, HT 2353 198 2551 

Mastication/Chipping WT, CTL, HT 2480 0 2480 

Underburning (lop 

and scatter) WT, CTL, HT 850 32 882 

Pile & burn HT 4372 87 4459 

Grapple Pile & Burn CTL 515 0 515 

Landings – pile 

burning and/or 

removal 

WT 128 0 128 

Note: In some cases follow up treatment methods may overlap, for example some units may 

be partially treated by hand piling and also underburned. As a result the acreages shown in 

Table 2-2 are not additive. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-5

Follow up residual fuel treatments are prescribed based on the conditions within an individual treatment 

unit after thinning has been completed. The type of thinning treatment, amount of surface and activity 

fuels, stand location and topography, air quality, treatment cost, and species composition, were all 

considered when determining the follow-up treatment. The prescriptions are designed separately from the 

thinning method to meet fuels treatment objectives and desired conditions, and are therefore not 

necessarily connected to the thinning method used. The residual fuels are a combination of existing fuel 

prior to treatment and the fuels generated by the treatment. 

The acreage estimates presented in Table 2-2, above, are based on expected fuel loading and conditions 

after thinning operations. The prescriptions take into account the pre-treatment fuel load and predicted 

residual fuel post thinning as well as soils, slope, location, remaining vegetation etc. The acreages may 

change when implemented based on the actual outcome of the thinning and pre-project ground conditions. 

While removal of woody biomass would be preferred to burning whenever feasible, there is no way to 

predict what the biomass market will be at the time this project is implemented. Consequently this 

analysis assumes all follow up treatments will involve whole tree removal or treating the residual fuels on 

site in the absence of a market that can utilize the materials. 

Roads and Access 

Landings – An estimated 219 landings could be used to support the proposed thinning activities proposed 

in Alternative 2. Approximately 177 of these landings would be constructed on previously used landing 

sites. Landings would average less than one acre but would not be larger than two acres. Generally 

landings used for WT operations tend to be larger than CTL operations. Existing vegetation would be 

removed from the landing site and piled for later burning. 

System Road Management – Alternative 2 would use 26.7 miles of existing System roads. Of the 

System roads used, 11.7 miles would receive maintenance activities which generally include minor 

drainage maintenance, surface repair, and brushing. The remaining 15 miles would need reconstruction. 

Reconstruction includes maintenance activities plus activities such as, replacement of inadequate drainage 

crossings, elimination of ruts, ditch repair, and installation of waterbars and dips to provide adequate 

runoff. Roads proposed for reconstruction are either Maintenance Level 1 or 2. At the conclusion of the 

project all FS System roads would be left in a condition consistent with the assigned Maintenance Level 

as prescribed by the Forest Development Road Plan.

Temporary Roads – Alternative 2 would propose to construct 13.6 miles of temporary road. Of the total 

mileage proposed, 8.8 miles is on old existing road prisms and only 4.8 miles requires new construction. 

Temporary road construction involves the following activities: 

 Vegetation removal: Light brush, small trees, and grasses would usually be removed by 

equipment such as dozers or graders. Larger trees and brush would require hand removal and 

piling for disposal. Clearance limits would generally allow one-way passage for equipment and 

trucks, but would not be cleared beyond the original road prism when one exists. In general, 

temporary roads would not have constructed turnouts to accommodate two-way traffic. Traffic 

control measures such as radio communications would be utilized 

 Grading: For new temporary roads, the road prism would be graded by equipment. Generally, 

the road would be outsloped to ensure that effective drainage is maintained. For temporary roads 

that follow existing old road prisms, obstacles such as ruts, water bars, leadoff ditches, and 

pronounced dips would be graded out to make the road suitable for equipment and truck traffic. 

 Drainage: Facilities such as culverts or fords would be installed to accommodate the free flow of 

drainages and ditches. Dips and leadoff ditches, with energy dissipaters as needed, would be 

installed to facilitate occasional thunderstorm runoff. If vegetation at the end of leadoff ditches 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-6

and dips is not sufficient to disperse sediment loads, rock or slash would be placed to adequately 

disperse sediment loads. 

Temporary road stream crossings would be needed in 28 locations on ephemeral channels, and one 

temporary crossing on an intermittent channel. The number of stream crossings and the type of stream 

channel that would be crossed are given for each watershed below: 

Angora Creek 2 ephemeral crossings 

Camp Richardson Frontal 1 ephemeral crossing 

Grass Lake 2 ephemeral crossings 

Headwaters of Trout Creek 1 ephemeral crossing 

Lower Trout Creek 1 ephemeral crossing 

Lower Upper Truckee River 3 ephemeral crossings 

Middle Upper Truckee River 1 ephemeral crossing 

Osgood Swamp 3 ephemeral crossings 

Saxon Creek 1 intermittent and 1 ephemeral crossing 

Tallac Creek 4 ephemeral crossings 

Taylor Creek 9 ephemeral crossings 

Temporary roads would be constructed, used then decommissioned at the conclusion of use. Temporary 

stream crossings would be constructed, used then decommissioned within one season, except the Saxon 

Creek intermittent crossing. No temporary roads are proposed for inclusion into the FS System. 

Decommissioning would use a variety of actions but would leave the road impassible to vehicles, and 

hydrologically stable (see resource protection measures). 

Crossing and Culvert Replacement - Alternative 2 proposes the replacement of three existing 

permanent stream crossings that are currently acting as fish passage barriers, sediment conveyance 

barriers, and/or sediment sources. One of these is on an intermittent channel in the Lower Trout Creek 

watershed (12N01A), one is on an ephemeral channel in the Cold Creek watershed (12N08), and one is 

on a perennial channel in the Osgood Swamp watershed (12N20). 

Forest Service System Road 12N01A 

The existing crossing on Forest Service System road 12N01A over an intermittent tributary to 

Saxon Creek in the Lower Trout Creek watershed is acting as a flood passage barrier, is causing 

erosion immediately downstream, and has caused aggradation upstream. This crossing 

replacement also reduces the need for temporary roads by 0.7 mile. The replacement crossing 

design would meet the following specifications: 

 The crossing would be constructed in the fall, during drier channel and meadow conditions to 

prevent direct impacts to this tributary or to Saxon Creek. Because the channel and meadow 

would be relatively dry during installation, dewatering and diversions are not expected to be 

necessary. 

 If groundwater is intercepted during construction, it would be pumped to adjacent upland 

areas. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-7

 The crossing would be designed to support the weight of the crossing and its intended use by 

thinning and fire suppression equipment. 

 Excavation in the flood plain would be required to remove the existing fill and connect the 

foundation of the road with the crossing to support equipment and hauling trucks. The 

removed fill would be replaced with granular material meeting Forest Service specifications 

to support the weight of the crossing and the intended use (BMP 2-17). 

 The proposed design for the new channel crossing is for multiple arched culverts spanning 

the entire width of the floodplain. The culvert in the center of the crossing (where a channel 

has formed downstream of the road) would be the largest, and is designed to pass the bankfull 

flow volume. Surrounding the culverts would be gabion baskets filled with small boulders, 

which would also be permeable to water flow. Substantial excavation in the floodplain would 

be required to remove the existing fill and to construct the foundation of the road crossing to 

support hauling trucks. The removed fill would be replaced with granular material that would 

no longer restrict flood flows across and through the road. Other designs, such as a series of 

pre-fabricated bridge segments with gabion basket supports filled with small boulders 

permeable to water flow may be considered if they meet the criteria above and would reduce 

impacts to the SEZ. 

Powerline Road (12N08) 

The ephemeral channel crossing replacement in the Cold Creek watershed is along Powerline 

Road (12N08). The existing crossing consists of a 24” round culvert with cement bag headwalls 

and side walls, and presents a problem for access by equipment needed for South Shore 

treatments. The road fill over the crossing is minimal, less than 2 ft. The current crossing entry 

slope is approximately 15% grade coming from the south and the exit slope is about 20% grade. 

These slopes are too steep for haul trucks to access the treatment areas beyond this crossing. The 

new culvert crossing would consist of a 48” corrugated metal culvert and approximately 5 ft. of 

fill to bring the road grade at the crossing to an acceptable height for haul trucks to pass the entry 

and exit slopes. This fill would be excavated primarily from the road alignment on either side of 

the crossing, with some excavation coming from the land adjacent to the road to lessen the slopes 

on either side of the road prism. In order to reduce the amount of fill needed for this culvert 

replacement and road upgrade, headwalls would be used to maintain the road width through the 

crossing. Additional drainage features may be necessary since the incised road segment would 

increase in length after excavating the required fill. These would be constructed according to 

Forest Service plans and specifications. Any areas disturbed by excavation or filling for the road 

crossing replacement would be covered with chipped or masticated material to prevent exposed 

soil. In addition, drainage features would be constructed such that exposed soil does not result 

(BMP 2-17). 

Forest Service System Road 12N20 

In the Osgood Swamp watershed, an existing crossing on Forest Service system road 12N20 at 

the end of Nez Perce Street has a vented ford with crushed pipes that is no longer functioning to 

pass the flow of the channel and is too narrow to allow equipment to cross without causing 

resource damage. Currently, this crossing is causing upstream aggradation and preventing fish 

passage. Prior to using this stream crossing for South Shore Project implementation, the stream 

crossing would be replaced. The new culvert would be a bottomless arched culvert, or suitable 

alternative, designed to pass the 100-year flood flow of the channel and to allow for unobstructed 

fish passage. This channel is a spring fed perennial stream that would require dewatering and 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-8

flow diversion around the site during culvert replacement. The following specific installation 

criteria would reduce effects to water quality (BMP 2-15 and BMP 2-17): 

 A diversion channel would be created adjacent to the stream channel and be lined with a 

synthetic material to avoid direct ground contact 

 Coffer dams would be installed at the upstream and downstream ends of the culvert. 

 Once water backs up sufficiently behind the upper coffer dam, gravity flow would move 

water into the diversion and around the crossing to the stream reach immediately downstream 

of the lower coffer dam; 

 Any remaining water in the culvert replacement area, and intercepted ground water, would be 

pumped to nearby upland areas; 

 Pumps would be kept onsite throughout crossing installation to maintain a water-free 

construction zone. 

 Once the construction area is free of standing water, the existing culvert and unsuitable 

materials (i.e., organic soil) would be removed, and the new bottomless arched culvert would 

be installed with its footings extending below the existing channel to allow for a natural 

material bed. 

 Fill would be placed around and over the new culvert to connect the existing road surface 

elevation with the culvert crossing. 

 Prior to allowing the channel flow back into the downstream reach after crossing 

replacement, water would be pumped to upland areas until the water quality is acceptable for 

discharge into the stream channel. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-9

Treatment Prescriptions 

Rationale Used in Developing Alternative 2 

Within the South Shore Analysis Area, the units that were identified for treatment are overly dense forest 

stands with surface fuel accumulations at levels greater than desired conditions. Open stands with little 

fuel accumulations that meet the desired conditions described below would not be treated. 

The treatment prescription for any individual unit including the thinning method and follow up treatments 

proposed are based on soil type, slope, associated water quality protection, access, habitat conservation or 

other protection needs. Application of the treatment methods are guided by project desired conditions and 

modified by the resource protection measures described later in this chapter. 

Stand density index (SDI) allows for a direct comparison of density between stands by creating a 

comparable index. SDI converts a stand’s current density into a density at a constant reference size of 10 

inches dbh. An SDI of 400, for instance, would represent 400 trees per acre (TPA) that are 10 inches at 

dbh, or 132 TPA that are 20 inches dbh. Trees are able to withstand drought conditions better when at 

lower stand densities with sufficient available growing space and resources and when inter-tree 

competition does not have a large effect on stand growth (Long 1985). For the South Shore project, 

maximum SDI is used for analysis in determining stand density conditions for each alternative. The 

desired stand densities for overall forest health objectives as measured in SDI is about 40% of the 

maximum. In order to implement appropriate stand density levels, basal area as measured in square feet 

per acre, was also used in correlation with the desired SDI levels. 

Basal area is the cross sectional area of a tree bole measured at diameter at breast height (dbh), which 

reflects varying levels of stand densities depending on a stand’s average diameter. Basal area is used as a 

measure of stand density which corresponds to forest health issues such as mortality due to competition 

among trees as they fight for water and soil nutrients, and susceptibility to insect and disease outbreaks. 

To meet the desired condition, the objectives of the treatment are to reduce the current stand density of 

approximately 160 to 350 ft2 basal area per acre by removing live understory trees to achieve a residual 

stand density of 80 to 150 ft2 basal area per acre. When basal areas exceed levels of about 150 ft2 per 

acre, bark beetle populations are more likely to expand into outbreak levels, killing a large number of 

trees (Fettig et al. 2007). Optimal levels at which infestation is less likely would be approximately 80 ft2 

per acre. 

Basal area is used as a measure for implementation in the mechanical units. The hand thinned units, 

however, use the associated number of trees per acre (tpa) that should be left as residuals to meet the 

desired density levels. 

Fuel models (Anderson, H.E, 1982) are used to estimate fire behavior, are applied when using some fire 

behavior models, and used as a tool for determining fuels treatments. Stands that have representative fuel 

models with fuel loads that are less than 6 tons per acre in the 0” to 3.0” size classes tend to have a 

surface fire type of fire behavior with low to moderate torching. 

Objectives of the treatment are to remove surface fuels, such as down trees, to achieve a maximum 

residual surface fuel load of 10 tons per acre. In areas where stream zones or other wildlife habitat require 

a higher component of large down wood, a maximum of 15 tons per acre is acceptable. The desired fuel 

loading of 10 tons per acre is based on having up to approximately 4 tons per acre in the 0” to 3.0” size 

classes and allowing for approximately 6 tons of larger down logs per acre. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-10

This range is also described as the “optimum of coarse woody debris for providing acceptable risks of fire 

hazard and fire severity while providing desirable quantities for soil productivity, soil protection, and 

wildlife needs” (Brown et al, 2003). 

Guidelines 

In attaining the above objectives a number of guidelines were applied to each treatment unit to create the 

prescriptions proposed in Alternative 2. The guidelines are listed below and are organized by activity. 

Direction for uplands is separated from SEZs because the treatment methods are identifiably different and 

these are typical landform delineations in the Lake Tahoe basin environment. 

The guidelines section is organized under the following headings. 

 Uplands 

o Mechanical Thinning 

o Hand Thinning 

 Stream Environment Zones 

o Mechanical Thinning 

o Hand Thinning 

o Aspen Treatments 

 Wildlife Areas 

 Prescribed Fire 

 Mastication and Chipping 

 Lop and Scatter 

Uplands 

Mechanical Thinning Units

 Mechanical treatments would be used to reduce upland hazardous fuels on slopes less than 30%. 

 Live tree density would be reduced through thinning understory trees. Primarily suppressed and 

intermediate crown class trees, along with some co-dominant trees, would be removed to reduce 

competition and improve vigor and growth of residual trees, enabling them to better resist fire, 

insect attacks, and disease. Selection of trees to be thinned would begin with removal of the 

smallest trees (suppressed and intermediate trees) and continue to trees of increasing diameter 

until the desired fuel reduction and forest structure are reached. 

 Jeffrey pine and sugar pine would be favored for retention. 

 Snags and down logs would be removed as necessary to meet fuels objectives, retaining the 

largest snags and down logs present to meet Forest Plan wildlife requirements. 

 To achieve the desired conditions for fuel loads, stand densities, and forest structure, live and 

dead trees removed would range between 3 to 30” diameters at breast height (dbh). In some 

situations trees larger than 30” dbh might need to be removed for equipment operability and 

safety. 

 The type of mechanical equipment used for thinning and removal operations would depend on 

vegetation removal needs and operational feasibility. They would include WT using mechanical 

harvesters and whole tree skidding, and CTL harvest with log-forwarding operations. Treated 

material could be removed either as saw logs (whole tree or cut-to-length), fuelwood, or biomass. 

 Treated material not removed would be processed on site through prescribed burning, chipping, 

or mastication. Masticated or chipped material would be spread over the treatment area, with a 

maximum depth of approximately 6” for chips. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-11

Hand Thinning		

 Hand treatments would be used to reduce hazardous fuels on slopes greater than 30%, where 

mechanical ground-based systems are limited by operability constraints (access, excessive 

moisture, rocks, etc.) (BMP #5-2). 

 Live tree density would be reduced through thinning understory trees where mostly suppressed 

and intermediate crown class trees, along with some co-dominant trees, would be removed to 

reduce competition and improve vigor and growth of residual trees, enabling them to better resist 

fire, insect attacks, and disease. 

 Jeffrey pine and sugar pine would be favored for retention 

 For hand thinning treatments, live trees up to 20” dbh would be removed based on achieving the 

desired stand densities and fuel loads. The portion of a felled tree that is greater than 14” dbh 

would be left on site while the remainder would be included in on site hand piles for later 

burning. 

 Where current fuel loads are predicted to remain above desired levels after thinning and followup treatment (e.g. prescribed burning), multiple entries may be required to bring the areas into the 

desired condition. Approximately 1,287 acres of hand thinning treatments may require multiple 

entries as part of this project. 

 Dead trees removed would range up to 20” dbh, and down logs would range between 3” to 20” in 

diameter. 

 Hand thin units, in both uplands and SEZs (not wildlife areas) would be thinned to approximately 

70 to 100 trees per acre. Wildlife areas would leave up to 160 trees per acre in order to maintain 

wildlife habitat. 

Stream Environment Zones (SEZ’s) 

Mechanical Thinning		

 Mechanical equipment operations in SEZs would be limited to CTL or operations using 

equipment that has been demonstrated to adequately protect soil and water resources (i.e. 

equipment that is lighter on the land, rubber-tired equipment, equipment that operates on a bed of 

slash, or other innovative technologies that reduce impacts to soils) (BMP 5-3). 

 SEZ units that exhibit equal or less sensitivity than the Heavenly Valley Creek SEZ 

demonstration project (HSEZ) site, based on the Sensitivity Rating System (Appendix D), may be 

treated with ground-based equipment with operable soil moisture conditions (see Soil, Water and 

Riparian resource protection measures). 

 SEZ units that rate more sensitive than the HSEZ site would be treated by hand thinning, 

endlining, or mechanical over-snow operations. 

 When units are rated more sensitive than the HSEZ site, but only a portion of the unit is 

responsible for the high sensitivity rating, the less sensitive part may be treated with mechanical 

equipment, but the sensitive portions of these units would be treated by hand crews, endlining, or 

mechanical over-snow operations. Areas with wet soils or other sensitive features would be 

flagged for hand treatment prior to commencement of mechanical operations. 

 To achieve the desired conditions for fuel loads, stand densities, and desired stream shading, trees 

removed would range between 3 to 30” dbh, beginning with the smallest diameter and retaining 

the largest trees. Treatments would include the removal of primarily understory, and some 

overstory trees, in order to retain stream shading, and reach the desired residual stand density and 

wildfire behavior. In some situations trees larger than 30” dbh might need to be removed for 

equipment operability and safety. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-12

 Snags and down logs would be removed as necessary to meet fuels objectives, retaining the 

largest snags and down logs present to meet Forest Plan wildlife requirements. 

 Basal areas greater than 150 ft2

 may be prescribed where needed to maintain desired stream 

shading. 

 Jeffrey pine and sugar pine would be favored for retention, as well as desired riparian species, 

such as aspen and willow. 

 If feasible, treated material would be removed as saw logs, fuelwood, or biomass. 

 Fuel material not removed may be treated on site through prescribed burning. 

 To provide ground cover and protect soil resources in areas of ground disturbance, including 

forwarding trails and temporary roads, activity slash would be left, or masticated, or chipped and 

spread over the disturbed areas, with a maximum depth of approximately 4”. 

Figure 8. Example of cut to length mechanical SEZ treatment. Heavenly SEZ 

Demonstration project. Location: Pioneer Trail at Al Tahoe Blvd, South Lake Tahoe. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-13

Hand Thinning		

 Hand thinning in SEZs would include the same treatments as described for hand thinning in 

uplands to remove primarily understory, and some overstory trees based on the desired residual 

stand density and expected wildfire behavior. 

 Basal areas greater than 150 ft2

 may be prescribed where needed to maintain desired stream 

shading. 

 Where feasible ground fuels exceeding 15 tons per acre would be removed from the 50-foot 

piling exclusion buffer around lakes and perennial and intermittent stream channels and be treated 

by hand piling and burning outside the piling exclusion buffer. 

Aspen Treatments

Aspen stands are unique habitat components of SEZs. For the South Shore project there are 

approximately 290 acres of aspen stands that are included in the SEZs proposed for treatment. In 

addition to the objectives listed above for mechanical and hand treatments in SEZs, the following 

guide treatments for aspen stands. 

 For aspen units where lodgepole pine and other conifer species are encroaching, the 

prescribed treatment would include the removal of live conifers to increase the amount of 

hardwood vegetation that currently exists to restore aspen species dominance. 

 The general prescription for hand treatments would primarily include removing all live and 

dead conifers up to 20” dbh. All down conifers up to 20” dbh would also be removed. 

 Mechanical treatments could include the removal of all conifers up to 30” dbh with the 

exception of trees greater than 150 years old exhibiting characteristics such as flat tops, large 

limbs, and large bark plates. Prescribed burning in aspen stands post-thinning could also be 

included for treatment. 

 Vegetation treatments proposed within aspen units would result, where possible, in the 

following desired conditions: 

o average conifer crown closure less than 25%; 

o average aspen crown closure greater than 40%; 

o aspen crowns comprising more than half the canopy; 

o aspen crowns overtopping conifer crowns; 

o aspen regeneration (approximately 500 stems per acre) occurring or likely to occur 

within 3 to 5 years; 

o conifer encroachment not likely to occur or minimal within the next 15 years. 

 Burning piles in aspen would be avoided when possible to minimize risk of mortality to aspen 

roots and trees and the risk of reducing site suitability for aspen growth and regeneration 

(e.g., killing live roots or inducing soil hydrophobicity). 

 The LTBMU/Rocky Mountain Research Station (General Technical Report) GTR-178 

“Ecology, Biodiversity, Management, and Restoration of Aspen in the Sierra Nevada” 

(Shepperd et al. 2006) and findings of the Aspen Community Mapping and Assessment 

Project would be used in developing site-specific vegetation treatment recommendations for 

aspen habitat within the proposed action area. Integrated project design includes the sitespecific resource protection measures for aspen. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-14

Wildlife Areas 

This section describes the guidelines for what collectively are called “wildlife areas” in the South Shore 

project. They include California spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs) and Home Range Core 

Areas (HRCAs), northern goshawk PACs, TRPA disturbance zones for northern goshawk and osprey, and 

TRPA bald eagle wintering habitat. Wildlife areas include both upland and SEZ landscapes. Treatments 

within wildlife areas would include both mechanical and hand methods to achieve the guidelines 

described below. 

 Vegetation treatments within northern goshawk PACs, within California spotted owl PACs, 

and within TRPA goshawk disturbance zones would result in at least: 1) two tree canopy 

layers; 2) dominant and co-dominant trees with average diameters of 24” dbh; 3) 60 to 70 

percent canopy cover; 4) an average of five to eight snags (five in eastside pine and mixed 

conifer, six in westside pine and mixed conifer, and eight in red fir forest types) per acre 

larger than 20” dbh and of variable decay classes; and 5) approximately 5 logs larger than 20” 

in diameter (at the large end) and of variable decay classes, totaling 10-12 tons of coarse 

woody debris (CWD) per acre. These conditions would be met where possible, otherwise as 

closely as possible. 

 Vegetation treatments within California spotted owl home range core areas (HRCAs), would 

result in at least: 1) two tree canopy layers; 2) dominant and co-dominant trees with average 

diameters of 24” dbh; 3) 50 to 70 percent canopy cover; 4) an average of three to six snags 

(three in eastside pine and mixed conifer, four in westside pine and mixed conifer, and six in 

red fir forest types) per acre larger than 20” dbh and of variable decay classes; and 5) 

approximately 4 logs larger than 20” in diameter (at the large end) and of variable decay 

classes, totaling 8-10 tons of coarse woody debris (CWD) per acre. These conditions would 

be met where possible, and otherwise adhered to as closely as possible (as available material). 

 Vegetation treatments within osprey stands adjacent to Fallen Leaf Lake and Lower Echo 

Lake would result in: 1) retention of all known standing osprey nest trees; and 2) for future 

nest tree recruitment the retention of an average of three trees per acre that are larger in 

diameter and taller than the dominant tree canopy, with an emphasis on dead topped trees 

with robust, open branch structures. These conditions would be met as closely as possible. 

 Vegetation treatments within the TRPA bald eagle wintering habitat area near Taylor Creek 

and Tallac Creek adjacent to wetland, wet meadow, and open water habitats that result in: 1) 

late successional forest type, with an emphasis on Jeffrey pine-dominated stands; 2) retention 

of trees that are larger in diameter and taller than the dominant tree canopy, with an emphasis 

on trees greater than 40” dbh and greater than 98 feet tall and on dead topped trees with 

robust, open branch structures; 3) an average of six snags per acre larger than 20” dbh and of 

variable decay classes. These conditions would be met where possible, otherwise as closely 

as possible. 

Prescribed Fire 

 Piling of existing surface fuels and activity fuels for follow-up burning would occur primarily in 

units treated with hand thinning. Machine piles may also be created in some areas of the 

mechanically thinned (CTL) units. 

 Piles would be located outside of designated exclusion zones and modified piling specifications 

would be applied in areas where piling is allowed within SEZs. 

 Only hand piling would occur within SEZs, no machine piling. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-15

 Prescribed burning would be used for reducing fuel loads in excess of maximum desired levels of 

10 tons per acre. Up to 15 tons per acre would be acceptable in SEZs or wildlife areas. 

 Lop and scattering of fuels followed by a prescribed underburn would occur in some of the 

mechanically thinned (WT) units. 

 Prescribed pile burning and underburning would only occur under approved conditions as 

described in a Burn Plan that is approved for that area by the line officer. 

 Scorch to residual trees is expected and mortality of up to 15% is acceptable. 

 

Figure 9. Example of prescribed fire, pile burning, after treatment. Location: 

Slaughterhouse Canyon, East Shore Lake Tahoe, NV. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-16

Mastication and Chipping 

 Mastication or chipping would be applied primarily to the CTL units for treating surface and 

activity fuels. Areas within hand thinned units that have access and where slopes are less than 

30% would also be treated with mastication or chipping. 

 Mastication or chipping would only occur where fuel loads would not exceed 10 tons per acre or 

15 tons in SEZs or wildlife areas. 

Lop and Scatter 

 Lop and scatter would be applied primarily to the units treated with whole tree logging 

operations. 

 Lop and scatter would only occur where fuel loads would not exceed 10 tons per acre or 15 tons 

in SEZs or wildlife areas, unless followed-up with a prescribed underburn. 

 Lop and scatter would not exceed 18 inches depth. 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 3 is a modification of Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action) in response to public and other 

agency comments received during scoping expressing concerns regarding watershed impacts and impacts 

within Northern goshawk and spotted owl PACs (Issues, Chapter 1) 

Alternative 3 uses the same thinning method options, follow up treatments and treatment prescriptions as 

Alternative 2 but prescribes changes to where the treatments are applied on the ground based on the 

rationale presented below. Three combinations of treatment changes were used to arrive at Alternative 3. 

These include the following: 

1) from WT methods to CTL methods, hand treatments, or no treatment; 

2) from CTL to hand treatment or no treatment, and 

3) from hand treatment to no treatment. 

Compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 treats 558 fewer acres total (10,112 acres). In addition 

Alternative 3 proposes 1,045 acres more hand treatments, 100 acres more CTL, but 1,677 acres less WT 

treatments. Up to 442 more acres may require more than one entry to bring the areas into the desired 

condition due to high fuel loads and densities of small trees.

Vegetation Treatments 

The table below summarizes the acres by treatment type proposed in Alternative 3 as a result of the 

rationale described in Table 2-3, and based on field review, data review, and fire behavior modeling. The 

differences between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are compared at the end of this chapter. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-17

Table 2-3. Summary of Thinning Method Acres Proposed in Alternative 3 

Mechanical Thinning 

Hand Thinning Total 

WT CTL 

Upland 1971 1625 5823 9419 

SEZ 170 1 385 138 693 2

Method Subtotal 2141 2010 

5961 10112 

Total 4151 

Notes: 

1 Estimate of SEZ inclusions within WT units. 

2 SEZ acres include aspen treatment acres. 

Implementation Schedule Limitations 

The same implementation schedule concept was used for Alternative 3 as was described in Alternative 2, 

when describing the timing of treatments within watersheds. As a result of changes in thinning method 

prescriptions that reduce risk to watersheds, the maximum treatment acres for each HUC7 watershed were 

revised for Alternative 3, to account for changes in treatment type acres. For example, a conversion of 

more treatments to hand thinning, and a reduction in overall treatment acres, adjusted the maximum acres 

available for treatment in a given year. The distribution of treatments across watersheds for this 

alternative is analyzed in Chapter 3, Water and Riparian Resources section. 

Follow up Treatments 

As described in Alternative 2, follow up residual fuel treatments are assigned based on individual 

treatment unit requirements after thinning has been completed to meet fuels treatment objectives and 

desired conditions, and are therefore designed independently from the thinning method used. In some 

cases follow up treatment methods may overlap, for example some units may be partially treated by hand 

piling and also broadcast burning. As a result of changing where the thinning methods are applied on the 

ground there is a corresponding change in the estimated acres where the different residual fuels removal 

methods would be applied. Table 2-4 shows the estimated acres by method and landscape type. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-18

Table 2-4. Estimated Follow-up Treatments Proposed in Alternative 3 

Follow up Treatment 

Method 

Associated 

Thinning 

Method 

Upland 

Acres SEZ Acres 

Total 

Acres 

Lop & Scatter WT, CTL, HT 1616 170 1786 

Mastication/Chipping WT, CTL, HT 2617 0 2617 

Underburning (lop and 

scatter) WT, CTL, HT 774 28 802 

Pile & burn HT 5217 138 5355 

Grapple pile & Burn CTL 374 0 374 

Landings – pile burning 

and/or removal WT 77 0 77 

Roads and Access 

As a result of changes in the treatment prescription from Alternative 2 the need for temporary roads and 

landings would be reduced in Alternative 3. The reconstruction of three crossings described in 

Alternative 2 does not change. 

Landings – An estimated 168 landings would be needed to support the proposed thinning activities 

proposed in Alternative 3. This is 50 less than Alternative 2. 

System Road Management – Alternative 3 would use the same 26.7 miles of existing system roads as 

Alternative 3 but fewer miles of road would need reconstruction and more miles would need only 

maintenance than Alternative 2. Of the FS System roads used, 15.7 miles would receive maintenance 

activities and the remaining 11.0 miles would need reconstruction. 

Temporary Roads – Alternative 3 would construct 12.3 miles of temporary road. The reduction of 

temporary roads is a consequence of fewer WT units proposed in Alternative 3. Of the total mileage 

proposed 6.5 miles is on old existing road prisms and only 3.3 miles requires new construction. 

Decommissioning of temporary roads and stream crossings would be the same as in Alternative 2. 

Ephemeral and intermittent crossings are unchanged from Alternative 2.

Crossing and Culvert Replacement - Alternative 3 proposes the replacement of the same three existing 

permanent stream crossings as described under Alternative 2. One of these is on an intermittent channel in 

the Lower Trout Creek watershed (12N01A), one is on an ephemeral channel in the Cold Creek watershed 

(12N08), and one is on a perennial channel in the Osgood Swamp watershed (12N20). 

Rationale Used in Developing Alternative 3 

Overall the same desired conditions, objectives and guidelines used in Alternative 2 were applied to create 

Alternative 3. They were employed in a slightly different configuration on the ground as shown in the 

tables above in response to the two issues described in Chapter 1, Watershed Impacts and Wildlife areas. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-19

Watershed Impacts 

Alternative 3 was formulated to respond to comments during scoping to create an alternative with fewer 

or reduced proposed activities in sensitive areas. Changes from Alternative 2 were made on a site-by-site 

basis and were made based on a variety of interdisciplinary factors such as soils, erosion hazards and 

terrain limitation and not any singular set of evaluation criteria. The results are presented in the tables 

above. 

Wildlife Areas 

Changes to treatments aimed at reducing impacts to sensitive species and their habitats were proposed in 

Alternative 3 based on the following: spatial extent of northern goshawk and California spotted owl 

PACs, WUI zone (defense or threat), type of treatment proposed (mechanical or hand), stand survey data, 

and type of fire behavior predicted (using FARSITE, FLAMMAP, and FVS models). 

In the WUI defense zone, proposed treatments were evaluated within spotted owl and goshawk 

PACs based on stand survey data and stand-by-stand predicted fire behavior within each PAC. 

o Where a crown fire (conditional, passive, or active) was predicted for a stand, the PAC 

treatment prescription for fuels reduction detailed in Alternative 2 remain the same in 

Alternative 3. 

o Where a surface fire was predicted for a unit, no treatment within the PAC is proposed in 

Alternative 3. Surrounding unit treatments were not changed; PAC boundaries were not 

adjusted. 

In the WUI Threat Zone, proposed treatments were evaluated within spotted owl and goshawks 

PACs based on the factors of feasibility of implementing prescribed fire, and stand survey data 

and predicted fire behavior at the landscape level. 

o Where the overall landscape fire and fuels strategy would be compromised, the level of 

treatments necessary for fuel reduction under the PAC prescription detailed in Alternative 

2 remain the same in Alternative 3. 

o Where fire behavior modeling indicated the landscape fire to be a surface fire, no 

treatment within the PAC is proposed in Alternative 3. Surrounding unit treatments were 

not changed; PAC boundaries were not adjusted. 

Review of the suitable habitat available for other sensitive species, such as osprey and bald eagle, resulted 

in a reduction of treatments in habitat acres as detailed in the alternative comparison section below. Some 

of these changes were the result of overlap with PAC habitat for California spotted owls or goshawks, 

overlap with other resources such as sensitive plants, or changes to SEZ treatments. 

The number of PACs, HRCAs, and TRPA disturbance zones within the project analysis area remain the 

same for both action alternatives; there are 16 northern goshawk PACs and nine California spotted owl 

PACs/HRCAs in the project analysis area. However, Alternative 3 reduces the number of both goshawk 

and spotted owl PACs that would be treated compared to Alternative 2.
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-20

Resource Protection Measures 

Resource protection measures are intended to avoid, eliminate or reduce unintended and undesirable 

effects of the proposed activities. The following tables display the resource protection measures 

categorized by resource area. The resource protection measures apply to both Alternative 2 and 3 but 

some may be specific to units. The last column references the related BMP and/or source of the protection 

measure if it contains direction from applicable policy or management direction. (Note: The DEIS used 

the term “design feature”. However, the term “resource protection measure” is more descriptive of the 

purpose of the direction contained in this section so it has been incorporated into the FEIS.) 

Changes from the DEIS – The resource protection measures have been edited from the version presented 

in the DEIS. They have been compiled in tabular format and numbered for ease of reference. Duplicative 

measures have been removed. The Soils section has been combined with the Water Quality section to 

eliminate much of the duplication in the DEIS. Appendix C has been revisited to include only the text of 

R5 BMPs. The replication of resource protection measures found in the DEIS was removed from that 

Appendix. In the FEIS all measures are listed here in this section. Some of the measures were edited to 

provide clarity where public comment indicated the intent of the measure was not well understood. 

Air Quality 

Goal: 

 Follow agency and air resource board smoke management requirements. 

I. Air Quality- General

Ref# Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

AQ1 Scheduling of prescribed burn activities would comply 

with air quality standards and restrictions 

Project 

Wide 

NAAQS, CARB, 

EDAQMD 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-21

Pest Management 

Goal: 

 Prevent introduction and spread of annosus root disease. 

II. Pest Management - General

Ref# Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

P-1 Live true fir and pine tree cut stumps 14 inches diameter and 

greater would be treated with an EPA registered borate compound 

(Sporax), which is registered in California for the prevention of 

annosus root disease. 

 Sporax would be applied to conifer stumps within 24 

hours of creation. 

 Sporax would not be applied within 25 feet of standing or 

running water. 

 Sporax would not be applied in flag and avoid areas to 

protect threatened, endangered or sensitive plants. 

 Sporax would not be applied during precipitation events. 

Project 

Wide 

FSH 3409.11 

SNFPA S&G 

97 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-22

Focal Wildlife Species 

Goals: 

 Wildlife objectives and resource protection measures for this project are centered on land 

allocations to address regional and forest management direction; disturbance zones to address 

TRPA wildlife resource management provisions; and ecosystem types to address the 

interconnectedness of natural resources within the primary objective of the project (hazardous 

fuels reduction). The project would affect vegetative characteristics of focal wildlife species 

habitats on the forest. Special status, or focal, wildlife species for the South Shore Project area 

include those listed as threatened (T), endangered (E), candidate (C), or de-listed (D) by the U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS); Forest Service sensitive (S) species, management indicator 

species (MIS) in the amended LTBMU Forest Plan (USFS); special interest species (SIS) by the 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA); and FWS migratory land bird species. 

 Focal wildlife species are addressed in the biological evaluation and biological analysis (BE/BA), 

MIS report, TRPA impact analysis report, and/or migratory land bird report for this project. 

Limited operating periods (LOPs) will apply, following the recommendations of the project 

biologist, consistent with SNFPA, LRMP, and TRPA Code of Ordinances direction for wildlife 

species as presented below. 

 Implementation of LOPs for marten and/or fisher dens, great gray owl PACs, and Yosemite toad 

sites is not expected as they have not been discovered, delineated, or known to occur within the 

wildlife analysis area. The bald eagle and golden eagle nest sites known within the wildlife 

analysis area are located farther from project activities (approximately 11⁄4 miles and 1⁄2 mile, 

respectively) than TRPA’s recommended resource protection measure distances (1⁄2 and 1⁄4 mile, 

respectively). LOPs will be evaluated annually and recommendations made based on current 

information. Recommendations presented below for LOPs, by treatment unit, are based on 

information current prior to the 2010 breeding season. LOPs may be modified during an 

implementation season following direction from the Forest Plan, as amended by the SNFPA 

(standards and guides 58, 77, 78, and 79), and the TRPA Code of Ordinances (Ch. 78.3). 

Additionally, LOPs often apply only to a portion of each unit. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-23

III. Focal Wildlife Species - General

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

WL-1 For California spotted owl protected activity 

centers (PACs), maintain a limited operating 

period (LOP) prohibiting vegetation 

treatments, prescribed fire, or road or trail 

building within approximately 1⁄4 mile of the 

activity center, if known, or within 1⁄4 mile of 

the PAC, if unknown, during the breeding 

season (March 1 to August 15). 

Units 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 

14, 41, 47, 49, 59, 62, 81, 

83, 86, 96-99, 107-8, 114, 

116, 127-29, 131-32, 139, 

169-72, 190-97, 200, 213, 

307-09, 311, and 345 

SNFPA S&G 75 

WL-2 For northern goshawk PACs, maintain a 

LOP prohibiting vegetation treatments, 

prescribed fire, or road or trail building 

within approximately 1⁄4 mile of the activity 

center, if known, or within 1⁄4 mile of the 

PAC, if unknown, during the breeding 

season (February 15 to September 15). 

Units 2, 3, 7, 9, 11-12, 

38, 59, 64, 67-68, 70-71, 

74, 79, 80, 87-90, 116, 

132, 139, 169-72, 183-87, 

19097, 199-200-201, 

209-10, and 216 

SNFPA S&G 76 

WL-3 For northern goshawk disturbance zones, 

maintain a LOP restricting management 

activities, including habitat manipulation for 

purposes other than habitat improvement, 

within approximately 1⁄2 mile of existing nest 

trees located outside urban zones from 

February 15 to September 15. 

Units 1-3, 7, 9, 11-12, 15, 

59, 62-63, 69, 80-81, 83-

91, 116, 129, 132, 139, 

162, 169-71, 190-96, 200, 

202, 204-205 and 213 

TRPA Ordinance 

78.3 

WL-4 For the bald eagle winter habitat near Taylor 

and Tallac creeks, maintain a LOP restricting 

management activities, including habitat 

manipulation for purposes other than habitat 

improvement, from October 15 to March 15. 

Units 40, 42-43, 46, 54, 

120-21 

LRMP Fallen 

Leaf practice 12 

and TRPA 

Ordinance 78.3 

WL-5 For suitable habitat surrounding an active 

willow flycatcher nest, maintain a LOP 

prohibiting vegetation treatments, prescribed 

fire, or road or trail building during the 

breeding season (June 1 to August 31). 

Units 34, 40, 43, 97, and 

212 

SNFPA STD/GD 

58 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-24

III. Focal Wildlife Species - General

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

WL-6 For osprey disturbance zones, maintain a 

LOP restricting management activities, 

including habitat manipulation for purposes 

other than habitat improvement, within 

approximately 1⁄4 mile of the nest during the 

breeding season from March 1 to August 15. 

Units 1, 3, 15, 33, 40, 47, 

54, 114, 120-21, 134-40, 

149, 170, 211, 213, and 

219 

TRPA Ordinance 

78.3 

WL-7 For peregrine falcon disturbance zones, 

maintain a LOP restricting management 

activities, including habitat manipulation for 

purposes other than habitat improvement, 

within approximately 1⁄4 mile of the nest 

from April 1 to September 30. 

Unit 93 TRPA Ordinance 

78.3 

WL-8 Where available an average of four of the 

largest diameter snags and four downed logs 

per acre would be retained. Snags would be 

at least 15” dbh in clumped and irregular 

spacing, depending on the average size class 

in the stand. (This does not supersede the 

removal of hazard trees. 

Project wide except in 

Wildlife Areas where a 

specific snag retention is 

prescribed 

SNFPA S&G # 

10 and 11 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-25

Aquatic Resources 

Goals: 

 SEZ fuels reduction treatments in identified Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat are designed to avoid 

negative habitat effects and meet Endangered Species Act (ESA) conservation and recovery 

goals. 

 Maintain riparian associated shrub and herbaceous vegetative cover, floodplain connectivity 

commensurate with expected channel geometry, and large woody debris to achieve high quality 

aquatic habitat. 

 Maintain or enhance connectivity within and between watersheds to provide physically, 

chemically, and biologically unobstructed movement of riparian and aquatic dependent species 

needed for their survival, migration, and reproduction. 

 Retain adequate stream shading to ensure that daily mean water temperatures do not increase as a 

result of SEZ fuel reduction treatments. 

IV. Aquatic Resources - General

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

AR-1 Leave existing downed trees and CWD that are in 

perennial or intermittent stream channels in place 

unless removal is needed to maintain channel 

stability, as determined by a Forest Service 

watershed specialist or fish biologist. 

Project wide SNFPA S&G 

103 

LRMP S&G 

15 

AR-2 To avoid removing or altering bank stabilizing 

vegetation, trees may be marked for removal (live 

or dead) within 5 ft of the bank edge of perennial 

or intermittent streams and lakes, as approved by 

the fisheries biologist and watershed specialist, 

only where fuel loads or stand densities exceed 

desired conditions and where CWD is at or above 

desired levels or where trees are a hazard to safe 

operations. 

Project wide SNFPA S&G 

103 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-26

IV. Aquatic Resources - General

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

AR-3 Use directional falling to keep felled trees out of 

intermittent and perennial streams unless the 

channel reach is identified as deficient in coarse 

woody debris or such trees are needed for stream 

shade, in which case a FS fisheries biologist and 

watershed specialist would select trees greater 

than or equal to 12 in DBH to be felled 

directionally into the channel. 

Current data indicates that stream segments in 

units listed, lack CWD to varying degrees. A 

Forest Service fisheries biologist and watershed 

specialist would evaluate stream segments for 

CWD desired conditions and select trees greater 

than 12” dbh to be felled directionally into the 

channel to improve aquatic species habitat. 

Units 22, 24, 25, 51, 52, 

56, 59, 63, 84, 85, 87, 88, 

89, 95, 96, 97, 100, 127, 

129, 132, 133, 145, 310, 

311, 312 

SNFPA S&G 

102 

SNFPA S&G 

103 

SNFPA S&G 

108 

AR-4 Maintain shaded bank conditions on trout streams 

by retaining at least 50% of the stream bank site 

potential for herbaceous and shrub cover and at 

least 25% of the site potential for tree cover. 

Where natural tree cover is less than 20%, 80% of 

the potential would be retained. Thirty-five to 

70% of the stream would be shaded from 11:00 

AM to 4:00 PM. The purpose of this standard is to 

maintain levels of stream shade to ensure that 

there is no measurable increase in daily mean 

water temperatures where fuel reduction occurs. 

Project wide LRMP S&G 

20 

SNFPA S&G 

96 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-27

Soil, Water, & Riparian Resources 

Goals: 

 Provide the water quality and soil productivity necessary to support ecological functions and 

beneficial water uses. 

 Implement Region 5 Best Management Practices and project-specific resource protection 

measures to meet California State water quality standards. 

 Meet the riparian conservation objectives of the forest plan, as amended by the SNFPA (2004). 

 Maintain connections between floodplains, channels, and water tables to distribute flood flows 

and sustain diverse habitats. 

 Avoid disturbance in special aquatic habitats (such as springs, seeps, vernal pools, fens, bogs, and 

marshes) in order to perpetuate their unique functions, biotic communities, and biological 

diversity. 

 Maintain soils with favorable infiltration characteristics and diverse vegetative cover to absorb 

and filter precipitation and sustain favorable conditions for stream flows. 

Background Rationale for Resource Protection Measures 

In order to minimize impacts to water resources from the proposed activities, standard BMPs would be 

implemented (USDA FS 2000). BMPs are standard management practices that have been developed to 

protect soil and water, as described in the Region 5 USFS Best Management Practices Handbook. These 

practices and procedures provide the structure for water quality management for the Pacific Southwest 

Region (Region 5). The BMPs comply with Section 208 and 319 of the Clean Water Act, and the 

guidelines of the Water Quality Control Board Basin Plans. Implementation of these State certified and 

EPA approved BMPs meet the Forest Service obligations for compliance with water quality standards and 

fulfill Forest Service obligations as a designated Water Quality Management Agency. The basic premise 

and emphasis for BMPs and the project-specific resource protection measures to implement them are to 

prevent sources of erosion and dissipate or infiltrate runoff generated by the project before reaching 

waterbodies. (See Appendix B for a listing of BMPs.) The purpose of the resource protection measures 

and BMPs is to prevent the source of erosion, rather than to treat erosion after it has occurred. The 

resource protection measures and BMPs included in the South Shore project design are effective at 

avoiding or reducing sediment delivery, including the fine sediment fraction (i.e., <16 μm). 

The project specific resource protection measures have been developed to minimize or avoid both direct 

and indirect negative effects of treatments on forest resources and to meet the Riparian Conservation 

Objectives of the LTBMU Forest Plan (1988), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

(SNFPA, 2004). The riparian conservation objectives (RCOs) in the SNFPA (2004) are incorporated in 

the design for the project as described in the RCO Analysis Report (Project Record #J14). These 

objectives address provision of beneficial uses for water resources, geomorphic and biological 

characteristics of aquatic features, suitable stream habitat features (including CWD), and physical and 

biological characteristics of riparian areas. 

An SEZ sensitivity rating system was developed based on the results of the Heavenly Valley Creek SEZ 

demonstration project to evaluate mechanical treatments for South Shore SEZ units. The USFS LTBMU 

SEZ sensitivity rating system was reviewed and approved by the TRPA and Lahontan Water Board (May 

30, 2008). This SEZ sensitivity rating system was used over two consecutive field seasons for designation 

of types of treatment on SEZ units in the project (Appendix C). 

Soil type and slope data were analyzed to determine areas that are suitable for mechanical treatments. 

Vegetation treatments are designed to minimize adverse effects to soils, and maintain productivity. BMPs 

and resource protection measures specific to prescribed burning would be used to prevent negative effects 

to soils from prescribed fire duration or intensity. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-28

Normal operating period is generally considered to be from May 1 through October 15 each year. 

However, operable conditions may be present outside of that time period and inoperable conditions may 

be present within that period. Resource protection measures may apply to one or more of the following 

conditions: dry soils, wet soils, frozen or snow-covered soils. (Note: the normal operating period 

headings may include resource protection measures that apply in wet conditions). 

V. Soil, Water, Riparian - General 

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

WS-1 Spill prevention and cleanup of hazardous materials would be 

implemented in accordance with FS timber sale type B contract 

clauses and in accordance with the LTBMU Hazardous Spill 

Notification and Response Plan.

Project 

Wide

BMP 2-12

WS-2 Watershed or transportation specialist will review project BMPs 

prior to a large storm event (1 inch or greater) that may exceed 

BMP capacity and will notify contract administrator if additional 

BMPs are recommended to disconnect runoff from surface water 

features (see implementation monitoring, chapter 4). 

Project 

Wide

LTBMU 

Practice 

WS-3 To minimize compaction, gullying, and rutting, ground based 

operations would be conducted only when soils are dry to moist 

at the 4-8 inch depth. This determination would be made by a 

LTBMU watershed specialist or contract administrator, using 

Appendix D as a guideline.

Project 

Wide 

BMP 1-5 

BMP 1-13

WS-4 Design underburning prescriptions to avoid adverse effects on 

soil and water resources by planning prescribed fire to ensure that 

fire intensity and duration do not result in severely burned soils. 

Project 

Wide 

LRMP S&G 

53 and 54 

 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-29

V. 1) Soil, Water, Riparian – Vegetation treatments in uplands 

(during normal operating period and dry conditions) 

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

WS-5 Install water bars on skid trails to provide proper drainage and 

prevent erosion when operations are complete and prior to a large 

storm event (1 inch or greater). Design and minimum spacing of 

water bars would be in accordance with the Forest Service 

Timber Sale Administration Handbook. Water bars may be 

required on forwarder trails if surface cover is not adequate to 

control erosion. 

Project 

Wide 

BMP 1-17 

FSH 2409.15 

WS-6 To the extent practicable, where end-lining occurs on slopes 

above 10%, end-line material along slope contours (i.e. crossslope) to avoid creating ruts in the soil that are oriented downhill. 

Where Forest Service implementation monitoring finds potential 

for sediment delivery, contractor would rake in the berms from 

ruts created by end-lining. 

Project 

Wide 

LTBMU 

Practice 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-30

V. 2) Soil, Water, Riparian – Vegetation treatments in SEZs 

(during and outside of normal operating periods). 

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

WS-7 Ensure that all exclusion buffers are flagged during all project 

activities. 

Project 

Wide 

LTBMU 

Practice 

WS-8 Flag and avoid equipment use in and adjacent to special aquatic 

features (springs, seeps, fens, and marshes); use hand treatments 

in these areas. Refer to the Sensitive Plants resource protections 

measures for prescribed buffers specific to sensitive plant species.

Project 

Wide 

BMP 1-22 

WS-9 Flame heights for underburning would not exceed two feet within 

50 feet of stream courses or on wetlands unless higher intensities 

are required to achieve specific objectives. No ignition is allowed 

in SEZs. Fire would be allowed to back into these areas. 

Project 

Wide 

LRMP S&G 

53 and 54 

BMP 6-2 and 

6-3 

SNFPA Std 

111 

WS-10 Where it is necessary to cross an SEZ area with inoperable soil 

moisture conditions, equipment would operate over a slash mat, 

landing mat, or other protective material to minimize soil 

compaction. If slash is used, it would be removed when 

operations in the area are concluded. The Contract Administrator 

will determine the crossing location and method. 

Project 

Wide 

BMP 1-5 

BMP 1-13 

WS-11 Prohibit equipment operations in ephemeral channels. Ephemeral 

crossings would be avoided where feasible, and where necessary, 

would be limited to 1 crossing every 800 feet of channel, as 

determined by the Contract Administrator. 

Project 

Wide 

BMP 1-19 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-31

V. 3) Soil, Water, Riparian – In Cut to Length Units 

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

WS-12 Limit mechanical equipment operations in SEZs to CTL operations 

or operations using equipment that has been demonstrated to 

adequately protect soil and water resources (i.e. equipment that is 

lighter on the land, rubber-tired equipment, equipment that operates 

on a bed of slash, or other innovative technologies that reduce 

impacts to soils). 

Use the SEZ Risk Rating (Appendix C) to determine operability of 

part or all of the SEZ. 

CTL 

units 

BMP 1-13, 

5-3, 1-18 

SNFPA Std 

92 and 113 

WS-13 Within 25 feet of perennial or intermittent streams and other water 

bodies (i.e. lakes and ponds) CTL tree removal methods would be 

limited to reaching in and removing logs where ground contact can 

be avoided to mitigate ground disturbance. 

Contract administrator would consult with LTBMU watershed 

specialist to determine additional needed buffer widths, based on 

proximity to Lake Tahoe and perennial channels, slope steepness 

(greater than 20 percent), and amount of existing ground cover 

(less than 30 percent). 

CTL 

units 

BMP 1-19 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-32

V. 4) Soil, Water, Riparian – In Whole Tree Units 

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

WS-14 For WT operations, the following table would be used to determine 

equipment exclusion buffers for perennial channels, lakes and 

ponds: 

Soil Cover 

Slope < 75% > 75% 

< 20% 75 ft 50 ft 

> 20% 100 ft 75 ft 

A minimum 25 ft buffer would still apply in WT treatments 

units for intermittent channels. 

A minimum 10 ft buffer from the top of steep slopes (>30%) 

that are connected to an SEZ would also apply for wholetree equipment exclusion. 

Contract administrator would consult with LTBMU watershed 

specialist to determine additional needed buffer widths, 

based on proximity to Lake Tahoe and perennial channels, 

slope steepness (greater than 20 percent), and amount of 

existing ground cover (less than 30 percent). 

WT units BMP 1-19 

WS-15 Ground based equipment would not operate within the equipment 

exclusion buffer for WT, (see WS-14) except at temporary or 

permanent stream crossings, but may reach in to remove material. 

WT units BMP 1-19 

WS-16 Ground based equipment in WT treatment stands would not operate 

in SEZs. To achieve desired fuel loading in SEZs within WT units, 

trees may be end-lined out of the SEZ after consultation with a 

Watershed Specialist. 

a) Provide ground cover adequate to prevent erosion in 

disturbed areas, such as slash, wood chip, or masticated 

material. 

b) Where implementation monitoring finds potential for 

sediment delivery, contractor would rake in the berms from 

ruts created by end-lining. 

WT units BMP 1-19 

BMP 1-22 

BMP 5-3 

BMP 1-18 

LRMP S&G 

43 

 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-33

V. 5) Soil, Water, Riparian – Hand piling and Pile burning in SEZs 

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

WS-17 Avoid piling slash within 50 ft of perennial or intermittent streams, 

lakes, bogs, and fens. Slash would not be piled in springs and 

seeps. 

Project 

Wide 

BMP 6-

3LRMP 

S&G 53 

WS-18 Permit piling and burning up to 10 feet from the edge of ephemeral 

channels. 

Project 

Wide 

BMP 6-3 

WS-19 Allow fire to creep between piles and into these buffers, 

maintaining a burn intensity that would protect soil and water 

resources. Do not allow fire in flagged areas with sensitive plant 

occurrences or noxious weeds. 

Project 

Wide 

BMP 6-3 

SNFPA S&G 

111 

WS-20 No more than 15 percent of any SEZ acre may be piled for burning 

in a given year (based on an average pile diameter and an average 

pile spacing of 10 feet). 

Project 

Wide 

LTBMU 

Practice 

SNFPA S&G 

111 

WS-21 After initial ignition of piles, but while still burning, allow each 

pile to be re-piled once (i.e., place unburned pieces back into the 

burning pile). Additional re-piling will be allowed if necessary to 

achieve 80 percent consumption of the piled material, except for 

piles adjacent to aspen. 

Project 

Wide 

LTBMU 

Practice 

SNFPA S&G 

111 

WS-22 Hot piling of burn piles is prohibited within SEZs (i.e. don’t feed 

one pile with the material from other piles or ground material). 

Project 

Wide 

LTBMU 

Practice 

SNFPA S&G 

111 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-34

V. 6) Soil, Water, Riparian – Landings

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

WS-23 All reasonable efforts would be made to use existing landings 

where available. Where no existing landings are available new 

landings would be constructed. New landings would be no larger 

than required in order to safely facilitate the handling and removal 

of biomass material in compliance with OSHA requirements. 

Landings would average less than one acre in size and the 

maximum size would be two acres. 

Project 

Wide 

BMP 1-12 

LTBMU 

Practice 

WS-24 Prohibit landings, fuel storage, and refueling in SEZs. Project 

Wide 

BMP 1-12 

BMP 2-12 

WS-25 Locate landings and refueling areas outside RCAs where 

operationally feasible. Prohibit fuel storage in RCAs. Procedures 

and spill prevention control measures for hazardous materials of 

any amount are included in project contract clauses. 

Project 

Wide 

BMP 2-12 

BMP 7-4 

SNFPA S&G 

99 

LTBMU 

Haz. Spill 

Notification 

& Response 

Plan 

WS-26 Proper drainage from landings will be provided during use; 

ditching, sloping, and water bars or other BMPs may be used 

where needed as recommended by watershed specialist to 

disconnect runoff from surface water features. 

Project 

Wide 

BMP 1-16 

LRMP S&G 

10 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-35

V. 6) Soil, Water, Riparian – Landings

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

WS-27 Restore landings after operations are complete using the following 

methods, as determined by the LTBMU Watershed Specialist: 

a) Providing ground cover, such as slash, wood chips or 

masticated material (spread no more than 6-inches 

thick). 

b) Ditching, sloping, and water bars may be used where 

needed as recommended by watershed specialist to 

disconnect runoff from surface water features. 

c) Landings will be ripped to approximately a 12-inch 

depth after ground cover has been spread. Ripping is 

not permitted in known infestations of noxious weeds, 

and may not be possible in rocky soils; this 

determination may be made by the Contract 

Administrator. 

d) Landings within 50 feet of an SEZ or greater than 1⁄4 

acre will be seeded with a native seed mix of grasses, 

forbs, and shrubs. Landings within 100 feet of 

noxious weed infestations may require seeding 

depending on weed species; consult with LTBMU 

botanist to determine if seeding is necessary. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 1-15 

BMP 1-16 

LRMP S&G 

10 and 43 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-36

V. 7) Soil, Water, Riparian – Vegetation Treatments in Uplands 

 (outside of normal operating period or wet conditions)

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

WS-28 When working outside of the normal operating period, conditions 

must be adequate to prevent erosion, sediment delivery to water 

bodies, and soil compaction that would impact soil productivity or 

soil hydrologic function. Equipment operations would take place 

on portions of the treatment unit where adequate snow or frozen 

ground conditions are present while considering the above desired 

outcome. The following criteria will be applied in determining 

equipment operations: 

a. Frozen soil operations are permitted where operated vehicles, 

tractors and equipment can travel without sinking into soil and 

landing surfaces to a depth of more than 2 inches for a 

distance of more than 25 feet. Temperatures must also remain 

low enough to preclude thawing of the soil surface. 

b. For over-snow operations, maintain approximately 12 inches 

of compacted snow/ice on undisturbed ground, and 6 inches of 

compacted snow/ice on existing disturbed surfaces 

c. Lesser depths may be agreed to by a LTBMU Watershed 

Specialist and the Contract Administrator based on new and 

relevant research and monitoring.

Project 

wide 

BMP 1-13 

BMP 5-6 

WS-29 If operable soil moisture conditions are present beneath a lesser 

snow depth (i.e., less than 6 inches), operations may continue until 

soil moisture conditions become inoperable (see Appendix D). 

Project 

wide 

BMP 5-6 

WS-30 Flag and avoid springs, seeps, and other areas that do not freeze 

well. 

Project 

wide 

SNFPA S&G 

118 

WS-31 When working outside of the normal operating period, monitor 

operations daily when rain is probable. When temperatures rise, 

ensure that adequate snow and frozen soil depths are maintained 

during over snow/frozen operations. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 5-6 

WS-32 Move equipment and materials to areas near pavement before 

conditions become inoperable. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 5-6 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-37

V. 7) Soil, Water, Riparian – Vegetation Treatments in Uplands 

 (outside of normal operating period or wet conditions)

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

WS-33 For over-the-snow and frozen soil operations in SEZs, use a 25 

foot mechanical exclusion buffer on perennial and intermittent 

channels. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 1-19 

WS-34 When adequate snow or frozen soil conditions are not present, 

temporary crossings on intermittent or ephemeral channels may be 

approved on a case by case basis through agreement between the 

contract administrator and a watershed specialist. Crossing 

density would be limited to 1 crossing every 800 linear feet of 

stream channel. Construct and maintain these crossings to prevent 

bank damage, water quality impairment, and obstructed flows. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 1-19 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-38

Transportation and Access (Roads) 

Goal: 

 Design the transportation system to Forest Service standards to support fuels reduction 

activities and equipment. 

VI. Roads - General 

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference

R-1 Implement road BMPs during active periods of road use 

and at the conclusion of project activities 

Project 

wide 

BMP handbook 

LTBMU Practice 

R-2 All native surface Forest Service roads that intersect with 

Forest Service paved or chip sealed roads would be 

stabilized through the use of aggregate base material 

(standard specification C or D) or wood chips to minimize 

tracking soils onto the pavement. Soil type, grade, and 

alignment will determine the extent of this stabilization. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 2-22 

FP03

R-3 System roads would be reconstructed and/or maintained to 

Forest Service standards (including BMPs) that support 

equipment and trucks needed for project activities. These 

standards and BMPs are tailored to protect soil and water 

quality resources from impacts of the specific equipment 

classifications to be used for the project activities and 

disconnect road runoff from surface water features. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 2-22 

FSH 7709.58 

R-4 Roads would be watered for dust abatement at least as 

often as specified in FSH 2409.15. Water used for dust 

abatement would come from South Tahoe Public Utility 

District hydrants. Commercial dust palliatives may be 

used, if approved by the contract administrator. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 2-23 

FSH 2409.15 

R-5 Concrete mixing would only occur within an 

impenetrable, self-contained and removable container that 

provides protection from accidental runoff. Concrete 

mixers or sweepings would not be washed out within 50 

feet of storm drains, open ditches, streets, SEZs, or 

waterbodies. Concrete washings and wastes would be 

stored in an impenetrable container for later disposal, and 

disposed of properly. Uncured concrete materials would 

be stored in a weatherproof area, away from SEZs and 

waterbodies. 

Project 

Wide 

BMP 2-2 

FP03 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-39

VI. 1) Temporary Roads 

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

R-6 New temporary roads would be out-sloped to ensure that 

effective drainage is maintained. BMPs would be installed 

as recommended by watershed or transportation specialist 

to ensure that temporary roads are hydrologically 

disconnected from intermittent and perennial stream 

channels. These BMPs could include lead-off ditches, 

water bars, rolling dips, etc. and would be installed during 

temporary road construction and maintained during the 

time the road is in use or at the end of operations each day 

if rain is predicted. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 2-1 

BMP 2-4 

BMP 2-5 

LTBMU Practice 

R-7 Encroachment permits would be needed to access City of 

South Lake Tahoe streets and/or Eldorado County roads 

from Forest lands. Stabilization of these easements may be 

required to minimize the tracking of debris and soils onto 

City streets. Streets would be cleaned of tracked dirt and 

debris as needed. On site meetings with city engineers 

would determine the extent and type of stabilization to 

utilize at each intersection. These intersections would be 

temporary, and be blocked or obliterated when the project 

is complete. 

Project 

wide 

LTBMU Practice 

BMP 2-22 

CASQA

R-8 Temporary crossings on ephemeral drainages would be 

constructed and removed when the channels are dry 

(BMP#2-16). If channel is not dry at time needed for 

removal (eg end season winterization), implement 

dewatering BMPs prior to crossing removal. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 1-19 

BMP 2-16 

R-9 Temporary crossings on intermittent drainages would be 

constructed and removed when the channels are not 

flowing (BMP#2-16) and installed such that water flow 

and fish passage are not obstructed. If channel is not dry at 

time needed for removal (eg end season winterization), 

implement dewatering BMPs prior to crossing removal. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 1-19 

BMP 2-16 

R-10 Temporary crossings on intermittent drainages would be 

designed to accommodate a 1” or greater precipitation 

event and all Humboldt crossings would be removed 

before the winter season begins. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 1-19 

BMP2-16 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-40

VI. 2) Roads (outside of normal operating period or wet conditions) 

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

R-11 Unless adequate snow cover or frozen soil conditions 

exist, where a native surface road meets a paved road, the 

road intersection would be covered with rock or organic 

material to minimize tracking of soil onto the paved road. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 2-22 

CASQA 

Equivalent to R-2, 

shown here to 

account for where 

stabilizing material 

does not exist under 

snow

R-12 If a native surface road becomes rutted, the road would be 

closed. If it is determined that stabilization of the road way 

can be accomplished by spot-rocking (application of an 

even grade sub-base material, FS Specification A, B, or 

equivalent) or other mitigation of rutted areas, road use 

may continue. Rutting is defined as greater than two-inch 

deep depressions more than 25 ft. in length. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 2-24 

FP03 

R-13 During winter operations, paved surfaced roads may be 

plowed, including turnouts, if the action will not cause 

damage to the road surface and associated drainage 

structures. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 2-25 

R-14 On native surface roads, retain a minimum of 6 inches of 

compacted snow on 85% or more of the road surface after 

plowing to facilitate freezing. During road use, a 

minimum of 6 inches of compacted snow must be present 

on 85% or more of the road surface, unless the road 

surface is frozen adequately to prevent rutting (as defined 

above). Ensure that plowing does not damage drainage 

structures or road surface. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 2-2 

BMP 2-25

R-15 Road alignments within the contract area that require 

snow removal would be visibly marked on both sides 

along the entire alignment to facilitate plowing. Excess 

snow removed during plowing would not be placed into 

drainages or riparian areas. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 2-2 

BMP 2-25

R-16 Before over-the-snow operations begin, mark existing 

culvert locations. During and after operations, ensure that 

all culverts and ditches are open and functional. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 2-25 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-41

VI. 2) Roads (outside of normal operating period or wet conditions) 

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

R-17 When roads are plowed, snow berms must be breached to 

allow drainage during snowmelt. Space outlets so as not to 

concentrate road surface flows (usually spaced at a 

minimum of every 300 feet). 

Project 

wide 

BMP 2-25 

VI. 3) Road Decommissioning 

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference

R-18 At the conclusion of use, the road would be returned to the 

use designated in the applicable RMO. Designated Forest 

Service trails would be returned to their previous width. 

Project 

wide 

BMP 2-26 

R-19 After mechanical operations are complete, and where 

feasible based on soil type, temporary roads would be 

restored by using the following methods. 

 Providing ground cover such as slash, wood chips, 

or masticated material (spread no more than 6 

inches thick). 

 Removing all temporary crossings and installing 

drainage structures (such as water bars, dips, and 

leadoff ditches) as appropriate to prevent water 

accumulation on the decommissioned road 

surfaces as per FSH 2409.15. 

 Installing natural barriers such as large logs and 

rocks where necessary at road entrance points to 

prevent continued use of decommissioned road 

alignments. 

 For new temporary roads only: ripping where the 

rock content of the soil allows (generally <30-

40% cobbles by volume), where noxious weeds 

are absent, and when soils are moist or dry. The 

Contract Administrator would determine whether 

ripping is feasible. 

Project 

wide 

FSH 2409.15 

BMP 1-17 

BMP 2-26 

R-20 Barriers would be strategically established along open 

areas adjacent to roads or trails (boulders, split rail fence, 

and barriers/signs) to discourage post-treatment 

establishment of user-created routes 

Project 

wide 

BMP 4-7 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-42

Sensitive Plants 

Goal: 

 Minimize negative impacts to sensitive plants. 

VII. Sensitive Plants - General 

 Ref# Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

SP-1 Prior to project activities, flag all identified sensitive 

plant populations, sensitive plant communities and 

special interest Sphagnum areas with a protection buffer 

that extends 100 feet from the edge of the population. 

An LTBMU Botanist will help identify specific plant 

areas (on-site) during project implementation in Units 

266 & 269. 

Identified populations:

 R5 Sensitive 

Plant list 

LRMP 

LTBMU 

Practice 

SNFPA S&G 

118 

Botrychium ascendens (upswept moonwort) Unit 241 Above applies 

to all 

Botrychium minganense (Mingan moonwort) 40’ from Unit 9 

Epilobium howellii (subalpine fireweed) 25’ from Units 

82 & 84 

Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss)

Meesia uliginosa (broad-nerved hump-moss) 

Unit 269 

(Angora Fen) 

Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss) 

Meesia uliginosa (broad-nerved hump-moss) 

Unit 266 

Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss) Unit 84 

(Fountain Place 

Fen) 

Sphagnum sp. (sphagnum moss) Units 186 & 

187 (Osgood 

Swamp) 

Sphagnum Fen #1 Unit 184 

Sphagnum sp. (sphagnum moss) Unit 187 

(Sphagnum Fen 

#2) 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-43

VII. Sensitive Plants - General 

 Ref# Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

SP-1 

Cont. 

Sphagnum sp. (sphagnum moss) Unit 183 & 184 

Rorippa subumbellata (Tahoe yellow cress) Unit 40 

Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss) 

Sphagnum sp. (sphagnum moss) 

Unit 22 

SP-2 No project activities would be allowed within flagged 

protection buffer, unless approved by forest botanist. 

These activities include hand or mechanical treatment, 

endlining and prescribed fire. Where safely feasible trees 

would be directionally felled away from buffered areas 

Project wide LTBMU 

Practice 

SP-3 If any additional sensitive plants or sensitive plant 

communities are found during or prior to 

implementation they would be flagged, buffered, and 

avoided.

Project wide LTBMU 

Practice 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-44

Sensitive Fungi 

Goal: 

 Minimize negative impacts to sensitive fungi from project activities. 

VIII. Sensitive Fungi - General

 Ref# Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

SF-1 LTBMU Botanists would be notified prior to any project 

implementation to flag monitoring plot. 

Unit 83 LRMP 

LTBMU Practice 

Noxious Weeds 

Goal: 

 Reduce the likelihood of introduction or spread of noxious weeds within the treatment areas. 

IX. Noxious Weeds - General

 Ref# Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

WE-1 Weed infestations identified within the project area (including 

travel routes and staging or landing areas) would be treated by 

approved methods or flagged and avoided and accepted for use 

by the Noxious Weed Coordinator before project 

implementation. 

Project 

wide 

SNFPA S&G 

40 

RNWMS 

Noxious Weed 

EA 

WE-2 All off-road equipment used on this project would be washed 

before moving into the project area to ensure that the 

equipment is free of soil, seeds, vegetative material, or other 

debris that could contain or hold seeds of noxious weeds. “Offroad equipment” includes all logging and construction 

equipment and such brushing equipment as brush hogs, 

masticators, and chippers; it does not include log trucks, chip 

vans, service vehicles, water trucks, pickup trucks, and similar 

vehicles not intended for off-road use. When working in 

known weed infested areas equipment would be cleaned before 

moving to other National Forest System lands which do not 

contain noxious weeds. LTBMU Contract Administrator would 

document required equipment washing. 

Project 

wide 

SNFPA S&G 

39 and 40 

RNWMS 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-45

IX. Noxious Weeds - General

 Ref# Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

WE-3 All gravel, fill, or other materials are required to be weed-free. 

LTBMU Contract Administrator would inspect equipment and 

document certifications for weed-free materials. Use onsite 

sand, gravel, rock, or organic matter when possible. 

Project 

wide 

SNFPA S&G 

40 

RNWMS 

WE-4 Use certified weed-free mulches and native seed sources for 

revegetation, including roads and landings. Seed mixes must 

be approved by a Forest Service botanist. 

Project 

wide 

SNFPA S&G 

42 

WE-5 Prohibit pile burning or underburning in infestations of species 

known to increase with fire. 

Project 

wide 

SNFPA S&G 

40 

RNWMS 

WE-6 Minimize the amount of ground and vegetation disturbance in 

construction areas. Reestablish native vegetation where 

feasible on disturbed bare ground to minimize weed 

establishment and infestation. Revegetation is especially 

important in staging and landing areas. 

Project 

wide 

SNFPA S&G 

40 

RNWMS 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-46

Recreation 

Goals: 

 Ensure public safety during project activities. 

 Schedule project activities to minimize disruption to peak season use at developed recreation 

sites, such as campgrounds, recreations residences, and resorts when practical. 

X. Recreation - General 

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

Rec-1 Minimize the extent and duration of temporary forest closures 

associated with mechanical treatments. Provide signage during 

closures informing the public of the reasons for the closure and 

alternative options for recreation access during the closure. 

Project 

wide 

LTBMU 

Practice 

Rec-2 Schedule mechanical treatments where practical to avoid peak 

visitor use recreation times (July 1 – Labor Day) in and 

adjacent to the following developed recreation areas: Camp 

Richardson Resort, Camp Richardson Corral, Fallen Leaf 

Campground, Baldwin Beach, Tallac Historic Estates, and 

recreation residence tracts. 

Project 

wide 

LTBMU 

Practice 

Rec-3 Provide information to the public through LTBMU visitor 

services regarding current and planned temporary forest 

closures associated with treatment units. 

Project 

wide 

LTBMU 

Practice 

 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-47

Scenic Resources 

Goal: 

 Develop treatment prescriptions consistent with the adopted visual quality objectives 

identified in the LTBMU Forest Plan. 

XI. Scenic Resources - General

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

SR-1 Retain up to 15% of existing 4 to10-inch dbh trees and 

shrubs within foreground views (generally 100 feet) from 

the following travel routes: Pioneer Trail, Hwy 50, Hwy 

89. Create irregular spacing and clumping distribution 

between trees and groups of trees within foreground 

views where practical. 

Project 

Wide 

LTBMU Practice 

LRMP S&G 3 

SR-2 Design prescribed fires to retain up to 15% of selected 

understory vegetation, as well as to reduce evidence of 

tree scorching within foreground views (generally 100 

feet) from Pioneer Trail, Hwy 50, and Hwy 89. 

Project 

wide 

LTBMU Practice 

LRMP S&G 3 

SR-3 Minimize cut stump heights. Stump heights will not 

exceed approximately six inches measured from the 

uphill side. 

Project 

wide 

LTBMU Practice 

LRMP S&G 3 

SR-4 Locate mechanical treatment landings beyond foreground 

views (generally 100 feet) from travel routes Pioneer 

Trail, Hwy 50, and Hwy 89 where feasible. 

Project 

wide 

LTBMU Practice 

LRMP S&G 3 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-48

Heritage Resources 

Goal: 

 Protect cultural resources during treatment activities. 

XII. Heritage 

Ref # Resource Protection Measure Location BMP/Source 

Reference 

HR-1 Identified cultural sites would be flagged and 

mechanical equipment would be prohibited 

Project 

wide 

Programmatic 

Agreement 

HR-2 Use hand treatments to reduce wildfire effects within 

heritage sites. 

Project 

wide 

Programmatic 

Agreement 

HR-3 Evaluate linear features to establish possible crossing 

areas. 

Project 

wide 

Programmatic 

Agreement 

HR-4 Protect arborglyphs during prescribed fire Project 

wide 

Programmatic 

Agreement 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-49

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

Federal agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives 

and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 

CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the proposed action provided suggestions for 

alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside 

the scope of the need for the proposal, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined 

to be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, a number of alternatives 

were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below each topic 

heading. 

Utilizing Hand Thining as the only treatment method within SEZ 

An alternative was considered where no mechanical equipment would be used in stream environment 

zones (SEZs). Treatment would consist of hand thinning and piling only. This alternative was dropped 

from further consideration because of forest health objectives, feasibility, safety and treatment needs for 

riparian vegetation: 

 If mechanically treated stands with SEZs were to be hand thinned, a majority may not be 

thinned to the desired condition for forest health objectives due to the amount of trees greater 

than 14” dbh that could not be safely hand carried from within the SEZ no pile zone. 

 If mechanically treated stands with SEZs were to be hand thinned, the length of time that the 

thinning treatment would be effective would be shortened. Stands would grow back to levels 

that exceed the desired stand density objective within 5 to 10 years as opposed to remaining 

at desired densities for 20 years or longer. 

 If mechanically treated stands with SEZs were to be hand thinned, there is the potential that 

high levels of fuel loading within the no-pile buffer of the SEZ, would remain. With hand 

thinning, fuels would need to be moved out of this zone for piling manually. It would be 

difficult, costly, and unsafe to move all bole material greater than 14” diameter outside of the 

no-pile buffer. Fuels greater than 14” diameter may have to be left within the SEZ no-pile 

buffer which would likely exceed the desired maximum fuel load of 15 tons per acre. 

 There is no environmental benefit to conducting hand thin operations within an SEZ as 

opposed to Cut-to-length/log forwarding harvest systems. Cut-to-length/log forwarding 

systems have been proven to be able to operate within SEZ areas with soil types similar to 

those within the Heavenly SEZ Demonstration Project with no adverse environmental affects. 

 In order to meet the purpose to promote dominance of riparian vegetation, there is a need to 

remove conifer invasion in aspen stands that are within SEZs, and some trees larger than 20” 

dbh need to be removed. Prohibition of mechanical equipment in SEZs would prevent 

achievement of healthy riparian vegetative conditions where aspen, willow, and other riparian 

vegetation dominate in SEZs. 

Treatment using Cut-To-Length equipment only 

An alternative was considered to use only CTL equipment for thinning trees in the mechanical treatment 

areas of the project. Whole tree thinning methods would not be used. This alternative was dropped from 

further consideration because: 

 Limiting mechanical equipment to CTL methods outside of SEZs would lengthen the 

implementation time to such an extent that the project would not provide the fuel reduction 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-50

needed for communities in a timely manner. CTL operations in the central Sierra Nevada are 

limited. About 500 acres per year has been the maximum production level for CTL tree 

thinning in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The average production has been 350 acres per year, which 

would extend implementation of the South Shore project over a period ranging from 12 to 17 

years. This extended time of implementation would fail to reduce hazardous fuel levels for 

communities and homes adjacent to the National Forest in a timely manner. 

 Due to the limitations of CTL systems, whole tree or conventional equipment is more 

efficient at removing biomass. This is because whole tree logging does not leave as much 

fuel on the ground as CTL because trees are processed at the landing instead of in the stand. 

Based on analysis presented in the document, WT methods have acceptable impacts to 

resources. 

No removal of fuels in Wildlife Areas 

An alternative was considered with no fuel reduction activities within spotted owl or goshawk PACs or 

TRPA goshawk disturbance zones, osprey, or bald eagle habitats (referred collectively in this EIS as 

Wildlife Areas). This alternative was dropped from further consideration because: 

 The Wildlife Areas are distributed throughout the project area and account for almost 3,700 acres 

or 30% of the project area. To not implement treatments to reduce fuels on this much of the 

project area would leave substantial amounts of hazardous fuels in areas identified as needing fuel 

reduction. While treating the individual remaining stands would result approximately 2/3 of the 

project area meeting the desired condition, leaving approximately 1/3 of the area untreated would 

fail to meet the desired conditions over the landscape. The amount and distribution of untreated 

fuels in the Wildlife Areas would not reduce the potential for crown fires to an acceptable level. 

This would leave homes and the community vulnerable to wildfire. The purpose and need of the 

project would not be met. 

Concentration of operations in only one area at a time 

An alternative was considered that would schedule nearby mechanical treatment at the same time to 

improve operational efficiency with less movement of equipment among fuel reduction areas. This 

alternative was dropped from further consideration because: 

 While this alternative is the least costly from an economical operations standpoint, it has higher 

negative impacts to watersheds. This alternative would cause more of the HUC7 watersheds 

within the project analysis area to exceed 100% of their threshold of concern. This alternative 

could cause unnecessary risk for environmental harm and may not meet water quality standards. 

 This alternative would also not meet the need to provide alternate refuge habitat for sensitive 

species when fuel reduction activities were scheduled in their habitat areas, which would increase 

the potential for negative impacts to sensitive species. 

 This alternative would also have greater short-term impacts to scenic quality by concentrating 

activities within view areas. 

Establish a limit to the size of trees cut 

Public comments received during scoping indicated a concern for removal of trees that exceeded various 

diameter limits; 12”, 14”, 16”, 20”, 24”, and 30” dbh. It was stated in the comments that no trees greater 

than 12” dbh need to be removed in order to meet fuel reduction objectives. One comment was that 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-51

thinning needs be analyzed by two-inch diameter increments on a stand-by-stand basis to determine the 

diameter classes needing removal to achieve fuels objectives. An alternative was analyzed to respond to 

these comments and limit tree removal to 12” dbh or less. This alternative was dropped from further 

consideration for several reasons: 

 The current stocking levels within the South Shore project are highly variable. While there are 

some stands in the South Shore project where the desired stocking level of 80 to 150 sq ft basal 

area per acre might be reached by only removing trees up to 12” (or incrementally larger diameter 

limits (e.g. 16”) there are many stands where a diameter limit would leave too many trees and the 

stand would be over stocked, unhealthy and vulnerable to wildfire. Removal of the smaller 

diameter trees first, proceeding by size classes to increasing diameters to meet the purpose and 

need to reduce fuels and stand density is known as understory thinning, and is basic to the design 

of the South Shore project. The selection of trees to be thinned in the South Shore project action 

alternatives would begin with the smallest trees (suppressed and intermediate trees) and continue 

to remove trees of increasing diameter until the desired stocking level is reached. In some 

situations larger trees up to 30” in diameter would need to be removed to meet this target stocking 

level. This stocking level represents the density at which any higher stand densities would 

increase competition and probability of tree mortality from lack of resources, disease and/or 

insect attack increases. In most units within the South Shore project few trees near 30” diameter 

would need removal to meet the desired stocking level. Using an absolute diameter limit in all 

stands as the decision criteria for removal of trees would not meet the long-term purpose of 

improving forest health in addition to hazardous fuels reduction. The use of basal area as the 

target is a much better measure of a healthy stand than using diameter limits. The need to reduce 

basal area and increase spacing between trees to reduce competition for light, water, and soil 

nutrients in order to reduce mortality and increase resistance to drought, insects, and disease 

would not be met. Overly dense forest stands often suffer stress from drought and competition for 

nutrients, which subjects them to widespread forest dieback from insects and diseases. 

 The use of diameter limits if imposed on roads and landings could prevent use of some existing 

openings as landings where the use of the area is in all other respects acceptable but for a few 

trees that would exceed the diameter limit. This could lead to additional disturbance to create new 

landings where diameter limits would allow or prevent the ability to create landings where needed 

which would result in treatment units (or portions of them) not being treated. 

 Imposing a set diameter limit would prevent effective removal of encroaching conifers in SEZs 

and aspen stands, some conifers with diameters exceeding 12” need to be removed to release 

aspen stands and retard future conifer encroachment. Along some SEZs, some conifers over 12” 

dbh need to be removed in order to allow riparian vegetation to become dominant. 

 One of the identified purposes is to reverse this historically created species distribution through 

retention of Jeffrey and sugar pine and removal of white fir. In order to meet this need, various 

diameters of white fir need to be removed, including trees over 12” dbh. The mix of conifer 

species present in the South Shore area now are not at desired conditions nor do they represent 

the historic diversity present before the Comstock logging era. Logging during the Comstock era 

selectively removed Jeffery and sugar pine from the Lake Tahoe Basin and left a preponderance 

of less fire-resistant and less drought-tolerant white fir and lodgepole pine. One of the stated 

purposes of the South Shore project is to attain desired conditions of larger, widely spaced, more 

fire-resistant trees. See the Chapter 1 sections: Emphasis on Reducing Conifer Density and 

Treating Fuels; and Purpose and Need for Action. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-52

Thinning trees and brush only in the Defensible Space zone within 200 feet of homes 

An alternative was considered that would only thin trees and brush in the defensible space zone, offering 

this service to homeowners who wish to participate (thinning would occur on private land (for willing 

homeowners) and on public lands within 200 feet of homes). This alternative was dropped from further 

consideration for several reasons: 

 Limiting fuels reduction and forest health treatments to within 200 feet of a home would reduce 

proposed treatments to less than 900 acres over the entire project area. This would result in 

almost 9,770 acres or 92% of the project area not being treated. To not implement treatments that 

reduce fuels on this much of the project area would leave substantial amounts of hazardous fuels 

in areas identified within the WUI as needing fuel reduction. In addition, the treatments 

implemented under this alternative would fail to meet the desired conditions over the landscape 

and have little to no effect on changing fire behavior across the landscape. While this alternative 

could improve defensible space to homes, it would leave homes and the community vulnerable to 

large wildfire events. The purpose and need of the project would not be met under this 

alternative. 

 This alternative would not meet the need for restoration of forest health and restoration of SEZs 

including aspen stands in the South Shore area as described in the FEIS (Chapter 1 Purpose and 

Need For Action, items #2 and #3). 

 Implementing fuels reduction treatments beyond the National Forest boundary on private or other 

ownerships is outside the scope of authority for the Forest Service and this project. 

No treatment in areas greater than 1 1⁄2 miles from residences 

An alternative was considered that would eliminate treatments further than 1 1⁄2 miles from year-round 

residences, i.e., treatments would not occur along Highway 89 or the paved road to Fountain Place. This 

alternative was dropped from further consideration because: 

 Highway 89 was identified as an essential egress route by the Fallen Leaf and Lake Valley Fire 

Protection Districts, and the South Lake Tahoe Fire Department in their community wildfire 

protection plans (CWPPs). The HFRA requires that projects accomplished under HFRA authority 

be consistent with the CWPPs. Elimination of treatments along Highway 89 would fail to modify 

wildfire behavior along an identified egress route and would not be consistent with the CWPPs. . 

 The Stewardship Fireshed Assessment (USDA FS LTBMU 2007) showed that the area between 

private lands in Fountain Place and the City of South Lake Tahoe would exhibit crown fire 

behavior similar to the recent Angora fire, and, with prevailing southwest winds, untreated lands 

would present a high risk to homes, neighborhoods, and critical infrastructure (transmission lines) 

in South Lake Tahoe. Failure to reduce hazardous fuels and modify fire behavior in this area 

would not meet the purpose to reduce risk to life and property in that area of the Lake Tahoe 

Basin. 

 The project identifies objectives for both fuels reduction and restoring healthy forest conditions. 

In Chapter 1 it is stated under purpose and need that “there is a need for restoration of forest 

health in the South Shore area where stands of trees have become overly dense. Existing 

overcrowded stands have higher than average mortality which leads to ever-increasing fuel loads 

and high intensity wildfire risk which subjects them to widespread forest dieback from insects 

and diseases.” 

 As described in the proposed action (Chapter 1) the treatment area within the WUI is consistent 

with the Forest Plan. “Consistent with SNFPA (USDA FS 2004a, p. 40), in the project area, the 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-53

WUI boundaries were refined based upon site-specific topography and other features that provide 

logical fireline placement during suppression, such as slope breaks, roads, and streams.” 

Accomplishing fuels treatments and stream restoration activities at the same time 

An alternative was considered that would schedule thinning treatments and stream channel restoration 

activities at the same time so that impacts of project activities occur in one entry. This alternative was 

dropped from further consideration because: 

 This alternative would concentrate the effects of both activities in SEZs into a shorter timeframe, 

without allowing watershed recovery time between thinning activities and ground disturbance for 

stream restoration activities. This concentration of activities in a shorter time could increase the 

negative effects to a greater degree than the additive effects of the separate activities when spaced 

over time. 

 The following restoration projects are currently under various stages of planning and 

implementation and would not meet the timing schedule for South Shore treatments: 

o Cold Creek/High Meadows – Project has been initiated under a separate NEPA decision 

completed in 2009. 

o Upper Truckee River – This is a joint project with the CA Tahoe Conservancy due to the 

presence of both state and federal lands in the project area, and could not be included in 

this project for that reason. 

o Angora Creek, Seneca Pond, and Gardner Mtn. Meadow – All were included in the NEPA 

decision for the Angora Fire Restoration Project due to their location within the Angora 

burn area. 

o Stream restoration activities are outside the HFRA authorization, and are not included in 

the purpose and need for fuels reduction and thinning to promote healthy forest 

vegetative conditions. 

Basing treatment on modelled condition of individual stands 

An alternative was considered that would treat only units where fire behavior modeling for individual 

stands showed the unit would exhibit crown fire behavior. This alternative was dropped from further 

consideration because: 

 This alternative does not meet the Forest Plan direction as amended by the SNFPA for providing 

fuel treatments that are effective within the WUI and on a landscape level. The WUI is made up 

of many different stands of trees, with a wide variety of fuel conditions in close proximity to each 

other. Wildfire behavior is not only dependent on the individual stand condition; it is also 

dependent on the conditions within –and adjacent to– stands. While an individual stand could 

model as a surface fire if it were isolated, when adjacent to other stands that exhibit crown fire 

behavior, it could support a conditional crown fire. 

 Stands where spacing and basal area meet the desired conditions, indicate healthy forest 

conditions, and that do not have unacceptable levels of hazardous fuels, are not proposed for 

treatment in the South Shore project. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-54

Implementing Fuels Management direction contained in the 2001 SNFPA 

An alternative was considered that would implement direction in the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment (SNFPA). This alternative would have a maximum 20” dbh limit for tree removal. The 2001 

SNFPA also required retaining 10% to 20% of all stands in an untreated condition during hazardous fuel 

reduction treatments. This alternative was dropped from further consideration because: 

 The LTBMU Forest Plan was amended by the 2004 SNFPA, which superseded the 2001 SNFPA. 

 Limiting the diameter of trees cut to 20” dbh would not meet the purpose and need of this project. 

The rationale is described in detail above (“Limit the size of trees cut”). 

 Retaining 10% to 20% of all stands in an untreated condition would in most areas not meet the 

purpose and need of the project at the stand level. The desired condition of the project is defined 

by the remaining basal area and tons per acre within the treated stands. The existing condition of 

stands within the South Shore Project area varies widely. Leaving 10% to 20% of the stands 

untreated would leave the landscape vulnerable to wildfire. In addition, the action alternatives 

propose to treat only about 15% of the total area within the Analysis Area, therefore much of the 

area will not be treated. The treatments are planned only for areas within the WUI. The forested 

lands outside the WUI will remain untreated. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-55

Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-5. Changes in treatment types for SEZ and upland areas by alternative 

Thinning Treatment Type Alternative 2 

Acres 

Alternative 3 

Acres 

Difference 

Acres 

Hand Treatment SEZ 87 138 51 

Hand Treatment Uplands 4855 5823 968 

Total Hand Treatment 4942 5961 1019 

Cut to Length SEZ 447 385 -62 

CTL Uplands 1463 1625 162 

Total Cut-to-Length 1910 2010 100 

Whole Tree with SEZ inclusions 198 170 -28 

WT Uplands 3620 1971 -1649 

Total Whole Tree 3818 2141 -1677 

Total Mechanical Treatment 5728 4151 -1577 

Total SEZ treatment 732 693 -39 

Total Uplands 9938 9419 -519 

Total treatment 10670 10112 -558 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-56

Table 2-6. Comparison of fuel treatment type acres by alternative 

Fuel Treatment Type Alternative 2 

Acres 

Alternative 3 

Acres 

Differences 

Acres 

Lop & Scatter 2353 1616 -737 

Landings – pile burning and/or 

removal 128 77 -51 

Mastication/ Chipping 2480 2617 137 

Pile and burn 4372 5217 845 

Underburning (Lop & Scatter) 850 774 -76 

Pile and burn (SEZs) 87 138 51 

Lop & Scatter (SEZs) 198 170 -28 

Underburning (SEZs) 32 28 -4 

Table 2-7. Comparison of wildlife treatment acres by alternative* 

Sensitive Species & Habitat Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Change 

Number of CA spotted owl PACs treated 6 5 -1 

Acres of CA spotted owl PACs treated 850 604 -246 

Number of CA spotted owl HRCAs treated 7 7 0 

Acres of CA spotted owl HRCAs treated 3001 2559 -442 

Number of goshawk PACs treated 9 7 -2 

Acres of goshawk PACs treated 1320 967 -353 

Acres treated within goshawk TRPA 

Disturbance Zone 2554 2248 -306 

Acres treated within bald eagle winter habitat 162 154 -8 

Acres treated within osprey TRPA disturbance 

zone 

567 541 -26 

* Due to spatial overlap, the change in acres is discrete for each row (not a cumulative total, 

by alternative). 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-57

Table 2-8. Decrease in proposed road construction and landings between Alternatives 2 and 3 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Change (Decrease) 

New temporary roads 4.8 mi 3.8 mi - 1 mi 

Existing temp roads 10.3 mi 8.6 mi - 1.7 mi 

Number of Landings 219 landings 168 landings -51 landings 

Table 2-9, beginning on the following page, provides a brief summary of the alternatives and their 

environmental consequences in comparative format. Although there is no predictable acreage or 

timeframe for effects from the No Action alternative, the existing fuel load would continue to present a 

risk for high-intensity wildfire. Under Alternative 1, fire risk and the severity of wildfire effects to other 

resources would continue to increase over time. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-58

Table 2-9. Comparison of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives by Measurement Indicator 

A. Fire Behavior and Fuels 

Measurement 

Indicator 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 

Preferred Alternative 

Condition Class CC 1 – 1,230 

CC 2 – 2,687 

CC 3 – 6,753 

Continuing shift to CC 3 

CC 1 – 4,923 

CC 2 – 5,747 

CC 1 – 4,421 

CC 2 – 5,691 

Surface Fuel 

Load 

27 tons/acre 

8-66 tons/acre range 

Surface fuel reduced to 

an average of 10-15 

tons/acre on 10,670 acres 

Surface fuel reduced to an 

average of 10-15 tons/acre 

on 10,112 acres 

Fire Behavior - 

 Fire Type 

(Acres) 

Surface - 684

Passive Crown -6,578

Active Crown - 3,408

Crown fire not reduced 

Surface - 8,831

Passive Crown- 1,424

Active Crown - 415

Crown fire reduced 89% 

on 10,670 acres 

Surface - 8621

Passive Crown - 1,138 

Active Crown - 353 

Crown fire reduced 89% 

on 10,112 acres 

Fire Intensity - 

 Flame Length 

 (Acres) 

Less than 4’ - 2,424 

4’ to 8’ – 1,914 

Greater than 8’ – 6,332 

Less than 4’ – 9,332 

4’ to 8’ – 363 

Greater than 8’ - 975 

Less than 4’ – 8,932 

4’ to 8’ – 426 

Greater than 8’ - 754 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-59

B. Forest Vegetation 

Measurement 

Indicator 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 

Preferred Alternative 

Stand 

Composition 

and Structure 

Higher levels of 

understory shade 

tolerant species 

Higher levels of large, 

widely spaced, shade 

intolerant species 

Higher levels of large, 

widely spaced, shade 

intolerant species 

Density – Basal 

Area 

(ft2

/acre) 

Currently: 200 

20 Years: 255 

Post Treat:147 

20 Years: 195 

Post Treat:142 

20 Years: 191 

Density - Stand 

Density Index 

(% Max SDI) 

Currently: 84% 

20 Years: 99% Post Treat: 48% 

20 Years: 61% 

 Post Treat: 48% 

20 Years: 62% 

Forest Health - 

Dwarf Mistletoe 

(DMI) 

Currently: 3.5 

20 Years: 4.2 

Post Treat: 0.8 

20 Years: 1.0 

Post Treat: 0.8 

20 Years: 1.0 

Forest Health – 

Insect Related 

Mortality Risk 

(% acres >60% 

Max SDI) 

Currently: 65% 

20 Years: 78% 

Post Treat: 33% 

20 Years: 47% 

Post Treat: 35% 

20 Years: 53% 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-60

C. Geology and Soil Resources 

Measurement 

Indicator 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 

Preferred Alternative 

Geologic 

Hazards 

Insignificant potential 

for geologic hazards; 

increased potential for 

mass movement with 

severe wildfire. 

Insignificant potential for 

geologic hazards 

Insignificant potential for 

geologic hazards 

Soil Porosity and 

Hydrologic 

Function 

No change; potential 

for slight reduction of 

porosity and extensive, 

short-term reductions 

in hydrologic function 

with severe wildfire. 

Extent and magnitude of 

reductions would be minor 

and mostly long-term. 

Extent and magnitude of 

reductions would be slightly 

less than Alternative 2; 

duration would be similar. 

Effective Soil 

Cover 

No change; with 

severe wildfire 

significant short term 

losses are possible 

over an extensive 

area. 

Minor losses; not of an 

extent or magnitude that 

would significantly affect 

productivity; short term 

duration. 

Impacts slightly less than 

Alternative 2; duration 

would be similar. 

Surface and 

Subsurface 

Organic Matter 

No change; potential 

for significant short 

term loss of surface 

organic matter and 

minor loss of 

subsurface organic 

matter with severe 

wildfire. 

Minor losses; not of an 

extent or magnitude that 

would significantly affect 

productivity; short term 

duration. 

Impacts slightly less than 

Alternative 2; duration 

would be similar. 

Severe Burning No change; potential 

for significant impacts 

with severe wildfire; 

extent would depend 

on fire size. 

Extent of impacts would 

be minor and would not 

significantly affect 

productivity. 

Extent of impacts would be 

slightly less than 

Alternative 2. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-61

D. Water and Riparian Resources 

Measurement 

Indicator 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 

Preferred Alternative 

Watershed 

Condition 

No change, high risk 

for future high intensity 

wildfire. 

Reduced risk of future 

high intensity wildfire. 

Reduced risk of future high 

intensity wildfire. 

Stream Channel 

Condition 

No change, 3 existing 

stream crossings that 

act as fish passage 

and/or sediment 

conveyance barriers 

would remain in place. 

Positive effect from 

replacing 3 failing stream 

crossings with improved 

crossings. Project related 

impacts would be minor 

and mitigated with stream 

buffers and crossing 

installation and removal 

RPMs. 

The 3 failing existing 

crossings would be 

replaced, and lesser other 

impacts would occur than 

with Alternative 2 because 

of reduced treatment acres 

in SEZs. 

Water Quality 

and Beneficial 

Uses 

No change, greater 

potential for water 

quality effects from 

possible future high 

intensity wildfire. 

Sediment delivery 

resulting from project 

treatments would not be 

measurable above 

background levels with 

application of BMPs and 

project specific RPMs. 

Lesser potential impacts 

than with Alternative 2 

would result because of 

reduced acres of WT 

mechanical treatment and 

fewer acres of SEZ 

treatments. 

SEZs, 

Floodplains, and 

Aspen Stands 

No change, conifer 

encroachment will 

continue to compete 

with riparian vegetation 

for water and nutrients 

in these areas. 

Effects will be minimal and 

short term due to soil 

moisture requirements for 

mechanical treatments, 

piling restrictions, and 

proposed adaptive 

management. 

Effects will be slightly less 

than those for Alternative 2 

due to fewer acres of SEZ 

treatment proposed. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-62

E. Aquatic Wildlife 

Measurement 

Indicator 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 Preferred 

Alternative 

Stream shade 

and water 

temperature 

Not expected to 

change from current 

levels 

Short-term decrease of 

shade with long-term 

increase as larger tree 

structure develops. No 

measurable increase in 

stream temperature. 

Short-term decrease of 

shade, but less than Alt. 2. 

No measurable increase in 

stream temperature. 

Coarse Woody 

Debris (CWD) 

Amount of CWD will 

increase in the longterm. 

CWD is left within stream 

channels per RPAs. 

CWD is left within stream 

channels per RPAs. 

Sediment No change from 

current levels. 

Potential increase 

resulting from roads and 

landings, but not 

measurable when 

considering background 

levels. 

Potential increase resulting 

from roads and landings, 

but not measurable when 

considering background 

levels. Potential for 

sedimentation to streams is 

less than Alternative 2. 

Lahontan 

Cutthroat Trout 

No Effect May Affect, but is not 

Likely to Adversely Affect 

May Affect, but is not Likely 

to Adversely Affect 

Known to Occur 

in Project Area: 

Lahontan Tui 

Chub 

& 

Great Basin 

Rams Horn 

No Effect No Effect No Effect 

Does Not Occur 

in Project Area: 

Sierra Nevada 

Yellow-legged 

Frog, Delta 

Smelt, Yosemite 

Toad, Northern 

Leopard Frog

No Effect No Effect No Effect 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-63

F. Terrestrial Wildlife 

Measurement 

Indicator 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 Preferred 

Alternative 

Effects to Fisher 

and Sierra 

Nevada Red Fox 

No Effect No Effect No Effect 

Effects to 

Wolverine 

No Effect Disturbance; fine scale 

habitat fragmentation; 

reduced risk of course 

scale habitat 

fragmentation; <4% 

resting and foraging 

habitat affected; no 

change in acres of 

denning, resting, and 

foraging habitat. 

Disturbance; fine scale 

habitat fragmentation; 

reduced risk of course 

scale habitat fragmentation; 

<4% resting and foraging 

habitat affected; No change 

in acres of denning, resting, 

and foraging habitat. 

 Effects to 

American 

Marten 

No Effect Disturbance; fine scale 

habitat fragmentation; 

reduced risk of course 

scale habitat 

fragmentation; reduction of 

1,204 acres of denning 

habitat; reduction of 755 

acres of resting habitat; 

reduction in 653 acres of 

foraging habitat. 

Disturbance; fine scale 

habitat fragmentation, 

reduced risk of course 

scale habitat fragmentation; 

reduction of 948 acres of 

denning habitat; reduction 

of 522 acres of resting 

habitat; reduction of 419 

acres of foraging habitat. 

Effects to 

Townsend’s Bigeared Bat 

No Effect Disturbance; removal of 

some tree hollow-type 

roosts; if existing 

Disturbance; removal of 

some tree hollow-type 

roosts; if existing 

Effects to Bald 

Eagle 

No Effect Disturbance; addition of 91 

acres of nesting habitat; 

addition of 24 acres of 

perching a habitat; 

addition of 180 acres of 

foraging habitat. 

Disturbance; addition of 32 

acres of nesting habitat; 

addition of 24 acres of 

perching habitat; addition of 

185 acres of foraging 

habitat. 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-64

F. Terrestrial Wildlife, Cont. 

Measurement 

Indicator 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 Preferred 

Alternative 

Effects to 

Northern 

Goshawk 

No Effect Disturbance; Initial 

reduction in suitable 

habitats would be followed 

by growth of treated 

stands along trajectories 

more beneficial than 

current trajectories; 

reduction of 3,124 acres of 

nesting habitat; reduction 

of 42 acres of perching 

habitat; addition of 3 acres 

of foraging habitat. 

Disturbance; Initial 

reduction in suitable 

habitats would be followed 

by growth of treated stands 

along trajectories more 

beneficial than current 

trajectories; reduction of 

2,828 acres of nesting 

habitat; reduction of 50 

acres of perching habitat; 

addition of 2 acres of 

foraging habitat. 

Effects to 

California 

Spotted Owl 

No Effect Disturbance; Initial 

reduction in suitable 

habitats would be followed 

by growth of treated 

stands along trajectories 

more beneficial than 

current trajectories; 

reduction of 1,613 acres of 

nesting habitat; reduction 

of 1,675 acres of roosting 

habitat; reduction of 1,366 

acres of foraging habitat. 

Disturbance; initial 

reduction in suitable 

habitats would be followed 

by growth of treated stands 

along trajectories more 

beneficial than current 

trajectories; reduction of 

1,356 acres of nesting 

habitat; reduction of 1,418 

acres of roosting habitat; 

reduction of 1,281 acres of 

foraging habitat. 

Effects to Great 

Gray Owl 

No Effect Disturbance; conifer 

encroachment in 

meadows reduced; 

reduction of 2,103 acres of 

nesting, roosting, and 

foraging habitat. 

Disturbance; conifer 

encroachment in meadows 

reduced; reduction of 1,798 

acres of nesting, roosting, 

and foraging habitat. 

Effects to Willow 

Flycatcher 

No Effect Disturbance; Possible long 

term increase in 

deciduous, riparian 

shrubs; approximately 4% 

of suitable nesting, 

perching, and foraging 

habitats affected 

Disturbance; Possible long 

term increase in deciduous, 

riparian shrubs; 

approximately 3% of 

suitable nesting, perching, 

and foraging habitats 

affected 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-65

G. TRPA Special Interest Species 

Species Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 Preferred 

Alternative 

Northern 

Goshawk 

No Effect Disturbance; Initial 

reduction in suitable 

habitats would be followed 

by growth of treated 

stands along trajectories 

more beneficial than 

current trajectories 

Disturbance; Initial 

reduction in suitable 

habitats would be followed 

by growth of treated stands 

along trajectories more 

beneficial than current 

trajectories 

Osprey No Effect Disturbance; Stand 

condition in the 

disturbance zone are 

expected to be enhanced 

Disturbance; Stand 

condition in the disturbance 

zone are expected to be 

enhanced 

Bald Eagle 

(winter) 

No Effect Disturbance; slight 

increase in nesting, 

perching, and foraging 

habitat 

Disturbance; slight increase 

in nesting, perching, and 

foraging habitat 

Bald Eagle 

(nesting) and 

Golden Eagle 

No Effect No Effect No Effect 

Peregrine 

Falcon 

No Effect Disturbance Disturbance 

Waterfowl No Effect Disturbance; habitat would 

be improved where 

treatments remove 

encroaching conifers 

Disturbance; habitat would 

be improved where 

treatments remove 

encroaching conifers 

Mule Deer No Effect Disturbance; short term 

reduction of forage and 

cover; long term increase 

in habitat quality 

Disturbance; short term 

reduction of forage and 

cover; long term increase in 

habitat quality 

Lahontan 

Cutthroat Trout 

Are fish species present (or suspected)? 

Yes – LCT are known to occur in the Upper Truckee River above Christmas Valley 

(upper limit of the South Shore Project area).

Is there an adjacent Lahontan cutthroat trout population which could be affected by 

the project? 

Yes – Individual LCT could migrate into the project area before implementation 

occurs.
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-66

H. Management Indicator Species 

MIS Habitat 

Factor 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 Preferred 

Alternative 

Riparian Habitat: 

Change in 

Deciduous 

Canopy Cover 

0 496 acres enhanced by 

reduction of understory 

conifers 

466 acres enhanced by 

reduction of understory 

conifers 

Riparian Habitat: 

Change in Total 

Canopy Cover 

0 240 acres may show a 

reduction in total canopy 

cover by at least one size 

class. 

176 acres may show a 

reduction in total canopy 

cover by at least one size 

class. 

Riparian Habitat: 

Change in 

CWHR Size 

Class 

0 179 acres expected to 

increase by at least one 

CWHR size class 

140 acres expected to 

increase by at least one 

CWHR size class 

Early and Mid 

Seral Coniferous 

Forest Habitat: 

Changes in 

CWHR tree size 

class 

0 600 acres converted from 

CWHR size class 4 to size 

class 5 

467 acres converted from 

CWHR size class 4 to size 

class 5 

Early and Mid 

Seral Coniferous 

Forest Habitat: 

Changes in Tree 

Canopy Closure 

0 1,728 acres reduced by at 

least one canopy cover 

class 

1,538 acres reduced by at 

least one canopy cover 

class 

Early and Mid 

Seral Coniferous 

Forest Habitat: 

Changes in 

Understory 

Shrub Canopy 

Closure 

0 689 acres 631 acres 

Late Seral Open 

Canopy 

Coniferous 

Forest Habitat: 

Changes in Tree 

Canopy Closure 

Class 

0 12 acres reduced from 

closure class P to closure 

class S 

12 acres reduced from 

closure class P to closure 

class S 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-67

H. Management Indicator Species, Cont. 

MIS Habitat 

Factor 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 Preferred 

Alternative 

Late Seral Open 

Canopy 

Coniferous 

Forest Habitat: 

Changes in 

Understory 

Shrub Canopy 

Closure Class 

0 51 acres 47 acres 

Late Seral 

Closed Canopy 

Coniferous 

Forest Habitat: 

Change in 

Canopy Closure 

0 70 acres reduced from 

dense to moderate 

70 acres reduced from 

dense to moderate 

Late Seral 

Closed Canopy 

Coniferous 

Forest Habitat: 

Change in Large 

Down Logs or 

Large Snags 

0 Logs reduced to a 

minimum of 10 tons/acre 

on 31 acres; hazard snags 

greater than 30 inches dbh 

removed 

Logs reduced to a 

minimum of 10 tons/acre 

on 20 acres; hazard snags 

greater than 30 inches dbh 

removed 

Snags in Green 

Forest: 

Medium Snags 

per Acre 

0 Medium snags reduced to 

below 3 per acre in the 

absence of larger sized 

snags, and not below 2 

snags per acre in the 

presence of larger snags 

on 5,517 acres 

Medium snags reduced to 

below 3 per acre in the 

absence of larger sized 

snags, and not below 2 

snags per acre in the 

presence of larger snags 

on 5,376 acres. 

Snags in Green 

Forest: 

Large Snags per 

Acre 

0 Only hazard trees 

adjacent to established 

infrastructure and greater 

than 30 inches dbh would 

be removed 

Only hazard trees adjacent 

to established infrastructure 

and greater than 30 inches 

dbh would be removed 

Snags in Burned 

Forest 

Ecosystem 

Component: 

Medium Snags 

per Acre 

0 Medium snags reduced to 

below 3 per acre in the 

absence of larger sized 

snags, and not below 2 

snags per acre in the 

presence of larger snags 

on 315 acres. 

Medium snags reduced to 

below 3 per acre in the 

absence of larger sized 

snags, and not below 2 

snags per acre in the 

presence of larger snags 

on 315 acres 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-68

H. Management Indicator Species, Cont. 

MIS Habitat 

Factor 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 Preferred 

Alternative 

Snags in Burned 

Forest 

Ecosystem 

Component: 

Large Snags per 

Acre 

0 Only hazard trees 

adjacent to established 

infrastructure and greater 

than 30 inches dbh would 

be removed 

Only hazard trees adjacent 

to established infrastructure 

and greater than 30 inches 

dbh would be removed 

I. Sensitive Plants 

Measurement 

Indicator 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 Preferred 

Alternative 

Habitat Cover for 

Sensitive Plants 

No change. Long term 

reduction possible from 

increased fuel loadings 

and potential wildfire 

event 

No change. Long term 

improvement as a result of 

reduced fuel loading and 

conifer density 

Same as Alt 2. 

J. Noxious Weeds 

Measurement 

Indicator 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 Preferred 

Alternative 

Risk of Noxious 

Weed Invasion 

No short term 

increase. Long term 

potential increase in 

risk due to increased 

wildfire risk 

Localized minor increase 

in risk within mechanical 

treatment, roads, and 

prescribed burn areas. 

Same as Alt 2 but on fewer 

acres 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-69

K. Air Quality 

Measurement 

Indicator 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 Preferred 

Alternative 

Fugitive Dust No measureable 

increase from current 

levels. 

Short term, temporary 

increase in fugitive dust 

from equipment hauling 

and thinning activities. 

Minimal amounts due to 

use of BMP and Resource 

Protection Measure 

mitigations. 

Short term, temporary 

increase in fugitive dust 

from equipment hauling 

and thinning activities 

Fewer acres of mechanical 

treatments leading to dust 

production as compared to 

alternative 2. Minimal 

amounts. 

Smoke 

Emissions 

(particulate 

matter) 

No increase in smoke 

particulate matter from 

current levels. 

Increased potential 

large release of 

particulate matter as a 

result of wildfire 

Smoke particulate matter 

increased from prescribed 

burning activities. Within 

standards for emissions. 

Substantially reduces 

emission potential from 

wildfire. 

Increased acres of 

prescribed burning 

activities. Negligible 

increase in particulate 

matter compared to 

Alternative 2. Within 

standards for emissions 

L. Heritage Resources 

Measurement 

Indicator 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 Preferred 

Alternative 

Effect to Heritage 

Resources 

No direct impacts, but 

continued long term risk 

to cultural resources 

from wildfire in areas 

with heavy fuel loads.

Reduction of risk to cultural 

resources from high 

intensity wildland fires.

Reduction of risk to cultural 

resources from high 

intensity wildland fires, but 

with less acreage treated.

Reduction of 

Conifers in 

Aspen 

Stands 

No direct impacts, but 

continued long term risk 

to arborglyphs from 

wildfire and conifer 

competition (which can 

threaten the health of 

aspens with 

arborglyphs.)

Protection of arborglyphs in 

aspen stands while 

reducing wildfire hazards 

and conifer competition.

Increase health and 

longevity of carved trees. 

Protection of arborglyphs in 

aspen stands while 

reducing wildfire hazards 

and conifer competition, but 

with less acreage treated. 

Increase health and 

longevity of carved trees.
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-70

M. Scenic Resources 

Measurement 

Indicator 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 Preferred 

Alternative 

Meeting visual 

quality 

objectives 

(VQOs) 

Consistent with VQO Consistent with VQO. 

Short term deviation 

during and immediately 

after treatments 

Consistent with VQO. Short 

term deviation during and 

immediately after 

treatments 

Scenic stability Low High stability in treatment 

areas 

High stability in treatment 

areas 

N. Recreation 

Measurement 

Indicator 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 Preferred 

Alternative 

User Created 

Trails 

No affect to the current 

use patterns 

Use patterns are likely to 

remain consistent with 

current conditions 

Use patterns are likely to 

remain consistent with 

current conditions 

Access 

Restrictions 

No affect to the current 

use patterns 

Short term public 

recreation restrictions as 

areas are closed during 

implementation for public 

protection 

Fewer short term public 

recreation restrictions as 

areas are closed during 

implementation for public 

protection compared to Alt 

2 

Christmas Tree 

Program 

No affect to the current 

use patterns 

Short term reduction in 

opportunities as 

treatments are 

implemented 

Short term reduction in 

opportunities as treatments 

are implemented 

Recreation 

Experience 

(ROS) 

No affect to the current 

use patterns 

Short term negative affect 

to recreation visitor 

experience, no change to 

the ROS class 

Short term negative affect 

to recreation visitor 

experience, no change to 

the ROS class 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-71

O. Transportation and Access (Roads) 

Measurement 

Indicator 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 Preferred 

Alternative 

Change in 

Access 

No change Minor reconstruction and 

maintenance to current 

access. No permanent 

change in access. 

Same as Alternative 2 

P. Economics 

Measurement 

Indicator 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 Preferred 

Alternative 

Present Net 

Value $0 $-3,334,000 $-8,674,000 

Q. Special Designated Areas 

Measurement 

Indicator 

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 Preferred 

Alternative 

Effect to 

Wilderness 

No effect to wilderness No effect to wilderness No effect to wilderness 

Change to 

Roadless 

Character 

No change to roadless 

character 

Minimal hand and 

mechanical treatment 

adjacent to homes and 

highways. No change to 

roadless character. 

Minimal hand and 

mechanical treatment 

adjacent to homes and 

highways. No change to 

roadless character. 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 2 2-72

This page intentionally left blank. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Introduction to Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 3-1

Chapter 3 

Affected Environment & Environmental 

Consequences 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations direct that agencies succinctly describe the 

environment that may be affected by the alternatives under consideration (40 CFR 1502.15). This Chapter 

describes the existing physical, biological, social, and economic aspects of the project area which have the 

potential to be affected by implementing any of the alternatives (i.e., the existing conditions). Each 

description of the existing conditions is followed by a description of the environmental effects (direct, 

indirect, and cumulative) that would be expected to result from undertaking the proposed action or other 

alternatives. Together, these descriptions form the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of 

effects table found at the end of Chapter 2. 

Changes from DEIS to FEIS 

As a result of public comments on the DEIS, review by the IDT, and lessons learned on other project 

NEPA documents, each section of Chapter 3 has been edited to improve clarity. The editing was largely 

in format and presentation. Overall the environmental consequences and conclusions are the same as 

presented in the DEIS. The editing of Chapter 3 did not result in any change in the disclosed 

environmental consequences of any resource. Where typos, errors, or unclear language was noted, it has 

been corrected. The indicators of effect have been consolidated into one part at the beginning of each 

resource section. In the DEIS they were presented somewhat differently in each section. The cumulative 

effects part of each section has been edited to be more consistent and focused on the cumulative effects as 

defined by NEPA. There are slight variations in acreage calculations in Chapter 2 and 3 due to such 

things rounding, differences in the models used to predict resource conditions, slight variations in 

geographic information system (GIS) mapping data, etc. These slight variations are minor and 

inconsequential to the effects analysis. 

Organization of Chapter 3 

Chapter 3 combines information on the existing conditions and environmental effects of the alternatives 

for the various resources. The information is separated into resource areas. The discussion of alternatives 

is organized by resource area and presented in the following order: 

Scope of the Analysis and Indicators of Effect 

This section introduces each resource area with the background for the area of consideration used in the 

analysis that follows. Each resource may have different areas of consideration. For example certain 

species of wildlife may range outside the watersheds included in the project while a plant species may 

only be limited to a few locations. The indicators of effect are the descriptions of the metrics that are 

used to describe the differences between alternatives. They provide the basis for the analysis of 

environmental consequences and describing the differences between alternatives. They may be 

qualitative, quantitative or a mixture of both depending on the resource. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-2

Existing Conditions 

The existing conditions section provides a description of the resource environment that is potentially 

affected based on current resource conditions, uses, and management decisions. 

Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 

This section provides an analysis of direct and indirect environmental effects of implementing each of the 

alternatives to the resource area, according to the indicators and issues identified for that resource. 

 Direct effects are caused by the actions to implement an alternative, and occur at the same time 

and place. 

 Indirect effects are caused by the implementation action and are later in time or removed in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (i.e., likely to occur within the duration of the 

project) 

Cumulative Effects 

A cumulative effect is the effect on the environment that results from the incremental effect of the action 

when added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of 

what agency or person undertakes the other actions and regardless of land ownership on which the other 

actions occur. An individual action when considered alone may not have a significant effect, but when its 

effects are considered in sum with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, the effects may be significant.(40 CFR 1508.7, 1508.8). Cumulative effects can result from 

individually minor, but collectively significant actions, taking place over a period of time. Appendix A 

summarized the environmental consequences of past, present, and future projects within the project area, 

and reference Map 6 for location of the projects. 

Cumulative effects are commonly confused with indirect effects. The cumulative effects analysis for 

each resource takes a look at the other past, present and foreseeable future actions: by the Forest Service 

as well as other agencies. 

o Cumulative effects, generally speaking, are those additive effects to resources on the landscape 

from: 

1) the actions proposed in the South Shore project (as an additive effect) when combined 

with 

2) the lingering effects of: 

a) past projects, 

b) currently active projects, and 

c) projects that are planned in the foreseeable future. 

To accomplish this, it is necessary to establish analysis boundaries in time and geographic area. 

 This analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of 

past actions. 

o This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior 

human actions and natural events that have affected the environment (and 

might contribute to cumulative effects). 

While some of the recent past actions are identified and summarized in Appendix A, the cumulative 

effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior 

actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. 

1) A catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile – and unduly 

costly to obtain. Current conditions within the project area have been impacted by 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Introduction to Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 3-3

innumerable actions over the last century (and longer); attempting to isolate the 

individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. 

2) Providing the details of past actions, on an individual basis, would not be useful to 

predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on 

individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions because 

there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and 

one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has 

contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human 

actions can risk ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events, which also 

contribute to cumulative effects by looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture 

all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which 

particular action or event contributed those effects. 

3) Public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed 

information on individual past actions. 

4) The Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 

2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate 

cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions 

without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” (Connaughton 2005) 

The cumulative effects analysis in this EIS is consistent with Forest Service National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)) (July 24, 2008), which state, in part: 

“CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to 

determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present effects 

of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the 

proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The 

final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions considered 

(including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. 

With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the 

analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding past actions is useful and 

relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific 

information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some 

contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, 

however, do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past 

actions. Simply because information about past actions may be available or obtained with 

reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision making. (40 

CFR 1508.7)” 

The reasonably foreseeable future actions used in the cumulative analysis are limited to projects that are 

funded and have progressed in the planning stages sufficiently to clearly identify the anticipated direct 

and indirect environmental effects. Projects where the implementation may take place at some undefined 

point in the future and/or have unformed proposed actions which do not yet have specific environmental 

consequences cannot be reasonably included in the analysis. 

Stated simply, if the specific location, action, direct and indirect effects, and timing cannot be predicted 

with some degree of certainty, then including that project in the analysis is only speculative – which may 

lead to inaccurate cumulative effects analyses Future actions are only included if their impacts are 

forecasted to occur before the impacts of the proposed action have ended. 

Analytical Conclusions 

The Analytical Conclusions section is provided at the end of each resource section within chapter 3 of the 

the FEIS to provide a brief summary of the analysis and to clarify the conclusions of the environmental 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-4

effects analysis for each resource. Based on the analysis, this section presents the determination of 

whether or not there are significant environmental impacts. 

Required Federal Considerations and Disclosures 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS concludes with Environmental Justice findings, a summary disclosure of the Short 

Term Uses and Long Term Productivity, Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources, and 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Fire Behavior and Fuels 3-5

Fire Behavior and Fuels 

Scope of the Analysis and Indicators of Effect 

Fire behavior is the manner in which a fire reacts to available fuels, weather, and topography. Fire 

behavior is complex, with many contributing factors; the most critical of which are topography (slope, 

aspect, elevation), weather (climate, air temperature, wind, relative humidity, atmospheric stability) and 

fuels (size, type, moisture content, total loading, arrangement) (Agee, 1993). Weather conditions such as 

drought, high temperature, low humidity, and high wind play a major role in the spread of wildfires and 

are influenced by topography and location of mountains as well as global influences such as La Niña and 

El Niño. Weather conditions are a major factor in the initiation and spread of all wildfires. A change in 

any of these components results in a change in fire behavior. Stands with prior fuel treatments 

experienced lower wildfire severity than untreated stands burning under the same weather and 

topographic conditions (DeBano et al 1998; Safford et al 2009). Topography and weather at a given 

location are beyond the ability of management to control. Fuel hazard is the only controllable factor. 

At issue is the risk for high intensity, high severity catastrophic wildfire within the project area and the 

ability of wildfire to spread into adjacent areas of all ownerships with the consequent potential risk for 

loss of life, property, and natural resources. 

Indicators 

For purposes of this analysis, the following indicators of fire behavior, fuels and ecosystem components 

were discussed for each alternative: surface fuel loading, and fire behavior which will be characterized by 

fire type and fire intensity. In addition, condition class will be utilized as indicator of ecosystem 

components. 

Surface Fuel Loading 

Surface fuels consist of down logs, limbs, needles, and shrubs and contribute to fire behavior, severity, 

and suppression capabilities. Surface fuels are measured in tons per acre by size class of dead fuels: 1-

hour fuels at 0-1/4”, 10-hour fuels at 1⁄4-1”, 100-hour fuels at 1-3”, and 1000-hour fuels that are 3” and 

larger. The smaller diameter fuels tend to be a greater factor in fire intensity contributing to flame lengths 

and rate of spread. Fire persistence, resistance-to-control, fireline intensity (also known as Byrams 

fireline intensity or frontal fire intensity, is the rate of heat energy released per unit time per unit length of 

fire front, regardless of the depth of the flame zone [Byram 1959]) and burnout time (which effects soil 

heating) are significantly influenced by surface fuel loading, and the size and decay state of larger 

diameter fuels (Brown et al 2003). Surface fuels greater than 3 inches also contribute towards fireline 

intensity, resistance to control, and spotting, but they are not used in the fire behavior-modeling 

algorithm. 

Fuel models (Anderson 1982) are used to estimate fire behavior and are applied when using fire behavior 

models and as a tool for determining fuels treatments. Stands that have representative fuel models with 

fuel loads that are less than 6 tons per acre in the 0” to 3.0” size classes tend to have a surface fire type of 

fire behavior with low to moderate torching. Other stand characteristics determine fire behavior as well 

and are discussed below. 

The alternatives will be evaluated in how the average fuel loading is reduced, over the project area, 

(measured in tons per acre) in relationship to the desired condition. The desired surface fuel loads for the 

project area would be a maximum of 10 tons/acre with the majority (approximately 6 tons/acre) in larger 

diameter classes (18” and greater). In areas where stream zones or wildlife habitat require a higher 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-6

component of large down wood, a maximum of 15 tons per acre is acceptable. The desired fuel loads of 

10 tons per acre is based on having up to approximately 4 tons per acre in the 0” to 3.0” size classes and 

allowing for approximately 6 tons of larger down logs per acre.. 

Fire Behavior 

Fire behavior indicators that are used to measure fire characteristics are: rate of spread, fire type, fireline 

intensity, energy release component and flame length. 

There are two characteristics that measure both treatment effectiveness and the environmental effects of 

the alternatives at the landscape level, they are: 

 Predicted fire type, and 

 Fire intensity. 

The information used by fire behavior models to generate fire type, rates of spread, and fire intensity 

comes from a site-specific wildfire hazard analysis. A wildfire hazard analysis identifies the availability 

of fuels to sustain a fire. Wildfire hazard for any particular forest stand or landscape indicates the 

potential magnitude of fire behavior and fire effects as a function of fuel conditions. Understanding the 

structure of fuels and their role in the initiation and propagation of fire is needed to develop effective fuel 

management strategies. Natural forest fuels are important components for determining fire hazard, and are 

generally described in four categories: 

 Ground fuels, which are composed of forest fuels that lie below the litter layer or within the soil, 

including organic soils, forest floor duff, decomposing woody material. 

 Surface fuels, which are composed of grass, herbs, low-lying shrubs, litter, and dead and down 

woody material that are in contact with the ground. 

 Ladder fuels, which are composed of live and dead shrubs and understory trees, which provide 

contact from the surface fuels to the lower crowns of overstory trees. 

 Canopy fuels are the live and dead material in the crowns of trees (Petersen et al 2003) 

A wildfire hazard assessment analyzes crown fire potential as well as surface fire potential. Crown fires 

are usually highly destructive, difficult to control, and present the greatest safety hazard to firefighters and 

the public. In general, crown fires burn hotter and result in more severe effects than surface fires. 

Therefore, the emphasis of fuel management is on the factors that contribute to the initiation and spread of 

crown fires. Agee (1996) states that crown fire potential can be managed through prevention of the 

conditions that initiate crown fires and allow crown fires to spread. 

The three main factors contributing to crown fire behavior (that can be addressed through fuels 

management) are: surface fuels, crown base height, and crown bulk density. 

Crown fire initiation and crown fire spread are related to several conditions. The intensity of surface fire 

must be relatively high, coupled with low foliar moisture content of the live vegetation. Fine surface 

fuels are generally the primary carriers of fire. Surface fuels are coarse down woody material with 

diameters of 0.1 to 3.0 inches. The amount of these fuels present is an important factor in determining 

how fast a surface fire will spread and how hot it will burn under given atmospheric and topographic 

conditions. Anderson (1982) identifies fine surface fuels as the primary carrier of fire at the flaming 

front. These fuels directly affect fire intensity and spread by linking fire from the surface into the ladder 

fuels, which often leads to propagation of fire into the crowns of trees under 90th percentile weather 

conditions. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Fire Behavior and Fuels 3-7

Crown base height (CBH) and crown bulk density (CBD) are two critical factors in predicting crown fire 

propagation and spread. 

 Crown base height (CBH) is the average height (feet) from the top of the surface fuel to the 

lowest part of a tree’s crown where there is sufficient crown fuel to spread fire vertically into the 

canopy (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). 

o CBH includes ladder fuels such as shrubs and understory trees as well as the live and 

dead lower branches of mature trees. It is measured at the lowest height above ground 

where at least 0.010 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3

) of available canopy fuels are 

present. 

o The lower the crown base height, the easier it is for a surface fire to initiate a crown fire. 

Low crown base height provides the “ladder” which allows a surface fire to become a 

crown fire. 

 Crown bulk density (CBD) is defined as the amount of available canopy fuel per unit of canopy 

volume. Crown bulk density is the average mass (kg/m3

) of tree crowns across a forest stand 

(Brown and Smith, 2000). 

o CBD is a property of a stand, not an individual tree, and is measured as the available 

canopy fuel load divided by canopy depth (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). 

o In order for a crown fire to persist, the canopy must be dense enough for the fire to spread 

from one tree’s branches to another tree. 

o Once a fire gets into the crown of the trees, two factors determine whether a crown fire is 

sustained or not: surface fire rate of spread and CBD (Alexander 1988; Van Wagner 

1977). 

o Stands with high CBD can sustain a crown fire that began outside the stand, even when 

surface fire intensity and CBH are such that fires that start within the stand itself will not 

transition into a crown fire. 

Thinning to reduce CBD to less than 0.10 kg/m2

 is generally recommended to minimize crown fire hazard 

when a fire moves into an area from an outside point source (Agee 1996). For any given species, more 

widely spaced trees have a lower canopy bulk density, which makes it more difficult to maintain a crown 

fire. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-8

Fire Types 

The fire models for the South Shore project generated three expected fire types over the entire landscape, 

modeled for each alternative: 

 Surface fire burns loose debris on the surface, which includes dead branches, leaves, and low 

vegetation. Surface fire types are generally considered to be non-lethal although smoldering 

activity in deep duff layers or in large down fuels may result in increased mortality in conifers. 

 Passive crown fire generally occurs in pockets of high fuel loadings, high crown bulk density, 

and a low height to live crown where isolated torching of crowns can occur. Torching trees and 

burning snags can also scatter burning embers in front of the main fire at times initiating spot 

fires that can burn together and/or increase the rate of spread of the main fire. Passive crowning 

is usually a mixture of lethal and non-lethal fire effects. 

 Active crown fire is generally sustained crown fire activity, dependant on larger areas with 

elements conducive for crowning. With active crown fires, long range spotting (up to a 1⁄4 mile) 

can also occur. Active crown fires are considered lethal. 

The desired condition is to manage for surface fire and to reduce the amount of the landscape where 

passive and active crown fire might occur. 

 The effectiveness of the alternatives are evaluated by the magnitude that the proposed treatments 

shift the project area towards a surface fire type and away from active crown fire type. 

Fire Intensity 

A measure of surface fire intensity is flame length. Flame length is the average distance (in feet) from the 

fire’s surface to the top of a flame. It can be modeled based on the kind, amount and arrangement of fuels. 

The rule, developed by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG), is that once flame lengths 

exceed 4 feet, firefighters on the ground would not directly attack a fire. Flame lengths less than 4 feet 

can usually be attacked successfully (with hand tools and hand constructed fire line). Flame lengths 

greater than 4 feet are too intense for direct attack on the head of the fire using hand tools and a hand line 

cannot be relied on to hold the fire. Equipment such as bulldozers, engines, and retardant aircraft can be 

effective at the head of the fire for flame lengths between 4 and 8 feet. Flame lengths greater than 8 feet 

generate fire conditions where direct attack at the head of the fire is generally not successful and 

suppression tactics must rely on flanking and indirect attack methods. Generally indirect attack results in 

a fire burning through one or more burn periods (part of each 24-hour day when fires spread most rapidly, 

typically from 10:00 am to sunset). Higher flame lengths indicate greater fire intensity. 

 Based on these considerations the desired maximum flame lengths for the project area is 4 feet or 

less. 

 The alternatives are evaluated on how well they manage the fuels to achieve this desired 

condition. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Fire Behavior and Fuels 3-9

Condition Class 

Condition Class is defined in terms of departure from the historic fire regime. Condition Class is 

determined by the number of missed fire return intervals with respect to the historic fire return interval, 

for the stand structure and tree species composition of any given vegetation type. Departure from 

historical fire regimes results in alteration of key ecosystem components such as species composition, 

structural stage, stand age, and canopy closure. Various combinations of activities have caused this 

departure, including: fire suppression, timber harvesting, grazing, introduction and establishment of 

exotic plant species, insects or disease (introduced or native), and other past management activities. 

Losses of key ecosystem components increases as the departure from the historic conditions increases, 

with little or no risk at the Condition Class 1 level and a high risk for loss of key ecosystem components 

at Condition Class 3. The alternatives are evaluated based on effectiveness of the proposed treatments in 

shifting the existing Condition Class to the desired level of Condition Class – 1 or 2. 

Methodology

In order to analyze fire effects more thoroughly, fire behavior was modeled at both the fine scale (of 

individual stands, and at the coarser, landscape scale (to analyze the interaction of vegetation across the 

landscape). Results from the different analysis scales are only roughly comparable, because the high 

variability of the individual stands is blended together in the landscape scale analysis. While both scales 

of fire behavior analysis are useful, they need to be considered together, because both individual stand 

conditions plus the condition and behavior of neighboring stands influence wildfire behavior. 

The fire behavior of an individual stand is useful to design an effective treatment prescription for that 

stand, while the landscape fire behavior models analyze the effectiveness of the treatments across the 

multiple stands in the project. 

The Meyers remote automated weather station (RAWS), located within the project area at the Meyers Fire 

Station, was selected to obtain 90th percentile weather data for use in fire behavior modeling. The 90th

percentile weather represents the “average worst” weather conditions for days when fires occur in a 

typical fire season. These conditions would be in effect on 10 percent of all the days that large fires occur 

on the LTBMU. The 90th percentile fire weather indices were obtained from station recordings dating 

back to 1970. Table 3-1 displays the 90th percentile weather indices that were used for modeling fire 

behavior inside the South Shore project area and are consistent with extreme fire weather. 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-10

Table 3-1. 90th Percentile Fire Weather Data for Meyers, California 

Fuel/Weather Variable 

90th 

Percentile 

Values 

1 Hour Fuel Moisture, % 3 

10 Hour Fuel Moisture, % 5 

100 Hour Fuel Moisture, % 6 

1000 Hour Fuel Moisture, % 13 

Herbaceous Fuel Moisture, % 80 

Woody Fuel Moisture, % 80 

20 Foot Wind Speed, MPH 25 

Dry Bulb Temperature, Degrees F 85 

Source: Meyers Remote Automated Weather Station

Fire Behavior Modeling 

Fire behavior models are an integral part of this analysis due to the amount and locations of the proposed 

treatment acres on the landscape. As with all models, fire behavior models have assumptions and 

limitations to their use. Below is a list of fire behavior and fuels models utilized for this analysis: 

Farsite is a fire behavior and fire growth simulator that incorporates both spatial and temporal 

information on topography, fuels, and weather. 

Fire Behavior Fuel Models are used to estimate fire behavior and are applied when using fire behavior 

models and as a tool for determining fuels treatments (Anderson 1982). 

FireFamily Plus is used for analysis of fire danger indices and weather. 

Flammap is a fire behavior mapping and analysis program that computes potential fire behavior 

characteristics (spread rate, flame length, fireline intensity, etc.) over an entire FARSITE landscape for 

constant weather and fuel moisture conditions. 

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is an interagency, standardized tool for determining the degree of 

departure from reference condition vegetation, fuels and disturbance regimes. 

Fuels Management Analyst Plus (FMA+) is suite of programs for use by resource managers to 

inventory and estimate surface and canopy fuel loading 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Fire Behavior and Fuels 3-11

Forest Vegetation Simulator, Fire Fuels Extension (FVS FFE) is a forest growth model which is 

widely used by forest managers and the research community to provide predictions of how the primary 

vegetation in forests will change over time (Crookston and Dixon 2005). FFE-links the dynamics of 

forest vegetation (primarily trees) with models of snag, fuels, and fire behavior. 

Stand-level Modeling 

Individual stand inventory data from the project area informed current condition information. 

Posttreatment modeling using the West Side Sierra Nevada variant of the forest vegetation simulator 

(FVS) (USDA FS 2006) supplied post-treatment individual stand conditions. The FVS program is a 

model for predicting outcomes of forest stand conditions prescribed treatments. The effects of the 

proposed treatments are based on FVS projections of stands with inventory data that are representative of 

average stand conditions. Individual treatment stands were then modeled using FVS and the fire and 

fuels extension (FFE) of FVS to project fire behavior and effects of individual stands for all three 

alternatives. The predicted fire behavior is based on severe conditions represented by the 90th percentile 

weather conditions. The variables to predict fire activity include: fuel model, stand density including both 

live and dead trees, tree species, CBD, crown height, and fuel loads. Fuels data collection (for use in the 

FVS/FFE program) was conducted with the use of photo series interpretation (USDA FS 1981). Photo 

series interpretation instead of hard sampling measures allows for a higher degree of variability and lesser 

degree of accuracy when determining fuel loading. 

Landscape-level Modeling 

Landscape-level fire behavior was modeled utilizing two fire simulation programs; FARSITE and 

FlamMap. Both models use spatial information for topography and fuels along with weather and wind 

files. FARSITE incorporates the existing models for surface fire, crown fire, spotting, post-frontal 

combustion, and fire acceleration into a two-dimensional fire growth model. 

FlamMap is not a fire growth simulation model; there is no temporal component in FlamMap. It uses 

spatial information for topography and fuels to calculate fire behavior characteristics at a single point in 

time. Landscape level fire behavior was modeled for the alternatives using Fuels Management Analyst 

Plus (FMAPlus) and FlamMap software. FlamMap software creates raster maps of potential fire behavior 

characteristics (rate of spread, flame length, crown fire activity, etc.) and environmental conditions (dead 

fuel moistures, mid-flame wind speeds, and solar irradiance) over an entire landscape. These raster maps 

can be viewed within FlamMap application, or exported for use in a GIS, as an image file, or a word 

processor document. FlamMap incorporates the following fire behavior models; Rothermel's 1972 

surface fire model, Van Wagner's 1977 crown fire initiation model, Rothermel's 1991 crown fire spread 

model, and Nelson's 2000 dead fuel moisture model. 

FMAPlus was utilized to estimate crown bulk density and crown base heights these estimates were then 

plugged into the Farsite landscape and run in FVS, 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-12

Existing Conditions – Fire Behavior and Fuels 

The following section discusses the current status of each of the indicators. 

Condition Class

The fire return interval (FRI) within the project area ranges between 5-32 years (Murphy and Knopp 

2000). Fires occurring as a result of Native American burning prior to settlement along with natural 

ignitions occurred frequently and were low to moderate in severity, burning primarily on the forest floor. 

Low and moderate severity fires consume patches of fuel and kill mostly seedlings and saplings in the 

understory. Occasionally small groups of main canopy trees are killed (Taylor 1999). This fire regime 

creates a multi-aged forest with open and closed canopy conditions and heterogeneous fuels, and leads to 

a shifting mosaic of steady-state forest at the landscape level. This fire regime and the resulting forest 

mosaic also impede development of high severity fire (Bonnicksen and Stone 1982). 

The 2000 Watershed Assessment showed that the fire risk within the project area has increased from 

relatively low in the 1970s to high risk under the current vegetative and fuels conditions (Murphy & 

Knopp 2000). When determining Condition Class for the project area as a landscape, the relatively low 

acres of fire, wildfire or prescribed, that has occurred in the past results in an overall rating for all forest 

types as a Condition Class 3. 

At a stand level for the proposed treatment area, the Condition Class is based more on the condition of the 

stand (canopy cover, stand density, etc) versus the fire history. At a stand level, approximately 1,230 

acres proposed for treatment are considered to be in Condition Class 1; 2,687 acres in Condition Class 2; 

and 6,753 acres in Condition Class 3. 

Figures 10 through 13 are photos representative of forest stands within the South Shore project area. They 

show existing examples of three condition classes used to categorize the existing condition of the project 

area by Fire Regime (Laverty and Williams 2000). 

 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Fire Behavior and Fuels 3-13

Figure 10. Condition Class 1 in Mixed Conifer within the South Shore Project Area 

Condition Class 1: Fire regimes are within a historical range and the risk of losing key ecosystem 

components is low. Vegetation attributes (species composition and structure) are intact and functioning 

within a historical range. The photograph shown above in Figure 10 is of a stand within the project area 

that exhibits condition class 1 characteristics in the mixed conifer vegetation type. This mixed conifer 

stand was thinned to approximate crown closure of 40% in early 2000. Previously implemented 

vegetation management activities in the stand are consistent with the fuels reduction and healthy forest 

objectives for this project. 

Condition Class 2: Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range. The risk of 

losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies 

by one or more return intervals (either increased or decreased). The result is moderate changes to one or 

more of the following: fire size, fire intensity and severity, and landscape fire patterns. Vegetation 

attributes have been moderately altered from their historical range. The photograph shown in Figure 11 is 

of a stand within the project area that exhibits the characteristics of condition class 2 in the mixed conifer 

and red fir vegetation types. 

Condition Class 3: Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical range. The risk of 

losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by 

multiple return intervals. The result is dramatic changes to one or more of the following: fire size, fire 

intensity and severity, and landscape fire patterns. Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered 

from their historical range. The photographs in Figures 12 and 13 are of stands within the project area 

that exhibit the characteristics of condition class 3 in the mixed conifer vegetation type. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-14

Figure 11. Condition Class 2 in Mixed Conifer within the South Shore Project Area 

Figure 12. Condition Class 3 in Mixed Conifer within the South Shore Project Area 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Fire Behavior and Fuels 3-15

 Figure 13. Condition Class 3 in Mixed Conifer within the South Shore Project Area 

Surface Fuel Loading 

Total surface fuel loading for the project area ranges between approximately 8 to 66 tons per acre. 

Surface fuels in the 0 to 3 inch size class range from moderate to heavy (Table 3-2). In some areas dead 

and down fuel accumulations are as high as 80 tons per acre. Surface fuels greater than 3 inches are at 

approximately 18 tons per acre, contributing towards increased wildfire intensity, and resistance to 

control and spotting. The overall average is approximately 24 tons per acre. 

Table 3-2. Average Fuel Loads 

Size Class Tons per Acre 

0-1/4” (1 hour fuels) 1. 0 

1/4-1” (10 hour fuels) 2.0 

1-3” (100 hour fuels) 3.0 

3+ “ (1000 hour fuels) 18.0 

TOTAL tons/acre 24.0 

Fire Behavior 

Existing fuel conditions are highly variable, with large areas of hazardous fuel accumulation, especially 

within the wildland-urban intermix (WUI). 

The majority of stands proposed for treatment are moderately- to densely-stocked, with crown closures 

greater that 50%. These stands are overstocked with sapling and pole sized trees (3 to 24 inches dbh), 

however they are also generally understocked with medium and larger sized trees (24 inches dbh or 

larger). Shade tolerant species, predominantly white fir, have encroached around and under fire tolerant 

trees (Jeffery pine/ ponderosa pine) throughout the project area. This invasion has created hazardous 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-16

ladder fuel conditions (where saplings from the forest floor have grown tall enough into the tolerant 

species canopy to allow flames on the ground to rapidly transition to igniting the crowns of trees), 

increasing the potential for crown fire spread. 

Fire Type 

CBH across the project area currently ranges between 0 to 9 feet. The current CBH range is considered 

hazardous because tree crown bases are near the ground and are likely to be in contact with other existing 

vegetation. CBD across the project area currently ranges between 0.11 to 0.30 kg/m3

. CBD is considered 

moderate to high in hazard when CBD is above 0.10 kg/m3

. 

Resulting predicted fire types for the proposed treatment area under current conditions includes 4% that 

would be considered a surface fire type (Table 3-3). 

Table 3-3. Alternative 1: Modeled Fire Type Results Under Existing Conditions 

Category Acres modeled Percentage 

of Acres 

Surface 684 4% 

Passive Crown 6,578 63% 

Active Crown 3,408 33% 

TOTAL 10,670 100% 

 Fire Intensity –Flame Length 

Under current conditions, approximately 22% of the project area is expected to burn with flame lengths 

less than 4 feet; approximately 18% is expected to burn with flame lengths between 4 and 8 feet; and 

approximately 60% is expected to burn at flame lengths greater than 8 feet. (Table 3-4). 

Table 3-4. Alternative 1: Flame Length Under Current Conditions 

Category Acres 

modeled 

Percentage 

of Acres 

Less than 4 feet 2,424 22% 

4 to 8 feet 1,914 18% 

Greater than 8 feet 6,332 60% 

TOTAL 10,670 100% 

Environmental Consequences – Fire Behavior and Fuels 

The following section discusses the direct and indirect environmental consequences of each of the 

alternatives.

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the No Action alternative, fuel would continue to accumulate. The expected outcome could be 

illustrated – given similar weather conditions – by the effects of the 2007 Angora Fire (on areas that had 

not received fuels treatments) (Murphy et al 2007). 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Fire Behavior and Fuels 3-17

Both surface and ladder fuels would continue to increase, which would therefore increase the risk of a 

high intensity fire. The existing dense canopy currently has high crown bulk densities (which can sustain 

an active crown fire). The absence of fuels treatment over time would create a situation where continual 

increase in fuel loading would occur across the project area. Down woody material would continue to be 

added to the forest floor annually at a rate that is greater than decomposition. Absence of thinning would 

allow the continued growth of trees which are shade tolerant but not fire tolerant. As understory trees and 

shrubs increase in density, stands would become stressed and mortality would increase. As the understory 

and canopy vegetation begin to die, fuel loading on the forest floor would amplify. Dead brush and trees 

left standing would serve as ladder fuels, these factors (individually and combined) would cause an 

increase in the probability that a wildfire would result in a stand replacement event. 

Condition Class

Across the project landscape, Condition Classes would remain in Condition Class 3 as previously 

described in the Existing Condition Section. 

At a stand level for the proposed treatment area, it is expected that the departure from historical range 

would continue to increase towards Condition Class 3 with proportional decrease of areas in Condition 

Class 1 and 2. 

Surface Fuel Loading

With the No Action alternative, there would be an increase in stand densities resulting in less growth and 

vigor and an increase in mortality. Over time, the increase in stand densities would contribute to a 

continued increase in surface fuel loads within the stands. In ten years it is expected that the surface fuel 

loads would average about 27 tons per acre and up to 35 tons per acre in 20 years (Table 3-5). The 

desired maximum of 10 tons per acre would not be met over the project area. This would ultimately result 

in greater risk of an active crown fire if a wildfire were to occur. The increase in surface fuels greater 

than 3 inches would contribute towards fireline intensity, resistance to control, and spotting. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-18

Table 3-5. Current and Future Predicted Surface Fuel Loading: Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Fire Behavior

Fire Type

With no treatment, there would be an increase in stand densities, resulting in less growth and vigor, and 

an increase in mortality. Fire types currently predicted under severe conditions would depart from the 

existing conditions over time. The type of change would be based on factors such as increased fuel loads, 

CBD, CBH, stand densities, and mortality. Over time it is expected that the fire types would be less 

likely to be a low-intensity surface fire and more likely to be either a passive or active crown fire. It is 

expected that areas currently predicted to be a passive crown fire type would change to be an active crown 

fire type. Fire hazard in the area would become more severe and the potential for large, difficult to 

control fires would increase. This condition would reduce opportunities for direct fire line attack 

allowing fires to become considerably larger and potentially more hazardous for firefighters and the 

communities at risk (Table 3-3). 

 

Fire Intensity –Flame Length		

Currently, approximately 22% of the proposed treatment area is expected to burn at desired flame lengths 

of less than 4 feet (Table 3-4). With the no action alternative, it is expected that over time the area where 

flame lengths are currently forecasted to be less than four feet would be reduced; consequently, flame 

lengths would be greater than four feet, increasing the difficulty for suppression activities if a wildland 

fire were to occur. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the reduction of surface fuel on 10,670 areas. Stand 

density would be reduced, and ladder fuels would be reduced to decrease crown fire propagation and 

spread. Alternative 2 is the more aggressive fuel reduction alternative, implementing more area of 

mechanical treatments which are capable of removing a larger amounts of fuels. 

Current Ave Total 

Fuel Loads 

(tons/acre) 

10 Years – Ave 

Total Fuel Loads 

(tons/acre) 

20 Years – Ave 

Total Fuel Loads 

(tons/acre) 

24 27 35 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Fire Behavior and Fuels 3-19

Figure 14. Example of current (left) and desired post-treatment condition (right) conifer 

stand comparison – before and after treatment. Desired condition photo illustrates a reduction 

of surface, ladder, and canopy fuels with a retention of larger, healthy, fire resistant pine trees. 

Location: Pioneer Trail at Al Tahoe Blvd, South Lake Tahoe).
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-20

Direct Effects 

Condition Class 

Under Alternative 2 the overall landscape of the South Shore project area would change from a Condition 

Class 3 to Condition Class 2. This determination is based on the expected condition of the stands (canopy 

cover, stand density, etc) as well as fire history and proposed prescribed burning. When using condition 

class on a landscape level, the condition class changes from a 3 to a 2 and not reduced further due to the 

scale of the area and lack of fire treatments included in the proposed action. Although this project 

reintroduces fire into the landscape, the use of fire is not applied to enough areas; therefore, the frequency 

of fire for the fire history remains low, and fire severity remains moderate, causing the condition class to 

remain at a level 2. Condition Class Analysis forms used for this project are located in the project record. 

 When using condition class on a stand level, the condition class changes (from a 3 to a 2 or 1) due to the 

smaller scale of the area being analyzed. The thinning treatments, as well as prescribed fire (where 

applicable) are considered for each stand individually. This changes the frequency of fire and fire 

severity allowing the stand level rating to change to a condition class 1. At a stand level, approximately 

4,923 acres proposed for treatment would become Condition Class 1, and 5,747 acres in Condition 

Class 2. 

Surface Fuel Loading

Hand Thinning

Approximately 4,942 acres of units are proposed to be treated by hand thinning. Hand thinning would 

treat stands that are at moderate- to heavy-densities and have large areas of continuous surface, ladder, 

and canopy fuels. The treatments would generally remove suppressed and intermediate trees in the 

understory. 

Burning of residual fuels would be conducted in most hand thinned stands, following thinning, to remove 

remaining surface fuels in excess of desired levels (of 10 tons per acre). Residual fuel loads would 

include logs greater than 20” dbh for wildlife habitat. Stands containing up to 15 tons of residual fuels 

per acre would usually be located in the wildlife areas or stream environment zones (SEZs). 

In some SEZs, the amount of larger (greater than14 inches diameter) standing trees and down logs may be 

too great for meeting fuel load objectives. Hand carrying material greater than 14 inches diameter to 

areas outside of the no-pile zone can be difficult and unsafe, and may result in leaving residual fuel loads 

that are greater than 15 tons per acre. 

Total fuel loads are analyzed based on overall stand averages that include both the uplands and SEZs. 

Effects of hand thinning and pile burning on surface fuel loads would be an overall reduction of fuel loads 

in all size classes. On average, the total fuel loads are expected to be reduced by about 48%. 

Approximately 4,843 (or 98%) of the hand treatment stands are predicted to meet desired conditions with 

levels that are at, or below, the desired maximum range of 10 to 15 tons per acre post treatment (Table 

3-6). When including the wildlife areas that would be hand thinned, 86%, of the hand thinned stands are 

predicted to meet desired conditions. 

All hand thinning stands were modeled using FFE using 90% reduction of surface and activity fuels. The 

remaining 691 acres above the desired 15 tons total per acre are due to the current (previous to treatment) 

fuel loads. These areas currently have high fuel loads, therefore the 90% modeled reduction isn’t enough 

to reduce the levels to below 15 tons per acre. A second entry of thinning (and/or piling and burning) for 

meeting the desired surface fuel loads may be necessary in these areas. Because the stands used overall 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Fire Behavior and Fuels 3-21

averages (including both uplands and SEZs together), the 691 acres does not include SEZ areas 

independently that may need multiple treatments as well. 

Stands treated with hand thinning are often limited in meeting desired stand conditions or retaining them 

for long periods of time. As described for SEZ areas, the size and number of trees felled are limited when 

treatment requires manual removal and piling of trees after thinning. This applies to some upland areas as 

well. Approximately 50%, of the hand thin stands would be above the desired fuel loads within 10 years 

post treatment. 

In areas where access is available and slopes are less than 30%, chipping or masticating of surface fuels 

instead of hand piling and burning, would occur. Approximately 353 acres have been identified for 

chipping or masticating within hand thin units. With chipping or mastication, the fuels are not reduced, 

but are decreased in size and redistributed throughout the stand. Chipping or mastication of fuels 

decreases vertical fuel heights and redistributes the overall fuel load. Fire intensity and severity may still 

remain high, however, if the fuel loads are too heavy. The fire remains as a surface fire, but with 

increased duration and potentially higher flame lengths. Under more severe weather conditions 

mastication has been shown to not reduce fireline intensities and tree mortality. Chipping or masticating 

hand thinned stands or portions of hand thinned stands would occur only where post treatment fuel loads 

would meet desired conditions. 

Mechanical Thinning

Mechanical thinning treatments would treat 5,728 forested acres; of those, 3,818 acres would use the 

whole tree (WT) thinning system and 1,910 acres would use the cut-to-length (CTL) system. Mechanical 

thinning treatments would treat stands that are of moderate to heavy densities and have large areas of 

continuous surface, ladder and canopy fuels. Mechanical thinning treatments would generally remove 

suppressed and intermediate trees and some of the codominant trees in the overstory. Prescribed burning 

would be conducted in 850 acres of the WT yarded stands post-thinning. Mechanical thinning would be 

conducted in order to remove remaining surface fuels in excess of desired levels of 10 to 15 tons per acre. 

Residual fuel loads would include 8 to 12 tons of logs greater than 20” dbh for wildlife habitat. Stands 

with up to 15 tons of residual fuels total per acre would usually be in the wildlife areas or SEZs. 

Effects of mechanical thinning and removal of surface fuels would provide for an overall reduction of fuel 

loads in all size classes. For the WT units, fuel loads would be reduced by about 80%. Approximately 

65% of the whole tree units are expected to be below the desired maximum range of 10 to 15 tons per 

acre. The other 35% of the whole tree stands have higher predicted fuel loads. If necessary, to reduce 

fuel loading, these areas may be treated with CTL equipment for thinning, grapple piling and burning. 

 The CTL units would use mastication or chipping after thinning treatments, and would have a higher 

average fuel loading post treatment. Instead of the surface fuels being consumed through fire or reduced 

through removal, they would be reduced in size and redistributed throughout the stand. Current and post 

treatment fuel loads would average about 20 tons per acre, with the higher fuel loads occurring mainly in 

the PACs and wildlife areas. Chipping or mastication of fuels decreases vertical fuel height and 

redistributes the overall fuel load. Fire intensity and severity may still remain high, however, if fuel loads 

are too heavy. The predicted fire type post treatment would remain a surface fire, but have increased 

duration and potentially higher flame lengths. Under more severe weather conditions mastication has 

been shown to not reduce fireline intensities and tree mortality. If necessary, to reduce fuel loading, 

grapple piling and burning or other methods of removal would occur where post treatment fuel loads are 

above desired conditions. 

The average fuel loads for mechanical stands post treatment would be about 18 tons per acre with 

approximately 55% of mechanical treatment stands meeting desired fuel loads (Table 3-6). The averages 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-22

do not reflect the lowering of fuel loads using grapple piling and burning that may be necessary in some 

areas. 

For all the mechanical stands, the average increase of fuels after the treatment for the following 20 years 

would be about 4 tons per acre, with almost half still meeting the desired fuel load objectives (Table 3-6). 

The Wildlife Areas would have, on average, higher stand densities thereby having a faster increase of 

accumulating surface fuels 10 and 20 years post treatment Approximately 17% of the Wildlife Areas 

would meet fuel load objectives in 20 years. 

Table 3-6. Predicted Post-treatment Surface Fuel Loading 

Alternative 2 Avg 

tons/acre

Post-treatment

Hand Treatment Stands 9

Mechanical Treatment Stands 18

Wildlife Areas 13

TOTAL 13

10 Years Post Treatment

Hand Treatment Stands 15

Mechanical Treatment Stands 20

Wildlife Areas 18

TOTAL 18

20 Years Post Treatment

Hand Treatment Stands 21

Mechanical Treatment Stands 22

Wildlife Areas 24

TOTAL 23

Note: Average tons per acre were determined using 

FFE and are based on initial treatment only. Average 

tons per acre do not reflect potential grapple pile and 

burning that may be needed within the mechanically 

treated units.

Fire Behavior

Fire Type

With Alternative 2, results of models run on a landscape level for predicted fire type are shown in 

Table 3-7. Results demonstrate that the reduction of surface fuels, reducing CBD, and raising CBH 

moderates surface and crown fire behavior. The results from proposed treatment changes fire type from 

passive and active crowning to surface fires in the majority of the stands. With Alternative 2, 

approximately 82% of the proposed treatment area would meet desired conditions for having a predicted 

surface fire type. 

 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Fire Behavior and Fuels 3-23

Over time, the treated stands would recover in canopy closure and CBD which, along with other variables 

such as accumulation of surface fuels, would cause the predicted surface fire type to potentially change 

back to a crown fire type. The time frame for lasting effects from hand thinning is less than mechanical 

however, all treated areas are expected to last in effectiveness for meeting project goals for over 10 years. 

Table 3-7. Alternative 2: Modeled Fire Type Results Post Treatment 

Fire Intensity		

 	


For Alternative 2, desired conditions are met in most of the proposed treatment areas. Modeling 

predictions show that that 87% of the proposed treatment area would result in flame lengths less than four 

feet should a wildfire occur (Table 3-8). These areas would usually allow for suppression activities to be 

successful with implementation of hand tools and hand constructed fire line, reducing the risk of fire 

spread and potentially, increased fire behavior. 

Table 3-8. Alternative 2: Predicted Flame Lengths Post Treatment 

Flame Length Acres Percent of Acres 

Less than 4 feet 9332 87% 

4 to 8 feet 363 3% 

Greater than 8 feet 975 9% 

Total 10670 100% 

Fire behavior and expected fire type would be influenced in part by surface fuel amount, size and 

distribution. Stands treated either with mechanical or hand thinning operations (with post treatment of 

activity fuels such as prescribed burning), would reduce overall fuel loads. The lower fuel loading would 

help alter the predicted fire type to be that of lower intensity and severity. 

Fire Type Acres Percentage 

of Acres 

Surface 8831 82% 

Passive Crown 1424 13% 

Active Crown 415 3% 

Total 10,670 100% 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-24

Indirect Effects (Alternatives 2 and 3) 

Treatments in Alternative 2 and 3 would be effective in reducing the potential size and severity of 

wildfires, while providing fire suppression personnel safe locations for taking action against wildfire. 

Treatments to decrease surface loads would also increase firefighter capability for fire line production. A 

fire in the treated areas would likely be smaller when crews arrive and would be moving slower, making 

it easier to contain with fewer fire crews. Direct wildfire attack and fire line production rates would also 

improve. Furthermore, proposed aspen enhancement activities (through conifer thinning and removal), 

benefit the forest ecosystem and alter fire behavior by reducing the overall fire intensity. Because aspen 

stands do not burn with the intensity of conifers, enhancing the size and distribution of aspen stands is 

justified and encouraged within the project’s WUI setting (USFS GTR-178, 2006). 

If an unplanned ignition should occur during the time between piling and pile burning it is expected that 

the fire behavior would resemble fire behavior in an untreated stand. Very little difference in convective 

or radiant heat output would occur because the same amount of fuel would be present on the site to burn. 

The difference in fire behavior would be limited to the distance embers could be lofted to initiate 

secondary spot fires. Before treatment occurs, much of the fuel in the handpiles would be located at a 

greater height (in upper branches and crown foliage) and would burn just as this fuel would burn in 

adjacent untreated stands. The greater height of the fuel would allow embers to be lofted higher and 

transported downwind to greater distances. (An Assessment of Fuel Treatment Effects on Fire Behavior, 

Suppression Effectiveness, and Structure Ignition on the Angora Fire, R5-TP-025, August 2007) 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in reduced aerial and surface fuel loads. The indirect effect would be to 

reduce hazardous wildland fire behavior from fires both originating within treatments and from outside 

point sources (Graham et al. 1999). Treatment of surface, ladder, and canopy fuels would further help 

protect communities and resources in and around the project area while increasing safety for firefighters. 

These changes would, in turn, lower the potential of large-scale events. 

Thinning followed by prescribed fire could result in microclimate change that would encourage the 

growth of grasses, forbs and brush. Underburning could also encourage this type of growth. This 

microclimate change could also increase the drying of the surface fuels and increase the mid-flame 

windspeed. In the event of a wildfire, this growth of grasses, forbs and some brush may result in a lowintensity surface fire with a higher rate of spread. The majority of the vegetation in the mixed conifer 

ecosystem would survive a low-intensity fire. In some cases, enough grass could grow into the stand to 

change the fuel model to one with more fine fuels. It is important to note that this changed condition 

resulting from thinning and prescribed burning (one with more understory grasses, forbs, and brush) is 

more representative of the healthier fuels loading, vegetation structure, and species composition that 

existed prior to European settlement. Thus, it can be expected that post treatment conditions are more 

resistant and resilient to large scale disturbances such as wildfire. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Fire Behavior and Fuels 3-25

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 3 would reduce fuels over fewer acres than Alternative 2, treating 10,112 acres, but is 

effective in changing fire behavior across the landscape and achieving the desired surface fire and rate of 

spread that would allow direct suppression attack to protect neighborhoods and communities. 

Direct Effects 

Condition Class 

The expected result under Alternative 3 as with Alternative 2 is that the condition class for the project 

area as a landscape would change from a condition class 3 to condition class 2. This determination is 

based on the expected condition of the stands (canopy cover, stand density, etc) as well as fire history and 

proposed prescribed burning. 

At a stand level for the proposed treatment units, the condition class is based more on the condition of the 

stand versus the fire history. At a stand level, approximately 4,421 acres proposed for treatment would be 

improved to Condition Class 1, and 5,716 acres in Condition Class 2. 

Surface Fuel Loads 

For Alternative 3, the post treatment conditions for surface fuel loads are similar to Alternative 2. 

Differences are mainly the changes in acres treated with the different treatment types. 

 Hand Thinning 

Hand thinning treatments would be applied on 5,987 forested acres. Total fuel loads would be reduced by 

about 49%. Approximately 96% of the hand thinned stands are expected to meet desired conditions with 

levels that are at or below the desired maximum range of 10 to 15 tons per acre post treatment (Table 3-

9). When including the wildlife stands that would be hand thinned, approximately 5,289 acres, or 91%, of 

the hand thinned stands would meet desired fuel loads. All hand thinning stands were modeled using FFE 

using 90% reduction of surface and activity fuels. The remaining 698 acres above the desired 15 tons per 

acre are due to the current (previous to treatment) fuel loads. These areas currently have high fuel loads 

so the 90% modeled reduction isn’t enough to reduce the levels to below 15 tons per acre. A second entry 

of thinning and or piling and burning for meeting the desired surface fuel loads may be necessary in these 

areas. 

Stands treated with hand thinning are often limited in meeting desired stand conditions or retaining them 

for long periods of time. Approximately 42%, of the hand thin stands would be above the desired fuel 

loads within 10 years post treatment. 

 Approximately 692 acres have been identified for chipping or masticating within hand thin units, an 

increase of 339 acres from Alternative 2. Chipping or masticating hand thinned stands or portions of hand 

thinned stands would only occur where site conditions are acceptable for ground based equipment 

operations and post treatment fuel loads would meet desired conditions. With chipping or mastication, the 

fuels are not reducedas would be with piling and burning, but are decreased in size and redistributed 

throughout the stand. Chipping or mastication of fuels decreases vertical fuel depth and redistributes the 

overall fuel load. Fire intensity and severity may still remain high however, if fuel loads are too heavy. 

The fire remains as a surface fire, but with increased duration and potentially the flame lengths. Under 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-26

more severe weather conditions mastication has been shown to not reduce fireline intensities and tree 

mortality. Chipping or masticating hand thinned stands or portions of hand thinned stands would occur 

only where post treatment fuel loads would meet desired conditions 

Mechanical Thinning

Mechanical thinning treatments would treat 4,151 forested acres. Of those, 2,141 acres are using wholetree logging system and 2,010 acres would be cut-to-length. Prescribed underburning would be conducted 

in 774 acres of the whole tree yarded stands post-thinning. Mechanical thinning and fuels reduction would 

be conducted in order to remove remaining surface fuels in excess of desired levels of 10 to 15 tons per 

acre. Residual fuel loads would include 8 to 12 tons of logs greater than 20” dbh for wildlife habitat. 

Stands with up to 15 tons per acre of residual fuels would usually be in the wildlife areas or SEZs. 

The average fuel loads for mechanical stands post treatment would be about 16 tons per acre with 

approximately 66% of mechanical treatment stands meeting desired fuel loads (Table 3-9). For the whole 

tree units, fuel loads would be reduced by 67%. Approximately 82% of the whole tree units are expected 

to be below the desired maximum of 15 tons per acre. The other 18% of the whole tree stands would have 

higher fuel loads ranging from about 15 to 25 tons per acre. If necessary, to further reduce fuel loading, 

these areas may be treated with CTL equipment for thinning, grapple piling and burning. The wildlife 

areas would have the cut-to-length method of logging in about 50% of the stands and the other half would 

be whole tree logging. The overall surface fuels would be reduced to about 14 tons per acre (Table 3-9). 

The average fuel loads for mechanical stands post treatment would be about 16 tons per acre with 

approximately 66% of mechanical treatment stands meeting desired fuel loads (Table 3-9). The averages 

do not reflect the lowering of fuel loads using grapple and burning that may be necessary in some areas. 

For all the mechanical stands, over half would still meet the desired fuel load objectives 20 years post 

treatment (Table 3-9), next page. The Wildlife Areas would have, on average, higher stand densities 

thereby having a faster increase of accumulating surface fuels 10 and 20 years post treatment. 

Approximately 14% of the Wildlife Areas would meet fuel load objectives in 20 years. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Fire Behavior and Fuels 3-27

Table 3-9. Alternative 3: Surface Fuel Loading 

Alternative 3 Ave tons 

per acre 

Post-treatment 

Hand Treatment Stands 11 

Mechanical Treatment Stands 16 

Wildlife Areas 14 

TOTAL 14 

10 Years Post Treatment 

Hand Treatment Stands 17 

Mechanical Treatment Stands 18 

Wildlife Areas 19 

TOTAL 18 

20 Years Post Treatment 

Hand Treatment Stands 22 

Mechanical Treatment Stands 19 

Wildlife Areas 25 

TOTAL 22 

Note: Average tons per acre were determined using 

FFE and are based on initial treatment only. Average 

tons per acre do not reflect potential grapple pile and 

burning that may be needed within the mechanically 

treated units.

Fire behavior and expected fire type would be influenced in part by the amount, size, distribution of 

surface fuels and the CBD and CBH of the residual stand. Stands treated either with mechanical or hand 

thinning operations with a post treatment of activity fuels such as prescribed burning, would reduce 

overall fuel loads. The lower fuel loading would help alter the predicted fire type to be that of lower 

intensity and severity. 

Fire Behavior 

Fire Type 

With Alternative 3, results of models run on a landscape level for predicted fire type are shown in 

Table 3-10. Results demonstrate that the reduction of surface fuels, reducing CBD, and raising CBH 

moderates surface and crown fire behavior. The results from proposed treatment changes fire type from 

passive and active crowning to surface fires in the majority of the stands. With Alternative 3, 

approximately 85% of the proposed treatment area would meet desired conditions for having a predicted 

surface fire type. 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-28

Over time, the treated stands would recover in canopy closure and CBD which, along with other variables 

such as accumulation of surface fuels, would cause the predicted surface fire type to potentially change 

back to a crown fire type. The time frame for lasting effects from hand thinning is less than mechanical 

however, all treated areas are expected to last for over 10 years. 

Table 3-10. Alternative 3: Modeled Fire Type Results 

Fire Type Acres Percent of Acres

Surface 8631 85% 

Passive 1178 12% 

Active 303 3% 

Total 10,112 100% 

 Fire Intensity – Flame Length 

With Alternative 3, desired conditions are met in most of the proposed treatment areas. Modeling 

predictions show that approximately 89% of the proposed treatment area would result in flame lengths 

less than four feet should a wildfire occur (Table 3-11). These areas would usually allow for suppression 

activities to be successful with implementation of hand tools and hand constructed fire line, reducing the 

risk of fire spread and potentially, increased fire behavior. 

Table 3-11. Alternative 3: Modeled Flame Length Results 

Flame Length Acres Percent of 

Acres 

Less than 4 feet 8932 89% 

4 to 8 feet 426 4% 

Greater than 8 feet 754 7% 

Total 10,112 100% 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Fire Behavior and Fuels 3-29

Effects Comparison by Alternative

Both action alternatives are predicted to have about the same residual average densities after either hand 

or mechanical thinning, including the wildlife stands. Alternative 2 would treat more acres within the 

project area than Alternative 3 and more acres would be mechanically thinned rather than hand thinned. 

The results are shown below in Table 3-12. 

The increase in hand thinning in Alternative 3 would result in slightly higher average fuel loads than the 

hand thinning in treatments in Alternative 2. However, the higher average fuel loads would meet the 

desired conditions for the Wildlife Protected Activity Centers (PAC). Both alternatives meet desired 

condition for predicted fire types for all areas treated (Table 3-12). 

Table 3-12. Summary of Alternatives for Fire Behavior and Fuels 

Alternative Treated 

Acres 

Condition 

Class 

Fuel Load 

(tons/acre) 

Fire Type 

(acres) 

Fire Intensity –

Flame Length 

(acres) 

1 – No Action 

0*

CC 1 – 

1,230

CC 2 -

2,687 

CC 3 -

6,753

8-66 t/a

Surface 684

Passive 

Crown 6,578

Active Crown 

3,408

< 4 feet -2,424

4 to 8 feet 

1,914

> 8 feet 6,332

Post Treatment

2 – Proposed 

Action 10,670

CC 1 – 

4,923

CC 2 – 

5,747

CC 3 - 0

10-15 t/a

Surface 8831 

ac

Passive 

Crown 1424

Active Crown 

415

< 4 feet 9332

4 to 8 feet 363

> 8 feet 975

3- Preferred 

Alternative 10,112

CC 1 

4,421

CC 2 -

5,691 

CC 3 - 0

10-15 t/a

Surface 8631 

ac

Passive 

Crown 1178 

ac

Active Crown 

303 ac

< 4 feet 8932 

ac

4 to 8 feet 426 

ac

> 8 feet 754 ac

* Acres modeled - 10,670

Compared to Alternative 1 (no action) both action alternatives greatly increase the overall number of 

acres meeting the desired fuels condition of having less than the maximum level of 15 tons per acre. Both 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-30

action alternatives also greatly increase the percent of acres meeting the predicted fire type of S (Surface). 

The greater number of acres treated and greater reduction in both stand densities and fuel loads would 

result in a greater shift toward desired forest conditions throughout the project area. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

The cumulative impact of the No Action alternative in combination with all the other past, present and 

foreseeable projects do not reduce fuels on enough of the landscape to make a difference. Localized 

reduction in fire behavior on treated parcels would be effective but only on the treated parcel and possibly 

on adjacent areas depending on the site specific conditions. In addition this alternative would not meet the 

forest health, SEZ and aspen objectives.. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

The cumulative impact of both of the action alternatives in combination with the existing fuel treatments 

would be to increase the overall effectiveness of existing fuel reduction on the landscape scale. 

Differences in cumulative effects between the action alternatives are negligible. 

The fuel treatments under both action alternatives would combine with existing treatments and on going 

treatments on adjacent ownerships to create a relatively open forest structure where fuel amounts and 

arrangements have been altered to encourage low-intensity surface fires, which may be effectively 

suppressed by fire management personnel. See Map 9 for location of potential crown fire activity posttreatment. The intensity and frequency of fuel treatment maintenance activities may have an inherent 

effect on the establishment and development of understory vegetation and tree regeneration. This, in turn, 

would retain stand structure and composition and would positively influence the long term effectiveness 

of fuel treatments in terms of understory establishment and development. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Fire Behavior and Fuels 3-31

Analytical Conclusions 

This section provides a brief summary of the effects analysis for fire and fuels. It provides linkage from 

resource protection measures in Chapter 2 to the magnitude, scope, and intensity of the environmental 

effects for fire behavior and hazardous fuel load changes due to project activities. 

The major factors for wildfire behavior are weather, topography, and available fuel. The one factor of that 

management activities can influence is the availability of fuel. As designed, the project would reduce the 

availability of fuel by reducing the overall fuel in tons per acre and by changing the vegetation structure 

by reducing ladder fuels. Analytical models of fire behavior at both the landscape scale and the stand 

scale demonstrate that the prescriptions for vegetation management are effective to change fire behavior 

in the South Shore project area. 

The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) fails to reduce the risk to neighborhoods and communities 

from high intensity wildfire. Alternative 1 would not change fire behavior. Flame lengths would remain 

>4 ft. on over 75% of the proposed project area, and direct suppression activities would not be an option 

on a majority of the project area due to safety concerns for firefighters. The potential for high intensity 

wildfire to occur in the project area would remain high, with approximately 75% expected to burn at 

flame lengths greater than 8 feet, and over 50% would be expected to burn as a crown fire with high 

levels of tree mortality. Existing conditions over much of the project area are similar to the pre-existing 

conditions in the Angora Fire area, and fire behavior would be similar to the 2007 Angora Fire under 

similar fire weather conditions. 

Alternative 3 would reduce fuels over fewer acres than under Alternative 2, 

both action alternatives are effective in changing fire behavior across the landscape and achieving the 

desired change from crown fire to surface fire and reduction in flame lengths to allow direct suppression 

for protecting neighborhoods and communities. Surface fuel loads with Alternative 1 would continue to 

average 24 tons per acre, while both action alternatives would reduce surface fuel loads by approximately 

50%, to an average of10-15 tons per acre . This reduction, combined with reducing ladder fuels is 

sufficient to reduce the likelihood for high-intensity crown fire by 30% in alternative 2 and approximately 

25% in alternative 3. . The resulting flame length reduction to <4 ft. under the action alternatives 

increases firefighter safety for direct suppression activities for 65% of the acres within the project under 

Alternative 2 and 88% under Alternative 3. 

 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-32

This page intentionally left blank. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Forest Vegetation 3-33 

 

Forest Vegetation 

Scope of the Analysis and Indicators of Effect 

The forest vegetation stands for this project were identified and analyzed based on three types of 

treatments: 1) mechanical treatments, 2) hand treatments, and 3) mechanical and hand treatments 

emphasizing wildlife habitat. Stands suitable for mechanical treatment have slopes less than 30% and 

access is available for ground-based equipment to fall and remove trees, and down wood. Hand thinning 

stands are primarily those over 30% slope and would be treated manually using chainsaws to fall the 

trees, and hand piling of the activity fuels. Both mechanical and hand treatments stands occur in both 

uplands, and SEZs which may also include meadow and aspen stands. Treatments emphasizing wildlife 

habitat for special status species (hereafter referred to as wildlife areas) include California spotted owl 

protected activity centers (PACs) and home range core areas (HRCAs), northern goshawk PACs, TRPA 

disturbance zones for northern goshawk and osprey, and TRPA bald eagle wintering habitat. Wildlife 

areas also may occur in both upland and SEZ landscapes, would be treated by hand or mechanical 

methods, and would have prescriptions specifically designed for the type of wildlife area. Proposed 

treatment prescriptions are described in Chapter 2. 

The analysis for the treatment types are based on field reconnaissance of the project area beginning in fall 

of 2005 and a variety of data sources including IKONOS imagery and GIS data. Current and posttreatment stand conditions are based on treatment modeling using the West Side Sierra Nevada variant of 

the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) (USDA FS 2006). 

The FVS program is a model for predicting forest stand dynamics. FVS projections used project area 

stand inventory data. Stand exam plot data was collected within random plots distributed throughout the 

project area during the 2006 and 2007 field seasons. The data collected include tree species, diameters, 

and heights. The collected data was entered into the FVS program to model current forest density 

conditions based on trees per acre (TPA), basal area (BA), and stand density index (SDI). Data collected 

also included dwarf mistletoe ratings to determine level of infection and number of infected trees. 

The effects of the proposed treatments are not based individual tree counts, but on FVS projections of 

stands with inventory data, and are representative of average stand conditions. The FVS model is used as 

a tool for determining expected outcomes from treatments for the comparison of the effects of the 

alternatives. The modeling in this section reflects projected forest vegetation conditions, without the 

influence or effects of wildfire. Fire behavior modeling information is contained in the previous section – 

fire behavior and fuels. 

The proposed prescriptions presented in Alternatives 2 and 3 were based on this initial stand level 

analysis data then further modified as needed to meet resource concerns as detailed in the resource 

protection measures. 

Indicators 

For purposes of this analysis, the following indicators of stand conditions and forest health were 

discussed for each alternative: stand composition and structure, stand density, and forest health. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-34 Chapter 3 

Stand Compositionand Structure 

Species composition throughout the project area varies by location, such as stream zones and meadows, 

elevation, past management practices, as well as other environmental or topographical factors. Much of 

the project area has a higher than desired number of shade tolerant species such as white fir, and incense 

cedar in the uplands and encroaching lodgepole pine in the riparian areas. Stands also have a higher than 

desired amount of smaller diameter trees in the understory. The desired condition is to have uneven aged 

stands with large, widely spaced trees in the overstory with a few scattered understory trees. Tree species 

consist mainly of shade intolerant Jeffrey pine and sugar pine or red fir in the higher elevations. The 

expected change by treatment in species composition and structure was analyzed for each alternative. 

Stand Density 

Stand density index (SDI) allows for a direct comparison of density between stands by creating a 

comparable index. SDI converts a stand’s current density into a density at a constant reference size of 10 

inches dbh. An SDI of 400, for instance, would represent 400 TPA that are 10 inches at dbh, or 132 TPA 

that are 20 inches dbh. Different species tolerate different maximum stand densities. For instance, Jeffrey 

pine in the Lake Tahoe Basin, has a suggested maximum SDI of 410, where as white fir and red fir can 

persist at higher densities, with maximum SDIs of 750 and 800. However, these are maximum densities, 

and when stands reach densities that are between 60% and 70% of maximum SDI, they grow and 

sequester carbon at increasingly slower rates as trees become stressed for resources such as soil nutrients, 

water, and sunlight. Trees are able to withstand drought conditions better when at lower stand densities 

with sufficient available growing space and resources and when inter-tree competition does not have a 

large effect on stand growth (Long 1985). For the South Shore project, maximum SDI (MSDI), is used 

for analysis in determining stand density conditions for each alternative. The desired stand densities for 

overall forest health objectives as measured in SDI is about 40% of the maximum. At 40% MSDI, the 

stand is at the lower limit of full site occupancy (Long 1985). In order to implement appropriate stand 

density levels, basal area as measured in square feet per acre, was also used in correlation with the desired 

SDI levels. 

Basal area is the cross sectional area of a tree bole measured at diameter at breast height (dbh), which 

reflects varying levels of stand densities depending on a stand’s average diameter. Basal area is used as a 

measure of stand density which corresponds to forest health issues such as mortality due to competition 

among trees as they fight for water and soil nutrients, and susceptibility to insect and disease outbreaks. 

When basal areas exceed levels of about 150 ft2

 per acre, bark beetle populations are more likely to 

expand into outbreak levels, killing a large number of trees (Fettig et al 2007). Optimal levels at which 

infestation is less likely would be approximately 80 ft2

 per acre. For the South Shore project, basal area is 

used for analysis in determining stand density conditions for each alternative. The desired stand densities 

as measured in basal area for the stands would range between approximately 80-150 ft2

 per acre. 

Forest Health 

Dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.) is a small parasitic plant that grows exclusively on conifer stems 

and branches and is almost completely dependent on its host trees for food and water. Dwarf mistletoes 

weaken trees by slowly robbing them of both nutrients and water. Heavy infections can lead to severe 

growth loss and decreased survival. The length of time it takes for mistletoe to actually kill a heavily 

infected tree will vary depending on a number of factors including the size of the tree, vigor, species 

involved, and whether insects, particularly bark beetles, also attack the tree due to the stress of infestation. 

Dwarf mistletoe spreads through a stand by shooting its seed through the air from one tree to another. 

Average distance of seed dispersal is approximately 30 feet. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Forest Vegetation 3-35 

 

Dwarf mistletoe infection is measured by utilizing Hawksworth’s dwarf mistletoe rating system (1977). 

The live crown of a tree is divided into thirds and the numbers 0 (no infection), 1 (less than 50% 

infection), or 2 (50% infection or more) are assigned to each third of the tree, resulting in a maximum 

dwarf mistletoe rating (DMR) of 6. Dwarf mistletoe intensity (DMI) is the average DMR for infected 

trees only. DMI and the trees per acre infected by dwarf mistletoe (DM-TPA) were used for anlaysis in 

determining infection level and amount of spread with each alternative. 

Annosus root disease is caused by the fungus Heterobasidion annosum and is found in all western 

conifer species, however true fir and pine are especially susceptible to infection (Schmitt et al. 2000). 

Annosus root disease spreads from root to root contact as well as from infection by airborne spores. Long 

distance spread can occur when airborne spores contact and infect fresh exposed wounds and stump 

surfaces (Schmitt, et al 2000). Once H. annosum occupies a site, it resides in the soil for up to 50 years as 

a saprophyte (an organism that obtains food from dead or decaying organic matter). The threat of spread 

of annosus root disease was analyzed for each alternative. 

There are two common bark beetle species present and active within the project area including mountain 

pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) and Jeffrey pine beetle (Dendroctonus jeffreyi). They are 

primarily found in stands that have grown increasingly dense and are often associated with diseases in the 

stand. The risk of bark beetle outbreak was analyzed for each alternative. 

Existing Conditions – Forest Vegetation 

Stand Composition and Structure 

The South Shore project analysis area consists of a variety of conifer forest types as well as aspen stands, 

meadows, and stream environment zones. The conifer forested areas consist primarily of the mixed 

conifer type and Jeffrey pine type (Table 3-13). Lodgepole pine occupies areas near and encroaching into 

streams and meadows, while red fir and subalpine conifers are found in the higher elevations (Map 11). 

Table 3-13. Project Analysis Area Existing Vegetation 

Existing Vegetation Acres 

Forest 

Mixed Conifer 16,195

Jeffrey Pine 15,348

Lodgepole Pine 6,522

Red Fir 8,870

Subalpine Conifers 7,747

Misc/Other Pine 1,037

Hardwood Forest/Woodland 497

Non-forest 

Shrub 14,133

Herbaceous 4,629

Barren 7,223

Urban 2,068

Water 2,540
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-36 Chapter 3 

Cover Types 

The Jeffrey Pine forest type occurs above 6,200 ft, and is characterized by Jeffrey Pine throughout the 

overstory with some, sugar pine, incense cedar, lodgepole pine, western juniper, white fir, and western 

white pine (Pinus monticola). The dominant understory shrubs may include whitethorn, greenleaf 

manzanita, huckleberry oak, and tobacco brush. 

The mixed conifer forest type occurs within an elevation range of 6,300-7,000 ft, and is characterized by 

white fir (Abies concolor) throughout the overstory. Other overstory components include Jeffrey pine 

(Pinus jeffreyi), sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), incense-cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), red fir (Abies 

magnifica), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis). Dominant 

understory shrubs include tobacco brush (Ceanothus velutinus), greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos 

patula), huckleberry oak (Quercus vaccinfolia), snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.), and squaw carpet 

(Ceanothus prostrata). 

Approximately 466 acres of red fir forest type exist as an inclusion in the mixed conifer series. The 

majority of red fir stands are located in higher elevations, between 7,000 and 9,000 feet. 

Existing streamside vegetation in the project area is often dominated by lodgepole pine, with black 

cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), willows (Salix spp.), or alder (Alnus spp.). White fir and Jeffrey pine 

also grow in the overstory. A mix of small white fir, shrubs, and herbaceous species typically composes 

the understory. 

The aspen/meadow community type includes aspen stands and mountain meadows. Although aspen 

dominates these stands, willows are common in the understory. Meadows are composed of a mix of 

various grasses, sedges, forbs, and scattered willows. Currently there are aspen stands where aspen appear 

to be in decline, being overtopped or encroached by conifers. 

The current forest conditions developed following Comstock-era logging (1880 to 1920) and in the 

absence of the most prevalent historic disturbance regime, fire. Prior to the early 1900s, when effective 

fire suppression began, fire was essential to keeping stands open and minimizing shrubs and ground fuels. 

The forests were dominated by widely spaced, large-diameter trees, such as Jeffrey pine, with sugar pine 

occurring in some areas. Past tree densities are estimated to average about 120 per hectare, or 50 trees per 

acre (USDA FS LTBMU 2004). These are conditions described in the Fire and Fuels section above as 

Condition Class 1, where ecosystems are intact and functioning within historical parameters and fire 

frequency is at naturally occurring levels. Open stands dominated by larger trees with relatively few 

scattered understory trees and regeneration are conditions that support low to moderate intensity ground 

fires. 

In the absence of fire, shade-tolerant species such as white fir have crowded the understory and become a 

dominant overstory component. The resulting overstory is also much denser in the absence of fire, 

resulting in trees that are less vigorous and more susceptible to insects, diseases, and drought. Most stands 

are currently considered Condition Class 2 or 3, where ecosystems have been moderately to significantly 

altered from their historical range. (Refer to Section A. Fire and Fuels for more details on existing 

conditions for fuels and wildfire potential.) 

Project treatment areas consist primarily of the mixed conifer forest type occupying about 6,971 acres 

within an elevation range of 6,300-7,000 ft. and approximately 2,017 acres of the Jeffrey pine forest type 

occurring above 6,200 ft (Table 3-14). 

Streamside vegetation and the aspen (Populus tremuloides)/meadow community type also occur in some 

of the project treatment areas. Aspen stands identified for treatment are instances where aspen appear to 

be in decline, and the aspen are generally overtopped by conifers, or conifer encroachment is occurring 

(Map 12). 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Forest Vegetation 3-37 

 

Table 3-14. Project Treatment Area Cover Types 

Cover Type Acres 

Forest 

Mixed Conifer 6,971

Jeffrey Pine 2,017

Red fir 466

Lodgepole Pine / Riparian 730

Aspen 293

Non-Forest 

Brush/Other 193

Project Treatment Area Total 10,670

Stand Density

Currently, stands in the project treatment area have moderate to heavy densities and have large areas of 

continuous surface, ladder and canopy fuels. Stand exam data for the project treatment area show that the 

average number of live trees per acre varies widely, with a range of between 50 to over 5,000 TPA. 

The overall average basal area (BA) for proposed treatment stands is about 200 ft2

 per acre, ranging from 

150 to over 400 ft2

 per acre. Inter-tree competition is reducing stand growth and vigor at these densities. 

The average quadratic mean diameter of live trees ranges from as low as 3 inches dbh up to 34 inches 

dbh. Approximately 65 percent or 6,918 acres of the project area includes forest stands that are at or 

above 60% of maximum Stand Density Index (MSDI). Most of these stands have an average SDI ranging 

from 70% to over 100% of maximum. The overall average is about 84%. 

Forest Health 

Precipitation is variable throughout the western United States, including the Sierra Nevada mountain 

range. Forest types vary in part, to their response to the amount of annual precipitation. For all forest 

types, as stand densities increase, water availability becomes a limiting factor for tree health, and during 

drought conditions, moisture stress and mortality increases. 

When stand densities are within the range of desired conditions, sunlight, nutrients, and water are more 

available for trees to use in the process of photosynthesis to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and 

sequester the carbon in the plant tissue, releasing oxygen (O2) as a byproduct of plant respiration. Healthy 

forest conditions aid to counteract human-caused CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. Climate change 

predictions of warmer and possibly drier conditions in the central Sierra Nevada, including the Lake 

Tahoe Basin, would indicate that increased stress and mortality would be expected within the existing 

conditions of overly-dense stands. As trees die, carbon sequestration ceases, and the decay process 

releases the sequestered carbon slowly into the atmosphere. Forests play a major role in the carbon cycle. 

Over the long-term, as long as forests exist, they will continue to absorb and sequester carbon. 

Dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.) infection occurs throughout the project area infecting both white fir 

and Jeffrey pine. The mistletoe is found in both overstory and understory trees with the level of infection 

varying from light to heavy. The stands infected with dwarf mistletoe are moderately dense to very 

dense, with susceptible host trees in close proximity to one another allowing easier spread. H. annosum is 

also present in the South Shore project area, and infects the red and white fir species. 

There are a number of bark beetle species present and active within the project area. Typically, 

widespread bark beetle attacks occur in dense stands in conjunction with drought conditions when trees 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-38 Chapter 3 

are already under stress. Bark beetles are also often found in association with trees infected with dwarf 

mistletoe or other diseases. 

Insects and diseases may exist in each of the proposed treatment stands with varying levels of intensity 

and area of spread. Under existing conditions, with overly dense forest stands, mortality from insects and 

diseases has increased above normal or background levels. The desired condition would be for native 

insects and pathogens to function in their natural roles, existing at low levels of intensity within forest 

ecosystems. Under these normal or natural conditions, insects and diseases act as agents of diversity. 

They influence forest composition, structure and density by selectively killing or slowing the growth of 

some trees while affecting others to a lesser degree or not at all. They have important roles in creating 

small canopy gaps, specialized wildlife habitat, and are involved in nutrient recycling. They coexist with 

host plants with a reasonable balance that permits populations of each to survive. 

Environmental Consequences – Forest Vegetation 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Stand Composition and Structure 

Under the No Action Alternative the desired stand composition and structure would not be met. Stand 

composition would continue to shift toward an increasing component of shade tolerant species that are 

more adapted to persist at high densities. Pine in existing stands would become increasingly susceptible to 

mortality as stand densities increase. Stands that have been previously thinned within the past 10-20 years 

would grow at faster rates and be less susceptible to density related mortality; however, they would also 

have an increasing component of shade tolerant trees as these species continue to establish and grow into 

the understory canopy. Pine regeneration would depend upon the creation of natural gaps such as windthrow or pockets of bug kill that provide favorable light levels and seed bed conditions for the 

establishment and growth of pine seedlings. 

Aspen

Aspen stands would continue to decline as conifers, primarily lodgepole pine and white fir, continue to 

spread within aspen communities. The encroaching conifers are more shade tolerant than aspen and 

would continue to regenerate in the aspen. As the encroaching conifers increase in growth they would 

out-compete the aspen stands for light resources. (Shepperd et al 2006). 

Stand Density 

Under the No Action Alternative the desired stand density conditions would not be met. Effects include 

an increase in stand densities (Table 3-15) resulting in reduced growth and vigor and increased mortality. 

This would ultimately result in greater risk of higher intensity natural disturbances such as wildfire or 

insect and disease outbreaks. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Forest Vegetation 3-39 

 

Table 3-15. Current and Predicted Stand Densities for the Project Area 

Current Ave 

% MSDI 

Current 

Ave BA 

(ft2) 

10 Years 

% MSDI 

10 Years 

Ave BA 

20 Years 

% MSDI 

20 Years 

Ave BA 

Project Area 84 200 92 228 99 255

With little or no disturbance, growth and the overall health of trees would decline, and an increase in 

mortality would occur. Mortality of understory trees would increase due to competition, insects, or 

disease. Residual overstory trees would increase in size; however, selective bark beetle mortality of large 

diameter trees could cancel this effect and reduce the size class of stands. As stands reach and persist at 

maximum densities, they would remain at high risk of widespread mortality from insect and disease 

outbreaks and from wildfire (Ferrel 1986). Pockets of mortality due to insects, disease, windfall, or 

wildfire could create openings in stands and add to hazardous fuel. The stands that are currently more 

open would generally grow at faster rates due to less inter-tree competition, and growth rates would be 

dictated more by factors of site quality than stand density until they reach an SDI that would reduce their 

growth rates. 

Under current conditions, natural disturbance such as wildfire could dramatically change stand structure, 

density, and size class distribution by creating openings and reducing the number of existing trees of 

various sizes and ages and increasing the amount of understory vegetation that may consist of tree 

regeneration or shrubs. The resulting stand conditions may be similar in some areas to what can be seen in 

the Angora Fire area with vast open areas of little to no vegetation. Although most of the fire burned at 

high intensities in areas that were not previously treated, approximately 40% of the Angora Fire burned at 

low to moderate intensities in areas that were previously treated creating a mosaic of both live and 

standing dead trees and a patchy understory of shrubs and other vegetation. 

Forest Health 

With the No Action alternative, carbon sequestration rates in stands near or above 60% of MSDI would 

continue to decrease. As stands reach and persist at maximum densities, they would remain at high risk of 

widespread mortality which would also result in release of additional CO2 into the atmosphere through 

the process of decay. If a wildfire were to occur, a very high amount of CO2 is expected to be released 

into the atmosphere, but would depend on the intensity and size of the fire. 

With the No Action alternative, dwarf mistletoe would continue to spread within the stand in most cases 

and could potentially spread outside the stand to adjacent forested areas. The level of infection would also 

continue to increase causing an increase in tree mortality and decrease in successful regeneration. 

The Mean Dwarf Mistletoe Index (DMI) for stands that were modeled using FVS is about 3.5 with 

increases of about 0.7 over 20 years. The number of trees infected (DM-TPA) increased by an average of 

40 trees per acre over 20 years, and the average percentage of infected trees within the stands increased 

by 13% over the same two decades. Overall mortality also increased by about 1 TPA per decade. 

Annosus Root Disease (H. annosum) would continue to exist in areas it is in currently and continue to 

spread, primarily through the roots. With Alternative 1, there would not be exposed stumps for potential 

long distance spread from airborne spores. 

The risk of bark beetle outbreaks causing large-scale mortality in pines would increase over time as stands 

grow increasingly dense under Alternative 1. Stands at most risk in the project area are dense stands (60% 

of MSDI or more), especially during periods of extended drought (DeMars and Roettgering 1982, Ferrel 

1986, Kegley et al. 1997, Smith 1971). Approximately 65 percent, or 6,918 acres, of forest stands within 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-40 Chapter 3 

the project area are at or above 60% of MSDI. With no treatment or major disturbance an additional 1,355 

acres of forested stands, (a total of 8,273 acres), would reach or exceed 60% of MSDI for an average of 

over 78% of the project area in a densely stocked condition within 20 years. This would run counter to the 

desired condition of stands dominated by fire resistant pine in the overstory. 

The risk of bark beetle outbreak would be considerably less in higher elevation true fir stands. However, 

because pine cannot survive at the higher densities that true fir can, and pine is a lesser component of 

higher elevation true fir stands, the likelihood of pine mortality would still be high. 

Using the FVS model, a representative stand was chosen for simulating resulting stand conditions over 

time with no treatment. The representative stand is a mixed conifer stand currently above MSDI level and 

would have high mortality occurring over the next 20 years, which would lower the trees per acre, but 

maintain SDI at 100% of maximum level. Basal area would also remain at a maximum level of about 378 

square feet per acre. A summary of stand conditions in 10 and 20 years is shown below 

(Table 3-16). 

Table 3-16. Typical Stand Conditions over 20 Years Based on a Representative Stand 

Year TPA BA SDI DMI DM-TPA 

2007 518 378 654 1.6 6 

2017 417 379 628 1.6 15 

2027 359 378 609 2.0 15 

TPA – Trees per Acre, BA – Basal Area, SDI – Stand Density Index, DMI – Dwarf Mistletoe Intensity, DMTPA – Dwarf Mistletoe-Trees per Acre 

Dwarf mistletoe also exists in the stand, although at low levels, and the number of trees infected would 

increase over time as shown by the increasing DMI. Average stand conditions of the modeled stand at 

current 2007 and projected to year 2027 are pictured below (Figure 15). 

Stand 28 at year 2007; no treatment Stand 28 at year 2027; no treatment 

Source: USDA Forest Service, “Forest Vegetation Simulator” 

Figure 15. Stand conditions at year 2007 and 2027 with no treatment 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Forest Vegetation 3-41 

 

Given current vegetation conditions should a wildfire occur under severe weather conditions it is expected 

that much the area burned would burn at high intensities. With high intensity fires there would be high 

tree mortality, as well as damage to residual trees including charring of the bark and boles and mortality 

of some of the branches. Surviving trees would be at a higher risk of attack from bark beetles due to 

stress from injury to itself or surrounding damaged trees. Any increase in occurrence of disease to 

surviving trees due to stress would also increase risk of bark beetle attack. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Stand Composition and Structure 

In Alternative 2 there are approximately 10,670 acres proposed for treatment within the South Shore 

project area. Within all proposed treatment areas, healthy fire-resilient dominant and co-dominant 

overstory trees would be retained, resulting in an overstory consisting primarily of shade intolerant 

species; such as Jeffrey pine, and sugar pine where it currently exists. Some stands would have a mix of 

pine with red fir, white fir and/or incense cedar. Some trees in the mid-story and understory would be 

retained where they are healthy well-growing trees that are isolated from serving as ladder fuels. Some 

wildlife areas would have more of the smaller trees in the understory retained to meet required habitat 

conditions. 

Aspen Treatments

Approximately 293 acres of aspen stands would be thinned in order to reduce conifer encroachment (Map 

12). Thinning of aspen stands would include the removal of all or most conifers creating openings and 

leaving canopy covers of only about 10% to 20%. The thinning treatments would enhance growth of 

aspen and other riparian vegetation. For the remaining aspen trees, there would be less competition for 

light, and more available soil moisture, allowing for an increase in aspen growth rates (Shepperd et al 

2006). 

After approximately three years and follow-up treatment such as prescribed fire, regeneration through 

root suckering is expected and would increase the aspen population and reduce likelihood of future 

encroachment. Over the following 15 years the aspen saplings would become established and after about 

20 years the stands would be close to achieving desired conditions. 

Stand Density 

Hand Thinning Treatment Areas 

Hand thinning would treat 4,942 forested acres where mechanical equipment is not feasible. Hand 

treatment applies to stands that are located in areas where slopes are greater than 30%, areas of sensitive 

soils, and areas where road access is limited or unavailable. Stands to be treated are moderate to heavily 

dense and have large areas of continuous surface, ladder, and canopy fuels. Post treatment values in this 

analysis is based on stand level data averaging together both the uplands and SEZs. 

Hand thinning treatment would generally cut and remove lodgepole pine, white fir, red fir and incense 

cedar in the understory. Generally, the size of cut trees would be within 14 inches dbh or less; however, 

approximately 10 stands totaling 330 acres would have trees up to 20 inches dbh cut. Desired residual 

stand densities would include maximum SDIs of about 40%, and BAs ranging 80ft2

 to 150ft2
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-42 Chapter 3 

Approximately 2,021 acres of the hand thinned stands would meet desired SDIs and BAs, including 365 

acres of the wildlife areas. The remaining 2,921 acres would be above the desired stand density levels 

because hand thinning methods are often limited in meeting desired stand conditions or retaining them for 

desired periods of time. The size and number of trees felled are limited when treatment requires manual 

removal and piling of trees after thinning. The average MSDI post treatment would be 50% (Table 3-17) 

Approximately 1,481 acres identified for hand treatment in Alternative 2 are located within wildlife areas. 

The number of residual trees per acre was modified in each instance to maintain as much of the desired 

habitat conditions as possible, such as existing canopy cover in PACs. Remaining TPA would range from 

about 70 to 160 TPA. The result would often require stands to have a higher stand density than desired for 

fuel reduction or forest health. The average maximum SDI post treatment would be about 57% (Table 3-

17). 

Table 3-17. Post Treatment Values, and then After 10 and 20 Years (Hand) 

Treatment 

Post 

Treatment 

Ave % MSDI 

Post 

Treatment 

Ave BA 

(ft2) 

10 Years 

Ave % 

MSDI 

10 Years 

Ave BA 

20 Years 

Ave % 

MSDI 

20 Years 

Ave BA 

Hand Thin 49 150 53 173 60 197

Hand Thin – WA* 57 177 59 204 65 230

All Hand Thin 50 157 56 180 61 205

* Wildlife areas 

Stands treated with hand thinning and prescribed burning would help shift the forests towards past 

conditions when they were dominated by widely spaced, large-diameter trees, such as Jeffrey pine and 

sugar pine. The treatments would reduce fuel loads and fuel ladders, which would reduce risk of high 

intensity wildfires, as well as reduce densities and improve overall health of the stands. For the hand 

thinning stands, the treatment would last about 5 years for 50% of the stands and 10 years for about 25% 

of the stands. The other 25% of the stands would last for approximately 20 years. 

Ongoing maintenance treatments such as thinning or prescribed burning will be needed in order to control 

the regeneration of shade tolerant species that would increase fuel loads and ladders within the stands 

over time and maintain the growth and vigor of the retained overstory trees. 

Mechanical Thinning Treatment Areas 

Mechanical thinning treatments would occur on 5,728 forested acres. Of those, 3,818 acres would use a 

whole-tree system and 1,910 acres would be cut-to-length. Stands that would be treated have moderate to 

heavy densities and have large areas of continuous surface, ladder and canopy fuels. Most stands have an 

average SDI ranging from 70% to over 100% of maximum. The overall average is at 93% SDI. The 

average range of current basal areas is approximately 150 to 400 square feet. Inter-tree competition is 

reducing stand growth and vigor at these densities. The desired stand densities would include maximum 

SDIs of about 40% and basal areas of 80ft2

 to 150ft2 after treatment. 

Mechanical thinning would remove an average of about 50% of stand basal area stocking. Mechanical 

thinning would remove trees up to 30 inches dbh, with most trees being 20 inches dbh or less. In order to 

meet desired stand density conditions, approximately 48 of the stands totaling about 1,566 acres would 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Forest Vegetation 3-43 

 

include removal of trees between 20 and 30 inches dbh. Trees 30 inches dbh and greater would only be 

cut to facilitate operability (SNFPA ROD, USDA FS 2004c). The current 30 inch diameter limit for 

thinning stands would limit meeting the desired stand conditions after treatment on about 21acres. 

There would be a wide range in average remaining trees per acre of between about 30 to 150 TPA, with 

the greatest variability within the wildlife areas. The average TPA over all stands would be approximately 

65 TPA. 

The overall average SDI for mechanical stands outside of wildlife areas would be just under 40% MSDI. 

Total average including wildlife areas would be about 46% (Table 3-18). After 20 years, most of those 

stands would still be in the desired average stand density range. Only about 50 acres of mechanically 

thinned stands would be above the maximum SDI level of 60% after 20 years post treatment. 

Approximately 2,696 acres of mechanical treatment stands are located within wildlife areas. The residual 

SDIs were modified in each instance to maintain as much of the desired habitat conditions as possible 

(such as existing canopy cover in PACs). The result often required stands to have higher stand density 

than desired. Approximately 1,682 acres of the wildlife areas would not meet desired SDIs and BAs after 

initial treatment. Resulting stand densities in wildlife areas would average about 55% max SDI (Table 3-

18). Resulting stand densities in wildlife areas would average about 71% max SDI within 20 years after 

treatment 

Table 3-18. Post Treatment values, and then After 10 and 20 Years (Mechanical)

Treatment 

Post 

Treatment 

Ave % Max 

SDI 

Post 

Treatment 

Ave BA 

(ft2) 

10 Years 

Ave % 

Max SDI 

10 Years 

Ave BA 

20 Years 

Ave % 

Max SDI 

20 Years 

Ave BA 

Cut-to-Length 37 106 45 129 51 150

Whole Tree 39 120 45 138 50 159

Mechanical - WA 55 166 65 186 71 210

All Mechanical 46 137 55 159 61 184

With Alternative 2, mechanically thinned stands outside of wildlife areas, should last for at least 20 years. 

Stands treated with mechanical thinning would help shift the forests towards desired past conditions when 

they were dominated by widely spaced, large-diameter trees, such as Jeffrey pine and sugar pine. The 

treatments would reduce fuel loads and fuel ladders for reducing risk of high intensity wildfires, as well as 

reduce densities to improve overall health of the stands. 

Ongoing maintenance treatments such as thinning or prescribed burning will be needed in order to control 

the regeneration of shade tolerant species that would increase fuel loads and ladders within the stands 

over time and maintain the growth and vigor of the retained overstory trees. 

Thinning Operations and Roads

Thinning operations would have effects on forest stand structure. Whole tree yarding would create small 

clearings of about 1⁄2 acre to an acre in size for log landings and processing. Some openings already exist; 

however, most have regrowth since they were last used and would require clearing of small trees. Cut-tolength logging would also require small clearings, or landings, generally less than 1/2 acre, to store logs 

prior to trucking. Landing size depends on the topography, the number of trees to be brought in, and the 

harvest equipment. The total number of acres cleared as landings for mechanical operations would be 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-44 Chapter 3 

about 150-200 acres. Clearings (mainly those used for whole tree yarding) would receive erosion control 

and soil protection measures (see Chapter 2) as soon as possible following completion of operations. 

Based on field review of landings from past projects within the South Shore project area, it is expected in 

both the seeded and non-seeded areas to have some type of natural vegetation established over time, 

mainly shrub species, and some conifers. 

Road reconstruction and maintenance would clear trees from the road way and ditches. Trees to be 

removed are mostly saplings and seedlings which have become established since construction or the last 

road maintenance activity. The construction of 4.8 miles of new temporary road would clear 

approximately 6 acres of trees. Based on field review of old roads within the project area, establishment 

of natural vegetation is expected over time for temporary roads that would be decommissioned at 

completion of the project. 

Treatment prescriptions preclude the harvest of trees 30 inches in diameter and larger; except in cases 

where these trees need to be cut to facilitate operability (SNFPA ROD, USDA FS 2004c). These cases 

could include: clearing for landings, temporary road construction, and hazard tree removal. Clearing for 

harvest and temporary road construction operations is expected to impact less than 15% percent of the 

treated area. 

Prescribed Burning				

Prescribed pile and burning would be conducted in hand thinned stands and in of some of the 

mechanically thinned stands post thinning. Prescribed underburning would also be conducted in some of 

the mechanically thinned stands post thinning. Prescribed burning occurs under weather conditions that 

promote low flame lengths and low burning intensities, however may result in damaging or killing 

residual trees. Mortality of up to 15% of the residual trees in the stand is expected. Mortality from 

prescribed burning would primarily occur in smaller understory trees that have thinner bark and crowns 

closer to ground level. With the diameter limitations for falling trees within the hand thin units, this 

mortality is not only acceptable but in some cases desirable. The stand densities for meeting the 

objectives are often not met with hand falling and piling because of the size of the trees. Mortality of 

some of the understory, shade tolerant trees would help to meet those objectives. Damage that may occur 

to residual trees includes scorching from convective heat or direct flame contact. This may result in 

charring of the bark and boles of the trees and mortality of the lower branches. This does not necessarily 

kill the trees and generally improves forest stand resiliency to wildfire. 

Natural disturbance such as wildfire could dramatically change stand structure, density, and size class 

distribution by creating openings and reducing the number of existing trees of various sizes and ages and 

increasing the amount of understory vegetation that may consist of tree regeneration or shrubs. The 

proposed action is designed to change fire behavior by increasing the area that would burn at lower 

intensities and decrease the areas that would burn at high intensities. With most areas burning at lower 

intensities, it is expected that there would be a much higher tree survival rate, creating mosaic of both live 

and standing dead trees and a patch understory of shrubs and other vegetation. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Forest Vegetation 3-45 

 

Forest Health 

Thinned stands would increase forest health in the treatment areas by removing damaged and diseased 

trees and favoring retention of trees that are the most vigorous, with well developed crowns indicating 

better overall growth. Thinning would reduce competition and allow remaining trees to improve their 

overall growth and vigor and better withstand disease and insect attacks. Although there is an initial 

decrease of carbon sequestration rates from the tree removal and prescribed burning, there would be an 

increase over time with the healthy growth of residual trees. There would be less CO2 released due to less 

mortality occurring from otherwise high stand densities. With the reduced risk of active fire versus 

surface fire, there would be a reduced amount of CO2 released should a wildfire occur. 

Dwarf Mistletoe

Dwarf mistletoe in the project area infects true fir as well as Jeffrey pine. Selectively removing trees 

infected with dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.) from stands that are heavily infected and widespread 

will rarely if ever completely remove it from a stand. Multi-storied stands that have or develop mistletoe 

in the overstory will spread the disease to the young trees growing below. Maintaining a species mix so 

that non-host trees provide some physical barrier between susceptible trees, as well as selectively 

removing heavily infected trees, particularly in the overstory, helps prevent the development of 

undesirable infection levels in a stand. 

The proposed action would reduce the spread of dwarf mistletoe to some degree; however, existing 

management direction will limit the amount of overall mistletoe reduction because removal of larger trees 

(> 30” dbh) that may be heavily infected with dwarf mistletoe is prohibited. In stands where it is 

important to maintain stocking levels and canopy cover for wildlife habitat, infected trees would remain 

in the stands and would continue to serve as a source for the infection of adjacent and understory trees. 

The Mean DMI for stands that were modeled using FVS is about 0.8 with increases of about 0.2 over 20 

years. The number of trees infected (DM-TPA) decreased by an average of 41 trees per acre over 20 

years, and the average mortality also decreased by about 7 TPA. 

Annosus Root Disease

With alternative 2, there would be exposed stumps from both the hand and mechanical thinning 

treatments. Potential spread of H. annosum would be minimized with the application of an EPA 

registered borate compound (Sporax) to all cut stumps of true fir and pine trees greater than 14 inches in 

diameter. 

Infection by H. annosum may become more wide spread if stumps are not treated. This would make the 

long-term control of annosus root disease more difficult and may impact previously unaffected stands, as 

well as adjacent landowners. The disease could create infection centers where trees of susceptible species 

would begin to display effects ranging from reduced individual tree vigor, root and bole decay, windthrow, root mortality, and tree mortality. The infection centers would create localized pockets of dying, 

dead and down trees which would contribute to higher surface fuel accumulation in the future as well as 

increased public safety hazards in and adjacent to recreation sites, communities, and private homes. There 

are no proven methods for eradicating this disease from a site once it becomes infected. 

The application of a borate compound would occur on approximately 5,728 acres of thinning treatments 

that include removal of trees greater than 14” dbh. Sporax is a borate compound registered for use to 

control annosum root disease. When applied to fresh cut stump surfaces, the borate compound penetrates 

into the upper stump surface and provides a protective barrier in which H. annosum spores are unable to 

survive. When applied properly, the use of Sporax has been shown to be up to 90% effective at preventing 

new infections of annosus root disease on stump surfaces (Schmitt et al 2000). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-46 Chapter 3 

The recommended application level is one pound of Sporax to 50 square feet of stump surface (WilburEllis, undated). The basal area requiring Sporax treatment when using a 14-inch lower-dbh limit would 

range from approximately 80 to 335 square feet per acre, with an average of approximately 97 square feet 

per acre. Basal area requiring treatment is calculated based on basal area at dbh; however the difference 

between basal area at dbh versus stump basal area at 1 foot has a negligible effect on estimating average 

application rates. Given the recommended application level, the amount of Sporax application per acre 

would range from approximately 1.6 to 6.7 pounds, with an average of approximately 1.9 pounds per 

acre. 

The use of Sporax has been analyzed for environmental risk and human health and safety within the 

South Shore project. Control measures to protect aquatic features and TES plants are described in Chapter 

2. No Sporax would be applied within 25 feet of standing or running water. Sporax application rates 

would be low (generally less than 1 pound per acre) within stream environment zones because of 

equipment exclusion zones and high levels of tree retention in SEZs. An application rate of 10 pounds per 

acre (over 10 times the projected application rate) would result in a concentration level of 100 ppb (parts 

per billion) of sporax in water. This equates to a Q-value of 0.00004, well out of the EPA acute toxicity 

level of >0.1. Both location and application rate of Sporax would pose little potential for water 

contamination. Sporax would not be applied during rainfall events to avoid washing off target stump 

surfaces. A project specific spill plan is included in project records. Research indicates that if a significant 

spill occurred, it is unlikely that measured amounts in water would be above background, natural levels of 

boron (Dost et al 1996). The potential for Sporax leaching is low as it is adsorbed to mineral particles in 

the soil (Dost et al 1996). 

High levels of Sporax are considered toxic to soil microorganisms and plants. Application rates of 9 to 15 

lbs per 100 square feet (ground surface area) applied directly to vegetation will eradicate plants (Dost et 

al. 1996). These levels are much higher than application rates proposed for stump treatment. Research 

data has not indicated elevated levels of boron in foliage, litter or soil adjacent to treated stumps (Dost et 

al. 1996). Research suggests that accumulation of boron resulting from cut stump applications sufficient 

to harm either nearby plant life, or animals that depend on those plants for subsistence is unlikely (Dost et 

al. 1996). 

Extreme cases of chronic over-exposure have produced symptoms of chronic poisoning, respiratory 

irritation, and chronic eczema in humans, but there is no evidence that Sporax use in a forested setting has 

resulted in chronic health issues (Dost et al. 1996). Applications of Sporax within the South Shore project 

would follow all applicable Federal and California rules and regulations, including requirements for 

worker protection, storage, and environmental protection. Dost et al (1996) concludes “the evidence 

indicates that workers who apply Sporax or DOT to cut stumps are not at risk of adverse effects due to 

boron exposure. Existing data also indicates that adverse effects of forest uses of Sporax or DOT on 

wildlife or livestock are improbable.” Since the use of Sporax has not been shown to cause toxicity to 

soil, water, plants or humans in a forested setting and the proposed treatment would be a one-time, low 

dosage site specific application, no measurable cumulative effects are anticipated (USDA FS 1995; Dost 

et al. 1996). 

Bark Beetle

 Thinning would decrease the risk of stand mortality caused by bark beetles by reducing stand density 

levels to below 60% MSDI. Thinning would remove diseased and injured trees, which are most 

susceptible to bark beetle caused mortality (Demars and Roettgering 1982; Ferrel 1986; Kegley et al 

1997; Smith 1971), and also reduce tree competition, which can improve resistance to beetle attack. 

Approximately 67 percent or 7,126 acres of stands within the project area would be below 60% of MSDI 

post thinning. Within 20 years, approximately 53 percent of the area would remain below 60% of MSDI. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Forest Vegetation 3-47 

 

The same representative stand that was projected for the No Action alternative existing conditions shown 

in Figure 3-5 above was modeled in the forest vegetation simulator model (FVS) to display and compare 

for projected stand conditions with a mechanical thinning treatment under Alternative 2. The stand is a 

mixed conifer stand with 518 TPA, an SDI above 100% of maximum, and a basal area of 378 square feet 

per acre. The stand is lightly infected with mistletoe with approximately 6 trees per acre infected and a 

DMI of 1.6. The projected results of proposed thinning on this stand provide an example of conditions 

and results for stands at similar densities and undesirable stand conditions. This stand’s current condition 

is shown in Figure 3-5 above, and is shown post treatment and after 20 years in Figure 16 below. 

Stand 28 post treatment Stand 28 at year 2027 

Source: USDA Forest Service, “Forest Vegetation Simulator” 

Figure 16. Stand conditions post-treatment and after 20 years 

After mechanical thinning, this stand had 53 TPA with diameters ranging primarily between 12 inches 

and 20 inches dbh. The stand averaged 122 square feet of basal area per acre and was at 40% of 

maximum SDI. Stand development at twenty years was also modeled in FVS and had an average of 160 

feet of basal area per acre and was at 53% of maximum SDI. The number of trees per acre does not 

include the projected natural regeneration that may occur. 

Dwarf mistletoe remained in the stand overstory after thinning, indicating that the larger diameter trees 

(greater than 20 inch dbh) were the infected trees. Compared to the No Action Alternative, the number of 

trees infected over time was reduced under Alternative 2. One additional tree is projected to become 

infected in the 20-year timeframe. Because there would be fewer total trees, and the remaining large trees 

already infected are included in the averaged overall infection (DMR), the level of infection appears to 

increase. A summary of stand conditions post thinning, in 10 years, and in 20 years is shown below 

(Table 3-19). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-48 Chapter 3 

Table 3-19. Stand 28 Pre- and Post-Thinning Summary Conditions Over 20 Years 

Year TPA BA SDI DMI DM-TPA 

2007 (pre) 518 378 654 1.6 6 

2008 (post) 53 122 168 1.6 6 

2017 52 141 200 2.1 6 

2027 52 160 221 3.0 7 

Prescribed pile burning and underburning may cause some damage to residual trees including scorching 

from convective heat or direct flame contact. This may result in charring of the bark and boles of the 

trees and mortality of the lower branches. Damage to trees from burning or other falling operations may 

result in a greater risk of insects or disease attack. 

With Alternative 2, should a wildfire occur it is expected that the area burned would burn at mostly low 

intensities. With low intensity surface fires, there may some damage to residual trees including charring 

of the bark and boles and mortality of the lower branches. Damage to trees from a wildfire may result in 

a greater risk of insects or disease attack. 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 3 would apply the same treatments as described under the proposed action except the acres of 

stands thinned with mechanical equipment would be reduced and acres of hand thinning would increase 

(Table 3-20). There is also a shift in mechanical treatment acres from whole tree to cut-to-length methods. 

With Alternative 3 the total treatment acres is reduced by 558 acres (Table 3-20). 

Table 3-20. Comparison of Total Acres of Treatments for Both Alternatives 

Treatment Type Alternative 2 

Acres 

Alternative 3 

Acres 

Difference 

Acres 

Hand Thinning 4,942 5,961 1,019 

Cut-to-Length 1,910 2,010 100 

Whole Tree 3,818 2,141 -1,677 

Total 10,670 10,112 -558 

The amount of stands treated within wildlife areas would also be reduced (Table 3-21). Changes to 

treatments are aimed at reducing impacts to sensitive species and their habitats as discussed in the wildlife 

section of this analysis. 

Table 3-21. Comparison of Total Acres of treatments within Wildlife Areas for Each Alternative 

Wildlife Areas Treatment Alternative 2 

Acres 

Alternative 3 

Acres 

Change 

Acreage 

Hand Thin WA 1,481 1,962 412 

Mechanical WA 2,696 1,728 -1,168 

Total Wildlife Areas 4,177 3,690 -487 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Forest Vegetation 3-49 

 

Alternative 3 would have fewer total acres of thinning treatments than Alternative 2 but the amount of 

pile burning would increase because Alternative 3 would have less mechanical thinning and more hand 

thinning. The number of acres chipped or masticated would increase due to changes in mechanical 

thinning methods, with more cut-to-length instead of whole tree yarding. See Table 2 in Chapter 2 for a 

comparison of activity acres for the action alternatives. 

Stand Composition and Structure 

Stand compostion and structure would be the same with Alternative 3 as Alternative 2. Healthy fireresilient dominant and co-dominant overstory trees would be retained resulting in an overstory consisting 

primarily of shade intolerant species such as Jeffrey pine, and sugar pine where it currently exists. Some 

stands would have a mix of pine with red fir, white fir and/or incense cedar. Some trees in the mid-story 

and understory would be retained where they are healthy well-growing trees that are isolated from serving 

as ladder fuels. Some wildlife areas would have more of the smaller trees in the understory retained to 

meet required habitat conditions. 

Aspen Treatments

Aspen stand acres would change from 293 acres treated with Alternative 2, to 251 acres treated with 

Alternative 3. The activities and effects for Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2 for the acres 

treated except that Alternative 3 proposes treating 42 fewer acres than Alternative 2. 

Stand Density 

Hand Thinning

For Alternative 3, hand thinning would be applied on 5,961 forested acres. The overall average maximum 

SDI would be about 49% consisting of 2,075 acres that would meet desired SDIs and BAs post treatment 

including approximately 736 acres of wildlife areas. Wildlife areas would average about 53% MSDI post 

treatment (Table 3-22). 

 

Table 3-22. Post Treatment Values and After 10 and 20 Years (Hand) 

Treatment 

Post 

Treatment 

Ave % Max 

SDI 

Post 

Treatment 

Ave BA 

(ft2) 

10 Years 

Ave % 

Max SDI 

10 Years 

Ave BA 

20 Years 

Ave % 

Max SDI 

20 Years 

Ave BA 

Hand Thin 50 149 55 170 61 193

Hand Thin – WA* 53 161 60 187 66 211

All Hand Thin 49 147 56 171 62 196

* Wildlife areas 

Mechanical Thinning

Mechanical thinning would treat 4,151 forested acres for Alternative 3. Of those, 2,141 acres are wholetree logging system and 2,010 acres of cut-to-length. Mechanical thinning would remove trees up to 30 

inches dbh, with most trees being 20 inches dbh or less. Approximately 39 of the stands totaling about 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-50 Chapter 3 

1,064 acres would include removal of trees between 20 and 30 inches dbh in order to meet desired stand 

density conditions. Trees 30 inches dbh and greater would only be cut to facilitate operability (SNFPA 

ROD, USDA FS 2004c). 

The current 30 inch diameter limit for thinning stands would limit meeting the desired stand conditions of 

40% MSDI after treatment on about 11 acres. The overall average for mechanical stands outside of 

wildlife areas would be just under 40% MSDI (Table 3-23). After 20 years only about 91 acres of 

mechanically thinned stands would be above the MSDI level of 60%. For the Wildlife areas, the average 

post treatment would be just under 60% MSDI and at 72% after 20 years (Table 3-23). 

Table 3-23. Post Treatment Values and After 10 and 20 Years (Mechanical)

Treatment 

Post 

Treatment 

Ave % MSDI 

Post 

Treatment 

Ave BA 

(ft2) 

10 Years 

Ave % 

MSDI 

10 Years 

Ave BA 

20 Years 

Ave % 

MSDI 

20 Years 

Ave BA 

Cut-to-Length 36 103 45 126 52 151

Whole Tree 37 117 45 122 50 159

Mechanical - WA 58 169 66 196 72 218

All Mechanical 47 137 55 160 61 184

Thinning Operations and Roads

The changes from mechanical thinning to hand thinning result in a reduction in temporary roads and 

landings needed for logging operations in Alternative 3 (Table 3-24). 

Table 3-24. Summary of Roads and Landings Needed between Alternatives 2 and 3 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Decrease 

New temporary roads 4.8 miles 3.3 miles -1.5 miles 

Existing temp roads 8.8 miles 6.5 miles -2.3 miles 

Number of Landings 219 168 -51 landings 

The total number of acres cleared as landings for mechanical harvest operations would be reduced from 

150-200 acres in Alternative 2, to about 100-150 acres in Alternative 3. The construction of new 

temporary roads would be reduced to total approximately 3.3 miles. The total number of acres cleared for 

new temporary road construction would also be reduced by about one acre to total approximately 5 acres. 

Temporary roads would be decommissioned at project completion the same as in Alternative 2. 

Treatment prescriptions preclude the harvest of trees 30 inches in diameter and larger; however, in some 

cases, these trees may need to be cut to facilitate operability (SNFPA ROD, USDA FS 2004c). These 

cases could include: clearing for landings, temporary road construction, and hazard tree removal. As in 

Alternative 2, clearing for landings and temporary road construction operations is expected to impact less 

than 15 percent of the treated areas. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Forest Vegetation 3-51 

 

Prescribed Burning

As with Alternative 2, prescribed underburning or pile burning post-thinning would remove excess 

remaining surface fuels resulting in reduction of surface fuels to the desired levels of less than 10 to15 

tons per acre. The effects of prescribed burning would be the same as described in Alternative 2. Changes 

expected from a natural disturbance such as wildfire are also the same as described in Alternative 2. 

Forest Health 

Thinned stands would increase forest health in the treatment areas by removing damaged and diseased 

trees and favoring retention of trees that are the most vigorous, with well developed crowns indicating 

better overall growth. Thinning would reduce competition and allow remaining trees to improve their 

overall growth and vigor and better withstand disease and insect attacks. As in Alternative 2 there would 

be less CO2 released due to less mortality occurring from otherwise high stand densities. With the 

reduced risk of active fire versus surface fire, there would be a reduced amount of CO2 released should a 

wildfire occur. 

Dwarf Mistletoe

Effects from implementation of Alternative 3 are similar to Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would reduce the 

spread of dwarf mistletoe to some degree; however, existing management direction will limit the amount 

of overall mistletoe reduction because removal of larger trees that may be heavily infected with dwarf 

mistletoe is prohibited. In stands where it is important to maintain stocking levels and canopy cover for 

wildlife habitat, infected trees would remain in the stands and would continue to serve as a source for the 

infection of adjacent and understory trees. The Mean DMI for stands that were modeled using FVS is 

about 0.8 with increases of about 0.2 over 20 years. The number of trees infected (DM-TPA) decreased 

by an average of 40 trees per acre over 20 years, and the average mortality also decreased by about 7 

TPA. 

 Annosus Root Disease 

As discussed in Alternative 2, there would be exposed stumps from both the hand and mechanical 

thinning treatments. This alternative also proposes to apply an EPA registered borate compound (Sporax) 

to all cut stumps of true fir and pine trees equal to or greater than 14 inches to protect against the spread 

of annosus root disease. The effects of applying a borate compound to 4,151 acres of thinning under this 

alternative would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 2. 

With Alternative 3, stands were dropped from the project in some areas such as wildlife areas, and other 

stands were changed from a proposed mechanical thinning treatment to hand thinning. The decrease in 

mechanical treatments would also reduce the acres of which the sporax compound would be applied. This 

treatment applies mainly to the mechanically thinned stands; however, there are hand thinned stands with 

prescriptions for falling of larger trees in which application of sporax would occur. Thrifty well growing 

trees are thought to have some resistance by outgrowing the rate of infection. The proposed treatments 

will maintain or improve tree vigor by reducing stand densities, however, thinning is not expected to 

remove all annosus infection, nor will it address infections outside of treatment stands. 

Bark Beetle

Thinning would decrease the risk of stand mortality caused by bark beetles by reducing stand density 

levels to below 60% MSDI. Approximately 65 percent, or 6,916 acres, within the project area would be 

below 60% of MSDI post thinning. Within 20 years, approximately 4,979 acres would remain below 47% 

of MSDI. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-52 Chapter 3 

As with Alternative 2, prescribed pile burning and underburning may cause some damage to residual trees 

including scorching from convective heat or direct flame contact. This may result in charring of the bark 

and boles of the trees and mortality of the lower branches. Damage to trees from burning or other falling 

operations may result in a greater risk of insects or disease attack. 

Should a wildfire occur it is expected that the area would burn at mainly low intensities. With low 

intensity surface fires, there may some damage to residual trees including charring of the bark and boles 

and mortality of the lower branches. Damage to trees from a wildfire may result in a greater risk of 

insects or disease attack. 

Alternative Comparison Summary 

Although forests are dynamic systems and are constantly changing, these changes are somewhat less 

predictable than expected effects from the action alternatives. For comparison of the alternatives, the No 

Action alternative is shown as remaining in the existing conditions. Alternative 2 would treat more acres 

within the project area than Alternative 3 and more acres would be mechanically thinned rather than hand 

thinned. Both action alternatives would have similar residual average densities after both hand and 

mechanical thinning, including the wildlife areas. Compared to Alternative 1 (no action) both action 

alternatives greatly reduce the overall stand densities and number of acres exceeding the desired 40% 

maximum SDI level (Table 3-25). Both action alternatives would retain fire-resistant stands with densities 

that provide resistance to insects and disease and overall healthier forest. 

Table 3-25. Stand Density Summary for All Alternatives 

Alternative Hand 

Thin 

Mechanical 

Thin 

Wildlife 

Areas 

Untreated 

Stands 

All 

Stands 

1 

No Action 

Acres N/A N/A N/A 10,670 10,670

Ave % Max SDI N/A N/A N/A 84 84

Ave BA N/A N/A N/A 200 200

Acres >40% 

MSDI 

N/A N/A N/A 8,550 8,550

2 

Proposed 

Action 

Acres 3,392 3,032 4,246 0 10,670

Ave % Max SDI 49 38 56 N/A 48

Ave BA 150 113 172 N/A 144

Acres >40% 

MSDI 1,805 21 2,798 N/A 4624

3 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Acres 3,999 2,423 3,690 558 10,670

Ave % Max SDI 50 37 56 75 54

Ave BA 150 110 165 168 149

Acres > 40% 

MSDI 2,686 11 2,712 472 5,881

Desired forest conditions under either of the action alternatives would be similar to when they were 

dominated by widely spaced, large-diameter trees, such as Jeffrey pine and sugar pine. Treated areas 

would be more open and dominated by larger trees with relatively few scattered understory trees and 

regeneration. For both action alternatives, trees would be healthier and better able to withstand 

background levels of insect and disease outbreaks. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Forest Vegetation 3-53 

 

Cumulative Effects 

Analysis of cumulative effects is based on management activities that have or is expected to occur within 

the project area. The area considered for silviculture cumulative effects is the project area because stand 

growth and development is primarily dependent on site conditions such as soils, elevation and 

precipitation. Stand and site conditions elsewhere (outside of the treated stands) generally have little 

effect on treated stands, with the exception of effects on forests insect populations. 

Activities and management since 1986 within the project area are considered in this analysis because the 

effects of the past silvicultural treatments are still occurring (i.e. Improved health and vigor of thinned 

stands, reduction of surface fuel loads and ladder fuels, and the establishment or maintaining of pine 

stands). Management activities and events prior to this are considered in this analysis in so far as they 

have shaped current stand structure conditions. 

The existing stand conditions are the result of past management and treatments that include logging, 

fuelwood harvest, hand thinning for fuels reduction, and fire suppression. Stand structure has changed 

following Comstock-era logging between 1880 and 1920. Prior to European settlement of the west and 

Comstock-era logging, large trees characterized Sierran forests, relatively open understories with only 

occasional ladder fuels (Verner and McKelvey, 1994). Open stands dominated by larger trees with 

relatively few scattered understory trees and regeneration are conditions that supported low to moderate 

intensity ground fires. 

Periodic wildfires, which would have consumed some of the small trees, have been suppressed. Fire 

exclusion has resulted in an increase in the number of small diameter trees. Logging disturbance also 

creates canopy openings and scarifies the soil, which can lead to seedling establishment. Forests of the 

Sierra Nevada, including the project area, have developed fuel ladders, accumulations of surface fuels, 

and there has been an increase of shade-tolerant conifers such as white fir and incense cedar (Verner and 

McKelvey 1994) in the forest understory. Since 1945 there has been an increase in the true fir type and a 

comparable decrease in the pine type in Sierra Nevada forests (Beardsley et al 1999). This is true of the 

South Shore project area as well. 

Past Activities 

Descriptions of current stand composition and structure, and density as described in the “Existing 

Conditions” section, account for and include changes as a result of past actions. All known major past 

activities from 1986 through 2010 that occurred on Forest Service lands and other known Community 

Fire Safe Projects,are summarized below (Table 3-26). In some cases activies may overlap, for example 

most units treated by hand thinning are also pile burned. As a result the acreages shown in Table 3-26 are 

not additive. 

Table 3-26. Activities within the Project Area from 1986 to 2010 

Activity Acres 

Hand Thin 6,583

Pile Burn 14,888 

Under Burn 5,657

Mechanical Thinning 9,319

Mechanical Chipping or Mastication 10,048

Hand Lop and Scatter 1,477

Helicopter Yarding 849
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-54 Chapter 3 

Past hand and mechanical thinning primarily entailed thinning from below similar to the action 

alternatives for the South Shore project. Thinning from below removes predominantly smaller trees and 

retains healthy larger overstory trees. Thinning and prescribed burning occurred in order to reduce the risk 

of high intensity wildfires by reducing fuel loads and fuel ladders, as well as reducing stand densities to 

improve overall health of the stands. 

Activities such as Christmas tree cutting, cutting of posts and poles, and firewood have and will continue 

to have little effect on stand structures except within small localized settings. Christmas tree cutting 

generally selects for healthy open grown fir seedlings that may otherwise grow into mid-story or 

overstory trees, however cutting is concentrated in a narrow band along a few accessible roadways. While 

firewood cutting occurs throughout much of the project area, the level of removal of dead wood has no 

appreciable effect on stand growth or understory regeneration. Ground disturbance from vehicles 

accessing firewood can injure small trees as well as expose mineral soil as a seed bed for new seedlings, 

however live overstory trees still provide the most dominant influence on understory development. 

Stands that have had salvage harvest of fire killed or windthrown trees, or individual hazard tree removal 

can contain a wide range of residual stand structure. The salvage treatments are not shown as a separate 

activity in Table 3-48, instead treatment acres were included in the mechanical or hand thin category 

depending on how the trees were felled and/or removed. 

The Angora Fire occurred in June 2007 and burned approximately 3,100 acres within the South Shore 

project area. The fire altered the stand conditions by creating large areas of openings where only snags of 

various sizes currently exist. In some areas (about 40%) the fire burned at low to moderate intensities 

creating a mosaic of both live and standing dead trees and a patch understory of shrubs and other 

vegetation. In most areas within the burn, the stand densities where reduced to desired or below desired 

densities. 

Foreseable Future Activities 

Activities currently planned on Forest Service land within the project area include the Angora Fire 

Restoration project. The Angora Fire Restoration project proposes to remove most of the snags left in the 

burn area as well as live trees where stand densities are above desired levels. The treatments proposed 

include a mix of mechanical, and hand removal operations. Post operations fuel treatments include, 

lopping and scattering, chipping or masticating, and hand piling and burning. The total acres for 

treatment are approximately 1,411 acres consisting of up to 964 acres of mechanical treatment and up to 

447 acres of hand removal. Adjacent to the project, the City of South Lake Tahoe, Lake Valley Fire 

Protection District, Fallen Leaf Lake Fire Protection District, and California Tahoe Conservancy are 

implementing fuels and vegetation treatments on state and private lands. This work is being done as part 

of the Lake Tahoe Basin Multijurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy. 

The estimated total of all planned vegetation and fuels management activities for the years 2011 through 

2015 including other Forest Service and Community Fire Safe projects is approximately 1,100 acres of 

hand thinning with follow-up pile burning. Approximately 1,030 acres are planned for mechanical 

harvest. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Forest Vegetation 3-55 

 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Stand Composition, Structure and Density 

There are no cumulative impacts to stand composition, structure and density under the No Action 

alternative. Current stand conditions would only be altered through time with natural changes and 

disturbances as well as proposed future activities. 

Forest Health 

There are no cumulative impacts to forest health under the No Action alternative. Current forest health 

conditions would only be altered through time with natural changes and disturbances as well as proposed 

future activities. The other vegetation and fuels projects described under Foreseeable Future Activities 

are small in scale when compared to South Shore Project treatments and do not change the forest at the 

landscape level. 

. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Stand Composition, Structure and Density 

Cumulative effects of Alternative 2 would be the addition of acres to the areas already treated from past 

projects, as well as the acres proposed for treatment in the future. Cumulative effects would be an 

increase of areas with low stand densities, fewer small understory trees, and less of the undesired species 

such as white fir and lodgepole pine. 

Comparison of Alternative 2 treatment acres with the cumulative total acres provides an indication of the 

contribution to total thinning activities from Alternative 2 in the South Shore project analysis area. The 

acres of activities proposed for the South Shore project area under Alternative 2, the cumulative total 

when adding past activities and other planned projects, is summarized in Table 3-27, this. 

Table 3-27. Total Acres of Past and Proposed Activities in the Project Area 

Activity Alternative 2 

(acres) 

Analysis Area 

Total (acres) 

Hand Thin 4,942 12,625 

Pile Burn 4,887 20,875 

Under Burn 850 6,507 

Mechanical Thinning 5,728 16,077 

Mechanical Chipping or Mastication 2,480 12,528 

Hand Lop and Scatter 198 1,675 

Helicopter Yarding 0 849 

Thinning and prescribed burning would continue to retain or promote a higher component of pine within 

mixed conifer and white fir stands. Lower stand densities in the thinned stands will also promote the 

health of pine, since pine does not grow at the higher stocking densities where white and red fir can 

persist. Thinning and prescribed burning under Alternative 2 would add to past activities and 

cumulatively reduce fuel loads and fuel ladders, and contribute to reducing the risk of high intensity 

wildfires, as well as reducing stand densities to improve overall health of the forest. The degree of initial 

stand density reduction and lasting effects would be relative to the existing stand conditions and whether 

the stand is treated by hand or mechanical thinning. Road construction from past projects throughout the 

project area has decreased the forested area. Areas of formerly forested lands are now clearings for roads. 

Approximately 7.7 miles of road construction is also proposed under the Angora Fire Restoration project. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-56 Chapter 3 

All temporary road construction as part of the South Shore project would be decommissioned as 

described Chapter 2. While there would be a short term loss of forest vegetation, there would be no 

increase of permanent road clearings, and therefore no long-term cumulative loss of forest vegetation 

from implementation of Alternative 2. 

Forest Health 

The added number of acres treated would result in greater number of areas where healthy forest 

conditions exist. Thinned stands would increase overall forest health by removing damaged and diseased 

trees and favoring retention of trees with well developed crowns indicating better overall growth and 

ability to better withstand disease and insect attacks. Healthy thinned stands would not act as a reservoir 

for disease and insects to spread to other areas of the forest, which would have a positive cumulative 

effect for adjacent stands. 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

Stand Composition, Structure and Density 

Cumulative effects of Alternative 3 would be the addition of acres to the already treated areas from past 

projects, as well as the acres proposed for treatment in future projects. Thinning and prescribed burning 

would continue to retain or promote a higher component of pine within mixed conifer and white fir 

stands, similar to Alternative 2. Lower stand densities in the thinned stands would also promote the health 

of pine, since pine does not grow at the higher stocking densities where white and red fir can persist. 

Thinning and prescribed burning under Alternative 3 would add to past activities and cumulatively reduce 

fuel loads and fuel ladders, and contribute to reducing the risk of high intensity wildfires, as well as 

reducing stand densities to improve overall health of the forest. The degree of initial stand density 

reduction and lasting effects would be relative to the existing stand conditions and whether the stand is 

treated by hand or mechanical thinning. Alternative 3 allows a lower number of acres to be treated and 

more of the treatments would be hand thinning. The result would mean a lesser degree of initial stand 

density reduction and lasting effects for Alternative 3. The current and lasting conditions of the areas 

previously treated would also be based on whether the stand was treated with a hand thinning or 

mechanical thinning. 

Comparison of Alternative 3 treatment acres with the cumulative total acres that includes past activities 

provides an indication of the contribution to total thinning activities from Alternative 3 in the South Shore 

project analysis area. The acres of activities proposed for the South Shore project area under 

Alternative 3, the cumulative total when adding past activities, and other planned projects, is summarized 

in Table 3-28. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Forest Vegetation 3-57 

 

Table 3-28. Total Acres of Past and Proposed Activities in the Project Area 

Activity Alternative 3 

(acres) 

Project Area 

Total (acres) 

Hand Thin 5,961 13,644 

Pile Burn 5,217 21,205 

Under Burn 774 6,431 

Mechanical Thinning 4,151 14,500 

Mechanical Chipping or Mastication 2,617 13,665 

Hand Lop and Scatter 170 1,647 

Helicopter Yarding 0 849 

Road construction from past projects throughout the project area has decreased the forested area. Areas of 

formerly forested lands are now clearings for roads. Approximately 7.7 miles of road construction is also 

proposed under the Angora Fire Restoration project. All temporary road construction in Alternative 3 

would be decommissioned as described Chapter 2. Because there is less temporary road construction in 

Alternative 3, there would be less short term loss of forest vegetation. However, as in Alternative 2, there 

would be no increase of permanent road clearings, and therefore no long-term cumulative loss of forest 

vegetation from implementation of Alternative 3. 

Forest Health 

As is in Alternative 2, the added number of acres treated would result in greater number of areas where 

healthy forest conditions exist. Thinned stands would increase the overall forest health by removing 

damaged and diseased trees and favoring retention of trees with well developed crowns indicating better 

overall growth and better withstand disease and insect attacks. Healthy thinned stands would not act as a 

reservoir for disease and insects to spread to other areas of the forest, which would have a positive 

cumulative effect for adjacent stands. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-58 Chapter 3 

Analytical Conclusions 

This section provides a brief summary of the conclusions of the effects analysis for forest vegetation. It 

provides linkage from design features in Chapter 2 to the magnitude, scope, and intensity of the 

environmental effects for forest species composition, stand structure and cover, and forest health from 

project activities. 

Under the No Action Alternative, shade-tolerant white fir and incense cedar would continue to increase 

and crowd out pine species. The resulting increase in basal area and stand density would both increase 

ladder fuels and increase competition for water, nutrients, and sunlight. Trees under stress from 

competition show increased mortality from drought, insects, and disease. Lodgepole pine and other 

conifers would continue to encroach on riparian areas, and aspen stands and increase the risk of damage 

from wildfire. Alternative 1 would continue the current decline in forest health. 

Both of the action alternatives are designed to promote forest health. Over-crowded stands would be 

thinned to a sustainable MSDI that would reduce inter-tree competition for light, water, and nutrients. The 

remaining forest would display increased resistance to insects and disease and greater tolerance to 

drought. Preferential retention of Jeffery pine would increase fire resistance and help restore historic 

species composition. Retention of the larger trees without adjacent ladder fuel from small trees would 

increase resistance to wildfire throughout the project area. Conifer removal in aspen stands would be 

sufficient to encourage aspen regeneration, increase the health of these stands, and prevent loss of aspen 

stands at risk on 290 acres of aspen for Alternative 2 and 251 acres for Alternative 3. The result of 

increasing the health of aspen stands is to increase the vegetative diversity in the South Shore project area. 

For both action alternatives, the removal of encroaching conifers from riparian areas reduces fire risk to 

these sensitive areas and encourages riparian vegetation with greater value for streambank stability. 

Culmination of Mean Annual Increment (CMAI) 

Stands proposed for thinning treatments were not evaluated for culmination of growth. These treatments 

are not subject to the CMAI finding. Thinning treatments are exceptions permitted for sound silvicultural 

practices to meet multiple use objectives (36 CFR 219.16(2)(iii)). 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Geology and Soil Resources 3-59 

Geology and Soil Resources 

Geology 

Scope of the Analysis, Indicators and Indicators of Effect 

Geology provides the mineral components of soils and influences the flow and distribution of 

water on the landscape. Indicators of geologic factors that may influence or impact project 

activities would include: steep slopes, unstable soils, presence of high water tables, and 

landslides. 

Existing Conditions – Geology 

The Lake Tahoe area lies within a basin that was created by parallel faults with a roughly northsouth general direction. The basin is formed by the faults which lower part of the terrain relative 

to areas that are uplifted. 

Graben is the geological term for the lowered part of the terain, and the uplifted part is called a 

“horst.” Graben is German for ditch. 

Horst is a German word with no English language equivalent; in general terms it means an 

uplifted hill. These fault-created basins are common in Nevada, as well as portions of 

southeastern Oregon and southern Idaho. 

This geographical area is referred to as the “Basin and Range Province.” The range component 

of the Lake Tahoe area includes the mountains to the west and east of the lake, while the valley 

and Lake Tahoe itself form the basin. The Lake Tahoe area is very active geologically with basin 

and range style faulting and steep slopes where landslides and snow avalanche chutes are 

commonly found. 

In the most recent geologic past (less than two million years) the Lake Tahoe area also had 

volcanic activity. This is not uncommon in basin and range style fault zones. However, the 

probability of future volcanism occurring in the Lake Tahoe area is very low. 

Environmental Effects – Geology 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Under Alternative 1 (No Action) there would be no direct or indirect increase to geologic risk 

because there would be no ground-disturbing activity. Because there would be no direct or 

indirect effects, there would also be no cumulative effects. A severe wildfire could increase the 

potential for mass movement due to vegetation removal. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Areas with a high geologic risk, as defined within the geologic hazard/risk study completed by 

Koler and Curren (2008), are not common in either of the action alternatives (see tables below). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-60 Chapter 3 

High risk areas are found only in the hand thin activity areas. In their study, Koler and Curren 

showed that high risk areas were usually confined to hillslopes with a slope gradient greater than 

60%. 

Because no mechanical treatment activity would be allowed on slopes above a 30% hillslope 

gradient in the South Shore project, the geologic risk is negligible. The high risk areas identified 

in the analysis for cut-to-length units (small portions of stands 14, 307, 308, 309, 345) have 

slopes greater than 60%, which would not receive mechanized treatment. 

Only hand treatments are proposed on slopes greater than 30%, which do not result in measurable 

ground disturbance, and would therefore not increase existing geologic risk. 

Although very little of the project activity area is within the high geologic risk designation, 

caution would be applied when hillslopes are saturated. It is possible that under saturated 

conditions hillslopes with a gentle hillslope gradient (i.e., less than 30%) can become active due 

to management activity. In these situations activities would be postponed until operable soil 

conditions exist (see Chapter 2 for Resource Protection Measures). 

Table 3-29. Geologic Hazard Areas for Alternative 2 

Activity High Risk 

(Percent of Area)

Moderate Risk 

(Percent of Area)

Low Risk 

(Percent of Area)

Road Recon. 0 39 61

Existing Temporary Roads 0 57 43

New Temporary Roads 0 90 10

Cut-to-length <1 41 59

Hand Thin 7 83 10

Whole Tree 0 76 24

Table 3-30. Geologic Hazard Areas for Alternative 3 

Activity High Risk 

(Percent of Area)

Moderate Risk 

(Percent of Area)

Low Risk 

(Percent of Area)

Road Reconstruction 0 39 61

Existing Temporary Roads 0 53 47

New Temporary Roads 0 86 14

Cut-to-length <1 43 57

Hand Thin 6 85 9

Whole Tree 0 67 33

Analytical Conclusions 

The resource protection measures in Chapter 2 limit mechanical thinning operations to dry soils 

on slopes <30%, which would reduce the geologic hazards for the South Shore project to nonsignificant levels. Under either action alternative, the resource protection measures for the 

transportation system, as well as the placement of roads on gentle slopes would reduce hazards 

for landslides or mass movements well below a threshold of significant risk. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Geology and Soil Resources 3-61 

Soil Resource 

Scope of the Analysis and Indicators 

Law and Policy Governing the Soil Resource 

The maintenance of productivity and the need to protect and improve the quality of the soil 

resource, and avoid permanent impairment of productive capability of Forest Service lands is 

governed by the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, and 

the National Forest Management Act of 1976,. 

The LTBMU Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA FS 1988) provides guidance specific 

to the Lake Tahoe Basin. Standards for maintaining soil productivity are found on pages IV- 39. 

Soil function in riparian conservation areas (RCAs) is addressed by standards 103, 111, and 122 

in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA FS 2004). 

The policies that guide vegetation management practices in order to sustain soil quality are found 

in the Forest Service Manual (USDA FS 2010). 

Scope of Analysis 

In addition to supporting native vegetation and wildlife, soils play a critical role in supporting 

watershed and ecosystem health through their functions of accepting, storing, and releasing water. 

The soils analysis analyzes the effects of the alternatives on the soil resource. Proposed activities 

are discussed in terms of their effects on soil quality and soil productivity. All discussion of 

water quality impacts is in the hydrology analysis. Information in the soils analysis is not 

intended to predict water quality impacts and should not be used for that purpose. 

For the no action alternative, the entire analysis area will be used to analyze the impacts of a 

potential wildfire. For the action alternatives, the spatial scope is limited to the vegetation 

treatment units and associated landings, burn areas within a prescribed burn, and temporary roads. 

Effects to soil productivity on system roads and trails are not analyzed because these areas are not 

dedicated to growing vegetation. Soil productivity is a site-specific attribute of the land; soil 

productivity of one area is not dependent on the productivity of an adjacent area. Thus, direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects on soils are analyzed for the treatment units, landings, burn areas, 

and temporary roads. 

The temporal scope for assessment of soil resource environmental effects includes short term (1-

10 years following vegetation treatment) and long term (10-20+ years following vegetation 

treatment) for this analysis. 

Indicators 

The following indicators form the basis for this analysis and are defined and discussed below: 

 Soil Porosity and Soil Hydrologic Function 

 Effective Soil Cover 

 Surface and Subsurface Organic Matter 

 Severe Burning 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-62 Chapter 3 

These are the primary indicators of soil productivity that may be affected by forest management 

activities such as thinning, slash disposal, prescribed fire, and road construction and maintenance. 

Soils may be compacted by mechanized equipment traffic, thereby affecting soil porosity and 

hydrologic function. Erosion may result when surface soils are disturbed by mechanized 

equipment or hand crews; effective cover, including surface organic matter, is an indicator of 

erosion potential. Subsurface organic matter is generally lost through erosion, if the soil surface 

is not adequately protected. Severe burning most often results from wildfire, but may result from 

burning slash piles. 

Soil Porosity and Soil Hydrologic Function 

Porosity is the space between individual soil particles. Maintenance of natural soil porosity is 

important for maintaining healthy native plant communities and for maintaining the hydrologic 

function of the soil. Soil compaction results in a decrease in porosity and an increase in soil bulk 

density and soil strength. Potential direct effects of compaction include reduced movement of 

water and air through reduction in size, continuity, and total volume of pores, as well as a 

potential loss to soil structure as measured by a decrease in the size, strength, and number of soil 

aggregates. Potential indirect effects are multiple: 

 Severe compaction can inhibit root growth when the soil becomes too dense for roots to 

penetrate easily; this may reduce both root and top growth. 

 Compaction decreases infiltration and hydraulic conductivity, the movement of water 

into and through soils, which in turn increases surface runoff and erosion potential. 

 Soil compaction decreases the transmission of water, nutrients, and air to roots. 

 Conversely, slight to moderate levels of compaction on coarse-textured soils may 

increase water storage, making water and nutrients available to plants throughout a longer 

period during the growing season (Gomez et al 2002). 

 If moisture and aeration are decreased, soil organism activity may be reduced, slowing 

nutrient and organic matter cycling. 

Soil hydrologic function is the ability of water to move into and through soils. Infiltration is the 

movement of water into soils, while hydraulic conductivity (sometimes called permeability) is the 

movement of water through soils. Soil hydrologic function is primarily controlled by physical soil 

properties such as texture, structure, and porosity. Soil texture, the relative distribution of sand, 

silt, and clay, is not affected by forest management activities. Soil structure, the arrangement of 

individual soil particles into aggregates, and soil porosity can both be impacted by forest 

management activities that cause compaction. Infiltration can also be reduced when the soil 

surface becomes hydrophobic (water repellent). Water repellency results when soil particles are 

coated with compounds derived from plant material decomposition or severe burning. 

Effective Soil Cover 

The presence of effective soil cover generally indicates that the soil surface is adequately 

protected from accelerated erosion. Effective soil cover is defined as live vegetative plant 

canopies, plant litter and duff, and rock fragments at least 1⁄2 inch in diameter. 

Surface erosion is the detachment and transport of individual soil particles by wind, water, or 

gravity. Accelerated (human-caused) erosion can impair site productivity and water quality. The 

topsoil (A horizon) is the most fertile and biologically active part of the soil profile due to its 

enrichment by organic matter in varying stages of decomposition. Loss of all or part of this 

horizon through erosion impairs the ability of the soil to support natural vegetation communities 

and often imparts a competitive advantage to non-native invasive species (weeds). 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Geology and Soil Resources 3-63 

When eroded soil is deposited in water bodies it can impact water quality and aquatic habitats. 

Fine particles such as clays and colloidal organic matter can decrease the clarity of Lake Tahoe 

because they tend to remain in suspension rather than sinking to stream or lake bottoms. The 

discussion of erosion as it relates to water quality is found in the Water and Riparian Resources 

section of this chapter subsequent to this section. 

Surface and Subsurface Organic Matter 

Soil productivity, nutrient cycling, and pollutant filtering capacity are, in part, dependent on the 

chemical and biological properties of soils, especially organic matter. Decomposed subsurface 

organic matter has a role in aggregate formation and promotes the transfer of air and water 

through soils, provides nutrients that are available to plants, and increases water-holding capacity. 

Organic matter also serves as a major reservoir for terrestrial carbon. 

Climate is usually the most important factor for controlling organic matter accumulation and 

decomposition under natural conditions, although organic matter is easily influenced by human 

activities because it is concentrated near the ground surface. Surface organic matter abundance is 

influenced by mechanical site disturbance, through thinning and harvest operation and by 

repeated foot or vehicle traffic. Thinning operations remove organic matter by removing 

vegetation that would otherwise decompose onsite; the amount removed depends on the intensity 

of treatment. Foot and vehicle traffic may pulverize organic matter, making it more susceptible to 

erosion by wind and water. Subsurface organic matter may be lost through erosion, soil 

displacement, or severe burning. 

The current overly dense condition of most forest stands in the Lake Tahoe Basin may have 

produced thicker surface organic horizons than were present before the Comstock logging era. 

Larger amounts of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous, and other nutrients may be present in forested 

ecosystems than under more natural conditions, so caution should be used in interpreting the 

impacts of present-day changes in surface organic matter on long-term site productivity. 

Severe Burning 

Severely burned soil is a condition where most woody debris and the entire forest floor are 

consumed down to bare mineral soil. Soil may have turned red due to extreme heat; in wildfires 

in the Sierra Nevada, about 1-2% of the area may have severely burned soil (Ulery and Graham 

1993). Fine roots and organic matter are charred in the upper one-half inch of mineral soil. 

Severely burned soils are identified by ratings of fire severity and the effects to the soil. A range 

of soil impacts may result: soil humus losses, structural changes, hydrophobic characteristics 

(water repellency) and sterilization are potential effects of severely burned soil. 

The approximate temperature ranges for some heating effects are listed in Table 3-31 (Neary et al 

2005, DeBano et al 1998, Ulery and Graham 1993). The degree of soil heating is dependent the 

duration of the fire and soil moisture. Large, concentrated fuel sources such as logs, stumps, or 

large slash piles burn longer and produce greater heat at greater depths than smaller, less 

concentrated fuels. Soil moisture limits soil temperature increases to about 95° C until all the 

water in the soil has been evaporated (Neary et al 2005). Temperatures above 400° C are usually 

associated with reddened soil color resulting from chemical transformations of iron-containing 

minerals (Ulery and Graham 1993). Temperatures that alter clays and soil minerals are too hot to 

permit the formation of a water repellent layer (DeBano et al 1998), so these impacts do not occur 

in the same place. 

Fire produces changes in soils that affect plant growth. Humus losses alter nutrient contents. 

Intense soil heating can release some nutrients and temporarily increase the soil pH, changing 

nutrient availability in mineral soil. When soil microorganisms and invertebrates in the surface 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-64 Chapter 3 

layers are killed, a wide variety of ecological services are decreased or suspended until these 

communities recover; this is sometimes described as sterilization. 

Soil structural changes and water repellency impact soil-plant water relations and soil hydrologic 

function. Soil aggregate structure collapses when the organic matter that served as a binding 

agent is destroyed; this decreases porosity. If the soil surface is bare, raindrops may displace soil 

particles and ash, partially or totally sealing surface soil pores; which decreases infiltration, and 

increases surface runoff and erosion potential. Soil may be lost through erosion when large areas 

of bare mineral soil are exposed by fire, potentially impacting both soil productivity and water 

quality. 

Table 3-31. Temperature Ranges for changes in Several Soil Properties 

Heating Effect on Soils Temperature Range 

Lethal to living organisms 60° - 100° C 

Subsurface organic matter destruction 200° - 400° C 

Water repellency 176° - 288° C 

Clay mineral alteration and mineral transformation 400° - 800° C 

Existing Conditions – Soil Resource 

Soils in the project area developed from glacial and alluvial materials derived primarily from 

granitic rocks, but with some metamorphic and volcanic rocks (Saucedo 2004). Soils are 

generally coarse textured, with coarse sand, loamy coarse sand, and sandy loam surface layers. 

Hellhole and Watah soils are organic soils primarily derived from decomposed peat. The Tahoe 

and Bidart soils have organic surface layers derived from decomposed plants. Slope steepness 

ranges from 0-75%. Approximately 78% of the proposed treatment acres have slopes less than 

30%; approximately 22% of the treatment acres have slopes greater than 30%. 

The analysis area includes 92 soil map units. Each map unit usually includes two or more 

individual soil types, or components. The acres of each soil map unit in the proposed treatment 

units are listed in the project record. Detailed information about the soils may be found in the soil 

survey of the Tahoe Basin area (USDA NRCS 2007). There are three areas within the project 

boundary that were not included in the Soil Survey. There are no treatment units in the largest 

area, which is the part of the Heavenly Ski Area permit boundary that extends outside the Tahoe 

Basin. The smaller areas are in treatment units southeast of Echo Lake. adjacent to the Eldorado 

National Forest, and due to mapping inconsistency are within the LTBMU administrative 

boundary, but outside of the LTBMU soil survey and watershed boundary for streams that drain 

into the Lake Tahoe Basin. Soil type descriptions are the same as LTBMU soils inside the 

LTMBU watershed boundary. 

Stream Environment Zone (SEZ) Soils 

For the purpose of this analysis, the Tahoe, Watah, Marla, Bidart, Hellhole, and Celio soils, and 

the Beaches miscellaneous areas are considered stream environment zone (SEZ) soils. Beaches 

are associated with the shorelines of Lake Tahoe. This list of SEZ soils was compiled in 

consultation with TRPA and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for use in this 

analysis. 

Watah and Hellhole are peat soils not suitable for mechanical treatment due to wetness and 

vegetation and habitat sensitivity. Hellhole soils are not located in the South Shore Project 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Geology and Soil Resources 3-65 

treatment units, and will not be discussed further in this analysis. The estimated acres of SEZ 

soils by treatment type are listed in Table 3-32. These acreages were derived by calculating the 

percentage of SEZ soil components in each map unit, summing them, and converting to acres for 

the treatment type. 

While the composition of soil map units is highly accurate over the entire soil survey area, the 

relative proportion of soil components in any given delineation (mapped polygon) may or may 

not match the map unit composition. For example, a soil map unit may have an estimate of 20% 

SEZ soils, but the composition of soil map units is an average, therefore an individual delineation 

of that map unit on the ground may have a different percentage of SEZ soils. However, over the 

entire soil survey area, the map unit composition will be very close to 20% SEZ soils. 

The proposed treatment units were mapped more precisely than the soil survey, so some slivers of 

SEZ soils appear to be present along the edges of some treatment units on the map which are not 

actually present in the units on the ground. This is the case for several units that are adjacent to 

the Truckee Marsh, as well as other parts of the analysis area. Thus it appears that the treatment 

units include wet soil types not suitable for mechanical treatment in most years on a GIS map, but 

in fact, these soils are excluded by the unit boundaries. 

Table 3-32. Estimated Acres of SEZ soils by Treatment Type for the Project Area 

Alternative Cut-toLength 

Hand 

Treatment 

Whole Tree 

Yarding** Total 

Alternative 2 448 87 198 733 

Alternative 3 387 137 169 693 

* SEZs within WT units would be treated by hand falling and endlining trees out of 

the SEZ. 

During the summer and fall 2007, the LTBMU forest soil scientist and an assistant traversed 72 

proposed treatment units, comprising 2,728 acres. The selection of units for survey was 

purposeful; surveys were undertaken in units proposed for whole tree yarding and units where 

mechanical treatment of stream environment zones (SEZs) is proposed, because these treatment 

types generally pose a higher risk of soil impacts than hand thinning or cut-to-length operations 

outside of SEZs, as well as a higher risk of water quality impacts. Field surveys included five 

units proposed for mechanical treatment in Alternative 2 that were changed to hand thinning in 

Alternative 3 because these onsite evaluations revealed them to be too steep, too wet, or road 

access was inadequate (Table 3-33). The field surveys include two main kinds of information: (1) 

verification of the mapped soil type and (2) observations of impacts from past and ongoing 

activities. 

Table 3-33. Summary of Soil Field Surveys by Proposed Treatment Type for the 

Project Area 

Proposed Treatment Type Number of Units Acres 

Cut-to-length 37 400 

Whole Tree Yarding 29 2044 

Hand Thinning 5 283 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-66 Chapter 3 

Soil verifications from the soil survey were used where available, where data collection points 

fell within a treatment unit. The soil mapping, which was done at a scale of 1:24,000, proved 

highly accurate. In a few instances, soil boundaries were off by 50-100 feet, but onsite soil 

descriptions nearly always fell within the range of the map unit description. Soil data points from 

the soil survey and from field surveys for this project are shown on the soil map in appendix 2 of 

the soil resources specialist report. 

Obviously eroded or compacted areas were noted on 12 units. All were localized instances and 

most were small areas; 0.09 acre is largest area observed. 

The area occupied by linear disturbance features such as user-created trails and non-system roads 

used for utility and sewer maintenance was estimated for each unit. These features add to the 

cumulative compacted and eroded surface area. Ocular estimates of linear disturbances are 

summarized in Table 3-34. 

Table 3-34. Ocular Estimates of Linear Disturbance Features in the South Shore 

Treatment Units 

Percent of Area with 

Linear Disturbance 

Features 

Estimated 

Disturbed 

Acres 

Number of 

Units 

Total Acres 

Observed 

<1% 0-9 42 918 

1-5% 7-36 10 729 

5-10% 13-26 5 261 

>10% >44 7 443 

The USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region also uses an interagency erosion hazard 

rating based on site-specific observations (CA Soil Survey Committee 1989). These ratings were 

completed for the units proposed for whole tree harvesting, since that harvest system is more 

likely to result in the greater amount of bare mineral soil susceptible to erosion, and recent 

monitoring has shown little to no accelerated erosion in most cut-to-length units. Units were rated 

in areas with conditions typical for the unit. This rating considers soil erodibility factors, runoff 

production factors, a runoff energy rating, and soil cover factors. All of the 19 units rated had a 

low erosion hazard rating, based on their current condition. Aside from the eroded areas noted 

above, most of the proposed treatment units currently have ground cover adequate to prevent 

accelerated erosion. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Geology and Soil Resources 3-67 

Environmental Consequences – Soil Resource 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under Alternative 1, no new management actions are proposed so no new soil effects would 

occur. Past and ongoing management activities and uses, such as previous vegetation 

management activities, and road and trail use, utility corridor use, would continue to affect soil 

resources. None of these uses would significantly impact the soil resource. 

Potential for Soil Impacts from Wildfire 

Potential impacts to soils in the event of wildfire include severe erosion, loss of nutrients and 

organic matter, reduced infiltration, and destruction of soil macro- and microorganisms. Effects to 

soil resources from the No Action alternative would be expected to be similar to the 2002 

Gondola Fire which resulted in significant soil loss from erosion. Short term effects also included 

significant increases in soil solution concentrations and/or leaching of mineral forms of nitrogen, 

sulfur, and phosphorous. The most significant long term effect was the loss of ecosystem nitrogen 

from the forest floor (Murphy et al 2006). The geographic extent of wildfire impacts would 

depend on the fire, but impacts to soils would likely be distributed unevenly within the fire 

perimeter, and their severity would be variable. 

The impact to soils from wildfire in the proposed treatment areas would likely be greater under 

Alternative 1 than under Alternative 2 or 3 (see Fire and Fuels report for details and analysis). 

The effectiveness of fuels treatments similar to what is being proposed was demonstrated by postwildfire analysis of the Angora Fire (Murphy et al 2007). This report found that most of the area 

fuel treatments reduced fire behavior from a crown fire to a surface fire. Because less heat is 

generated in a surface fire than in a crown fire, surface fire impacts to soils are generally less than 

crown fire. Similarly, reducing crown fuels was found to moderate extreme fire behavior in four 

different ecosystem types across the United States. An important feature these sites had in 

common was historical short fire return intervals, a feature also shared by the Tahoe basin (Omi 

and Martinson 2002). 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Soil resource impacts would be similar in nature under either action alternative, but the area 

subjected to impacts from various activities would change by alternative. Overall, hand 

treatments would increase in Alternative 3, and there would be an increase in CTL treatment 

acres and a decrease in WT treatment acres in Alternative 3. The area impacted by temporary 

road construction and reconstruction of existing closed roads would decrease in Alternative 3. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-68 Chapter 3 

Road Construction, Use, and Maintenance 

Soil Porosity and Hydrologic Function

Soils affected by permanent road construction and maintenance are removed from productive 

status; these soils are not dedicated to growing vegetation because they are a part of the 

permanent transportation system. Maintaining soil porosity on permanent roads is not an 

objective. 

New temporary road construction would result in compaction of otherwise undisturbed soils.. 

Existing closed roads that would be reconstructed would experience some degree of additional 

compaction, especially along the edges where vegetation has begun to encroach on the road prism 

and porosity has begun to recover. Road maintenance before and during the project would have 

minimal effects on porosity. 

New temporary roads on soils with low rock content (generally less than 30-40% cobbles by 

volume) would be decommissioned. Decommissioning would be accomplished by ripping 

compacted soils, and mulching and or seeding areas of soil disturbance. Thus, new temporary 

road construction would create short term impacts to soils, but decommissioning would facilitate 

recovery of soil productivity over the long term. New temporary roads on rocky soils would not 

be ripped, as this tends to leave an unacceptable amount of loose soil subject to erosion; they 

would receive soil cover from chips or masticated material, as described in Chapter 2. The 

decision of whether to rip a temporary road would be made on a site–specific basis; roads having 

more than 30-40% rock generally are not suitable for ripping. Soils likely to have rock content 

that would make them unsuitable for ripping include the Meeks soils in map units 7484, 7485, 

7487, 7488, and the Dagget soils in map units 9404 and 9405. 

Under Alternative 3 there would be about 1.5 miles less new temporary road construction than 

under Alternative 2. Assuming a road width of 15 feet, this means 2.73 fewer acres of soil would 

be subject to compaction and loss of hydrologic function resulting from new road construction 

under Alternative 3. 

Effective Cover

Maintenance of effective soil cover protects soil productivity by helping to prevent accelerated 

(human-caused) erosion. While maintaining soil cover on roads that are being used is not an 

objective, limiting accelerated erosion from roads is an important objective for maintaining soil 

productivity in areas receiving runoff from the road surface. Concentrated runoff from road 

surfaces has the potential to cause rilling and gullying, resulting in loss of topsoil and the 

potential for sediment deposition into water bodies. Restoration of effective cover on new 

temporary roads when they are decommissioned would reduce impacts to soils. Decommissioning 

would include the application of chips or masticated material at the end of their period of use. 

Cut and fill construction methods cause soil disturbance on areas adjacent to the road prism, 

extending the disturbance area. Structures to control runoff from the road surface may also add to 

the disturbed area. On forest roads, the design width is typically about 15 feet. When cut and fill 

slopes are required, the area of disturbance would be greater than the width of the road surface. 

These effects would be minor because most road construction proposed in this project would not 

require cut and fill. 

Impacts on existing temporary roads would be similar to those on new temporary roads, but of 

lesser magnitude. Reconstruction activities would vary by road segment, but could include 

restoring the original road prism, grading and stabilizing the surface, and installing drainage 

structures. Upon project completion, these roads would be closed and stabilized to control surface 

runoff. Impacts to soils would persist for a longer period of time on these roads than on the new 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Geology and Soil Resources 3-69 

temporary roads, depending on their designated use category. Over time, soil impacts would 

return to the level of designated use before the project. 

Heavy equipment tends to pulverize the soil surface, destroying soil structure and leaving a 

powdery surface layer that is susceptible to erosion by wind and water. Soil structure recovery 

would be a long term process, but wetting the road surface during periods of heavy use would 

help prevent wind erosion and subsequent air quality impacts. Road surface stabilization and 

drainage structures and permanent and temporary BMPs would be installed and maintained as 

needed to reduce soil impacts for both action alternatives. 

Resource Protection Measures and BMPs would mitigate losses of effective cover with the 

potential to cause accelerated erosion, so potential impacts would be similar for both action 

alternatives and would not be significant. 

Organic Matter

Surface organic matter would be largely absent from road surfaces; maintaining surface organic 

matter is not an objective for roads that are in use. Some subsurface organic matter would be 

removed through road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance; the amount removed would 

depend on the type of activity, with cut and fill construction removing the most and maintenance 

grading removing the least. Retaining subsurface organic matter is not an objective on roads that 

are a permanent part of the transportation system. Thus, the organic matter losses that are of 

concern for this analysis are surface and subsurface organic matter losses from new construction 

of temporary roads and existing temporary roads, because these areas are not part of the 

permanent transportation system. New temporary road construction would impact 2.7 fewer acres 

of soil and reconstruction of existing closed roads would impact about 4.2 fewer acres under 

Alternative 3 than under Alternative 2. 

On newly constructed temporary roads, some surface organic matter would be replaced by 

chipped or masticated material when the roads are closed at the end of the project. The amount of 

surface organic matter replacement would likely be less than the original forest floor, but in some 

cases might be the same or more. This material would be coarser than the forest floor that was 

removed, and would take longer to decompose. It would also contain more carbon and less 

nitrogen and other plant nutrients. Thus, replacement of subsurface organic matter by humus 

derived from this material would likely take more than a few years; subsurface organic matter 

loss would be a long term impact for the temporary roads. Surface and subsurface organic matter 

removal would be a long term impact for existing temporary roads. 

Mechanical Treatments 

Alternative 3 would increase the number of acres of hand treatments and CTL treatments and 

decrease the number of acres of whole tree yarded treatments over those proposed in Alternative 

2, and the acres of different types of fuel treatments would change as well (Chapter 2). The shift 

from whole tree to CTL and hand treatments would decrease overall soil disturbance. 

Soil Porosity and Hydrologic Function

Two types of logging systems would be used: cut-to-length harvester and forwarder (CTL) and 

whole tree yarding, using conventional harvesting and skidding equipment (WT). These systems 

are described in Chapter 2 of the EIS. 

In CTL units, soil porosity would be diminished on harvester and forwarder trails and on 

landings. These losses would be greatest on landings and forwarder trails, and least on harvester 

trails. Informal monitoring on past projects has shown that the total amount of area impacted by 

harvest equipment was slightly less than 15% (Scott Parsons, Ray Machado personal 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-70 Chapter 3 

communication). However, formal monitoring demonstrated that the loss of porosity on 

forwarder trails was 2.48% and 12.07% on landings (though only 2 data points were available on 

landings (USDA FS LTBMU 2007). No significant difference was measured between tracked and 

non-tracked bulk densities in the Heavenly SEZ project (USDA FS LTBMU 2008). Thus, it is 

likely that slightly less than 15% of the activity area would be disturbed by CTL operations, but 

the severely disturbed area would be considerably less than 15% because porosity decreases 

would be slight on much of the disturbed area. 

In WT units, impacts would be greatest on main skid trails and on landings. Soil disturbance in 

WT units could be more extensive than in CTL units. In a field-based comparison of WT and 

CTL systems, the WT system used a larger area than the CTL system (25% vs.20%). Forwarders 

tended to drive in the tracks created on previous trips, leaving the center of the trail relatively 

unimpacted, while skidders tended to not use the same tracks during repeat trips on a given trail 

because the skidded logs erased the previous tracks. This resulted in a wider average trail width in 

the WT unit (4.55 m) than that in the CTL unit (3.62 m), although trail length did not differ 

significantly between the two systems (Han et al Unpublished). 

In addition, soil compaction is often more severe in WT units than in CTL units (McNeil and 

Ballard 1992; Lanford and Stokes 1995). Where slash is available, the forwarder used in the CTL 

system drives on a slash mat, which cushions the soil, absorbing some of the ground pressure and 

vibration from the equipment. The effectiveness of the slash mat depends on its thickness and the 

number of times it is driven over (breakage reduces effectiveness). Thus, overall impacts to soil 

porosity would be greater on the whole tree (WT) units than in the cut-to length (CTL) units. 

Minimizing compaction is the most effective strategy for maintaining soil porosity. Operating on 

relatively dry soils and limiting areal extent of equipment traffic are highly effective preventive 

strategies. The method proposed for determining operable conditions in this project (estimating 

soil consistence and limiting most operations to soils with moisture levels below the plastic limit) 

is generally accepted (McNabb et al 2001). Operating on less sensitive or low risk sites is also 

very effective. Soils with low risk characteristics can tolerate greater variety of equipment and 

operating conditions (moisture) than high risk soils (Miller et al 2004). Compaction is inhibited 

on rocky soils (e.g. Meeks, Daggett soils) because compaction is limited when subsurface rocks 

are pushed against each other. 

Project area soils sensitive to compaction are the Tahoe and Watah soils in mapunits 7041, 7042, 

and 7071. Resource Protection Measures to minimize compaction include avoiding operation on 

wet soils and using designated skid trails to limit the extent of equipment traffic. CTL equipment 

would operate on Tahoe soils if conditions are dry enough, but Watah soils are usually associated 

with special aquatic features and would therefore be equipment exclusion zones. Heavy 

equipment would be excluded from SEZs in WT units, so heavy equipment would not operate on 

Tahoe and Watah soils in WT units. 

Surface soils tend to recover relatively quickly from compaction, but subsoil compaction may 

persist for decades, so loss of porosity is generally considered a long term impact (Sands et a 

1979; Froehlich et al 1985; Tiarks and Haywood 1996). Slight recovery may occur after 5-10 

years (Page-Dumroese et al 2006; Powers et al 2005). Recovery rates may vary with repeated 

disturbance, soil moisture during equipment operation, soil texture, and rock fragment content 

(Miller et al 2004; Williamson and Neilsen 2000; Liechty et al 2002). Soil variability within a site 

tends to be high, making interpretation of results difficult. Given these many factors, it is difficult 

to predict when compacted soils would recover to pre-project levels. 

The potential for impacts to soil porosity and soil hydrologic function would be greatest on 

landings and skid trails of whole tree yarded units. Assuming 10-15% of the unit is disturbed by 

skid trails, about 165-250 fewer acres would be impacted by skid trails under Alternative 3 than 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Geology and Soil Resources 3-71 

under Alternative 2. Likewise, fewer landings would be required for Alternative 3 than for 

Alternative 2 with 100-150 acres for Alternative 3 versus 150-200 acres of landings for 

Alternative 2. The increase in hand and cut-to-length treatments and the corresponding decrease 

in whole tree yarded treatments in Alternative 3 would result in a decreased potential for impacts 

to soil porosity and soil hydrologic function. However, the potential for compaction and the 

resulting loss of porosity is greatly decreased by operating on dry soil, so the difference between 

the alternatives is a difference in risk, with Alternative 3 having a lesser risk for negative impacts 

to soil porosity and hydrologic function. 

Effective Cover

Effective soil cover would decrease in mechanically treated stands on skid trails and landings in 

WT units and to a lesser degree on harvester and forwarder trails and landings in CTL units. 

SEZ treatments in WT units would consist of endlining (dragging) logs out of SEZs. This could 

displace soil in the path where the logs are dragged and could leave loose, bare soil on the 

surface. Additional effective cover would be provided by branches and tops of cut trees, which 

would be scattered onsite. Resource Protection Measures to mitigate loss of effective cover 

include endlining material along slope contours (i.e. cross-slope) on slopes greater than 10% and 

spreading slash over any ruts created by endlining.. . Implementation of these Resource 

Protection Measures would provide adequate effective cover to reduce impacts to soils within 

SEZs in WT units under both action alternatives. 

Cover would be restored to landings through chipping or mastication of slash, but in WT units, 

soil under landing piles would experience an additional loss of soil cover after burning, which 

would take place at least one year after treatment. Skid trails in whole tree units would be left 

without adequate effective cover until the autumn following operations, when needle cast would 

begin to replace cover removed or displaced by treatment activities. To control surface runoff, 

water bars would be installed on skid trails according to standard Forest Service specifications. 

Outside of landings, effective soil cover is normally restored to levels adequate to prevent most 

accelerated erosion within one to two years after treatment as conifer needles drop in the fall. 

For both action alternatives construction of water bars would limit erosion and resulting loss or 

displacement of topsoil, so again, the difference between the alternatives is a difference of risk. 

Fewer acres would be dedicated to skid trails under Alternative 3 than under Alternative 2, so the 

risk of erosion due to lack of effective cover would be lower. Similarly, the acres receiving cover 

of chips or masticated material would be greater under Alternative 3 than under Alternative 2. 

The potential for erosion in SEZs where logs would be end-lined out would also be less under 

Alternative 3 than under Alternative 2. 

Organic Matter

Mechanical treatments would alter the quantity and quality of surface organic matter, but would 

have little effect on subsurface organic matter. Surface disturbance from heavy equipment 

operation would displace surface organic matter. Material would be crushed by equipment, and 

some finer material would be pulverized, making it more susceptible to erosion. Limited amounts 

of subsurface organic matter would be displaced when harvest equipment displaces soil on turns. 

Displaced organic matter would be moved short distances and these changes in themselves would 

not negatively impact the productivity of soils in the activity area. 

In CTL units, organic matter would be displaced on harvester and forwarder trails in areas where 

little slash is available and on harvester and forwarder trails in SEZs (equipment would remove 

all slash from SEZs). Slash would be chipped or masticated and spread over the soil surface 

throughout most non-SEZ units, and on all landings. Grapple piling using a forwarder and pile 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-72 Chapter 3 

burning would be used for slash disposal in a limited number of CTL units - up to 515 acres 

under Alternative 2 and up to 374 acres under Alternative 3. This would reduce the amount of 

surface cover as compared to the chipping or mastication treatment, with effects more similar to 

the WT treatments. 

While mastication and chipping are primarily slash disposal methods, there is an added benefit 

for erosion control by providing interim soil cover and organic matter. The amount of organic 

replacement would depend on the amount of slash available, with a maximum depth of 6 inches. 

In past projects, ground cover after chipping or mastication has often been close to 100% (USDA 

FS LTBMU 2007) and is often thicker than the original forest floor. The chipped or masticated 

material would differ from the forest floor. Chipped or masticated material would have more 

carbon, more lignins and other compounds that slow decomposition, and lower nitrogen and other 

nutrient content than the naturally-occurring duff. 

In WT units, surface organic matter would be displaced on skid trails and on landings. Surface 

organic material lost from landings in WT units would be replaced by chipped or masticated 

material. Limbs and branches would be spread in SEZs, up to the point when the fuel loads reach 

15 tons per acre. In addition to providing effective cover where soil is disturbed by endlining, this 

material would replace surface organic matter. 

There would be a net loss of potential surface and subsurface organic matter in all units due to the 

removal of vegetation. Thinning is proposed in order to reduce stand density to conditions more 

appropriate to the ecosystem, so this loss would not be a significant detriment to soil quality. The 

current overstocked condition of forest stands have likely resulted in forest floor accumulations 

that are greater than the norm for the ecotypes in the project area. 

Surface organic matter would be replaced through chipping and mastication on 137 more acres 

under Alternative 2 than under Alternative 3. Because fewer landings would be required, organic 

matter disturbance and replacement by chipped or masticated material on landings would be 

decreased by about 50-100 acres under Alternative 3. 

Hand Treatment 

Effects on soil porosity, hydrologic function, effective cover, and surface and subsurface organic 

matter would be present on 1,019 more acres in Alternative 3 than Alternative 2. Of these, 51 

acres would be in SEZs and 968 acres would be in upland areas. To reduce fuel loads to an 

acceptable level, more than one entry may be needed on up to 1300 acres in Alternative 2 and up 

to 442 acres in Alternative 3. Soil resource impacts from hand treatments would be insignificant 

under both alternatives. 

Soil Porosity and Hydrologic Function

Hand thinning, piling, and burning slash would result in minimal soil disturbance. The only 

impacts to porosity would be from workers walking; this would not result in meaningful impacts 

to vegetation growth, soil water relations or soil aeration. 

Effective Cover

Minimal disturbance to the soil surface would result from hand treatments. Cutting trees and 

brush and dragging them to pile locations would not decrease effective soil cover enough to 

increase erosion potential. In areas of hand units where slope and soil moisture do not limit 

mechanized access, and where road access is available, slash would be chipped and spread in the 

unit. This would increase effective cover in the treated areas (up to roughly 350 acres in 

Alternative 2 and up to 700 acres in Alternative 3). 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Geology and Soil Resources 3-73 

Organic Matter

Hand falling and piling would not affect surface and subsurface organic matter. Surface and 

subsurface organic matter would only be affected by pile burning, discussed below. 

Prescribed Fire and Wildfire 

Prescribed fire includes burning of hand piles, landing piles, and underburning. Effects on soil 

porosity, hydrologic function, effective cover, and surface and subsurface organic matter would 

be present on 782 more acres in Alternative 3 than Alternative 2. Acres of hand piles would 

increase by 845 acres in Alternative 3, while acres of landing pile burns and underburning would 

decrease by 51 and 76 acres, respectively. 

Overall, soil impacts from prescribed fire would be similar under both action alternatives. 

Impacts to soils due to prescribed fire would probably be present after burning most landing piles 

in WT units, but would be present only occasionally under hand piles. It is likely that these 

impacts would be decreased in Alternative 3 as compared to Alternative 2 due to the decrease in 

landing piles. This decrease would be offset to some degree by the increase in hand piles, but the 

vast majority of hand pile burns would not result in detrimental soil effects. Because 

underburning generally results in minor impacts to soil quality, the decrease in underburning 

would not result in a meaningful difference in impacts between the two action alternatives. 

The potential for a severe wildfire that would significantly impact soil productivity would be 

slightly greater under Alternative 3 than Alternative 2, because fuel loads would be slightly 

higher and the potential for crown fire would be slightly higher under Alternative 3 than 

Alternative 2 in units where hand thinning would be implemented. 

Soil Porosity and Hydrologic Function

Underburning and slash pile burning would have minimal effects on soil porosity. Potential 

impacts would be loss of surface soil aggregate structure and clogging of soil pores by ash. These 

effects would be limited to the pile footprints for slash piles and would likely occur under most 

large landing piles and under a few hand piles. In underburns, these effects would be limited in 

area to soils under the occasional log or stump that burns for an extended period of time. 

Effective Cover

Pile burning in hand treatment units would not decrease effective soil cover within the unit to 

levels that would result in accelerated erosion, and cover losses would be a short term impact. 

Cover would be removed through burning of piles; however, observations of past treatments 

indicate an estimated 5 to 15% of the treatment unit area would be covered on average by piles 

(Rita Mustatia; personal communication). Burn pile footprints often have a concave surface that 

retains water, providing an advantage to emerging vegetation. 

If conditions are adequate to ensure control, prescribed fire may be allowed to creep beyond the 

edge of hand piles in order to remove additional surface fuels. This would result in some 

additional loss of cover, but this low intensity burning rarely consumes the entire forest floor, and 

usually leaves some cover in place. Effects of letting the fire creep adjacent to the piles would be 

similar to the effects from underburning. 

In CTL units prescribed fire would be used in some meadow and aspen stands, where prescribed 

underburning or hand piling and burning of created down wood and activity slash (fuels) may be 

included in the treatment. Resource Protection Measures specific to burning piles in SEZs would 

limit impacts to a non-significant level. Activity slash would also be burned in some CTL units 

that are grapple-piled; grapple-piling would not be implemented in SEZs. Loss of effective cover 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-74 Chapter 3 

from prescribed fire in WT units without underburning would be limited to the area covered by 

landing piles. 

Organic Matter

In hand treatment units, surface organic matter would be removed through pile burning and light 

burning of the forest floor associated with pile burning as described in the Effective Cover 

section. These would be minor losses due to the relatively small area affected by pile burning. 

Soil temperatures under burning piles would vary with soil moisture, pile size, and the diameter 

of the material in the piles, creating a range of impacts. Larger piles and larger diameter material 

would result in higher soil temperatures at greater depths than smaller piles and smaller diameter 

material. Fire allowed to creep beyond the piles would cause incomplete combustion of the forest 

floor. 

Virtually no subsurface organic matter would be lost from hand thinned units; extremely minor 

losses might occur under some piles if subsurface temperatures are high enough, but this is 

unlikely. Surface and subsurface organic matter losses would be less in hand treatment units than 

in mechanical treatment units. 

In WT units, slash piles for burning would be located at landings. As described in the effective 

cover section, surface organic matter would be lost under landing piles and under grapple piles in 

CTL units. Landing piles would generate enough heat in some cases to burn organic matter in the 

upper part of the surface soil horizon as well; this impact would be less likely under the smaller 

grapple piles. These losses would be minimal as they would be limited to the pile footprint. 

Severe Burning

The risk for severe burning effects to soils under either action alternative is considerably less than 

the No Action (Alternative 1), because the effect would be limited to the footprint of the burn 

piles rather than the more widespread effects that could occur under Alternative 1. 

Most of the studies on severe burning under slash piles involved the burning of large piles such as 

those that would be created on the landings in WT units. Temperatures lethal to soil organisms 

and plant roots could penetrate as deep as about 15-20 inches (Neary et al 2005). Soil water 

repellency would be more common in landing pile burns than in hand pile burns. Destruction of 

soil structure and clay mineral alteration would be likely in surface layers of some pile footprints. 

Clay mineral alteration is an irreversible impact, but would be limited in extent and would not 

significantly impair soil productivity. 

Underburning would not be likely to cause large areas of severely burned soil. Soil heating can 

be limited by burning when soils are moist to wet, which also may result in patchy duff 

consumption, reducing erosion potential (Knapp et al 2009, Busse et al 2010). Underburning may 

improve microbial response to wildfire. When a moderate intensity wildfire burned ponderosa 

pine forest, the microbial biomass in soils was nearly twice as great in soils subjected to 

prescribed fire three months before the wildfire than in soils without prescribed fire 

(Choromanska and DeLuca 2001). 

Losses of nitrogen and phosphorus from prescribed fire would offset the long term effects of fire 

suppression. Preliminary modeling by the University of Nevada, Reno suggests that levels of 

nitrogen, and phosphorus are higher than they were when fire was not suppressed in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin (Weisberg et al 2008). 

It is likely that the soil would be severely burned under some hand piles. Roots, seeds and soil 

microorganisms would likely be destroyed in the upper part of the surface horizon. Burning hand 

piles sometimes get hot enough to create a water repellent layer and destroy some subsurface 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Geology and Soil Resources 3-75 

organic matter, but rarely get hot enough to alter clay minerals. Usually, some unburned material 

is left in the pile footprint. Soil water repellency may begin to weaken in as little as 3 months and 

may persist for 1-2 years (Huffman et al 2001). 

Oversnow Mechanical Treatment 

Implementation of this treatment would be dependent on snow and weather conditions; it is not 

known if it would be implemented under either action alternative. Because of this, the extent of 

impacts is unknown but would be similar under both action alternatives. 

This type of treatment would have minimal effects on the soil resource because it would be 

implemented with over snow Resource Protection Measures (Chapter 2) and BMPs for winter 

road use. There would be little to no soil compaction, so impacts to porosity and soil hydrologic 

function would be insignificant. Heavy equipment operation would not disturb the soil surface, so 

effective cover and surface and subsurface organic matter would not be affected. The associated 

fuels treatment would be piling and burning slash; effects associated with these activities would 

be similar to those described for piling and burning above. 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

The No Action alternative could result in significant impacts; it could result in greater impacts to 

the soils resource than either of the action alternatives if a wildfire burned through untreated 

forest stands, but the impacts would depend on the extent and severity of the fire. Because the 

extent and severity of a wildfire are not predictable, and the No Action alternative without 

wildfire is also not predictable, no direct or indirect effects are measurable or predictable. 

Therefore, there are no measurable or predictable cumulative effects under Alternative 1. 

Alternatives 2 & 3 

Cumulative effects to soil productivity in the project area are reflected in the current conditions. 

Lingering effects from past actions are primarily compaction on closed roads and old landings 

and skid trails. Ongoing disturbance is primarily found on unauthorized recreation trails and 

access routes for sewer lines and other utilities. Compaction has been mitigated in some areas, 

such as landings in the Pioneer project and some decommissioned roads. Other projects, such as 

the STPUD B-line pipeline replacement have also resulted in localized short and long term 

impacts to soil productivity. Forseeable future actions in the project area include vegetation 

management and fuels reduction projects outside Forest Service lands, and stream restoration and 

transportation system improvement projects, most of which would have minor effects on soil 

productivity. 

However, cumulative effects to the soil resource would be limited to the proposed treatment units, 

as discussed above. Impacts to soil productivity outside the proposed treatment units would not 

contribute to additive, pulsed or synergistic effects. Previous vegetation treatments and 

recreational activities contribute to cumulative effects to the soil resource. For vegetation 

treatments, cumulative effects would be present where previous activity areas overlap proposed 

activity areas. Evidence of past treatments is evident in the project area; occasional skid trails that 

may date to the 1950s and 1960s were encountered. While often not readily visible on the 

landscape, these skid trails are apparent because the soils are compacted. 

The approximate acreage of past treatments for the past 10 years is known on a watershed basis, 

but it has not been possible to calculate the extent of overlap with the proposed treatment units. 

The Pioneer hazard reduction project (as modified), Angora hazard reduction, Tahoe Mountain 

timber sale, Spring Creek summer home tract, Camp Shelley hazard reduction project, and the 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-76 Chapter 3 

Cathedral fuel reduction and Aspen habitat enhancement project overlapped treatment units 

proposed in this project (Table 3-35). These projects are shown on Map 6. Most of the 

overlapped areas are either SEZs that were not treated previously because of equipment 

restrictions or hand treatment units in which it was not possible to reduce fuels to current desired 

conditions. The Angora project was a salvage sale in which the primary objective was to remove 

trees killed by bark beetles, so fuel levels are still above desired conditions. An estimated 400 

acres of tractor skidded ground treated in the Tahoe Mountain Timber Sale and about 400 acres of 

CTL and over snow treatments in the Spring Creek/Camp Shelly project would be treated again 

in the proposed project. Few extensive areas of compacted or eroded soils were observed during 

pre-project surveys, so it is unlikely that cumulative impacts to soils from previous vegetation 

treatments combined with South Shore treatments would exceed 15% of the area in any of the 

treatment units. 

Table 3-35. Past Vegetation Treatments in the South Shore Project Area 

Project Name Dates of 

Operation Logging System Overlap with South Shore project 

Pioneer hazard reduction 

project 1997-2003 

CTL and over snow no 

Hand thin, pile, and 

burn yes 

Angora hazard reduction 1995-1999 

Over snow no 

Hand thin, pile, and 

burn yes 

Tahoe Mountain timber sale 1994-1996 Tractor skid yes - approx. 400 

acres 

CTL and over snow no 

Spring Creek summer home 

tract, Camp Shelly hazard 

reduction project 

1993-1995 CTL and over snow yes - approx. 400 

acres 

Cathedral fuel reduction and 

aspen habitat enhancement 

project 

2004 -2006 Hand thin, pile, and 

burn yes 

Cathedral burn 1998 Prescribed burn yes 

The primary impact from recreational activities is user created trails, which contribute to 

cumulative effects to the soils resource through compacted areas that are subject to erosion. 

Resource Protection Measures would be implemented to prevent creation of additional 

unauthorized trails that are not a part of the permanent transportation system. The Trails Access 

and Travel Management project scheduled to begin implementation in 2012-13 would 

decommission 2 miles of unauthorized trails and implement BMP upgrades on 15 miles of trail in 

the Taylor Creek, Tallac Creek and Camp Richardson areas, reducing potential erosion sources 

and restoring porosity to the decommissioned trails. Thus cumulative effects from unauthorized 

recreational use would be reduced in the foreseeable future. 

Cumulative effects to soils would be greater under Alternative 2 than Alternative 3. Both action 

alternatives would produce greater cumulative effects on soils than the No Action alternative 

without wildfire. However, with implementation of the Resource Protection Measures and BMPs, 

neither Alternative 2 nor Alternative 3 would result in significant cumulative impacts to the soil 

resource. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Geology and Soil Resources 3-77 

Analytical Conclusions 

The impact to soils from wildfire in the proposed treatment areas would be greater under 

Alternative 1 than under Alternative 2 or 3 because the intensity of prescribed fire is controlled, 

while the intensity of wildfire is not controlled in most cases. The extent and magnitude of the 

impacts to soil productivity from Alternative 1would largely depend on the extent of severely 

burned soil, which in turn would depend on the extent and severity of the wildfire. Impacts to 

soil porosity from wildfire would likely be less than significant; some compaction would result 

from operation of bulldozers and other equipment used during fire suppression; the extent of 

these impacts would be small. Soil hydrologic function could be significantly affected due to the 

creation of water repellent soil layers; this would be a short-term effect that would dissipate over 

a period of 2-5 years. Effective soil cover could be significantly affected, and resulting erosion 

could constitute a significant long-term loss in soil productivity, depending on the amount of 

topsoil lost from slopes. Surface organic matter could be significantly affected; losses to 

subsurface organic matter due to burning and suppression activities would likely be less than 

significant. 

Implementation of the resource protection measures and BMPs (see Chapter 2 and Appendix B), 

in both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would prevent significant impacts to the soil resource 

Table 3-36). The extent of soil disturbance that affects soil productivity would not be of a size or 

pattern that would result in a significant change in production potential for the treatment units. 

Decreases in soil porosity and hydrologic function would primarily be the result of compaction 

from the use of mechanized equipment. The magnitude of this impact would be limited by 

requiring equipment to operate when soils are not wet, and thus less susceptible to compaction. 

The extent of the impact would be limited by requiring designated skid trails and forwarder trails, 

and limiting the size of landings. The extent of compacted areas would not constitute a 

significant change in soil productivity. The extent of areas with diminished hydrologic function 

due to the formation of water repellent soil layers during prescribed burning would not result in a 

significant change in soil productivity because the extent and magnitude of this impact would be 

limited through design of prescribed fire operations. 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-78 Chapter 3 

Table 3-36. Resource Protection Measures and BMPs that would limit Potential 

Impacts to Soil Productivity (in the South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest 

Restoration project) 

Indicator Relevant Resource Protection 

Measures Relevant Best Management Practices 

Soil Porosity and 

Soil Hydrologic 

Function 

WS3, WS7, WS8, WS9, WS10 

WS12, WS14, WS15 WS16, 

WS23,WS24, WS27, WS28, WS29, 

WS30, WS31, WS32, WS33, R19, 

R20, R21 

1-5, 1-12, 1-13, 1-18, 2-3, 2-26, 5-3, 5-

6, 7-3 

Effective Soil 

Cover /Erosion 

WS2, WS5, WS6, WS7, WS8, WS9, 

WS11, WS12, WS13, WS14 WS15, 

WS16, WS20, WS23,WS27, WS28, 

WS29, WS31, WS32, WS33, WS34, 

R3, R6, R4, R13, R17, R18, R20, 

R21 

1-3, 1-5, 1-6, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-12, 1-13, 

1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 1-17, 1-18, 1-20, 1-21, 

2-3, 2-7, 2-9, 2-26, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-6, 6-

1, 6-2, 6-3 

Surface and 

Subsurface Organic 

Matter 

WS5, WS9, WS12, WS13, WS14, 

WS15, WS16, WS20,WS23, WS27, 

WS28, WS33, R20, R21 

1-14, 1-15, 5-4 

Severe Burning WS4, WS9, WS17, WS18, WS19, 

WS20, WS21, WS22, 6-1, 6-2 

Effective soil cover adequate to control erosion would be provided in the CTL treatment units, on 

landings, and during road decommissioning by the application of chipped or masticated slash. On 

areas such as skid trails in WT treatment units and system roads, waterbars and other drainage 

structures would control erosion such that soil productivity losses due to concentrated flows from 

areas of bare soil would be less than significant. 

Surface organic matter losses due to fuels treatments and road construction are not likely to result 

in significant changes in soil productivity even without project Resource Protection Measures 

prescribing application of chipped and masticated slash, because overstocked forest stands have 

likely resulted in forest floor accumulations that are greater than the norm for the ecotypes in the 

project area. Thus, the nutrient pools needed to support native vegetation would not be 

diminished to levels that would significantly affect productivity. Subsurface organic matter 

losses would be largely limited to removal of topsoil during construction of temporary roads. 

This would be a long-term impact, but the limited extent would render it less than significant. 

Severely burned soil could result from prescribed fire, but is not expected to result from 

underburning or allowing fire to creep between slash piles. Some severely burned soil is likely to 

result from the burning of large landing piles. Limited areas of severely burned soils may be 

present under some hand piles and grapple piles, but the extent would be limited by Resource 

Protection Measures, especially those applicable to the burning of piles in SEZs. The extent of 

severely burned soil would be minimal; this impact would be less than significant. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Geology and Soil Resources 3-79 

The Resource Protection Measures (Chapter 2) include rehabilitation of all roads and landings to 

mitigate soil disturbance for all mechanically treated units, both CTL and WT units. The result 

would ensure that impacts remain below a significant level. 

Impacts from roads and mechanical treatments would be greater under Alternative 2 than 

Alternative 3. Impacts from hand treatments would be greater under Alternative 3 than 

Alternative 2. Overall, impacts to the soil resource would be greater under Alternative 2 than 

Alternative 3. 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-80 Chapter 3 

This page intentionally left blank. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-81

Water and Riparian Resources 

Scope of the Analysis and Indicators of Effect 

Scope of the Analysis 

The analysis boundary for the South Shore Project includes 21 United States Geologic Survey 

(USGS) designated Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds at the 7th field level (i.e., HUC7) 

(Map 10). HUC watersheds are a standard designation of watershed boundaries based on their 

relative size. HUC7 watersheds (between approximately 3,000 and 10,000 acres) are commonly 

used for NEPA analyses in this area because this watershed size has been shown to be large 

enough so that effects are not disproportionately magnified or segmented and missed entirely, and 

is small enough so that effects are not unrealistically diluted. 

Watershed is the term used throughout this section and refers to the HUC7 watersheds within the 

South Shore analysis area. 

The majority of the upper watersheds in the South Shore analysis area are publicly owned, 

although there is a substantial amount of private land in the lower watersheds nearer Lake Tahoe. 

Most of the private lands are developed into residential communities, commercial areas, and 

roadways. 

For this effects analysis, the South Shore project analysis area is defined as the outer boundary of 

all HUC7 watersheds in the south shore, and the South Shore Project area is defined as the 

proposed treatment acres. There are 18 HUC7 watersheds where project activities would occur 

and which drain into Lake Tahoe that were included in the effects analysis for the South Shore 

project. Two of the watersheds in the project boundary, Heavenly Valley Creek and headwaters of 

the Upper Truckee River, have no treatments in either action alternative, and therefore were not 

included in the effects analysis. In addition, one of the proposed South Shore treatment units 

extends slightly beyond Lake Tahoe Basin watershed boundaries into the Headwaters South Fork 

American River HUC7 watershed, which does not drain into the Lake Tahoe Basin. The Forest 

boundary is not concurrent with the watershed boundary in this area, but these lands are managed 

by the LTBMU. Because this small area does not drain into the Lake Tahoe Basin, it was also not 

included in the South Shore effects analysis. 

Several terms are used throughout this analysis section that may warrant explanation. For the 

purposes of this analysis, the definitions of these terms are assumed to be as follows. 

Stream Environment Zones (SEZs) are defined by TRPA and the Lahontan Water Board of 

California as biological communities that owe their characteristics to the presence of surface 

water or a seasonally high groundwater table (State of CA 2005). 

 The criterion for defining SEZs includes indicators for vegetation, hydrology, and/or soil type. 

For South Shore Project planning and analysis purposes, SEZ acres were determined based on the 

occurrence of 1B soil types taken from the NRCS 2007 soil survey (USDA NRCS, 2007). In 

addition, riparian vegetation was mapped by the USFS on infrared, low-altitude aerial 

photographs taken in 1987. For comparison, Map 11 displays SEZs in the South Shore analysis 

area based both on 1B soils and on the riparian vegetation GIS layer. 

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) are defined by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

(SNFPA, USDA FS 2004b) surrounding streams and other aquatic features. The RCA width is 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-82 Chapter 3 

only dependent on the stream or feature type (e.g., perennial, intermittent, ephemeral) and is not 

defined by the soils or vegetation present in the area. 

Riparian is defined as vegetation or habitat associated with a river or other water body. Riparian 

areas are the streamside areas that act as a transition from the upland to the watercourse. 

Floodplains are the relatively flat surface adjacent to streams that are flooded regularly at high 

channel flows. Floodplains may be, but are not always, meadows. Meadows are SEZs that 

primarily consist of grasses and sedges, and may or may not be associated with a stream channel 

(e.g. could be surrounded by forest vegetation, influenced by localized high groundwater). 

Indicators 

Water quality and watershed condition are major concerns to the public and state agencies in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin. Concerns about effects to watershed condition and water quality were two of 

the public issues for the South Shore project that were important in the development of 

Alternative 3, as discussed in Chapters 1 and 2. 

Indicators of both the current conditions and activity effects to water and riparian resources are 

complex, and will be discussed individually. The specific indicators for water and riparian 

resources are linked to aquatic management strategy (AMS) goals (SNFPA, USDA FS 2004b). 

Indicators for the water and riparian resources analysis include: 1) watershed condition, 2) stream 

channel condition, 3) water quality, 4) beneficial uses, and 5) SEZs, floodplains, and aspen 

stands. These indicators were evaluated using the measures described in the following subsections. Primarily GIS layers, technical reports prepared for other projects in the analysis area, 

and field reconnaissance was used to evaluate the current conditions and proposed activity effects 

on these indicators. The discussion of each indicator below contains a description of the existing 

conditions followed by an analysis of the effects of each alternative on that indicator. The 

cumulative effects discussion for water and riparian resources follows the individual indicator 

discussions, and concludes with the cumulative watershed effects analysis (CWE) and overall 

analytical conclusions. 

Background 

The South Shore project area is located on the south end of the Lake Tahoe Basin in the eastern 

Sierra Nevada mountain range. Elevations in the project area range from 6,224 ft. at lake level to 

approximately 8,000 ft. near Luther Pass. Average annual precipitation ranges from 

approximately 20-60 inches depending largely on elevation, and occurs mostly in the form of 

snow. Because most of the precipitation in this area is snow, spring snowmelt contributes the 

majority of the streamflow throughout the year. Rain-on-snow events are infrequent, but can 

dramatically affect the landscape and stream channel conditions within the project area. For this 

reason, rain-on-snow events can contribute disproportionate amounts of pollutants to surface 

waters and to Lake Tahoe. 

Within the South Shore project area there are 6,255 acres of RCAs and 732 acres of SEZs (see 

definitions above). Map 11 displays the SEZs in the South Shore analysis area based both on 1B 

soils (which was used for project planning and analysis) and on the riparian vegetation layer for 

comparison and to illustrate areas of overlap. Because both of these methods for determining SEZ 

locations and size have inaccuracies that may over- or under-estimate actual SEZ acres, the final 

SEZ designations for South Shore project implementation will be made based on field 

verification of SEZ indicators. 

Currently, both RCAs and SEZs have fuel loads that exceed the SNFPA desired conditions for 

WUI areas. Two reasons for the high fuel loading are: 1) the history of fire suppression in this 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-83

area, and 2) lodgepole pine and other conifer species encroaching in meadows, aspen stands, and 

riparian areas. Another factor contributing to these excessive fuel loads is that SEZ areas within 

fuel treatment projects have not had adequate fuels reduction, due to strict limitations for groundbased equipment operations in SEZs. The primary treatment in SEZs in recent years has been by 

hand crews, limited to removing trees only up to about 14 inches in diameter. Hand thinning in 

these areas has often not been able to successfully meet fuel reduction goals, leaving hazardous 

fuel loads remaining after treatments because a substantial amount of standing and dead material 

greater than 14 inch diameter is still present. The result is that SEZs in the project area with no 

past fuel reduction treatments, and many SEZs that have only been thinned by hand crews, are 

now identified as wildfire hazards near residential communities. 

The TRPA revised their Code of Ordinances in December 2004, in response to the Lahontan 

Water Board updating their Basin plan in 1995, to allow for the use of “innovative technology 

equipment” for vegetation management treatments in SEZs (State of CA 2005, TRPA 2004). The 

first projects to apply this new guidance have been completed and include the LTBMU Heavenly 

Valley Creek SEZ demonstration (HSEZ) project (Norman et al. 2008), the Celio Ranch project 

(Goldberg 2006), and the Roundhill SEZ Project (Loupe et al, 2011). Detailed information about 

the results from the HSEZ and Roundhill SEZ monitoring efforts are available below in the Water 

Quality and SEZ, Floodplains and Aspen Stands sections of this Chapter and in the Water and 

Riparian Resources specialist report (located in the project file). The HSEZ and Roundhill SEZ 

project monitoring results showed that mechanical treatment of SEZs with CTL forwarding and 

harvesting technology could be safely implemented under favorable soil conditions (i.e., 

relatively high Ksat and low soil moisture content) without causing ecologically adverse impacts 

to soil or water quality (Norman et al. 2008; Loupe et al. 2011). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-84 Chapter 3 

Overview of Treatments in Watersheds by Alternative 

The water and riparian resource effects were analyzed specific to the individual watersheds where 

treatments would occur under each of the action alternatives. The table below discloses the 

distribution of acres to be treated under each alternative by watershed for background 

information. 

Table 3-37. Treatment Acreage for HUC7 Watersheds in the South Shore Project Area 

HUC7 Watershed Name 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Drainage 

Area 

(Acres) 

Hand 

Treat. 

Acres 

Mech. 

Treat. 

Acres 

Total 

Treat. 

Acres 

Hand 

Treat. 

Acres 

Mech. 

Treat. 

Acres 

Total 

Treat. 

Acres 

Angora Creek 3693.6 448 217 665 571 71 642 

Benwood Meadow 3682.8 146 1 147 84 3 86 

Big Meadow Creek 3271.0 210 171 382 275 107 382 

Bijou Frontage 3763.3 239 16 256 239 16 256 

Camp Richardson Frontal 2658.0 167 540 707 196 511 707 

Cascade Creek 3019.1 1 0 1 1 0 1 

Cold Creek 8172.9 2 48 50 2 49 52 

Echo Creek 3459.7 126 116 242 211 25 235 

Glen Alpine Creek 6935.7 91 0 91 91 0 91 

Grass Lake 4032.6 417 222 639 512 127 639 

Headwaters of Trout Creek 7500.2 255 605 860 431 394 824 

Lower Trout Creek 3538.4 6 840 846 6 583 589 

Lower Upper Truckee River 4292.4 489 171 660 515 145 660 

Middle Upper Truckee 

River 4033.6 748 336 1083 787 293 1081 

Osgood Swamp 3145.6 212 399 611 259 277 535 

Saxon Creek 5397.2 588 413 1001 549 384 933 

Tallac Creek 2790.1 321 491 812 494 308 802 

Taylor Creek 4985.1 484 1080 1564 740 802 1542 

Note: Total treatment acres are slightly different than those presented in Chapter 2 and other sections of Chapter 3 

because of the treatment acres (approximately 54 acres) that are proposed in the American River HUC7 watershed, 

which is outside of the Lake Tahoe Basin, and was therefore not included in the Water and Riparian Resources 

Analysis.

Indicator for Watershed Condition 

Alternatives 2 and 3 are distinct from one another in many ways; however they do have several 

similarities. Throughout the following sections, the effects from Alternatives 2 and 3 are analyzed 

within the same subsection so that comparisons can be easily made and redundant text eliminated. 

Differences between the two action alternatives are identified for each of the indicators below. 

The specific indicators for water and riparian resources and their link to aquatic management 

strategy (AMS) goals (SNFPA, USDA FS 2004b) are provided first in each subsection, to provide 

background for the reader. The existing conditions and environmental effects for the indicators 

follows, with cumulative effects discussed last. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-85

AMS goal – Watershed Condition: Maintain and restore soils with favorable infiltration 

characteristics and diverse vegetative cover to absorb and filter precipitation and to sustain 

favorable conditions of stream flows. 

AMS goal – Watershed Connectivity: Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity 

for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically 

and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction. 

How indicator was measured 

 Potential for high intensity wildfire, and proportion of analysis area effected 

 Additional indicator is the results from CWE analysis at the end of this section 

Existing Watershed Condition 

Erosion and sedimentation in the south shore increased with the onset of urbanization, and 

increases in human population density led to increases in the amount of nutrients carried by 

surface water to Lake Tahoe (USDA FS LTBMU 2004). The rates of loading for finer particulates 

from hillslopes are currently higher than in the past. The dominant erosion process identified 

within the south shore is surface erosion. Trout Creek and the watersheds in the eastern portion of 

the analysis area have greater surface erosion potential than other drainages, likely because of the 

thicker layer of soil parent material and therefore greater potential to deliver sediment. 

Fire suppression and conifer encroachment have been identified as the main cause of overly dense 

upslope forest areas which can alter water flows and soil moisture conditions. Dense forest stands 

can remove more water in the upper watersheds, reducing the amount of water held in the soil 

profile and available to downstream areas. Without control by frequent fire, vegetation 

establishment and growth following Comstock-era logging has reduced forest structural diversity 

and increased the proportion of conifer vegetation types in riparian areas and aspen stands (USDA 

FS LTBMU 2004). 

The South Shore analysis area has been well studied in recent years due to the large number of 

channel and watershed restoration projects, erosion control projects, and vegetation management 

projects that have been implemented. In general, the upper portions of the watersheds in the 

South Shore analysis area consist of steeply sloping mountains that are primarily National Forest 

lands. The lower portions of these watersheds are relatively flat and more urbanized, with a 

mixture of private and public ownership. 

In 2007 the South Lake Tahoe community experienced a severe wildfire in the Angora Creek 

watershed. Field observations and aerial photography of the Angora Fire area indicate a range of 

fire intensities and effects. In lightly and moderately burned areas, the fire resulted in short-term 

detrimental effects including temporary loss of ground cover (soon replaced by needle fall), and 

mortality of the majority of the conifer trees. In areas with high intensity burns, effects were more 

detrimental in that ground cover was completely removed and nearly all vegetation was killed. 

Stream shade was almost entirely lost in some areas, and large and small organic material was 

eliminated. Although several years have now passed since the fire, and much of the potential for 

large scale erosion has decreased, the effects of the Angora Fire on several riparian zones within 

the burn area demonstrate that increasing forest resiliency to wildfire would better meet Forest 

plan riparian conservation objectives (RCOs) for the long-term. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-86 Chapter 3 

Environmental Consequences – Watershed Condition 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

With the No Action alternative, the watershed conditions in the South Shore project area would 

not be changed. Riparian areas and SEZs in the project area would continue to exhibit degraded 

conditions due to competition for water and nutrient resources from encroaching conifer 

vegetation. 

In addition, forested areas in each of these watersheds would remain in an overly dense condition 

with high fuel loads, and would continue to pose a wildfire threat to surrounding communities, 

possibly leading to destruction of life and property. Similar results as occurred in the Angora Fire 

area would be expected if a wildfire burned through riparian areas and SEZs in the South Shore 

project area under the No Action Alternative. The existing stand conditions were applied to a fire 

simulation model (Flammap) to predict wildfire behavior in the South Shore project area. The 

results of Flammap simulations indicate that a large proportion of the South Shore project area 

could be at risk of a high severity wildfire under Alternative 1, as described previously in the Fire 

and Fuels section of this Chapter. A high intensity wildfire would likely result in complete loss of 

vegetation and ground cover in riparian areas, SEZs and uplands. The effects this would have on 

watershed condition would depend on the extent of the high intensity fire, and may include 

decreased buffering capacity of transition zones between the land and water, large erosional 

events if precipitation occurs soon after the fire, and the associated potential loss of soil organic 

layers, exposing mineral soil and hindering and/or prolonging revegetation and recovery of 

burned areas. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

In contrast, the Flammap model simulations for the expected conditions after proposed treatments 

in both Alternatives 2 and 3 projected that either action alternative would reduce the threat of high 

severity wildfire considerably in comparison with the No Action alternative (see Fire and Fuels 

section of this chapter for more details). Therefore, both Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in 

long-term benefit to the watershed conditions in the South Shore analysis area by reducing the 

potential for negative watershed effects from a large scale, high intensity wildfire. In addition, 

project resource protection measures (Chapter 2) would prevent adverse effects to watershed 

conditions. Additional information about watershed effects is discussed in the Cumulative 

Watershed Effects section below. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-87

Indicator for Stream Channel Condition 

AMS goal – Watershed Connectivity: Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity 

for aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, chemically 

and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and reproduction. 

How indicator was measured 

 Stream channel crossing condition, and associated sediment delivery issues 

 Channel bank stability 

Existing Stream Channel Condition 

In general, erosion rates from alluvial lands are higher in the South Shore area than they were 

historically due to chronic, widespread, slow streambank and bed erosion caused by degraded 

stream conditions (USDA FS LTBMU 2004). The degraded stream conditions further facilitate 

encroaching conifer vegetation and the loss of woody riparian species such as willow and alders 

along stream banks. Many channel reaches are vertically and/or laterally unstable (WRA 2000, 

Tahoe Resource Conservation Dist. 2003, Swanson 2006, County of Eldorado 2003, Swanson 

2007, and Stantec 2006). Unstable stream channel segments are characterized by unprotected 

banks that have little resistance to erosion provided by bedrock and boulders, rooted woody or 

herbaceous vegetation, or embedded coarse woody debris. In some cases these banks are actively 

eroding. 

Stream channel conditions will be discussed in two groups due to the highly variable conditions 

in the South Shore project area: 

Upper Truckee River drainage covers the majority of the South Shore project area, and 

includes the following HUC7 watersheds: Headwaters of the Upper Truckee, Middle 

Upper Truckee, Lower Upper Truckee, Benwood Meadow, Big Meadow Creek, Grass 

Lake, Saxon Creek, Osgood Swamp, Angora Creek, Headwaters of Trout Creek, Lower 

Trout Creek, and Cold Creek. 

The Upper Truckee River drainage is the largest drainage area within the South Shore project 

area, draining approximately 56.5 square miles. Several of the channels within the Upper Truckee 

River watershed have been modified from their natural conditions by human activities, including: 

residential, commercial, and industrial development; roads; golf courses; railroad grades; gravel 

mining; livestock grazing; irrigation and ditching in floodplains; an airport; constructed berms 

along channel edges; and historic logging. In addition, natural sediment transport and channel 

hydrologic processes have been affected by placement of fill in the floodplain/meadow areas and 

construction of other structures such as bridges, culverts, and pipelines (i.e. sewer and water) that 

affect hydrologic function. Effects of these historic land use impacts are multiple. Channel 

straightening and deepening has decreased the occurrence of overbank flows and decreased the 

seasonal elevation of shallow groundwater in the surrounding meadows. Other effects are channel 

relocation; denuded meadows and stream banks; and increased runoff and sediment transport. The 

floodplains along these degraded channel sections often no longer function properly, and incised 

channel segments themselves act as a continued source of sediment, impacting water quality in 

downstream reaches (WRA 2000, Tahoe Resource Conservation Dist. 2003, Swanson 2006, 

EDOT 2003, Swanson 2007, and Stantec 2006). The majority of channel degradation has 

occurred in the lower portions of the channels, where urban development in the WUI has had 

more influence. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-88 Chapter 3 

While these impacts have resulted in degraded channel conditions in some locations, there are 

also portions of each stream channel in the Upper Truckee River drainage area that are functional 

and stable. The upper (headwater) sections of streams have been largely unaltered, and provide 

valuable water storage and habitat functions. 

A number of restoration projects have been completed recently within the Upper Truckee River 

watershed and will be discussed below in past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities for 

cumulative effects. The completed channel and SEZ restoration projects have improved the 

functionality of floodplains adjacent to the channels, decreased stream bed and bank erosion, 

increased the potential for water quality improvements as water passes through restored reaches, 

and resulted in attenuated peak flood flows (i.e., reduced and more spatially distributed). 

Taylor, Tallac, and Spring Creek area includes the Taylor Creek, Tallac Creek, Glen 

Alpine Creek, Cascade Creek, and Camp Richardson Frontal HUC7 watersheds. The 

Glen Alpine Creek and Cascade Creek watersheds are primarily undeveloped and the 

stream channels within these watersheds are in relatively good condition. The Camp 

Richardson Frontal watershed, while it is mostly developed, does not contain any large 

channels. Therefore, these three watersheds are not discussed in detail in this stream 

channel condition section. Taylor Creek and Tallac Creek are discussed below. 

Taylor Creek is the largest of the HUC7 watersheds in this portion of the South Shore project 

area. Taylor Creek drains approximately 18.4 square miles at its outfall to Lake Tahoe, and 

includes the area draining into Fallen Leaf Lake. Tallac Creek drains approximately 4.6 square 

miles, and its tributary Spring Creek drains another approximately 0.8 square miles. Taylor and 

Tallac are both steep, confined creeks upstream of their respective Highway 89 crossings. Just 

downstream of the highway both creeks show a pronounced break in slope separating the upper 

erosion and transport zones from the lower depositional fans or deltas. Reasons for accelerated 

“unnatural” channel incision are not evident in these watersheds, but there is evidence of 

unnatural aggradation (i.e., sediment accumulation). Because of their steep upper watersheds, the 

headwaters of both Taylor and Tallac Creeks have relatively high natural erosion rates compared 

to other parts of the Tahoe Basin. They are expected to continue to generate large volumes of 

sediment during disturbances such as landslides and debris flows during especially wet years. 

Fallen Leaf Lake traps most of the sediment from the upper portion of the Taylor Creek 

watershed, whereas the headwaters of Tallac and Spring Creeks are able to transport sediment all 

the way to the Baldwin Beach wetland area adjacent to Lake Tahoe. Most of the sediment in 

Taylor Creek downstream of Fallen Leaf Lake appears to be generated by erosion on outside 

bends of the stream channel, combined with fine sediment from trails and footpaths adjacent to 

the creek. In Tallac and Spring Creek, most of the coarse sediment seems to come from debris 

flows and channel erosion in the headwaters, and most of the fine sediment seems to come from 

horse grazing and bank trampling in the wetland area of Tallac Creek (EDAW and PWA 2005). 

In summary, historic land use practices are the primary cause of stream disturbance and the 

resulting channel instability in the South Shore project analysis area watersheds. These past land 

use activities have degraded channel conditions and likely increased sediment concentrations in 

surface waters. Currently, various segments of the stream channels in the South Shore analysis 

area are stable and/or recovery is occurring from past disturbances. In addition, ongoing channel 

restoration efforts are continuing to improve stream conditions by improving functionality of 

channel floodplains, attenuating peak flows, increasing sediment deposition, and decreasing bank 

erosion as water is transported through restored channel reaches. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-89

Environmental Consequences – Stream Channel Conditions 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Stream channels in the South Shore analysis area exhibit a variety of conditions, as described 

above. While portions of stream channels in the analysis area exhibit good functional conditions, 

portions of these channels are also degraded, and would remain degraded under Alternative 1. 

The current condition of south shore channels would not change under the No Action alternative, 

with the exception of possible positive effects of the previous and current restoration activities not 

related to the South Shore project. In addition, all existing channel crossings would remain in 

place, including those that are not functioning properly and/or acting as sediment conveyance 

barriers. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Chapter 2 details resource protection measures to be used in order to avoid possible direct effects 

to surface waters where mechanical equipment operations would occur in close proximity to 

stream channels or lakes and ponds. For example, trees would be retained within five feet of 

channel banks to protect channel bank stability and to maintain channel shading (Chapter 2, 

resource protection measure AR-2). Also, existing coarse woody debris in stream channels would 

be avoided to retain coarse woody debris at desired levels for stream shading and aquatic habitat 

(see Aquatic Wildlife section of this chapter for more details). Chapter 2 also details the SEZ 

sensitivity analysis and the criteria that would apply to both action alternatives to avoid direct and 

indirect effects to water and riparian resources (Appendix C). Damage to stream channels would 

be prevented also by restricting end-lining or mechanical equipment from a minimum of 25 ft 

from perennial or intermittent stream channels. 

Implementation of the South Shore Project proposes replacement of three existing stream 

crossings that are currently acting as sediment conveyance barriers, sediment sources, and/or fish 

passage barriers. One of these is on an intermittent channel in the Lower Trout Creek watershed, 

the second is on an ephemeral channel in the Cold Creek watershed, and the third crossing is on a 

perennial channel in the Osgood Swamp watershed. The detailed description of these crossing 

replacements, including expected dewatering and diversion needs are provided in the Chapter 2 

Project Description. 

These are the only existing channel crossings that are not functioning properly and are water and 

sediment conveyance barriers that have been identified in the project area. Upgrading these 

crossings would improve watershed connectivity in these areas and would reduce the delivery of 

sediment and pollutants from the existing degraded crossings to downstream areas and possibly 

Lake Tahoe. Because the South Shore Project would improve the condition of these channel 

crossings, a reduction of erosion and sediment delivery in these channels is expected in the longterm. 

Stream crossings on temporary roads for South Shore project implementation include temporary 

crossings on ephemeral channels, and one temporary crossing on an intermittent channel (Chapter 

2). Culverts and stream crossings would be installed to permit water flow and fish passage (where 

applicable). Installation and removal of temporary crossings may result in soil displacement and 

loosening which could lead to a short-term increase in sediment delivery to downstream reaches. 

However, because temporary drainage crossings would be constructed and removed when the 

channels are either dry or not flowing, negative effects are not expected from these temporary 

stream crossings. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-90 Chapter 3 

One temporary crossing on an intermittent channel in Saxon Creek watershed would need to stay 

in the channel over winter and would therefore require specific installation criteria. Installation 

and removal of the crossing would occur when the channel is dry to avoid the need for 

dewatering. A filter fabric would be installed first, for ease of removal and to prevent loss of fill 

material to downstream areas. Then, a culvert will be installed of sufficient size to pass the winter 

and spring flows without causing accelerated flow downstream (approximately 18-24” diameter). 

Finally, rock will be used instead of dirt to fill in behind the culvert, again for ease of removal and 

to prevent sediment delivery to downstream areas (Appendix B). Pea gravel will be used 

immediately adjacent to the culvert to protect its integrity, with the rock material to be placed 

over the pea gravel. Installation and removal of this crossing could result in some localized soil 

displacement and loosening; however, resource protection measures and BMPs would protect the 

stream channel and surface water quality from being degraded during installation and removal of 

the crossing and no long-term negative effects from this temporary stream crossing are expected 

(see Chapter 2, Project Description for further details on temporary stream crossings). 

While some localized, short-term effects from fill removal and construction associated with 

temporary and permanent crossings are possible, they are expected to be minimal with the 

application of project resource protection measures and BMPs (Chapter 2; Appendix B). In 

addition, because the South Shore Project would improve the condition of three permanent 

channel crossings and the channels adjacent to them, a reduction of erosion and sediment delivery 

in these channels is expected for the long-term. The South Shore Project activities would also 

help restore groundwater table elevations in treated riparian areas and may improve the condition 

of riparian channel corridors by reducing the density of encroaching conifer vegetation, which 

could improve base flow conditions and bank stabilization in the long-term. This project would 

not otherwise affect existing stream channel conditions. No long-term negative effects to stream 

channels are expected with the treatments for Alternatives 2 or 3, and any short-term effects from 

crossing installation and removal would be mitigated through application of BMPs and resource 

protection measures, which specify that crossings would be installed and removed when channels 

are not flowing, that channel bed and bank disturbance would be avoided and that banks would be 

restored to pre-existing conditions. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-91

Indicator for Water Quality 

AMS goal – Water Quality: Maintain and restore water quality to meet goals of the Clean Water 

Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, providing water that is fishable, swimmable, and suitable for 

drinking after normal treatment. 

How Indicator was Measured 

 Potential for sediment delivery to surface waters 

 Road density within and outside of RCAs 

 Number of landings within RCAs 

Existing Conditions – Water Quality 

Lake Tahoe’s water clarity is declining because of nutrient and sediment contributions to the Lake 

from tributary streams and adjacent urban areas. A total maximum daily load (TMDL) was 

recently finalized for Lake Tahoe which identified various pollutant sources and their importance 

for the Lake’s clarity. Identified sources include but are not limited to: urban development, dirt 

roads, particulates in the air from winter road sanding, and stream bank erosion. National Forest 

lands have not been identified as a large contributing pollutant source per acre in the TMDL 

development process. Although approximately 80% of the Lake Tahoe Basin is “forested upland”, 

this land use is not a large source of primary pollutants to Lake Tahoe. Land management 

activities within the forest uplands are anticipated to reduce the basin-wide fine sediment particle 

load by only approximately 1% (CA 2010). A primary pollutant of concern for Lake Tahoe’s 

clarity identified by the TMDL efforts is fine sediment (i.e., sediment particles <16 μm). The 

potential for sediment delivery and water quality effects are discussed in general below, however, 

the fine sediment component has also been considered and is addressed with project resource 

protection measures and BMPs. 

Because of the prized clarity of Lake Tahoe, several stringent water quality limitations have been 

identified for the Lake Tahoe Basin by the Lahontan Water Board and TRPA. The discharge 

limitations to surface waters presented in Table 3-42, below, are identified in either one or both 

of the Lahontan Basin Plan (State of CA 2005) and the TRPA Code of Ordinances (TRPA, 2004). 

These discharge limitations apply to water discharges entering any surface water feature in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin, and therefore apply to the South Shore project activities and other 

management actions. 

Table 3-38. Surface Water Discharge Limitations 

Constituent Maximum 

Concentration 

Total Nitrogen as N 0.5 mg/L 

Total Phosphate as P 0.1 mg/L 

Total Iron 0.5 mg/L 

Turbidity 20 NTU* 

Grease and oil 2.0 mg/L 

Suspended Sediment 250 mg/L** 

* From Lahontan Basin Plan only; 

** From TRPA Code of Ordinances only
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-92 Chapter 3 

Existing and ongoing water quality monitoring information can be obtained from the United 

States Geologic Survey (USGS), who maintains stream gages at several locations within the 

South Shore analysis area. The USGS monitoring sites in the analysis area are located on the 

Upper Truckee River above Meyers, near Highway 50 at Meyers, and in South Lake Tahoe; and 

on Trout Creek at USFS Rd 12N01 near Meyers, at Pioneer Trail near South Lake Tahoe, and 

near Tahoe Valley. Continuous stream flow data is collected at these sites, and periodic water 

quality samples (~25-30 samples) are also collected each year. The water quality data collected by 

the USGS at these stations would be monitored periodically throughout project implementation to 

attempt to track South Shore project effects on stream water quality. No additional water quality 

sampling is proposed with this project. 

Based on the 2006 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies, several 

waterbodies within the South Shore project area are listed as impaired for sediment/siltation, 

nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus), chloride, metals (e.g., iron), and/or pathogens. 

Concentrations of nutrients, chloride, metals, and pathogens in surface waters are not expected to 

be negatively affected by the South Shore Project activities and therefore are not discussed 

further. The waterbodies listed for sediment/siltation (Heavenly Valley Creek and Lake Tahoe) 

have the greatest potential to be affected by the South Shore Project, and therefore the mitigation 

and resource protection measures proposed to avoid any effects to sediment concentrations in 

surface waters are discussed in detail below. 

The south shore community contains over 30,000 homes serviced by a complex system of roads, 

which can act as a delivery system for eroded and deposited soil to enter streams, rivers, and Lake 

Tahoe. Obliteration of legacy roads and trails, installation and maintenance of BMPs on unpaved 

roads, trails and landings, and utilization of innovative ground based equipment for forest 

treatments have been identified as having the greatest potential to efficiently reduce loading from 

forested areas in the Tahoe Basin, especially if conducted at the same time as planned forest 

management treatments (CA 2010). In addition, the USFS was credited in the TMDL Pollutant 

Reduction Opportunity report with effectively limiting ground-based equipment operations to low 

slope areas, with deep soils and high infiltration capacities, and with restricting whole-tree 

operations to the most-accessible, resilient areas (CA 2007). 

The LTBMU recently completed BMP upgrades on roads throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin that 

were identified as contributing to sediment delivery or erosion issues in order to reduce the 

conveyance of road-borne sediments into streams and the associated water quality impacts. All 

roads in the basin were evaluated for their level of risk, including whether they needed BMP 

upgrades to correct an erosion or sediment delivery source, and for their proximity to surface 

water features. The actions taken with the BMP Retrofit Program included decommissioning or 

obliterating unnecessary roads where appropriate, converting selected roads to trails, and 

upgrading Forest roads with applicable BMPs where necessary. In the South Shore analysis area, 

BMP retrofits and road upgrades were completed on 31 miles of road, 30 miles of roads were 

decommissioned, and 2.3 miles of road were converted to trails (Briebart et al 2007). In addition, 

BMP Evaluation Program (BMPEP) evaluations for road surface drainage and slope protection, 

stream crossings, and control of sidecast materials were completed on select roads throughout the 

Tahoe Basin as part of this study, and all of the BMPEP evaluations completed in the south shore 

of the Basin were rated as effective (Briebart et al 2007). Finally, the connected length of road 

segments (defined as the length of road that is hydrologically connected to a surface water body 

through rills, gullies, overland flow or drainage ditches) was reduced in the south shore area by 

0.2 miles. The study indicated that there are no high risk connected road segments in the south 

shore area, and low risk segments decreased from 0.5 to 0.3 miles, while moderate risk segments 

remained at 0.6 miles (Briebart et al 2007). 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-93

There has also been a large push in recent years to address urban stormwater runoff because of its 

contribution to the decline in lake clarity. Therefore, local jurisdictions, including El Dorado 

County and the City of South Lake Tahoe, and state and federal agencies such as the California 

Tahoe Conservancy (CTC) and the LTBMU have been rigorously addressing urban stormwater 

and runoff problems throughout the south shore region. Numerous urban erosion control projects 

have been completed in the South Shore analysis area in recent years. These erosion control 

projects serve multiple benefits for urban water quality including sediment source control and 

stormwater treatment for nutrients and sediment. Many of the impacts from impervious coverage 

in urban areas in the South Shore analysis area have been offset to some degree due to the amount 

of existing erosion control infrastructure. 

An additional existing impact to water quality from Forest Service managed lands within the 

South Shore Project area includes the effects of the Angora Fire. The boundary of the Angora 

Fire, which burned through portions of the South Shore Project area in June and July of 2007, 

overlaps five of the HUC7 watersheds within the project area. The watersheds affected by the 

Angora Fire within this analysis area include Angora Creek, Camp Richardson Frontal, Lower 

Upper Truckee River, Osgood Swamp, and Taylor Creek. Some of the effects from the fire are 

increased hydrophobicity of the soils that burned, and decreased ground and canopy cover. At this 

time, several years have passed since the Angora Fire, and the risk for large scale sediment 

delivery from the burned area has been greatly reduced. Nonetheless, in the hotter burn areas 

where the seed source is less, the potential for erosion will be accelerated until natural vegetation 

reoccupies these areas in the next several years (Weaver et al., 2007). 

Finally, forest floor organic material (litter) has accumulated in forested areas in this region 

considerably in the absence of frequent fire. This has been more dramatic in the Tahoe Basin than 

other parts of the Sierra Nevada because of the relatively dry weather characteristic of this area, 

and the resulting slow decomposition rates of organic material. The existing thick organic 

horizons in Tahoe Basin soils are contributing nutrients to forest runoff and may act as a nutrient 

source to nearby surface waters, possibly contributing to the decline in the clarity of Lake Tahoe 

(Miller et al 2006; Loupe et al 2007). 

Environmental Consequences for Water Quality 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

In the absence of wildfire, the No Action alternative would not affect current water quality 

conditions. However, given the greater likelihood that a high intensity wildfire would occur in 

south shore if fuel loads are not reduced in the area, there is a greater potential for water quality 

degradation from a wildfire with the No Action alternative than with either action alternative. 

Wildfires have been shown to result in increased runoff, which then may increase the load of 

dissolved substances to nearby surface waters (USDI and USGS 2004). Furthermore, nutrient 

mobilization after wildfires from smoke and ash can also contribute to water quality degradation. 

The accumulation of Forest floor organic material (litter) in forested areas would continue in the 

absence of fire. The existing thick organic horizons in Tahoe Basin soils would continue 

contributing nutrients to forest runoff and may act as a nutrient source to nearby surface waters 

(Miller et al 2006, Loupe et al 2007). The No Action alternative would not change the rate of 

accumulation of organic material on the forest floor, nor would it reduce the potential organic 

nutrient contribution from forest runoff. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-94 Chapter 3 

Standard road maintenance activities and BMP upgrades to facilities on National Forest lands 

would continue under the No Action alternative. These activities help to reduce the water quality 

impacts associated with improper drainage from National Forest System (NFS) roads and 

facilities, and therefore would reduce the related impacts to water quality. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Although the proposed ground based equipment operations may result in localized increases in 

erosion potential due to some soil disturbance and compaction, South Shore project activities are 

not expected to increase the delivery of sediment to surface waters above background levels 

because of several mitigating factors: 1) the limited disturbance extent, 2) the restriction for most 

mechanical treatments to occur under operable soil moisture conditions, 3) the prescribed buffers 

between treatments and surface water features, and 4) the application of the SEZ Sensitivity 

Rating System to determine suitability of SEZ units for mechanical equipment operations 

(Appendix C). For additional information about the effects of proposed treatments on soil 

conditions, refer to the Geology and Soils Resources section of this chapter. 

In 2006, the LTBMU completed a fuel reduction project in the Ward Creek watershed on the west 

shore of Lake Tahoe and carried out an intensive soil monitoring effort to evaluate the impacts of 

the project on soil and water quality. The Ward monitoring units were treated with CTL 

operations using a forwarder, harvester, masticator, and chipper. The results of the soil monitoring 

indicated a small reduction in soil cover; however, the final soil cover was well above the 

regional soil quality standards (USDA FS 2004). The results also indicated a reduction in median 

saturated hydraulic conductivity (a measure of soil permeability) of 20%, which was not found to 

be statistically significant, and a 2.5% reduction in soil bulk density (Christensen and Norman 

2007), still well below the 10% threshold from regional soil quality standards. Most of the soils in 

the Ward project area are finer grained than those in the South Shore project area, and are thus 

more susceptible to compaction and displacement. A soil quality monitoring effort was also 

recently completed in the Roundhill Project area, which is characterized by similar soil conditions 

as present in the South Shore project area. The monitoring results indicated no change in 

hydraulic conductivity or bulk density values resulting from upland project treatments (Loupe et 

al. 2011). Therefore, the impacts of similar CTL treatments in the South Shore project area are 

expected to result in lesser impacts than those experienced in the Ward project (due to the 

different soil textures present), and similar impacts to those experienced in the Roundhill Project. 

Although water quality was not directly measured for these monitoring efforts, saturated 

hydraulic conductivity, bulk density, and soil cover were used as indirect measures of water 

quality effects. In addition, treatment techniques that involve thinning, and leave at least 50% of 

the forest canopy, such as CTL methods, have been shown through modeling and paired 

watershed studies to have little or no effect on runoff at the watershed scale (Litschert and 

MacDonald, 2009). Based on these findings, proposed South Shore CTL operations in upland 

units are not expected to result in impacts to soil or water quality, or to erosion potential. 

The HSEZ and Roundhill SEZ fuel reduction projects described in the background section above 

were implemented in late summer of 2007 and late summer of 2009, respectively. Both projects 

utilized low ground pressure (i.e., 6 psi alone or 13 psi fully loaded) mechanical equipment (CutTo-Length [CTL] harvester and forwarder) to treat heavy fuel loads in the SEZ, and included an 

intensive monitoring program to evaluate the soil and water resource effects of the project. The 

results of both studies demonstrated that the CTL mechanical operations resulted in a measured 

decrease in saturated hydraulic conductivity (Norman et al. 2008, Loupe et al. 2011). However, in 

both cases, the established threshold for Ksat was not reached, and the difference between preand post-project values did not result in ecologically significant impacts to soil hydrologic 

function such as infiltration and runoff (Norman et al. 2008; Loupe et al. 2011). In addition, there 

was no statistically significant difference between pre- and post-project soil bulk density values 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-95

for either project. Finally, the measured reduction in soil cover was well within the range of 

acceptable soil cover set forth in the USFS Region 5 soil quality standards (USDA FS 2004a). 

Based on these findings, the Lahontan Water Board, TRPA and LTBMU staff agreed that other 

fuel reduction stands containing SEZs could be treated with similar mechanical equipment and 

resource protection measures (e.g. 25 ft buffer for perennial and intermittent streams and soil 

moisture requirements) without impacts to soil and water quality if they are equally or less 

sensitive than the HSEZ site. For this reason, a sensitivity rating system was developed by 

LTBMU staff to evaluate SEZ sensitivities to ground based equipment operations (Appendix C). 

This system was designed to evaluate whether or not ground based mechanical equipment could 

perform the fuel reduction work needed in stands containing SEZs without the risk of adverse 

effects to soil or water quality in or near the SEZ. With the use of this rating system, and 

application of project resource protection measures and BMPs, adverse effects to water quality 

from mechanical treatment in SEZs are not expected. 

Whole-tree (WT) treatment operations have not previously been monitored for soil and water 

quality impacts in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and therefore present some uncertainty about the level 

of potential impacts. Increased erosion potential and slightly altered hydrology may occur in WT 

treatment units. Protection of surface water features and prevention of impacts to soil and water 

quality are provided by larger equipment exclusion buffers for whole-tree units than for CTL 

operations based on soil cover and slope (Chapter 2, resource protection measures). When 

compared to CTL, WT thinning operations require the creation of skid trails and typically larger 

landings, which makes these treatment units more prone to exposed soil areas and soil 

displacement. Skid trail and landing rehabilitation measures would prevent or mitigate potential 

long-term effects of this disturbance. The risk of on-site erosion from all tree removal activities is 

reduced by project resource protection measures (Chapter 2) and Forest Service BMPs (Appendix 

B). In addition, monitoring for this project would ensure that prescribed BMPs and resource 

protection measures are properly installed and functioning (see Chapter 4). The resource 

protection measures and BMPs primarily function as source control measures (i.e., controlling the 

source of potential erosion and sediment delivery) and therefore are designed to prevent erosion, 

including that of the fine sediment fraction (i.e., particles <16 μm). The application of project 

resource protection measures and BMPs will prevent sediment delivery to surface waters and 

avoid causing any measureable effects to water quality, such as detectable increases in turbidity. 

The proposed buffers for stream channels in the CTL and WT treatment units are intended to 

prevent sediment delivery to surface waters. Buffers that exhibit surface roughness features and 

restrict mechanical equipment from close contact with water bodies reduce impacts below 

significance by allowing infiltration of flows and trapping sediment before it is delivered to 

surface waters (Litschert and MacDonald, 2009). The prescribed buffers for the South Shore 

Project were determined based on successful results from the HSEZ and Roundhill SEZ projects 

and on experience with CTL and WT treatments and the associated potential impacts, and are 

largely supported by the literature (Rashin et al., 2006). 

Pile burning and underburning are additional activities proposed with this project. The potential 

for effects to SEZs, floodplains, and aspen stands are addressed under that section of this chapter. 

Pile burning and underburning are not expected to affect water quality through the convective 

transport of ash and particulate matter. The current practice for pile burning in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin is to allow piling and burning up to 50 feet from perennial and intermittent stream 

channels, and outside of SEZs. Piling at this proximity to stream channels has not resulted in ash 

or particulate delivery or delivery of piled material to surface waters in the past; therefore, effects 

to water quality from these treatments are not anticipated for this project. Any ash that may be 

transported to surface waters would be in such small quantities, and spaced out temporally, that it 

would be negligible and would not increase turbidity levels or otherwise pose a risk to water 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-96 Chapter 3 

quality. Because this project involves piling and burning material in SEZs outside of the 50 ft 

piling buffer, there is a monitoring element for these treatment areas which would include 

assessing the potential for water quality effects (Chapter 4). 

In some instances, machine piling with a grapple attachment would be conducted in CTL units. In 

these units, grapple piling would occur rather than masticating/chipping and would not result in 

any additional equipment passes through the unit. This treatment would be applied in units that 

are in close proximity to main roads or facilities, where masticating/chipping the material could 

result in property damage. The machine piles may be larger than typical hand piles, so would be 

prohibited in SEZs. Units that are machine piled rather than masticated/chipped after initial CTL 

treatment would have less ground cover remaining after implementation, because the slash 

material would be piled and burned rather than left on site and masticated/chipped. Although less 

ground cover would result, ground cover would still be greater than in WT treatment units, and 

would be adequate to prevent erosion. The maximum number of acres that would be treated with 

machine piling rather than mastication/chipping after CTL thinning would be 515 acres for 

Alternative 2 and 374 acres for Alternative 3. 

As mentioned above, two waterbodies within the South Shore project area are listed in the Clean 

Water Act Section 303(d) as being impaired for sediment/siltation; Heavenly Valley Creek and 

Lake Tahoe. However, the Heavenly Valley Creek watershed does not contain any proposed 

South Shore treatments in either Alternative 2 or 3, and therefore the South Shore project would 

not affect existing sediment concentrations in Heavenly Valley Creek. Only Lake Tahoe itself is 

listed for sediment/siltation and would also overlap with South Shore project treatments. The 

project has been designed to reduce the potential for sediment delivery to waterbodies, as 

described below. Through application of project resource protection measures and BMPs, 

sediment delivery to Lake Tahoe would be avoided. 

In addition, only one of the 5 watersheds in the South Shore analysis area that were affected by 

the Angora fire also appears on the 303(d) list. This is the Lower Upper Truckee River (i.e., 

below Christmas Valley), which is listed for nutrients and metals only. However, South Shore 

Project activities are not expected to negatively affect concentrations of nutrients or metals in 

surface waters. 

Overall, sediment delivery resulting from increased erosion would be avoided with this project. 

The potential for increased erosion exists from concentrated use areas such as landings, 

temporary roads, stream crossings, and skid trails. Sediment delivery would be avoided through 

application of project resource protection measures and BMPs (Chapter 2, Appendix B), and 

water quality effects would not be measureable when considering background conditions. In 

addition, soil cover would be maintained in treatment units to reduce erosion potential except 

where skid trails exist and during the use of landings and temporary roads. These areas comprise 

a very small portion of each treatment unit (<15%, see Geology and Soil Resources section of this 

chapter), and an even smaller proportion of each watershed. Also, landings and temporary roads 

would be treated with water bars, post treatment decommissioning, and other erosion control 

measures to minimize the risk of increased erosion (Chapter 2, resource protection measures). 

Furthermore, landings and skid trails would not be permitted within SEZs in this project, and 

temporary roads would be very limited in SEZs. Therefore, these project activities are not 

expected to result in increased sediment delivery to live channels or to affect background 

sediment concentrations or turbidity levels in surface waters in the project area. 

Project activities are not expected to negatively influence nutrient concentrations in surface 

waters; however, in the long-term, decreased nutrient concentrations in forest surface runoff may 

result. For example fuel reduction and thinning activities would likely result in decreased depth of 

organic material on the forest floor, which has been shown to be a nutrient source to overland 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-97

flow (runoff) (Miller et al 2006, Loupe et al 2009). Even where project activities do not decrease 

the depth of organic forest floor material directly, they would effectively reduce the new litter 

accumulation by decreasing the number of small trees. Although some of the mechanical 

treatments proposed with the South Shore project include chipping or masticating the thinned 

material and leaving it on site, mechanical harvesting with chipping does not increase inorganic N 

and P in surface runoff (Loupe et al 2009). Chip and masticated material typically exhibits higher 

carbon to nitrogen ratios than forest litter, and therefore is more difficult and takes longer to 

decompose. Consequently, microbes would utilize (i.e. take up) N and P for longer periods of 

time for decomposition of chipped and masticated material compared to litter, and would take 

much longer before releasing these nutrients into surface runoff. 

Road related erosion is typically the primary source of existing accelerated erosion in forested 

areas, particularly at channel crossings. However, the action alternatives would improve the 

condition of three channel crossings in the project area (described in detail in the Project 

Description in Chapter 2), resulting in a reduction of sediment delivery in these channels over the 

long-term. In addition, project resource protection measures and BMPs would mitigate any 

effects that temporary crossings may otherwise cause. Because of the importance of road related 

erosion, road density was used in this analysis as a measure of the level of road impacts in the 

project watersheds. The Forest Plan has no standards for this measure of watershed risk, but an 

upward trend in these attributes would indicate higher levels of risk. Alternative 2 would involve 

constructing 4.8 miles of new temporary roads, and reconstructing 8.8 miles of existing 

decommissioned roads for use as temporary roads. Alternative 3 would construct 3.3 miles of 

temporary roads and reconstruct 6.5 miles of existing decommissioned roads for use as temporary 

roads. As these numbers indicate, Alternative 2 requires more temporary road length than 

Alternative 3, thereby resulting in greater potential for road segments to act as sediment sources 

during and immediately after implementation. Either action alternative would avoid altering the 

hillslope hydrology by outsloping new temporary roads and constructing them to follow the rise 

and fall of the land. All temporary roads utilized during the project would be decommissioned as 

described in the resource protection measures (Chapter 2) to minimize the potential for sediment 

delivery to waterbodies and other potential effects to water quality, such as increased turbidity. 

The miles of NFS roads within the South Shore analysis area are more directly linked to project 

affects than is the total road network for several reasons: 

o The majority of NFS roads are unpaved; 

o NFS system roads are the only roads that are managed by the LTBMU; 

o NFS system roads are influenced by forest management activities; 

o Most of the roads with other ownerships (State, county, city) in the project analysis area 

are paved and are not expected to contribute to erosion or sediment delivery. 

The total miles of NFS system roads (maintenance levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 only; see Transportation 

Section for definitions of maintenance levels) are presented in Table 3-39 below, with the 

resulting road density for each watershed. The road densities are compared in Table 3-39 between 

the No Action alternative, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. The changes in road density for 

Alternatives 2 and 3 result from the added length of temporary roads for each alternative. Just 

under 1/3 of the existing system roads included in this analysis (31.5%) are paved and the 

remainder are native surface under Alternative 1 (existing conditions). The percentage of roads 

that are paved in Alternative 2 and 3 are 27.7% and 28.7%, respectively. 

The watersheds with no treatments also do not contain any temporary roads that would be used in 

the South Shore Project. The existing road density in these two watersheds (Heavenly Valley 

Creek and Headwaters of the Upper Truckee River) will not be affected by the South Shore 

Project activities, and are not included in Table 3-39. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-98 Chapter 3 

Table 3-39. Forest Service Roads and Road Density in the South Shore Project Area 

Watersheds 

As shown in Table 3-39, the road densities in each watershed are relatively small and are not 

expected to pose a threat to water quality. The highest road density in the analysis area under all 

alternatives is in the Camp Richardson Frontal watershed, which is also one of the watersheds 

with the most proposed temporary road length. Two of the reasons why this watershed has a 

higher existing road density are; 1) it is highly impacted by urban development, and 2) it is the 

smallest watershed in the South Shore analysis area. Most of the watershed is adjacent to urban 

development with a need for fuels reduction, which supports a need for the greater length of 

temporary roads proposed for use in this watershed. Even with the greater road density in the 

Camp Richardson Frontal watershed, only 1 temporary crossing on an ephemeral channel is 

proposed within this watershed. The road densities in the remaining watersheds are relatively low, 

all below 2 mi/mi2

. 

Road length within RCAs may further indicate the potential for road related erosion and sediment 

delivery. The roads within RCA boundaries were analyzed to determine the potential for 

temporary roads to cause water quality impacts where these roads are in close proximity to 

surface water features. Table 3-40 presents the road length within the RCA boundaries under 

Watershed Name Watershed 

Area (mi2) 

Miles of 

existing 

roads 

Total 

existing 

road 

density 

(mi/mi2) 

Alt 2 

Proposed 

temp 

roads (mi) 

Alt 2 

Total 

road 

density 

(mi/mi2) 

Alt 3 

Proposed 

temp 

roads (mi) 

Alt 3 

Total 

road 

density 

(mi/mi2) 

Angora Creek 5.77 4.47 0.77 0 0.77 0 0.77 

Benwood Meadow 5.75 0.60 0.10 0 0.10 0 0.10 

Big Meadow Creek 5.11 0.59 0.11 0.22 0.16 0 0.11 

Bijou Frontage 5.88 2.66 0.45 0 0.45 0 0.45 

Camp Richardson 

Frontal 4.15 9.06 2.18 2.44 2.77 2.44 2.77 

Cascade Creek 4.72 1.12 0.24 0 0.24 0 0.24 

Cold Creek 12.77 5.27 0.41 0 0.41 0 0.41 

Echo Creek 5.41 0.84 0.16 0.59 0.27 0 0.16 

Glen Alpine Creek 10.84 2.55 0.24 0 0.24 0 0.24 

Grass Lake 6.30 1.58 0.25 0.38 0.31 0.16 0.28 

Headwaters of 

Trout Creek 11.72 6.08 0.52 0.89 0.59 0.79 0.59 

Lower Trout Creek 5.53 4.82 0.87 3.23 1.46 2.44 1.31 

Lower Upper 

Truckee River 6.71 2.37 0.35 0.31 0.40 0.31 0.40 

Middle Upper 

Truckee River 6.30 5.08 0.81 0.10 0.82 0 0.81 

Osgood Swamp 4.91 2.18 0.44 0.30 0.51 0 0.44 

Saxon Creek 8.43 4.07 0.48 2.18 0.74 1.48 0.66 

Tallac Creek 4.36 4.75 1.09 1.09 1.30 0.51 1.21 

Taylor Creek 7.79 12.56 1.62 1.88 1.87 1.67 1.84 

Total 13.61 9.81 

*Total road density was calculated using the following equation: 

Road density = Total miles of road / Total area (mi2

) of each HUC7 watershed
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-99

Alternative 1, and with proposed Alternative 2 and 3 treatments. Although approximately 60% of 

the South Shore Project total treatment acres are within RCAs, comparison of Tables 3-39 and 3-

40 demonstrates that a substantial amount of the road network is in the upland areas, over 300 

feet away from perennial streams and lakes. Furthermore, in the Camp Richardson Frontal 

watershed discussed above, only about 1/3 of the temporary roads proposed for use in 

Alternatives 2 and 3 fall within RCA boundaries. The potential for erosion and sediment delivery 

effects in this watershed are further reduced because the majority of the temporary roads are in 

the upland forest area. 

Most of the road density values decreased between Alternative 2 and 3 because of reduced 

treatment acres. Although there are differences in road densities between Alternative 2 and 3 

because of differences in temporary road needs and some shifts in treatment unit boundaries, 

there are several watersheds that maintained the same road density for Alternative 3 as they had 

for Alternative 2. 

It is important to note that the proposed South Shore treatments are primarily within the WUI, 

where road access needs are much greater than in the general forest due to residential 

communities, the high recreational use from forest visitors, and the access needs for fire 

suppression and forest management activities. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-100 Chapter 3 

Table 3-40. National Forest Road Miles Within RCAs in the South Shore Project Area 

Watershed Name 

Miles of 

existing 

roads 

Alt 2 

Proposed 

temp 

roads (mi) 

Alt 2 Total 

road miles 

(mi) 

Alt 3 

Proposed 

temp 

roads (mi) 

Alt 3 Total 

road miles 

(mi) 

Angora Creek 1.94 0 1.94 0 1.94 

Benwood Meadow 0.60 0 0.60 0 0.60 

Big Meadow Creek 0.44 0.11 0.55 0 0.44 

Bijou Frontage 1.74 0 1.74 0 1.74 

Camp Richardson Frontal 5.43 0.86 6.28 0.86 6.28 

Cascade Creek 1.01 0 1.01 0 1.01 

Cold Creek 4.05 0 4.05 0 4.05 

Echo Creek 0.76 0.58 1.34 0 0.76 

Glen Alpine Creek 2.62 0 2.62 0 2.62 

GrassLake 0.99 0.09 1.08 0 0.99 

Headwaters of Trout Creek 3.92 0.45 4.37 0.44 4.36 

Lower Trout Creek 2.25 0.62 2.86 0.52 2.76 

Lower Upper Truckee River 1.35 0.18 1.53 0.18 1.53 

Middle Upper Truckee River 2.28 0.08 2.35 0 2.28 

Osgood Swamp 1.63 0.18 1.81 0 1.63 

Saxon Creek 1.85 1.22 3.07 1.20 3.05 

Tallac Creek 2.98 0.87 3.86 0.40 3.38 

Taylor Creek 9.46 1.31 10.78 1.31 10.78 

Total 6.55 4.91 

Landings are another potential source of compacted soils and increased erosion potential from 

vegetation management activities. Approximately 80% of the landings proposed for use in the 

South Shore project already exist on the landscape; about 20% would be newly constructed. 

Alternative 2 requires more landings than Alternative 3, which contributes to the additional 

potential for impacts associated with Alternative 2. Chapter 2 details landing locations selection 

for Alternative 2, utilizing existing landings wherever possible. Because much of the South Shore 

project area is located close to stream channels and lakes, a number of the treatment acres, and 

therefore the landings, fall within RCAs. In response to water quality concerns, Alternative 3 

reduces the total number of landings; and landings were moved out of RCAs, resulting in a 

greater reduction in the number of landings within RCAs. A comparison of landings by watershed 

is given in Table 3-41 for the action alternatives. 

Effects would be reduced under both action alternatives because landings would be 

decommissioned after operations are complete. Measures to reduce effects from landings would 

include first applying slash, wood chips or masticated material to a maximum 6-inch depth to 

each landing. Landings would then be ditched, sloped or water bars installed as needed to 

disconnect the landing from surface water features. Landings would also be ripped to 

approximately a 12-inch depth (where soils allow and noxious weeds are not present). Finally, 

selected landings would be seeded with a native seed mix of grasses, forbs, and shrubs 

(Chapter 2). 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-101

Table 3-41. Total Number of Landings for Alternatives 2 and 3 within and outside of RCAs 

Watershed Name 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Outside 

of RCA 

Inside 

of RCA Total Outside of RCA 

Inside 

of RCA Total 

Angora Creek 3 3 1 1 

Big Meadow Creek 6 6 2 2 

Camp Richardson Frontal 18 8 26 19 7 26 

Cold Creek 1 1 1 1 

Echo Creek 1 2 3 1 1 

Grass Lake 4 3 7 3 1 4 

Headwaters of Trout Creek 5 17 22 7 6 13 

Headwaters South Fork American 

River 2 1 3 3 3 

Lower Trout Creek 15 12 27 13 7 20 

Lower Upper Truckee River 4 3 7 5 1 6 

Middle Upper Truckee River 2 12 14 3 4 7 

Osgood Swamp 2 13 15 3 9 12 

Saxon Creek 4 12 16 6 9 15 

Tallac Creek 10 21 31 9 18 27 

Taylor Creek 16 22 38 12 18 30 

Total 84 135 219 88 80 168 

Potential effects to water quality on Forest Service managed lands from the South Shore project 

are associated with the short-term, localized increased erosion potential at stream crossings and 

from roads and landings located near streams. In the short term while roads are being used for 

hauling, sediment reductions from road upgrades and road crossing improvements are expected to 

be balanced by increases due to log hauling and road maintenance. Project related road 

maintenance activities include improving surface drainage at crossings and approaches to 

crossings, and upgrading the road surface substrate where necessary for proposed treatment 

operations. 

Proposed South Shore Project activities are not expected to increase sediment delivery to surface 

waters in the project area, and measurable impacts to water quality (such as increased turbidity) 

are not anticipated with implementation of the prescribed resource protection measures (Chapter 

2) and BMPs (Appendix B), including: limitations to placing landings and skid trails in SEZs, 

limiting temporary crossings to dry channel conditions; decommissioning temporary roads and 

landings after use; and road maintenance activities to reduce existing sediment delivery. This 

project would maintain the existing practices employed by the Forest Service for forest 

management, including standard BMPs and use of innovative ground based equipment, and 

would also incorporate decommissioning roads and landings to the extent feasible to comply with 

the Final TMDL direction (CA 2010). The potential for sediment delivery from roads and 

landings is further reduced for Alternative 3 than Alternative 2 by decreasing the amount of 

temporary road length in general and within RCAs, and by dramatically decreasing the number of 

landings located within RCAs. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-102 Chapter 3 

Indicators for Beneficial Uses 

How Indicator is Measured 

 Number of beneficial uses potentially affected by project activities 

Existing Conditions – Beneficial Uses 

Beneficial uses are water uses which are to be designated and maintained. Several beneficial uses 

have been identified in the Lahontan Basin Plan (CA 2005) for the South Lake Tahoe Hydrologic 

Area. Beneficial uses that apply to the South Shore project analysis area include: 

Municipal and domestic supply 

Agricultural supply 

Ground water recharge 

Freshwater replenishment 

Navigation 

Water contact recreation 

Non-contact water recreation 

Commercial and sportfishing 

Cold freshwater habitat 

Wildlife habitat 

Preservation of biological habitats of special significance (Lake Tahoe, Osgood Swamp, 

Grass Lake Wetlands, and Grass Lake only) 

Rare, threatened, or endangered species (Heavenly Valley Creek, Meiss 

Meadows/Wetlands, Meiss Lake, Taylor Creek Meadow Marsh, and Cascade Lake 

only) 

Migration of aquatic organisms 

Spawning, reproduction and development (applies to waters that support high quality 

aquatic habitat necessary for reproduction and early development of fish and wildlife) 

Water quality enhancement 

Flood peak attenuation/flood water storage 

Environmental Consequences – Beneficial Uses 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

The No Action alternative would not directly affect beneficial uses within the South Shore project 

area. However, the indirect effect of taking no action at this time is that the risk for effects from 

high intensity wildfire would remain or worsen. These risks include the potential for large scale 

sediment and/or ash delivery following a wildfire in the event of a large precipitation event 

resulting in erosion. This could affect many of the beneficial uses listed above, due to the 

potential for transport of this material to stream channels and even Lake Tahoe. The level of 

impact to beneficial uses would depend on the magnitude of the erosion event and the proximity 

of the fire to surface water features. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

About half of the 16 beneficial uses identified for surface waters within the South Shore Project 

area have the potential to be affected by project activities. These include: ground water recharge; 

non-contact water recreation; cold freshwater habitat; wildlife habitat; preservation of biological 

habitats of special significance; rare, threatened or endangered species; spawning, reproduction 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-103

and development; water quality enhancement; and flood peak attenuation/flood water storage. All 

of these beneficial uses are either not expected to be affected by the project at all, or are expected 

to be positively affected over the long-term due to the decreased number of conifers drawing 

from available groundwater resources, the improvements to wildlife habitat, and the protection of 

sensitive habitats and species associated with the South Shore project treatments. Two potential 

exceptions include the non-contact water recreation and cold freshwater habitat beneficial uses. 

For non-contact water recreation, resource protection measures for channel crossings, roads and 

forwarder/skidder trails, and SEZs and buffers would mitigate any potential sediment delivery 

impacts associated with the South Shore project (see Water Quality section for additional details) 

and visible increases in turbidity would not result. Since sediment delivery to Lake Tahoe is not 

expected to result from South Shore project activities, negative impacts to non-contact water 

recreation from increased water turbidity would be prevented. For the cold freshwater habitat 

beneficial use, stringent resource protection measures would be applied adjacent to streams to 

avoid adverse impacts to stream temperature and shading. Stream banks would be buffered and 

coarse woody debris would not be removed from the channel to avoid removing vegetation that 

provides bank stabilization or shade. The effects of treatments within RCAs on water 

temperatures would be closely monitored to avoid adverse impacts to cold freshwater dependent 

species (for more information refer to Aquatic Wildlife section in this chapter, Chapter 4, and the 

Fisheries BE/BA located in the project file). 

These beneficial water uses would also be supported by the proposed project activities, which 

would reduce the risk of wildland fire, improve the condition of riparian areas, improve 

watershed conditions, protect water quality, and protect soil productivity. No differences between 

Alternatives 2 and 3 regarding the potential effects to beneficial uses are expected. 

Indicators for SEZs, Floodplains, and Aspen Stands 

AMS goal – Special Habitats: Maintain and restore the distribution and health of biotic 

communities in special aquatic habitats (such as springs, seeps, vernal pools, fens, bogs, and 

marshes) to perpetuate their unique functions and biological diversity. 

How Indicator was Measured 

 Acres of RCAs, SEZs and aspen stands treated 

Existing Conditions – SEZs, Floodplains, and Aspen Stands 

SEZs, as defined above, include several different types of features that are supported by surface 

or groundwater. Therefore, although SEZs, floodplains and aspen stands are addressed somewhat 

separately in this analysis, floodplains and aspen stands are also considered SEZs. More specific 

discussion is included about floodplains and aspen stands because of their unique characteristics; 

however, SEZ protection measures would also apply to these unique features. 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-104 Chapter 3 

Urbanization of the Lake Tahoe Basin has degraded or eliminated 75% of its marshes, 50% of its 

meadows, and 35% of its stream zone habitat (USDA FS 2000). Many of the remaining meadow 

and non-meadow riparian areas currently have encroaching conifers (USDA FS LTBMU 2004). 

Most of the wet and mesic meadow environments in the South Shore analysis area are impaired to 

some degree from several causes: 

- impervious surface coverage or compaction, 

- fill or debris in the natural floodplain or SEZ, 

- hydrologic blockages or artificial drainage of the SEZ, 

- functional reduction of the floodplain, 

- increased flows or runoff, and 

- removal or degradation of riparian vegetation (USDA FS LTBMU 2004). 

Competition from conifer species for water, nutrients, and sunlight further led to the decline of 

riparian vegetation conditions and aspen stand health. The higher densities of conifer species that 

exist in SEZs contribute to a greater risk of tree mortality due to fluctuations in the water table 

and increased susceptibility to insect attack. In addition, higher densities of conifers in riparian 

areas and SEZs transpire more water from soil that would otherwise support wetter vegetation 

types, and has led to a decline in the condition of riparian springs and seeps 

(USDA FS LTBMU 2004). 

Much of the South Shore project area contains or is adjacent to perennial and intermittent channel 

floodplains. Currently, ground fuels and standing trees near these channels provide floodplain 

roughness under high flow conditions. Floodplain roughness acts to slow flood waters, 

dissipating energy and allowing sediment in the water to settle out on the floodplain (2ND Nature, 

2011), which can result in a reduction of sediment concentrations in waters downstream. Native 

riparian vegetation provides additional floodplain roughness, and provides the added benefit of 

reducing nutrients in flood waters by absorbing and utilizing the influx of nitrogen and other 

nutrients delivered by floods. Utilization by native riparian vegetation reduces the concentrations 

of nutrients in downstream areas and also reduces the potential for these nutrients to become 

pollutants of concern for Lake Tahoe water clarity. However, because of the presence of, and 

competition from, coniferous vegetation on floodplains in the South Shore analysis area, natural 

floodplain roughness features in the form of riparian vegetation are in decline in many areas. 

The South Shore analysis area includes approximately 1,180 acres of aspen stands. During the 

analysis for the LTBMU aspen community restoration project, aspen stands throughout the Lake 

Tahoe Basin were evaluated for their risk of loss. Risk of loss is an assessment of the probability 

that an aspen stand may not persist on the landscape, and is determined by stand conditions, 

including conifer encroachment, aspen regeneration, proportion of aspen within the stand, and the 

occurrence and condition of understory brush and herbaceous vegetation. These evaluations were 

used to rate the risk of loss for aspen stands in the Lake Tahoe Basin as: 1) no risk, 2) low, 3) 

moderate, 4) high, or 5) highest. Using this information, 290 acres of at-risk aspen stands in the 

WUI and inside or adjacent to South Shore treatment units were incorporated into the South 

Shore treatments to remove encroaching conifers. Aspen stands in the South Shore project area 

currently exhibit the following conditions: 

- Average conifer crown closure is less than 25% in approximately 1/3 of the aspen acres; 

- Average aspen crown closure is greater than 40% in only about 1⁄2 of the aspen acres; 

- Aspen crowns comprise more than half of the canopy in about 40% of the aspen acres; 

- Conifer crowns overtop aspen crowns in about 60% of the aspen acres; 

- Robust aspen regeneration is occurring in about 1⁄2 of the stands; and 

- Only 1% of the aspen stands show conifer encroachment is not occurring or is minimal. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-105

Finally, there are several bogs and/or fens (Map 14) located within the project area designated as 

special aquatic features by the LTBMU Forest Plan (USDA FS LTBMU 1988). The special 

aquatic feature designation includes springs, seeps, fens and bogs (USDA FS 2004). In addition, 

Grass Lake is a research natural area (RNA) (USDA FS LTBMU 1988) within the analysis area; 

however, it does not overlap with any proposed treatments for the South Shore project. 

Environmental Consequences – SEZs, Floodplains, and Aspen 

Stands 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

The current condition of SEZs, floodplains, and aspen stands in the South Shore project area 

would not improve under the No Action alternative (Alternative 1). Coniferous vegetation 

encroaching in these areas would continue to degrade their condition by out-competing wetter 

vegetation species for water, nutrients, and sunlight. Floodplains and meadows are likely to 

continue in a drying trend because conifers use more water than riparian vegetation, often 

drawing down the water level and lowering groundwater tables. Conifers would continue to 

encroach in these areas and floodplain and SEZ function would not improve. In addition, the risk 

for loss of aspen stands would continue or increase, and conditions would likely decline further in 

aspen stands already at risk. The aspen stands that are currently at the highest risk for loss are 

likely to be lost in the near future with no action to remove encroaching conifer vegetation under 

Alternative 1. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Prescriptions for South Shore treatments within SEZs, floodplains, and aspen stands, are expected 

to improve stand conditions and promote the long-term health of riparian vegetation and aspen, or 

mixed conifer type vegetation, depending on the location. Non-coniferous riparian vegetation 

would be retained. Management within RCAs is projected to meet riparian conservation 

objectives (RCOs) (USDA FS 2004). Refer to the RCO analysis report available in the project 

record for more information regarding how the South Shore Project meets the RCOs. 

Reducing fuel loading substantially within RCAs and SEZs would effectively reduce the 

likelihood of a high intensity wildfire in these areas. Implementation of South Shore Project 

treatments would also improve the condition of riparian areas and SEZs, including floodplains 

and aspen stands and meet the fuel loading objectives of the project. Standard BMPs (Appendix 

B) and project-specific resource protection measures (Chapter 2) would protect the soil resources 

and surface water features of each site where mechanical operations are proposed within SEZs 

and RCAs. 

Measurement indicators used to evaluate the success of the action alternatives in restoring SEZ, 

floodplain and aspen stand function currently degraded by encroaching conifers are: 1) acres of 

SEZs and RCAs treated to result in improved ecological and hydrologic function; and 2) acres of 

aspen stands treated and restored. These measurement indicators are summarized in Table 3-42 

below for both Alternatives 2 and 3.
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-106 Chapter 3 

Table 3-42. Acres of RCA, SEZ (based on 1b soils), and Aspen Treated in 

Alternatives 2 and 3, for Each Watershed 

Watershed Name 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

RCA 

Acres 

SEZ 

Acres 

Aspen 

Acres 

RCA 

Acres 

SEZ 

Acres 

Aspen 

Acres 

Angora Creek 381 35 0 377 32 0 

Benwood Meadow 119 16 35 66 15 20 

Big Meadow Creek 289 10 18 289 10 18 

Bijou Frontage 130 10 7 130 10 7 

Camp Richardson Frontal 266 107 1 266 107 1 

Cascade Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cold Creek 32 7 0 34 7 0 

Echo Creek 178 1 7 172 1 7 

Glen Alpine Creek 91 2 2 91 2 2 

Grass Lake 429 4 19 429 4 19 

Headwaters of Trout Creek 528 66 4 517 64 4 

Lower Trout Creek 431 128 33 279 121 12 

Lower Upper Truckee River 314 18 0 314 18 0 

Middle Upper Truckee River 658 66 19 656 66 19 

Osgood Swamp 421 24 0 382 24 0 

Saxon Creek 736 73 2 688 73 2 

Tallac Creek 450 77 24 443 74 24 

Taylor Creek 800 89 119 776 66 116 

 Total 6253 733 290 5907 693 251 

Although Alternative 2 has more acres of RCA, SEZ, and aspen stand treatments in general, the 

effects of both action alternatives are very similar, and would both result in improved conditions 

in treated areas. The purpose of the reduced treatment acres and the shifting of treatment types 

between Alternatives 2 and 3 in many of the RCA, SEZ, and aspen areas is to decrease the 

watershed impacts of the proposed treatments. Although Alternative 2 appears to better achieve 

the project goals when looking only at acres treated for RCAs, SEZs, and aspen, Alternative 3 

reduces total impacts to forest resources associated with the proposed treatments to a greater 

extent. 

Due to soil moisture concerns, slopes in the treatment stands over 30%, or lack of access for 

ground based equipment, many of the SEZ acres proposed for treatment with the South Shore 

Project would be treated by hand crews. Previous hand treatments in SEZ areas have not resulted 

in detrimental impacts to SEZs. However, in the past, hand piling and burning of slash piles was 

not done within SEZs. Because past treatments generally avoided SEZ areas, disposal of SEZ 

fuels outside of the SEZ boundary was achievable. The South Shore project includes piling of 

slash and subsequent burning within SEZs. The fuel reduction needed within South Shore SEZs is 

extensive enough that transporting fuels outside of the SEZ for burning or disposal is not practical 

and has the potential for greater negative impacts from soil disturbance than hand piling and 

burning these fuels within the SEZ boundaries. Based on experience from burning piles within 

RCAs using existing practices in neighboring Region 5 Forests, piling and burning within SEZs 

can be done without causing negative impacts through the application of appropriate resource 

protection measures. The resource protection measures developed for piling and burning within 

South Shore SEZs are based on examples of successful experiences in Region 5, and are provided 

in Chapter 2. These resource protection measures would protect SEZs, floodplains, and aspen 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-107

stands by limiting the placement and spatial extent of piles to protect riparian vegetation species. 

In addition, monitoring of SEZ pile burning is included with this project, and is detailed in 

Chapter 4. Prescribed underburning may be substituted for piling and burning in some instances, 

however the effects of underburning in SEZs are well known and generally minimal. 

Allowing piling in SEZs greatly reduces the number of passes that a crew carrying heavy slash 

loads would need to make through the SEZ, thereby reducing the extent of soil compaction from 

trampling by crews. However, because of the amount of ground fuels and live fuel loading 

present in some of the SEZ hand treatment units and the restrictions for piling within SEZs 

(Chapter 2 Resource Protection Measures), multiple entries may be necessary to achieve the 

desired condition. Multiple entries would be limited in extent, and would only be prescribed when 

current surface fuels are high and would result in fuel loads greater than the desired maximum of 

15 tons per acre post treatment. Up to 1,287 acres of hand thinning treatments may require 

multiple entries under Alternative 2 and up to 1,729 acres may require multiple entry under 

Alternative 3. 

The SEZ sensitivity rating system evaluation of suitability of SEZs for mechanical equipment 

operations (Appendix C) would reduce the potential for negative effects in SEZs from mechanical 

treatment. Based on the monitoring results from the Heavenly Valley Creek SEZ demonstration 

project (HSEZ) (Norman et al. 2008) and the Roundhill SEZ project (Loupe et al. 2011), CTL 

operations in SEZs determined to exhibit operable conditions based on the SEZ sensitivity rating 

system are not anticipated to result in adverse effects to soil or water resources. By restricting 

ground based equipment operations to operable soil moisture conditions (guidelines for this 

determination are found in Appendix D) resource damage is not expected to occur in these areas 

with either of the action alternatives. 

Resource protection measures for WT treatment units that contain SEZs would prevent or 

minimize negative effects using several methods. First, WT equipment is prohibited from 

operating in SEZs. Hand crews would directionally fell trees toward the adjacent upland areas 

where mechanical equipment could end-line the material for removal. In cases where end-lining 

is not feasible, and for larger SEZs within WT units, hand crews would accomplish the 

treatments. The limbs and branches of trees to be end-lined would be lopped and scattered to 

provide soil cover unless desired fuel loads are exceeded, in which case slash would be piled and 

burned (Chapter 2). 

Mastication is proposed in some hand treatment units where it would be difficult to otherwise 

meet desired fuel load conditions. Because many hand treatment units contain SEZs, the same 

SEZ Sensitivity Rating system (Appendix C) would be used to evaluate whether or not the hand 

treatment units that contain SEZs are suitable for mechanical equipment (i.e. masticator) 

operations. Where conditions are determined to be suitable for mechanical operations, 

mastication would be conducted in these units under operable soil moisture conditions (Appendix 

D). The maximum number of acres that would receive mastication after hand treatment is 353 

acres with Alternative 2 and 692 acres with Alternative 3. These proposed acres have been 

incorporated into the cumulative watershed effects analysis (described below) for both 

Alternative 2 and 3, respectively. 

While the proposed treatments in aspen stands may result in an increase in exposed soil, some 

compacted soils, and disturbance of the existing ground cover and litter layer, the long-term 

response of aspen to soil disturbance is positive. Reduction of conifer encroachment would 

increase water availability. Aspen trees are intolerant to shade (USDA FS 2006d), and would 

benefit from removing competing conifers. Additional sunlight would reach the soil, increase soil 

temperatures, and provide an enhanced growth environment for aspen suckers (USDA FS 2006d). 

The expected establishment of herbaceous understory vegetation would provide ground cover and 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-108 Chapter 3 

result in a long term decrease in erosion. The soil disturbance caused by aspen stand treatments 

would benefit aspen regeneration by allowing pre-existing buds to produce additional aspen trees 

through sucker growth (USDA FS 2006d). Improved growing conditions would also result in 

greater soil cover from young aspen regeneration and annual leaf drop. The expected outcome of 

proposed South Shore treatments is healthy aspen stands where average conifer crown closure 

within aspen stands is less than 25% after project treatments, average aspen crown closure 

increases to greater than 40%, aspen would comprise more than half of the canopy, and aspen 

would overtop conifer crowns in aspen stands. Existing aspen stands present in the analysis area, 

and the South Shore proposed aspen stand treatments are shown on Map 9. 

Several special aquatic features are present within the project area. Implementation of the 

resource protection measures (Chapter 2) is expected to prevent or minimize the potential for 

negative effects to special aquatic features and the surrounding soil and surface hydrology 

consistent with RCOs (USDA FS 2004). 

Under both action alternatives, treatments in SEZs, floodplains, and aspen stands would result in 

long-term benefits to these habitats by enhancing riparian vegetation through removal of 

competition from conifer encroachment and reducing wildfire hazard. Conifer removal would 

improve growing conditions in these areas for more diverse and productive riparian and wet 

meadow vegetation. The improved riparian vegetation growing conditions could increase water 

quality treatment along stream corridors, and improve habitat for riparian dependent wildlife 

species. In addition, removing conifer vegetation along floodplains and other SEZs would help 

restore natural timing, variability and duration for floodplain inundation. Conifer removal may 

also raise water table elevations due to a decrease in conifer water uptake and transpiration. 

Potential short-term effects of the treatments in these areas include reduced floodplain roughness 

and temporary localized increases in erosion potential. These effects to the condition of SEZs, 

floodplains, and aspen stands are expected to be minimal because of the limited disturbance 

extent in these areas and the restrictions to treatment activities. Therefore, no adverse effects to 

SEZs, floodplains, and aspen stands are expected from project activities. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) 

Analysis Methodology 

Consistent with the overall effects analysis for hydrologic resources, the CWE analysis for the 

South Shore Project evaluated watersheds at the HUC7 scale. Beneficial uses of most concern 

(e.g., aquatic communities) are supported at the HUC7 watershed scale, and changes in the 

mechanism of concern (e.g., surface erosion) can be detected at this spatial scale. At larger scales, 

effects may be diluted. A primary assumption of this analysis is that protection of beneficial uses 

at the HUC7 scale also results in protection of uses at larger scales, including downstream 

beneficial uses in Lake Tahoe. 

For each HUC7 watershed, a Threshold of Concern (TOC) was calculated using the NRCS 2007 

soil survey. The updated soil types in the 2007 survey have an allowable impervious coverage 

percentage associated with them, based on the Bailey’s land capability classification system 

(Bailey 1974). The Bailey’s system defined a threshold value of impervious surfaces an area can 

tolerate before a potential for adverse impacts can be expected. The calculated allowable 

impervious coverage (IC) is weighted by area within each analysis watershed and summed to give 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-109

a TOC for that watershed. TOC does not represent an exact point at which cumulative watershed 

effects would occur; rather it serves as a “yellow flag” indicator of increasing susceptibility for 

adverse cumulative effects. Susceptibility to CWE generally increases from low to high as the 

level of land disturbing activities increases toward or past the TOC. Table 3-43 presents total 

watershed acres, allowable impervious acres, and TOC values as a percentage of the watershed 

area. 

Table 3-43. HUC7 Watersheds, Total Acreage and Threshold Of Concern Values 

HUC7 Watershed Name Drainage 

Area (Acres) 

Allowable 

Impervious 

Coverage 

(IC) Acres 

TOC for 

each 

watershed 

Angora Creek 3693.6 533.3 14.44% 

Benwood Meadow 3682.8 286.0 7.77% 

Big Meadow Creek 3271.0 193.4 5.91% 

Bijou Frontage 3763.3 476.9 12.67% 

Camp Richardson Frontal 2658.0 390.1 14.68% 

Cascade Creek 3019.1 124.1 4.11% 

Cold Creek 8172.9 481.7 5.89% 

Echo Creek 3459.7 161.2 4.66% 

Glen Alpine Creek 6935.7 221.0 3.19% 

Grass Lake 4032.6 259.2 6.43% 

Headwaters Trout Creek 7500.2 567.6 7.57% 

Lower Trout Creek 3538.4 579.6 16.38% 

Lower Upper Truckee River 4292.4 635.1 14.80% 

Middle Upper Truckee River 4033.6 458.2 11.36% 

Osgood Swamp 3145.6 534.7 17.00% 

Saxon Creek 5397.2 495.0 9.17% 

Tallac Creek 2790.1 246.7 8.84% 

Taylor Creek 4985.1 412.7 8.28% 

Equivalent roaded acres (ERA) is a unit used to estimate the impacts of various land use activities 

in a watershed and relate it back to the TOC. The ERA method relates the relative magnitude of 

disturbance from land use activities compared to an acre of road disturbance. Land uses are 

assigned a coefficient based on relative impact, ranging from 1.0 for roads, structures, and other 

impervious surfaces to 0.0 for land uses that have a negligible or positive impact on the soil 

hydrologic properties, such as lop and scatter (Table 3-44). ERA coefficients are used to calculate 

existing or projected impervious cover, which is then related to the TOC for each watershed. 

Disturbance from the action alternatives, current land uses, and past, present, and foreseeable 

future project activities were estimated within each watershed for this CWE analysis using the 

process recommended for the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service (FS Handbook 

2520, Ch 20, 1988). Past activities analyzed include previous vegetation management activities 

(dating back to 1990), landings, prescribed underburning, pile burning, and natural occurrences 

such as wildfires. Disturbance coefficients applied to each type of ground-disturbing activity were 

developed by watershed scientists from the LTBMU, and adapted from coefficients developed by 

the Eldorado and Tahoe National Forests. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-110 Chapter 3 

Table 3-44. Equivalent Roaded Acre Coefficients Used for 

Different Management Activities in the South Shore CWE Analysis 

Management Practice ERA Coefficient 

Vegetation Removal 

Whole Tree Harvest 0.12 

Forwarder/Processor/CTL 0.07 

Forwarder/Processor/CTL over snow 0.01 

Hand Thinning 0.01 

Helicopter 0.01 

New Landings 0.80 

Existing Landings (assume 1⁄2 recovered) 0.40 

Landings after subsoiling (ripping) 0.08 

Site Preparation 

Hand piling 0.005 

Hand Pile Burning 0.01 

Underburning 0.03 

Mechanical Pile Burning 0.03 

Chipping/mastication 0.035 

Lop and Scatter 0.00 

Wildfire 

High intensity (0-40% cover) 0.65 

Moderate intensity (40-60% cover) 0.45 

Low intensity (>60% cover) 0.25 

Other 

Unpaved Roads and Trails 0.80 

Unpaved Roads after subsoiling (ripping) 0.08 

Ski runs 0.20 

Impervious Surfaces (paved roads and buildings) 

– obtained from IKONOS and GIS 1.00 

The coefficients shown above were multiplied by the acres of the management activity to 

determine the ERA for that use or activity in a particular watershed. The total ERA from all land 

uses in each watershed is compared to the TOC for that watershed in order to define the risk ratio 

for the watershed using the following equation: 

Risk Ratio = Total ERA/TOC 

A risk ratio below 1.0 (100%) indicates no risk of adverse impacts to the watershed, while a risk 

ratio above 100% indicates the need for more detailed analysis, including site specific field 

evaluations, in order to determine the potential impacts of any proposed treatments and the 

resource protection measures required to minimize those impacts. 

A straight line (linear) recovery over twenty years is modeled for ground disturbing activities 

such as vegetation management activities and landings. Recovery is reflected in the model by 

applying a recovery coefficient to each activity. A 20-year recovery was also assumed for 

wildfires, although it is likely that the recovery of soil hydrologic function after wildfire occurs 

more rapidly (on the order of 3 to 5 years). Therefore, ERA calculations in areas burned by the 

Angora Fire and other project area wildfires provide a conservative estimate of the potential for 

disturbance and risk. 

The ERA method assumes no recovery from roads that remain in use. Unlike the other 

disturbances listed above, the land covered by roads may not recover over time with continued 

use. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-111

The ERA analysis methodology allows for a comparison of alternatives regarding the relative 

potential for watershed impacts from proposed treatments rather than providing a complete 

picture of watershed effects. The coefficients are applied to an area and summed, so if a project 

area has 10 acres with a 25% decrease in permeability, the CWE analysis models this as 

equivalent to 2.5 impermeable acres. However, 10 acres with a 25% reduction in permeability 

may not have the same hydrologic response as 2.5 acres of impermeable surface. Furthermore, 

this model is not spatially specific (e.g., it does not account for whether treatments are near a 

stream course or not), so it is not known whether eroded material reaches a water body or is 

deposited on a slope elsewhere. Every modeling method has inherent limitations, and Cumulative 

Watershed Effects analysis utilizing ERAs with a defined TOC for HUC7 watersheds is a 

standardized method and provides a useful comparison of effects among alternatives. 

Alternative 1 

By implementing the No Action alternative, the stand conditions in this analysis area would 

remain very dense with high fuel loads. As a result, the south shore region would be more 

susceptible to a high severity wildfire. Refer to the Watershed Condition section of this chapter 

for more details about the potential impacts that wildfire might have if no action is taken at this 

time to reduce fuel loading in the South Shore project area. 

The current condition of south shore channels will not change under the No Action alternative, 

with the exception of the following proposed restoration activities not related to the South Shore 

Project. Future restoration projects being planned within the South Shore analysis area include: 

 Cold Creek, High Meadows channel restoration project expected to restore approximately 

18,000 ft of channel (2010-2012) – LTBMU; 

 Upper Truckee River, Airport Reach channel restoration began in 2008 and will restore 

about 4,000 ft of incised channel – CSLT; 

 Upper Truckee River, Sunset Reach channel restoration project to restore 12,000 ft of 

channel (2013-2016) – LTBMU and CTC; 

 Upper Truckee River, CA State Parks Reach channel restoration of 7,920 ft of channel 

(2012-2014) – CA State Parks; 

 Angora Creek, above Lake Tahoe Blvd involves restoration of about 3,000 ft of channel, 

the construction dates are not currently known - LTBMU 

 Upper Truckee River, Marsh Reach restoration of about 9,000 ft of channel, construction 

dates are not currently known – CTC; 

 Upper Truckee River, Reaches 1 and 2 restoration of approximately 4,250 ft of channel, 

the construction dates are not currently known – CTC 

 Taylor and Tallac Creek channel and meadow restoration project involves about 2 miles 

of channel restoration, the construction dates are not currently known – LTBMU. 

These reasonably foreseeable future channel restoration projects will improve floodplain and 

wetland function, and will increase sediment storage in restored reaches, thereby reducing 

sediment delivery to Lake Tahoe from stream channel sources. There may be some short-term 

construction related effects of these channel restoration projects, however BMPs and project 

designs will reduce and mitigate these impacts. In addition, the construction timing for the 

various projects has been phased to reduce the amount of channel disturbance in any given year. 

In addition, urban erosion control projects are also proposed to continue into the future, which 

will further reduce the impacts from impervious surfaces in the South Shore analysis area. These 

projects often involve not only reducing the source areas of erosion and sediment, but also 

treating stormwater runoff for fine sediment and nutrients. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-112 Chapter 3 

However, with the No Action alternative, there would be no South Shore project activities to 

produce direct or indirect effects, so there would be no additive cumulative effects from the South 

Shore project. 

Alternatives 2 and 3

Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) Assumptions 

For the South Shore project CWE analysis, the following assumptions were made to inform the 

analysis and to ensure consistency. 

 All proposed treatment activities would comply with Regional BMPs and with projectspecific resource protection measures. The ERA coefficients used for various 

management activities (Table 3-48) assume that the use of Regional BMPs is included 

with treatments. 

 The majority of landings proposed for use in the South Shore Project (approximately 

80%) already exist on the landscape from forest treatments implemented roughly 10-25 

years ago. Therefore, 80% of all proposed landings were assumed to have recovered 

halfway toward their reference condition (i.e., they were assigned a 0.40 ERA coefficient 

instead of 0.80). The remaining 20% of the landings were assumed to represent new 

disturbance on the landscape and were given the standard 0.80 ERA coefficient (Table 3-

48). 

 Although the landings used for South Shore treatments would be decommissioned to 

some extent after project completion, the exact method for each landing 

decommissioning is variable, so the CWE analysis assumed the full 20 year recovery 

period for all landings. This applies a more conservative approach because the CWE 

analysis does not reduce landing impacts based on a more immediate recovery due to 

decommissioning. 

 Landings in WT mechanical treatment units were assumed to be one acre in size, and 

landings in CTL mechanical units were assumed to be 1⁄4 acre in size. These acreages 

provide a useful estimate of average landing size for each treatment type in order to 

compare effects between the action alternatives. Actual landing sizes would vary, with 

the WT landings generally larger than the CTL landings. 

 Previously decommissioned roads (i.e., existing temporary roads) were given the 

coefficient for unpaved roads after subsoiling/ripping (0.08). 

 Although temporary roads would be decommissioned after project implementation, the 

CWE analysis does not reduce road impacts based on recovery due to decommissioning. 

Therefore, for this analysis it was assumed that the temporary road construction and 

reconstruction effects would follow the 20 year natural recovery rate after project 

completion. 

 For analysis purposes, all urban lot stands proposed for hand treatments were assumed to 

receive hand piling and burning as the secondary treatment, rather than chip and/or 

masticate. This assumption was based on the likelihood that only a small portion may be 

chipped or masticated. The majority of the urban lot stands are in close proximity to 

roads, facilitating easy removal of material. Many urban lots would not receive any 

secondary treatment because felled material would be removed from the site manually. 

Therefore, modeling hand pile and burning provides a maximum estimate of impacts in 

hand treated urban lots. 

 To simplify the CWE analysis modeling, all urban lot hand treatments were assumed to 

occur in year 2, and all CTL urban lot treatments were assumed to occur in year 3. In 

reality, urban lot hand treatment stands would be treated as soon as possible, but would 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-113

not likely be completed all in one year. In addition, CTL urban lot stands would be 

treated when the nearby CTL stands are treated, not necessarily in year 3. 

 The recommended ERA coefficients for wildfire provide a range of values for varying 

fire intensities (i.e. low, moderate, and high). For the South Shore CWE analysis, the 

highest value in the range associated with each fire intensity was applied to model the 

worst case scenario. The high end of the recommended ranges for ERA coefficients 

which were used for this project are displayed in Table 3-44 above. The wildfires 

included in the CWE analysis and the affected watersheds are displayed below in 

Table 3-45. 

Table 3-45 Wildfires and Affected Watersheds in this CWE Analysis 

Wildfire Year Affected Watersheds 

Angora 2007 Angora Creek, Camp Richardson Frontal, Lower Upper 

Truckee River, Osgood Swamp, Taylor Creek 

Cathedral 2006 Taylor Creek 

Showers 2002 Benwood Meadow, Big Meadow Creek 

Gondola 2002 Bijou Frontage 

Pioneer 2 2002 Cold Creek 

Kiva 2002 Tallac Creek, Taylor Creek 

Cascade 1994 Taylor Creek 

 The LTBMU typically waits approximately two years after piles are created before 

burning them in order to season the material for optimum burning conditions. It was 

assumed that hand pile burning would occur within hand treatment units two years after 

the initial treatment is implemented. 

 Where underburning is proposed as a secondary treatment in hand or mechanical units, it 

was also assumed to occur two years after the latest prior treatment. For mechanical units 

this would be two years after the initial treatment, for hand pile and burn units this would 

be two years after the hand piles are burned. 

 Prescribed underburning may be substituted for hand piling and burning within hand 

treatment units in SEZs and aspen stands. Because this would be limited to only a few of 

the SEZ hand treatment units, and effects of underburning have been found to be 

minimal, it was not included in the CWE analysis. 

 The following parameters were adopted from the South Shore Landscape Analysis for 

inclusion of roads in the CWE analysis (USDA FS 2004). The width applied to roads in 

the project area was based on the road description (i.e. collector, local, etc). These values 

are presented in Table 3-46, next page. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-114 Chapter 3 

Table 3-46. Assumed Road Widths for CWE Analysis of Roaded Acres 

Road Description Width of travel 

surface (feet) 

Arterial 20 

Collector 16 

Local 14 

State and Federal Highways 40 

Private, City, County, and other 16 

FS, Non-system 12 

Trails 4 

 Additional width was added for the CWE analysis to account for the entire road prism (or 

the overall “footprint” of the road or trail) consistent with the CWE analysis approach 

used for the South Shore Landscape Analysis. For road and trail segments on gentle 

slopes (<35%), road widths shown in Table 3-50 above were multiplied by 1.25. For road 

or trail segments on steeper slopes (>35%), road widths shown above were multiplied by 

2.5. 

 Past and foreseeable future channel and SEZ restoration activities were considered 

qualitatively for their effects, but could not be included in the ERA analysis. The ERA 

methodology is based on impervious coverage, with no method to credit channel and SEZ 

restoration activities with a reduction in ERA. There is also no coefficient for failing 

channel banks or incised channels, so existing degradation of stream channels and SEZs 

is not included in the ERA methodology unless there is existing impervious coverage. 

 Recent and future Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team (TFFT) treatments were also added to the 

CWE analysis for the South Shore project. This includes treatments from 2008-2010 for 

the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, CA State Parks, California Tahoe Conservancy, 

and the City of South Lake Tahoe. 

 A long-term restoration project for the Angora Fire burn area has been planned, with the 

decision document signed in fall 2010. The proposed treatments for the Angora Longterm Restoration Project (ALTR) were included in the South Shore CWE analysis. The 

impacts of the ALTR project on ERA and Risk Ratios for the 5 watersheds affected by 

the fire (Angora Creek, Camp Richardson Frontal, Lower Upper Truckee River, Osgood 

Swamp, and Taylor Creek) in the first year of ALTR treatments were analyzed separately 

from the first year of proposed South Shore treatments for each action alternative to 

demonstrate the relative difference in the magnitude of treatments proposed by each 

project 

CWE Results 

Appendix A lists the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the South 

Shore analysis area watersheds, including all projects considered for the CWE model. The past, 

present and reasonable foreseeable future vegetation management projects included in the CWE 

analysis are shown in Map 6. The South Shore project analysis area intersects 21 HUC7 

watersheds (Map 10). The areas outside of the South Shore treatment units and within the 

affected watersheds include Forest Service managed lands, state lands, and other privately owned 

lands. Because only 18 of these HUC7 watersheds have proposed South Shore activities within 

them, those 18 watersheds were included in the CWE analysis. 

Table 3-47 presents a summary of the CWE analysis results using the ERA methodology for the 

five years after initiation of proposed South Shore Project treatments, and the final year of the 

model simulation, 10 years after project initiation. This table also displays the maximum change 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-115

in risk ratio (RR) associated with proposed treatments in each watershed for both action 

alternatives. (See the Water and Riparian Resources specialist report located in the project file for 

the complete CWE analysis for each of the project area watersheds.) 

As can be seen in Table 3-47, existing roads, trails and impervious coverage from development 

account for most of the ERA in the South Shore watersheds. Specifically, four of the 18 

watersheds analyzed exhibited an ERA over the TOC, (see highlights in Table 3-47), before the 

proposed South Shore treatments are applied (i.e. RR > 100%). Disturbance in these watersheds 

is primarily attributable to impervious coverage from roads and buildings, with some additional 

impacts from trails, ski runs, and wildfires. Three of these four watersheds are over TOC from 

impervious coverage alone, including Bijou Frontage, Camp Richardson Frontal, and Lower 

Upper Truckee River (i.e., below Christmas Valley). Each of these three watersheds is located 

nearer to Lake Tahoe, where the primary land use is urban development. The 4th watershed that is 

over TOC before proposed treatments are applied is the Angora Creek watershed, due to the 

effects of the Angora wildfire. These are the only watersheds in the South Shore analysis area that 

begin over TOC or that go over TOC during the analysis period, and all are > 100% RR due to the 

existing conditions in these watersheds. 

There is a need to reduce hazardous fuel loads and wildfire risk in these four watersheds that are 

over TOC, and the purpose and need for the South Shore Project would not be met without 

treatments in these watersheds. The scheduling and types of treatment activities in these 

watersheds were designed to reduce impacts for Alternative 2 and to minimize impacts with 

Alternative 3. Additional changes to either the timing or type of treatments would not affect the 

number of watersheds that are over TOC. 

The South Shore treatments in either Alternative 2 or 3 do not cause an increase in ERA that 

would exceed TOC for any of the other project area watersheds. The remaining 14 watersheds in 

the South Shore analysis area exhibit ERAs that are well below their TOC both during and at the 

conclusion of the project (Table 3-47). 

Several triggers were agreed upon by the LTBMU and Lahontan Water Board in order to meet the 

requirements of the Lahontan Timber Waiver and determine whether more detailed analysis, 

including site specific field evaluations, is needed to evaluate the potential impacts of the 

proposed treatments and identify resource protection measures needed to reduce those impacts 

and meet water quality requirements. These triggers were based on outcomes from the CWE 

analysis for a given watershed. The primary triggers for additional monitoring or analysis 

requirements were: 1) an increase in RR of 20% or more in watersheds currently below their 

TOC, 2) an increase in RR of 5% or more in watersheds that are currently over their TOC, and 3) 

an ERA that increases above TOC due to project activities. However, based on the revised 2009 

Timber Waiver language and comments received from the public, the Lahontan Water Board and 

TRPA staff, monitoring sites will be selected based on the risk for impacts, rather than on the 

CWE results, as described in Chapter 4. 

For Alternative 2, two watersheds exhibit an increase in RR over the course of the project of more 

than 20% as a result of the proposed treatments (Table 3-47). These watersheds are Tallac Creek, 

which experienced a 26.2% maximum increase in RR, and Taylor Creek which experienced a 

27.1% maximum increase. While this is a substantial increase in RR over a short period of time, 

these watersheds still remain well below their TOC during the analysis period. 

For Alternative 3, treatments and acreages were modified in several areas of the project. The 

changes in the Tallac and Taylor Creek watersheds resulted in a reduction in the maximum 

percent increase in RR from treatments in these watersheds to 18.4% and 17.5%, respectively. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-116 Chapter 3 

Only one watershed that is currently over TOC, Camp Richardson Frontal, would experience an 

increase in RR of 5% or more (Table 3-47). The treatments in Alternative 2 would result in a 

maximum increase in RR of 10.1% during the analysis period. For Alternative 3, a 7.4% 

maximum increase would occur in the first year of implementation. This watershed was 

substantially impacted by the Angora Fire, and was already over TOC before the wildfire due to 

the large amount of impervious cover from roads and urban development. Treatments in this 

watershed have been minimized to the extent feasible while still meeting the purpose and need to 

reduce levels of hazardous fuels in Alternative 3. 

The other three watersheds that are over TOC based on existing conditions do not experience an 

increase in RR of 5% or more from project activities. The remaining watersheds in the South 

Shore analysis area are not over TOC, do not go over or near TOC due to project activities, and 

do not exhibit a large increase in RR during the period of analysis. 

The action alternatives would result in some increased disturbance in the affected watersheds. 

The application of resource protection measures and BMPs would minimize on-site impacts 

associated with the proposed project activities, while road maintenance and stream crossing 

improvements would reduce delivery of sediment to streams in the project area. The proposed 

treatments were designed to minimize potential adverse impacts to soil and water quality within 

the project area, while recognizing the existing watershed conditions due to lasting impacts of the 

Angora Fire, existing road densities, and stream crossings. 

Based on the results of the CWE analysis, with application of the BMPs and resource protection 

measures described in Chapter 2 and implementation of the monitoring described in Chapter 4, 

the risk of adverse cumulative effects to water resources within the project area is low and 

beneficial uses in the Lake Tahoe Basin would be maintained. The analysis concluded that there is 

no loss of aquatic or riparian habitat and therefore there is no cumulative contribution to the loss 

of suitable habitat for aquatic and riparian dependent species within the South Shore analysis 

area. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Re

Water and Riparian Resources Table 3-47. CWE Results Summary for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 (watersheds over 100% RR are highlighted) 

HUC 7 Name 

Alternative 2 Existing Conditions Alternative 2 Risk Ratio Associated with South ShTotal Acres TOC % 

TOC Acres (allowable IC) 

2010 RR without wildfires

2010 RR with wildfires

2010 RR with ALTR 

2010 RR with all and Alt 2 

2011 RR with Alt 2 

2012 RR with Alt 2 

2013 Rwith Al2 

Angora Creek 3693.6 14.44% 533.3 47.94% 207.87% 233.50% 238.31% 226.87% 216.15% 205.19% Benwood Meadow 3682.8 7.77% 286 6.55% 41.39% 41.39% 41.60% 39.11% 36.48% 33.82% Big Meadow Creek 3271.0 5.91% 193.4 15.51% 22.87% 22.87% 29.77% 28.99% 28.34% 32.37% Bijou Frontage 3763.3 12.67% 476.9 180.25% 180.28% 180.28% 180.28% 180.95% 181.19% 181.56% Camp Richardson Frontal 2658.0 14.68% 390.1 106.96% 168.80% 175.90% 184.16% 186.72% 183.35% 181.94% Cascade Creek 3019.1 4.11% 124.1 21.18% 21.18% 21.18% 24.73% 24.45% 24.15% 23.87% Cold Creek 8172.9 5.89% 481.7 28.61% 28.63% 28.63% 28.72% 28.52% 29.65% 29.38% Echo Creek 3459.7 4.66% 161.2 27.42% 27.42% 27.42% 28.62% 30.27% 30.80% 38.16% Glen Alpine Creek 6935.7 3.19% 221 16.64% 16.64% 16.64% 16.64% 16.64% 17.26% 17.23% Grass Lake 4032.6 6.43% 259.2 21.27% 21.27% 21.27% 31.61% 31.14% 31.15% 33.33% Headwaters of Trout Creek 7500.2 7.57% 567.6 9.16% 9.16% 9.16% 11.65% 12.25% 21.74% 23.76% Lower Trout Creek 3538.4 16.38% 579.6 72.34% 72.34% 72.34% 78.65% 79.64% 83.56% 89.43% Lower Upper Truckee River 4292.4 14.80% 635.1 130.70% 143.90% 145.61% 149.62% 149.57% 148.15% 147.71% Middle Upper Truckee River 4033.6 11.36% 458.2 53.94% 53.94% 53.94% 59.18% 60.46% 62.86% 65.83% Osgood Swamp 3145.6 17.00% 534.7 63.49% 72.63% 73.31% 77.01% 76.90% 76.08% 80.35% Saxon Creek 5397.2 9.17% 495 25.78% 25.78% 25.78% 27.83% 27.66% 37.05% 37.38% Tallac Creek 2790.1 8.84% 246.7 30.97% 32.26% 32.26% 36.74% 47.77% 56.34% 58.43% Taylor Creek 4985.1 8.28% 412.7 56.49% 62.75% 62.80% 62.93% 77.71% 89.86% 88.04% 
Lake Tahoe Ba

 

3-118

Table 3-47. CWE Results Summary for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 (continued) 

HUC 7 Name 

Alternative 3 Existing Conditions Alternative 3 Risk Ratio Associated with South ShTotal Acres TOC % 

TOC Acres (allowable IC) 

2010 RR without wildfires

2010 RR with wildfires

2010 RR with ALTR 

2010 RR with all and Alt 3 

2011 RR with Alt 3 

2012 RR with Alt 3 

2013 Rwith Al3 

Angora Creek 3693.6 14.44% 533.3 47.94% 207.87% 233.50% 235.28% 223.92% 213.52% 202.47% Benwood Meadow 3682.8 7.77% 286 6.55% 41.39% 41.39% 41.39% 38.84% 36.09% 33.39% Big Meadow Creek 3271.0 5.91% 193.4 15.51% 22.87% 22.87% 28.73% 27.96% 27.66% 28.33% Bijou Frontage 3763.3 12.67% 476.9 180.25% 180.28% 180.28% 180.28% 180.95% 181.19% 181.56% Camp Richardson Frontal 2658.0 14.68% 390.1 106.96% 168.80% 175.90% 183.28% 182.28% 178.51% 180.18% Cascade Creek 3019.1 4.11% 124.1 21.18% 21.18% 21.18% 24.73% 24.45% 24.15% 23.87% Cold Creek 8172.9 5.89% 481.7 28.61% 28.63% 28.63% 28.72% 28.52% 29.69% 29.42% Echo Creek 3459.7 4.66% 161.2 27.42% 27.42% 27.42% 28.56% 30.27% 30.76% 31.57% Glen Alpine Creek 6935.7 3.19% 221 16.64% 16.64% 16.64% 16.64% 16.64% 17.26% 17.23% Grass Lake 4032.6 6.43% 259.2 21.27% 21.27% 21.27% 28.25% 27.91% 28.56% 29.99% Headwaters of Trout Creek 7500.2 7.57% 567.6 9.16% 9.16% 9.16% 12.45% 12.44% 16.98% 19.03% Lower Trout Creek 3538.4 16.38% 579.6 72.34% 72.34% 72.34% 78.50% 79.64% 80.80% 83.56% Lower Upper Truckee River 4292.4 14.80% 635.1 130.70% 143.90% 145.61% 147.57% 148.33% 147.05% 146.39% Middle Upper Truckee River 4033.6 11.36% 458.2 53.94% 53.94% 53.94% 58.72% 59.91% 63.04% 63.49% Osgood Swamp 3145.6 17.00% 534.7 63.49% 72.63% 73.31% 74.11% 75.52% 74.78% 77.56% Saxon Creek 5397.2 9.17% 495 25.78% 25.78% 25.78% 27.82% 27.64% 35.29% 36.59% Tallac Creek 2790.1 8.84% 246.7 30.97% 32.26% 32.26% 37.76% 43.77% 49.90% 50.68% Taylor Creek 4985.1 8.28% 412.7 56.49% 62.75% 62.80% 62.80% 70.08% 79.71% 80.25% 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Water and Riparian Resources 3-119

Analytical Conclusions 

This section provides a brief summary of the conclusions of the effects analysis for water and 

riparian resources. It also provides linkages between the resource protection measures in Chapter 

2 and the magnitude, scope, intensity, and significance of the environmental effects from project 

activities on water quality, riparian resources, and overall cumulative watershed effects. 

For Alternative 1, previously planned restoration projects, erosion control projects, road 

maintenance activities and BMP retrofits would continue to improve watershed conditions, but 

would not result in any of the four watersheds currently above 100% risk ratio (RR) under 

existing conditions for cumulative effects to recover sufficiently to go below the threshold of 

concern (i.e., below 100% RR). In addition, continued increases in fuel accumulations would 

increase the risk for a high intensity wildfire, which increases the potential for erosion and 

sediment delivery and nutrient mobilization, and could adversely affect water quality and 

beneficial uses. 

There are many similarities between the two action alternatives (i.e. Alternatives 2 and 3), such as 

the project resource protection measures detailed in Chapter 2. Therefore, these alternatives and 

their anticipated effects are discussed together here, with differences between the alternatives 

detailed at the end of this section. The potential for a large scale wildfire would be reduced with 

either action alternative as compared to the existing conditions (i.e. Alternative 1), due to the 

resulting reduction of hazardous fuels on the landscape. The reduced risk for a large scale wildfire 

in this area decreases the likelihood for water quality impacts from a post fire erosion event, and 

protects against wide spread vegetation and habitat loss at the watershed scale. 

Stream channel conditions are not expected to be affected by the proposed project activities 

associated with Alternative 2 or 3 because of resource protection measures for temporary stream 

crossings (R-8, R-9, and R-10), stream buffers for mechanical equipment exclusion (WS-11, WS13, WS-14, and WS-15), and the 5 ft “no take” buffer along stream banks (AR-2). In addition, 

implementation of either action alternative would involve replacing 3 permanent stream crossings 

that are currently acting as fish passage and/or sediment conveyance barriers and possibly as a 

sediment source with improved crossings. 

Although impacts to water quality are not expected to result from project activities proposed with 

either action alternative, the greatest potential for water quality effects comes from the proposed 

whole-tree treatments, landings and skid trails in close proximity to surface water features, and 

temporary and permanent roads. In general, BMPs focus on controlling erosion and subsequent 

sediment delivery to streams and other water bodies in both action alternatives. BMPs are 

designed to control sediment of all size classes through a combination of minimizing soil 

disturbance, dispersing flows, and establishing buffers adjacent to waterbodies with high surface 

roughness; no distinction is made between coarse and fine sediment. Due to the greater potential 

for impacts associated with WT treatment techniques; whole-tree equipment will be prohibited 

from operating in SEZs (WS-16), and larger buffers have been prescribed in WT treatments units 

to provide added protection to water quality (WS-14). In addition, landings are not permitted 

within SEZs, and temporary roads for this project have been located outside of SEZs to the extent 

feasible. Specific measures are prescribed for landing and temporary road decommissioning so 

that water quality effects are avoided. Any sediment delivery resulting from project treatments 

would not be measurable above background levels. 

Impacts to beneficial uses are not expected to result from project activities. The 2 beneficial uses 

(BU) for Lake Tahoe that have been identified as having the greatest potential for project effects 

are the non-contact water recreation BU and the cold freshwater habitat BU. The resource 

protection measures identified above for water quality protection will also avoid effects to the 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-120 Chapter 3 

non-contact water recreation BU, in that sediment delivery to surface waters will be avoided, and 

will not be measurable above background levels. The cold freshwater habitat BU will be 

protected with the 5 ft stream bank no take exclusion and the CWD retention resource protection 

measures. 

Finally, SEZs, floodplains and aspen stands have a potential for effects from the proposed 

Alternative 2 and 3 treatments related to pile burning and mechanical treatments in SEZs. 

Resource protection measures have been developed specifically for piling and burning in SEZs 

(WS-17 through WS-22), including a 50 ft no piling buffer for perennial and intermittent streams 

and water bodies, and a 10 ft buffer for ephemeral stream channels. These buffers are designed to 

reduce sediment and ash transport below a level of significance, and the 50 ft buffer for perennial 

and intermittent channels has been an adequate protection measure in the past for avoiding effects 

to water quality from this source. In addition, resource protection measures including spacing 

requirements and limiting the extent of piles in SEZs will prevent effects to SEZs, floodplains and 

aspen stands by protecting the riparian vegetation. Finally, an adaptive management approach is 

proposed based on the monitoring results and research findings (see Chapter 4 for more details). 

If ash or sediment transport is found during SEZ pile burn monitoring, the buffer width would be 

adjusted, or other responsive actions would take place to correct the issue for future pile burning. 

Vegetation management treatments in SEZs, floodplains and aspen stands, which involve the 

removal of conifer species will improve the condition of the SEZs by improving riparian 

vegetation health and water availability. Therefore, for both action alternatives, SEZ treatment 

units were evaluated for possible mechanical CTL treatment using the SEZ Sensitivity Rating 

criteria (Appendix C) based on the Heavenly Valley Creek SEZ Demonstration Project (HSEZ) to 

evaluate and refine treatment types and reduce negative impacts. Units (or portions of units) that 

were found to be more sensitive than the HSEZ project site were not considered for mechanical 

treatment methods. These field evaluations of SEZ treatment units resulted in changes from CTL 

to hand treatment based on the observed sensitivity of some units, and reduce effects to SEZs 

from CTL mechanical treatment to less than significant. 

Furthermore, under Alternative 2 no watershed that is not currently over the 100% RR threshold 

would go over that threshold due to the proposed treatments. Cumulative watershed effects are 

not expected to result from Alternative 2 treatment activities. Alternative 2 would generate some 

localized, short-term effects to water quality and riparian resources, but analysis results indicate 

that these effects to water quality, stream channel condition, and SEZs, floodplains and aspen 

stands would be mitigated to the extent feasible with project specific resource protection 

measures and BMPs, and are not expected to be significant. 

For Alternative 3, several changes were made to project treatment type, temporary roads and 

landings to further reduce negative effects to water quality and riparian resources. Temporary 

road miles were reduced in Alternative 3 and landings in RCAs were reduced by 41%. As with 

Alternative 2, no watershed that is not currently over the 100% RR threshold would go over that 

threshold due to Alternative 3 activities. In addition, increases in RR associated with project 

treatments were reduced to the extent feasible in Alternative 3 for most of the watersheds over the 

TOC (Angora Creek, Camp Richardson Frontal, and Lower Upper Truckee River), and for 

several other watersheds included in the CWE analysis. Evaluation of all factors for water quality, 

riparian resources, and cumulative watershed effects shows that negative environmental effects 

have been reduced below significance for the preferred alternative, Alternative 3. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Aquatic Wildlife 3-121

Aquatic Wildlife 

Scope of the Analysis and Indicators of Effect 

Species considered are based on the April 29, 2010 (verified on December 16, 2010) list of federally 

threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

(LTBMU) from the U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2010). The USDA 

Forest Service wildlife sensitive species list is based on the Pacific Southwest Region’s list of 1998, as 

amended. These lists are the most current versions for the LTMBU. 

Informal ESA consultation for Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) was concluded on June 23, 2009 (file no. 

2009-I-0355). The US Fish and Wildlife Service concurs with the overall project design, monitoring and 

resource protection measures which have objectives of protecting LCT individuals and habitat. Any 

implementation strategy change or new biological information for LCT or other new listings for other 

species will potentially trigger the need to re-initiate consultation. 

The analysis presented here discloses the effects of the three alternatives for the South Shore project on 

the following threatened (T), endangered (E), proposed (P), candidate (C), and/or Forest Service Sensitive 

(FSS) aquatic species that are known or suspected to occur in the project area: 

Threatened: 

Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhuynchus clarki henshawi) 

Forest Service Sensitive: 

Lahontan Lake tui chub (Gila bicolor pectinifer)

Great Basin rams-horn (Helisoma (Carninifex) newberryi) 

Lahontan cutthroat trout is the only species discussed that are being considered further in this section, 

is a listed threatened species, and therefore requires consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS). On May 13, 2008 a meeting occurred between Richard Vacirca, LTBMU forest fish biologist 

and Chad Mellison, USFWS consultation biologist. The purpose of the meeting was to review the South 

Shore project with the USFWS, overview fuel treatment objectives for Riparian Conservation Areas 

(RCAs), and discuss project level effects for Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT). Fuel treatment units of 

concern with regard to LCT are those that occur adjacent to the Upper Truckee River. Since 2006 LCT 

have been documented migrating downstream from the Meiss Meadow complex and currently occupy 

habitat in the Upper Truckee River, approximately 2 miles above the top of Christmas Valley. It was 

determined that although current fish surveys in the Upper Truckee River did not observe LCT residing in 

the project area, there is potential for the species to occupy these habitats in the future when fuel 

reduction activities occur. Informal consultation was initiated with the USFWS for the South Shore 

project Draft EIS, and recommendations received have been incorporated into this FEIS. No critical 

habitat for federally-listed endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate species has been designated by 

the USFWS on the LTBMU. However, the LTBMU Forest Plan as amended by the SNFPA allocates a 

critical aquatic refuge (CAR) in the Upper Truckee River watershed that extends into fuels treatments 

under both action alternatives. The Upper Truckee River CAR was established to protect critical aquatic 

resources for LCT. 

Management direction specific to the Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) for the LTBMU comes primarily 

from the 1995 LCT recovery plan (USFWS 1995). This plan identified the western Lahontan Basin 

(comprised of the Truckee, Walker and Carson Rivers) as one of the three distinct population segments 

(DPS). The western DPS are large waterbodies, which include Lake Tahoe, Pyramid Lake, Independence 

Lake and Walker Lake. The recovery plan states that historic and current LCT populations tied to them 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-122 Chapter 3 

are important to the recovery of the species. Currently LCT occupy stream and lake reaches in the 

headwaters of the Upper Truckee River watershed (Map 12). The recovery plan also identified the need 

for basin-specific recovery implementation teams (RITs) be formed to develop action plans and 

implement strategies for LCT. In 1999 LCT RITs were formed for the Truckee and Walker River basins 

and in 2007 the Tahoe Basin RIT was formed as well. The Tahoe Basin RIT is currently in the process of 

developing the recovery action plan for Lake Tahoe, which will assess the species historic and current 

population status, review aquatic habitat conditions, summarize basin-wide threats to LCT persistence, 

and identify conservation elements and opportunities for recovery. Conservation activities have been 

ongoing in the Upper Truckee River and Fallen Leaf Lake prior to the formation of the Tahoe Basin RIT. 

The Sierra Nevada (mountain) yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae; SNYLF) was discussed with USFWS 

to determine whether technical assistance should be requested for the candidate discussed. Both USFWS 

and LTBMU agreed that although SNYLF habitat may exist within the project area, recent amphibian 

surveys support the finding that the species does not occur within the project area; therefore technical 

assistance would not be required. Because SNYLF do not occur within the area of South Shore project 

activities or impacts, SNYLF will not be discussed further. 

The concern for aquatic species is to maintain high quality habitat. Indicators of aquatic habitat quality 

include maintaining stream shading, maintaining water temperatures, bank stability, and water quality. 

Specific management direction for aquatic ecosystems is tied to riparian conservation objectives (RCOs), 

riparian conservation areas (RCAs) and critical aquatic refuges (CARs). The SNFPA provides specific 

Forest-wide standards and guidelines for RCAs and CARs and addressed conservation needs for species 

of concern (threatened, endangered, candidate and sensitive). Resource protection measures to achieve 

RCOs are described in Chapter 2. 

The following indicators are used as measures of project effects on aquatic habitat and species: 

 Aquatic species population and distribution 

 Stream shading and water temperature 

 Coarse woody debris (CWD) 

 Sediment 

Existing Conditions – Aquatic Species Population and Distribution 

Lake Tahoe’s fishery pre-1900 was dominated by a single predator, Lahontan cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi). This trout grew to a large size (14 kg/approx. 31 lbs.), utilizing 

primarily bottom-feeding chubs (Siphatales bicolor pectinifer) and native zooplankton as the food source. 

Tributaries to the lake provided spawning grounds (Vander Zanden et al. 2003, Chandra et al. 2005). 

Historically, 8 fish taxa were known to be native to the Lake Tahoe Basin (Miller 1951, Frantz and 

Cordone 1970, and Vander Zanden et al 2003). During the last 130 years the biological assemblage of the 

Lake Tahoe Basin has been altered intentionally and unintentionally by the introduction of numerous 

nonnative species. 

The first series of non-native trout introductions occurred at the end of the 19th century. They included 

nine species of trout thought to be suited to Tahoe’s environment. Only rainbow trout (O. mykis), brown 

trout (Salmo trutta), lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), and brook trout (S. fontinalis) survived and persist 

in the basin today. Predatory impacts from lake trout combined with over fishing, hybridization, and 

siltation of spawning streams contributed to the extirpation of Lahontan cutthroat trout from Lake Tahoe 

by 1939 (Cordone and Frantz 1968, Moyle 2002). 

Today, due the restoration efforts of state and federal agencies, a reproducing population of LCT exists in 

the upper headwaters of the Truckee River. This population is outside of the geographic scope of the 

South Shore project and will not be affected. Lahontan cutthroat trout have been stocked into Echo, 

Fallen Leaf, Cascade and Marlette Lakes but none of these fish have been documented as reproducing. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Aquatic Wildlife 3-123

Non-native trout and Kokanee salmon dominate the streams associated with the South Shore project. 

These species have essentially replaced Lahontan cutthroat trout as the top predator in the stream systems 

of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Lower stream reaches with lower gradients and more available habitat (pools, 

cover, substrate), are dominated by the fall spawning brown trout, and the spring spawning rainbow trout. 

Brown trout and rainbow coexist without much aggressive interaction due to their differing life histories 

and habitat utilization. Brown trout and brook trout, however, display a high degree of habitat overlap; 

they both spawn in the fall and feed primarily on macroinvertebrates. In general brown trout out-compete 

brook trout in stream segments that are larger with greater volumes of water, and brook trout are displaced 

upstream (Fausch and White 1981). These distribution patterns are found throughout the Lake Tahoe 

basin and within the project area. 

Existing Conditions – Stream Shading and Water Temperature 

Vegetation, including conifers and riparian shrubs, which occurs in valley bottoms and along margins of 

streams provides shade and influences water temperatures by buffering solar radiation (Beschta 1997, 

Quigley 1981). Decreases in shade provided by vegetation can affect stream temperature. In general, 

reductions greater than 50% in the riparian canopy cover correlates with increases in stream temperature. 

Data presented in Table 3-48 summarizes stream habitat characteristics related to shade and temperature 

along perennial streams within the South Shore project area. These data were collected between 1988 -

1996, and are the best data sets available. Temperatures ranged from 48-76°F (~9-24°C) across all of the 

streams within the project area. These temperatures closely match stream temperatures taken from USGS 

gauges between 1999-2002 on Trout Creek and the Upper Truckee and correlate to habitat data collected 

by the LTBMU between 1988 -1996. 

Table 3-48. Existing Instream Habitat within Project Area 

Stream/ 

Habitat 

Dominant 

Channel 

Type 

Dominant 

Substrate 

Type 

Mean 

Instream 

Cover 

(%) 

Mean 

Shade 

(%) 

Stream 

Temp 

Range 

(JuneSept) 

Dominant Instream 

Cover Type 

Heavenly 

Valley C-4 sand/fines 37 71 51 – 63 swd (<.3m)

Glen Alpine B-2/3 boulder/cobble 48 23 47 - 69 boulders

Big Meadow C-3 gravel 39 28 49 – 65 Swd (<.3m)

Cold Creek A-2 gravel / sand 27 45 40 – 62 Undercut banks / 

boulders

Taylor B-2 cobble 17 16 58 – 76 undercut banks / boulders

Tallac D-6 fines 26 33 48 – 67 aquatic vegetation

Echo A-2 cobble/boulder 28 42 54 – 69 Cwd (>.3m) / boulder

Saxon A-3 sand 27 66 51 – 62 Swd (<.3m)

Grass Lake 

Ck. A-2 boulder 44 65 48 – 62 boulder

Trout C-6 sand 22 26 48 – 68 Swd (<.3m)

Angora C-4 sand 24 33 55 – 72 terrestrial vegetation

The data show differences in maximum daily temperatures from stream shading, but mean and minimum 

daily temperatures were not influenced by stream shading (e.g. Trout Creek, Figure 17). Streams with the 

least amount of shade have the highest maximum temperatures. Johnson (2004) found similar results in 

streams that were artificially shaded when compared to clear-cut sections of riparian forest. Forest harvest 

in riparian areas has been shown to produce increases in stream temperatures, and the magnitude of these 

increases varies among sites and regions (Swift and Messer 1971). Sites where only the understory (little 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-124 Chapter 3 

canopy affect) was removed generally exhibited small effects on stream temperatures compared to sites 

where both overstory and understory were removed or burned (Lynch et al 1984). 

Figure 17. Average Daily Temperatures for Trout Creek and Upper Truckee River between 1999-

2002 

Existing Conditions – Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) 

Coarse woody debris (CWD) is a natural component of unmanaged streams, and has a very complex role 

in hydrologic, chemical, and biological processes (Lehane et al 2002). CWD has been found to increase 

habitat diversity, through formation of pools and creation of resting places from swift currents. CWD also 

enhances the quality of food available to fish (Angermeier and Karr, 1984). 

Present and future levels of CWD are influenced by living, dead, and dying trees within the riparian 

corridor. Trees closer to the stream than they are tall would directly influence the stream if they fall 

toward the stream channel. Table 3-53 summarizes CWD data collected in the field seasons of 2005 and 

2006. Current CWD levels are at or above the range of natural variability found within the Sierra Nevada 

(Berg et al. 1998). The South Shore project would not remove or have an effect on existing in-channel 

wood (large or small). Past management such as fire suppression without fuel reduction precipitated the 

current condition of excess CWD. Many of these channels are incised or down-cut which resulted in drier 

RCA conditions and promoted increased conifer encroachment. Tributaries such as Trout, Upper 

Truckee, Saxon, and Tallac creeks have experienced such down-cutting and the effect is apparent in the 

current condition of the RCA/SEZ. Subsequently, it is estimated that CWD within the channels of these 

tributaries is within or above the range of natural variability. 

Conversely, Taylor Creek has experienced different management effects. Taylor Creek was found to 

contain the least amount of CWD per mile among any streams within the project area. There are several 

reasons for the lack of CWD in Taylor Creek: Coarse woody debris has been removed from Taylor Creek 

to facilitate Kokanee migration; a dam is located at the upper reaches of Taylor Creek, which prevents 

CWD recruitment downstream; and hazard trees that would likely have been recruited into the channel 

have been removed due to their proximity to Highway 89 and associated roads. The resource protection 

measure for having a fisheries biologist onsite during implementation to assess shade and enhance coarse 

woody debris recruitment for Taylor Creek during fuels treatment in the RCA would provide an 

opportunity to enhance the physical and biological process in Taylor Creek. 

Table 3-49 represents a comparison of CWD measurements from Berg et al. (1998) and USFS habitat data 

from south shore streams. Although variability of sites exists (i.e. valley and stream type, plant 

associations, level of current/past management, etc.), Berg et al (1998) can be useful in indicating what 

levels potential of CWD can occur across a wide range of streams. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Aquatic Wildlife 3-125

Table 3-49. Existing Large Woody Debris (>.3m diameter) within project area tributaries* 

LTBMU Streams Berg et al. 1998 

Stream Reach 

Distance 

of Stream 

Surveyed 

(miles) 

Number 

of WD 

pieces 

Amount of 

WD per 

unit length 

(miles) 

Stream 

Reach 

Amount of 

WD per unit 

length 

(miles) 

Angora Creek 1.51 134 88.74 East Fork 105.60 

Cookhouse 0.42 25 59.52 Empire 104.10 

Christmas Valley 

(Upper Truckee) 0.46 46 100.00 Lavezolla 32.00 

Echo Creek 0.07 4 57.14 Badenaugh 11.20 

Grass Lake Creek 0.84 64 76.19 Sagehen 35.20 

Osgood Swamp 

Outlet 0.7 28 40.00 Pauley 40.00 

Saxon Creek 1.65 183 110.91 

Trout Creek 5.4 538 99.63 

Taylor Creek 0.9 24 26.67 

Tallac Creek 1.2 119 99.17 

Notes: *compared to Berg et al. 1998 “Function and dynamics of woody debris in stream reaches in 

the central Sierra Nevada” 

Existing Conditions – Sediment 

The amount and type of sediment within a stream system influences aquatic habitat quality and species 

diversity. For example, fine sediment accumulation in a gravel bed stream can decrease the level of fish 

spawning and prevent eggs from hatching. 

Sediment delivery to streams originates from two sources: hill slopes and channel banks. The amount and 

extent of erosion from hill slopes and channel banks is variable and influenced by both natural processes 

and human impacts. Human-caused hill slope erosion can impact critical aspects of aquatic habitat, such 

as spawning (Eaglin and Hubert 1993). Channel bank erosion within the South Shore project area is 

related to channel incision and/or aggradation, and is occurring in drainages such as Saxon Creek, Angora 

Creek and Upper Truckee River. Influences on current hill slope and bank erosion processes include 

roads, channelization, urban encroachment into SEZs and legacy effects from past livestock grazing. 

Potential fine sediment sources may originate from fuel treatments in RCAs where tree thinning methods 

disturb soils, skid trails and landings, and from existing and new temporary roads. Road density is an 

indicator of the concentration of roads in a given geographic area and can correlate to the density of 

stream crossings in a given drainage network (Haskins and Hayhood 1997). It can be a useful tool in 

accessing the potential overlap of roads with areas of aquatic habitat, and with areas where soil 

productivity and erosion may be of concern (Maholland and Thomas 2005). 

The existing road system in the South Shore project area is a combination of native surface, improved 

native surface, gravel, or asphalt surface roads with associated stream crossings (perennial and 

intermittent). Some decommissioned roads may be used during vegetation projects as temporary roads. 

In some cases, stream crossing restoration has occurred that reduced impacts from roads and stream 

crossings (i.e. Trout Creek). In other cases, restoration is needed to provide fish passage and natural 

sediment transport (i.e. Spring Creek and Saxon Creek). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-126 Chapter 3 

Existing Conditions – Species Accounts and Status 

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout 

Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) was listed as an endangered species in 1970 (Federal Register Vol. 35, 

p.13520). In 1975, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended), LCT was reclassified 

as threatened. The change facilitated management and allowed for regulated angling (Federal Register 

Vol. 40, p.29864). In 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) released its recovery plan for 

LCT, encompassing six river basins within historic LCT range, including the Truckee River basin. 

Historically, LCT have occurred throughout the Truckee River drainage from the headwaters south of 

Lake Tahoe (in California) downstream to Pyramid Lake (Gerstung 1988). The LCT in Pyramid Lake 

and Lake Tahoe were a valuable food source regionally, consumed by: the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe; the 

Washoe Tribe; early explorers; and commercial fishermen (Fowler and Bath 1981). By 1938 LCT had 

been eliminated from the Tahoe Basin as a result of overfishing, introduction of non-native trout, and 

habitat modification. 

Lahontan cutthroat trout were successfully restored to the headwaters of the Upper Truckee River in 

Meiss Meadows (adjacent to the planning area) in the late 1980s and early 1990s through a cooperative 

effort between the CDFG, USFS and USFWS. Recovery efforts resulted in a reproducing population in 

the upper headwaters of the Truckee River. Non-native brook trout were initially removed from the 

Upper Truckee River prior to the LCT introduction by means of rotenone (naturally-occurring pesticide) 

application. It was suspected that brook trout were illegally reintroduced into the Meiss Meadow area 

after chemical treatment from adjacent source populations downstream. Since that time, brook trout 

removal has utilized manual electro-fishing methods. Brook trout were not found in sampling of the 

headwaters during recent removal efforts in 2007, and removal efforts continued to occur in 2008 

(estimated to be the final year). The Meiss Meadow population is one of the only high-elevation meadow 

populations of LCT in the Sierra-Nevada Mountain Range and also functions as a source population for 

LCT in lower river segments of the Upper Truckee. 

Fish surveys conducted in the Upper Truckee River (Sunset Reach) did not detect LCT within the South 

Shore project area. Recent snorkel surveys (2006 and 2007) in the Upper Truckee River above Christmas 

Valley indicate LCT residing in Meiss Meadows are migrating downstream. It is expected that adult LCT 

may continue to move downstream and occupy lower basin Upper Truckee River habitats. Therefore, 

there is potential for LCT occupancy in reaches within the South Shore project portion of the Upper 

Truckee River when fuel reduction activities commence. However, the number of LCT per square meter 

is expected to be very low as competition for habitat would occur with introduced trout. 

Lahontan cutthroat trout have been stocked into Fallen Leaf Lake as part of a USFWS pilot research 

project to examine their interactions with non-native lake trout. This is the only lake within the South 

Shore project area known to contain LCT (Map 12), although reproduction is currently unknown. Other 

plantings have occurred, but none have been shown to be reproducing. LCT habitat is present within the 

project, but competition from the widespread distribution of non-native trout makes their persistence 

unlikely. 

Lahontan Tui Chub 

Tui chub occur in a wide range of habitats – from the Columbia River drainage in the north to central 

Nevada and California in temperatures ranging from 35-86°F (~2-30°C). Their typical habitat is quiet 

water with well developed beds of aquatic vegetation and bottoms of fines (Moyle 2002). Tui chub were 

not identified in any of the surveys within the South Shore project area. Preliminary results from a warm 

water fish project suggest that introduced bass may be preying upon Tui chub within their preferred 

habitats (Kamerath et al 2008). 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Aquatic Wildlife 3-127

Great Basin Rams-Horn Snail 

Great Basin rams-horn snail (canadensis californiana) is native to California and other parts of the 

western US. The species is known to occur in large lakes and slow flowing rivers (Furnish 2005). These 

snails characteristically burrow in soft mud and may be almost invisible to detect even when abundant. In 

Eagle Lake, CA snails were observed only on the top of sand substrate, and only in deeper water (Furnish 

2005). Great Basin rams-horn snails have also been documented in stream systems, such as Hat Creek, 

CA (Furnish 2005). The species is known to occur in Lake Tahoe and the adjacent slow water stream 

segments, such as the outflow of the Truckee River (Furnish 2005). 

Table 3-50. Species Accounts by Stream within the South Shore project Area 

Stream BK RT BT LCT* KS LT SPD* PS* LRS* TC* TS* WWI 

Taylor Creek x x x x x x x x x 

Upper Truckee x x x x x x x x x 

Trout Creek x x x x x 

Saxon Creek x x x 

Big Meadow Creek x 

Grass Lake Creek x x 

Echo Creek x x x 

Angora Creek x x x x x 

Tallac Creek x x x x x x x x 

Glen Alpine Creek x x x x x x 

Notes: BK=Brook trout, RT=Rainbow trout, BT=Brown trout, LCT=Lahontan cutthroat trout, KS = 

Kokanee Salmon, LT=Lake trout, SPD=Speckled Dace, PS=Paiute sculpin, LRS=Lahontan redside, 

TC=Tui chub, TS=Tahoe sucker, WWI=Warmwater invasive species: Bluegill, Bass, Sunfish, Catfish; 

Native Species are highlighted with an “*” (asterisk). 

Environmental Consequences – Aquatic Habitat 

Analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for the South Shore project for aquatic species and 

their habitats are bounded in time and space by the same parameters used for hydrological analysis. To 

avoid unnecessary repetition regarding analysis of effects aquatic species, the following generalized 

effects analyses for the proposed action and alternatives applies to all species considered in the aquatic 

BE/BA unless otherwise stated in the species-specific analyses presented afterward. 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

The amount of shade provided by conifers is not expected to change from current levels within the next 2-

5 years along stream reaches within the South Shore project area. However, shade could slowly decrease 

over the long-term (> 5 years) as insect and disease outbreaks continue to affect canopy structure and 

foliage. This potential decrease in shade due to tree mortality may be offset by an increase in riparian 

shrub species to replace shading as the amount of sunlight penetrating the forest floor increases. An 

exception to this occurs where CWD is already at excessive levels, spanning streams and functioning as 

shade. 

The amount of CWD within stream channels and along floodplains is expected to increase over the longterm (>5 years) from current levels. This increase would result from tree mortality and cause both an 

increase in floodplain roughness and an increase in CWD within channels. An increase in coarse woody 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-128 Chapter 3 

debris within the RCA and SEZ would raise the risk level of high intensity fire in the RCA; this would 

potentially result in undesired post-wildfire effects to aquatic habitat from loss of CWD, and an increase 

of fine sediment. Existing sediment levels contributed from hill slope processes, including erosion from 

system roads, would not change. Potential increases in fine sediment from temporary road 

construction/re-construction would not occur. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

More immediate effects to the future recruitment of CWD potentially result from fuels treatment within 

the SEZs than would occur under the No Action alternative. Alternative 2 proposes mechanical treatment 

in RCAs that occur in the WUI, including mechanical treatment in SEZs. Live and dead trees in 

mechanical thinning units would be removed. Coarse woody debris that occurs within existing channels 

would not be removed and would continue to benefit aquatic habitat (i.e. creation and/or maintenance of 

pools). A portion of the large wood structure would be left intact along the floodplain and continue to 

function as floodplain roughness. 

Although stream shade within SEZs may be reduced slightly over the short-term (< 5 years), it is 

expected that canopy structure and foliage would become more robust with the release of larger healthier 

trees while riparian shrubs would increase in size and density as sunlight becomes more available. It is 

not expected that there would be a measurable increase in stream temperatures as a result of mechanical 

and/or hand thinning activities in SEZs. Thinning around meadow edges (and within aspen stands) would 

increase the vigor of meadow/riparian vegetation and conserve these landscapes that are important in 

maintaining highly productive aquatic habitats. 

By decreasing the amount of combustible fuels within RCAs, the potential for future effects that are 

similar to the Angora Fire effects on aquatic habitats would decrease for all 18 HUC7 watersheds within 

the South Shore project area where treatments are implemented. 

Most streams within the South Shore project area naturally mobilize fine sediment particles during 

various stages of discharge. These particle sizes are a product of local geology and channel geometric 

relationships (i.e. width, depth and slope). The highest risk of sediment generation would result from 

mechanical treatments located in RCA’s where reconstruction and/or construction of temporary roads and 

landings are needed to stage equipment and material. Potential sediment generated from temporary roads 

and/or landings may result in a decrease of quality spawning sites for fish where small gravels occur, 

however is not expected to be measurable due to implementation of road BMPs. The highest potential for 

sediment effects resulting from mechanical treatment in RCAs occur in Saxon Creek, Taylor Creek, Tallac 

Creek, and Upper Truckee River under Alternative 2. Needed temporary road crossings would be located 

over ephemeral tributaries (in every instance possible), thereby reducing the risk for large of amounts of 

fine sediment delivery. Alternative 2 applies an implementation schedule designed to reduce negative 

environmental effects and allow for watershed recovery. 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

As compared to Alternative 2, the overall acreage of hand thinning units within RCAs and SEZs increases 

under Alternative 3; this is due to changes in prescriptions from mechanical to hand treatment. Where 

mechanical treatments in SEZs have been changed to hand thinning, potential effects on CWD are less 

than what would be expected in Alternative 2. The amount of potential CWD recruitment in hand 

thinning units would be greater than what would result from mechanical treatments because hand thinning 

generally removes fewer trees and is limited to smaller diameter material. 

Under Alternative 3, the amount of shade available would be expected to be greater for streams in which 

mechanical treatment has been replaced by hand thinning. This is due to the retention of more size 

classes of trees creating a denser canopy cover available to buffer against solar input. No measurable 

increase in stream temperature is expected to result from either alternative; however, it is expected that 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Aquatic Wildlife 3-129

riparian shrubs providing a future increase in stream shade and bank stability would increase more slowly 

under Alternative 3 due to fewer increases in available sunlight. 

Alternative 3 reduces the mileage of temporary roads needed, and therefore reduces the potential for 

sediment effects. The potential for sediment effects from mechanical treatments in RCA’s under 

Alternative 3 would continue for Saxon Creek, Taylor Creek, and Tallac Creek due to the existing road 

density coupled with temporary roads, landings and stream crossings. Alternative 3 also reduces potential 

sedimentation by moving the majority of landings out of RCAs, and reducing the number of landings 

overall. Almost all of the needed temporary road crossings would occur over ephemeral tributaries, and 

would not be likely to affect aquatic species. 

Cumulative Effects 

Appendix A includes a summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the South 

Shore project analysis area that could contribute to cumulative effects for this project. 

Past Actions 

Past activities within the South Shore analysis area, which have directly affected aquatic habitat include: 

stream restoration on Angora Creek and Trout Creek; wetland restoration on the Upper Truckee River; 

and erosion control measures for storm water runoff on state, county and municipal properties. Stream 

restoration projects have increased the quality of aquatic habitat in the South Shore analysis area. Erosion 

control projects have attempted to decrease the amount of fine sediment generated from developed lands. 

Urban lot fuel reduction on Forest Service and California Tahoe Conservancy lands has also occurred to 

treat fuels on these lots with the exception of management in SEZs. Fuel management on urban lots has 

not created any measurable amounts of fine sediment input into streams. Larger, healthier trees are 

usually retained in the urban lots and have contributed to maintenance of stream shade where lots occur 

adjacent to perennial streams. 

Current Actions 

The Angora Fire (in June 2007) resulted in mostly high burn severities along the Angora Creek SEZ and 

affected stream shade, fine sediment input and local fish populations. A fish kill due to excessive ash 

deposition was observed immediately post-fire. Effects to aquatic habitat resulting from the Angora Fire 

are currently being monitored by surveying fish populations, measuring stream temperature, assessing 

macroinvertebrate populations, and monitoring channel conditions. Recent observations indicate that 

riparian vegetation and brook trout populations are recovering. It is expected that riparian/wetland 

restoration projects scheduled to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future (channel reconstruction, large 

wood placement, road/trail BMP improvements and meadow reclamation) would increase the rate of 

recovery within the Angora Fire area. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

Future stream and watershed restoration efforts are also expected to occur in the Upper Truckee River, 

Cold Creek, Angora Creek and Big Meadow Creek. Therefore, aquatic habitat quality (channel stability, 

pools, CWD and benthic productivity) is expected to increase over the long-term (> 5 years) as stream 

and watershed restoration efforts continue to move streams, wetlands and meadows to desired conditions 

within the South Shore project area. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the No Action Alternative, conifer stands within RCAs would remain dense with high fuel loads. 

Fire model simulations across the South Shore Project area showed a distribution of burn severity that 

indicates a portion of the potential high severity areas would be likely to occur in the RCAs/SEZs. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-130 Chapter 3 

Impacts could occur to riparian vegetation, which may affect stream channel stability if this vegetation 

was no longer available to provide bank stability. 

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable effects would be expected to occur; however, the No Action 

Alternative would neither increase nor decrease those effects, and therefore there would be no cumulative 

effects to aquatic species and their habitats generated by Alternative 1. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

The Water and Riparian Resources section of this EIS discusses the cumulative watershed effects (CWE) 

model which was used to assign Threshold of Concern (TOC) values to HUC7 watersheds within the 

South Shore project analysis area. Values over TOC are presumed to be an issue for aquatic ecosystems if 

an increase in impervious coverage potentially results in flood events of a higher magnitude that cause 

undesired stream channel changes (aggradation or degradation). Of 18 HUC7 watersheds analyzed, four 

exhibit values over the TOC before proposed South Shore project treatments are applied, and would 

remain above TOC, regardless of whether Alternative 2 treatments occur or not. Disturbance from 

municipal/urban developed areas is the primary cause of exceeding the TOC in three of the four 

watersheds. The 4th watershed over TOC is Angora Creek, resulting from the 2007 Angora Fire. Two 

watersheds experience an increase in risk ratio of more than 20% as a result of Alternative 2 treatments 

(Tallac Creek=25.7% and Taylor Creek=25.2%). Because these six watersheds would have an elevated 

risk for cumulative watershed effects, they would also have an elevated risk of negative effects to aquatic 

habitats and the species occupying aquatic habitats. Treatments under Alternative 2 do not move ERA 

over the TOC in the other 12 HUC7 watersheds, and therefore negative effects to aquatic species and their 

habitats are expected to be minimal. 

Stream and watershed restoration efforts are also expected to occur in the Upper Truckee River, Cold 

Creek, Angora Creek and Big Meadow Creek. Therefore, aquatic habitat quality (channel stability, pools, 

CWD and benthic productivity) is expected to increase over the long-term (> 5 years), as stream and 

watershed restoration efforts continue. In combination with South Shore project fuel reduction activities, 

ongoing watershed and stream restoration is anticipated to move streams, wetlands and meadows toward 

desired conditions within the South Shore project area. 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

Under Alternative 3, the CWE model shows similar results to Alternative 2 for two groups of 

HUC7watersheds: 1) watersheds over TOC before fuel treatments are applied; and 2) watersheds where 

values remain under TOC after applying treatments. However, Alternative 3 adjustments in treatment 

types within the Taylor Creek and Tallac Creek watersheds show reductions in the risk ratio’s to below a 

20% increase due to fuels treatments. Alternative 3 reduces the potential for undesired channel changes 

from increased peak flows in Taylor and Tallac Creeks, which also reduces the potential for negative 

effects to aquatic species habitat. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities remain the same under Alternative 3 as under 

Alternative 2. Stream restoration projects have increased the quality of aquatic habitat in the South Shore 

analysis area. Erosion control projects have been implemented to decrease the amount of fine sediment 

generated from developed lands. Urban lot fuel reduction on Forest Service and California Tahoe 

Conservancy lands has occurred. Urban lot activities and effects under Alternative 3 are the same as 

Alternative 2, with the same effects to aquatic habitats. 

Future foreseeable actions of stream and watershed restoration would be the same for Alternative 3 as 

discussed above for Alternative 2. The emphasis on watershed restoration aquatic habitat quality (i.e. 

water quality, channel stability, pools, CWD, and benthic productivity) is expected to increase over the 

long-term (> 5 years) for land management agencies in the Lake Tahoe Basin under Alternative 3. Fuels 

treatments under Alternative 3 would allow streams to be more resilient to wildfire, and would contribute 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Aquatic Wildlife 3-131

positively as stream and watershed restoration efforts continue to move streams, wetlands and meadows 

toward desired aquatic habitat conditions within the South Shore project area. 

Species-Specific Environmental Consequences of the Project 

Alternatives 

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under Alternative 1 riparian vegetation conditions would continue to have excessive fuel loadings. Fire 

behavior models predict an active fire that would consume most of the ground fuels and move through 

tree canopies for a wildfire occurring along the Upper Truckee River and around Fallen Leaf Lake. Any 

LCT residing in the Upper Truckee River, where high burn severities are likely to occur, may succumb to 

mortality if ash deposition is at levels that impede respiration. Other factors which could affect LCT 

would occur from suppression activities (e.g. application of retardant or foams) in or adjacent to the 

Upper Truckee River as well as an interim loss of aquatic habitat elements (i.e. CWD, pools, etc.) over a 

period ranging from 2 – 7 years. 

Potentially high severity fire effects occurring adjacent to Fallen Leaf Lake would not be likely to lead to 

LCT mortality. This is due to the ability of the fish to escape to other areas of Fallen Leaf Lake. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative 2 proposes 143 acres of hand thinning in an LCT CAR along a 1 

mile section of the Upper Truckee River, while Alternative 3 proposes 82 acres within the same stream 

corridor. From the Upper Truckee River/Big Meadow Creek confluence to the lower highway 50 

crossing there are approximately 59 acres of mechanical and 13 acres of hand thinning units along the 

Upper Truckee River SEZ. Any potential effect on LCT individuals would be incidental harassment 

during hand and/or mechanized fuel treatment activities; however, the potential for harassment would be 

low as the numbers of LCT individuals are expected to be very low. Mortality to LCT individuals would 

not occur as a result of fuel treatment activities. The overall aquatic habitat integrity would be maintained 

both during and immediately after fuels treatment. 

Recovery efforts for LCT in Fallen Leaf Lake, to date, have been the experimental stocking of Pilot Peak 

strains and researching interactions between the species and introduced trout. Research to-date has shown 

that juvenile LCT stocked into the lake succumb to predation by lake trout and brown trout. In order to 

decrease the level of predation on newly stocked fry, fish are now placed in Fallen Leaf Lake at strategic 

locations along the shore zone margins during the thermocline. Stocking during the thermocline is 

intended to allow spatial separation between juvenile LCT and spawning lake trout. Glen Alpine Creek is 

the only perennial tributary contributing flow to Fallen Leaf Lake and is the only spawning opportunity 

that would be available for LCT. 

There are 7 mechanical treatment units and 1 hand treatment unit adjacent to Fallen Leaf Lake. Four 

hand treatment units occur adjacent to the Glen Alpine Creek SEZ. The US Fish and Wildlife Service 

operates an LCT hatchbox program in Glen Alpine Creek during the months of May and June. The 

hatchboxes are installed along the margins of Glen Alpine Creek falls where oxygenated water serves to 

support egg incubation and early life stage development (alevins, parr and fry). Fry are then released 

from the hatchboxes into Glen Alpine Creek below the falls. The incorporation of project resource 

protection measures for Aquatic Resources (Chapter 2, pg. 2-24) is further expected to conserve aquatic 

habitat features in Glen Alpine Creek, such as riparian vegetation and large wood debris. The overall 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-132 Chapter 3 

aquatic habitat integrity (lake and stream) would be maintained both during and immediately after fuels 

treatment. 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 3 reduces hand thinning in the LCT CAR along a 1 mile section of the Upper Truckee River. 

From the Upper Truckee River/Big Meadow Creek confluence to the lower highway 50 crossing 

Alternative 3 reduces mechanical thinning and increases hand thinning along the Upper Truckee River 

SEZ. Any potential effect on LCT individuals would be incidental harassment during hand and/or 

mechanized fuel treatment activities. The potential for harassment would be low (as LCT individual 

occurrences are expected to be very low). Mortality to LCT individuals would not occur as a result of 

fuel treatment activities. The overall aquatic habitat integrity would be maintained both during and 

immediately after fuels treatment. 

The 7 mechanical units and 1 hand treatment unit adjacent to Fallen Leaf Lake and 4 hand treatment units 

adjacent to the Glen Alpine Creek SEZ remain unchanged from Alternative 2; however, the potential for 

sedimentation impacts from Alternative 3 is less, due to changes in the type of mechanical treatments and 

the application of lake buffers. Hand thinning units are not expected to have measurable sediment effects 

on existing aquatic habitat. The US Fish and Wildlife Service operates an LCT hatchbox program in Glen 

Alpine Creek during the months of May and June. The hatchboxes are installed along the margins of 

Glen Alpine Creek falls where oxygenated water serves to support egg incubation and early life stage 

development (alevins, parr and fry). Fry are then released from the hatchboxes into Glen Alpine Creek 

below the falls. The overall aquatic habitat integrity (lake and stream) would be maintained both during 

and immediately after fuels treatment to a slightly higher degree than Alternative 2. 

Cumulative effects for Lahontan Cutthroat Trout 

 Alternative 1 – No Action 

As previously stated, if/when a wildfire occurs there are potential effects of mortality to riparian 

vegetation in high severity areas. Future stream restoration projects in the Upper Truckee River would 

have beneficial effects to LCT; however competition with non-native trout would continue to be a 

limiting factor for population growth. Recovery efforts for LCT in Fallen Leaf Lake are projected to 

continue (i.e. stocking, non-native fish removal, etc.) and would offset wildfire effects on the population. 

Under the No Action alternative, the South Shore project would not reduce the risk for high severity 

wildfire effects to LCT. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable effects would be expected to occur, 

however, the No Action Alternative would neither increase nor decrease those effects; therefore there 

would be no cumulative effect generated by Alternative 1. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

By decreasing the amount of combustible fuels within Upper Truckee River RCAs/SEZs as part of the 

South Shore project the potential for future effects on LCT resulting from wildfire would decrease. The 

effects from Angora Fire involving sedimentation would not affect aquatic habitat in the Upper Truckee 

River. Stream restoration efforts have occurred in Angora Creek since 2001 and have increased the 

amount and vigor of riparian/meadow vegetation throughout Washoe Meadows. Therefore, lower Angora 

Creek would provide a sufficient buffer to the Upper Truckee River and Lake Tahoe for mobilized 

sediment produced from the fire. 

Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat reclamation is planned to occur in the Upper Truckee River below Meiss 

Meadows and involve manual methods to remove brook trout from 10 miles of stream and 85 acres of 

lake systems. The purpose is to expand upon the current LCT population in the Upper Truckee River and 

provide a more robust source population for downstream segments and Lake Tahoe. The Tahoe Basin 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Aquatic Wildlife 3-133

Recovery Implementation Team (TBRIT) expects to also continue to plan and implement recovery 

activities in Fallen Leaf Lake. It is estimated that recovery actions in Fallen Leaf Lake may include 

stocking larger size LCT (25.4cm/10 inches or greater), adjusting harvest regulations, and manually 

removing non-native fish. 

Stream and watershed restoration efforts are also expected to occur in the Upper Truckee River as well as 

tributaries including Cold Creek, Angora Creek and Big Meadow Creek. Therefore, aquatic habitat 

quality for LCT (channel stability, pools, CWD and benthic productivity) is expected to increase over the 

long-term (> 5 years), as stream and watershed restoration efforts continue to move streams, wetlands and 

meadows toward desired conditions within the South Shore project area. 

When considering effects from past, present and future foreseeable actions with Alternative 2, LCT 

populations in the Upper Truckee River and Fallen Leaf Lake are expected to continue to expand in size 

and distribution. However, competition with non-native trout would continue to be a limiting factor of 

population growth. Any localized effects, such as sedimentation, from Alternative 2 (in the Upper 

Truckee River and Fallen Leaf Lake) would be offset by physical habitat and biological restoration that is 

expected to occur over the next 5 – 10 years. 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

By decreasing the amount of combustible fuels within Upper Truckee River RCA’s/SEZ’s the potential 

for future effects on LCT resulting from wildfire (with Alternative 3) would decrease. Alternative 3 

proposes less mechanical fuel treatment in RCA’s/SEZ’s and implements additional vegetation design 

criteria beneficial to aquatic habitats compared to Alternative 2. 

The effects from the Angora Fire and Lahontan cutthroat trout habitat reclamation would remain the same 

as with Alternative 2. Stream and watershed restoration efforts are also expected to occur and improve 

aquatic habitat quality for LCT (i.e. channel stability, pools, CWD and benthic productivity) over the 

long-term (> 5 years), as discussed with Alternative 2. When considering effects from past, present and 

future foreseeable actions with Alternative 3, LCT populations in the Upper Truckee River and Fallen 

Leaf Lake are expected to continue to expand in size and distribution. However, competition with nonnative trout would continue to be a limiting factor of population growth. Any localized effects, such as 

sedimentation, from Alternative 3 (in the Upper Truckee River and Fallen Leaf Lake) would be offset as 

physical habitat and biological restoration is expected to occur over the next 5-10 years. 

Lahontan Lake Tui Chub and Great Basin Rams-Horn Snail 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under Alternative 1 riparian vegetation conditions would continue to have excessive fuel loadings. The 

No Action Alternative would not reduce these fuel loads. 

Fire models predict an active fire that would consume most of the ground fuels and movs through tree 

canopies if a wildfire were to occur along lower sections of the Upper Truckee River, Taylor Creek, Tallac 

Creek and Trout Creek. In the event that tui chub and/or Great Basin rams-horn snail are residing in these 

lower gradient/shore zone tributary reaches in the south shore area, mortality to individuals could occur 

(from excessive ash deposits in the water column and fire suppression actions such as the application of 

retardant or foams). The interim loss of aquatic habitat elements caused by wildfire is likely to last over a 

period ranging from 2 – 7 years. However, recent surveys in the project area where adequate habitat 

exists have not detected tui chub and/or Great Basin rams-horn snail. Therefore, any mortality or 

localized individual displacement from a potential wildfire would not change the overall range-wide 

population status of the species. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-134 Chapter 3 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Fish surveys conducted in the Upper Truckee River (Sunset Reach) did not detect Lahontan Lake tui chub 

nor Great Basin rams-horn snail within the South Shore project area. Surveys covered the Sunset Reach 

and species distribution is unknown in other lower gradient/basin reaches of Trout Creek, Tallac Creek, 

Taylor Creek and Upper Truckee River. Both tui chub and Great Basin rams-horn prefer lower gradient 

stream and shore zone aquatic habitats. 

Alternative 2 proposes both mechanical treatment units and hand thinning unit within the 

Taylor/Tallac/Upper Truckee River marsh area (north of highway 89 and 50). A number of the units in the 

Taylor/Tallac/Upper Truckee River marsh area have objectives of reclaiming wet meadow habitats from 

encroaching conifers. The objective of maintaining meadow integrity is consistent with achieving 

channel form and function, which is important to tui chub and Great Basin rams-horn snail habitats. 

The mechanical and hand thinning units along the Upper Truckee River SEZ, in Alternative 2, are not 

expected to cause any mortality to tui chub individuals which are potentially residing in the project area. 

Disruption to tui chub behavior from fuel removal activities may occur at very low frequencies due to the 

potential for low number of individuals to reside in the project area at any given time. Overall habitat 

integrity is expected to be maintained in the Upper Truckee River. 

Lahontan tui chub are known to occur in Fallen Leaf Lake. Alternative 2 proposes 7 mechanical 

treatment units and 1 hand treatment unit adjacent to Fallen Leaf Lake. B ecause tui chub normally reside 

at depths greater than 5 feet in Fallen Leaf Lake it not expected that fuel reduction activities would have 

impacts to the species behavior or cause mortality to individuals. 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 3 proposes the same mechanical treatment units and hand thinning units as Alternative 2 

within the Taylor/Tallac/Upper Truckee River marsh area (north of highway 89/ highway 50 intersection), 

objectives of reclaiming wet meadow habitats from encroaching conifers in a number of the units in the 

Taylor/Tallac/Upper Truckee River marsh area remain the same as Alternative 2, and are consistent with 

achieving channel form and function important to tui chub and Great Basin rams-horn snail habitats. 

The mechanical and hand thinning units along the Upper Truckee River SEZ in Alternative 3 are not 

expected to cause any mortality to tui chub individuals which potentially reside in the project area. 

Disruption to tui chub behavior from fuel removal activities may occur at very low frequencies due to the 

low potential for individuals to reside in the project area at any given time. Overall habitat integrity is 

expected to be maintained in the Upper Truckee River. 

Lahontan tui chub are known to occur in Fallen Leaf Lake. Alternative 3 proposes the same mechanical 

and hand treatment units would be implemented adjacent to Fallen Leaf Lake. Because tui chub normally 

reside at depths greater than ~1.5m/5 feet in Fallen Leaf Lake; it is not expected that Alternative 3 fuel 

reduction activities would have impacts to the species behavior or cause mortality to individuals. 

Cumulative effects for Lahontan Lake tui chub and Great Basin rams-horn 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

 Although past, present and future stream restoration would improve tui chub and Great Basin rams-horn 

habitat conditions, the presence of invasive non-native largemouth bass and Asian clam (Corbicula) 

would continue to be primary limiting factors to population growth. 

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable effects would be expected to occur, however, the No Action 

Alternative would neither increase nor decrease those effects; therefore there would be no cumulative 

effect generated by Alternative 1. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Aquatic Wildlife 3-135

Alternative 2 – Proposed Alternative 

Prior to large-scale stocking of non-native salmonids, and illegal introduction of warm-water fishes, its 

likely that tui chub occupied most lower gradient habitats in the south shore. Introduced game fishes 

compete with Tui chub for food and cover, and Tui chub have become a prey species within this altered 

ecology. Due to low detection of tui chub throughout South Shore project tributaries it is likely that nonnative fish introductions have had adverse impacts on the population. 

Urbanization associated impacts (i.e. channelization of streams, dredging of the Tahoe Keys) and impacts 

from introduced non-native aquatic species have altered native mollusk habitat. It is not known if any of 

these impacts have led to local extirpation of Great Basin rams-horn from the south shore and throughout 

Lake Tahoe Basin. The greatest threat to native mollusks in Lake Tahoe Basin are from invasive mussels, 

such as quagga mussel (Dreissena rostrifomis bugensis), zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) and New 

Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum). The recent discovery of invasive asian clam (Corbicula)

is currently being researched to understand impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, however undoubtedly the 

species will complete for resources with native mollusks. 

The future persistence of both tui chub and native mollusks will be influenced by fisheries management 

practices (i.e. fish removal/adjustments in non-native trout harvest regulations for LCT conservation), 

prevention of future non-native aquatic species invasions and continued watershed/stream restoration 

efforts. Tui chub and native mollusk habitat is expected to be enhanced over the long-term (> 5 years), 

when considering fuels reduction in SEZs/RCAs from Alternative 2 in combination with future stream 

restoration projects. 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

There are no measurable cumulative effects to Tui chub and Great Basin rams-horn snail for Alternative 3 

and Alternative 2. Tui chub and native mollusk habitat is expected to be enhanced over the long-term (> 5 

years) when considering fuels reduction in SEZs/RCAs from Alternative 3 in combination with future 

stream restoration projects. 

Determinations 

The determinations follow the guidelines and definitions established by the Pacific Southwest Region of 

the Forest Service (USDA FS 1996, USDA FS 2000) for sensitive species and are described in brief next. 

 Determinations of “no effect” are usually appropriate only if the project is not located in (or does 

not affect) suitable or critical habitat, and if disturbance or other direct or indirect impacts to the 

species are not an issue. Projects within suitable, or critical, habitat must demonstrate that there 

are no direct or indirect impacts to the species or its habitat to support a “no effect” 

determination. “No effect” determinations are unusual if suitable habitat for a species is in any 

way entered or otherwise affected. 

 Determinations of “not likely to adversely affect” are usually appropriate when the project occurs 

in (or affects) suitable or critical habitat or results in disturbance to the species, but take criteria 

(e.g., quantity or quality of habitat, disturbance, etc.), recovery plan objectives, or regional 

aquatic conservation strategies are clearly met. 

 Determinations of “not likely to lead to a trend toward federal listing” are usually appropriate 

when the project occurs in (or affects) suitable habitat or results in disturbance to the species, but 

compliance with any existing terrestrial or aquatic conservation strategies can be shown. 

 Determinations of “likely to lead to a trend toward federal listing” are usually appropriate when 

the project occurs in (or affects) suitable habitat or results in disturbance to the species, and 

compliance with existing conservation strategies cannot be demonstrated. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-136 Chapter 3 

Based on the description of the proposed alternatives and the analysis considered, the following 

determinations were found: 

 The South Shore project may affect, but is not likely adversely affect the Lahontan Cutthroat 

trout for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 

 The South Shore project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward 

Federal listing, or loss of viability, of Lahontan Lake tui chub for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 

 The South Shore project would not affect the Great Basin rams-horn snail for Alternatives 1, 2, 

and 3. 

 The South Shore project would not affect the Delta smelt, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, 

Yosemite toad, or the northern leopard frog for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 

Table 3-51. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species for the LTBMU, and Effects 

Determinations for Project Level Analysis for the South Shore Project 

Species Special Status 

Known 

to occur 

in 

project 

area 

Suitable 

Habitat in 

project 

area 

*Determination for 

Alternatives 1, 2, & 3 

Fish 

Lahontan cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarkii 

henshawi) 

Threatened Yes Yes

may affect, but is not 

likely to adversely 

affect 

Delta smelt 

(Hypomesus transpacificus) Threatened No No no effect 

Lahontan Lake tui chub 

(Gila bicolor pectinifer) 

Forest Sensitive 

Species Yes Yes

may affect individuals, 

but is not likely to lead 

to federal listing or loss 

of viability 

Amphibians 

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged 

frog 

(Rana muscosa) 

Candidate; 

Forest Sensitive 

Species

No Yes no effect 

Yosemite toad 

(Bufo canorus) Candidate No Yes no effect 

Northern leopard frog 

(Rana pipiens) 

Forest Sensitive 

Species No Yes no effect 

Invertebrates 

Great Basin rams-horn 

(Helisoma newberryi 

newberryi) 

Forest Sensitive 

Species Yes^ Yes no effect 

^ suspected to occur 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Aquatic Wildlife 3-137

Analytical Conclusions 

This section provides a brief summary of the conclusions for the analysis of effects to aquatic wildlife. 

Each section provides the results of resource protection measures in Chapter 2 (on the magnitude, scope, 

and intensity of the environmental effects from project activities) for Lahontan cutthroat trout and other 

aquatic species. Significance findings are also summarized within this section. 

For Alternative 1, the amount of shade provided by conifers is not expected to change from current levels 

within the short-term of next 2-5 years along stream reaches. However, shade could slowly decrease 

over the long-term (> 5 years), as insect and disease outbreaks continue to affect canopy structure and 

foliage. The potential decrease in shade due to tree mortality may be offset by an increase in riparian 

shrub species shading as the amount of sunlight penetrating the forest floor increases. An exception is 

areas where CWD is already at excessive levels, spanning streams and functioning as shade. The amount 

of CWD within stream channels and along floodplains is expected to increase over the long-term (>5 

years) from current levels. The increase in CWD within the RCA’s and SEZ’s would raise the risk level 

for high intensity fire in the RCA’s, which could result in undesired post-wildfire effects to aquatic habitat 

from loss of shade and CWD; additionally, an increase of ash and fine sediment. No other changes in fine 

sediment would be expected. 

Although stream shade within SEZ’s may be reduced slightly over the short-term (< 5 years) under 

Alternative 2, it is expected that canopy structure and foliage would become more robust with the release 

of larger, healthier trees; while riparian shrubs would increase in size and density as sunlight becomes 

more available. A measurable increase in stream temperatures is not expected as a result of mechanical 

and/or hand thinning activities in SEZ’s. Thinning around meadow edges and in aspen stands would 

increase the vigor of meadow/riparian vegetation and conserve these landscapes – which are important in 

maintaining highly productive aquatic habitats. Potential sediment generated from temporary roads 

and/or landings may result in a decrease of quality spawning sites for fish where small gravels occur, 

however is not expected to be measurable due to implementation of road BMPs. The highest potential for 

sediment effects (resulting from mechanical treatment in RCA’s) occur in Saxon Creek, Taylor Creek, 

Tallac Creek and Upper Truckee River under Alternative 2. Almost all of the needed temporary road 

crossings would occur over ephemeral tributaries, and reduce the risk for large of amounts of fine 

sediment delivery. The combination of Alternative 2 fuel reduction activities and ongoing watershed and 

stream restoration is anticipated to move streams, wetlands and meadows toward desired conditions 

within the South Shore project area. Mortality to LCT individuals would not occur as a result of fuel 

treatment activities. The overall aquatic habitat integrity would be maintained both during and 

immediately after fuels treatment. 

With Alternative 3, the amount of shade available would be expected to be greater for streams in which 

mechanical treatment has been replaced by hand thinning due to the retention of a wider range of size 

classes of trees creating a denser canopy cover to buffer against solar input. No measurable increase in 

stream temperature is expected to result from either alternative; however, it is expected that riparian 

shrubs (providing a future increase in stream shade and bank stability) would increase more slowly under 

Alternative 3 due to fewer increases in available sunlight. Because Alternative 3 reduces the mileage of 

temporary roads needed, it reduces the potential for sediment effects. Alternative 3 also reduces potential 

sedimentation by moving all but a few landings out of RCA’s, and reducing the number of landings 

overall. Almost all of the needed temporary road crossings would occur over ephemeral tributaries, and 

would not be likely to affect aquatic species. The potential for sediment effects from mechanical 

treatments in RCA’s would continue for Saxon Creek, Taylor Creek, and Tallac Creek due to the existing 

road density coupled with temporary roads, landings and stream crossings. Fuels treatments under 

Alternative 3 would allow streams to be more resilient to wildfire, and would contribute positively as 

stream and watershed restoration efforts continue to move streams, wetlands and meadows toward desired 

aquatic habitat conditions. Mortality to LCT individuals would not occur as a result of fuel treatment 

activities. The overall aquatic habitat integrity would be maintained both during and immediately after 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-138 Chapter 3 

fuels treatment to a slightly higher degree than Alternative 2. Negative environmental effects have been 

mitigated to below the level of significance for aquatic wildlife by Alternative 3. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-139

Terrestrial Wildlife 

In order to avoid repetitive text, the overall existing conditions for wildlife habitats and the effects 

of the alternatives to those habitat conditions will be discussed first, followed by discussions 

specific to individual species. 

Scope of the Analysis and Indicators of Effect 

None of the species discussed in this Terrestrial Wildlife section required consultation with the 

USFWS. Species considered are based on the April 29, 2010 (verified on June 13, 2010) list of 

federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species for the Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit (LTBMU) from the U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS 2010). The USDA Forest Service’s wildlife sensitive species list is based on the Pacific 

Southwest Region’s list of 1998, as amended. These lists are the most current versions for the 

LTMBU. All applicable standards and guidelines from the LTBMU - LRMP and associated 

amendments (e.g. USDA FS 2004a and USDA FS 2004b), and other applicable laws and 

regulations would be applied to this project. Key standards and guidelines from the Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA FS 2004b) and land management practices from the 

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA FS LTBMU 

1988) for terrestrial wildlife species and habitats are summarized in the Terrestrial Wildlife 

Biological Evaluation/ Biological Assessment (BE/BA) located in the project file. 

For the analysis of wildlife existing conditions and effects, the South Shore project area is defined 

as the area where the vegetation treatments would occur under the action alternatives. The 

wildlife analysis area includes the project area and associated hydrologic unit code seven (HUC7) 

watersheds, plus the Echo Lake, California spotted owl PAC and home range core area (HRCA), 

and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency bald eagle winter habitat mapped between Emerald Bay 

and Taylor Creek, California (Map 17). The wildlife analysis is temporally defined to extend 15 

years before and after the present; in correlation with the estimated longevity of the majority of 

forest vegetation treatments. 

Delineation of the wildlife analysis area is based upon potential direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects of the proposed action on terrestrial threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and 

sensitive (TES) species and their habitats within and overlapping the analysis area. The Echo 

Lake spotted owl PAC (300 acres) and HRCA (1,000 acres), which are mapped across LTBMU 

and Eldorado National Forest boundaries, are included in the wildlife analysis area because they 

overlap the analysis area (90 acres and 196 acres, respectively) and areas where project 

implementation may occur (up to 58 acres and 144 acres, respectively). The bald eagle winter 

habitat mapped by TRPA between Emerald Bay and Taylor Creek (2,473 acres) is included in the 

wildlife analysis area because it overlaps the analysis area (1,218 acres) and forested stands 

where project implementation may occur (up to 162 acres). 

The existing condition of forest vegetation and the changes that would likely occur as a result of 

the proposed alternatives, as they relate to wildlife habitat suitability, are quantified using the 

California Wildlife Habitats Relationships (CWHR) computer program, developed by California 

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG, CA Interagency Task Group 2005). The CWHR program 

describes vegetation conditions through metrics such as tree size classes and canopy closure and 

functions as a predictive model of habitat suitability for wildlife species. Habitat suitability 

within each vegetation type is ranked from lowest to highest: as 0.0 (not suitable), 0.33 (low), 

0.66 (moderate), or 1.0 (highly suitable) for each wildlife species. Changes in vegetation 

condition are therefore correlated to changes in habitat suitability. This correlation provides a 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-140 Chapter 3 

useful tool to estimate the direction and magnitude of changes in wildlife habitat suitability 

caused by changes in vegetation condition. 

Life history requirements and species-specific habitat relationships are described for each species 

analyzed. Impacts that would result from mechanical thinning (and other treatment types) are 

interpreted and quantified by predicted changes in the number of acres of CWHR size and density 

classes available that represent high and moderate capability habitats, unless otherwise described. 

These predicted changes in stand conditions are displayed for reproductive, cover, and foraging 

habitats for each species in the species-specific analyses. 

CWHR does not provide a useful estimate of habitat suitability for all wildlife species (e.g. 

Townsend’s big-eared bat and willow flycatcher). Habitat use and suitability for Townsend’s bigeared bat, for example, are dependent on site-specific conditions (i.e. related to a cave or caveanalogue) and not meaningfully described in terms of acres. In these unusual cases, a surrogate 

method of estimating existing habitat and changes to that habitat that would likely occur as a 

result of the action alternatives is described in the section for individual species. 

The Forest conducts surveys for willow flycatcher, wetland bird, and/or fish and invertebrate 

species in these habitats annually. The Forest also recently completed multi-species inventory 

and monitoring (MSIM) project surveys, which surveyed several suites of wildlife and botany 

communities during a four-year period (unpubl. data 2001-02, 2004-05). The results of these 

survey efforts have been used to assist in designing the location, extent, timing, and prescription 

of vegetative treatments proposed by the Forest and may be used in monitoring the response to 

the treatments. 

Background 

Wildlife surveys originally were completed for the South Shore project in 2008. As subsequent 

wildlife surveys were conducted for above-project level monitoring or for other projects within 

the analysis area since 2008, some new information has become available and incorporated into 

this analysis. Furthermore, as a decision for this project was delayed by approximately two years, 

a second round of wildlife surveys was initiated for this project in spring 2010. 

The LTBMU developed a survey strategy for this project for northern goshawk and California 

spotted owl to conduct new surveys while utilizing existing survey information. Following 

Region 5 direction and practices, survey results from two-year protocol surveys conducted in 

2007/08 or 2008/09 will not be resurveyed unless to address a specific issue in a future year (e.g. 

the location of a nest tree within a PAC in 2011). Other suitable habitats will be surveyed unless 

a two-year protocol survey completed within the last five years did not detect the species and the 

habitat is not located within 0.25 mile of a Protected Activity Center. There is some risk that 

individuals of a species may occupy habitats where they did not occur within the last five years or 

were not detected. That risk generally is considered to be low as large scale changes in habitats 

(e.g. large scale wildland fires) have not occurred in the analysis area since the first round of 

surveys were completed (summer 2008) and because of the frequency, density, and relatively 

long history (20+ years) of relevant surveys in the analysis area. The 0.25 mile buffer around 

PACs was excluded from this five-year, non-detection approach because there is an increased risk 

that a goshawk or spotted owl may nest outside of, but in close proximity to, a PAC. In 

summary, a total of approximately 7,688 acres and 8,091 acres will be surveyed for the South 

Shore project in 2010 (and a similar amount in 2011) for goshawk and spotted owl, respectively. 

This survey strategy will be completed in suitable habitats for each stand prior to implementation 

or a species-specific LOP will apply as directed by the amended Forest Plan. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-141

Existing Conditions – Wildlife Habitat 

The wildlife analysis area is approximately 86,790 acres, of which 70,581 acres (81.3%) are 

National Forest System lands. Elevations range from 6,230 feet (~1,899 m) to 8,159 feet 

(~2,487m) within the project area, and 5,322 feet (~1,622m) to 10,881 feet (~3,317 m) within the 

wildlife analysis area. Dominant plant communities providing wildlife habitat within both the 

project and wildlife analysis areas include lodgepole pine, Sierran mixed conifer, Jeffrey pine, 

California montane chaparral, and red fir associations. 

Existing conditions for these plant communities in the wildlife analysis area have been influenced 

by major historic land uses and practices such as Comstock era logging (1860-1920), cattle and 

sheep grazing (1850’s-1950’s), rapid human development (1960-1980), and fire suppression 

throughout urbanization of the Basin (1911-present). Climate change may also be affecting 

existing conditions. As a result, the density, structure, composition, and distribution of vegetation 

within the wildlife analysis area have been altered and are likely outside the range of natural 

variability in the most affected areas. The desired condition of more than one canopy layer is 

often absent in the project area. Connectivity between early seral or lower canopy habitats and 

upper canopy habitats is generally lacking within Comstock-era, second growth, even aged, 

densely stocked stands. Please refer to the Vegetation section for a more detailed discussion of 

the existing conditions of vegetation within the project analysis area. The existing condition of 

vegetation has implications on the biological integrity of the wildlife analysis area. Because the 

historic ecosystem within the area analyzed was adapted to a variety of naturally-occurring 

wildland fire regimes, the current ecosystem is presumed to be functioning sub-optimally and is 

at greater risk of damage from a wildland fire. 

The South Shore project area also contains aquatic, riparian, and meadow ecosystem habitats. 

Most of the stream environment zones (SEZs) in the proposed action area are currently 

substantially overstocked due to a long history of fire suppression (since 1911) in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin and because the SEZs were frequently avoided during fuels treatments over the past several 

decades. Biological productivity in many of these overstocked areas is likely suppressed and not 

within the natural range of variability. 

Examples of this sub-optimal ecological function include, but are not limited to, fuel-choked 

riparian corridors and conifer-encroached aspen stands, both identified as biologically diverse 

ecosystem types in the Lake Tahoe Basin (USDA FS 2000a). Fuel densities within some of the 

riparian corridors are adversely affecting riparian shrub survival and regeneration, understory 

vegetation structure and composition, and hydrologic stability and function. These in turn are 

adversely affecting the composition, species-richness, and abundance of the wildlife communities 

that utilize riparian habitats by reducing available riparian shrub nesting or foraging habitat. 

Similarly, conifer-encroachment of aspen stands is adversely affecting aspen survival and 

regeneration, availability and elevation of local water tables, understory plant communities, and, 

therefore, wildlife community composition, species-richness, and abundance. 

The existing risk of wildland fire in the analysis area was demonstrated by the effects of the 

Angora Fire (2007). Wildlife habitats would likely be adversely affected if a wildland fire 

occurred in the wildlife analysis area; however, this analysis does not assume there would be a 

wildland fire. Please refer to the fire and fuels section for a more detailed discussion of fire 

within the project analysis area. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-142 Chapter 3 

Environmental Consequences – Wildlife Habitat 

In order to avoid repetitive text, the overall effects of the alternatives to wildlife and their habitats 

will be discussed first, followed by discussions specific to individual species – in the following 

section (Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences – Individual Wildlife Species). 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the No Action alternative, Current conditions in the wildlife analysis area would continue, 

and the existing risk of wildland fire in the analysis area would continue. 

With the No Action alternative, the existing risk of wildland fire in the analysis area would 

continue. The Angora Fire (2007) demonstrated the effects of a wildland fire within the analysis 

area under severe fire weather conditions. Modeling of fire behavior within the analysis area 

supports the presumption that another fire within the South Shore analysis area under severe fire 

weather conditions would similarly affect the landscape (34.4% high burn severity, 42.1% 

moderate severity, and 23.5% low severity). Fires like the Angora Fire spread faster and have 

more severe effects than fires that occur within Condition Class 1 stands. Under severe fire 

weather conditions, stand-replacing events would be expected to occur. Wildlife communities 

would likely be adversely affected, in general, if a wildland fire occurred in the wildlife analysis 

area; however, this analysis does not assume there would be a wildland fire. 

Conversely, if no fire occurs, it is reasonable to expect the forest would continue to develop late 

seral forest structure and be at risk of stochastic events such as insects and disease outbreak 

causing an increase in snags. These conditions would favor wildlife species associated with late 

seral structure. This scenario would require greater than 20 years to detect a measurable species 

assemblage change. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Actions scheduled with Alternative 2 would improve forest health and reduce hazards to 

residences and other resources at risk (including wildlife and their habitats) from wildland fire by 

creating defensible space around communities within the WUI on forest system lands. Effects to 

wildlife may occur on or adjacent to treatment areas, including non-forest system lands as the 

home ranges of wildlife often cross over ownership boundaries within the wildlife analysis area. 

The fact that thinning treatments would occur within the WUI would moderate the potential to 

affect listed species because habitats within the WUI are often less suitable than equivalent 

habitats located outside the WUI due to the amount of human disturbance. Exceptions exist for 

some of the listed species and are discussed in the species-specific analyses. 

In Alternative 2, forest health and hazardous fuels would be addressed with consideration for 

wildlife resources. All California spotted owl PACs would receive specialized thinning 

prescriptions to preserve habitat suitability for this species. All goshawk PACs and stands within 

TRPA goshawk nest disturbance zones would receive specialized thinning prescriptions to 

preserve habitat suitability for this species. Reductions in basal area are expected to affect 

canopy cover and would remove live, infested, diseased, and dead trees. Standing (snags) and 

down dead (coarse woody debris [CWD]) trees would be removed to achieve a mean residual 

surface fuel load of 5 to 15 tons per acre in treatment areas. Residual snag and CWD retention is 

expected to provide suitable habitats for listed species where existing mean snag density is 

equivalent to or greater than the desired condition. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-143

Proposed treatments are expected to increase radial and lateral growth, increase tree species 

diversity, improve canopy structure and stand resistance to drought, insects, disease, and fire. 

Increasing radial and lateral growth would benefit wildlife by providing greater cover and 

connectivity between early seral or lower canopy habitats and upper canopy habitats. 

Establishing a trend toward more than one canopy layer is expected to move treated stands 

toward the natural range of variability and benefit listed wildlife species. 

To provide refuge for wildlife during implementation and minimize the level of effects to wildlife 

in any given year, vegetation treatments where treatment stands are located in close proximity to 

one another would be scheduled over time where possible, rather than treated all together. With 

the exception of over-snow operations carried out during pre-dawn hours when soils and snow 

pack are most likely to be sufficiently frozen, project implementation would occur during the 

daytime, predisposing direct effects to wildlife to occur during the daytime. 

Thinning 

Proposed thinning treatments are expected to remain effective for 15-20 years. During that time, 

increases in stand density and accumulation of fuels are expected to occur. Further treatments 

would be required an estimated 15-20 years in the future, depending on site productivity, when 

the proposed treatments are determined to no longer be effective (i.e. stand densities and fuel 

loads exceed the range of desired conditions). The Proposed Action is expected to affect wildlife 

and their habitats during implementation and during the lifetime of the treatments for each type of 

primary and follow-up treatment. 

The type of thinning method (i.e. mechanical or hand thinning) and thinning prescription for each 

stand determine post-implementation forest structure. Hand thinning treatments are limited in 

their ability to process the residual materials from live trees larger than 14 inches dbh or dead 

trees larger than 20 inches dbh due to the practical constraints associated with moving these large 

materials by hand. Live trees up to 18 inches dbh may be removed when removing trees up to 14 

inches dbh is insufficient to change current expected fire behavior from a crown fire to a surface 

fire. Hand thinning treatments are generally constrained to removing more trees from the 

understory and mid-story than mechanical operations (which can remove more trees from the 

overstory) to achieve equivalent changes in stand condition (e.g. canopy cover or basal area). 

Final stand structure does not differ by type of mechanical operation, whether cut-to-length or 

whole tree, but final stand ground cover (e.g. partially covered by chipped, masticated, or loppedand-scattered material) does differ. Thinning operations would differ between uplands and stream 

environment zones (SEZs) in the types of follow-up treatments implemented. Upland mechanical 

treatments are similar to those in SEZs with the exception that chipping, masticating, and landing 

pile burning would occur in upland treatment units. Residual processed materials impact soil 

temperature, humidity, erosion potential and herbaceous and shrub recovery rates, which could 

indirectly affect prey species. Chipping and masticating to an average maximum depth of six 

inches would generally result in short term (i.e. one to five year) reductions in post-treatment 

herbaceous and shrub recovery and, therefore, result in commensurate reductions in the 

abundance of prey species – dependent on such vegetation for forage or cover. General effects to 

the wildlife species analyzed (which are predators), would be moderated by their ability to forage 

over relatively large home ranges, including untreated areas located within or outside the WUI. 

Lopped-and-scattered residual thinning materials would marginally reduce herbaceous and shrub 

recovery rates over the short term, but would immediately increase cover for prey species during 

the same period. The potential effects of landing pile burning are limited because this type of 

follow-up treatment activity would occur over a limited proportion (approximately 2 percent) of 

the treated area. Short term disturbance related to landing pile burning would include alteration in 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-144 Chapter 3 

the spatial distribution of individuals or habitat use patterns, but would be expected to end 

following implementation. 

Slash created by thinning treatments and existing coarse woody debris are stacked in piles with 

the intent of burning the piles when conditions prescribed within an approved burn plan are met, 

usually two to three years after treatment. Piles are generally distributed throughout a treatment 

unit. Piles are most often created by hand crews but may be constructed in CTL units by using a 

grappler attachment to a forwarder (Grapple pile). During pile burning fire is not confined to the 

pile. Fire is allowed to move through the unit to consume surface fuels that have not been piled. 

Pile burning is normally conducted as opposed to underburning as an initial fuels treatment due to 

the high accumulations of fuels generated by thinning. Underburning, also termed broadcast 

burning, refers to burning residual fuels in place when conditions in an approved burn plan are 

met. Landing pile burning is burning of the woody material that remains on landings when 

conditions in an approved burn plan are met. Material is typically machine piled. 

Prescribed fire is generally beneficial to wildlife species following the initial disturbance of 

implementation. The heat and flames of prescribed fires would be unlikely to lead to mortality of 

individuals of the species analyzed because of their ability to move out of affected areas and 

avoid these threats. Implementation of limited operating periods (LOPs) would minimize the 

potential risk to reproductive success for these species because prescribed burning would not 

occur near known reproductive sites (e.g. nest trees) of the analyzed wildlife species during the 

reproductive season. In the unlikely case that prescribed burning occurred in locations of 

undiscovered reproduction of these species, it would lower the probability of survival of 

individual animals at affected nest sites. Reproductive adults and independent offspring would 

likely survive a prescribed burn given the relatively slow moving nature of the treatment 

compared to their ability to escape the area. Dependent offspring, especially those not able to 

escape the area, would likely be at risk depending on their location and exposure to the prescribed 

burn. 

The removal of understory trees, particularly trees smaller than 6 inches dbh, would generally 

result in little or no impact to existing canopy closures. The removal of trees smaller than 6 

inches dbh would affect canopy closure when little or no overstory canopy exists, as is found in 

early seral, high stem-density, even-aged conditions. Removal of mid-story trees would generally 

reduce canopy cover and occasionally cause an increase in the predicted post-treatment CWHR 

size class as mean tree size increases following the removal of smaller size class trees. This type 

of change in predicted CWHR size class represents an increase in residual mean stem diameter, 

rather than physical growth of the stand. 

An increase in the amount of open space present below the overstory canopy would also occur as 

trees are thinned from the understory and mid-story. Reduced overall canopy cover and wider 

crown spacing would result where overstory trees up to 30 inches dbh are thinned to meet healthy 

forest and fuel hazard objectives or as needed for equipment operability. The effect of predicted 

changes in CWHR size and density classes and related changes in forest structure on each of the 

species analyzed in this document depends upon species-specific habitat requirements, and is 

discussed by the individual species. 

The structure, composition, and diversity of the herbaceous and shrub communities, especially 

the riparian shrub community (e.g. willows, alders, and other large deciduous shrub-form 

vegetation), in these SEZs are expected to benefit substantially from the proposed action in the 

short and long term. Riparian shrubs are likely to re-colonize treated segments of the SEZs. 

Forest structure in the SEZs is also expected to be positively affected as competition from 

conifers is reduced and shading by dead standing materials is reduced. Implementation of 

Alternative 2 is expected to result in the establishment of early seral cohorts and improvement in 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-145

the health of mature trees. Re-colonization and rejuvenation of stream environment zone 

vegetation is expected to provide substantial long and short term ecosystem benefits (e.g. 

increased abundance, species-richness, cover, and resilience to invasion by non-native species) 

within and adjacent to treated stands. Given the existing condition of SEZs in the proposed 

action area, the long term benefits to wildlife within these SEZs are expected to substantially 

outweigh the potential short term impacts of implementation. The anticipated effects of fuel 

reduction treatments on wildlife in SEZs are generally greater than those on wildlife in uplands 

because wildlife species-richness and abundance are typically greater in SEZs than in uplands. 

With the implementation of Alternative 2, herbaceous, shrub, and understory forest recovery 

rates, species richness, and diversity would generally be improved in the treatment units. These 

benefits to the vegetation community are generally transferred, and occur slightly later in time, 

upward through the trophic levels of an ecosystem, moderating through each step. 

Brushing would occur on a small scale, in limited portions of the project area. The effect of 

brushing on wildlife, given project resource protection measures for the protection of known 

reproductive sites during the breeding season, is expected to be minimal to negligible. Some 

disturbance to individual animals (e.g. causing an individual to leave the area) may occur during 

implementation. The availability of prey species that utilize brush habitats for reproduction, 

cover, or foraging may be reduced temporarily and commensurately with the reduction in brush 

habitat. Prey availability would be expected to recover as the habitat matured. If species 

composition were altered from brush to tree species then small scale, long term changes in habitat 

use patterns may occur. No mortality or loss in reproduction for the analyzed wildlife species is 

anticipated. 

Meadows and Aspen Stands 

Conifer removal from meadows is expected to increase deciduous riparian and herbaceous 

vegetation species-richness, diversity, abundance, and spatial extent. Thinning conifers from 

meadows is expected to cause visual and audible disturbances during implementation, more often 

affecting forest edge and meadow associated wildlife species. These disturbances would be 

expected to temporarily alter habitat use patterns, unless otherwise described in the speciesspecific analyses below. Meadows often attract a diversity of wildlife species, contributing to the 

health of the local ecosystem as a whole. Removing conifers from meadows is expected to 

enhance the persistence and function of meadow habitats, and wildlife are expected to experience 

long term benefits (e.g. increased productivity, prey availability, and foraging habitat) from the 

Proposed Action. Prescribed burning in meadows would have similar effects to prescribed fire 

following other types of thinning operations (as described above), but would be likely to affect 

forest edge and meadow associated wildlife species rather than forest interior associated species. 

Aspen are fire-adapted and would benefit from conifer removal, especially after decades of fire 

suppression activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Aspen are also a focal point of wildlife activity 

and were identified as an ecologically important ecosystem in the Lake Tahoe Watershed 

Assessment (USDA FS 2000b). Aspen add diversity and spatial variability to forest and wildlife 

community composition, but constitute less than two percent of the forested area on the LTBMU. 

Conifer removal from aspen stands would reduce shading of existing aspen, increase sunlight 

penetration to the forest floor, increase soil temperatures, stimulate aspen root systems, and result 

in increased aspen stand growth, vigor, regeneration, function, and persistence on the landscape. 

As aspen stands are also resistant to fire, the removal of conifers from aspen stands would 

contribute to the resilience of this forest type to wildland fires and likely reduce overall wildland 

fire behavior. Conifer thinning from aspen stands would affect wildlife in the short term as 

described in general above (e.g. temporary disturbance during implementation), unless otherwise 

described in the species-specific analyses below. Long term effects are expected to include 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-146 Chapter 3 

increased ecosystem productivity, prey availability, foraging habitat, and provide refuge areas 

from wildland fire. 

Roads and Landings 

The general effect of roads on wildlife is increased habitat fragmentation and an increase of edge 

habitat; the magnitude of that effect is determined by the location of the road and the context of 

land use in that location. Use of existing permanent roads is unlikely to affect listed wildlife 

species when project-related use is equal to or less than the background level of road use; 

therefore effects (e.g. altered animal behavior arising from visual or audible stimuli) may occur 

commensurate with the degree of project use above the background use level. Use of temporary 

roads would have greater potential to effect on TES wildlife species because the background level 

of disturbance on and adjacent to temporary roads is generally lower than that for permanent 

roads. The use of existing temporary roads would require reconstruction when the existing 

condition is insufficient to meet project needs, which could cause disturbance commensurate with 

the level of reconstruction required. For example, minimal road surface reparation on a 

temporary road currently used as a popular, single-track recreation route– a fairly common 

occurrence on the LTBMU– would cause less potential disturbance than reconstruction of a 

temporary road that was effectively decommissioned and is no longer being used, because the 

potential effects are related to the work implemented (e.g. simple versus moderately intensive 

road surface clearing) and the context of the work (e.g. work in an already urban area compared 

to work in an area with little or no ongoing human disturbance). 

The need for new temporary roads would require construction that differs from road 

reconstruction primarily by the need to create a corridor through the forest. Temporary road 

construction, and the removal of trees, has the potential to affect wildlife (e.g. causing them to 

leave the immediate area and eliminating cover), but to a much lesser degree than the thinning 

operations the roads would facilitate. Constructing temporary roads would increase the amount 

of local forest edge habitat, which may be detrimental to forest-interior adapted species (e.g. 

marten). The intensity of the potential effect would be related to the context of the new road. A 

new road located in an otherwise un-fragmented patch of forest would have a larger impact than a 

new road located near an urbanized area with crisscrossing travel routes with negligible effects. 

Project surveys were conducted to determine sensitive locations (e.g. nest sites) for listed species 

and assist the Forest in locating new temporary roads in alignments that would minimize the risk 

of negatively affecting these species. The potential for effects to occur to wildlife related to 

constructed and reconstructed temporary roads would be expected to decline over time as wildlife 

adapt to their environment and would continue until road decommissioning occurred. A potential 

effect of increased edge habitat may linger along the road corridor until the canopy reclaimed the 

alignment in the long term. 

An estimated 219 landings would be needed to implement the proposed action; these would be 

dispersed throughout the mechanical treatment units. The general effect of landings on wildlife 

would be an increase in the amount of forest edge habitat and an increase in the total area and 

number of forest openings. The magnitude of that effect is determined by the location of the 

landings and the context of land use in those locations. Use of existing landings is not expected 

to increase the amount of edge habitat in the project area but could cause disturbance to wildlife 

as described for temporary roads above. Construction of new landings would indirectly affect 

wildlife through the creation of edge, early seral, and forest opening habitats. While fewer acres 

of these habitats currently exist within the analysis area compared to estimated pre-fire 

suppression era or desired conditions, the construction of landings would not mimic the spatial 

distribution or extent of natural processes (e.g. wildfires or wind-throw events). Landings may be 

reclaimed by early seral vegetation following rehabilitation, but because further vegetation 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-147

management is likely to be required 15-20 years after project completion, it seems reasonable that 

at least some of the landings associated with this project would be reused in the future. 

Crossing and Culvert Replacement 

Replacing these three crossings would introduce disturbance-type effects to forest dwelling 

species. Effects would likely include short term displacement of individuals (e.g. equipment 

flushing an individual) and changes in patterns of habitat use (e.g. avoidance of areas with 

ongoing project activities) during implementation. Effects would be reduced by implementing in 

the fall, after the nesting/denning season is completed. Long term benefits would occur as 

aquatic and riparian habiats respond to improved ecosystem processes (e.g. improved flow and 

habitat connectivity). 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

In regard to wildlife, Alternative 3 differs from Alternative 2 through changes to treatments 

designed to reduce impacts to sensitive species and their habitats. Alternative 3 would increase 

consideration given to wildlife resources in the project area with the elimination of acres from 

treatment, or changes from mechanical to hand thinning operations. In Alternative 3, stands or 

portions of stands would be eliminated from treatment based on the locations of PACs in relation 

to WUI defense and threat zones and fire behavior predicted using FARSITE, FLAMMAP, and 

FVS models. Fewer PACs would be treated with Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would also 

eliminate mechanical treatments in PACs where desired conditions for predicted fire behavior 

could be met by hand thinning methods. The estimated number of acres that would be treated in 

Alternative 3 would be less than in Alternative 2, reducing the overall scope of effects. The 

effects of Alternative 3 to wildlife, by treatment type, differ from those for Alternative 2 as 

described below and as described in the species-specific analyses. 

Thinning 

General direct and indirect effects from thinning would be the same in Alternative 3 as in 

Alternative 2, except that mechanical disturbance effects would occur over approximately 558 

fewer acres, resulting in a lessening of the scope of effects. The same types of follow-up 

treatments would occur and the overall spatial distribution of treatments would not change 

substantially. The general effect to wildlife would be as described for Alternative 2, but with a 

reduced scope of effects due to the reduced treatment acreage. 

General direct and indirect effects from brushing would be the same for Alternative 3 as 

described for Alternative 2 except that the total area treated, and therefore the area in which 

brushing could occur, would decrease by approximately five percent, lessening the scope of 

effects. 

Meadows and Aspen Stands 

General direct and indirect effects from treatments in meadows would be the same in Alternative 

3 as in Alternative 2 except that effects would occur over approximately 42 fewer acres, lessening 

the scope of effects. General direct and indirect effects from treatments in aspen stands would be 

the same in Alternative 3 as in Alternative 2 except that effects would occur over approximately 

42 fewer acres, also lessening the scope of effects. 

Roads and Landings 

As in Alternative 2, most of the proposed project would be accomplished on the existing 

permanent road system. No new permanent roads would be constructed. In Alternative 3, fewer 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-148 Chapter 3 

miles of new temporary roads and existing temporary roads would be constructed or 

reconstructed. Total temporary roads required would decline by 10 percent in Alternative 3, 

lessening the scope of effects. Similarly, Alternative 3 would require an estimated 50 fewer 

landings, also lessening the scope of effects. General direct and indirect effects to wildlife from 

roads and landings would otherwise be the same for Alternative 3 as described for Alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects 

Appendix A lists a summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the South 

Shore project analysis area that could contribute to cumulative effects for this project. 

Past Actions 

Actions that would contribute to a cumulative effect since 1995 (15 years before present) are 

categorized into vegetation (e.g. forest health and hazardous fuels), restoration (e.g. stream and 

meadow restorations), and engineering (e.g. roads and trails) projects to facilitate clarity and 

organization in this analysis. A detailed, multi-agency summary index of past projects (some still 

ongoing) for the Lake Tahoe Basin, is presented and updated by the Lake Tahoe Environmental 

Improvement Program (EIP), the overarching framework for capital improvement and science or 

research projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin, on the Tahoe Integrated Information Management 

System (TIIMS) website (TRPA 2009). 

Past vegetation projects within the wildlife analysis area treated approximately 11,282 acres (~46 

km2). An estimated 5,180 acres of secondary treatments (e.g. chipping, mastication, and burning) 

have also occurred. The effects of past vegetation projects to wildlife are essentially the same as 

those described for the proposed action because they include the same types of primary and 

follow-up treatments, over a similar number of acres (11,282 acres compared to 10,670 

acres/[~46 km2] for the proposed action), and a similar time frame (15 years). Approximately 90 

acres (less than 0.4 km2) of bark beetle-killed and generally dense, even aged, early to mid-seral 

lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) stands recently were hand thinned in the High Meadows area, 

with effects to sensitive wildlife as for other thinning projects described below. 

Past restoration projects within the wildlife analysis area have restored approximately 5.9 miles 

(~9.5 km) of streams and 210.5 acres (~0.9 km2) of SEZ, floodplain, riparian, aspen, and meadow 

habitats. The effects of past restoration projects to wildlife may be characterized as causing 

moderate disturbance during implementation, followed by one to five years of slight to moderate 

beneficial effects while herbaceous and shrub vegetation recovers, and then several-to-many 

years of moderate to substantial beneficial effects as the ecosystem stabilizes along a higher 

functioning trajectory. Past restoration projects focused on streams and other systems that have a 

substantial influence on water quality and clarity, which are key environmental issues in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin. Restoration projects in these types of habitats have a stronger effect on wildlife, in 

general, than projects in upland habitats because riparian, aspen, and meadow habitats provide 

more resources per acre (e.g. food, water, and cover) than uplands. See Appendix A for a 

summary of restoration projects that have been completed in the wildlife analysis area since 1995. 

Past engineering projects within the wildlife analysis area are listed on the EIP web page (shown 

above), and summarized in Appendix A; which include roads, trails, bridges, BMPs, building 

maintenance and construction, and similar projects. The effects of these types of actions on 

wildlife are highly variable, but may be better characterized depending on whether the action took 

place in an urban area, the urban interface, or out in the forest (i.e. beyond the WUI). 

Engineering projects within urban areas are likely to have little to no effect on the sensitive 

wildlife species analyzed because urban areas are generally either minimally or not suitable for 

them. Projects in the urban interface may have an effect dependent upon the location and the 

action taken. For example, Fountain Place (Oneidas) road, which is located in the urban interface 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-149

and within one mile of known northern goshawk habitat, was chip-sealed in 1997, and may have 

affected sensitive wildlife by elevating anthropogenic disturbance slightly above background 

levels related to normal use of the road, followed by more than a decade of little to no effect as 

the road continued to be used as it was before project implementation. 

Projects in the general forest, beyond the WUI, generally have a greater chance of affecting 

sensitive wildlife species because they (or their habitats) are known to occur there. For example, 

the Freel/Meiss Trail Access and Travel Management project implemented changes to trails in the 

general forest in 2006 that may have affected sensitive wildlife during implementation (i.e. minor 

audio/visual disturbances related to hand crews working on the trails) and likely affected long 

term habitat suitability positively (i.e. removing off-highway vehicle access in the upper reaches 

of Saxon Creek) and negatively (i.e. relocating that off-highway vehicle use to a lower reach 

closer to Trout Creek), although the net effect was expected to be slightly to moderately 

beneficial in the long term because sensitive wildlife were known to occur and nest in the upper 

reaches of Saxon Creek and not in the area closer to Trout Creek. Past engineering projects may 

have caused disturbance to wildlife during implementation and likely have had a neutral or near 

neutral overall net effect on sensitive wildlife species. 

Current Actions 

Current vegetation projects include the thinning of federal and non-federal urban lots, planting 

new trees within the Angora Fire (2007) area, and pile burning in several areas in and around 

South Lake Tahoe. Thinning of urban lots, including changes made to local regulations regarding 

the upper diameter limit (no permit required for trees up to 6 inches dbh, increased to 14 inches 

dbh, unless in the shorezone – where a permit is required) that private homeowners may remove 

from their lots, is expected to have little or no effect to sensitive wildlife species because urban 

areas are generally either minimally or not suitable for them. The removal of hazard trees from 

roads and trails within the Angora Fire area is expected to increase anthropogenic disturbance 

above background levels during implementation, potentially causing disturbance (e.g. a 

temporary change in behavior or slight change in patterns of habitat use) to sensitive wildlife 

present in the area, but not to cause substantial long term effects to sensitive wildlife because 

trees that are being removed would presumably fall on their own in time, no nest trees will be 

removed, and there are few hazard trees in comparison to the total number of trees present. Tree 

planting is expected to cause short term disturbance, slightly above background disturbance 

levels, and benefit wildlife species and their habitats in the long term as planted trees mature and 

grow. Pile burning within the wildlife analysis area continues as permitted by environmental 

conditions with effects as described for the proposed action above, but on a much smaller scale 

(approximately 10 acres), limiting the scope of effects. 

Current restoration projects include Lahontan Cutthroat Trout and Mountain Yellow-legged Frog 

Habitat Restoration in Desolation Wilderness, Big Meadow Creek Watershed Fire Regime 

Restoration, High Meadows Channel Restoration, Blackwood Creek Restoration, Angora Fire 

Restoration, and Aspen Community Restoration. The Lahontan cutthroat trout and mountain 

yellow-legged frog habitat restoration projects directly benefit aquatic species and/or their 

habitats within the wildlife analysis area and are described (with effects) in the BE/BA for aquatic 

wildlife species. Project activities at Big Meadow are focused on the removal of encroaching 

conifers from the meadow and adjacent aspen stands, thinning adjacent conifer stands, and 

reintroducing fire to the ecosystem. The Big Meadow project is expected to cause moderate 

benefits to meadow, aspen, and forest-edge associated plant and wildlife species in the long term 

following short term disturbance. High Meadows Channel Restoration will reconnect streams 

with their natural channels, decommission irrigation ditches, and remove encroaching conifers. 

Hydrologic connectivity and function will be restored at High Meadows providing moderate, long 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-150 Chapter 3 

term benefits to meadow, aspen, and riparian habitats and the species that utilize them. 

Blackwood Creek Restoration is restoring sinuosity and elevating local water tables within the 

natural channel and floodplain, restoring aspen and cottonwood groves, and restoring coarse 

woody debris and stream cover in two stream reaches. Wildlife in the project area may 

experience slight, short term disturbance during project activities and for a short time afterward as 

trees and other riparian vegetation respond to the restoration, then experience moderate, long term 

benefits from improved ecological processes and productivity. The Aspen Community 

Restoration project will restore aspen stands, like the proposed action, with similar effects to 

wildlife but over a smaller area. Previous aspen treatments (e.g. within the 2004 Cathedral Fuels 

project) took a more tentative approach than either the proposed action or Aspen Community 

Restoration project in managing aspen because aspen stands frequently occur in sensitive SEZs, 

which were often avoided in the past. The aspen treatments currently proposed are expected to 

provide greater benefits to wildlife than previous treatments by increasing the potential for aspen 

stand expansion by removing more conifers, with commensurate increased benefits to sensitive 

wildlife species over the long term. 

Current engineering projects within the wildlife analysis area are listed on the EIP web page 

(TRPA 2009), and summarized in Appendix A; including: past engineering projects, include 

roads, trails, bridges, BMPs, building maintenance, and similar projects. The effects of these 

types of actions on wildlife are highly variable, as described for past actions in urban areas, the 

urban interface, and lands beyond the WUI. None of the current engineering projects located 

within the wildlife analysis area are expected to cause substantial effects to sensitive wildlife 

species, though minor to moderate effects may occur in specific locations. For example, the High 

Meadows Access and Travel Management project being implemented on roads and trails within 

montane shrub, meadow, riparian, and mixed conifer forest habitats suitable for some sensitive 

wildlife species may cause short term disturbance to individual wildlife, though disturbance is not 

expected during the nesting season in nesting areas. The quality and quantity of habitats suitable 

for sensitive species located adjacent to affected road and trail segments should be improved over 

the long term as steep slopes are stabilized, vegetation preserved, and water quality improved. In 

a differing example, the Tallac Creek Bridge and Channel Reconstruction project is repairing 

damage caused by high flows within an obstructed channel. Potential disturbance to sensitive 

wildlife species is expected to increase above the background level of disturbance typical of that 

portion of the Spring Creek Recreation Residence Tract during project implementation. Heavy 

equipment will be required in the riparian corridor within this urban interface. Following surveys 

for occupancy and reproductive activity, effects to the survival or reproduction of sensitive 

wildlife species are not expected. Habitat suitability is expected to be improved over the long 

term as erosion and destruction of riparian habitat is halted and set on a trajectory toward reestablishment of understory vegetation, including large deciduous riparian shrubs (e.g. alder and 

willows). 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

Reasonably foreseeable future vegetation projects include mechanical and hand thinning of 

federal and non-federal urban lots, thinning of non-federal lands, removal of hazard trees from 

travel corridors (e.g. highways), and pile burning in and around South Lake Tahoe. The thinning 

of urban lots is expected to continue and to have little or no effect on sensitive wildlife species as 

urban areas are generally either minimally suitable or not suitable habitats. Mechanical and hand 

thinning of non-federal lands would be expected to continue at a rate similar to past and current 

treatments (an estimated 1,000 acres of reasonably foreseeable future treatments) with effects to 

wildlife as previously described for these types of operations and a scope commensurate with the 

number of acres treated. Removal of hazard trees from highway corridors would be expected to 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-151

continue, but would have little to no effect on sensitive wildlife species as the typical range in 

which standing trees may pose a hazard to highways, parking lots, or similar developments 

(approximately 200 feet/~61 m) is usually not suitable habitat. The effects of pile burning in 

general are described above and would occur as described for the proposed action, but on a much 

smaller scale (approximately 150 acres), limiting the scope of effects. 

Reasonably foreseeable future restoration projects within the wildlife analysis area and the 

approximate number of miles of streams and/or acres of SEZ, floodplain, riparian, and meadow 

habitats they may restore, is summarized in Appendix A. The effects of these projects to wildlife 

would be expected to be similar to those described above for past and current restoration projects. 

The Taylor-Tallac and Upper Truckee River (Sunset Reach) Restoration projects differ from 

previous restoration projects in that they would restore large tracts of wetland systems directly 

adjacent or connected to Lake Tahoe. These projects would likely affect wildlife as described for 

other restoration projects, with additional benefits to species that utilize shore zones. The Upper 

Truckee River Restoration projects are expected to restore several miles of incised stream channel 

and adjacent riparian and meadow habitats, improving connectivity with local water tables, the 

quality and quantity of riparian herbaceous and shrub vegetation, and benefiting sensitive wildlife 

as described for past restoration actions. The Upper Truckee River reaches being restored are 

located within the urban interface and are part of the largest riparian/meadow system in the South 

Lake Tahoe area. Future restoration projects will continue to be focused on streams and other 

systems that have a substantial influence on water quality and clarity. Reasonably foreseeable 

future engineering projects within the wildlife analysis area are listed on the EIP web page 

(shown above) and in Appendix A and, like current and past engineering projects, would continue 

to include road, trail, bridge, BMP, building maintenance, and similar projects. The effects of 

these types of actions to wildlife would likely be the same as those described above for past and 

present projects within urban areas, the urban interface, and lands beyond the WUI. 

The Lake Tahoe Greenway, Camp Richardson Campground, and Taylor Creek Environmental 

Education Center projects would likely involve more construction than other engineering projects 

previously discussed. The Lake Tahoe greenway project is a proposal to construct a paved bike 

trail from Meyers, California to Stateline, Nevada, using existing easements and road and trail 

prisms where possible within the urban interface. Potential effects to wildlife from this project 

would likely vary from negligible (when using an existing paved trail within the neighborhoods 

along the route) to moderate (to upgrade a trail corridor within urban interface riparian habitats). 

The introduction of anthropogenic disturbance above background levels along portions of the 

travel corridor seems likely and, depending on location, may adversely affect wildlife. However, 

the multi-agency project would be expected to avoid using alignments that would cause 

substantial adverse impacts to sensitive wildlife species. 

The Camp Richardson Campground project involves the redesign of intensive recreational uses 

within a highly urbanized portion of the urban interface. A general improvement to the existing 

condition and related effects to wildlife is anticipated. Anthropogenic disturbance within the 

project area is expected to remain seasonally intensive, but slight benefits to adjacent habitats 

may occur as recreational use is better managed, benefiting wildlife in the short and long term. 

The Taylor Creek Environmental Education Center (proposed action not yet determined as of 

August 2011), which is located within – and adjacent to – the Taylor Creek riparian corridor and 

wetlands, may be redesigned to improve management of existing and anticipated future intensive 

recreational use. Short term impacts to wildlife related to building, road, and trail construction, 

demolition, and decommissioning seem likely, although the majority of activities would avoid 

sensitive habitats, especially during the periods when wildlife reproduction may be occurring, 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-152 Chapter 3 

where possible. Long term benefits to wildlife would likely occur as the seasonally intensive 

recreational use would be better managed, including access to sensitive habitats. 

Summary of Cumulative Effects 

The context of the existing environment and current trends in the environment are relevant in 

considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and determining general 

cumulative effects of the proposed action (further cumulative effects are presented in the speciesspecific analyses below). The existing environment within the wildlife analysis area, the context 

in which the proposed action would occur, is a product of the past. Fluctuations in climate, 

culminating in a cool, wet period (1600-1775) in the late Holocene set the stage for the tree 

species composition and distribution present within the Lake Tahoe Basin prior to the initiation of 

Comstock era logging (1860-1920). Decades of logging had a substantial effect on forest 

vegetation, with large tracts of clear cut lands, affecting an estimated 45 percent of the wildlife 

analysis area and 65 percent of the WUI project area. Changes in forest vegetation during this 

period were coupled with widespread cattle and sheep grazing (1850s-1950s) in meadows, 

wetlands, and riparian habitats. These perturbations from the natural range of variability were 

further exacerbated by nearly 100 years of fire suppression, resulting in the current condition 

where forested stands within the action area may be generally characterized as over-stocked and 

relatively even aged, at elevated risk of catastrophic wildland fire, and not trending toward the 

desired condition. Sensitive wildlife species within the wildlife analysis area 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 that range. 

Climate change is also relevant in considering the general cumulative effects of the proposed 

action to wildlife as the natural range of variability in habitats within the wildlife analysis area 

may be affected in the future, as demonstrated by our knowledge of habitats in and adjacent to the 

Lake Tahoe Basin during the late Pleistocene and Holocene. If trends continue as suggested by 

current science, the local climate is likely to become drier and warmer. Average annual snow pack 

would be reduced and melt earlier in the season, shifting hydrologic activity earlier in the year 

and causing changes in some species reproductive timing (earlier), creating generally drier 

summertime conditions, and increasing the likelihood of wildland fire. Tree species composition 

and distribution would be expected to adapt to the changing conditions. The natural range of 

variability in wildlife habitat composition and distribution would be expected to change with the 

changing climate and vegetation. Details of how habitats within the wildlife analysis area will 

likely change are unknown, although some broad scale characterizations may be made. For 

example, subalpine conifer habitats (e.g. mountain hemlock, western white pine, and whitebark 

pine) may retreat upslope and to more northerly-facing aspects. Fire-adapted trees that grow well 

in dry soils (e.g. Jeffrey pine) may be favored over other tree species and expand in abundance or 

distribution. Vegetation types currently present on the warmer and drier southwestern-facing 

slopes within the wildlife analysis area may similarly expand as they are favored by the current 

direction of change in climate. 

General cumulative effects are expected to vary across the wildlife analysis area because the 

effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions vary spatially. The past, present, 

and future of one part of the wildlife analysis area may be quite different from those for another. 

Due to the complexity of these spatial variations, the direction, magnitude, and duration of 

general cumulative effects to wildlife may be best described by the following two gradients: the 

degree of human-caused perturbation and the sensitivity of wildlife species to these changes. 

The degree of human changes may be characterized by whether an area is located within an urban 

core, the urban interface, or out beyond the urban interface. Clearly, human disturbance is highest 

in urbanized cores where the area has been Comstock-logged, developed, intensive fire 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-153

suppression continues, and intensive use is likely in the future. A lesser degree of disturbance is 

expected to exist in the urban interface where there is less development, and activities are more 

dispersed than in urban cores; and the least is expected beyond the urban interface where there is 

little to no permanent development. 

The sensitivity of a species to disturbance would determine how wildlife would respond. Species 

that deal well with or benefit from disturbance would be more likely to respond positively, and 

those species with low tolerances to disturbance would be more likely to be negatively affected. 

General cumulative effects to wildlife would be expected to transition from disturbance-type 

effects (e.g. the operation of equipment) during implementation toward habitat maturation-type 

effects (e.g. the growth of a stand toward desired conditions) over time. The spatial distribution 

and timing of the proposed action from the rotation of treatment units in watersheds in concert 

with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would influence this progression of 

cumulative effects. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the No Action alternative, The South Shore project would not occur. Because there would 

be no direct or indirect effects from the project, there would also be no cumulative effects. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

The general impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is to 

alter the spatial distribution of wildlife and suitable wildlife habitats within the wildlife analysis 

area, particularly within the WUI. Short term disturbance-related cumulative effects to wildlife 

are expected, though impacts to sensitive species would be minimized by project resource 

protection measures. Long term, beneficial, cumulative effects to wildlife are expected as 

conditions within treated stands mature along desired trajectories in concert with restoration 

activities and improved land management practices. General ecosystem conditions, within the 

context of the existing environment and trends, are expected to trend toward desired conditions 

and the natural range of variability, resulting in improved ecosystem function, resilience to 

disturbance, and increased productivity. Further information is provided by individual species. 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions related to Alternative 3 are the same as 

those described for the proposed action (Alternative 2) above. The summary of general 

cumulative effects in context of the existing environment, historic and current trends, and 

principles describing how cumulative effects would be distributed among wildlife species and 

across the landscape are also the same for Alternative 3 as those described for the proposed action 

except that fewer acres would be treated, slightly reducing the scope of effects. Alternative 3 

would have different, and generally more positive, cumulative effects than the proposed action on 

some sensitive wildlife species as described by individual species below. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-154 Chapter 3 

Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences - 

Individual Wildlife Species 

The following section discloses the existing conditions of the South Shore project for individual 

TES species. Species that are discussed include: Pacific fisher, California wolverine, Sierra 

Nevada red fox, American marten, Townsend’s big-eared bat, bald eagle, northern goshawk, 

California spotted owl, great gray owl, and willow flycatcher. 

Fisher 

The fisher (Martes pennanti) is currently a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) candidate 

(C) species. Current management direction for this species is set forth in the Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA FS LTBMU 1988), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment (USDA FS 2004a). 

Fishers occur in the northern coniferous and mixed forests of Canada and the northern contiguous 

United States, from the mountainous areas in the southern Yukon and Labrador Provinces in 

Canada southward to central California and Wyoming, the Great Lakes, New England, and 

Appalachian regions (Graham and Graham 1994; Powell 1993). The current North American 

distribution is substantially reduced from the historic distribution (Gibilisco 1994). The historic 

range in California and Oregon included the southern Cascade Ranges, northern Coastal Ranges, 

and Sierra Nevada Ranges (Zielinski et al 1995, 2005) including the Lake Tahoe Basin (Grinnell 

et al 1937). The most recent records of this species on or adjacent to the LTBMU are: (1) just 

outside the western Lake Tahoe Basin to the west of Barker Pass on the Tahoe National Forest in 

1972; (2) on the west shore of Lake Tahoe in Sugar Pine State Park near the mouth of General 

Creek in 1984; and (3) in the project analysis area south of the South Upper Truckee bridge in 

Christmas Valley in 1967 (CDFG 2008). 

In California, this species now occupies limited portions of the southern Cascades, northern 

Siskiyou Mountains, and southern Sierra Nevada on the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. 

Recent surveys indicate that fisher are absent from their former range in the northern and central 

Sierra Nevada from Mount Shasta to Yosemite National Park, a distance of approximately 269 

miles (~433 km), (Zielinski et al 1995; Zielinski et al 2005). Extensive carnivore surveys have 

occurred within the LTBMU over the past 10 years, including portions of the project area, and 

fisher have not been detected. Therefore the LTBMU is considered outside the current range of 

this species. 

Fishers utilize forested habitats with specific vegetative and structural characteristics (Powell 

1993; Buskirk and Powell 1994). Often associated with old forests, this species may prefer late 

seral conditions but it appears that other forest types are used when equivalent habitat functions 

of prey abundance, fisher protection from predation, and den site availability occur (Green et al 

submitted). Fishers use forested landscapes that include conifer-dominated stands and prefer 

stands with low and closed canopies (Allen 1987; Buskirk and Powell 1994). Stands with 

vegetated understories and large, coarse woody debris are selected as these characteristics appear 

important to their prey species (USDA FS 2001). Fishers avoid open areas with no overstory or 

shrub cover to reduce the risk of predation (Buskirk and Powell 1994) and habitats with deep, soft 

snow because of their heavy foot loadings (Powell and Zielinski 1994; Krohn et al 1995; Krohn et 

al 1997). The following California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CDFG 2005) types are 

important to fishers: structure classes 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6 (stands with trees 11 inches dbh or 

greater and greater than 40% cover) in ponderosa pine, montane hardwood-conifer, mixed 

conifer, montane riparian, aspen, red fir, Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, and 

eastside pine (Timossi 1990 in USDA FS 2001).
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-155

California Wolverine 

The wolverine (Gulo gulo) is a Forest Service Sensitive (S) species on the Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit. Current management direction for this species is set forth in the Land and 

Resource Management Plan (USDA FS, LTBMU 1988), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment (USDA FS 2004a). 

Wolverines have a circumpolar distribution and occupy the tundra, taiga, and forest zones of 

North America and Eurasia (Wilson 1982). The species uses a wide variety of forested and nonforested habitats in North America (Banci 1994). In California, wolverines once occurred 

throughout the Sierra Nevada, Cascades, Klamath, and northern Coast ranges in alpine, boreal 

forest, and mixed forest vegetation types (Grinnell et al 1937, Schempf and White 1977). 

Following dramatic increases in human development and disturbance associated with the 

California gold rush of the mid-1800’s (summarized in Zielinski et al 2005); the distribution of 

wolverine in California was limited to the central and southern Sierra Nevada only (Ibid, 

Schempf and White 1977). 

An extensive furbearer study conducted from 1996 to 2002 by the USFS, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station (PSW) using track plates and cameras on approximately 7,500,000 acres 

(~30351 km2) in the southernmost Cascades and Sierra Nevada range did not detect this species 

and found that wolverines may be extirpated from or occur in extremely low densities within the 

area sampled (Zielinski et al 2005). Extensive carnivore surveys have occurred on the LTBMU 

over the past 10 years, including portions of the project area, and wolverines have not been 

detected. 

On February 28, 2008, a detection of a lone male wolverine occurred approximately 14-19 miles 

(~23-31 km) northwest of the LTBMU (approximately 33-38 miles (~53-61 km) from the wildlife 

analysis area) near Truckee, California. Detections of this individual continued into March 2008 

and have recurred in the same area (genetically confirmed to be the same animal) during winter 

and spring 2011. Agency biologists and researchers used genetic samples (i.e. hair and scat) to 

determine that the wolverine is most closely related to, and most likely came from, a population 

on the western edge of the Rocky Mountains, possibly from the Sawtooth Mountain Range in 

Idaho, rather than either the historic California population (compared to samples taken from 

museum specimens) or contemporary northern Cascades (Washington) population (Moriarty et al 

2009). In summary, detections of wolverine or their den sites have not occurred within 5 miles of 

the project area within the past two years; however the contemporary range of this species 

appears uncertain and may include limited portions of the wildlife analysis area. 

The LRMP, as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004), directs Forests to 

consider whether project activities have potential to affect the wolverine within five miles of a 

detection for a 2-year period (when not associated with a den site). The most recent records (other 

than the 2008 sighting on the Tahoe National Forest) of this species on or adjacent to the LTBMU 

are as follows: (1) approximately 2 miles west of the LTBMU near Island Lake on the Eldorado 

National Forest in 1994, (2) approximately one mile northwest of the analysis area in Emerald 

Bay between Highway 50 and Eagle Lake in 1990, (3) approximately 5.5 miles west of the 

LTBMU near Strawberry, CA in 1971, (4) approximately one mile northwest of the LTBMU near 

the Lower Truckee River at the east end of Squaw Valley in 1953, and (5) adjacent to the analysis 

area on Echo Summit at Highway 50 in 1941 (CDFG 2008). None of these detections occurred in 

association with a den site. 

Home ranges in North America range from less than 38 square miles (100 km2

) to over 346 

square miles (900 km2

). Home ranges within the Sierra Nevada remain unknown. Males typically 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-156 Chapter 3 

have larger home ranges than females, especially those with young. Male home ranges increase 

during the breeding season, likely driven by the distribution of females. 

Wolverine use diverse, coniferous forest types (Copeland 1996, Hornocker and Hash 1981) and 

non-forested alpine habitats (Banci 1994 and Copeland 1996). Suitable habitat may be “best 

defined in terms of adequate year-round food supplies in large, sparsely inhabited wilderness 

areas, rather than in terms of particular types of topography or plant associations” (Kelsall 1981 

in Ruggiero et al 1994). Natal dens described in California were under rock ‘shelves’ at elevations 

above 10,000 feet (Grinnell et al 1937 in USDA FS 2001). This habitat generalist appears to 

select areas that are free of substantial human disturbance and requires den sites associated with 

structural cover (e.g. boulders and persistent snow cover) in cirque basins or avalanche chutes at 

high elevations (summarized in USDA FS 2001). 

For purposes of this analysis, high and moderate capability wolverine denning habitat within the 

wildlife analysis area includes areas free of significant human disturbance and located above 

10,000 feet elevation with CWHR vegetation strata described as follows: 

 High capability denning habitats - alpine dwarf shrub (all strata), lodgepole pine (5M and 

5D), red fir (5M and 5D), and subalpine conifer (5M and 5D); 

 Moderate capability denning habitats - lodgepole pine (all strata except 2S, 5M, and 5D), 

red fir (all strata except 5M and 5D), and subalpine conifer (all strata except 5M and 5D). 

wet meadows also provide moderate foraging habitat. 

Areas free of significant human disturbance were identified as those with a land-use equivalent to 

TRPA Land Conservation Areas (LCAs), TRPA Code of Ordinances, as amended (TRPA 1987), 

and greater than 1.0 mile from homes and businesses. LCAs are “areas with value as primitive or 

natural areas, with strong limitations on use, and with a potential for dispersed recreation or low 

intensity resource management” (Ibid). These areas may include “high-hazard lands, stream 

environment zones, and other fragile areas, without substantial existing improvements; isolated 

areas which do not contain the necessary structure for development; areas capable of sustaining 

only passive recreation or non-intensive agriculture; or areas suitable for low to moderate 

resource management” (Ibid). LCAs are presumed to have lower levels of human disturbance 

than other land-use types. However, as LCAs often occur adjacent to neighborhoods or as isolated 

islands within a matrix of more highly-disturbed land types and because anthropogenic 

disturbance extends beyond land-use boundaries, the more highly-disturbed land type areas were 

spatially buffered for this analysis. The 1.0 mile buffer used for wolverine denning habitat 

represents best professional opinion based on local knowledge of area-specific recreation, 

dispersed recreation, and other sources of disturbance in the South Shore area. 

Moderate and high capability resting and foraging habitats include the CWHR vegetation strata 

described above and freedom from disturbance but without the minimum elevation (10,000 feet). 

Estimated acres of wolverine denning habitat, resting habitat, and foraging habitat within the 

wildlife analysis area are given under effects in Table 3-70. 

Sierra Nevada Red Fox 

The Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) is a Forest Service Sensitive (S) species on the 

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Current management direction for this species is set forth in 

the Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA FS LTBMU 1988), as amended by the Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA FS 2004a). The USFWS was petitioned by the Center 

for Biological Diversity to list Sierra Nevada red fox as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act on April 27, 2011. The USFWS has 90 days to decide whether the 

petition presents enough information to warrant possible federal protection for the fox. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-157

The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) occurs in a wide range of habitats including deserts, tundra, 

mountains, agricultural lands, and urban areas throughout their global range (summarized in 

Perrine 2005). Three of the North American subspecies, including the Sierra Nevada red fox (V. 

v. necator), prefer subalpine meadows and parklands within boreal forests (Ibid). The Sierra 

Nevada red fox is a California native species whose distribution appears to have been restricted to 

elevations above 5,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountain ranges following 

dramatic increases in human development and disturbance associated with the California gold 

rush of the mid-1800’s (Grinnell et al 1937, Schempf and White 1977, and summarized in 

Zielinski et al 2005). A separate population of red foxes, reportedly introduced and definitely 

expanding in range, occupies lower elevations in California including the Sacramento and San 

Joaquin Valleys, San Francisco Bay-Delta area, the southern California Coast Range and Coastal 

Plain and most major urban areas (Lewis et al 1999; Perrine 2005). Whether this exotic red fox, 

suggested to be derived from the red fox of the northern Great Plains (V. v. regalis) (Roest 1977), 

has expanded into the range of the native Sierra Nevada red fox remains unclear (Lewis et al 

1995). Genetic analysis indicates that a remnant population of the high-elevation native Sierra 

Nevada red fox persists in the high elevations of primarily the western half of Lassen Volcanic 

National Park and its surrounding area (Perrine 2005, Perrine et al. 2007). Outside of this area, 

recent surveys in the forests of the southern Cascade Range and throughout the Sierra Nevada 

have not detected Sierra Nevada red fox, as they may be extirpated or in extremely low densities 

in the areas surveyed (Zielinski et al. 2005), with the exception of three foxes detected near 

Sonora Pass along the border of Tuolumne and Mono Counties in August and September 2010. 

Other low-elevation red fox populations in California were thought to be of exotic origin (Perrine 

et al. 2007) until a recent genetic analysis (Sacks et al. 2010) identified a native subspecies in the 

Sacramento Valley (V. v. patwin) surrounded by multiple nonnative populations. Perrine et al. 

(2007 and 2010) support the use of a 3,500 feet elevation boundary that successfully seperates 

high-elevation from lowland populations for management purposes. The elevation boundary 

between the two populations is somewhat arbitrary and likely varies by latitude (Perrine 2005). 

The extensive PSW furbearer study mentioned previously (see Wolverine), conducted from 1996 

to 2002 using track plates and cameras on approximately 7.5 million acres in the southernmost 

Cascades and Sierra Nevada range (estimated 60 of 344 sample units located within suitable 

Sierra Nevada red fox habitats), did not detect this species and found that Sierra Nevada red fox 

may be extirpated from or occur in extremely low densities within the area sampled (Zielinski et 

al 2005). The gap in distribution between the Cascade and Sierra Nevada mountains suspected by 

Grinnell et al (1937) was confirmed by Zielinski et al (2005). A population of red fox in the 

Cascades near Lassen Peak was identified as the native V. v. necator through analysis of mtDNA 

samples (Perrine 2005). However, it remains unclear why the red fox population recently known 

to occur near Lassen Peak was not detected by the PSW study. It was suggested by Perrine (2005) 

that the range of the Lassen foxes may have been so restricted that the PSW study simply missed 

them. A comparison between the sampling locations for the two studies showed that the PSW 

plots did not fall within the grid cells where the Lassen study detected this species (Ibid). 

Home ranges of Sierra Nevada red fox in Lassen National Park averaged 940 acres (2,323 

hectares) in summer and 1,318 acres (3,255 hectares) in winter. Winter home ranges were located 

at lower elevations (mean=1,571 feet/~479 m) and typically did not overlap with summer home 

ranges. Altitudinal movement down-slope in winter was presumed to be associated with snow 

pack depth. Given the body size and foot-loadings typical for this species, individuals would 

likely experience difficulty in accessing under-snow prey habitats and high energetic costs in 

traveling over snow (Perrine 2005). Little is known about reproduction of this species in the 

Sierra Nevada. This species breeds during winter, has a gestation period of 52-54 days, and has 

litters of 3 to 9 pups (mean=6) during the summer (summarized in Perrine 2005). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-158 Chapter 3 

The LRMP, as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004), directs Forests to 

consider whether project activities have potential to affect the Sierra Nevada red fox within 5 

miles of a detection for a 2-year period (when not associated with a den site). Extensive carnivore 

surveys have occurred on the LTBMU over the past 10 years, including portions of the project 

area: Sierra Nevada red foxes were not detected. The most recent record of this species near the 

LTBMU occurred approximately 4.4 miles southeast of the Lake Tahoe Basin in Charity Valley, 

near Markleeville Peak in 1973 (CDFG 2008). This detection was not associated with a den site. 

In August 2010, biologists on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest detected a red fox at an 

automatic camera station near Sonora Pass along the border of Tuolumne and Mono Counties 

(approximately 50 miles south of the Lake Tahoe Basin). Preliminary genetic analyses conducted 

at UC Davis indicate that the fox was a Sierra Nevada red fox (Perrine et al. 2010). In summary, 

detections of Sierra Nevada red fox or their den sites have not occurred within 5 miles of the 

project area within the past two years; however the contemporary range of this species appears 

uncertain and may include limited portions of the wildlife analysis area. 

Sierra Nevada red fox occur in red fir, lodgepole, subalpine forests, and alpine fell-fields, 

preferring open areas such as those found above timberline, in meadows, and in open forested 

stands (summarized in Schempf and White 1977). %he California Wildlife Habitats 

Relationships (CWHR) computer program (2005) addresses red fox (V. vulpes), but not Sierra 

Nevada red fox. No high or moderate capability denning or resting habitats are identified for red 

fox by CWHR. High capability foraging habitat is described as Alpine Dwarf-Shrub (all strata) 

and Wet Meadow (all strata) vegetation types; and moderate capability foraging habitat as the 

Subalpine Conifer (all strata except 3M, 3D, 4M, and 4D) vegetation type (CWHR 2005). 

Denning habitat, in the scientific literature, is described as “log or rock structures adjacent to 

meadows” (USDA FS 2001) and natural cavities within rock piles and talus slopes (Grinnell et al 

1937, Zeiner et al 1990 in USDA FS 2001, Perrine 2005). Dens are also located in whitebark pine 

(Pinus albicaulis) and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) subalpine habitats below treeline 

(summarized in Perrine 2005). This species “seems to range from 4,000 feet to 12,000 feet in 

elevation,” though “they are seldom sighted below 5,000 feet, and most often above 7,000 feet” 

(USDA FS 2001). The Sierra Nevada red fox “ranges over wide tracts of land and may occur 

almost everywhere within its elevation range” (Grinnell et al 1937 in Schempf and White 1977). 

The availability of prey and cover in suitable habitats appear important (USDA FS 2001) as does 

the amount, and preferably absence, of human presence and disturbance (Grinnell et al 1937 in 

USDA FS 2001). 

For purposes of this analysis, moderate and high capability denning and resting habitats were 

considered to be greater than 1.0 mile from human disturbance and include whitebark pine and 

mountain hemlock subalpine habitats below treeline, which depends on local conditions and can 

not be described by a simple elevation boundary within the Lake Tahoe Basin. Moderate and high 

capability foraging habitat includes habitats described above that are removed from human 

disturbance and are within the range of elevation for this species (4,000-12,000 feet). Estimates of 

high and moderate capability denning habitat, high and moderate capability resting habitat, and 

high and moderate capability foraging habitat currently within the wildlife analysis area are listed 

in Table 3-71 below. 

American Marten 

The American marten (Martes americana) is a Forest Service sensitive (S) species and 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Please refer to 

the Management Indicator Species Report for this project for further discussion of this species 

and its habitat in regards to its MIS status. Current management direction for this species is set 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-159

forth in the Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA FS 1988), as amended by the Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA FS 2004b). 

The American marten (M. americana) is one of four closely related species in the genus Martes, 

along with the Eurasian pine marten (M. martes), sable (M. zibellina), and Japanese marten (M. 

melampus). Together, they are called the “boreal forest martens” (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). 

These closely related species replace each other geographically in a boreal forest distribution 

around the world (Ibid). American martens are the only Martes species in North America, aside 

from the fisher (M. pennanti), and are broadly distributed from northern New Mexico to the 

northern limit of trees in arctic Alaska and Canada, and from the southern Sierra Nevada range in 

California to Newfoundland Island (Hall 1981 in Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). This species is 

continuously distributed in Alaska and Canada, but discontinuously distributed in the western 

contiguous United States, where it occurs only in mountain ranges with preferred habitats. Marten 

occurrence appears to be associated with protected areas such as National Parks and 

Wildernesses, and late seral forests. Timber harvest, development, and fur-trapping (which 

occurred until the mid-1950s) have adversely impacted the distribution of this species (Zielinski 

et al 2005). In California, marten occur in the southern Cascades and northern Sierra Nevada 

south to Tulare County. A gap in distribution has recently developed between the Cascade and 

Sierra Nevada mountain ranges. Distribution within the Sierra Nevada range is continuous at 

higher elevations; and Marten occur in suitable habitats throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

Surveys for this species have been conducted throughout large portions of the Forest including 

the wildlife analysis area. These surveys varied in scope from a few to tens of stations and 

occurred sporadically since the 1980’s. Most of the surveys occurred in the western, northern, and 

southeastern portions of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Only one marten den has been identified in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin, this could be due to the amount of effort needed to locate den sites (generally 

requires more costly and labor-intensive radio telemetry or tracking surveys). The single known 

den is on the west shore within Sugar Pine State Park. It was discovered opportunistically during 

a northern goshawk survey in 2009. Camera and/or track plate surveys for marten were not 

conducted for this project because marten are known to occur throughout much of the wildlife 

analysis area. However, marten dens have not been identified on the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

Marten occur in or near conifer forests, often in talus fields above treeline, but rarely or never 

below the lower elevational limit of trees (summarized in Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Suitable 

montane habitats in the northern Sierra Nevada, including the Lake Tahoe Basin, occur between 

3,400 and 10,400 feet elevation. This species is associated with “late-successional stands of moist 

conifers, especially those with complex physical structure near the ground” (Buskirk and Powell 

1994 in Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Protection from predation, thermal cover, and availability 

of prey influence habitat selection. Predators of martens include coyotes (Canis latrans), red 

foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and great horned owls (Bubo virginianus). Marten are thought to utilize 

coarse woody debris or talus to avoid predation by these species. 

However, predation by its larger relative, the fisher, is generally avoided geographically as a 

function of snow depth and/or shrub cover. Marten occur in regions with greater snow pack (>9.2 

in) compared to fisher (<5.2 in) and overlap in distribution with their larger and heavier cousin in 

areas of intermediate snow pack. Lower foot-loading, with its associated advantage in mobility 

over snow, is presumed to benefit marten in interactions between the two species. In lieu of snow 

pack, dense shrub cover may also provide an advantage to marten during these interactions 

(Zielinski et al 2006). 

Complex ground cover structure is valuable as thermal cover, especially during winter, for 

denning, and as foraging habitat. Marten gain access to spaces under the snow created by coarse 

woody debris and other structures to forage, rest, and den. Squirrel middens often provide natal 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-160 Chapter 3 

and maternal denning and resting sites (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Marten also benefit from an 

interspersion of open areas within forested habitats, which increase foraging opportunities for 

mice (Clethrionomys and Microtus), chipmunks (Eutamias), pikas (Ochotona), and other small 

mammals (Perrine 2005). 

Habitat connectivity is naturally limited by the spatial distribution of suitable habitats on the 

landscape. Green (2007) found that marten frequently occurred in continuous stands of Sierran 

mixed conifer, red fir, and subalpine forest dominated by large trees (size classes 5 and 6) and 

dense canopy cover at sites in western and southwestern parts of Sequoia and Kings Canyon 

National Parks. However, in northern and eastern parts of the parks, Green found that marten in 

higher elevations utilized areas with smaller diameter trees (mean tree size class 4) and lower 

canopy cover (range from <10% to dense) that were less continuous, “often occurring in linear 

patches along streams or around edges of lakes” (2007). Continuity of forested habitat in high 

elevation areas may be aided by the presence of boulder fields, talus slopes, abundant surface 

rocks, and/or shrubs (Grinnell et al 1937, Buskirk and Zielinski 2003, Slauson 2003, summarized 

in Green 2007). These sources of thermal, predator, and/or foraging cover are likely important as 

linkages between preferred habitats and, at the landscape level, for habitat connectivity. 

Habitat fragmentation is generally considered detrimental to marten occurrence. 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). 

Human-caused habitat fragmentation through logging and development has been identified as an 

important element in the conservation of marten populations. Habitat fragmentation may also 

occur due to fire or climate change. 

Home ranges in the Sierra Nevada average 1,505 acres for males and 737 acres for females 

(USDA FS 2001). Females appear more habitat-selective than males, presumably due to higher 

energy requirements for reproduction (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Marten do not alter their 

home ranges seasonally; though habitat use within the home range varies. Areas of greater cover, 

for example, are utilized during periods of inclement weather, and areas with large structural 

cover are used seasonally as den sites. Breeding occurs from late June to early August, peaking in 

July. Young are born in March and April. Young may be moved from the natal den to a maternal 

den(s) and emerge at approximately 50 days. Juveniles become independent in late summer but 

disperse later (summarized in Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). There is some evidence that juveniles 

avoid high quality habitats occupied by adults (Ibid). 

Important forest types include red fir, lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, mixed conifer-fir, Jeffrey 

pine, and eastside pine (Zeiner et al 1990 in USDA FS 2001). Habitat types and strata located 

within TRPA residential, commercial, or tourist accommodation plan area statement land use 

zones with high human disturbance do not provide suitable habitat for marten and were not 

included in this analysis. Estimated acres of high and moderate capability denning habitat, high 

and moderate capability resting habitat, and high and moderate capability foraging habitat 

currently existing for American marten within the wildlife analysis area are listed in Table 3-72. 

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat 

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) is a Forest Service Sensitive (S) species on 

the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Current management direction for this species is set 

forth in the Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA FS 1988), as amended by the Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA FS 2004b). 

Townsend’s big-eared bat ranges “throughout western North America from British Columbia to 

the central Mexican highlands, with isolated populations reaching east in the United States to the 

Ozarks and Appalachia” (summarized in Pierson and Rainey 1998), and occurs “in a variety of 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-161

habitats, including desert scrub, sagebrush, chaparral, and deciduous and coniferous forests” 

(summarized in Minor and Stokes 2005). The historic and current range in California is not 

understood with great accuracy or precision. 

This species may occur from sea level to over 10,000 feet (summarized in Kunz and Martin 1982, 

Gellman and Zielinski 1996, Fellers and Pierson 2002). Caves or cave analogues (e.g. abandoned 

mines and buildings, and lava tubes) are typically used for roosting (Graham 1966, Barbour and 

Davis 1969, Kunz and Martin 1982) though roosting in tree hollows has been reported in coastal 

California habitats (Gellman and Zielinski 1996, Fellers and Pierson 2002). Roost searches are 

the most efficient survey method as Townsend’s big-eared bats are not readily detected by mistnet or acoustic surveys (Miner and Stokes 2005). This species, rather than roosting in crevices 

like many other species of bat, roosts only out in the open on walls and ceilings where it is easily 

detected (Pierson and Rainey 1998). Care must be taken near roosts as this species is particularly 

sensitive to disturbance and may abandon roost sites after even the slightest disturbance (Graham 

1966, Barbour and Davis 1969, Pierson and Rainey 1998, Minor and Stokes 2005). The LTBMU 

contacted partner agencies, mining and spelunking-related organizations and agencies, 

universities, and historic databases in 2008 to identify caves and cave analogues that may be 

suitable Townsend’s big-eared bat roost sites throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin. Site visits to 

determine the suitability of these sites were completed during early summer 2008 and acoustic 

surveys were conducted in 2008 and 2009. Townsend’s big-eared bats are known to occur at four 

locations within the Lake Tahoe Basin: Blackwood Canyon and near McKinney Creek on the 

western shore, Skunk Harbor on the eastern shore, and Cookhouse Meadow on the southern shore 

(and within the analysis area). This species is known to roost at the McKinney Creek and Skunk 

Harbor locations. 

This species is a moth specialist but also feeds on a variety of butterflies, skipper butterflies, and 

moth-butterflies (Pierson and Rainey 1998). Townsend’s big-eared bats frequently forage along 

forested edges over vegetation and require access to open water (USDA FS 2001). Although this 

species occurs in a wide variety of habitats and is fairly adaptable regarding its foraging 

requirements, its distribution appears constrained primarily by the availability of suitable roosting 

sites and the degree of human disturbance at roosts. 

For purposes of this analysis, and because roosting habitat for Townsend’s big-eared bat is sitespecific and not meaningfully described in terms of acres, roosting habitat will be discussed in 

terms of sites (or potential sites) rather than numbers of acres. Similarly, because foraging habitat 

for this species is closely associated with the proximity of suitable roosting habitat and not well 

described by vegetation types or strata, foraging habitat will be discussed in terms of general 

changes to non-urban areas within the wildlife analysis area. 

To date, the Mountain Top (a.k.a. Gold Hill) mine is the only suitable cave or cave-analogue 

identified within the wildlife analysis area. The historic mine is located on a ridge top east of the 

Saxon Creek drainage, approximately 0.95 mile southeast of the project area at 9,000 feet 

elevation. Both the adit and the pit of the Mountain Top mine were assessed for bat habitat in 

2008. At that time it was thought that there may be a short tunnel connecting the two structures 

that could be suitable cave surrogate habitat. Acoustic surveys were conducted in 2009. Only a 

few bats were detected, but surveyors were certain that bats were seen/heard emerging from the 

pit and the adit. Townsend’s were not detected. A visit to the Mountain Top mine during the 

summer of 2010 showed that the mine had caved in since it was originally surveyed and is no 

longer suitable as cave surrogate habitat. It is possible that the bats that were detected there were 

roosting in rock crevices. The remains of the mine were demolished in the fall of 2010. 

The Meiss cabin, a historic building located within the wildlife analysis area and approximately 

4.4 miles southwest of the project area at 8,400 feet elevation, is frequently visited by recreational 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-162 Chapter 3 

users. The suitability of the bat habitat at Meiss cabin is unknown. No other potential Townsend’s 

big-eared bat roost sites are known or identified within the wildlife analysis area. 

Bald Eagle 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced intent to de-list the bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus), formerly federally-listed as a threatened species, on June 28, 2007. The bald 

eagle was federally de-listed on August 8, 2007, and then placed on the Region 5 Regional 

Forester’s sensitive species list. The bald eagle will be analyzed here as a Forest Service sensitive 

(S) species. Current management direction for this species is set forth in the Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA FS, LTBMU 1988), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment (USDA FS 2004a). The bald eagle is also a Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Special 

Interest Species (SIS). Please refer to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Impact Analysis for 

this project for further discussion of this species in regards to its SIS status. 

The Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle (USFWS 1986) states that the main threats to this 

species in Zone 28 (Sierra Nevada Mountains) are disturbance at wintering grounds and loss of 

potential nest habitat to logging or development. The Plan’s proposed management directions are 

maintenance of winter habitat and evaluation of potential reintroduction/expansion of ‘breeders’. 

The most urgent site-specific task identified for the Forest Service in Zone 28 (task 1.3211) is to 

prohibit logging of known nest, perch, or winter roost trees (USFWS 1986). 

Bald eagles occur throughout most of North America and have undergone large population 

fluctuations over the past two centuries (Buehler 2000, Murphy and Knopp 2000, USDA FS 

2001). This species occurs and winters throughout California, except in desert areas. Migratory 

individuals from north and northeast of the State arrive between mid-October and December and 

remain until March or early April. Most bald eagle breeding in California occurs in the northern 

counties (Butte, Lake, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, and Trinity counties), typically 

at low elevations; breeding in the high Sierra Nevada is rare (USDA FS 2001). Bald eagles have 

been recorded in the Lake Tahoe Basin as far back as 1874 and occur year-round; bald eagle 

numbers peak during the fall and winter, corresponding with Kokanee salmon spawning activity 

(Murphy and Knopp 2000). This species has been known to breed at Marlette Lake on the east 

side of Lake Tahoe and at Emerald Bay within the wildlife analysis area. 

The LTBMU manages approximately 370 acres of the Taylor Creek and Tallac Creek wetlands 

and meadows north of Highway 89 as bald eagle wintering habitat from October 15 through 

March 15 annually. These wetlands and adjacent uplands are also managed for developed 

recreation (e.g. Taylor Creek visitor’s center and Baldwin and Kiva beaches), and are visited by 

over 800,000 visitors each year (Don Lane – LTBMU recreation specialist, pers. comm.2008), 

most of them during the late spring, summer, and early fall. Suitable habitats exist in close 

proximity to these intensive recreation sites and are identified by signs and fences. 

Bald eagles require open water with juxtaposed mature trees or steep cliffs for nesting, perching, 

foraging, and roosting (Bent 1961 in Murphy and Knopp 2000). This species typically perches in 

“large, robustly limbed trees, on snags, on broken topped trees, or on rocks near water” (Peterson 

1986 and Laves and Romsos 1998 in Murphy and Knopp 2000). Bald eagles wintering in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin have been documented to use “only dominant trees (mostly snags) within the 

shore zone to perch” (Laves and Romsos 1998 in Murphy and Knopp 2000). 96 percent of the 

perch sites identified by Laves and Romsos (1998) were located within 0.25 miles of a large, 

open body of water. Late successional Jeffrey pine vegetation was used most frequently for 

perching and montane chaparral the least (Ibid). Habitat and perch sites (Laves and Romsos 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-163

1998) identified in the Lake Tahoe Basin indicate that local bald eagles prefer late successional 

stands (particularly Jeffrey pine) and trees that are larger in diameter and taller than the dominant 

tree canopy (particularly trees greater than 40 inches dbh, greater than 98 feet tall, and dead 

topped trees with robust, open branch structures). Perches function as resting, preening, foraging, 

and feeding sites for bald eagles. 

Roost trees are perches where one or more bald eagles rest at night and may occur long distances 

from open water bodies. Roost trees are similar in structure compared to perch trees; “dominant 

trees that have open and robust branches, are sometimes defoliated (i.e. snags), are protected from 

prevailing winds, and are typically far from human development” (Anthony et al 1982 in Murphy 

and Knopp 2000). Roost trees have not been identified in the Lake Tahoe Basin though stands 

that meet the requirements of this species for roosting may be present. 

Bald eagles are generalist carnivores; they are opportunistic predators and scavengers (Detrich 

1986 and Jurek 1988, as summarized in USDA FS 2001). Common prey items include fish, 

waterfowl, jackrabbits, and carrion (Zeiner et al 1990 in USDA FS 2001). This species may feed 

gregariously, on abundant prey such as spawning fish, or individually (Ibid). Foraging often 

occurs from diurnal perches, which are located high in the canopy, near water, and with a good 

view of the surrounding area. 

Nest trees are “typically established in large, dominant live trees with open branch work and are 

often located within 1.6 km [0.96 miles] of open water” (Murphy and Knopp 2000). Nest trees 

must be sturdy to support the large, heavy stick nests built by this species at or just below the tree 

canopy (Ibid). Nests are located most frequently in stands with less than 40 percent canopy cover 

(Call 1978 in Murphy and Knopp 2000). Nest trees in the Lake Tahoe Basin are located in close 

proximity to open water (<656 feet) and away from developed shorelines (>1.5 miles) (Murphy 

and Knopp 2000). Bald eagles are known to use the Jeffrey pine vegetation type for nesting in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin, therefore, the Jeffrey pine vegetation type will be considered high capability 

(5S, 5P, and 6) and moderate capability (4S, 4P, and 4D) nesting habitat for the purposes of this 

analysis. Moderate to high capability nesting habitat is located within 1.0 mile of open water as 

described above. 

Bald eagles are also known to use the Jeffrey pine vegetation type for perching in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin, despite the CWHR model prediction that this vegetation type would normally provide low 

perching capability for this species. The Jeffrey pine vegetation type will be considered high 

capability (5S, 5P, 5M, and 6) and moderate capability (4S, 4P, and 4M) perching habitat for the 

purposes of this analysis. Moderate to high capability perching habitat is located within 0.25 mile 

of open water as described above. 

The Jeffrey pine vegetation type is known to be used by bald eagles for foraging in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin, despite the CWHR model prediction that this vegetation type would normally 

provide low foraging capability for this species. Therefore, the Jeffrey pine vegetation type will 

be considered high capability (5S, 5P, 5M, and 6) and moderate capability (4S, 4P, and 4M) 

foraging habitat for the purposes of this analysis. Moderate to high capability foraging habitat is 

located within 0.25 mile of open water as described above. 

Estimated acres of high and moderate capability nesting habitat, acres of high and moderate 

capability perching habitat, and acres of high and moderate capability foraging habitat currently 

present for bald eagle within the wildlife analysis area are given in Table 3-52. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-164 Chapter 3 

Table 3-52. Existing acres of high and moderate capability bald eagle habitat 

within the project wildlife analysis area 

Bald eagles are usually monogamous and pair for life, though re-pairing may occur if either of the 

pair dies. The mating season varies by latitude, and in the Lake Tahoe Basin pair initiation begins 

in January and egg-laying occurs in early May. Incubation lasts for approximately 35 days, and 

hatching occurs in mid-June. Both parents provide care for the nestlings for approximately 10-12 

weeks. Juveniles fledge in late August and depend on the nest site for 4-11 weeks following the 

first flight. Bald eagles require 4-5 years to reach sexual maturity and full adult plumage. 

Dispersal distances can be substantial; this species often disperses several hundred miles from the 

natal site. Females tend to disperse farther than males. Breeding home ranges vary substantially 

by location from 58 acres in Alaska to 24 square miles in Arizona. Migration distances of up to 

2,756 km have been recorded. Fidelity to wintering grounds is strong (summarized in USDA FS 

2001). 

Bald eagle surveys for this project include mid-winter counts and breeding season nest surveys 

(both described below) conducted from 2006 through 2010. Approximately 16,744 acres were 

surveyed (total for mid-winter count and nest surveys) for bald eagles in the Lake Tahoe Basin 

(5,104 acres surveyed within the wildlife analysis area). Mid-winter count and nest surveys 

within the wildlife analysis area have been completed through January 2010. In addition, a longterm bald eagle count and nest survey history (20+ years) exists in the wildlife analysis area. The 

results of subsequent, project-specific, relevant concurrent and historic surveys are considered in 

this analysis. 

The LTBMU hosts annual mid-winter bald eagle counts (28th annual count in 2011) in 

coordination with partner agencies and the University of Santa Cruz, Predatory Bird Research 

Group (PBRG). Results from counts contribute to statewide and national population assessments. 

Volunteers and agency personnel conduct the one-day, 3-hour long, mid-winter count, typically 

during the first two weeks of January, from 26 fixed locations around Lake Tahoe and Fallen Leaf 

Lake (11 locations are within the wildlife analysis area) following the PBRG survey protocol. 

Individual bald eagles recorded are differentiated (to reduce the risk of over- or under-counting) 

after the survey based on direction of flight and time of observation. Up to 19 individual bald 

eagles have been recorded during the count and as many as eight eagles have been detected in one 

location (Sugar Pine Point State Park, 2005). The spatial distribution of detections varies annually 

(e.g. most of the eagles may be detected along the south shore of Lake Tahoe one year and on the 

north shore the next). The results of counts from the past 11 years are presented below (Table 

3-53). 

Habitat 

Capability Nesting Habitat Perching Habitat Foraging Habitat Habitat Capability Nesting Habitat Perching Habitat F Habitat Capability Nesting Habitat Pe

Habitat 

Capability N

High 134 333 2,394 

Moderate 3,084 1,334 2,485 

Total 3,218 1,667 4,879 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-165

Table 3-53. Results of bald eagle mid-winter counts in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin, 2000-2010 

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Total 

number 

of bald 

eagles 

detected 

8 15 14 10 12 18 7 9 10 16 9 17

The LTBMU also conducts annual bald eagle nesting surveys in conjunction with osprey nesting 

surveys and in cooperation with California State Parks and Nevada State Parks, who also monitor 

the eagle nests. The nests are visited at least five times annually, and often more frequently. There 

are two nesting territories in the Basin, one at Marlette Lake and the other at Emerald Bay. The 

Emerald Bay territory is active and fledges young more frequently than the Marlette Lake 

territory. Nesting activity within the territories varied annually, as has fledging, over the past 14 

years (Table 3-54). 

Table 3-54. Number of active bald eagle nests and juveniles fledged in the Lake Tahoe 

Basin 1999-2010 

Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Number of 

active 

nests 

0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Number of 

juveniles 

fledged 

0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 1

Northern Goshawk 

The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is a Forest Service Sensitive (S) and Management 

Indicator Species (MIS) and a Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Special Interest Species (SIS) on 

the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Please refer to the Management Indicator Species 

Report and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Impact Analysis for this project for further 

discussion of this species in regards to its MIS and SIS status. Current management direction for 

this species is set forth in the Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA FS, LTBMU 1988), 

as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA FS 2004a). 

Northern goshawks occupy boreal and temperate forests worldwide throughout the arctic and 

boreal forest zone (Squires and Reynolds 1997). This broad range of forested communities 

includes mixed conifer, true fir, montane riparian, Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole 

pine forests (USDA FS 2004a). Within California, this species occurs in the Sierra Nevada, 

Klamath, Cascade, Inyo-White, Siskiyou, and Warner Mountains, and the North Coast Ranges. 

Goshawks may also inhabit suitable habitats in the Transverse Ranges and other mountainous 

areas in southern California (Zeiner et al 1990 and Murphy et al 2000b). 

Northern goshawk nesting habitat at the nest stand scale has consistently greater canopy cover, 

greater basal area, greater numbers of large diameter trees, fewer small diameter trees, less 

understory cover, and gentle to moderate slopes relative to random samples of non-used sites 

(USDA FS 2001). McGrath et al (2003) found that goshawks in the Interior Northwest nested, at 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-166 Chapter 3 

the 0.4 acre (one hectare) scale, on the lower 1/3 or bottom of north facing slopes in stands 

characterized by relatively higher basal area, higher quadratic mean diameter, greater canopy 

closure, and greater live stem densities, compared to random sites. Goshawks nesting in the 

relatively open-canopied and drier stands found on the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada in the 

Inyo National Forest selected nest stands with a mean canopy closure of 29 percent (Hargis et al 

1994). Variability in the structural characteristics of nest stands between studies appears to be 

related to differences in vegetation type and geographic region. 

Within the Lake Tahoe region of the Sierra Nevada, Keane (1999) found that nest-site areas (0.25 

acre) were characterized by high canopy closure (mean=70.4%,), high densities of live trees in 

>24-40 inch (mean=22.1 trees/acre) and >40 inch dbh classes, high densities of dead trees in the 

>24-40 dbh inch class, low densities of 2-12 inch dbh live trees, and low shrub/sapling and 

ground cover (mean=9.9%). No difference in slope or aspect was detected for nest sites (Ibid.). 

Later surveys of 42 goshawk nest stands in the Lake Tahoe Basin, conducted by LTBMU 

biologists in 2004 and 2005, measured canopy closure (mean=79%, range=51-97%), live tree 

diameter (mean=19.6 inches, range=13.6-45.6 inches), shrub cover (mean=9%, range=0-57%), 

slope (mean=17 degrees, range=2-41 degrees), and slope aspect (north-facing=24%, eastfacing=36%, south-facing=31%, and west-facing=10%) (unpubl. data). 

TRPA (unpubl. 2000) and the LTBMU (unpubl. 2006) developed spatially explicit goshawk 

nesting habitat models using local goshawk nest stand data to facilitate improved agency 

understanding and management of goshawk nesting habitat in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The TRPA 

model incorporates vegetation (type, size, and canopy cover), slope, aspect, elevation, distance to 

streams, and land use types. The similar LTBMU model incorporates the characteristics used in 

the TRPA model and terrestrial ecological unit inventory (TEUI 2004) vegetation data (land type 

association, potential natural vegetation type, and normalized difference vegetation indices), 

relative position on slope, and road infrastructure. The TRPA model correctly classifies 89 

percent of known goshawk nests (n=85) within moderately or highly suitable habitat. Nesting 

habitat characteristics of the more recent LTBMU model were weighted to achieve a correct 

classification ratio of 99 percent (79% high, 20% moderate, and 1% low habitat suitability). 

These models appear effective in predicting goshawk nesting habitat for the time frame during 

which the remotely sensed data utilized is valid. 

Canopy cover and CWHR forest vegetation types and strata are the primary metrics used for the 

northern goshawk in this analysis. CWHR is useful in modeling predicted changes in pre-and 

post-treatment stand density and size classes in relation to habitat suitability for wildlife species 

such as northern goshawk. Remote sensing does not accurately detect levels of snags or coarse 

woody debris, nor does the CWHR model include a vegetation category for these types of 

information. These types of data were collected at forest inventory and analysis (FIA) plots 

within the proposed action area and changes resulting from the proposed alternatives are modeled 

by prescription. In summary, snag and coarse woody debris abundance are incorporated in the 

project resource protection measures and addressed through pre-treatment surveys, treatment 

prescriptions, and implementation monitoring. 

Nesting behavior, including courtship and nest initiation, begins mid-February to early March. 

The average incubation period is approximately 33 days and the nestling period typically extends 

from early June through early July, with most young fledged by mid-July. The post-fledging 

dependency period extends until mid/late August (Woodbridge and Hargis 2006). 

Goshawks are well adapted to foraging in forested habitats, but are also able to ambush prey in 

open habitats (summarized in Squires and Reynolds 1997). Moderately dense, mature conifer 

forests are generally the preferred foraging habitat (Ibid). However, goshawks also forage in a 

variety of other forest age-classes, structures and compositions, into openings, and along forest 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-167

edges (summarized in Reynolds et al 2006). In California, mature and old growth habitat (≥20.8 

inches dbh, canopy closure ≥40%) were used, whereas open habitats such as meadows and early 

seral areas were avoided in mixed-conifer forests (Austin 1993). In Arizona, Beier and Drennan 

(1997) found that goshawks foraged in stands that had higher canopy closure, greater tree density, 

and a greater density of large trees (>16.2 inches dbh) than on contrast plots. Snags and logs are 

key components of goshawk foraging areas as they provide habitat for prey species (USDA F 

Forest Service, LTBMU 1988). Prey availability within suitable foraging habitats appears to be 

more important to habitat use than prey abundance for this species (Reynolds et al 2006). 

Northern goshawks are known to prey on over 50 species of birds and mammals throughout their 

western range (Graham et al 1994). Prey size varies little between geographic regions (Boal and 

Mannan 1994). In the Lake Tahoe region, primary prey species include Douglas squirrel 

(Tamiasciurus douglasii), Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), 

and ground squirrel (Spermophilus spp.). Other prey species include American robin (Turdus 

migratorius), blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus), other woodpeckers, and other squirrels 

(Keane1999). 

The estimated acres of high and moderate capability nesting habitat, acres of high and moderate 

capability perching habitat, and acres of high and moderate capability foraging habitat currently 

existing for northern goshawk within the wildlife analysis area are listed in Table 3-55. 

Table 3-55. Existing acres of high and moderate capability northern goshawk habitat 

within the project wildlife analysis area 

Habitat Capability Nesting Habitat Perching Habitat Foraging Habitat 

High 13,622 20,393 20,393

Moderate 3,806 30,451 37,641

Total 17,428 50,844 58,034

Goshawk habitat use and life history requirements may be discussed at spatial scales varying 

from the nest area (smallest) to the non-breeding home range (largest). The nest area 

(approximately 20-25 acres) includes one or more forest stands, the nest tree, and possibly several 

alternate nests. Nest areas may be occupied by breeding goshawks from mid-February until late 

September, and are the focus of all movements and activities associated with nesting. Goshawks 

may have multiple nest areas within their home range, and nest areas may be used intermittently 

for many years. Nest areas have relatively high canopy cover (typically greater than 50%) and a 

high density of large trees. 

The protected activity center (PAC) includes 200 acres of the highest quality nesting habitat 

available, and the most recent nest site and alternate nests within a goshawk breeding territory as 

described in management direction for the forest (a2004b). The size of the PACs corresponds 

with criteria reported by Woodbridge and Detrich (1994) such that territory occupancy rates of 

approximately 100% were associated with clusters of nest stands totaling 150-200 acres (USDA 

FS 2001). There are currently 32 northern goshawk PACs on the LTBMU. 

The post-fledging family area (PFA) corresponds to the area (approximately 500 acres) used by 

the adults and young from the time when the young fledge until the young are no longer 

dependent on the adults for food. PFAs provide juveniles with cover from predators and sufficient 

prey to develop foraging skills prior to dispersal. PFAs typically include a variety of forest 

conditions and areas of high canopy cover (greater than 50%). The TRPA disturbance zone is 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-168 Chapter 3 

based on a 0.5 mile radius (503 acre) around a known nest tree and is equivalent in scale to the 

PFA. 

The home range increases in size from the breeding season to the non-breeding season and is 

generally larger for males than for females throughout the year. During the breeding season, the 

average home range of goshawks in the Lake Tahoe area was 6,745 acres for males and 5,040 

acres for females. Non-breeding season home ranges averaged 23,448 acres for males and 13,888 

acres for females (Keane 1999). Home ranges include areas with a greater proportion of larger 

tree size classes and higher density classes than that randomly available across the landscape. The 

home range includes the PFA, PAC, and nest areas. The area within the home range, but outside 

the PFA, is often referred to as the foraging area (Reynolds et al 1992). Maintaining requisite 

habitat elements can be best accomplished by managing large tracts of forests as sustainable 

ecological units where forest successional processes are continually moving a number of stands, 

within the natural range of variability, through the late seral stages preferred by this species 

(Reynolds et al 1992 and DeStefano et al 1994). 

The original round of surveys for goshawks was conducted in the wildlife analysis area following 

the USFS, Region 5 Northern Goshawk Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide protocol 

(Woodbridge and Hargis 2006) in 2006 and 2007 (see page 23 for details on current surveys). An 

estimated total 26,827 acres (approximately 24,269 acres for the South Shore project and an 

additional 2,558 acres for other projects) were surveyed for goshawk within the wildlife analysis 

area in 2006 and 2007. Due to the NEPA process being drawn out beyond the two year deadline 

outlined in the Region 5 protocol, surveys for this project were repeated in 2010 and will be 

completed in 2011. In addition, a long-term goshawk survey history (20+ years) exists in the 

wildlife analysis area. The results of the project-specific, relevant concurrent and historic surveys 

are considered in this analysis. 

The northern goshawk territories assessment project conducted in 2004 and 2005 for the LTBMU, 

TRPA, and Nevada Division of Wildlife was completed in 2007. Goshawk territory occupancy, 

nesting, reproductive success, vegetation conditions, and human disturbance were examined at 

various spatial scales in the Lake Tahoe Basin (Young and Morrison 2007). Goshawks are well 

known to be territorial and exhibit high site fidelity (Detrich and Woodbridge 1994 and Reynolds 

et al 1994). Territory occupancy was used as an indicator of habitat quality based on Ideal 

Despotic Distribution (IDD) conceptual theory, in which territorial behavior causes the best 

territories to be occupied when population densities are low, and low quality territories to be 

occupied only when high quality territories are at high population densities (Fretwell and Lucas 

1970). Young and Morrison (2007) identified frequently, moderately, and infrequently occupied 

territories throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin (Table 3-56). It is important to note that goshawk 

PACs and territories do not correlate on a one-to-one basis. The territories currently recognized 

are based on retrospective examination of approximately 32 years (1977-2008) of surveys 

whereas goshawk PACs are delineated prospectively as nesting and/or occupancy are discovered. 

The prospective delineation of PACs is a conservative management approach. The Forest also 

follows a conservative approach in eliminating goshawk PACs, which in some cases results in 

multiple PACs within a single territory. 

Fifteen northern goshawk PACs are currently established throughout the wildlife analysis area. A 

sixteenth, the North Angora goshawk PAC, was eliminated following the stand replacing Angora 

Fire in June-July 2007; there was insufficient remaining suitable habitat to re-map this PAC. The 

Seneca Pond PAC was also affected by the Angora Fire and was re-mapped within the wildlife 

analysis area. 

Northern goshawk PACs are delineated to include 200 acres of the best available nesting habitat 

as described in management direction for the forest (USDA FS 2001, USDA FS 2004a). The total 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-169

acreage included in goshawk PACs on the LTBMU varies as inclusions of “non-forest vegetation 

(such as brush and meadows) should not be counted as part of the 200 acres” (USDA FS 2004b). 

All LTBMU goshawk PACs were remapped in 2008 to incorporate the most up-to-date detection, 

nest location, and land boundary information available. The amount of high and moderate 

capability nesting, perching, and foraging habitat within each PAC varies according to what is 

available, given existing conditions, on the forest. Table 3-56 summarizes existing PAC acreage 

(200 acres of forested habitat plus non-forest vegetation) and the estimated number of acres of 

high and moderate capability nesting, perching, and foraging habitat for each goshawk PAC 

within the wildlife analysis area. 

Table 3-56. Existing acres of high and moderate capability habitat within northern 

goshawk PACs in the wildlife analysis area 

Protected 

Activity Center 

Territory PAC 

Acres 

Habitat 

Capability 

Nesting 

Habitat 

Perching 

Habitat 

Foraging 

Habitat 

Cascade Spring Creek 200 High 139 154 154 

Moderate 0 39 39 

Total 139 193 193 

Spring Creek Spring Creek 200 High 192 192 192 

Moderate 0 0 0 

Total 192 192 192 

Floating 

Island 

Spring Creek 200 High 178 178 178 

Moderate 0 0 0 

Total 178 178 178 

Tahoe 

Mountain 

Tahoe 

Mountain 

205 High 188 196 196 

Moderate 0 6 6 

Total 188 202 202 

Seneca Pond Angora 1 238 High 52 186 186 

Moderate 0 25 25 

Total 52 211 211 

Big Meadow Big Meadow 203 High 188 197 197 

Moderate 0 4 4 

Total 188 201 201 

Round Lake None 220 High 21 157 157 

Moderate 30 38 60 

Total 51 195 217 

Upper Saxon 

Creek 

Saxon Creek 204 High 44 68 68 

Moderate 118 128 136 

Total 162 196 204 

Middle Saxon 

Creek 

Saxon Creek 200 High 200 200 200 

Moderate 0 0 0 

Total 200 200 200 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-170 Chapter 3 

In summary, Table 3-57, beginning on the next page, provides the following information for each 

of the 15 goshawk PACs in the wildlife analysis area: 1) PAC name; 2) associated territory name; 

3) nesting, fledging, and occupancy detected since 1977 (for years in which surveys were 

completed); 4) whether detections occurred in association with the PAC in the previous three 

breeding seasons (2008-2010); 5) relative occupancy (frequently, moderately, infrequently 

occupied) as an indicator of habitat quality based on the process used by (Young and Morrison 

2007); and 6) whether a vegetation treatment is proposed within the PAC under Alternatives 2 or 

3. A summary of whether goshawk activity was detected within the previous three years (USDA 

FS 2004b, p.60) is presented in the table to highlight PACs with recent activity. 

Protected 

Activity Center 

Territory PAC 

Acres 

Habitat 

Capability 

Nesting 

Habitat 

Perching 

Habitat 

Foraging 

Habitat 

Lower Saxon 

Creek 

Saxon Creek 201 High 160 182 182 

Moderate 0 19 19 

Total 160 201 201 

Hellhole Hellhole 203 High 193 193 193 

Moderate 0 9 9 

Total 193 202 202 

Lower Trout 

Creek A 

Cold Creek 230 High 93 169 169 

Moderate 0 60 60 

Total 93 229 229 

Lower Trout 

Creek B 

Cold Creek 203 High 179 179 179 

Moderate 0 23 23 

Total 179 202 202 

Upper Cold 

Creek 

Upper Cold 

Creek 

204 High 95 158 158 

Moderate 0 44 44 

Total 95 202 202 

High 

Meadows 

High Meadows 218 High 1 27 27 

Moderate 92 120 171 

Total 93 147 198 

Totals 3,129 High & 

Moderate 

2,163 2,951 3,032 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Table 3-57. Summary information for northern goshawk Protected Activity Centers within the wildlife analysis area Protected Activity Center 

Territory Nesting, Fledging, and Occupancy Detected 

in PAC 

Detection in PAC 2008-2010 

Territory Occupancy 

Treated iAlternati

Cascade Spring 

Creek 

Original (but unconfirmed) nest in 1979, different nest confirmed in 1984, no known nests since; fledged 1 in 1984; detections in 1984, 2000, 2006, and 2007. 

No Frequent Yes 

Spring Creek Spring 

Creek 

Original nest in 1999 (reused 2000, 2001), other nests in 2003 (reused 2005 and 2009), 2004, and 2010; fledged 2 in 2003, 1 in 2004, 2 in 2009, and 2 in 2010; detections in 1999-2006,2009, and 2010. 

Yes Frequent Yes 

Floating Island 

Spring Creek 

Original nest in 1997; fledged 1 in 1997; detections in 1997, 1999, and 2002. 

No Frequent No 

Tahoe Mountain 

Tahoe Mountain 

Original (but unconfirmed) nest in 1991, confirmed nest in 2003; no known fledging; detections in 1997, 2002-2005, and 2007-2010. 

No Infrequent Yes 

Seneca Pond Angora 1 No known nests; no known fledging; detections 

in 1993, 2008-2010. This information is for the re-mapped PAC. 

Yes Moderate Yes 

Big Meadow Big 

Meadow 

Original nest in 2003 (reused in 2004), alternate nest in 2003, other nests in 2007 and 2009; fledged 3 in 2004, 2 in 2005 (no nest found), and 1 in 2007; detections in 1990, 1992, 1998, 2000-2005, and 2007-2010. 

Yes Moderate No 

Round Lake None No known nests; no known fledging; detection in 

1992. 

No None No 

Upper Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 

Original nest in 1995; fledged 2; detections in 1998, 1999, 2003, 2007, and 2009. 

Yes Frequent No 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-172 Protected Activity Center 

Territory Nesting, Fledging, and Occupancy Detected 

in PAC 

Detection in PAC 2008-2010 

Territory Occupancy 

Treated iAlternati

Middle Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 

Original nest in 1991, different nests in 1998 (reused 2002 and 2004), 2001, and 2005 (1 confirmed and 1 alternate nest, reused in 2006), and 2010; fledged 2 in 1998, 2001, 2005 and 2010; detections in 1991, 1994, 1997, 2001-2006, 2009 and 2010. 

Yes Frequent Yes 

Lower Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 

Original nest in 1992, different nests in 1993; no known fledging; detections in 1992-1993, 2003, 2005, and 2009. 

No Frequent Yes 

Hellhole Hellhole Original nest in 1992, different nests in 1998 

(reused in 2001), 1999, and 2003; no known fledging; detections in 1992, 1998-1999, 2001-2005, 2009 and 2010. 

Yes Frequent Yes 

Lower Trout Creek A 

Cold Creek 

Original (unconfirmed) nest in 1981; 2 fledglings in 1982 (but no nest found); detections in 1982 and 2002. 

No Moderate Yes 

Lower Trout Creek B 

Cold Creek 

Original nest in 1992, different nests in 2002 (2 unconfirmed nests), and 2003; no fledging known; detections in 1992, 1995, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010. 

Yes Moderate Yes 

Upper Cold Creek 

Upper Cold Creek 

Original nest (and 2 alternate nests) in 2002, different (unconfirmed) nests in 2003 and 2005; fledged 3 in 1999 (no nest found); detections in 1999, 2002-2006. 

No Moderate No 

High Meadows 

High Meadows 

Original nest in 2004, other nest in 2009 and 2010; 1 fledged in 2004, 3 fledged in 2009, 2 fledged in 2010; detections in 2003-2005, and 2007-2010. Large tree die-off prompted remapping of PAC in 2007. 

Yes Frequent No 

None

*

Sawmill Pond 

Original nest in 2010: nest failed N/A N/A Yes 

* There is not currently a PAC associated with this territory because it is a new territory that was discovered in 2010. If the territory conti2011 and 2012 a PAC will be designated. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-173

California Spotted Owl 

The California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) is a Forest Service sensitive (S) and 

management indicator species (MIS) and a Tahoe Regional Planning Agency special interest 

species (SIS) on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Please refer to the management 

indicator species report and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency impact analysis for this project for 

further discussion of this species in regards to its MIS and SIS status. Current management 

direction for this species is set forth in the Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA FS 

LTBMU 1988), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA FS 2004a). 

The range of the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) is divided into two major 

physiographic provinces, the Sierra Nevada Province and the Southern California Province, with 

Tehachapi Pass as the dividing line (Verner et al 1992). The Sierra Nevada Province is comprised 

of the southern Cascade and Sierra Nevada ranges, while the Southern California Province is 

comprised of all the mountain ranges of Southern California and the Central Coast ranges at least 

as far north as Monterey County (Ibid). The distribution of spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada 

Province is characterized as continuous and of relatively uniform density (Ibid). The range of the 

California spotted owl was revised in 2005 based on mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid 

(mtDNA) haplotypes as follows: west slope (locally on east slope) of Sierra Nevada in California 

from Shasta (Pit River) and Lassen Counties south to Kern County, and mountains of central, 

coastal, southern, and transverse ranges of California from Monterey (south side of Carmel 

Valley) and Kern Counties south through San Diego County to Cuyamaca Mountains in 

California, and Sierra San Pedro Martir in Baja California Norte, Mexico (Gutierrez and 

Barrowclough 2005). The LTBMU is located on the edge of the range for this species; spotted 

owl nesting has not been recorded within the State of Nevada. 

Concerns for the integrity of the spotted owl’s range in California and Nevada and led to the 

identification of areas of concern (AOCs) in 1992 (Verner et al 1992). Five conditions gave rise to 

these AOCs: 1) bottlenecks in the distribution of habitat or owl populations; 2) gaps in the known 

distribution of owls; 3) locally isolated populations; 4) highly fragmented habitat; and 5) areas of 

low crude density of spotted owls (Ibid). AOCs were mapped for California and Nevada, showing 

locations where “gap areas” between populations existed and where concerns for existing 

populations (e.g. due to low population density, relatively fragmented habitat or extensive loss of 

habitat from recent wildfires) were identified (Ibid). 

AOC population or area gaps have not been identified to date on the LTBMU. The nearest 

identified AOC gap area to the LTBMU is a natural bottleneck between the ranges of northern 

and California spotted owls in eastern Shasta County. The nearest AOC populations to the 

LTBMU are located on the northeastern Tahoe and northern Eldorado National Forests, due 

largely to checker-board land ownerships, prevalence of granite outcrops and red fir forests, and 

low or unknown owl densities. Gutierrez and Barrowclough’s (2005) refinements to the range of 

the spotted owl do not appear to have substantially affected AOCs located closest to the LTBMU. 

Across the range of this species, a broad array of habitat types such as western hemlock, mixed 

evergreen, mixed conifer, Douglas fir, pine-oak, ponderosa pine, western incense cedar, redwood, 

Douglas fir/hardwood, and conifer/hardwood are used (Guiterrez et al 1995). In the Sierra 

Nevada Province, spotted owls occur in conifer, mixed conifer/hardwood, and hardwood forests 

(Verner et al 1992). More specifically, spotted owls use the following five vegetation types in the 

Sierra Nevada: foothill riparian hardwood, ponderosa pine/hardwood, mixed-conifer forest, red 

fir forest, and east side pine forest (USDA FS 2001). Mixed-conifer forest is used most frequently 

by this species in the Sierra Nevada: approximately 80 percent of known sites are found in mixedconifer forest, 10 percent in red fir forest, seven percent in ponderosa pine/hardwood forest, and 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-174 Chapter 3 

the remaining three percent in foothill riparian/hardwood forest and eastside pine (Ibid). 

Regardless of forest type, spotted owls select stands that have multiple age classes, complex 

structure, a high percentage of large trees, and high canopy closure (Bias and Guiterrez 1992, 

Guiterrez et al 1992 in Verner et al 1992). 

Bond et al (2004) described spotted owl nesting habitat as typically comprised of “forested stands 

with large trees, moderate-to-high tree densities, high canopy cover, and structural complexity”. 

Structural complexity may be both horizontal and vertical. Habitats used for nesting typically 

have “greater than 70 percent total canopy cover (all canopy above 7 feet), except at very high 

elevations where canopy cover as low as 30 to 40 percent may occur as in some red fir stands of 

the Sierra Nevada” (Verner et al 1992). Large snags and an accumulation of coarse woody debris 

are typically present (Ibid). A study on the neighboring Eldorado National Forest found that 

nesting habitat, at the PAC scale, selected by spotted owls was correlated with interior (>328 feet 

or 100 meters from an edge) mid-seral forest having high canopy cover, and interior mature and 

old growth forest having at least 30 percent canopy cover (Chatfield 2005). In general, stands 

suitable for nesting and roosting have (1) two or more canopy layers, (2) dominant and 

codominant trees averaging at least 24 inches dbh, (3) at least 70 percent total canopy cover 

(including the hardwood component), (4) higher than average levels of very large, old trees, and 

(5) higher than average levels of snags and coarse woody material (USDA FS 2001). 

Surveys of 12 spotted owl nest stands in the Lake Tahoe Basin, conducted by LTBMU biologists 

from 2002-2004, measured slope (mean=21 degrees), canopy closure (mean=77%), shrub cover 

(mean=9%), live-tree diameter (mean=18.4 inches), and aspect (north-facing=17%, eastfacing=42%, south-facing=42%, and west-facing=0%) (unpubl. data). 

Nesting behavior is initiated in February or early March when pairs begin roosting together and 

calling to each other more frequently at dusk before foraging or when returning to roost before 

dawn (Forsman 1976, Forsman et al 1984). Egg-laying occurs in March or April (Ibid). The 

average incubation period is 30 ± 2 days, hatching peaks May 7-21 (Sierra Nevada), and fledging 

(i.e. defined as young leaving the nest) occurs generally when the nestlings are 34-36 days old 

(Forsman et al 1984). The post-fledging dependency period extends through late summer; and 

dispersal from the natal site occurs in September or October (Gutierrez et al 1985, Miller 1989). A 

spotted owl ecology study on the Lassen National Forest (study area 1200-2100 m) found that 

approximately 90 percent of juveniles fledged by July 8 (Blakesley et al 2005b). 

Investigations into the thermal ecology and ecological energy requirements of spotted owls 

(Weathers et al 2001 and Blakesley et al 2005b) found that this species’ metabolic rate increases 

faster than predicted in response to thermal stress, and that spotted owls have exceptionally low 

energy requirements compared to birds of similar type and size. There is considerable debate 

(Verner et al 1992) regarding whether spotted owls prefer or require the micro-habitats presumed 

to occur within old growth or late seral forested habitats for nesting or roosting based on speciesspecific thermal ecology and energy needs. Several previous studies of roosting habitat use 

indicate that northern spotted owls move vertically and horizontally within the canopy to exploit 

more favorable micro-climates (Barrows and Barrows 1978, Forsman 1980, Barrows 1981, Solis 

1983, and Forsman et al 1984). Yet, Verner et al (1992) presented evidence that California spotted 

owls occupy and breed in habitats with high ambient summer temperatures and at least 

occasionally nest or roost in full sunlight when ambient temperatures exceed 100 degrees 

Fahrenheit; well above their average body temperature (Weathers et al 2001). 

Spotted owls forage in forested habitats characterized by multiple vegetative strata, large tree size 

classes, high tree basal areas and woody debris (Call et al 1992). On the Tahoe National Forest 

habitat use is not random; spotted owls use areas with large trees and 40 to greater than 70 

percent canopy closure more than would be expected by chance (Call et al 1992). Chatfield 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-175

(2005) found that this species selected habitats, at the territory scale, on the Eldorado and Tahoe 

National Forests characterized as late seral forests with at least 30 percent canopy closure and 

mid-seral forests with 70 percent or greater canopy closure. In general, stands suitable for owl 

foraging have (1) at least two canopy layers, (2) dominant and co-dominant trees in the canopy 

averaging at least eleven inches in dbh, (3) at least 40 percent canopy cover in overstory trees (30 

percent in red fir), and (4) higher than average numbers of snags and coarse woody material 

(USDA FS 2001). 

The diet of spotted owls varies geographically (Gutierrez et al 1995). Spotted owls in the Sierra 

Nevada Province prey mainly on northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) whereas owls in 

the Southern California province prey almost exclusively on dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma 

fuscipes) (Verner et al 1992). On the Lassen National Forest, flying squirrels constituted 61 

percent of the diet by mass (Blakesley et al 2005a, 2005b). On the Eldorado National Forest the 

primary dietary component varies by elevation: flying squirrels in upper elevation (red fir) stands, 

ground squirrels and gophers in mid-elevation (sierran mixed conifer) stands, and woodrats in 

lower elevation (conifer/oak forest) stands (Eldorado National Forest spotted owl demography 

crew unpubl. data). Other prey species in the Sierra Nevada include “deer mice (Peromyscus 

maniculatus), voles (Microtus spp.), bats, amphibians, insects (which are consumed with the 

highest frequency but represent a much lower percentage of the diet by mass), ground and tree 

squirrels, chipmunks (Tamias spp.), and some species of birds” (summarized by Verner et al 1992 

and Gutierrez et al 1995 in USDA FS 2000). 

CWHR forest vegetation types and strata are the primary metrics used for the California spotted 

owl in this analysis. Snag and coarse woody debris abundance are incorporated in the project 

resource protection measures and addressed through pre-treatment surveys, treatment 

prescriptions, and implementation monitoring. Approximately 80.4 percent of the forested acres 

within known spotted owl nest stands in the Lake Tahoe Basin are sierran mixed conifer (SMC) 

4M, 4D, and 5M, vegetation strata which CWHR does not describe as high or moderate capability 

nesting habitat. Why spotted owls consistently select these strata in SMC stands for nesting 

within the Lake Tahoe Basin is not clear. SMC 4M, 4D, and 5M stands may provide the most 

suitable nesting habitat, relative to the habitats currently available, for this species on this edge of 

its range (no spotted owl nests are known in Nevada). SMC 4M, 4D, and 5M stands may be suboptimal for nesting as spotted owls do not appear to prefer these types of stands elsewhere. 

Regardless, as evidenced by the recurrently successful reproduction occurring in these stands 

locally, it is clear that SMC 4M, 4D, and 5M stands provide at least moderate capability nesting 

habitat within the Lake Tahoe Basin. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, SMC 4M, 4D, 

and 5M stands are considered moderate capability spotted owl nesting habitat (in addition to 

eastside pine 5D and lodgepole pine 5D stands as identified by CWHR). 

High and moderate capability rooting and foraging habitat was determined using CWHR types 

within the wildlife analysis area. The estimated acres of high and moderate capability nesting 

habitat, acres of high and moderate capability roosting habitat, and acres of high and moderate 

capability foraging habitat that currently exist for California spotted owl within the wildlife 

analysis area are given in Table 3-58. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-176 Chapter 3 

Table 3-58. Existing acres of high and moderate capability California spotted owl habitat 

within the project wildlife analysis area 

Habitat 

Capability 

Nesting Habitat Roosting Habitat Foraging 

Habitat 

High 53 697 697 

Moderate 9,507 12,866 13,243 

Total 9,560 13,563 13,940 

Spotted owls are territorial, generally non-migratory, and exhibit high site fidelity (Blakesley et al 

2005b, 2006). Zimmerman et al (2003) investigated whether this territorial species follows an 

ideal despotic distribution (IDD) and found a positive correlation between territory occupancy 

and “potential fitness” as estimated from survival and reproduction; generally supporting an IDD 

conceptual theory, in which territorial behavior causes the best territories to be occupied first, and 

low quality territories to be occupied only when high quality territories are already occupied. 

Perceptual limitations, prey dynamics, and large territory sizes were identified as potential factors 

affecting the ability of individual owls to assess habitat quality accurately. Dispersal processes, 

high survival rates, and long life spans were suggested as other key factors that may prevent some 

individuals from selecting the highest quality sites as predicted (Ibid). 

The distribution of spotted owls in the Lake Tahoe Basin is presumed to be approximated by an 

IDD and the population to be generally non-migratory, though surveys for spotted owls, including 

banded individuals, have not been conducted outside the breeding season on the Forest. A 

demographic study completed on the Lassen National Forest found breeding dispersal in only 

seven percent of inter-annual observations of banded individuals, demonstrating site fidelity 

behavior (Blakesley et al 2005b). Similar demographic work, though substantially more limited in 

scope, completed on the LTBMU in cooperation with the Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests 

found that spotted owls on the LTBMU also appear to have site fidelity (unpubl. data). The 

benefits of site fidelity are presumed to occur in recurrently occupied territories, and include a 

potential increase in foraging efficiency and ability to avoid predation. An analysis using data 

from a nine-year demography study on the Sierra National Forest and Sequoia-Kings Canyon 

National Park found that spotted owl nests used for ≥3 years produced twice as many young per 

owl pair compared to nests used for only one year, suggesting that reproduction may be 

influenced by more than territory quality, including nest predation or breeding history (North et al 

2000). 

Spotted owl habitat use and life history requirements may be discussed at spatial scales varying 

from the nest stand (smallest) to the non-breeding home range (largest). 

The nest stand (approximately 100 acres) includes one or more forest vegetative stands, the nest 

tree, and possibly several roost sites. Nest stands may be occupied by breeding spotted owls from 

February until October, and are the focus of all movements and activities associated with nesting. 

Spotted owls may have more than one nest stand within their home range, and nest stands may be 

used intermittently for many years. Nest stands appear to be correlated with high canopy cover 

(≥70%) mid seral forest, and mature and old growth forest with at least 30% canopy cover 

(Chatfield 2005). 

The protected activity center (PAC) includes 300 acres of the highest quality nesting habitat 

available, and the most recent nest site or activity center within a spotted owl breeding territory as 

described in management direction for the forest (USDA FS 2004a). A PAC size of 300 acres 

corresponds with the following two criteria reported by Verner et al (1992) in the California 

Spotted Owl report: 1) the size of the nest stand and adjacent suitable nesting stands; and 2) the 

area encompassing approximately 50% of radio-telemetry locations within spotted owl territories 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-177

on the Sierra National Forest (USDA FS 2001). There are currently 21 California spotted owl 

protected activity centers on the LTBMU. 

A home range core area (HRCA) includes its associated PAC, is 1,000 acres is size, and is 

composed of the best available contiguous habitat. The core area corresponds with 20% of a 

breeding pair home range plus one standard error. While home ranges vary substantially across 

the range of this subspecies, an HRCA is specified as 1,000 acres for the LTBMU. Radio 

telemetry studies have not been undertaken for California spotted owls in the LTBMU, so 

accurate home range information is currently unavailable. 

The original round of surveys for spotted owls was conducted in the wildlife analysis area 

following the USFS, Region 5 Protocol for Surveying for Spotted Owls in Proposed Management 

Activity Centers and Habitat Conservation Areas (USDA 1991, revised 1993) in 2006 and 2007 

(see page 23 for details on current surveys). An estimated total 20,170 acres (approximately 

13,764 acres for the South Shore project and an additional 6,406 acres for other projects) were 

surveyed for spotted owls within the wildlife analysis area in 2006 and 2007. Due to the NEPA 

process being drawn out beyond the two year deadline outlined in the Region 5 protocol, surveys 

for this project were repeated in 2010 and will be completed in 2011. In addition, a long-term 

spotted owl survey history (20+ years) exists in the wildlife analysis area. The results of 

subsequent, project-specific, relevant concurrent and historic surveys are considered in this 

analysis. 

The LTBMU coordinates with the CDFG biogeographic data branch, biogeographic information 

and observation system (BIOS) project in recording spotted owl territory discovery and activity. 

These records are stored in the California spotted owl “Master Owl” database. CDFG and the 

LTBMU jointly recognize eight spotted owl territories within the wildlife analysis area (Spring 

Creek, Tahoe Mountain, Echo Lake, Hawley Grade, Round Lake, Saxon Creek, Hellhole, and 

Cold Creek; LTBMU territory names given). It is important to note that spotted owl PACs and 

territories do not always correlate on a one-to-one basis. The territories currently recognized are 

based on retrospective examination of approximately 29 years (1981-2009) of surveys whereas 

spotted owl PACs are delineated prospectively as nesting and/or occupancy are discovered. The 

prospective delineation of PACs is a conservative management approach. The Forest also follows 

a conservative approach in eliminating spotted owl PACs, which in some cases results in multiple 

PACs within a single territory. 

The likely contribution of each PAC to spotted owl productivity is estimated using the method 

described in the Forest Plan, as amended by the Framework (2004). Rankings of 1 (lowest 

contribution to productivity) to 5 (highest contribution to productivity) are determined as follows: 

1) PACs presently unoccupied and historically occupied by territorial singles only; 2) PACs 

presently unoccupied and historically occupied by pairs; 3) PACs presently occupied by territorial 

singles; 4) PACs presently occupied by pairs; and 5) PACs currently or historically reproductive. 

Nine California spotted owl PACs and HRCAs are currently established within the wildlife 

analysis area. The Tahoe Mountain spotted owl PAC and HRCA were affected by the Angora Fire 

and were re-mapped within the wildlife analysis area. All LTBMU spotted owl PACs and HRCAs 

were remapped in 2008 to incorporate the most up-to-date detection, nest location, and land 

boundary information available. California spotted owl PACs are delineated to include the best 

available 300 acres of nesting habitat as described in management direction for the forest (USDA 

FS 2001, USDA FS 2004b). The amount of high and moderate capability nesting, roosting, and 

foraging habitat within each spotted owl PAC varies according to what is available, given existing 

conditions, on the forest. Table 3-59 summarizes existing PAC acreage and the estimated number 

of acres of high and moderate capability nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for each spotted 

owl PAC within the wildlife analysis area. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-178 Chapter 3 

Table 3-59. Existing acres of high and moderate capability habitat within California spotted 

owl PACs in the wildlife analysis area 

California spotted owl HRCAs are delineated to include the best available 1,000 acres of habitat 

as described in management direction for the forest (USDA FS 2001, USDA FS 2004a). The 

amount of high and moderate capability nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat within each 

spotted owl HRCA varies according to what is available, given existing conditions, on the forest. 

Protected 

Activity 

Center 

Master Owl 

Territory 

PAC 

Acres 

Habitat 

Capability 

Nesting 

Habitat 

Roosting 

Habitat 

Foraging 

Habitat 

Spring 

Creek 

Tallac 

Creek 300 

High 3 16 16 

Moderate 256 243 243 

Total 259 259 259 

Tahoe 

Mountain 

Tahoe 

Mountain 300 

High 0 7 7 

Moderate 224 218 218 

Total 224 225 225 

Echo Lake Lower 

Echo 300 

High 0 0 0 

Moderate 5 251 251 

Total 5 251 251 

Hawley 

Grade 

Benwood 

Meadow 300 

High 0 0 0 

Moderate 147 147 147 

Total 147 147 147 

Round Lake Round 

Lake 300 

High 0 0 0 

Moderate 6 105 110 

Total 6 105 110 

Upper 

Saxon 

Creek 

Saxon 

Creek 300 

High 0 2 2 

Moderate 26 204 204 

Total 26 206 206 

Lower 

Saxon 

Creek 

Saxon 

Creek 300 

High 0 0 0 

Moderate 200 266 266 

Total 200 266 266 

Hellhole Trout 

Creek 300 

High 0 7 7 

Moderate 42 35 35 

Total 42 42 42 

Cold Creek Cold Creek 300 

High 0 0 0 

Moderate 191 191 191 

Total 191 191 191 

Total 2,700 High and 

Moderate 1,100 1,692 1,697 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-179

Table 3-60 summarizes existing HRCA acreage and the estimated number of acres of high and 

moderate capability nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for each spotted owl HRCA within the 

wildlife analysis area. 

Table 3-60. Existing acres of high and moderate capability habitat within California spotted 

owl HRCAs in the wildlife analysis area 

Home Range 

Core Area 

Master Owl 

Territory 

HRCA 

Acres 

Habitat 

Capability 

Nesting 

Habitat 

Roosting 

Habitat 

Foraging 

Habitat 

Spring 

Creek 

Tallac 

Creek 1,000 

High 7 26 26 

Moderate 515 492 492 

Total 522 518 518 

Tahoe 

Mountain 

Tahoe 

Mountain 1,000 

High 0 13 13 

Moderate 372 359 384 

Total 372 372 397 

Echo Lake Lower 

Echo 1,000 

High 0 6 6 

Moderate 22 786 786 

Total 22 792 792 

Hawley 

Grade 

Benwood 

Meadow 1,000 

High 0 25 25 

Moderate 552 527 527 

Total 552 552 552 

Round Lake Round 

Lake 1,000 

High 0 0 0 

Moderate 195 450 456 

Total 195 450 456 

Upper 

Saxon 

Creek 

Saxon 

Creek 1,000 

High 0 28 28 

Moderate 44 402 402 

Total 44 430 430 

Lower 

Saxon 

Creek 

Saxon 

Creek 1,000 

High 0 10 10 

Moderate 732 803 803 

Total 732 813 813 

Hellhole Trout 

Creek 1,000 

High 0 15 15 

Moderate 382 384 384 

Total 382 399 399 

Cold Creek Cold Creek 1,000 

High 0 1 1 

Moderate 391 394 460 

Total 391 395 460 

Total 9,000 High and 

Moderate 3,212 4,721 4,817 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-180 Chapter 3 

In summary, Table 3-65 (below) provides a summary of the following information for each of the 

nine spotted owl PACs in the wildlife analysis area: 1) PAC (and HRCA) name; 2) associated 

Master Owl territory name; 3) nesting, fledging, and occupancy detected since 1981 (for years in 

which surveys were completed); 4) whether detections occurred in association with the PAC in 

the previous three breeding seasons (2007-2009); 5) contribution to owl productivity (as 

described above); and 6) whether a vegetation treatment is proposed within the PAC or HRCA 

under Alternatives 2 or 3. A summary of whether spotted owl activity was detected within the 

previous three years (USDA FS 2004a, p.60) is presented in the table to highlight PACs with 

recent activity. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife Table 3-61. Summary information for California spotted owl Protected Activity Centers within the wildlife analysis 

Protected 

Activity 

Center 

Master 

Owl 

Territory 

Nesting, Fledging, and Occupancy Detected in PAC Detectio

n in PAC 

2008-

2010 

Contribution 

to 

Productivity 

a

Treated 

Alternativ

PAC H

Spring Creek 

Tallac Creek 

Original nest in 2002 (used only in 2002); fledged one in 2002; detections in 2001-04 and 2006-07. No 5 Yes Ye

Tahoe Mountain 

Tahoe Mountain 

No known nest; no known fledglings; detections in 1993, 2000, and 2007. Nob 2c Yes Ye

Echo Lake Lower 

Echo 

No known nest; no known fledglings; detections in 2000 and 2001. No 1 Yes Ye

Hawley Grade 

Benwood Meadow 

Suspected nest identified in 2000, but tree fell in winter 2000-01; fledged two in 1999 and 2000; detections in 1999-2005. 

No 5 Yes Ye

Round Lake 

Round Lake 

No known nest; no known fledglings; detections in 1992, 1994, 1999, and 2000. No 1 No N

Upper Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 

No known nest; fledged two in 1999; detections in 1982 and 1999-2002. No 5 No N

Lower Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 

Original nest in 2002 (reused 2004 and 2007), other nests in 2003 and 2009; likely fledged 1 in 2003, 2 in 2004 and 2007, and 1 in 2009; detections 1991-92, 1996-05, and 2007-2010. 

Yes 5 No Ye

Hellhole Trout 

Creek 

No known nest; no known fledglings; detections in 1998-2000, 2002, and 2009. Yes 2 Yes Ye

Cold Creek Cold 

Creek 

Original nest in 2002 (reused in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009, and 2010); fledged one in 2002 and 2010, fledged two in 2003 and 2004, fledged three in 2006; detections in 1999-2005, and 2007-2010. 

Yes 5 Yes Ye

a Rankings of 1 (lowest contribution to productivity) to 5 (highest contribution to productivity) were determined following USDA FS (2004a

#71 as follows: 1) PACs presently unoccupied and historically occupied by territorial singles only; 2) PACs presently unoccupied and his

pairs; 3) PACs presently occupied by territorial singles; 4) PACs presently occupied by pairs; and 5) PACs currently or historically reprod

associated with PAC as it existed before the Angora Fire given. c Owl pair detected immediately after the Angora Fire adjacent to PAC (

fall following the fire).
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-182 Chapter 3 

Great Gray Owl 

The great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) is a Forest Service Sensitive (S) species on the Lake Tahoe 

Basin Management Unit. Current management direction for this species is set forth in the Land 

and Resource Management Plan (USDA FS LTBMU 1988), as amended by the Sierra Nevada 

Forest Plan Amendment (USDA FS 2004a). 

Great gray owls have a world-wide arctic and boreal forest distribution, occurring “south of the 

tree line in northern Yukon, northwest and central Mackenzie River basin (Lockhart River and 

Great Slave Lake), north Saskatchewan, Manitoba, north Ontario south through southern Yukon 

and interior British Columbia, north and central Alberta, Manitoba, and central Ontario” (Godfrey 

1986, as summarized in USDA F Forest Service 2004b). “In the U.S. its range includes Alaska, 

Washington, northern Idaho, western Montana south through the Cascade and Sierra Nevada 

ranges to east-central California, west-central Nevada, and northwest Wyoming” (USDA FS 

2004b). Population levels throughout the range are known to be highly variable. The population 

in the Sierra Nevada is the southernmost in the world and is separated from populations in the 

remainder of the range. Great gray owls are thought to occur throughout the Sierra Nevada range 

though local distribution may be highly variable. Core areas identified include Yosemite National 

Park and adjacent areas on the Sierra and Stanislaus National Forests. Nesting in Sequoia 

National Park likely continues, but had not been confirmed since 2001 (Sears 2006). Within the 

Yosemite core area, this species generally occurs between 2,500-8,900 feet (750-2,700 meters) 

elevation (summarized in Sears 2006) though this likely varies by latitude (USDA FS 2004a). 

Breeding in California occurs from 2,500-8,000 feet (750-2,440 meters) elevation, from Green 

1995 i(n USDA FS 2004a). 

Surveys for great gray owls detected this species on the Eldorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, and Tahoe 

National Forests but not on the Plumas or Sequoia National Forests. Surveys for great gray owl 

have not been conducted on the LTBMU; nor have detections occurred despite extensive surveys 

for California spotted owl over the past 20+ years. The nearest detection of this species to the 

Lake Tahoe Basin occurred near Carson Pass in 1971 approximately 1.1 miles south of the 

analysis area. A second great gray owl detection was reported near Grover Hot Springs State 

Park, approximately 7.9 miles southeast of the analysis area, in 1979. Based on the lack on 

detections on the Forest and the presumption that this species likely would have been detected if 

it were present; the great gray owl appears to be absent from the Lake Tahoe Basin, or to occur 

rarely or at extremely low densities. There are no PACs for great gray owls on the LTBMU or 

within the wildlife analysis area. 

Great gray owls typically forage in meadows and early seral-stage habitats that support sufficient 

prey, primarily mice (Microtus) and voles (Thomomys spp.) (USDA FS 2004b, Sears 2006). 

Nesting and roosting occur in adjacent conifer forests, generally in areas where canopy cover 

averages greater than 40 percent (USDA FS 2004a). Nests surveyed by Sears (2006) were located 

within 200-300 meters of associated foraging meadows and roosts were located within 10-100 

meters. Persistently occupied nests were generally associated with meadows larger than 25 acres 

in the Yosemite area though smaller meadows (as small as 10 acres) “supported infrequent 

nesting” (Ibid). This species nests in disused hawk and raven stick nests, natural depressions in 

broken top snags and stumps, dwarf-mistletoe platforms, and, rarely, on the ground, rock cliffs, or 

haystacks (summarized in Hayward and Verner et al 1994). Great gray owls do not build or add 

materials to the nest; and their nests may occur in close proximity; the closest distance observed 

between nests was 1,410 feet (Bull and Henjum 1990). Nest sites on the Stanislaus National 

Forest and in Yosemite National Park were in trees larger than 30 inches dbh and in stands that 

averaged greater than 70 percent canopy cover. Suitability of foraging meadows depended 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-183

primarily upon prey availability, meadow vegetation height and cover, and meadow soil moisture 

(Sears 2006). 

In California, courtship starts in late February or March, eggs are laid in late March or April, 

incubation lasts 30-36 days, and fledging occurs mid-May to mid-June; however, these dates vary 

by latitude, elevation, and spring climate conditions (Bull and Henjum 1990, USDA FS 2004a). 

Both parents typically tend the young during the post-fledging dependency period. Adults defend 

nests and young aggressively. Most juveniles remain near the natal site, but dispersal distances of 

up to 468 miles have been recorded. Nesting density varies substantially by area: 0.29 

pairs/square mile (mi2

) in Oregon and 0.66 pairs/mi2 in Manitoba (Bull and Henjum 1990); 0.73 

pairs/mi2

 in Minnesota (Duncan 1987); and 0.25 pairs/mi2 in California (Winter 1986) 

(summarized in USDA FS 2004a). 

High and moderate capability nesting and roosting habitat is defined as all forest vegetation types 

in CWHR size and density classes 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6 (USDA FS 2004a). CWHR describes 

high capability habitats in greater detail, but does not identify moderate capability habitats. For 

the purposes of this analysis, high capability nesting and roosting habitats include those identified 

as such by CWHR and moderate capability nesting and roosting habitats include all forest 

vegetation types in size and density classes not considered high capability by CWHR. 

Given the known elevation range for this species in the Sierra Nevada and latitude of the Basin, 

high and moderate capability nesting habitat within the Lake Tahoe Basin is not likely to occur 

above 8,000 feet. CWHR describes high capability foraging habitat as high capability roosting 

habitat plus the Wet Meadow (all strata) vegetation type; CWHR does not identify moderate 

capability foraging habitat. For the purposes of this analysis, high capability foraging habitat 

includes those identified as such by CWHR below 8,900 feet elevation (as described in Sears 

2006), and moderate capability foraging habitat includes the same habitats located above 8,900 

feet elevation. 

Estimated acres of high and moderate capability nesting habitat, acres of high and moderate 

capability roosting habitat, and acres of high and moderate capability foraging habitat currently 

existing for great gray owl within the wildlife analysis area are shown in Table 3-62. 

Table 3-62. Existing acres of high and moderate capability great gray owl habitat 

within the project wildlife analysis area 

 

Habitat 

Capability 

Nesting 

Habitat 

Roosting 

Habitat 

Foraging 

Habitat 

High 52 18,723 21,232 

Moderate 18,563 4,822 190 

Total 18,615 23,545 21,422 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-184 Chapter 3 

Willow Flycatcher 

The willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii) is a Forest Service Sensitive (S) species on the Lake 

Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Current management direction for this species is set forth in the 

Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA FS, LTBMU 1988), as amended by the Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA FS 2004a). 

Except for the Southeast, this neotropical migrant species breeds within the contiguous United 

States and the southern margins of Canada (Green et al 2003) and winters from Mexico to 

northern South America (USDA FS 2001). Three subspecies occur in California: E. t. extimus 

(southern California), E. t. brewsteri (north of Fresno County from the Pacific coast to the 

western slopes of the Sierra Nevada crest), and E. t. adastus (on the eastern slopes of the Sierra 

Nevada and Cascade ranges, including the Lake Tahoe Basin) (USDA FS, 2000 and Greene et al 

2003). The subspecies E. t. adastus occurs and breeds on the LTBMU from May through 

September (Ibid) and winters from the Mexican state of Colima to northwestern Venezuela (Unitt 

1999 in USDA FS 2001). 

Historically, this species likely occurred in suitable habitats throughout California (Grinnell and 

Miller 1944) and portions of Nevada including the central coast, Central Valley, Sierra Nevada, 

and Great Basin (USDA FS 2001). Willow flycatchers were common in the Sierra Nevada until as 

recently as 1910 and locally abundant through 1940 (Ibid). However, this species has declined 

precipitously in the Sierra Nevada since 1950 (summarized in Green et al 2003). Urbanization 

and the draining, channelization, and filling of wetlands, grazing, mining, and pesticide-use are 

likely responsible for the decline in range and abundance of this species. Much of the suitable 

habitat within the Lake Tahoe Basin has been developed since 1900; as much as 35 percent of 

stream zones, 50 percent of meadows, and 75 percent of marshes were estimated to have been lost 

to development by 2001 (USDA FS 2001). However, since 2001 several large-scale meadow and 

riparian restoration projects (e.g. Cookhouse Meadow, Big Meadow, Washoe State Park, Upper 

Truckee River, Taylor-Tallac, High Meadows, Meeks Bay, Blackwood, and Antone Meadows) 

have or will soon be restoring willow flycatcher habitats. Livestock grazing has been essentially 

eliminated in the Lake Tahoe Basin, assisting in the restoration of primary habitat for the species. 

Willow flycatchers currently occur and breed in areas (e.g. Upper Truckee River watershed) 

where they were thought to have “all but disappeared” (USDA FS 2001), though at very low 

densities and with limited reproductive success. The recent extirpation of this species from 

Yosemite National Park, where suitable habitats are presumably better preserved than those 

located outside the park suggests that other factors may be contributing to the decline of this 

species in the Sierra Nevada (Siegel et al 2008). Siegel et al (Ibid) tentatively suggested that 

severe habitat degradation during the 19th century (due to grazing, which was discontinued in 

Yosemite National Park decades ago), meadow desiccation (due to global warming and resulting 

in earlier spring melts and a reduction in site wetness), disrupted meta-population dynamics, or 

conditions on the wintering grounds or along migration routes may explain the decline in 

Yosemite National Park. 

The combination of resources and environmental conditions required to survive and reproduce for 

this species in the Sierra Nevada is defined by site elevation, shrub coverage, foliar density, 

wetness, and meadow size (summarized in Green et al 2003). Known willow flycatcher sites 

range in elevation from 1,200 to 9,500 feet, though most (88%) are located between 4,000 and 

8,000 feet (Stefani et al 2001). Willow flycatchers are closely associated with meadows that have 

high water tables in the late spring and early summer, and abundant shrubby, deciduous 

vegetation (especially willows.). Shrubs in these preferred habitats are typically 6.5 to 13 feet in 

height, with the lower half comprised of dense woody stems. Live foliage density within the 

shrub layer is moderate to high and uniform from the ground to the shrub canopy (summarized in 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-185

USDA FS 2001). Sites are “significantly more likely to support multiple willow flycatchers, and 

result in successful breeding efforts, as riparian shrub cover in meadows and willow flycatcher 

territories increase” (Bombay 1999 in USDA FS 2001). 

This species prefers and is more likely to occupy and defend territories that have standing water 

or saturated soils during the breeding season, often selecting the wettest portions within meadows 

(USDA FS 2001). Occupied meadows range in size from less than 1.0 acre to 716 acres, 

averaging approximately 80 acres (USDA FS 2001). More than 95 percent of breeding meadows 

are larger than 10 acres, and meadows where multiple nest sites have fledged young are larger 

than 15 acres (Green et al 2003). This species exhibits some site fidelity; 15 percent of adult 

banded birds in the Sierra Nevada in 1997 and 1998 returned in a subsequent year, compared to 

31 percent at the Kern River Preserve in California, and 50 percent at Malheur National Wildlife 

Refuge in south-eastern Oregon (Bombay et al 2003). Site fidelity for wintering grounds in Costa 

Rica averaged 68 percent (Koronkiewicz et al 2006). 

The CWHR model describes high to moderate capability nesting habitats, high to moderate 

capability perching habitats, and high capability foraging habitat in the montane riparian and wet 

meadow vegetation types for this species. However, as the CWHR model is not subspeciesspecific and the local subspecies, E. t. adastus, is known to nest only in wet meadows in the 

wildlife analysis area, high and moderate capability nesting habitat includes only the wet meadow 

vegetation type for the purposes of this analysis. Similarly, as E. t. adastus nests locally in wet 

meadows, high and moderate capability perching habitat includes wet meadow and montane 

riparian vegetation types. High capability foraging habitat, as described in CWHR, includes 

montane riparian and wet meadow for this analysis. 

Estimated acres of high and moderate capability nesting habitat, acres of high and moderate 

capability perching habitat, and acres of high and moderate capability foraging habitat currently 

existing for willow flycatcher within the wildlife analysis area are given in Table 3-63. 

Table 3-63. Existing acres of high and moderate capability willow flycatcher habitat 

within the project wildlife analysis area 

Habitat 

Capability Nesting Habitat Perching Habitat Foraging Habitat 

High 

2,727

2,727 2,727

Moderate 78 78

Total 2,727 2,805 2,805

In the Lake Tahoe Basin, the breeding season generally occurs from late May or early June, when 

breeding birds arrive and establish territories, until the fledgling dependency periods ends in the 

middle of September. Sanders and Flett (1989) reported the average territory size for a paired 

male willow flycatcher as approximately 0.84 acres in the central Sierra Nevada. This species 

typically nests from June 1 to August 31 and fledges young between July 15 and August 31. 

Fledglings remain in territories for 2-3 weeks after fledging (USDA FS 2004a). However, these 

dates vary due to factors such as when willow flycatchers arrive on the breeding grounds, snow 

pack, late spring and summer weather, nest predation, and brown-headed cowbird parasitism 

(Green et al 2003). 

This species may attempt nesting as many as three times during a single breeding season in the 

Sierra Nevada (USDA FS 2004b). Nest predation has been positively associated with edgeeffects, distance of the nest to edges and isolated trees, and aspects of meadow size and wetness 

(Cain et al 2003). Meadow restoration that includes restoring natural hydrologic regimes, 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-186 Chapter 3 

mitigating erosion, and stemming forest encroachment was suggested to reduce predation of 

willow flycatcher nests (Green et al 2003). Nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds in the 

Sierra Nevada ranges from a low of 4 percent (Bombay et al 2001) to a high of 66 percent 

(Whitfield and Sogge 1999). Cowbird parasitism rates in the Lake Tahoe Basin were estimated at 

44 percent (Morrison et al 2000) and later found to be locally as high as 47 percent (Upper 

Truckee River drainage). Conservation concerns begin at parasitism rates of approximately 30 

percent (Mayfield 1977 and Laymon 1987 in Green et al 2003) and management actions to 

control cowbirds may be warranted above a 60 percent parasitism rate (USDA FS 2004b). 

Willow flycatchers are insectivorous and known to hawk prey in flight and to glean prey from 

foliage during flight. Foraging occurs from perches within the territory. Average foraging flights 

are reported to be very short (mean=13 feet, range=up to 33 feet) (Sanders and Flett 1989). 

The original round of surveys for this species was conducted in the wildlife analysis area in 2006 

and 2007 following the USFS, Region 5, “Willow Flycatcher Survey Protocol for California” 

(Bombay et al 2003) (see page 23 for details on current surveys). An estimated total 381 acres 

(approximately 219 acres for the South Shore project and an additional 162 acres for other 

projects) were surveyed for willow flycatcher within the wildlife analysis area in 2006 and 2007. 

In addition, a long-term willow flycatcher survey history (15+ years) exists in the wildlife 

analysis area. The results of subsequent, project-specific, concurrent and historic surveys are 

considered in this analysis. 

The LTBMU participates in the central Sierra Nevada willow flycatcher demography study led by 

the Tahoe National Forest. Information regarding population, territory, and nest monitoring for 

willow flycatchers in the Lake Tahoe Basin is derived from this collaborative effort (Mathewson 

et al 2007). The long-term demographic research is conducted from Highway 88 in Alpine 

County north to Lassen Volcanic National Park. Sites north of the Feather River, in Plumas 

County are the north sites; central sites extend south to the mid-latitude of Lake Tahoe; and the 

south sites comprise the remainder, including the wildlife analysis area. The number of territories 

in the north region fluctuated, the central region remained relatively stable from 2002 to 2007; 

and the number of territories in the south declined over the last 11 years. Mean annual nest 

success for 1997 to 2007 was 40 percent, ranging from 22 to 50 percent. Mean annual 

reproduction rate was 1.52 fledglings/female. Mean annual juvenile recruitment was 19.5 percent. 

Mean annual adult survival was 65.1 percent (Ibid). Mathewson et al (2007) estimated that the 

rate of population change (λ) is 0.856 or a 14.4 percent annual decline. 

Table 3-64 provides a summary of information for historically and recently occupied willow 

flycatcher habitats within the South Shore wildlife analysis area: 1) survey area (includes all 

known occupied habitats in wildlife analysis area); 2) detection (territories, adults, nests, and 

fledglings) and survey history; 3) whether detections occurred in the previous three breeding 

seasons (2007-2009); 4) contribution to productivity over the period surveyed (adapted from the 

method used for spotted owl); and 5) whether a vegetation treatment is proposed within the 

willow flycatcher habitat under Alternatives 2 or 3. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy For

Terrestrial Wildlife Table 3-64. Summary of historically and recently occupied willow flycatcher habitats within the wildlife analysis arSurvey Area Willow flycatcher nesting, fledging, and occupancy detected in survey 

area 

Detection in Survey area 2007-2009 

Contto prod

Tallac Creek 1992-95: surveyed, but no detections 1996: not surveyed 

1997: surveyed, but no detections 1998-2000: not surveyed 2003: (original detection) 1 territory; 1 adult; no nests or fledglings 2004: 2 territories; 4 adults; 3 nests (1 re-nest, 1 failed, 1 successful); fledged at least 1 (up to 3 may have fledged) 2005: 3 territories; 3 adults; 1 nest; 2 fledged 2006: 2 territories; 2 adults; no nesting or juveniles 2007: 2 territories; 2 adults; no nesting or juveniles 2008: 1 territory; 2 adults; 1 nest; 1 fledged 2009: 1 territory, 2 adults; 1 nest; 2 fledged 2010: 3 territory, 3 adults; 1 nest; 3 fledged 

Yes 

Taylor Creek 1992: (original detection) 2 territories; 3 adults; no nests or fledglings 1993-95: surveyed, but no detections 

1996: not surveyed 1997-98: surveyed, but no detections 1999-2000: not surveyed 2001: 1 adult (non-territorial); no nests or fledglings 2001-2007: surveyed, but no detections 2008: 2 territories; 3 adults; 2 nests; 7 fledged 2009: 2 territories, 3 adults; 3 nests; 5 fledged 2010: 2 territories, 4 adults; 1 nest; 4 fledged 

Yes 

Mattole Road 2010: incidental detection of pair with nest; outcome unknown Yes Lily Lake 2002: (original detection – incidental) 1 adult (non-territorial); no nests or fledglings 

2003: 1 territory; 1 adult; no nests or fledglings 2004-07: surveyed, but no detections 2008-2010: not surveyed 

No 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-188 

Survey Area Willow flycatcher nesting, fledging, and occupancy detected in survey 

area 

Detection in Survey area 2007-2009 

Contto prod

Washoe Meadows 

1992-93: not surveyed 1994: surveyed, but no detection 1995-97: not surveyed 1998: (original detection) 1 territory, 2 adults; 2 nests; no fledglings 1999-2008: surveyed, but no detections 1999-2010: surveyed, but no detections 

No 

Morton Street 1992-97: not surveyed 1998: (original detection) 1 adult; no nest or fledglings 

1999-2007: surveyed, but no detections 2010: surveyed, but no detections 

No 

Uppermost Upper Truckee 

1992-96: not surveyed 1997: 1 adult (non-territorial; original detection); no nests or fledglings 1998: 3 territories; 6 adults; 6 nests (4 failed); at least 2 fledged 1999: 3 territories; 6 adults; 7 nests (6 failed); fledged at least 1 2000: 3 territories; 6 adults; 7 nests (4 failed, 1 parasitized but fledged); fledged at least 3 2001: 1 territory; 2 adults; 2 nests (both failed); no fledglings 2002: 1 territory; 2 adults; 1 nest; fledged 3 2003: 2 territories; 3 adults; 3 nests (1 re-nest; 1 nest depredated and other failed) 2004: 1 territory; 2 adults; 2 nests (1 re-nest; both nests failed) 2005: 1 territory; 2 adults; 3 nests (all failed) 2006: 1 territory; 2 adults; 1 nest (failed) 2007: 1 territory; 2 adults; no nest 2008: 1 territory; 1 adult; no nest 2009: 1 territory; 1 adult; no nest. 2010: 1 territory; 2 pair; 1 nest; 1 fledged 

Yes 

Cookhouse 2002: (original detection) 1 adult (non-territorial) 2003-2006: surveyed, but no detections 

2007: not surveyed 2008: surveyed, but no detections 2009: surveyed, but no detections 2010: no surveyed 

No 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy For

Terrestrial Wildlife Survey Area Willow flycatcher nesting, fledging, and occupancy detected in survey 

area 

Detection in Survey area 2007-2009 

Contto prod

Grass Lake 1992-97: not surveyed 1998: (original detection) 3 territories; at least 5 adults; 2 nests (both failed); no 

fledglings 1999: 1 territory; 2 adults; 1 nest; fledged at least 1 2000: 1 territory; 2 adults; 2 nests (1 failed); fledged at least 1 2001: 1 territory; 2 adults; 2 nests (both failed); no fledglings 2002-08: surveyed, but no detections 2009: not surveyed 2010: surveyed, but no detections 

No 

Upper Truckee River (Airport) 

2007: (original detection) 1 adult (non-territorial) 2008: surveyed, but no detections 2009: 1 territory; 1 adult; no nests (found incidentally) 2010: not surveyed 

Yes 

Trout Creek 1992-94: not surveyed 1995: surveyed, unconfirmed detection 

1996-97: not surveyed 1998: surveyed, but no detections 1999-2001: not surveyed 2002: not surveyed; unconfirmed incidental detection 2003-08: surveyed, but no detections 2008-2010: not surveyed 

No 

Edgewood Creek 

2005: surveyed; unconfirmed detection of single bird 2006-2010: not surveyed 

Possible 

Ski Run 2005: unconfirmed incidental detection of single bird Possible a Rankings of 1 (lowest contribution to productivity) to 5 (highest contribution to productivity) were determined as follows: 12009) unoccupied and historically occupied by singles only; 2) habitat recently unoccupied and historically occupied by paioccupied by singles; 4) habitat recently occupied by pairs; and 5) habitat recently or historically reproductive. b Presence of willow flycatcher at Trout Creek (1995 and 2002), Edgewood Creek (2005), and Ski Run (2005) could not be following the initial, potential detections. Habitat optimistically assigned a contribution to productivity value of one presumin

willow flycatchers. Otherwise (if the detections are false) these habitats would be assigned a value of zero (no contribution 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 

 

3-190

There are also currently or historically suitable habitats within the wildlife analysis area where 

surveys for willow flycatcher have been conducted, but where this species has not been detected 

(i.e. not recently or historically occupied). A summary of these survey areas, both project-related 

and coincidentally co-located historic (since 1992) within the wildlife analysis area, is presented 

in Table 3-65. 

Table 3-65. Habitats surveyed for willow flycatcher within the wildlife analysis area since 

1992 where detections of this species have not occurred (i.e. not recently or historically 

occupied) 

Survey Area Willow flycatcher Habitat Suitability Treated in 

Alt. 

2 

Alt. 

3 

Spring Creek Marginal habitat (8.4 acres): small willow patch may have standing 

water in high water year; abundant edge and isolated conifers within 

willow patch increase the potential for predation or nest parasitism; 

adjacent neighborhood likely a substantial source of anthropogenic 

disturbance. 

Yes Yes 

Saxon Creek Marginal habitat: (11.0 and 13.2 acre riparian areas) small willow 

patch may have limited standing water in high water year; abundant 

edge and isolated conifers within willow patch increase the potential 

for predation or nest parasitism; adjacent neighborhood likely a 

substantial source of anthropogenic disturbance. 

Yes Yes 

Angora Creek Unsuitable habitat: (1.9 acres) undersized willows (burned in 2007 

Angora Fire) may have had saturated soils in high water year; 

abundant edge and isolated conifers/snags within willow patch 

increase the potential for predation and nest parasitism; adjacent 

neighborhood likely a substantial source of anthropogenic 

disturbance. 

No No 

Big Meadow Marginally to moderately suitable habitat: (17.7 acres) soils saturated 

in high water years; recreation likely a substantial source of 

anthropogenic disturbance. 

No No 

Big Meadow 

Creek 

Marginal habitat: (11.8 acres) soils saturated in high water years; 

abundant edge and isolated conifers within willow patch increase the 

potential for predation and nest parasitism; located at high elevation 

(7,800 feet).

No No

Meiss Lake Moderately suitable habitat: (37.2 acres) at high elevation (8,400 

feet). 

No No 

High 

Meadows 

Marginal habitat: (7.8 acres) soils regularly saturated by adjacent 

spring/seep; abundant edge and isolated conifers within small willow 

patch increase the potential for predation or nest parasitism; located 

at high elevation (7,800 feet). 

No No 

Lake 

Christopher 

Marginal habitat: (6.2 acres) small willows may have saturated soils 

in a high water year; abundant edge and isolated conifers within 

willow patch increase the potential for predation and nest parasitism; 

adjacent neighborhoods likely a substantial source of anthropogenic 

disturbance. 

No No 

Heavenly 

Valley Creek 

Marginal habitat: (19.3 acres) small willows may have saturated soils 

in high water year; abundant edge and isolated conifers within willow 

patch increase the potential for predation and nest parasitism; 

adjacent neighborhoods likely a substantial source of anthropogenic 

disturbance; conifer encroachment into some of the habitat reduced 

in 2007. 

No No 
 FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-191

Environmental Consequences - Individual Wildlife Species

The following section discloses the the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the South Shore 

project for individual TES species. Species that are discussed include: Pacific fisher, California 

wolverine, Sierra Nevada red fox, American marten, Townsend’s big-eared bat, bald eagle, 

northern goshawk, California spotted owl, great gray owl, and willow flycatcher. 

Fisher 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

Suitable habitats exist in and adjacent to the wildlife analysis area, but are outside the range of 

this species. Therefore, the project is not expected to affect fisher or its habitat in its current 

range. No direct or indirect effects are expected for the No Action alternative, proposed action, or 

Alternative 3 because they are outside the current range of the fisher and its habitat. No 

cumulative effects for the No Action alternative, Proposed Action, or Alternative 3 are expected 

for the fisher or its habitat because no direct or indirect effects are expected. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Determination 

 It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist that the three alternatives for the South 

Shore project EIS will have No Effect on the Fisher. Rationale: The proposed action and 

alternatives are located outside the current range of this species. 

California Wolverine 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

 No thinning to reduce hazardous fuels, removal of excessive ground fuel, removal of conifer 

encroachment from meadows, or removal of conifer encroachment from aspen stands would be 

implemented to accomplish the project purpose and need. Existing conditions in the project area 

would continue to develop along their current trajectories. Wildland fire would continue to 

threaten further coarse scale fragmentation of this species habitat. Anthropogenic disturbance and 

development would continue to restrict the range and distribution of this species. Wolverines 

would continue to be extirpated from or occur in extremely low densities within the wildlife 

analysis area. Suitable wolverine habitats would not be affected by this alternative. Direct and 

indirect effects would occur as disclosed in the General Effects by Alternative to Terrestrial 

Wildlife Species and Habitats, Alternative 1 section. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, and Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

 Wolverines are sensitive to disturbance and avoid urban areas and portions of the WUI that are 

impacted by ongoing anthropogenic disturbance. As the action alternatives would occur in the 

WUI and this species is expected to generally avoid the WUI, the potential for effects to 

wolverine are limited. Desolation Wilderness, Echo Summit, Meiss Roadless Area, Luther Pass, 

and the Freel Peak massif (i.e. the more remote, high elevation habitats in the wildlife analysis 

area) are the most likely areas where wolverine may be affected, if this species is not currently 

extirpated from the Lake Tahoe Basin and surrounding area. Effects during implementation would 

likely be limited to a temporary change in patterns of habitat use (i.e. avoidance of areas with 

ongoing project activities) by this highly mobile and wary species, though the risk of affecting 

individual wolverines is low due to the extremely low density or extirpation of this species within 

stands that would be treated in either action alternative. Fine scale habitat fragmentation (i.e. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-192 Chapter 3 

fragmentation within stands) may result from either action alternative where treatments occur in 

suitable wolverine habitat, most likely at Echo Summit or Luther Pass where the WUI intersects 

high elevation habitats. Fine scale habitat fragmentation is not expected to impact connectivity 

between suitable habitats as forested linkages would be retained since no clear cuts or group 

selections would occur and landings within mechanical units would not be large enough to affect 

habitat connectivity. Risk of coarse scale fragmentation, such as the 2007 Angora Fire, from 

wildland fire or large scale pathogen-induced stand mortality would be reduced in treatment 

areas. Implementation of either action alternative is not expected to cause additional coarse scale 

fragmentation of wolverine habitat. 

The estimated number of acres of high and moderate capability wolverine denning, resting, and 

foraging habitat within the South Shore project area before and after implementation of 

Alternatives 2 and 3 are shown in Table 3-66. Total existing acres of these habitats within the 

wildlife analysis area are included for comparison. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not affect 

wolverine denning habitat because treatments would not occur within approximately 1.4 miles of 

remote habitats above 10,000 feet elevation (i.e. near the Freel Peak massif). Therefore, effects to 

wolverine reproduction are not expected. No net changes in resting or foraging habitats are 

expected, although approximately five percent (40 acres) of moderate capability resting and 

foraging habitats may be converted to high capability habitats. The potential of Alternative 3 to 

affect wolverines or their habitat is expected to be slightly less because alternative 3 would treat 

fewer acres of suitable wolverine habitats. Either action alternative would affect less than four 

percent of suitable wolverine habitats within the wildlife analysis area. 

Table 3-66. Estimated acres of high and moderate capability wolverine habitat within the 

South Shore project area before and after implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 in 

comparison to the wildlife analysis area 

Habitat 

Capability 

Denning Habitat Resting Habitat Foraging Habitat 

Before 

Change 

Before 

Change 

Before 

Change 

After After After 

Alternative 2 High 0 0 19 +40 19 +40 

0 59 59 

Moderate 0 0 785 -40 785 -40 

0 745 745 

Total 0 0 804 0 804 0 

0 804 804 

Alternative 3 High 0 0 19 +40 19 +40

0 59 59 

Moderate 0 0 746 -40 746 -40 

0 706 706 

Total 0 0 765 0 765 0 

0 765 765 

Wildlife 

analysis area 

High 35 1,658 1,658 

Moderate 59 21,120 21,685 

Total 94 22,778 23,343 
 FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-193

Cumulative Effects for California Wolverine 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

No direct or indirect effects would occur under the No Action alternative; therefore no cumulative 

effects would occur. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

The proposed action, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions is not expected to have a cumulative effect to wolverine because the risk of potential 

disturbance-type effects is low; less than four percent of suitable habitats would be treated and 

those are located in the WUI, which this species tends to avoid. No cumulative effect to 

wolverine habitat is expected because no suitable habitats would be lost and habitat connectivity 

would be retained in the wildlife analysis area during and after implementation as stands mature 

during the 15-year period following implementation. 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

Cumulative effects for Alternative 3 are the same as those for Alternative 2 except that the scope 

of effects is slightly reduced as fewer acres would be treated (765 acres in Alternative 3 compared 

to 804 acres in Alternative 2). 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Determination 

Alternative 1 Determination: It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist that 

Alternative 1 of the South Shore project EIS will have No Effect on the California Wolverine. 

Alternative 2 and 3 Determination: It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist that 

Alternatives 2 and 3 of the South Shore project EIS may affect individuals, but are not likely to 

result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the California wolverine. Rationale: 

 Disturbance-type effects (e.g. individual wolverines avoiding project equipment) are 

unlikely, but may occur during implementation 

 Fine scale fragmentation may occur but is not expected to affect habitat connectivity as 

forested and other suitable linkages would be retained on the landscape 

 Coarse scale fragmentation is not expected to occur and risk of coarse scale 

fragmentation from natural causes (e.g. wildland fire or pathogen-induced stand 

mortality) would be reduced 

 No denning habitats would be affected and less than four percent of resting and foraging 

habitats within the wildlife analysis area would be affected 

Sierra Nevada Red Fox 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

No thinning to reduce hazardous fuels, removal of excessive ground fuel, removal of conifer 

encroachment from meadows, or removal of conifer encroachment from aspen stands would be 

implemented to accomplish the project purpose and need. Existing conditions in the project area 

would continue to develop along their current trajectories. Wildland fire would continue to 

threaten further coarse scale fragmentation of this species habitat. Anthropogenic disturbance and 

development would continue to restrict the range and distribution of this species. Sierra Nevada 

red foxes would continue to be extirpated from or occur in extremely low densities within the 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-194 Chapter 3 

wildlife analysis area. Suitable Sierra Nevada red fox habitats would not be affected by this 

alternative. No direct or indirect effects would occur as a result of the No Action alternative. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

The wildlife analysis area is within the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox, though this species 

may be extirpated or occur in extremely low densities. The action alternatives would not occur in 

suitable denning, resting, or foraging habitats, therefore direct and indirect effects to Sierra 

Nevada red fox or its habitat would not occur. No suitable habitats are expected to be created as 

the result of implementation of either action alternative. The estimated number of acres of high 

and moderate capability Sierra Nevada red fox denning, resting, and foraging habitat within the 

South Shore project area before and after implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 are shown in 

Table 3-67. Total existing acres of these habitats within the wildlife analysis area are included in 

this table. 

Table 3-67. Estimated acres of high and moderate capability Sierra Nevada red fox habitat 

within the project area before and after implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 in 

comparison to the wildlife analysis area 

Habitat 

Capability

Denning Habitat Resting Habitat Foraging Habitat 

Before 

Change 

Before 

Change 

Before 

Change After After After 

Alternative 2 High 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 

Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 

Alternative 3 High 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 

Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 

Wildlife 

Analysis 

Area 

High 1,283 2,105 2,102 

Moderate 0 0 2,105 

Total 1,283 2,105 4,207 

Cumulative Effects for Sierra Nevada Red Fox – All Alternatives 

No direct or indirect effects to the Sierra Nevada red fox or its habitat would occur under any 

alternative; therefore no cumulative effects would occur under any alternative. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Determination 
 FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-195

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Determination: It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist 

that the three alternatives for the South Shore project EIS will have No Effect on the Sierra 

Nevada Red Fox. Rationale: The proposed action would not occur within or create suitable 

habitats for this species. 

American Marten 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

No thinning to reduce hazardous fuels, removal of excessive ground fuel, removal of conifer 

encroachment from meadows, or removal of conifer encroachment from aspen stands would be 

implemented to accomplish the project purpose and need. Existing conditions in the project area 

would continue to develop along their current trajectories. Wildland fire would continue to 

threaten further coarse scale fragmentation of this species habitat. Human disturbance and 

development would continue to restrict the range and distribution of this species. Marten would 

continue to occur within proposed treatment stands and the wildlife analysis area. Suitable marten 

habitats would not be affected by this alternative. No direct or indirect effects would occur as a 

result of the No Action alternative. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, and Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

Marten are sensitive to disturbance and avoid urban areas and portions of the WUI that are 

impacted by intensive human disturbance. This species may use portions of the WUI with light to 

moderate levels of disturbance when sufficient cover is present and linkages to preferred habitats 

exist. For example, marten have been observed within the WUI defense zone at Beaver Bridge on 

Cold Creek where abundant riparian vegetation provides adequate cover from occasional 

recreational users and dogs. However, effects to marten are most likely to occur in treatments 

stands located within high capability habitat in an area with little to no human disturbance or 

habitat fragmentation. Effects to marten are likely to include displacement of individuals through 

people or equipment flushing an individual and changes in patterns of habitat use to avoid areas 

with ongoing project activities. Direct mortality from equipment killing an individual is unlikely 

to occur to this highly mobile and wary species. Effects to marten habitat would include changes 

in available denning, resting, and foraging habitats for either action alternative. 

The estimated number of acres of high and moderate capability marten denning, resting, and 

foraging habitat within the South Shore project area before and after implementation of 

Alternatives 2 and 3 are shown in Table 3-68. Total existing acres of these habitats within the 

wildlife analysis area are included in this table for comparison. 

Project resource protection measures would protect denning marten and their habitat if a den site 

is discovered prior to or during implementation, minimizing potential direct effects to marten 

reproduction. 

High and moderate capability denning habitat available within the wildlife analysis area would be 

reduced by approximately three percent in either action alternative. Resting and foraging habitats 

would also be reduced by implementation of either action alternative. Available resting habitat 

would decrease by approximately two percent in Alternative 2 and one percent in Alternative 3. 

Available foraging habitat would decrease by approximately one percent in both alternatives. 

A limited amount of moderate capability resting and foraging habitats would be converted to high 

capability habitats (212 acres in Alternative 2 and 197 acres in Alternative 3). The predicted 

increase in capability of these habitats is likely due to increased mean tree diameter within 

treatment stands, causing increases in CWHR size classes. Treated stands would be expected to 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-196 Chapter 3 

mature along trajectories beneficial to marten with increasing radial and lateral growth, 

improving canopy structure and cover, and increasing stand resistance to drought, insects, 

disease, and fire during the 15 years after implementation. Increased radial and lateral growth 

would benefit marten by providing greater cover and connectivity between early seral or lower 

canopy habitats and mid- to upper canopy habitats to reduce the current structural disconnection 

often apparent in even-aged, densely stocked stands. The potential of Alternative 3 to affect 

marten or their habitat is expected to be slightly less than Alternative 2 because Alternative 3 

would treat fewer acres of suitable marten habitats. Either action alternative would affect 

approximately three percent or less of suitable marten habitats within the wildlife analysis area. 

 Table 3-68. Estimated acres of high and moderate capability marten habitat within the 

project area before and after implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3 in comparison to the 

wildlife analysis area 

Habitat 

Capability 

Denning Habitat Resting Habitat Foraging Habitat 

Before 

Change 

Before Chang

e 

Before 

Change After After After 

Alternative 2 

High 789 -118 1,003 +21

2 

1,003 +21

671 1,215 1,215 2 

Moderate 

7,46

1 -

1,086 

7,476 -

967 

7,476 

-865 6,37

5 6,509 6,611 

Total 

8,25

0 -

1,204 

8,479 -

755 

8,479 

-653 7,04

6 7,724 7,826 

Alternative 3 

High 777 -133 980 +19

7 

980 +19

644 1,177 1,177 7 

Moderate 

6,92

3 -815 

6,966 -

719 

6,966 

-616 6,10

8 6,247 6,350 

Total 

7,70

0 -948 

7,946 -

522 

7,946 

-419 6,75

2 7,424 7,527 

Wildlife 

Analysis 

Area 

High 9,272 9,346 12,073 

Moderate 27,923 27,566 39,407 

Total 37,195 36,912 51,480 

Fine scale habitat fragmentation (i.e. fragmentation within stands) would result from either action 

alternative where treatments occur in suitable marten habitat. Fine scale fragmentation may occur 

due to reductions in stand area or interior area or changes in stand edge (relative or absolute) or 

insularity. Stand area would not be substantially reduced in either action alternative as clear cuts 

or stand selections are not proposed, though some stand reduction would occur associated with 
 FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-197

construction of temporary roads or landings. The specific reductions in stand area from landing 

construction for either action alternative is unknown, but bounded by the upper limits of the total 

number of acres required for existing and constructed landings (estimated at 150-200 acres for 

Alternative 2 and 100-153 acres for Alternative 3). 

Existing landings would be used where possible, logically limiting reduction of stand area from 

the construction of new landings to less than the acreages required for all landings. Reductions of 

stand interior area, edge, or insularity associated with the construction of new temporary roads 

and landings, as described above, would be expected in either alternative. These reductions would 

depend upon the spatial location of the roads and landings in relation to each stand. For example, 

a road and landing constructed on the edge of a stand would have a small effect of stand edge and 

insularity compared to the same road and landing constructed in the center of an otherwise 

undisturbed stand. These changes in fine scale fragmentation within suitable marten habitats 

would be relatively small compared to the total acreage treated (e.g. 150 acres of landings is 

equivalent to approximately one percent of the 10,670 acres that would be treated in Alternative 

2) and wildlife analysis area (e.g. 150 acres of landings is equivalent to approximately 0.4 percent 

of the estimated 37,195 acres of denning habitat within the wildlife analysis area; however, the 

percentage of denning habitat affected would be expected to be even less than 0.4 percent as sites 

used for landings may not currently be suitable denning habitat). 

Thinning stands may, depending on treatment prescriptions and post-treatment stand structure, 

result in a reduction to stand insularity as visual and acoustic barriers are removed. Stand 

insularity is highly variable at the landscape scale, and would be reduced most in stands within 

the WUI defense zone where stand insularity is currently low due to human disturbance. Stand 

insularity would be reduced least in stands within PACs where treatment prescriptions retain more 

basal area, canopy cover, snags, and coarse woody debris. Alternative 3 would reduce stand 

insularity less than Alternative 2 because fewer acres would be treated and treatments would 

result in more acres of greater basal area, canopy cover, snags, and coarse woody debris (CWD). 

Project resource protection measures specify snag and CWD retention within the project area. 

General forest conditions after treatment and an average of three snags per acre and ten tons of 

CWD per acre would provide cover for marten. Greater cover would exist after treatment within 

PACs, retaining an average of six snags per acre and 15 tons of CWD in Westside mixed-conifer 

forest. Additional cover would develop from increased lateral and radial growth, CWD 

recruitment, and understory shrub and tree growth as stands matured during the 15 years after 

treatment. Patterns of marten habitat use would be influenced by this cover and by human 

disturbance. Increased recreational access related to thinning making stands easier for the public 

to enter will be discouraged through installation of barriers at or along key locations such as roads 

and trails. No new permanent roads or trails would be created by implementation of either action 

alternative. Fine scale habitat fragmentation would be expected to decrease during the 15 years 

following project implementation as early seral vegetation becomes established and grows on 

closed and restored temporary roads and landings. 

Coarse scale fragmentation (i.e. fragmentation at the landscape scale) is not expected to result 

from either action alternative. Individual stands, or portions of stands, that are currently suitable 

habitat for marten would not be as suitable after implementation for denning, resting, and 

foraging habitats. However, the reduction in existing suitable habitats compared to the amount of 

suitable habitats available after implementation (e.g. estimated reduction of 1,204 acres out of 

37,195 acres of denning habitat in the wildlife analysis area) and spatial distribution of suitable 

habitats following implementation is not expected to cause or lead to coarse scale fragmentation. 

Risk of coarse scale fragmentation from wildland fire (e.g. the 2007 Angora Fire) or large scale 

pathogen-induced stand mortality would be reduced in treatment areas. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-198 Chapter 3 

Climate change has the potential to affect coarse scale fragmentation as forest composition and 

distribution change over the 15 years following implementation (and beyond), though the 

potential change is thought to be small (i.e. forest conditions are not expected to undergo a radical 

transformation during the period analyzed). If climate change causes conifers to move upslope 

and/or shrub cover on warmer, drier aspects increases, the existing pattern of coarse scale 

fragmentation may shift slightly, but connectivity of preferred habitats is expected to persist. 

Suitable habitat in treated stands (in either action alternative) and suitable habitat in untreated 

stands would provide linkages between preferred habitats on the landscape. No new barriers to 

marten movement or distribution are expected to be created by the implementation of either 

action alternative. 

A reduction in habitat connectivity due to project implementation would logically be related to 

and roughly commensurate with the estimated change in suitable habitat (i.e. a small change in 

available habitat would likely cause a small change in habitat connectivity), though the 

relationship is not linear and arithmetic (i.e. a one percent decrease in available habitat would not 

necessarily cause a one percent decrease in connectivity) because connectivity is influenced by 

spatial relationships between suitable and unsuitable habitats. Connectivity between large tracts 

of high capability habitats (e.g. the Freel Peak massif and the Upper Truckee River watershed) 

would be retained in either action alternative. Habitat connectivity at the landscape scale is 

expected to be preserved at a level similar to, but slightly less than, the existing condition under 

either action alternative. 

Cumulative Effects for American Martin 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

No direct or indirect effects would occur; therefore no cumulative effects would occur. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

The proposed action, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions is not expected to have a cumulative effect to marten because a relatively small proportion 

of available habitats would be affected and large tracts of high and moderate capability habitats 

and habitat connectivity would be retained. The distribution of suitable marten habitat would not 

change substantially. The proposed action would contribute to increased disturbance to individual 

marten or marten habitat through fine scale fragmentation within the WUI. Alternative 2 would 

also contribute to a reduced risk of coarse scale fragmentation from human causes (e.g. Showers 

or Gondola wildland fires) within and outside the WUI. 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

Cumulative effects for Alternative 3 are the same as those for Alternative 2 except that the scope 

of effects would be slightly reduced as fewer acres would be treated (Table 3-75) and less fine 

scale habitat fragmentation would occur. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Determination 

Alternative 1 Determination: It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist that 

Alternative 1 of the South Shore project EIS will have No Effect on the American Marten. 

Alternative 2 and 3 Determination: It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist that 

Alternatives 2 and 3 of the South Shore project DEIS may affect individuals, but are not likely to 

result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the American Marten. Rationale: 

 Disturbance-type effects (e.g. individual marten avoiding project equipment) are likely to 

occur during implementation 
 FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-199

 Fine scale fragmentation would occur but is not expected to affect habitat connectivity as 

suitable linkages would be retained on the landscape 

 Coarse scale fragmentation is not expected to occur and the risk of coarse scale 

fragmentation (e.g. wildland fire or pathogen-induced stand mortality) would be reduced 

 Less than four percent of denning, resting and foraging habitats within the wildlife 

analysis area would be affected 

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

No thinning to reduce hazardous fuels, removal of excessive ground fuel, removal of conifer 

encroachment from meadows, or removal of conifer encroachment from aspen stands would be 

implemented to accomplish the project purpose and need. Existing conditions in the project area 

would continue to develop along their current trajectories. Wildland fire would continue to 

threaten this species habitat, including roost trees if local Townsend’s big-eared bats are roosting 

in tree hollows as has been reported in coastal California habitats. Human disturbance and 

development would continue to restrict the potential use of caves or cave analogues by this 

species. Suitable Townsend’s big-eared bat habitat would not be affected by this alternative. No 

direct or indirect effects would occur as a result of the no action alternative. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, and Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

Townsend’s big-eared bats are sensitive to disturbance, particularly at roost sites. The sensitivity 

of this species to disturbance at roost sites logically reduces the potential for the action 

alternatives to affect roosts used by this species. Project activities are located in the WUI where 

human disturbance is typically greater than in areas located outside the WUI. All known cave or 

cave analogue sites within the wildlife analysis area were surveyed for the presence of this 

species, but no Townsend’s big-eared bats were detected. Despite the lack of detections at 

potential roost sites, this species was detected at Cookhouse Meadow adjacent to the 

southernmost proposed treatment units for either action alternative. As this species is not reputed 

to fly long distances (i.e. “less than a few kilometers”) from roosts, it is reasonable to presume 

that Townsend’s big-eared bats may be roosting within the wildlife analysis area. This species 

may be using unidentified caves or analogues in cliffs (e.g. at Luther Spires or Round Lake), large 

talus fields, tree hollows, or other structures. 

The potential to affect this species or its habitat is limited if Townsend’s big-eared bats in the 

wildlife analysis area are roosting in mines, buildings, cliffs, or talus fields, because the proposed 

action does not include actions that would directly affect these sites. Disturbance-type effects 

could occur related to project implementation and may include displacement of individuals by 

equipment flushing an individual and changes in patterns of habitat use by avoidance of areas 

with ongoing project activities. Direct effects to individual bats would most likely occur during 

the morning or evening given the activity patterns of this species. Mortality of individual bats or 

effects to reproduction would not be expected as roost structures would not be affected. However, 

if this species is roosting in tree hollows as documented in coastal habitats, then effects to roost 

sites may occur. Tree hollows, like those reported by Gellman and Zielinski (1996) and Fellers 

and Pierson (2002), are most likely to occur in larger, more decadent trees, especially those with 

structural defects. 

The action alternatives would focus on the removal of the small to medium size classes of trees, 

but some larger trees, including those that may provide habitat to this species, could be removed. 

The focus of treatment prescriptions and training of tree marking personnel to retain “wildlife” 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-200 Chapter 3 

trees (i.e. generally larger trees that appear to provide structure for wildlife species such as 

cavities, nesting platforms, or foraging opportunities) moderate the risk of removal of potential 

Townsend’s big-eared bat roosts. Removal of a roost tree or trees would be expected to cause 

affected bats to relocate to a new roost. As the availability of suitable roost trees is unknown, the 

effect of expulsion of individual bats is unknown, but could reasonably range from a temporary 

disturbance to mortality. Recruitment of new roosts would be likely to occur during the 15 years 

after treatment as retained large trees mature and may become decadent or experience structural 

defects. 

The potential scope of effects would be reduced in Alternative 3, compared to Alternative 2, 

because fewer acres would be treated and fewer acres would be mechanically treated. The 

reduction in treatments acres proposed in Alternative 3 would reduce the number of days required 

to complete project implementation thus reducing potential direct disturbance effects to 

individual bats. Alternative 3 would also reduce the number of roost trees (if this species is using 

tree hollows for roosting) affected by thinning operations. Potential roost trees are expected to 

occur in the larger tree size classes, therefore, reductions in mechanically treated acres would be 

expected to reduce the number of large trees removed in Alternative 3 because of practical 

diameter limits imposed on hand thinning operations. Fewer potential roost trees would likely be 

removed in hand thinning operations where tree removal is generally limited to 14 inches dbh 

(live) and 20 inches dbh (dead). 

Cumulative Effects for Townsend’s Big-eared bat 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

No direct or indirect effects would occur; therefore no cumulative effects would occur. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

The proposed action, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions is not expected to have a cumulative effect to Townsend’s big-eared bat because caves and 

cave analogues most likely to provide roosting habitat for this species would retained across the 

landscape. The proposed action does not include actions that would contribute to alteration of the 

following types of potential roost sites: caves, mines, buildings, cliffs, or talus fields. If this 

species uses tree hollows for roosts, some roosts may be removed by project implementation, but 

a cumulative effect is not expected as the proposed action would occur in the WUI, where this 

species is less likely to roost because of human disturbance, and as suitable tree hollows are likely 

to occur in greater abundance in the area outside the WUI. 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

Cumulative effects for Alternative 3 are the same as those for Alternative 2 except that the scope 

of effects is slightly reduced as fewer acres would be treated. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Determination 

Alternative 1 Determination: It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist that 

Alternative 1 of the South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project DEIS 

will have No Effect on the Townsend’s Big-eared Bat. 

Alternative 2 and 3 Determination: It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist that 

Alternatives 2 and 3 of the South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project 

DEIS may affect individuals, but are not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of 

viability for the Townsend’s Big-eared Bat. Rationale: 
 FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-201

 Disturbance-type effects (e.g. individual Townsend’s big-eared bats avoiding project 

equipment) may occur during implementation 

 The proposed action does not include actions that would alter potential roosts in caves, 

mines, buildings, cliffs, or talus fields 

 The proposed action would likely remove tree hollow-type roosts, if this type of roost is 

used within the Lake Tahoe Basin 

 Tree hollow-type roosts would remain relatively abundant within the wildlife analysis 

area after project implementation 

Bald Eagle 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 

No thinning to reduce hazardous fuels, removal of excessive ground fuel, removal of conifer 

encroachment from meadows, or removal of conifer encroachment from aspen stands would be 

implemented to accomplish the project purpose and need. Existing conditions in the project area 

would continue to develop along their current trajectories. Overstocking and conifer 

encroachment in the Taylor-Tallac meadows would continue. Wildland fire would continue to 

threaten this species habitat, as demonstrated by multiple recent fires within the Taylor-Tallac 

meadows. Bald eagles would continue to use suitable perching and foraging habitats in the 

Taylor-Tallac area and nesting habitat at Emerald Bay. Suitable bald eagle habitats would not be 

affected by this alternative. No direct or indirect effects would occur as a result of the No Action 

alternative. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Bald eagles are sensitive to disturbance and generally avoid urbanized areas and areas with 

intensive human disturbance in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Exceptions to human avoidance are known 

to occur along the shores of large lakes (e.g. Lake Tahoe, Fallen Leaf Lake, and Lower Echo 

Lake) and along major waterways (e.g. Upper Truckee River). Individual eagles often pass 

through, but typically do not linger within, these disturbed areas en route to higher quality 

habitats. Nesting habitats are located in more remote stands, none of which would be treated in 

either action alternative, while perching and foraging habitats may be located in closer proximity 

to disturbance. For example, bald eagles foraging in the Taylor-Tallac wetlands are separated 

from intensive recreational-use by a creek and less than 0.25 mile of wetland habitat. Alternatives 

2 and 3 would treat stands located adjacent to or within suitable habitats, including travel 

corridors and may directly affect bald eagles present during implementation. Direct effects to 

individual eagles may include displacement of individuals from equipment or people flushing an 

individual or changes in patterns of habitat use to avoid areas with ongoing project activities. 

Direct effects to bald eagles would be minimized in areas with regular observed use such as 

Taylor-Tallac wetlands and meadows through implementation of LOPs. Effects to bald eagle 

reproduction are not expected as nest stands are not located within approximately 1.25 miles of 

treatment stands for either action alternative and are further spatially separated from project 

activities by the 300-foot tall medial moraine (ridge) on the southern side of Emerald Bay. 

Survival is unlikely to be affected as individuals of this species would be expected to easily avoid 

project activities. 

The estimated number of acres of high and moderate capability bald eagle nesting, perching, and 

foraging habitat within the South Shore project area before and after implementation of 

Alternatives 2 and 3 are shown in Table 3-79. Total existing acres of these habitats within the 

wildlife analysis area are included for comparison. High and moderate capability bald eagle 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-202 Chapter 3 

nesting habitat would increase by an estimated 91 acres (3%) in Alternative 2 and by 32 acres 

(1%) in Alternative 3. While thinning activities would not create the very large, canopydominating trees used for bald eagle nesting, improvements to stand health where large tree size 

classes exist would contribute to the persistence and maturation of trees and stands that may 

support nesting in the future given favorable conditions such as proximity to permanent water and 

foraging, and limited disturbance. Predicted changes in nesting habitat are likely to be the result 

of increased mean tree size within treated stands. The gain in bald eagle nesting habitat is 

consistent with direction from the Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle (USFWS 1986), 

which states that the main threats to this species in this part of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, 

including the wildlife analysis area, are disturbance at wintering grounds and loss of potential 

nest habitat to logging or development. 

High and moderate capability perching and foraging habitat would increase slightly in either 

action alternative as shown in Table 3-69. Perch and foraging trees would generally be retained 

throughout treatment stands as these trees are typically among the largest in height and diameter, 

and thinning activities would focus on much smaller size classes. Recreational access within 

thinned stands would be addressed through the strategic placement of barriers at access points 

such as parking lots and along roads and trails to minimize the potential for user-created trails and 

associated disturbance, in keeping with the recovery plan’s prioritization of managing disturbance 

at wintering grounds. The Taylor-Tallac wetlands and adjacent uplands (i.e. back-beach swales, 

meadows, aspen stands, and upland conifer forest) are expected to provide an increased quantity 

and quality of bald eagle habitats following implementation of either action alternative. Known 

nest, perch, or winter roost trees would be retained. Alternatives 2 and 3 would affect bald eagle 

habitats similarly; Alternative 2 would result in slightly more nesting habitat; Alternative 3 would 

result in slightly more foraging habitat and slightly less potential for disturbance of individuals as 

fewer acres would be treated 
 FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-203

Table 3-69. Estimated acres of high and moderate capability bald eagle habitat within the 

project area before and after implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3 

in comparison to the wildlife analysis area 

Habitat 

Capability 

Nesting Habitat Perching Habitat Foraging Habitat 

Before 

Change 

Before 

Change 

Before 

Change After After After 

Alternative 2 

High 134 +478 72 +96 72 +96 612 168 168 

Moderate 507 -387 135 -72 374 +84 120 63 458 

Total 641 +91 207 +24 446 +180 732 231 626 

Alternative 3 

High 134 +412 94 +96 94 +96 546 190 190 

Moderate 479 -380 116 -72 332 +89 99 44 421 

Total 613 +32 210 +24 426 +185 600 234 611 

Wildlife 

Analysis 

Area 

High 134 333 2,394 

 Moderate 3,084 1,334 

 Total 3,218 1,667 

Cumulative Effects Bald Eagle 

Alternative 1 

No direct or indirect effects would occur in the No Action alternative; therefore no cumulative 

effects would occur. 

Alternative 2 

The proposed action, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions is not expected to have a cumulative effect to bald eagle because effects to survival are 

unlikely and effects to reproduction are not expected to occur. No cumulative effect to bald eagle 

habitat is expected due to the slight increases in suitable habitats anticipated from 

implementation. The Taylor Creek Visitor Center may be revised in the reasonably foreseeable 

future opposite the Taylor Creek marsh used by this species and is be expected to manage the 

intensive recreation occurring in the area, addressing human disturbance. No cumulative effect 

from the proposed action, when combined with the potential revision of the Taylor Creek Visitor 

Center, is expected. 

Alternative 3 

The cumulative effect of Alternative 3 is expected to be the same as that for Alternative 2. 

Alternative 2 would result in slightly more (59 acres) nesting habitat, whereas Alternative 3 

would result in slightly more (5 acres) foraging habitat and slightly less potential for disturbance 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-204 Chapter 3 

of individuals as fewer acres would be treated (3,371 acres in Alternative 2 and 3,653 acres in 

Alternative 3). 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Determination 

Alternative 1 Determination: It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist that 

Alternative 1 of the South Shore project EIS will have No Effect on the Bald Eagle. 

Alternative 2 and 3 Determination: It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist that 

Alternatives 2 and 3 of the South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project 

DEIS may affect individuals, but are not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of 

viability for the Bald Eagle. Rationale: 

 Disturbance-type effects (e.g. individual bald eagles avoiding project equipment) may 

occur during implementation 

 Effects to reproduction are not expected and nest stands would not be treated 

 Slight increases in nesting, perching, and foraging habitat are predicted following 

implementation 

 The proposed action is consistent with the Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle 

Northern Goshawk 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 

No thinning to reduce hazardous fuels, removal of excessive ground fuel, removal of conifer 

encroachment from meadows, or removal of conifer encroachment from aspen stands would be 

implemented to accomplish the project purpose and need. Existing conditions in the project area 

would continue to develop along their current trajectories. Within PACs, understory and midstory vegetation would continue to increase in density, reducing habitat suitability and increasing 

risk to forest health. Moderate to very high risk of stand replacing fire would continue. While 

there are consequences of inaction, the No Action alternative would not affect goshawks or their 

habitats. No direct or indirect effects would occur as a result of the No Action alternative. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Goshawks tend to be sensitive to disturbance and generally avoid urban areas and portions of the 

WUI that are most impacted by ongoing human disturbance. Exceptions exist, such as a nest built 

immediately adjacent to a trail that receives very intensive recreational use on Saxon Creek, 

however, most goshawk activity centers in the Lake Tahoe Basin have been detected in lessdisturbed suitable habitats. 

Protection of goshawks and goshawk habitat within nest stands are addressed in the project 

resource protection measures by limited operating periods, identification of nest trees, and nesting 

habitat-specific treatment prescriptions, which are expected to reduce the risk of adverse effects 

of either direct mortality of individuals or abandonment of the nest stand. Similarly, at the PAC 

spatial scale, project resource protection measures are expected to minimize potential adverse 

effects to goshawks and their habitat during implementation. Effects within each PAC in the 

wildlife analysis area are described in detail and summarized below. 

Goshawk habitat use is divided into three roughly concentric areas, with the nest and associated 

PAC as the center area of primary importance and the area most sensitive to disturbance, where 

LOPs are applied. Outside of the PAC is the larger post-fledging family area (PFA), equivalent to 

the TRPA goshawk disturbance zone based on a 0.5 mile radius (503 acre) around a known nest 
 FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-205

tree. LOPs are not applied at the PFA, but goshawk habitat prescriptions would be applied to 

retain greater stand density and CWD unless the PFA overlaps an urban core area. The third, 

largest, and outermost habitat area is the home range, where neither LOPs nor goshawk habitat 

prescriptions would be applied. Direct disturbance is of most consequence at the nest site and 

within the PAC, decreases moving outward into the PFA area, and is of least consequence in the 

much larger home range area. Direct effects are more likely to occur at the PFA scale, because a 

larger area is affected by vegetation treatments, but potential effects would be smaller in 

magnitude, because PFA areas are considered to be less important in meeting the life 

requirements of this highly mobile species. Similarly, effects are most likely to occur at the 

largest scale of the home range, where more acres would be treated, but would be of the least 

consequence to the species. 

Long term trends in vegetation structure, composition, and distribution at the PAC and PFA scales 

following implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3 are expected to benefit goshawks and their 

nesting habitat since the treatment prescription is designed to result in suitable nesting habitat or 

the development of suitable nesting habitat. Treatments would occur within the PFA/TRPA 

disturbance zone in each of the action alternatives (2,554acres in Alternative 2 and 2,248acres in 

Alternative 3). Effects within the TRPA disturbance zone are discussed further in the TRPA 

Wildlife Report, and incorporated here by reference. 

Alternative 3 reduces the risk of adverse effects to goshawks and their habitat to a greater degree 

than Alternative 2, as fewer nest stands, PACs, and acres within PFAs and home ranges would be 

treated and fewer acres would be mechanically thinned. Effects of initial reduction of suitable 

goshawk habitat would be expected from disturbance-type effects of flushing of an individual in 

response to the operation of equipment during implementation. Effects would be expected to 

transition toward habitat maturation of the growth of a stand toward desired conditions more 

beneficial to goshawks over time. Similar to expectations described in the Northern Goshawk 

Nesting Territory Assessment, project implementation is expected to directly and indirectly 

benefit goshawks and their habitat in the long term. 

The estimated number of acres of high and moderate capability goshawk nesting, perching, and 

foraging habitat within the South Shore project area before and after implementation of 

Alternatives 2 and 3 are shown in Table 3-70. Total existing acres of these habitats within the 

wildlife analysis area are included for comparison. Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the amount 

of high and moderate capability goshawk nesting habitat available in the wildlife analysis area by 

an estimated 18 percent and 16 percent, respectively. More high than moderate capability nesting 

habitat would be reduced over the short term in both alternatives. Negligible changes in perching 

and foraging habitats would occur for either alternative, although approximately 1.6 percent and 

1.4 percent of high capability perching and foraging habitats in the wildlife analysis area would 

be converted from high to moderate capability habitats, respectively. Fine scale habitat 

fragmentation would result from implementation of either action alternative due to reduction in 

stand area, reduction in interior area, changes in stand edge, or changes in insularity. Fine scale 

habitat fragmentation would occur during implementation as equipment and operations cause 

higher than background-level disturbance making portions of the wildlife analysis area 

temporarily unsuitable. The effect of this type of fragmentation on individual goshawks would be 

minimized by treatment schedules. 

Coarse scale nesting habitat fragmentation would increase in either action alternative as high and 

moderate capability nesting habitats would be reduced. However, the increase in coarse scale 

fragmentation is expected to be slight and focused on urban areas, which are of the lowest value 

to goshawk reproduction, because of the following: 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-206 Chapter 3 

 project resource protection measures would reduce potential effects to habitats within 

PACs; 

 multiple PACs exist for the Saxon Creek, Spring Creek, and Trout Creek territories; and 

 the majority of treatments would occur in the WUI defense zone (around the urban core) 

and not affect surrounding suitable habitats located outside the WUI. 

Coarse scale perching and foraging habitat fragmentation is not expected for either action 

alternative. Connectivity between large tracts of high capability habitats (e.g. lower and midelevation slopes of the Freel Peak massif and the Upper Truckee River watershed) would be 

retained in either action alternative. Habitat connectivity at the landscape scale is expected to be 

preserved at a level similar to, but slightly less than, the existing condition. 

Table 3-70. Estimated acres of high and moderate capability goshawk habitat within the 

project area before and after implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3, 

with comparison to the wildlife analysis area 

Habitat 

Capability 

Nesting Habitat Perching Habitat Foraging Habitat 

Before Change Before Change Before Change After After After 

Alternative 2 

High 6,191 -2,504 7,260 -905 7,260 -905 3,687 6,355 6,355 

Moderate 885 -620 2,541 +863 2,754 +908 265 3,404 3,662 

Total 7,076 -3,124 9,801 -42 10,014 +3 3,952 9,759 10,017 

Alternative 3 

High 5,668 -2,189 6,736 -785 6,736 -785 3,479 5,951 5,951 

Moderate 906 -639 2,529 +735 2,738 +787 267 3,264 3,525 

Total 6,574 -2,828 9,265 -50 9,474 +2 3,746 9,215 9,476 

Wildlife 

Analysis 

Area 

High 13,622 20,393 20,393

Moderate 3,806 30,451 37,641

Total 17,428 50,844 58,034

The numbers of acres of treatments within current goshawk PACs in the wildlife analysis area are 

presented in Table 3-71, by treatment type and alternative. Alternative 2 would treat 

approximately 42 percent of PAC acres (33 percent mechanically and 9 percent by hand) in the 

wildlife analysis area. Alternative 3 would avoid mechanical treatments in PACs where possible: 

treatments were converted to hand thinning or eliminated based on stand conditions and predicted 

fire behavior. Alternative 3 would reduce mechanical treatments in PACs by 527 acres, increase 

hand treatments by 173 acres, and reduce total treatments by 353 acres. Alternative 3 would treat 

approximately 31 percent of PAC acres (16 percent mechanically and 15 percent by hand) in the 

wildlife analysis area. 
 FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-207

Table 3-71. Acres of treatments within current goshawk PACs in the wildlife analysis area 

by treatment type and alternative 

Protected Activity 

Center 

PAC 

Acres 

Mechanical Hand Total 

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Cascade 200 196 102 4 93 200 196

Spring Creek 200 20 0 49 69 69 69

Floating Island 200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tahoe Mountain 205 201 129 4 76 205 205

Seneca Pond 238 214 150 2 35 216 185

Big Meadow 203 0 0 0 0 0 0

Round Lake 220 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upper Saxon Creek 204 0 0 0 0 0 0

Middle Saxon Creek 200 0 0 17 0 17 0

Lower Saxon Creek 201 21 9 173 190 194 199

Hellhole 203 83 68 41 0 124 68

Lower Trout Creek A 230 205 45 0 0 205 45

Lower Trout Creek B 203 88 0 0 0 88 0

Upper Cold Creek 204 0 0 0 0 0 0

High Meadows 218 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals 3,129 1,028 503 290 463 1,318 967

Following management direction from the 2004 Framework, acres would be added to PACs 

where mechanical treatments are proposed except as described below (Table 3-72). Added acres 

are comparable in quality to those that would be mechanically treated. No acres would be added 

to the Cascade or Spring Creek PACs because only one goshawk territory exists within the 

Cascade, Spring Creek, and Floating Island PACs as described by the Northern Goshawk Nesting 

Territory Assessment. For the same reason, no acres would be added to the Lower Saxon Creek 

PAC (one territory within the Lower, Middle, and Upper Saxon Creek PACs) or the Lower Trout 

Creek A or B PACs (one territory within two PACs). An equivalent number of acres to those 

mechanically treated would not be added to the Seneca Pond PAC because additional acres of 

comparable quality do not exist in proximity to the PAC due to the Angora Fire. The Seneca Pond 

PAC was remapped after the Angora Fire and is surrounded by the burned area, granite slopes of 

Echo Summit, Highway 50, and North Upper Truckee neighborhoods. Fewer acres would be 

added to PACs in Alternative 3 as fewer acres would be mechanically treated. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-208 Chapter 3 

Table 3-72. Acres added to current goshawk PACs in the wildlife analysis area as 

mitigation for mechanical treatments within these land allocations by action alternative 

Protected Activity 

Center 

Current 

PAC 

Acres 

Mechanical Proposed 

Additional Acres

Total Proposed 

PAC Acreage 

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Cascade 200 196 102 0 0 200 200

Spring Creek 200 20 0 0 0 200 200

Floating Island 200 0 0 0 0 200 200

Tahoe Mountain 205 201 129 201 129 406 334

Seneca Pond 238 214 150 23 23 261 261

Big Meadow 203 0 0 0 0 203 203

Round Lake 220 0 0 0 0 220 220

Upper Saxon 

Creek 204 0 0 0 0 204 204

Middle Saxon 

Creek 200 0 0 0 0 200 200

Lower Saxon 

Creek 201 21 9 0 0 201 201

Hellhole 203 83 68 83 68 286 271

Lower Trout Creek 

A 230 205 45 0 0 230 230

Lower Trout Creek 

B 203 88 0 0 0 203 203

Upper Cold Creek 204 0 0 0 0 204 204

High Meadows 218 0 0 0 0 218 218

Totals 3,129 1,028 503 307 220 3,436 3,349

Northern goshawk PACs were remapped, including additional proposed acreages, for each 

alternative. Acres of high and moderate capability nesting, perching, and foraging habitat within 

current and remapped PACs are shown below in Table 3-73, by alternative (figures shown for 

alternatives are post-implementation). Acres of habitat for existing PACs were estimated using 

remotely sensed data whereas acres of post-treatment habitat for Alternatives 2 and 3 were 

estimated using a combination of remotely sensed data and stand exam data. Predicted posttreatment stand conditions were derived from modeled changes to existing conditions, which 

were based on stand exam data. Post-implementation conditions for portions of PACs not treated 

are based on remotely sensed data. Differences in these data sets are generally small, but 

occasionally cause small apparent errors of estimation in the number of post-implementation 

acres. For example, the Cascade PAC shows an increase of two acres of high capability nesting 

habitat after implementation of either alternative action, which likely represents a difference 

arising from estimation technique rather than a real increase in nesting habitat. Larger differences 

(greater than five acres) represent changes in the number of acres across CWHR size and density 

classes caused by treatments. Reductions in CWHR size and density classes following treatment 

are intuitive, but the source of increases in CWHR size classes may not be quite as apparent (i.e. 

how did the number of acres of a large size class increase following treatment?). As explained in 

the general description of direct and indirect effects of the proposed action, removal of understory 

and mid-story trees would generally reduce canopy cover and occasionally cause an increase in 

the predicted post-treatment CWHR size class as mean tree size increases following the removal 

of smaller size class trees. This type of change in predicted CWHR size class represents an 

increase in mean stem diameter, rather than physical growth of the stand. 

Total acres of estimated goshawk nesting, perching, and foraging habitat within all wildlife 

analysis area PACs would not change by more than five percent following implementation of 

either alternative, a result of the prescriptions designed to retain suitable habitat within PACs. 
 FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-209

Post-treatment acres of high to moderate capability nesting habitats are predicted to be greater 

than existing conditions in both alternatives. Differences in data sets, as described above, may 

account for a small portion of the increase in suitable nesting acres. The remainder of the increase 

in suitable nesting acres reflects how prevalent encroaching small diameter understory is within 

the PACs, due to long-standing avoidance of treatments within PACs in the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

Perching and foraging habitats would decrease in Alternative 2 but increase by one percent in 

Alternative 3. The reason for the decrease in acres of suitable perching and foraging habitats for 

Alternative 2 is that treatments would remove both understory and mid-story trees, and mid-story 

trees comprise the medium CWHR size and density classes that are included in modeling suitable 

perching and foraging habitats. Alternative 3 would reduce the acres of treatments in PACs and 

would add more acres to existing PACs relative to the number of acres mechanically treated than 

Alternative 2. A portion of the one percent increase in the estimated number of perching and 

foraging acres in comparison to the existing condition in Alternative 3 may be due to differences 

in data sets used to estimate post-implementation conditions. Alternative 3 also retains more total 

acres of suitable habitats within PACs than Alternative 2.
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-210 Table 3-73. Acres of high and moderate capability habitat within current and remapped northern goshawk PACs in 

alternative (figures shown for alternatives are post-implementation) 

PAC Territory PAC acres Habitat 

Capability 

Nesting Perching 

Exist-ing 

Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing Alt 2 Alt 3 Exist- ing Alt 2 Alt 3 

Cascade Spring 

Creek 

200 200 200 High 139 141 141 154 185 187 

Moderate 0 0 0 39 11 13 

Total 139 141 141 193 196 200 

Spring Creek 

Spring Creek 

200 200 200 High 192 192 192 192 192 192 

Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 192 192 192 192 192 192 

Floating Island 

Spring Creek 

200 200 200 High 178 178 178 178 178 178 

Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 178 178 178 178 178 178 

Tahoe Mountain 

Tahoe Mountain 

205 406 334 High 188 343 271 196 406 333 

Moderate 0 0 0 6 0 2 

Total 188 343 271 202 406 334 

Seneca Pond 

Angora 1 238 261 261 High 52 121 162 186 240 219 

Moderate 0 0 0 25 10 25 

Total 52 121 162 211 250 244 

Big Meadow Big 

Meadow 

203 203 203 High 188 188 188 197 197 197 

Moderate 0 0 0 4 4 4 

Total 188 188 188 201 201 201 

Round Lake None 220 220 220 High 21 21 21 157 157 157 

Moderate 30 30 30 38 38 38 

Total 51 51 51 195 195 195 

Upper Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 

204 204 204 High 44 44 44 68 68 68 

Moderate 118 118 118 128 128 128 

Total 162 162 162 196 196 196 

Middle Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 

200 200 200 High 200 200 200 200 200 200 

Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 200 200 200 200 200 200 

Lower Saxon 

Saxon Creek 

201 201 201 High 160 195 192 182 197 201 

Moderate 0 0 0 19 4 0 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy For

Terrestrial Wildlife 

PAC Territory PAC acres Habitat 

Capability 

Nesting Perching 

Exist-ing 

Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing Alt 2 Alt 3 Exist- ing Alt 2 Alt 3 

Creek Total 160 195 192 201 201 201 Hellhole Hellhole 203 286 271 High 193 286 271 193 286 271 

Moderate 0 0 0

9

0

0

Total 193 286 271 202 286 271 

Lower Trout Creek A 

Cold Creek 

230 230 230 High 93 222 115 169 222 116 

Moderate 0 0 0 60 3 110 

Total 93 222 115 229 225 226 

Lower Trout Creek B 

Cold Creek 

203 203 203 High 179 192 179 179 192 179 

Moderate 0 0 0 23 10 23 

Total 179 192 179 202 202 202 

Upper Cold Creek 

Upper Cold Creek 

204 204 204 High 95 95 95 158 158 158 

Moderate 0 0 0 44 44 44 

Total 95 95 95 202 202 202 

High Meadows 

High Meadows 

218 218 218 High 1 1 1 27 27 27 

Moderate 92 92 92 120 120 120 

Total 93 93 93 147 147 147 

Totals 3,129 3,436 3,349 Totals 2,163 

(69%)

2,559 

(74%)

2,490 

(74%) 

2,951 

(94%)

3,177 

(92%)

3,189 

(95%)
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 212

Canopy cover was also used to analyze effects of the proposed action and alternatives on 

goshawks and their habitat. Estimated canopy cover (i.e. number of acres with ≥60 percent tree 

canopy cover and mean tree canopy cover) for northern goshawk PACs in the South Shore 

wildlife analysis area are shown in Table 3-74, next page, by alternative after implementation. 

Estimates of canopy cover were derived similarly to the estimates of CWHR high and moderate 

capability habitat above, using the same data sets. Canopy cover would be expected to decline 

following implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3. However, the source of the decline in canopy 

cover is important to the predicted suitability of treated stands for northern goshawk. A reduction 

in canopy cover due to the removal of small understory trees may improve habitat suitability, 

since goshawks prefer a more open understory. 

Estimates of post-treatment CWHR high and moderate capability habitat are a useful crossreference in determining whether reductions in canopy are likely to be beneficial or detrimental. 

For example, in Alternative 2 the Seneca Pond PAC canopy closure ≥60 percent would decline 

from 136 acres to 92 acres, and mean canopy would decline from 55 percent to 49 percent, while 

CWHR nesting, perching, and foraging habitat would increase from 52 acres to 121 acres, 211 

acres to 250 acres, and 211 acres to 252 acres, respectively. Comparison of reductions in canopy 

and gains in nesting habitat suggest that the reductions in canopy cover are due to the removal of 

small or medium-sized trees, and, by comparing gains in nesting habitat to gains in perching and 

foraging habitat, that the changes in canopy are due mostly to the removal of small trees rather 

than medium-sized trees. In summary, canopy reductions that may first appear detrimental to 

forest structure within the Seneca Pond PAC are, upon careful review, predicted to improve 

habitat suitability for this species immediately after treatment and as the treated stands mature. 

The slight increase (4 acre gain in acres with ≥60 percent canopy cover and 4 to 8 percent 

increase in mean canopy cover) in canopy cover for the Lower Trout Creek A PAC is likely an 

artifact of the methods and data used to estimate canopy cover (as described in CWHR size and 

density classes above). 

Alternative 3 would generally retain more acres with ≥60 percent canopy cover and greater mean 

canopy cover than Alternative 2 as fewer PAC acres would be treated in Alternative 3. However, 

in the Seneca Pond, Lower Saxon Creek, and Lower Trout Creek A PACs (which would be 

treated in either alternative), reductions in canopy cover are greater in Alternative 3 than in 

Alternative 2 because treatment types would change from mechanical to hand thinning, 

necessitating revised treatment prescriptions (due to the differences in diameter limits for types of 

treatment). Hand thinning following the revised treatment prescriptions would increase the 

number of trees in small to medium-sized size classes removed to reach project goals for forest 

health and predicted fire behavior.
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy For

Terrestrial Wildlife Table 3-74. Estimated canopy cover (acreage with 

≥60% tree canopy cover and mean tree canopy cover) for northe

the wildlife analysis area by alternative (figures shown for alternatives are post-implementation) 

PAC Territory 

PAC Acres Acres 

≥ 60% Canopy 

Cover Mean Cano

Existing Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing 

Cascade Spring Creek 200 200 200 102 0 2 53 Spring Creek Spring Creek 200 200 200 146 81 81 59 Floating Island Spring Creek 200 200 200 47 47 47 55 Tahoe Mountain Tahoe Mountain 205 406 334 51 45 45 53 Seneca Pond Angora 1 238 261 261 136 92 91 55 Big Meadow Big Meadow 203 203 203 6 6 6 51 Round Lake None 220 220 220 12 12 12 41 Upper Saxon Creek Saxon Creek 204 204 204 50 50 50 52 Middle Saxon Creek Saxon Creek 200 200 200 67 51 67 60 Lower Saxon Creek Saxon Creek 201 201 201 173 23 12 61 Hellhole Hellhole 203 286 271 157 99 149 64 Lower Trout Creek A Cold Creek 230 230 230 0 4 4 43 Lower Trout Creek B Cold Creek 203 203 203 161 77 161 59 Upper Cold Creek Upper Cold Creek 204 204 204 27 27 27 51 High Meadows High Meadows 218 218 218 9 9 9 48 Total 3,129 3,436 3,349 1,144 623 763Mean 76 42 51 54 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 3-214

A summary of direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and alternatives to northern 

goshawk PACs within the wildlife analysis area is presented in Table 3-84. Recommendations 

from the northern goshawk nesting territory assessment are included for comparison to the 

proposed and alternative actions. The nesting territory assessment (surveys completed in 2004 

and 2005; assessment completed in 2007) was intended to provide supplemental information to 

LTBMU managers in planning restoration of northern goshawk territories, for purposes (i.e. 

restoration of wildlife habitat through vegetation management and road/trail management) 

different than the primary purpose of the proposed action (i.e. reduction of fuels and healthy 

forest restoration through vegetation management). Nevertheless, a comparison between the 

recommendations of the territory assessment and the South Shore project alternatives is useful in 

determining whether the current project would be complimentary to future goshawk nesting 

territory restoration projects (none currently planned). 

The nesting territory assessment recommended vegetation treatments within goshawk habitats, 

including PACs, which move existing conditions toward “pre-settlement” conditions. The 

assessment proposed that timber management in the Lake Tahoe Basin would benefit goshawks in 

the long term, but that timber management posed a substantial threat to goshawk reproductive 

activity during implementation, further stating that the adoption of measures (i.e. project resource 

protection measures) protecting goshawk reproductive activities and good communication 

between wildlife and vegetation managers could minimize risks incurred during implementation 

to realize those long term benefits – accurately describing protective measures and 

communication currently in place and that would occur as part of Alternatives 2 or 3 of the South 

Shore project. The assessment suggested that “structural differences between the forests of the 

frequently and infrequently occupied territories may have played a role in the avoidance or 

abandonment of some of the territories” and that “agencies should maintain large trees and dense 

canopies with open understories within territories.” The assessment elaborates how “goshawk 

habitat may be improved through silvicultural activities that reduce the densities of shrubs, 

saplings, and small poles, while maintaining or enhancing the canopy of large trees (CrockerBedford 1990). Graham et al (1999) recommended increasing the numbers and distribution of 

large trees in the landscape by cleaning, thinning, and weeding using mechanical means or fire. 

Clearing the forest floor of small trees and lower vegetation should allow for easy hunting access 

(Graham et al 1999).” CWHR size and density classes were used in the assessment to describe 

forest vegetation: meaning that “small” trees are those 11 to 24 inches dbh and younger trees are 

interpreted as pole (6 to 11 inches dbh), sapling (1 to 6 inches dbh), and seedling (less than 1 inch 

dbh) size classes. Occupancy indices were intended to identify relative probability of territory 

occupancy, reproduction, and fledging, and level of risk associated with entering a territory to 

conduct restorative activities (i.e. higher level of risk associated with more frequently occupied 

territories compared to moderately or infrequently-occupied territories). 

The progression of treatments (i.e. during which phases of implementation treatments would 

occur in a PAC) are also included in the summary of direct and indirect effects of Alternatives 2 

and 3 to northern goshawk PACs in the wildlife analysis area (Table 3-75). As stated in the 

description of the action alternatives, where treatment stands are located in close proximity to one 

another, vegetation treatments within those stands would be separated in time where feasible, to 

provide refuge for wildlife during implementation by avoiding simultaneous treatment of all PAC 

acres within a goshawk territory. Scheduling of treatments to minimize the level of localized 

effects in any given year would also manage potential impacts to other resources, such as effects 

to watersheds from sediment or nutrient transport processes..
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy For

Terrestrial Wildlife Table 3-75. Summary of direct and indirect effects of the action alternatives to northern goshawks and their habitaanalysis area PACs 

PAC Territory Proposed Action (Alternative 2) Alternative 3 Cascade Spring 

Creek 

High risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently and frequently occupied PAC. Low risk of direct effect to reproduction as nesting not detected since 1984. 100% of existing PAC would be treated. PAC to be treated in all four phases of implementation. CWHR habitats nearly unchanged after treatment. Canopy cover reduced mainly by removal of small and medium trees. Assessment recommended removal of dense stands of younger trees and fall burning. 

Same as Alternative 2 except thmechanical thinning would be sand 5 acres would be eliminated PAC would be treated), reducing indirect effects to individuals. 

Spring Creek 

Spring Creek 

High risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently and frequently occupied PAC. Moderate risk to reproduction (nest stand is adjacent to treatments). 35% of existing PAC to be treated (2nd and 3rd phases). CWHR habitats unchanged. 

Canopy cover reduced from 

≥60 percent to ~53% in treated 

areas. Assessment recommended removal of dense stands of younger trees and fall burning. 

Same as Alternative 2 except thmechanical thinning would be sreducing risk of direct and indire

Floating Island 

Spring Creek 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would occur. 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, owould occur. 

Tahoe Mountain 

Tahoe Mountain 

Low risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently unoccupied and infrequently occupied PAC. Moderate risk to reproduction (last nested in 2003). 100% of existing PAC to be treated (2nd, 3rd, and 4th phases). Proportion of nesting 

habitat reduced from 92% to 84%, but acres of nesting habitat increased from 188 acres to 343 acres. Proportion of perching and foraging habitats increased from 99% to 100% and increased from 202 acres to 406 acres. Canopy cover reduced from 53 percent to 49 percent. Assessment recommended thinning during the fall. 

Same as Alternative 2 except thmechanical thinning would be sreducing risk of direct and indireProportion of nesting habitat redbut acres of nesting habitat incr271 acres. Proportion of perchinincreased from 99% to 100% anacres to 334 acres. Existing meretained. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 3-216

PAC Territory Proposed Action (Alternative 2) Alternative 3 Seneca Pond 

Angora 1 Moderate risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently 

but infrequently occupied PAC. Low risk to reproduction (no nests known). 92% of existing PAC to be treated (1st, 2nd, and 

4th phases). Proportion of nesting habitat increased from 22% 

to 46% and acres of nesting habitat increased from 52 acres to 121 acres. Proportion of perching and foraging habitats increased from 89% to 96% and increased from 211 acres to ~250 acres. Canopy cover reduced mainly by removal of small trees. Assessment did not address this PAC, which was remapped after the Angora Fire. Improved riparian condition following stream crossing replacement. 

Same as Alternative 2 except thmechanical thinning would be sand 33 acres would be eliminateof existing PAC to be treated), rindirect effects to individuals. Prhabitat increased from 22% to 6habitat increased from 52 acres of perching and foraging habitat93% and increased from 211 ac

Big Meadow 

Big Meadow 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would occur. 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, owould occur. 

Round Lake 

None Not treated: no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would 

occur. 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, owould occur. 

Upper Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would occur. 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, owould occur. 

Middle Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 

Moderate risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently and frequently occupied PAC. Moderate risk to reproduction (nest stand is ~500 meters from treatments). Only 7% of existing PAC to be treated (1st and 4th phases). CWHR 

habitats unchanged. Canopy cover reduced from ≥60 percent 

to 55% in treated areas. Assessment recommended removal of dense stands of younger trees. 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, owould occur. 

Lower Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 

Moderate risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently and frequently occupied PAC. High risk of direct effect to reproduction (2009 nest tree located within treatment area). 97% of existing PAC to be treated (1st, 3rd, and 4th phases). 

Nesting habitat increased from 160 to 195 acres. Mean canopy cover reduced from 61% to 48% mainly by removal of very dense stands of smaller diameter trees. Assessment recommended removal of dense stands of younger trees. 

Same as Alternative 2 except thmechanical thinning would be sand 5 acres would be added to indistinguishable change in risk effects to individuals. 99% of the treated. Nesting habitat increasacres. Mean canopy cover redumainly by removal of very dense diameter trees. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy For

Terrestrial Wildlife 

PAC Territory Proposed Action (Alternative 2) Alternative 3 Hellhole Hellhole Moderate risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently 

and frequently occupied PAC. Moderate risk of direct effect to reproduction as nesting not detected since 2003. 43% of exiting PAC to be treated (1st, 3rd, and 4th phases). Proportion 

of nesting habitat increased from 95% to 100% and acres of nesting habitat increased from 193 acres to 286 acres. Proportion of perching and foraging habitats unchanged at ~100%, but increased from 202 acres to 286 acres. Mean canopy cover reduced from 64% to 58% mainly by removal of small and medium trees. Assessment recommended maintaining current conditions. 

Same as Alternative 2 except thmechanical thinning and 41 acrbe eliminated from treatment (3treated), reducing risk of direct aindividuals. Proportion of nestin95% to 100% and acres of nestfrom 193 acres to 271 acres. Prforaging habitats unchanged at from 202 acres to 271 acres. Mreduced from 64% to 62% maintrees. 

Lower Trout Creek A 

Cold Creek Low risk of direct effects to individuals in this unoccupied and 

infrequently occupied PAC. Low risk of direct effect to reproduction as nesting not detected since 1982. 89% of existing PAC to be treated during all phases. Nesting habitat increased from 93 to 222 acres. Canopy cover would be retained. Assessment recommended removal of dense stands of younger trees. 

Same as Alternative 2 except thmechanical thinning would be e(20% of existing PAC would be 

4th phases), reducing risk of dire

individuals. Nesting habitat incre115 acres. Canopy cover would 

Lower Trout Creek B 

Cold Creek Moderate risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently 

occupied, but infrequently occupied PAC. Moderate risk of direct effect to reproduction as nesting not detected since 2003. 43% of existing PAC to be treated during the 3rd and 4th

phases. Nesting habitat increased from 179 to 192 acres. Mean canopy cover would be reduced from 59% to 56%. Assessment recommended removal of dense stands of younger trees. 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, owould occur. 

Upper Cold Creek 

Upper Cold Creek 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would occur. 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, owould occur. 

High Meadows 

High Meadows 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would occur. 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, owould occur. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-218 Chapter 3 

Cumulative Effects for Northern Goshawk 

Alternative 1 

No direct or indirect effects to northern goshawks or their habitat are expected; therefore no 

cumulative effects are expected. 

Alternative 2 

Nine of 15 PACs in six of the nine territories within the wildlife analysis area would be treated by 

the proposed action. The anticipated effects within each territory are generally characterized as 

short term disturbance trending toward long term benefit for the species and its habitat. The 

combined effect of the proposed action to goshawks and their habitat within these territories may 

be similarly characterized: short term disturbance to the goshawk population and habitat followed 

by long term benefit. The cumulative effect of the proposed action, when combined with past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is to adversely affect individual goshawks and 

a portion of the suitable habitat present in the wildlife analysis area during and immediately 

following implementation, followed by benefits to goshawks and their habitat in the wildlife 

analysis area as stands mature during the 15-year period following implementation. The PACs 

that would be treated in Alternative 2, but not in Alternative 3, would likely benefit from 

treatment more than 15-years after implementation. Within the entire Lake Tahoe Basin, nine of 

the 32 PACS in six of the 26 (23%) territories and less than one percent of goshawk territories in 

the Sierra Nevada bioregion would be affected. 

Alternative 3 

Seven of 15 PACs in six of the nine territories within the wildlife analysis area would be treated 

by Alternative 3. Less effect to high quality territories would occur because the Middle Saxon 

Creek and Lower Trout Creek B PACs would not be treated. Survival and reproduction of 

goshawks within the wildlife analysis area would likely be increased relative to Alternative 2 

during and immediately following implementation. The effects of Alternative 3 are expected to be 

more beneficial than those described above for Alternative 2. Within the entire Lake Tahoe Basin, 

the number of territories affected would remain the same as Alternative 2, however the number of 

PACs affected would be reduced to seven of the 32 PACs; and less than one percent of goshawk 

territories in the Sierra Nevada would be affected. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Determination 

Alternative 1 Determination: It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist that 

Alternative 1 of the South Shore project EIS will have No Effect on the Northern Goshawk. 

Alternative 2 and 3 Determination: It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist that 

Alternatives 2 and 3 of the South Shore project DEIS may affect individuals, but are not likely to 

result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the Northern Goshawk. Rationale: 

 Effects to goshawks are expected to transition from adverse disturbance-type effects 

during implementation toward beneficial habitat maturation-type effects over the 15-year 

period following implementation 

 Initial reductions in suitable goshawk habitats would be followed by growth of treated 

stands along trajectories more beneficial than current trajectories 

 Project implementation, in the context of the wildlife analysis area, is expected to benefit 

goshawks and their habitat in the long term 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-219

California Spotted Owl 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

No thinning to reduce hazardous fuels, removal of excessive ground fuel, removal of conifer 

encroachment from meadows, or removal of conifer encroachment from aspen stands would be 

implemented to accomplish the project purpose and need. Existing conditions in the project area 

would continue to develop along their current trajectories. Within PACs and HRCAs, understory 

and mid-story vegetation would continue to increase in density, reducing habitat suitability and 

increasing risk to forest health, and continuing moderate to very high risk of stand replacing fire. 

While there are consequences of inaction, the No Action alternative would not affect spotted owls 

or their habitats. No direct or indirect effects would occur as a result of the No Action alternative. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Spotted owls tend to be sensitive to disturbance and generally avoid urban areas and portions of 

the WUI that are most impacted by ongoing human disturbance. Exceptions exist, such as the nest 

stands located adjacent to the seasonally occupied Spring Creek and Hawley Grade Recreation 

Residence tracts, however, most spotted owl activity centers in the Lake Tahoe Basin have been 

detected in relatively less-disturbed suitable habitat with the most suitable PACs occupied first, 

and least suitable habitats occupied only after the more suitable PACs have been taken. 

Protection of spotted owls and their habitat within nest stands are addressed in the project 

resource protection measures with limited operating periods, identification of nest trees, and 

nesting habitat-specific treatment prescriptions, which are expected to reduce the risk of adverse 

effects for direct mortality of individuals or abandonment of the nest stand resulting from project 

implementation. Similarly, at the larger PAC spatial scale, project resource protection measures 

are expected to minimize potential adverse effects to spotted owls and their habitat during 

implementation. Resource protection measures of minimum canopy cover, snag retention, and 

coarse woody debris retention are expected to minimize potential adverse effects to spotted owl 

habitat within HRCAs. 

California spotted owl habitat use is divided into three roughly concentric areas, with the nest and 

associated PAC as the center area of primary importance and the area most sensitive to 

disturbance, where LOPs are applied. Outside of the PAC is the larger home range core area 

(HRCA). LOPs are not applied at the HRCA, but spotted owl habitat prescriptions would be 

applied to retain greater stand density and CWD unless the HRCA overlaps an urban core area. 

The third area, the largest and outermost habitat area is the home range, where neither LOPs nor 

spotted owl habitat prescriptions would be applied. Direct disturbance is of most consequence at 

the nest site and within the PAC, decreases moving outward into the HRCA area, and is of least 

consequence in the much larger home range area. Direct effects are more likely to occur at the 

HRCA scale, because a larger area is affected by vegetation treatments, but potential effects 

would be smaller in magnitude, because HRCA areas are considered to be less important in 

meeting the life requirements of this highly mobile species. Similarly, effects are most likely to 

occur at the largest scale of the home range, where more acres would be treated, but treatment 

effects would be of the least consequence to the species. 

Alternative 3 reduces the risk of adverse effects to spotted owls and their habitat to a greater 

degree than Alternative 2, as fewer nest stands, PACs, acres within HRCAs, and home ranges 

would be treated, and fewer acres would be mechanically thinned. Effects to spotted owls would 

be expected to transition from disturbance-type effects (e.g. flushing of an individual in response 

to the operation of equipment) during implementation toward habitat maturation effects from the 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-220 Chapter 3 

growth of a stand toward desired conditions over time. An initial reduction of suitable spotted owl 

habitat would be followed by growth of treated stands along trajectories more beneficial than 

current trajectories. Long term trends in vegetation structure, composition, and distribution at the 

PAC and HRCA scales following implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3 are expected to benefit 

spotted owls and their nesting habitat. Implementation of either action alternative is expected to 

directly and indirectly benefit spotted owls and their habitat in the long term. 

The estimated number of acres of high and moderate capability spotted owl nesting, roosting, and 

foraging habitat within the South Shore project area before and after implementation of 

Alternatives 2 and 3 are shown in Table 3-76. Total existing acres of these habitats within the 

wildlife analysis area are included for comparison. Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the amount 

of high and moderate capability spotted owl nesting habitat available in the wildlife analysis area 

by an estimated 17 percent and 14 percent, respectively. More moderate than high capability 

nesting habitat would be affected in both alternatives, though little high capability habitat was 

estimated to exist in the wildlife analysis area using remote sensing data. Note that the number of 

acres (53 acres) of high capability spotted owl nesting habitat estimated by remotely sensed 

vegetation mapping within the wildlife analysis area (Table 3-93) are underestimated and that 

implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3 would reduce high capability nesting habitat by 70 acres 

using stand exam data (slightly more than estimated to currently exist). Reasons for the 

discrepancy are related to differences in the data sets as described above (see goshawk). High 

capability spotted owl nesting habitat would remain in the wildlife analysis area following 

implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3. For either action alternative, there are high quality, late 

seral, closed canopy stands located outside both the WUI treatment stands and portions of the 

forest logged during the Comstock-era. 

Project implementation would reduce total available roosting habitat within the analysis area by 

12 percent in Alternative 2, or 10 percent in Alternative 3, while increasing high capability 

roosting habitat by 260 acres (2 percent) in either action alternative. Total available foraging 

habitat within the analysis area by would be affected similarly; a reduction of 10 percent in 

Alternative 2, or 9 percent in Alternative 3, while increasing high capability foraging habitat by 

260 acres (2 percent) in either action alternative. 

In either action alternative, the changes in habitat predicted would be distributed differentially 

within the WUI. Project resource protection measures are expected to minimize reduction of high 

or moderate capability habitat within spotted owl habitats at the nest stand, PAC, and HRCA 

scales. Potential benefits to spotted owl habitat are expected more often within nest stands and 

PACs, while potential detrimental effects to habitat are expected more often closer to urbanized 

areas outside nest stands and PACs. Since treatments would occur in the WUI and affected 

spotted owl territories are located both in the WUI and in large tracts of suitable habitat that 

would not be treated, spotted owl territories are generally expected to persist during 

implementation and over the long term. The planned scheduling of treatment phases would 

provide refuge areas of suitable habitat from potential direct effects during implementation. 

A possible exception is the Tahoe Mountain spotted owl territory, which was directly affected by 

the 2007 Angora Fire by stand replacing fire in much of the territory. The remapped adjacent 

habitat would be treated in either action alternative. As elsewhere in PACs and HRCAs, long term 

benefits to habitat suitability from changes in stand structure are expected, but potential 

disturbance to individual spotted owls would be more likely to occur as owls in this territory have 

fewer areas of refuge from disturbance in upslope watersheds than other territories. Effects to 

habitat for this territory are also discussed below. 

Fine scale habitat fragmentation would result from implementation of either action alternative due 

to reductions in stand area or interior area or changes in stand edge or insularity as described 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-221

above for marten. Fine scale habitat fragmentation would occur during implementation as 

equipment and operations cause higher than background-level disturbance and make portions of 

the wildlife analysis area temporarily unsuitable. The effect of this type of fragmentation on 

individual spotted owls would be minimized by the rotation of treatment phases and because 

implementation would generally occur during the daytime when this species is least active. 

Coarse scale habitat fragmentation would increase in either action alternative with a reduction in 

high and moderate capability habitats. However, the increase in coarse scale fragmentation is 

expected to be slight and focused on urban areas, which are of the lowest value to spotted owl 

reproduction, for the following reasons: 

 Project resource protection measures would reduce potential effects to habitats within 

PACs, 

 Multiple PACs exist for the Saxon Creek territory, 

 The majority of treatments would occur in the WUI defense zone (around the urban core) 

and not affect surrounding suitable habitats located outside the WUI, 

 Connectivity between large tracts of high capability habitats would be retained in either 

action alternative (e.g. lower and mid-elevation slopes of the Freel Peak massif and the 

Upper Truckee River watershed). 

Habitat connectivity at the landscape scale is expected to be preserved at a level similar to, but 

slightly less than, the existing condition. 

Table 3-76. Estimated acres of high and moderate capability California spotted owl habitat 

within the project area before and after implementation of Alternative 2 or 3, 

with comparison to the wildlife analysis area 

Habitat 

Capability 

Nesting Habitat Roosting Habitat Foraging Habitat 

Before Change Before Change Before Change After After After 

Alternative 2 

High 70 -70 284 +260 284 +260 0 544 544 

Moderate 4,688 -1,543 4,825 -1,935 5,876 -1,626 3,145 2,890 4,250 

Total 4,758 -1,613 5,109 -1,675 6,160 -1,366 3,145 3,434 4,794 

Alternative 3 

High 70 -70 273 +260 273 +260 0 533 533 

Moderate 4,506 -1,286 4,646 -1,678 5,709 -1,451 3,220 2,968 4,168 

Total 4,576 -1,356 4,919 -1,418 5,982 -1,281 3,220 3,501 4,701 

Wildlife 

Analysis 

Area 

High 53 697 697

Moderate 9,507 12,866 13,243

Total 9,560 13,563 13,940

The numbers of acres of treatments within current spotted owl PACs in the wildlife analysis area 

are presented in Table 3-77, by treatment type and alternative. Alternative 2 would treat 

approximately 31 percent of the acres in wildlife analysis area PACs (21 percent mechanically 

and 10 percent by hand). Alternative 3 would avoid mechanical treatments in PACs where 

possible: treatments were converted to hand thinning or eliminated based on stand conditions and 

predicted fire behavior. Alternative 3 would reduce mechanical treatments in PACs by 278 acres, 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-222 Chapter 3 

increase hand treatments by 39 acres, and reduce total treatments by 239 acres. Alternative 3 

would treat approximately 23 percent of the acres in wildlife analysis area PACs (12 percent 

mechanically and 11 percent by hand). 

Table 3-77. Acres of treatments within current California spotted owl PACs in the wildlife 

analysis area by treatment type and alternative 

Protected 

Activity 

Center 

PAC 

Acres 

Mechanical Hand Total 

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Spring Creek 300 0 0 44 44 44 44

Tahoe 

Mountain 300 233 148 67 153 300 300

Echo Lake 300 25 25 33 26 58 51

Hawley 

Grade 300 0 8 87 19 87 27

Round Lake 300 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upper 

Saxon Creek 300 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lower 

Saxon Creek 300 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hellhole 300 214 127 41 55 254 182

Cold Creek 300 106 0 0 0 106 0

Total 2,700 578 308 272 297 849 604

Similarly, the numbers of acres of treatments within current spotted owl HRCAs in the wildlife 

analysis area are presented in Table 3-78, by treatment type and alternative. Alternative 2 would 

treat approximately 33 percent of the acres in wildlife analysis area HRCAs (22 percent 

mechanically and 11 percent by hand). Alternative 3 would reduce mechanical treatments in 

HRCAs by 813 acres, increase hand treatments by 373 acres, and reduce total treatments by 442 

acres. Alternative 3 would treat approximately 28 percent of the acres in wildlife analysis area 

HRCAs (13 percent mechanically and 15 percent by hand). 

Table 3-78. Acres of treatments within current California spotted owl HRCAs in the wildlife 

analysis area by treatment type and alternative 

Home Range 

Core Area 

HRCA 

Acres 

Mechanical Hand Total 

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Spring Creek 1,000 427 227 115 309 542 536

Tahoe Mountain 1,000 677 437 247 466 924 903

Echo Lake 1,000 84 85 61 53 145 138

Hawley Grade 1,000 10 15 218 151 228 166

Round Lake 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upper Saxon 

Creek 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lower Saxon 

Creek 1,000 9 5 241 230 250 238

Hellhole 1,000 419 272 140 180 559 452

Cold Creek 1,000 353 131 0 0 353 131

Total 9,000 1,979 922 1,022 969 3,001 2,564

Following management direction from the 2004 Framework, acres would be added to PACs 

where mechanical treatments are proposed (Table 3-79). Added acres are comparable in quality to 

those that would be mechanically treated. Fewer acres would be added to PACs in Alternative 3 

because fewer acres would be mechanically treated. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-223

Table 3-79. Acres added to current California spotted owl PACs in the wildlife analysis 

area as mitigation for mechanical treatments within these land allocations by action 

alternative 

Protected Activity 

Center 

Current 

PAC 

Acres 

Mechanical Proposed 

Additional Acres

Total Proposed 

PAC Acreage 

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Spring Creek 300 0 0 0 0 300 300

Tahoe Mountain 300 233 148 233 148 533 448

Echo Lake 300 25 25 25 25 325 325

Hawley Grade 300 0 8 0 8 300 308

Round Lake 300 0 0 0 0 300 300

Upper Saxon 

Creek 300 0 0 0 0 300 300

Lower Saxon 

Creek 300 0 0 0 0 300 300

Hellhole 300 214 127 214 127 514 427

Cold Creek 300 106 0 106 0 406 300

Total 2,700 578 308 578 308 3,278 3,008

Spotted owl PACs were remapped for each alternative, including additional proposed PAC 

acreages. Acres of high and moderate capability nesting, perching, and foraging habitat within 

current and remapped PACs are shown below in Table 3-80, and for HRCAs in Table 3-81, by 

alternative (post-implementation). As was done for northern goshawk PACs, acres of habitat for 

existing spotted owl PACs and HRCAs were estimated using remotely sensed data whereas acres 

of post-treatment habitat for Alternatives 2 and 3 were estimated using a combination of remotely 

sensed data and stand exam data. Predicted post-treatment stand conditions were derived from 

modeled changes to existing conditions, which were based on stand exam data. Postimplementation conditions for portions of PACs and HRCAs not treated are based on remotely 

sensed data. Differences in these data sets are generally small, but occasionally cause small 

apparent errors of estimation in the number of post-implementation acres. Please see the 

discussion presented on this topic in the analysis for northern goshawk above. 

Total acres of estimated spotted owl nesting, perching, and foraging habitat within all wildlife 

analysis area PACs would not change by more than seven percent following implementation of 

either alternative, a result of the resource protection measures to retain suitable habitat within 

PACs. Post-treatment acres of high to moderate capability nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats 

are predicted to be greater than existing conditions for both alternatives. Differences in data sets, 

as described above, may account for a small portion of the increase in suitable nesting acres. The 

remainder of the increase in suitable nesting acres reflects how prevalent encroaching smalldiameter understory growth is within the PACs, likely due to long-standing avoidance of 

treatments within PACs in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Alternative 2 would result in more suitable 

acres of high and moderate capability spotted owl habitats (predicted by CWHR modeling) than 

Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would also increase predicted acreages of suitable habitats compared 

to the existing condition, while reducing the number of acres mechanically treated within PACs in 

comparison to Alternative 2
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-224 

Table 3-80. Acres of high and moderate capability habitat within current and modified California spotted owl PACs analysis area by alternative (figures shown for alternatives are post-implementation) 

PAC 

Master 

Owl 

Territory 

PAC acres Habitat 

Capability 

Nesting Roosting 

Existing Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing Alt 2 Alt 3 

Spring Creek 

Tallac Creek 300 300 300

High 3 3 3 16 16 16 

Moderate 256 254 266 243 254 254 Total 259 257 269 259 270 270 

Tahoe Mountain 

Tahoe Mountain 300 533 448

High 0 0 0 7 0 0 

Moderate 224 347 314 218 347 314 Total 224 347 314 225 347 314 

Echo Lake 

Lower Echo 300 325 325

High 0 0 0 0 12 3 

Moderate 5 2 2 251 238 245 Total 5 2 2 251 250 248 

Hawley Grade 

Benwood Meadow 300 300 308

High 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Moderate 147 183 158 147 183 158 Total 147 183 158 147 183 158 

Round Lake 

Round Lake 300 300 300

High 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Moderate 6 6 6 105 105 105 Total 6 6 6 105 105 105 

Upper Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 300 300 300

High 0 0 0 2 2 2 

Moderate 26 26 26 204 204 204 Total 26 26 26 206 206 206 

Lower Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 300 300 300

High 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Moderate 200 200 200 266 266 266 Total 200 200 200 266 266 266 

Hellhole Trout Creek 300 514 427 High 0 0 0 7 0 0 

Moderate 42 321 242 35 321 242 Total 42 321 242 42 321 242 

Cold Creek 

Cold Creek 300 406 300

High 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Moderate 191 230 191 191 230 191 Total 191 230 191 191 230 191 

Total 2,700 3,278 3,008 Totals 1,100 (41%) 1,572 (48% 1,408 (47% 1,692 (63%) 2,178 (66% 2,000 (66% 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-225

Total acres of estimated spotted owl nesting, perching, and foraging habitat in HRCAs within the 

wildlife analysis area would not change by more than nine percent following implementation of 

either alternative, a result of the resource protection measures to retain suitable habitat within 

HRCAs. Post-treatment acres of high to moderate capability nesting, roosting, and foraging 

habitats are predicted to be greater than existing conditions for both alternatives. Differences in 

data sets, as described above, may account for a small portion of the increase in suitable nesting 

acres. The remainder of the increase in suitable nesting acres reflects the prevalence of understory 

growth in small diameter trees within HRCAs. Alternative 2 would result in more suitable acres 

of high and moderate capability spotted owl habitats (CWHR modeling) than Alternative 3. 

Alternative 3 would also increase predicted acreages of suitable habitats compared to the existing 

condition, while reducing the number of acres mechanically treated within HRCAs in comparison 

to Alternative 2. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-226 Table 3-81. Acres of high and moderate capability habitat within California spotted owl HRCAs in the wildlife analyalternative. (figures shown for alternatives are post-implementation) 

HRCA 

Master 

Owl 

Territory 

HRCA 

Acres 

Habitat 

Capability 

Nesting Roosting 

Existing Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing Alt 2 Alt 3 Ex

Spring Creek 

Tallac Creek 1,000 

High 7 7 7 26 136 140 

Moderate 515 795 757 492 668 627 Total 522 802 764 518 804 767 

Tahoe Mountain 

Tahoe Mountain 1,000 

High 0 0 0 13 33 33 

Moderate 372 643 643 359 611 611 Total 372 643 643 372 644 644 

Echo Lake Lower Echo 1,000 High 0 0 0 6 7 23 

Moderate 22 3 3 786 739 721 Total 22 3 3 792 746 744 

Hawley Grade 

Benwood Meadow 1,000 

High 0 0 0 25 25 25 

Moderate 553 608 581 527 583 556 Total 553 608 581 552 608 581 

Round Lake 

Round Lake 1,000 

High 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Moderate 195 195 195 450 450 450 Total 195 195 195 450 450 450 

Upper Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 1,000 

High 0 0 0 28 28 28 

Moderate 44 44 44 402 402 402 Total 44 44 44 430 430 430 

Lower Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 1,000 

High 0 0 0 10 10 10 

Moderate 732 739 749 803 801 810 Total 732 739 749 813 811 820 

Hellhole Trout Creek 1,000 High 0 0 0 15 40 40 

Moderate 382 577 543 384 577 543 Total 382 577 543 399 617 583 

Cold Creek Cold Creek 1,000 

High 0 0 0 1 1 1 

Moderate 391 338 378 394 340 380 Total 391 338 378 395 341 381 

Total 9,000 Total 3,212 (36%) 3,949 (44%) 3,900 (43%) 4,722 (52%) 5,451 (61%) 5,400 (60%) 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest 

Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-227

Canopy cover was also used to analyze effects of the proposed action and alternatives on spotted 

owls and their habitat. Table 3-82, next page, shows estimated acres with ≥60 percent tree canopy 

cover and mean tree canopy cover by alternative after implementation for spotted owl PACs in 

the South Shore wildlife analysis area. Estimates of canopy cover were derived similarly to the 

estimates of CWHR high and moderate capability habitat above, using the same data sets. Canopy 

cover would be expected to decline following implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3. However, 

the source of the decline in canopy cover is important to the predicted suitability of treated stands 

for spotted owl and other late seral, closed canopy adapted species. A reduction in canopy cover 

due to the removal of small trees may improve habitat suitability. Estimates of post-treatment 

CWHR high and moderate capability habitat are a useful cross-reference in determining whether 

reductions in canopy are likely to be beneficial or detrimental. 

For an example of this habitat complexity, in Alternative 2, the Hellhole PAC would have 

mechanical treatment and PAC size would increase from 300 to 514 acres, with 254 acres treated. 

Acres of canopy closure ≥60 percent would decline from 280 acres to 147 acres and mean canopy 

would decline from 64 percent to 57 percent, while CWHR nesting, perching, and foraging 

habitat would each increase from 42 acres to 321 acres. Comparison of reductions in canopy and 

gains in suitable habitat suggest that the large gains in habitat are offset by canopy closure 

reductions of approximately 14 percent (mean canopy cover decrease of seven percent) in treated 

portions of the PAC. There would be more suitable habitat per acre in the Hellhole PAC, but 

canopy cover within that suitable habitat would be substantially less than the mean canopy cover 

(77 percent) observed in nest stands in the Lake Tahoe Basin. (Note that habitat is estimated to 

increase from 42 to 321 acres, an increase of 279 acres, when only 254 acres would be treated; 

this is likely a product of the differing data sets used to estimate existing and predicted future 

conditions as discussed above.) 

Alternative 3 would retain more acres with ≥60 percent canopy cover and greater mean canopy 

cover than Alternative 2 because fewer PAC acres would be treated in Alternative 3. Compared to 

Alternative 2, changes in treatment type, from mechanical to hand thinning, in Alternative 3 did 

not reduce predicted numbers of acres with ≥60 percent canopy cover or mean canopy cover in 

spotted owl PACs. Changing treatment types often requires revised treatment prescriptions due to 

the differences in diameter limits for each treatment type, which are likely to alter resulting stand 

structure and characterizations of CWHR size and density classes as well as canopy cover. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-228 Table 3-82. Estimated canopy cover (acreage with ≥60 percent tree canopy cover and mean tree canopy cover) for 

PACs in the wildlife analysis area by alternative (figures shown for alternatives are post-implementation) 

PAC Master Owl Territory PAC Acres Acres ≥ 60% Canopy Cover Mean Ca

Existing Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing Alt 2 Alt 3 Existing 

Spring Creek Tallac Creek 300 300 300 157 115 115 5Tahoe Mountain Tahoe Mountain 300 533 448 52 45 45 5Echo Lake Lower Echo 300 325 325 61 61 61 5Hawley Grade Benwood Meadow 300 300 308 73 58 73 5Round Lake Round Lake 300 300 300 41 41 41 4Upper Saxon Creek Saxon Creek 300 300 300 51 51 51 5Lower Saxon Creek Saxon Creek 300 300 300 49 49 49 5Hellhole Trout Creek 300 514 427 280 147 161 64 Cold Creek Cold Creek 300 406 300 183 136 183 5Total 2,700 3,278 3,008 947 703 779Mean 105 78 87 5
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-229

Estimated canopy cover for spotted owl HRCAs in the South Shore wildlife analysis area are 

shown after implementation by alternative in Table 3-83, below. 50 percent canopy cover for 

HRCAs, rather than 60 percent in PACs, is a resource protection measure of this project derived 

from the best available science and management direction for the forest. Canopy cover in HRCAs 

provides additional information at a larger spatial scale. Increases in numbers of acres with ≥60 

percent canopy cover for the Spring Creek and Cold Creek HRCAs are likely artifacts of the 

methods and data used to estimate canopy cover. 

Table 3-83. Estimated canopy cover for California spotted owl HRCAs 

in the wildlife analysis area by alternative (figures shown for alternatives are postimplementation) 

HRCA Master Owl 

Territory 

HCRA 

Acres 

Acres ≥ 50% Canopy Cover Mean Canopy Cover 

Existing Alt 2 Alt 3 Existin

g 

Alt 2 Alt 3 

Spring Creek Tallac Creek 1,000 612 659 708 51 48 50

Tahoe Mountain Tahoe Mountain 1,000 435 322 428 47 44 46

Echo Lake Lower Echo 1,000 382 381 381 46 46 46

Hawley Grade Benwood 

Meadow 1,000 413 241 291 47 41 42

Round Lake Round Lake 1,000 465 465 465 46 46 46

Upper Saxon 

Creek Saxon Creek 1,000 338 338 338 45 45 45

Lower Saxon 

Creek Saxon Creek 1,000 770 634 632 57 53 53

Hellhole Trout Creek 1,000 921 739 774 63 56 57

Cold Creek Cold Creek 1,000 632 656 627 52 52 52

Total 9,000 4,968 4,435 4,644 

Mean 552 493 516 51 48 49

A summary of direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and alternatives to spotted owl 

PACs within the wildlife analysis area is presented below in Table 3-84. The likely contribution 

of each PAC to spotted owl productivity in the wildlife analysis area was estimated using the 

method described in the Forest Plan, as amended by the Framework (2004). Using this method, 

rankings of 1 (lowest contribution to productivity) to 5 (highest contribution to productivity) are 

determined as follows: 1 = PACs presently unoccupied and historically occupied by territorial 

singles only; 2 = PACs presently unoccupied and historically occupied by pairs; 3 = PACs 

presently occupied by territorial singles; 4 = PACs presently occupied by pairs; and 5 = PACs 

currently or historically reproductive. Estimates of relative contribution to productivity are 

intended to identify relative probability of territory occupancy, reproduction, and fledging, and 

level of risk associated with entering a territory to conduct management activities with a higher 

level of risk associated with managing more frequently occupied territories compared to 

moderately or infrequently-occupied territories. The phases of implementation during which 

treatments would occur in a PAC are also included in the summary of direct and indirect effects to 

spotted owl PACs in Table 3-84. For the proposed action (Alternative 2) and Alternative 3, where 

treatment stands are located in close proximity to one another, vegetation treatments within those 

stands would be separated in time where possible, in order to provide refuge for wildlife during 

implementation by avoiding simultaneous treatment of all PAC acres within an owl territory. 

Scheduling treatments over time would also minimize the level of localized effects in any given 

year for other resources. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-230 

A summary of direct and indirect effects to spotted owl HRCAs within the wildlife analysis area 

from the action alternatives is presented below in Table 3-85. The likely contribution of each 

HRCA to spotted owl productivity in the wildlife analysis area was estimated using the method 

described for PACs in the Forest Plan, as amended by the Framework (2004). Activity in PACs 

(Table 3-75) was used to determine activity in corresponding HRCAs. The phases of 

implementation during which treatments would occur in an HRCA are also included in the 

summary of direct and indirect effects to spotted owl PACs in Table 3-84. Where treatment stands 

are located in close proximity to one another, vegetation treatments within those stands would be 

separated in time where possible to provide refuge for wildlife during implementation and to 

manage potential impacts to other resources, minimizing the level of localized effects in any 

given year. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Fo

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Table 3-84. Summary of direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and alternatives to California spotted owwithin wildlife analysis area PACs 

PAC Territory Proposed Action (Alternative 2) Alternative 3 Spring Creek 

Tallac Creek 

High risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently occupied PAC. Moderate risk of direct effects to reproduction in this historically (2002) reproductive PAC as the nest stand is located within treatment units. 15% of existing PAC would be treated in 2nd and 3rd phases of implementation. Nesting 

habitat decreased by two acres. Roosting and foraging habitats increased from 86% to 90% and increased from 259 acres to 270 acres. Canopy cover 

≥60% reduced from 157 

acres to 115 acres, but mean canopy cover not affected. 

Same as Alternative 2 except thadditional acres of moderate cawould result. 

Tahoe Mountain 

Tahoe Mountain 

High risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently occupied PAC. Low risk to reproduction (currently occupied by an owl pair but reproduction not detected to date). 100% of existing PAC would be treated in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th phases of 

implementation. Proportion of nesting and roosting habitats reduced from 75% to 65%, but increased from 224/225 (nesting/roosting) acres to 347 acres. Proportion of foraging habitats reduced from 75% to 68%, but increased from 225 acres to 362 acres. Canopy cover reduced from 52% to 46%. PAC was remapped into this location after the Angora Fire. 

Same as Alternative 2 except thmechanical thinning would be sreducing risk of direct and indireProportion of nesting and roosti75% to 70%, but increased from (nesting/roosting) acres to 314 aforaging habitats reduced from increased from 225 acres to 330 reduced from 52% to 51%. 

Echo Lake Lower 

Echo 

Low risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently unoccupied PAC. Low risk to reproduction (no pairs or nests known). 16% of existing PAC would be treated in 1st and 2nd

phases of implementation. Proportion of nesting habitat decreased from 2% to 1% and acres decreased from 5 acres to 2 acres. Proportion of roosting and foraging habitats decreased from 84% to 77% and decreased from 251 acres to 250 acres. Canopy cover reduced from 51% to 49%. 

Same as Alternative 2 except throosting and foraging habitat wo

Hawley Grade 

Benwood Meadow 

Low risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently unoccupied PAC. Moderate risk of direct effects to 

reproduction in this historically (2000) reproductive PAC as the nest stand is located within treatment units. 29% of existing PAC would be treated in all phases of implementation. Proportion of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats 

Same as Alternative 2 except ththinning would be eliminated (9% be treated), reducing risk of direindividuals. Nest stand not treatrisk) of direct and indirect effectProportion of nesting, roosting, 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-232 

PAC Territory Proposed Action (Alternative 2) Alternative 3 

increased from 49% to 59% and acres increased from 147 acres to 183 acres. Canopy cover reduced from 50% to 42%. 

increased from 49% to 51% and acres to 158 acres. Canopy cov44%. 

Round Lake 

Round Lake 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would occur. 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, owould occur. 

Upper Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would occur. 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, owould occur. 

Lower Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would occur. 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, owould occur. 

Hellhole Trout 

Creek 

Moderate risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently occupied PAC. Low risk to reproduction (historically occupied by a pair but reproduction not detected to date). 85% of existing PAC would be treated in all phases of implementation. Proportion of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats increased from 14% to 62% and increased from 42 acres to 321 acres. Canopy cover ≥60 percent reduced from 280 acres to 147 acres and mean canopy cover reduced from 64% to 57%. 

Same as Alternative 2 except thmechanical thinning switched to acres of mechanical thinning wotreatment (61% of existing PAC reducing risk of direct and indireProportion of nesting, roosting, increased from 14% to 56% and increased from 42 acres to 242 percent reduced from 280 acres canopy cover reduced from 64% 

Cold Creek 

Cold Creek 

High risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently occupied PAC. Very high risk of direct effects to reproduction in this recently (fledged 3 young in 2006) reproductive PAC as the nest stand is located within treatment units. 35% of existing PAC would be treated in 3rd and 4th phases of 

implementation. Proportion of nesting and foraging habitats decreased from 64% to 57%, but increased from 191 acres to 230 acres. Foraging habitat increased by an additional 2 acres. Canopy cover ≥60 percent reduced from 183 acres to 

136 acres and mean canopy cover reduced from 58% to 56%. 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, owould occur. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Fo

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Table 3-85. Summary of direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and alternatives to California spotted ow(within wildlife analysis area HRCAs) 

HRCA Territory Proposed Action (Alternative 2) Alternative 3 Spring Creek 

Tallac Creek 

High risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently occupied HRCA. Moderate risk of direct effects to reproduction in this historically (2002) reproductive HRCA as the nest stand is located within treatment units. 54% of HRCA would be treated in all implementation phases. Nesting habitat increased from 522 acres to 802 acres. Roosting habitat increased from 518 acres to 804 acres. Foraging habitat increased from 518 acres to 828 acres. Canopy cover 

≥50% increased from 612 acres to 659 

acres, but mean canopy cover reduced from 51% to 48%. 

Same as Alternative 2 except that thinning would be switched to hanwould be eliminated from treatmeand indirect effects to individuals. increased from 522 acres to 764 aincreased from 518 acres to 767 aincreased from 518 acres to 813 a≥50% increased from 612 acres to canopy cover reduced from 51% t

Tahoe Mountain 

Tahoe Mountain 

High risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently occupied HRCA. Low risk to reproduction (currently occupied by an owl pair but reproduction not detected to date). 92% of HRCA would be treated in all implementation phases. Nesting habitat increased from 372 acres to 643 acres. Roosting habitat increased from 372 acres to 644 acres. Foraging habitat increased from 397 acres to 667 acres. Canopy cover 

≥50% decreased from 435 acres to 

322 acres and mean canopy cover reduced from 47% to 44%. HRCA was remapped into this location after the Angora Fire. 

Same as Alternative 2 except that thinning would be switched to hanwould be eliminated from treatmebe treated), reducing risk of direct individuals. Canopy cover 

≥50% d

to 428 acres and mean canopy co46%. HRCA was remapped into thAngora Fire. 

Echo Lake Lower 

Echo 

Low risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently unoccupied HRCA. Low risk to reproduction (no pairs or nests known). 15% of HRCA would be treated in 1st and 2nd

phases of implementation. Nesting habitat decreased from 22 acres to 3 acres. Roosting and foraging habitat decreased from 792 acres to 746 acres. Canopy cover ≥50% decreased from 382 acres to 381 acres and mean canopy cover unaffected at 46%. 

Same as Alternative 2 except that would be switched to mechanical would be eliminated from treatmebe treated), slightly reducing risk oeffects to individuals. Roosting andecreased from 792 acres to 744 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-234 

HRCA Territory Proposed Action (Alternative 2) Alternative 3 Hawley Grade 

Benwood Meadow 

Low risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently unoccupied HRCA. Moderate risk of direct effects to reproduction in this historically (2000) reproductive HRCA as the nest stand is located within treatment units. 23% of HRCA would be treated in all implementation phases. Nesting habitat increased from 553 acres to 608 acres. Roosting habitat increased from 552 acres to 608 acres. Foraging habitat increased from 552 acres to 619 acres. Canopy cover ≥50% decreased from 413 acres to 241 acres and mean canopy cover decreased from 47% to 41%. 

Same as Alternative 2 except that would be switched to mechanical would be eliminated from treatmebe treated), slightly reducing risk oeffects to individuals. Nesting habacres to 581 acres. Roosting habiacres to 581 acres. Foraging habiacres to 593 acres. Canopy cover 413 acres to 291 acres and mean from 47% to 42%. 

Round Lake 

Round Lake 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would occur. 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, or occur. 

Upper Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would occur. 

Not treated: no direct, indirect, or occur. 

Lower Saxon Creek 

Saxon Creek 

High risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently occupied HRCA. Moderate risk of direct effects to reproduction in this recently (2007) reproductive HRCA as the nest stand is located approximately 0.5 mile from treatment units. 25% of HRCA would be treated in all implementation phases. Nesting habitat increased from 732 acres to 739 acres. Roosting and foraging habitat decreased from 813 acres to 811 acres. Canopy cover ≥50% decreased from 770 acres to 634 acres and mean canopy cover decreased from 57% to 53%. 

Same as Alternative 2 except that thinning would be switched to hanwould be eliminated from treatmebe treated), reducing risk of direct individuals. Nesting habitat increa749 acres. Roosting and foraging 813 acres to 820 acres. Canopy cfrom 770 acres to 632 acres. 

Hellhole Trout 

Creek 

Moderate risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently occupied HRCA. Low risk to reproduction (historically occupied by an owl pair but reproduction not detected to date). 56% of HRCA would be treated in all phases of implementation. Nesting habitat increased from 382 acres to 577 acres. Roosting and foraging habitat increased from 399 acres to 617 acres. Canopy cover ≥50% decreased from 921 acres to 739 acres and mean canopy cover decreased from 63% to 56%. 

Same as Alternative 2 except that thinning would be switched to hanwould be eliminated from treatmebe treated in 1st, 3rd, and 4th phase

reducing risk of direct and indirect Nesting habitat increased from 38Roosting and foraging habitat incr583 acres. Canopy cover ≥50% dto 774 acres and mean canopy coto 57%. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Fo

Terrestrial Wildlife 

HRCA Territory Proposed Action (Alternative 2) Alternative 3 Cold Creek 

Cold Creek High risk of direct effects to individuals in this recently 

occupied HRCA. Very high risk of direct effects to reproduction in this recently (fledged 3 young in 2006) reproductive HRCA as the nest stand is located within treatment units. 35% of HRCA would be treated all phases of implementation. Nesting habitat decreased from 391 acres to 338 acres. Roosting habitat decreased from 395 acres to 341 acres. Foraging habitat decreased from 460 acres to 407 acres. Canopy cover 

≥50% increased from 

632 acres to 656 acres and mean canopy cover unaffected at 52%. 

Same as Alternative 2 except that eliminated from treatment (13% oin 2nd, 3rd, and 4th phases of imple

of direct and indirect effects to inddecreased from 391 acres to 378 decreased from 395 acres to 381 decreased from 460 acres to 447 ≥50% decreased from 632 acres t
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-236 Chapter 3 

Cumulative Effects for California Spotted Owl 

Alternative 1 

No direct or indirect effects are expected; therefore no cumulative effects are expected. 

Alternative 2 

Six of eight (75%) territories (six of nine PACs) within the wildlife analysis area would be 

treated, at least in part, by the proposed action. The anticipated effects within each territory are 

generally characterized as short term disturbance transitioning to long term benefit for the species 

and its habitat. The combined effect of the proposed action to spotted owls and their habitat 

within these territories may be similarly characterized: short term disturbance to the spotted owl 

population and habitat followed by long term benefit. The cumulative effect of the proposed 

action, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is to 

adversely affect individual spotted owls and a portion of the suitable habitat present in the 

wildlife analysis area (as described above) during and immediately following implementation, 

followed by benefits to spotted owls and their habitat in the wildlife analysis area as stands 

mature during the 15-year period following implementation. The PAC and nest stand that would 

be treated in Alternative 2, but not Alternative 3 would likely benefit from treatment more than 

15-years after implementation. Six of 19 (32%) territories (six of 21 PACs) within the Lake Tahoe 

Basin and less than one percent of spotted owl territories in the Sierra Nevada would be affected. 

Alternative 3 

Six of eight (75%) territories (five of nine PACs) within the wildlife analysis area would be 

treated, at least in part, by the proposed action. Less risk to high quality territories would occur 

because the Cold Creek PAC and Hawley Grade nest stand would not be treated. Survival and 

reproduction of spotted owls within the wildlife analysis area would likely be increased relative to 

Alternative 2 during and immediately following implementation. The effects of Alternative 3 are 

expected to be more beneficial than those described above for Alternative 2. Six of 19 (32%) 

territories (five of 21 PACs) within the Lake Tahoe Basin and less than one percent of spotted owl 

territories in the Sierra Nevada would be affected. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Determination 

Alternative 1 Determination: It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist that 

Alternative 1 of the South Shore project EIS will have No Effect on the California spotted owl. 

Alternative 2 and 3 Determination: It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist that 

Alternatives 2 and 3 of the South Shore project EIS may affect individuals, but are not likely to 

result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the California spotted owl. 

Rationale: 

 Effects to California spotted owls are expected to transition from adverse disturbancetype effects during implementation toward beneficial habitat maturation-type effects over 

the 15-year period following implementation 

 Initial reductions in suitable California spotted owl habitats would be followed by growth 

of treated stands along trajectories more beneficial than current trajectories 

 Project implementation, in the context of the wildlife analysis area, is expected to benefit 

California spotted owls and their habitat in the long term 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-237

Great Gray Owl 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 

No thinning to reduce hazardous fuels, removal of excessive ground fuel, removal of conifer 

encroachment from meadows, or removal of conifer encroachment from aspen stands would be 

implemented to accomplish the project purpose and need. Existing conditions in the project area 

would continue to develop along their current trajectories. Conifer encroachment of suitable 

meadow habitat would continue. Wildland fire would continue to threaten this species habitat. 

Great gray owls would continue to be extirpated from or occur in extremely low densities within 

the wildlife analysis area. Suitable great gray owl habitats would not be affected by this 

alternative. No direct or indirect effects would occur as a result of the No Action alternative. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Great gray owls are not known to be particularly susceptible to anthropogenic disturbance, 

suggesting that suitable habitats could be occupied in the WUI where either of the proposed 

action alternatives would occur. However, this species has not been detected in the wildlife 

analysis area and is thought to be extirpated from the Lake Tahoe Basin or occur in extremely low 

densities. Therefore, effects to great gray owls are unlikely to occur, but could include 

displacement of individuals (e.g. equipment flushing an individual) or changes in patterns of 

habitat use (e.g. avoidance of areas with ongoing project activities). Survival is unlikely to be 

affected as individuals of this species would be expected to avoid project activities. Great gray 

owl reproduction is also unlikely to be affected as no pairs or territories are known within 

treatments stands or the wildlife analysis area and because project resource protection measures 

specify protective measures (e.g. designation of a PAC or implementation of an LOP) in the event 

that a great gray owl pair, juveniles, or nest is discovered prior to project implementation. 

Great gray owl habitat occurs within the project area as described above. The estimated number 

of acres of high and moderate capability great gray owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat 

within the South Shore project area before and after implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 are 

shown in Table 3-86. Total existing acres of these habitats within the wildlife analysis area are 

appended for comparison. Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce great gray owl nesting, roosting, and 

foraging habitats by an estimated 2,103 acres (Alternative 2) or 1,798 acres (Alternative 3). High 

and moderate capability nesting habitat available within the wildlife analysis area (18,615 acres) 

would be reduced by approximately 11 percent in Alternative 2 and 10 percent in Alternative 3. 

No PACs would be affected as none have been designated within the wildlife analysis area or on 

the LTBMU. Available roosting habitat (23,545 acres) would decrease by approximately nine 

percent in Alternative 2 and eight percent in Alternative 3. Available foraging habitat (21,422 

acres) would decrease by approximately 10 percent in Alternative 2 and eight percent in 

Alternative 3. High capability nesting habitat would be reduced by an estimated 70 acres, slightly 

more than was estimated to currently exist in the wildlife analysis area. A similar situation for 

moderate capability foraging habitat (more than the existing, estimated 190 acres to be removed) 

is also apparent. These discrepancies are likely due to differences in the data sets used as 

described for northern goshawk and spotted owl above. Either existing habitats are 

underestimated or reductions in suitable habitat predicted to occur from project implementation 

are overestimated. In either case, effects to great gray owl habitat appear slightly exaggerated. 

Treated stands and meadows would be expected to mature along trajectories beneficial to great 

gray owl (e.g. increasing herbaceous cover in meadows and improving canopy structure and 

cover toward CWHR 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6 size and density classes) during the 15 years after 

implementation. Increased herbaceous cover in meadows would likely increase prey species (e.g. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-238 Chapter 3 

meadow vole) populations. Stand treatments would also increase stand resistance to drought, 

insects, disease, and fire benefiting great gray owl habitats. The potential of Alternative 3 to affect 

great gray owls or their habitat is expected to be slightly less than Alternative 2 because the 

former alternative would treat fewer acres of suitable habitats. The action alternatives would 

affect approximately eight to 11 percent of suitable great gray owl habitats within the wildlife 

analysis area. 

Table 3-86. Estimated acres of high and moderate capability great gray owl habitat within 

the project area before and after implementation of the Action Alternatives 

(in comparison to the wildlife analysis area) 

Habitat 

Capability 

Nesting Habitat Roosting Habitat Foraging Habitat 

Before Change Before Change Before Change After After After 

Alternative 2 

High 70 -70 5,533 -1,686 5,533 -1,686 0 3,847 3,847 

Moderate 7,061 -2,033 1,606 -417 1,606 -417 5,028 1,189 1,189 

Total 7,131 -2,103 7,139 -2,103 7,139 -2,103 5,028 5,036 5,036 

Alternative 3 

High 70 -70 5,328 -1,444 5,328 -1,444 0 3,,884 3,,884 

Moderate 6,543 -1,728 1,293 -354 1,293 -354 4,815 939 939 

Total 6,613 -1,798 6,621 -1,798 6,621 -1,798 4,815 4,823 4,823 

Wildlife 

Analysis 

Area 

High 52 18,723 21,232

Moderate 18,563 4,822 190

Total 18,615 23,545 21,422

Cumulative Effects for Great Gray Owl 

Alternative 1 

No direct or indirect effects would occur; therefore no cumulative effects would occur. 

Alternative 2 

The proposed action, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions is not expected to have a cumulative effect to great gray owl because the risk of potential 

disturbance-type effects is low since this species has not been detected within the analysis area. 

No negative cumulative effect to great gray owl habitat is expected because the proposed action, 

in concert with other actions (i.e. Cookhouse Meadow, Big Meadow, Upper Truckee River 

restoration projects), would reduce conifer encroachment in meadows, increase suitable meadow 

habitat, and maintain suitable forested habitats adjacent to meadows within the wildlife analysis 

area. Increases in the quality and quantity of meadow and adjacent forested stand habitats are 

expected during the 15 years following project implementation as more meadows are restored and 

stands mature. 

Alternative 3 

Cumulative effects for Alternative 3 are the same as those for Alternative 2 except that the scope 

of effects is slightly reduced as fewer acres would be treated and more acres of suitable great gray 

owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat would be retained. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-239

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Determination 

Alternative 1 Determination: It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist that 

Alternative 1 of the South Shore project EIS will have No Effect on the great gray owl. 

Alternative 2 and 3 Determination: It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist that 

Alternatives 2 and 3 of the South Shore project EIS may affect individuals, but is not likely to 

result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the great gray owl. Rationale: 

 This species has not been detected within the wildlife analysis area 

 Disturbance-type effects (e.g. equipment flushing an individual) are unlikely, but may 

occur during implementation 

 Approximately 89% to 91% of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats within the wildlife 

analysis area would be retained for Alternative 2 

 Approximately 90% to 92% of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats within the wildlife 

analysis area would be retained for Alternative 3 

 Conifer encroachment in meadows would be reduced, contributing to potential prey 

abundance 

Willow Flycatcher 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 

No thinning to reduce hazardous fuels, removal of excessive ground fuel, removal of conifer 

encroachment from meadows, or removal of conifer encroachment from aspen stands would be 

implemented to accomplish the project purpose and need. Existing conditions in the project area 

would continue to develop along their current trajectories. Conifers would continue encroaching 

suitable willow flycatcher habitat. Risk of wildland fire would continue to threaten willow 

flycatcher habitat, as demonstrated by the 2007 Angora Fire. Suitable willow flycatcher habitats 

would not be affected by this alternative. No direct or indirect effects would occur as a result of 

the No Action alternative. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Willow flycatchers are sensitive to disturbance and avoid highly disturbed wet meadow 

ecosystems that could otherwise provide suitable habitat. The potential of the action alternative to 

affect willow flycatcher is limited by the low coincidence of treatments with willow flycatcher 

habitats. Willow flycatchers are known to occur historically or currently within two locations that 

would be treated in both Alternatives, Lily Lake (where this species was detected in 2002 and 

2003) and Mattole Rd. in the Spring Creek cabin tract (2010). Treatment stands located adjacent 

to approximately one acre of suitable habitat on the western and southern shores of Lily Lake 

(lake estimated to be 8 acres in size) and 4 acres of suitable habitat adjacent to Mattole and 

Karok Road would be thinned. No changes in the seasonally saturated, deciduous riparian shrub 

willow flycatcher habitat are expected to occur, but effects to individuals during implementation 

could occur. 

Thinning of an urban lot in the Ski Run Boulevard neighborhood, where an unconfirmed 

detection of a single willow flycatcher was reported in 2005, is not expected to affect this species 

as the habitat is unsuitable due intensive human disturbance. Implementation of either action 

alternative in suitable, but unoccupied habitats could affect willow flycatchers if the habitats 

became occupied during treatments. Project resource protection measures allow for protection of 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-240 Chapter 3 

this species if it is discovered prior to or during implementation, minimizing the potential for 

direct effects. Limited Operating Periods in occupied or historically occupied suitable habitats 

(e.g. Lily Lake) would minimize the potential of project activities to affect this species during the 

nesting season and therefore minimize potential effects on reproduction. Outside of a LOP, effects 

may include equipment operation displacing individuals or changes in patterns of habitat use 

through avoidance of areas with ongoing project activities. Survival is unlikely to be affected as 

individuals of this species would be expected to avoid project activities. 

The estimated number of acres of high and moderate capability willow flycatcher nesting, 

perching, and foraging habitat within the South Shore project area before and after 

implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3 are shown in Table 3-87. Total existing acres of these 

habitats within the wildlife analysis area are included for comparison. Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

not immediately increase or decrease the number of acres of suitable willow flycatcher habitat in 

the wildlife analysis area. However, the removal of encroaching conifers from marginally suitable 

meadow habitats (e.g. Spring Creek and Saxon Creek) may lead to the recruitment of deciduous 

riparian shrubs during the 15 years after implementation, which may improve the quality and 

suitability of these habitats for willow flycatchers. The potential of Alternative 3 to affect willow 

flycatchers or their habitat is expected to be slightly less than Alternative 2 because Alternative 3 

would treat fewer acres (95 acres compared to 118 acres) of suitable habitats. Alternative 2 would 

treat approximately four percent and Alternative 3 would treat approximately three percent of 

suitable willow flycatcher habitats within the wildlife analysis area. 

Table 3-87. Estimated acres of high and moderate capability willow flycatcher habitat 

within the project area before and after implementation of the action alternatives 

in comparison to the wildlife analysis area 

Habitat 

Capability 

Nesting Habitat Perching Habitat Foraging Habitat 

Before Change Before Change Before Change After After After 

Alternative 2 

High 115* 0 115 0 118 0 115* 115 118 

Moderate 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 

Total 115 0 118 0 118 0 115 118 118 

Alternative 3 

High 92* 0 92 0 95 0 92* 92 95 

Moderate 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 

Total 92 0 95 0 95 0 92 95 95 

Wildlife 

Analysis Area 

High 2,727 2,727 2,727

Moderate 78 78

Total 2,727 2,805 2,805

* For clarity of display in the matrix above, figures for high capability nesting habitat represent 

both high and moderate capability nesting habitat as described in the existing conditions section 

for willow flycatcher. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 3-241

Cumulative Effects for Willow Flycatcher 

Alternative 1 

No direct or indirect effects would occur; therefore no cumulative effects would occur. 

Alternative 2 

The proposed action, when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions is not expected to have a cumulative effect to willow flycatcher because the risk of 

potential disturbance-type effects is low (i.e. four percent or less of suitable habitats would be 

treated and Limited Operating Periods in occupied or historically occupied habitats would 

minimize potential effects in treated areas) and because the quality and quantity of suitable 

habitats would not change immediately after implementation. Habitat quality may improve during 

the 15 years after project implementation if the removal of encroaching conifers encourages the 

recruitment of deciduous riparian shrubs that this species prefers. No cumulative effect to willow 

flycatcher habitat is expected because relatively few acres would be affected and increases in the 

quality and quantity of suitable habitat are likely to be minor and delayed in time. 

Alternative 3 

Cumulative effects for Alternative 3 are the same as those for Alternative 2 except that the scope 

of effects is slightly reduced as fewer acres would be treated (95 acres in Alternative 3 compared 

to 118 acres in Alternative 2). 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Determination 

Alternative 1 Determination: It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist that 

Alternative 1 of the South Shore project EIS will have No Effect on the Willow Flycatcher. 

Alternative 2 and 3 Determination: It is the determination of the Forest wildlife biologist that 

Alternatives 2 and 3 of the South Shore project EIS may affect individuals, but are not likely to 

result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the Willow Flycatcher. Rationale: 

 Disturbance-type effects (e.g. equipment flushing an individual) are unlikely, but may 

occur during implementation 

 Willow flycatcher habitat is not expected to increase or decrease in quality or quantity 

immediately after project implementation, but may increase during the 15 years after 

implementation if deciduous, riparian shrubs are recruited into treated areas 

 Approximately three (Alternative 3) to four (Alternative 2) percent of suitable nesting, 

perching, and foraging habitats within the wildlife analysis area would be affected. 

Analytical Conclusions 

This section provides a brief summary of the conclusions of the effects analysis for terrestrial 

wildlife. It summarizes the results of Chapter 2 resource protection measures on the magnitude, 

scope, and intensity of the environmental effects to terrestrial TES species from project activities. 

Findings for significance are also summarized in this section. 

Under the No Action alternative, reduction of hazardous fuels in wildland urban intermix areas 

would not be implemented. Current conditions in the wildlife analysis area would continue, and 

the existing risk of wildland fire in the analysis area would continue. There would be no direct or 

indirect effects from implementation of the No Action alternative to terrestrial species or their 

habitats. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-242 Chapter 3 

Alternative 2 would improve forest health and reduce hazards to wildlife and their habitats from 

wildland fire by creating defensible space around communities within the WUI. Effects to 

wildlife may occur on or adjacent to treatment areas, including non-forest system lands as the 

home ranges of wildlife often cross over ownership boundaries within the wildlife analysis area. 

The fact that thinning treatments would occur within the WUI would moderate the potential to 

affect wildlife because habitats within the WUI are often less suitable than equivalent habitats 

located outside the WUI due to the amount of human disturbance. 

Alternative 2 includes resource protection measures that consider wildlife resources. All 

California spotted owl PACs, goshawk PACs, and stands within TRPA goshawk nest disturbance 

zones would receive specialized thinning prescriptions that retain additional cover to preserve 

habitat suitability. Residual snag and LWD retention is expected to provide suitable habitats 

where the existing snag density meets the desired condition. Proposed treatments are designed to 

increase radial and lateral growth, increase tree species diversity, improve canopy structure, and 

increase stand resistance to drought, insects, disease, and fire. Increasing radial and lateral growth 

would benefit wildlife by providing greater cover and connectivity between early seral or lower 

canopy habitats and upper canopy habitats. Establishing a trend toward more than one canopy 

layer is expected to move treated stands toward the natural range of variability and benefit 

wildlife. Alternative 2 provides refuge for wildlife during implementation and minimizes the level 

of effects to wildlife in any given year, by scheduling vegetation treatments for treatment stands 

located in PACs would be scheduled over time, rather than treated all together. 

Short term disturbance-related cumulative effects to wildlife are expected, though would be 

minimized by project resource protection measures. Long term, beneficial, cumulative effects to 

wildlife are expected as conditions within treated stands mature along desired trajectories in 

concert with restoration activities and improved land management practices. General ecosystem 

conditions are expected to trend toward desired conditions and the natural range of variability, 

resulting in improved ecosystem function, resilience to disturbance, and increased productivity. 

The risk for significant negative effect to terrestrial wildlife species from Alternative 2 is low. 

Alternative 3 includes changes to treatments designed to reduce impacts to sensitive species and 

their habitats. Alternative 3 would increase consideration given to wildlife resources in the project 

area through acres eliminated from treatment or changes from mechanical to hand thinning 

operations. In Alternative 3, stands or portions of stands would be eliminated from treatment 

based on the locations of PACs in relation to WUI defense and threat zones and fire behavior 

predicted using FARSITE, FLAMMAP, and FVS models. Fewer PACs would be treated in 

Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would also eliminate mechanical treatments in PACs where desired 

conditions for predicted fire behavior could be met by hand thinning methods. The estimated 

number of acres that would be treated in Alternative 3 would be less than in Alternative 2, 

reducing the overall scope of effects. 

General cumulative effects would be distributed among wildlife species and across the landscape 

the same for Alternative 3 as for Alternative 2 except that fewer acres would be treated, slightly 

reducing the scope of effects. Alternative 3 would have different, and generally more positive, 

cumulative effects on some sensitive wildlife species as described above. Negative environmental 

effects are mitigated below the level of significance for terrestrial wildlife by Alternative 3. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

TRPA Special Interest Species 3-243

TRPA Special Interest Species 

Scope of the Analysis, Indicators, and Issues 

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Regional Plan created and adopted environmental 

threshold carrying capacities (“thresholds” or “threshold standards”) in two documents for 

fisheries and wildlife resources. These documents, the Goals and Policies (TRPA 1986) and the 

Code of Ordinances and Rules of Procedure (TRPA 1987), provide guidelines for threshold 

standards (TRPA 2002). Interagency collaboration between the US Forest Service and TRPA 

provided resource protection measures in Chapter 2 to address TRPA special interest species and 

their disturbance zones for the South Shore project. Information presented here is drawn from the 

South Shore project TRPA Report located in the project file and incorporated here by reference. 

This section is divided into three parts. The first part describes the standards, indicators, and 

effects for fisheries. Terrestrial TRPA wildlife standards, indicators, and habitats of special 

significance are discussed next. Third is a discussion of effects for individual terrestrial special 

interest species. 

Impact Analysis for Fisheries Threshold Standards and Indicators 

(F1-F4) 

F-1 Lake Habitat 

Standard: Achieve the equivalent of 5,948 total acres of excellent lake fish habitat. 

Indicator: Physical disturbance of rocky (spawning and feed/cover habitats) substrate (acres). 

The South Shore project has the potential to degrade fish habitat and substrate conditions. The 

potential for the project to degrade fish habitat will be mitigated by application of BMPs and 

design criteria found in Chapter 2 for system roads, new/existing temporary roads and 

new/existing landings. These BMPs and design criteria would conserve aquatic habitats in the 

project area. The potential for fine sediment to reach the lake is greater in Alternative 2 than 

Alternative 3 because Alternative 2 has more acres of mechanical treatment and uses more road 

miles. However, any increases in fine sediment would not be measurable under either of the 

action alternatives. 

F-2 Stream Habitat 

Standard: Maintain 75 miles of excellent, 105 miles of good, and 38 miles of marginal stream 

habitat as indicated by the Stream Habitat Quality Overlay map (1997). 

Indicator: Miles of stream habitat in the various categories based on field investigations of 

habitat. A qualified fisheries biologist using empirical data should make determinations of stream 

quality. 

The South Shore project has potential to impact stream habitat quality. The potential for the South 

Shore project to degrade fish habitat would be mitigated through application of BMPs and design 

criteria found in Chapter 2 for system roads, new/existing temporary roads and new/existing 

landings. These BMPs and design criteria would conserve aquatic habitats in the project area. 

Although reduction to stream shade may be detectable, any increases in stream temperature 

would not be measurable. Increases in fine sediment from project activities would also not be 

measurable. Current levels of in-channel LWD are not expected to decrease, and may increase 

where opportunities exist to place trees in streams to enhance fish habitat. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-244 Chapter 3 

F-3 In-stream Flow 

Standard: Until in-stream flow standards are established in the Regional Plan to protect fisheries 

values, a non-degradation standard shall apply to in-stream flows. 

Indicator: In-stream flows evaluated by the use of an in-stream beneficial use assessment, such as 

the type established by Title 23, Section 670.6 of the California Administrative Code. 

The South Shore project does not include new construction or maintenance of a water diversion, 

therefore there is no potential to affect in-stream flows. 

F-4 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout1 

Standard: It shall be the policy of the TRPA Governing Board to support, in response to 

justifiable evidence, state and federal efforts to reintroduce Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT). 

Indicator: (TRPA 1982a): Threshold would be achieved with the successful establishment of a 

Lahontan cutthroat trout population. 

LCT are known to occur in the Upper Truckee River above Christmas Valley at the upper limit of 

the South Shore project area. This adjacent Lahontan cutthroat trout population could be affected 

by the project if individual LCT migrate into the project area before implementation occurs. 

By decreasing the amount of combustible fuels within Upper Truckee River RCAs/SEZs the 

potential for future effects on LCT resulting from wildfire would decrease. Stream and watershed 

restoration efforts are also expected to occur in the Upper Truckee River as well as tributaries 

including Cold Creek, Angora Creek and Big Meadow Creek. Therefore, aquatic habitat quality 

for LCT (channel stability, pools, LWD and benthic productivity) is expected to increase over the 

long-term (> 5 years) as stream and watershed restoration efforts continue to move streams, 

wetlands and meadows toward desired conditions within the South Shore project area. 

Terrestrial Wildlife Threshold Standards and Indicators (W-1, W-2) 

W-1:Threshold Standard for Wildlife2

Standard: Provide a minimum number of population sites and disturbance zones for TRPA listed 

species. 

Indicator: The minimum number of population sites and disturbance zones maintained as 

determined by inspection by qualified experts. 

Table 3-88 (next page) shows TRPA special interest species population site thresholds, 

disturbance zones, and whether potential exists for the project to impact the threshold standard 

within the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

 

1

Although the 1991 and 1996 Threshold Evaluations (TRPA 1991 and 1996) acknowledged a threshold 

policy standard for the reintroduction of Lahontan cutthroat trout, the Governing Board did not adopt it as 

an official threshold standard. In the Threshold Evaluation (TRPA 2002), they recommended that the 

TRPA Governing Board adopt the F-4 Threshold Standard and Indicator (TRPA 2002). 

 

2

 Under TRPA Code of Ordinances, Chapter 78-Wildlife Resources, the project biologist(s) must prepare 

appropriate documentation with specific recommendations for avoiding significant adverse impacts to the 

special interest, threatened, endangered or rare species (78.3.C). 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

TRPA Special Interest Species 3-245

Table 3-88. W-1 Standard Threshold for wildlife special interest species 

Species Population 

Sites1

Disturbance 

Zone (mi.) 

Potential to Impact 

Threshold Standard? 

Y/N 

Northern goshawk 

(Accipter gentiles) 12 0.50 Y

Osprey 

(Pandion haliaetus) 4 0.25 Y

Bald eagle (winter) 

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) 

2 Mapped Y

Bald eagle (nesting) 1 0.50 N2

Golden eagle 

(Aquila chrysaetos) 4 0.25 N3

Peregrine falcon 

(Falco peregrinus 

anatum) 

2 0.25 Y

Waterfowl 18 Mapped Y

Mule deer 

(Odocoileus hemionus) 

Critical 

fawning 

habitat

Critical fawning 

habitat is 

modeled

Y

1

Based on the threshold evaluation by TRPA (2002), many of the population site goals have 

not been attained, and may never be realized for species like the golden eagle and 

peregrine falcon considering the Lake Tahoe Basin has historically been considered 

suboptimal nesting habitat for both of these species. The northern goshawk threshold 

standard has a low likelihood of attainment by 2006 due to habitat fragmentation attributed to 

recreation encroachment nesting areas. The mule deer threshold is not likely to be realized 

due to recreational encroachment into meadows during fawning season (TRPA 2002). There 

would be a ‘yes’ for impacts to population sites only if impacting a known site. Threshold 

standards may not be attained Basin-wide for certain populations, but that is an issue at the 

programmatic level, not at the project level. 

2

 Proposed treatments are greater than 1 mile from the nearest bald eagle nest site; and are 

additionally over a ridge and around a prominent point along the shoreline from the nest site. 3

 Proposed treatments are greater than 1⁄4 mile from golden eagle threshold nesting sites. 

Treatments are proposed adjacent to, but not within, one of two golden eagle disturbance 

zones within the project analysis area, at Angora Peak. No nesting activity was recorded for 

golden eagle at this threshold site through 2010 according to the two most recent threshold 

evaluation reports (TRPA 2002, TRPA 2007). The South Shore Fuels project will not affect 

the golden eagle disturbance zones or attainment of population thresholds. 

Disturbance zones for osprey, peregrine falcon, bald and golden eagle, waterfowl, and mule deer 

would apply as described in TRPA Code of Ordinances, Chapter 78. Northern goshawk 

disturbance zones would include each known nest site unless the nest tree is no longer standing, 

as determined by site visits, or is located within an urban zone, as determined by TRPA Plan Area 

Statement maps. Limited operating periods (LOPs) for goshawks would only be applied when 

necessary, as determined by the USFS project biologist, within PACs rather than throughout 

TRPA disturbance zones (i.e. within a 0.5 mile radius of a goshawk nest). Vegetation treatment 

prescriptions within goshawk disturbance zones would be acceptable (i.e. meet the TRPA nondegradation standard) if they are consistent with prescriptions suitable for PACs. These 

collaboratively derived resource protection measures have been incorporated into Chapter 2 for 

the South Shore project. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-246 Chapter 3 

W-2: Habitats of Special Significance 

The Wildlife Threshold Standard W-2 states: A non-degradation standard shall apply to 

significant wildlife habitat consisting of deciduous trees, wetlands, and meadows while providing 

for opportunities to increase the acreage of such riparian associations. 

The South Shore project proposes to reduce fuels hazardous fuels in SEZs within the WUI. 

Where consistent with fuel reduction objectives, thinning of encroaching conifers would occur in 

order to maintain/reclaim wetland and meadow landscapes. Fuel reduction along riparian 

corridors would maintain sufficient tree structure in order to supply future LWD recruitment to 

stream channels, maintain or increase stream shade characteristics, and potentially increase 

riparian vegetation as competition from conifers is reduced. Because non-degradation is the 

expected result, the South Shore project meets the W-2 Threshold Standard. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

TRPA Special Interest Species 3-247

Existing Conditions - Individual TRPA Special Interest Species 

In order to provide clear ties to the individual species that are TRPA special interest species, the 

existing conditions for wildlife habitats will be discussed specific to these individual special 

interest species. 

Northern Goshawk 

A total of 36 historic and current goshawk nesting trees occur within the project wildlife analysis 

area, as defined in the project biological evaluation in the project file. These nest trees form the 

basis for the 0.5 mile radius buffer TRPA goshawk disturbance zone for the South Shore project. 

TRPA Plan area statement (PAS) urban zones are not included. Habitat within this disturbance 

zone, totaling approximately 8,508 acres, is subject to TRPA non-degradation standards that 

would be met through the project resource protection measures from collaboration with TRPA. 

Because nests are often located close to each other as a group, the TRPA disturbance zone may be 

described as 10 separate disturbance zone areas, which, on a map, look like clusters of grapes, 

rather than 36 independent 0.5 mile radius circles. Nests within these disturbance zones are 

associated with goshawk territories (which may be considered population sites) and USFS 

protected activity centers (PACs). Existing Goshawk habitat conditions are further discussed in 

the terrestrial wildlife section of this chapter. Detailed descriptions of the existing conditions 

within each territory and/or PAC are also presented in the project biological evaluation located in 

the project file. 

Osprey 

Recording of osprey nesting began in 1976. A total of 60 osprey historic or current nest trees are 

known within the South Shore project wildlife analysis area, primarily near the shores of Emerald 

Bay, Cascade Lake, Fallen Leaf Lake, and Lower Echo Lake. 25 of those nest trees have fallen or 

burned down in wildland fires, leaving 35 standing nest trees within the wildlife analysis area in 

2010. The 35 standing osprey nest trees are each buffered by 0.25 mile to designate the 2,444 acre 

osprey disturbance zone. Osprey nests often occur in clusters as pairs may attempt nesting in 

multiple adjacent trees within and across years. 

The average active nesting activity for the Lake Tahoe Basin is that 54.5% of trees with nests 

have nesting activity in any given year (mean value for Lake Tahoe Basin, 1997-2007, unpubl. 

data). Osprey actively nested in 12 (60%) of the 20 trees with nests in 2010, which is above 

average for the Lake Tahoe Basin. Osprey nesting activity in the wildlife analysis area is 

summarized below in Table 3-89. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-248 Chapter 3 

Table 3-89. Osprey nesting activity in the wildlife analysis area, 2010 field season 

Nest Name Nest 

Condition 

Nesting 

Activity 

Nest Name Nest 

Condition 

Nesting 

Activity 

CSL04 NG EMB27 NP Yes 

CSL06 NG EMB28 ND 

CSL07 NG FLL04 NP Yes 

CSL08 NG FLL06 NP Yes 

EMB02 NG FLL14 NP Yes 

EMB05 NP FLL15 ND 

EMB09 NG FLL16 NP 

EMB11 NP Yes FLL17 NG 

EMB14 NP Yes FLL18 NP Yes 

EMB15 NP RUP11 NG 

EMB17 NG RUP28 NG 

EMB18 NG SLT02 NP 

EMB20 NP Yes SLT03 NG 

EMB21 NG SLT05 NG 

EMB22 NP Yes SLT06 ND 

EMB23 NP Yes SLT07 NG 

EMB24 NP Yes SLT08 ND 

EMB26 NP Yes 

Nest Conditions: NG=nest gone; NP=nest present; and ND=nest dilapidated. 

Bald Eagle 

In 1987, TRPA designated a 2,473 acre bald eagle wintering habitat threshold area around 

Emerald Bay, Cascade Lake, Tallac Creek, and Taylor Creek. The TRPA bald eagle threshold is 

supported by the 1988 Forest LRMP (p.III-24). In 1994, the LTBMU evaluated potential bald 

eagle perch sites along the Lake Tahoe shore zone from Camp Richardson to Tallac Point; as a 

result, seven dominant trees were selected for pruning and tree retention for this species. Bald 

eagle habitat use surveys conducted in the Fallen Leaf Management Area in 1997 and 1998 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

TRPA Special Interest Species 3-249

further identified perch sites in the 1994 evaluation area, in Taylor Creek wetland, along Taylor 

Creek, and around Fallen Leaf Lake. 

Peregrine Falcon 

Four previously mapped population sites exist within the wildlife analysis area: Dardanelles, 

Luther Rock, South Maggie’s Peak, and Angora Peak. Dardanelles is located over two miles from 

treatment stands for either action alternative and would not be affected, nor have peregrines been 

detected there in the last decade. This species has been detected at Luther Rock, Angora Peak, 

and South Maggie’s Peak. Peregrine falcons have been observed nesting only at the Luther Rock 

site, and only in 2009 and 2010. All sites are located on large, sheer cliff faces. 

Waterfowl 

Thirteen of 18 waterfowl threshold sites within the Lake Tahoe Basin occur within the wildlife 

analysis area. There are two sites with treatment units: Taylor Creek and Baldwin Marsh. There 

are seven sites adjacent to treatment units: Pope Marsh, Lake Christopher, Osgood Swamp, 

Lower Echo Lake, Lake Baron, Grass Lake, and Fallen Leaf Lake. Four sites have no treatments 

in or nearby: Truckee Marsh, Edgewood Golf Course, Upper Echo Lake, and Fannette Island. 

Mule Deer 

Mule deer in the wildlife analysis area generally belong to the Carson Herd and occur 

infrequently inside the Lake Tahoe Basin. Mule deer generally occupy habitats in the wildlife 

analysis seasonally as snow pack permits. Seasonal habitat use includes fawning. An estimated 

7,673 acres of mule deer fawning habitat exists in the wildlife analysis area, modeled by 

vegetation-type and proximity to perennial water sources. A major deer crossing is located at 

Highway 89 and the eastern end of Grass Lake, at the south-easternmost limit of treatment units 

under either action alternative. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-250 Chapter 3 

Environmental Consequences - Individual TRPA Special Interest 

Species 

In order to provide clear ties to the individual species that are TRPA special interest species, the 

effects of the alternatives to wildlife habitats habitat conditions will be discussed specific to these 

individual special interest species. 

Northern Goshawk 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

With no vegetation treatments under this alternative, there would be no direct effects to northern 

goshawks or their habitat. Indirect effects of the No Action alternative would include continued 

accumulation of ground fuels and ladder fuel within goshawk habitats which would maintain or 

increase the risk of habitat loss from high intensity wildfire. Because wildfire is neither 

reasonably foreseeable nor quantifiable, no cumulative effects can be predicted for the No Action 

alternative. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 

The South Shore project would treat approximately 2,555 acres (29%) in Alternative 2 or 2,248 

acres (25%) in Alternative 3 of the 8,879 acres identified as goshawk disturbance zone within the 

wildlife analysis area. Treatments within the goshawk disturbance zone and PACs are designed to 

provide the following habitat conditions where possible (otherwise as closely as possible): 

 at least two tree canopy layers; 

 dominant and co-dominant trees with average diameters of 24 inches dbh; 

 60 to 70 percent canopy cover; 

 an average of five to eight snags (five in eastside pine and mixed conifer, six in Westside 

pine and mixed conifer, and eight in red fir forest types) per acre larger than 20 inches 

dbh and of variable decay classes; and 

 15 tons of coarse woody debris (CWD) per acre larger than 20 inches in diameter (at the 

large end) and of variable decay classes. 

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to goshawks and their habitat are discussed for each of the 

project alternatives in the Terrestrial Wildlife section of this chapter, with further details in the 

biological evaluation located in the project file. Effects to goshawk disturbance zones are 

discussed therein in context of post-fledging family areas (PFAs) of 500 acres, which are 

equivalent in scale to a disturbance zone (0.5 mile radius = 503 acres). A discussion of effects to 

goshawk population sites in terms of territories is contained in the biological evaluation located in 

the project file. 

Summary and comparison of action alternative impacts to northern goshawk 

population sites and disturbance zones

The anticipated impacts of project implementation are generally characterized as adversely 

affecting individual goshawks and a portion of the suitable habitat in the wildlife analysis area 

during and immediately following project implementation, followed by benefits to goshawks and 

their habitat in the wildlife analysis area as stands mature during the 15-year period following 

implementation. Six of nine (67%) territories within the wildlife analysis area would be treated, at 

least in part, by either action alternative. There would be less risk to high quality territories in 

Alternative 3 because the Middle Saxon Creek and Lower Trout Creek B PACs and associated 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

TRPA Special Interest Species 3-251

territories would not be treated. Survival and reproduction of goshawks within the wildlife 

analysis area would likely be greater for Alternative 3 than for Alternative 2 during and 

immediately following project implementation. The territories that would be treated in Alternative 

2, but not in Alternative 3, would likely benefit from treatment approximately 15-years after 

implementation. The effects of Alternative 3 are expected to be more beneficial than Alternative 

2. Six of 26 (23%) territories within the Lake Tahoe Basin and less than one percent of goshawk 

territories in the Sierra Nevada would be affected. 

Osprey 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

There would be no vegetation treatments under this alternative; therefore, there would be no 

direct effects to osprey or their habitat. Indirect effects of Alternative 1 would include continued 

accumulation of ground fuels and ladder fuel within osprey habitats, which would maintain or 

increase the risk of habitat loss from high intensity wildfire. Because wildfire is neither 

quantifiable nor reasonably foreseeable, no cumulative effects can be predicted for the No Action 

Alternative. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 

The South Shore project would treat approximately 470acres (34%) in Alternative 2 or 450 acres 

(33%) in Alternative 3 of the 1,382 acres identified as osprey disturbance zones within the 

wildlife analysis area. Treatments within osprey disturbance zones would maintain suitable 

osprey habitat. Direct effects to habitat, especially within the disturbance zone, would be limited 

as trees would generally be thinned from below, retaining the larger, taller trees that osprey use. 

Suitable large trees within stands historically or currently used by osprey for perching or nesting 

would be identified and retained. All known, standing osprey nest trees within the treatment units 

would be retained. Future recruitment of large trees suitable for osprey perching and nesting 

would be provided in either action alternative by identifying and retaining an average of at least 

three suitable, large trees per acre in treatment stands located adjacent to Fallen Leaf Lake and 

Lower Echo Lake. Direct effects would also be mitigated by the rotation of treatment stands so 

that portions of suitable habitats would be available at all times (e.g. Fallen Leaf Lake would not 

be treated all at once or within a single year). Indirect effects to habitat would include increased 

health of trees retained following thinning, potentially increasing persistence of known nest trees 

and recruitment of future nest trees. No treatment stands are located adjacent to Emerald Bay or 

Cascade Lake; therefore, there would be no effect to those habitat areas from the South Shore 

project. 

Direct effects to habitat, especially within the disturbance zone, would be limited as trees would 

generally be thinned from below, retaining the larger, taller trees that osprey use; nest trees would 

be retained, and future recruitment of nest trees would be addressed through retention of an 

average of three large trees per acre. Direct effects would also be mitigated by the rotation of 

treatment stands so that portions of suitable habitats would be available at all times. Indirect 

effects to habitat would include increased health of trees retained following thinning, potentially 

increasing persistence of known nest trees and recruitment of future nest trees. The cumulative 

effect to habitat (i.e. disturbance zones) of either action alternative would be to cause disturbance 

above background levels during implementation, but benefit the quality and quantity of habitats, 

especially in the shore zones of the Taylor Creek and Tallac Creek watersheds. 

The likely direct effects to individual osprey during implementation would be disturbance-type 

effects (e.g. flushing an individual) rather than survival or reproduction-type effects (e.g. affecting 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-252 Chapter 3 

adult or juvenile survival). Five nests are located within treatment stands and would have LOPs to 

protect nesting activity. Disturbance-type effects would likely end after implementation, though 

repeated treatments (i.e. thinning followed by pile burning) may be required in some stands. 

Indirect effects to nesting, roosting, and foraging would be unlikely to occur as nesting and 

foraging take place from large trees and prey species are unlikely to be affected. In addition, 

resource protection measures would minimize the potential for user-created trails into recentlythinned stands to prevent additional recreational disturbance to osprey sites. 

The cumulative effect to habitat (i.e. disturbance zones) of either action alternative would be to 

cause disturbance above background levels during implementation, but benefit the quality and 

quantity of habitats, especially in the shore zones of the Taylor Creek and Tallac Creek 

watersheds. Improved habitat conditions in the disturbance zone are expected following 

implementation compared to pre-treatment conditions in either action alternative which would 

benefit population sites, because tree density would be reduced and tree health improved for the 

lifetime of the treatments. 

Bald Eagle 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

There would be no direct effects to bald eagles or their habitat because there would be no 

vegetation treatments under this alternative. Indirect effects under Alternative 1 would include 

continued accumulation of ground fuels and ladder fuel within bald eagle habitats, which would 

maintain or increase the risk of habitat loss from high intensity wildfire. Because wildfire is 

neither quantifiable nor reasonably foreseeable, no cumulative effects can be predicted for the No 

Action alternative. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 

The South Shore project would conduct vegetation treatments in up to ~162 acres within the 

TRPA bald eagle winter habitat mapped between Emerald Bay and Taylor Creek and in the Fallen 

Leaf management area consistent with current management direction, the habitat evaluations 

completed in 1994, and the perch sites identified in 1997-8. These treatments within bald eagle 

winter habitat would maintain or improve habitat adjacent to wetland, wet meadow, and open 

water by resulting in: 1) late successional forest type, with an emphasis on Jeffrey pinedominated stands; 2) retention of trees that are larger in diameter and taller than the dominant tree 

canopy, with an emphasis on trees greater than 40 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) and 

greater than 98 feet tall and on dead topped trees with robust, open branch structures; 3) an 

average of six snags per acre larger than 20 inches dbh and of variable decay classes. 

Disturbance-type effects (e.g. individual bald eagles avoiding project equipment) may occur 

during implementation, but would likely end following implementation. Effects to reproduction 

are not expected because nest stands would not be treated. Both action alternatives would slightly 

increase the quality and quantity of bald eagle nesting, perching, and foraging habitats present in 

the wildlife analysis area. The action alternatives are consistent with the recovery plan for the 

Pacific bald eagle. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

TRPA Special Interest Species 3-253

Peregrine Falcon 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

All Alternatives 

There is no meaningful difference between alternatives in effects to peregrine falcons or their 

habitat. Dardanelles, Angora Peak, and South Maggie’s Peak are located more than 0.25 mile (the 

disturbance zone for this species) from treatment units for either action alternative and would not 

be affected by project implementation. Luther Rock is located approximately 0.25 mile from 

proposed treatments. Direct impacts to peregrine habitat would not occur and direct impacts to 

individual peregrines are unlikely given the distance and superior position of the cliffs relative to 

the proposed treatments. Indirect impacts to peregrines may include slight changes in patterns of 

habitat use by prey species, subtly changing peregrine foraging behavior, though overall prey 

abundance is not expected to be affected by project implementation. No cumulative effects to 

peregrine population sites or habitat within disturbance zones are expected. 

Waterfowl 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under the No Action alternative, disturbance-type effects to individual waterfowl would not 

occur in or adjacent to waterfowl threshold sites. Waterfowl habitat would not be improved and 

conifers would continue encroaching into meadows, particularly at Taylor and Tallac Marshes. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 

The four waterfowl threshold sites without treatments in or near them would not be affected by 

project implementation. At the seven sites with treatments adjacent to them, disturbance-type 

effects (e.g. flushing waterfowl from nearby wetlands) would occur to individual waterfowl, but 

not to habitat, during implementation. Impacts are most likely to occur at Taylor Creek and 

Baldwin Marsh where treatments would occur in either action alternative. Direct effects at these 

sites would likely include disturbance to individual waterfowl and their upland habitats during 

implementation. Habitat modification would generally include the removal of encroaching 

conifers from meadows. The indirect effect of these habitat modifications would be to benefit 

waterfowl as acres of suitable habitat are increased and sightlines to predators are improved. 

Reasonably foreseeable future projects that may cause cumulative effects include the restoration 

of Taylor and Tallac Marshes, also to the benefit of waterfowl and their habitats in the project 

area. No negative cumulative effects to waterfowl or waterfowl threshold sites are expected as the 

result of the incremental impact of the action alternatives when added to other past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable future actions because of the limited scope and expected impacts of the 

action alternatives. 

Mule Deer 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Disturbance-type effects to deer and their habitat would not occur under Alternative 1. Forested 

stands would continue to provide forage and cover for this species, although the risk of habitat 

loss from high intensity wildfire would continue to increase. Meadows and aspen stand habitat 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-254 Chapter 3 

quality would not increase and herbaceous and deciduous tree cover would not change to benefit 

mule deer. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 

Mule deer fawning habitat would be treated in both action alternatives. Alternative 2 would treat 

1,740 acres (21%) of the estimated fawning habitat, while Alternative 3 would treat 1,689 acres 

(20%) of this habitat. 

Disturbance-type effects (e.g. flushing individual deer or temporary changes in patterns of habitat 

use) would occur during implementation, except that deer are not generally in the area when oversnow operations take place. Project implementation in forested stands would adversely affect 

fawning habitat by reducing shrub and herbaceous cover and forage, but would increase sightlines 

to predators. These impacts would moderate over the lifetime of the treatments. Treatments in 

meadows and aspen stands would benefit fawning habitat by removing encroaching conifers, 

leading to increased herbaceous and deciduous cover and forage. Although more acres would be 

treated in forested stands, meadows are arguably more important to mule deer fawning. Treatment 

units would occur in the wildland urban interface (WUI), where manmade disturbance is common 

and this species rarely occurs; therefore, no cumulative effect to mule deer or their habitat is 

expected from implementation of either action alternative. The deer crossing at Highway 89 and 

Grass Lake would continue to function as a travel route for this species; disturbance would occur 

during implementation, but habitat fragmentation would not occur as adjacent, untreated habitats 

would provide temporary movement corridors. 

Analytical Conclusions 

This section provides summary of the environmental effects and significance for TRPA threshold 

habitats and special interest species. 

Threshold Standards and Indicators 

F-1 Lake Habitat 

The South Shore project has the potential to degrade fish habitat and substrate conditions. The 

potential for the project to degrade fish habitat will be mitigated by application of BMPs and 

design criteria found in Chapter 2 for system roads, new/existing temporary roads and 

new/existing landings. These BMPs and design criteria would conserve aquatic habitats in the 

project area. The potential for fine sediment to reach the lake is greater in Alternative 2 than 

Alternative 3 because Alternative 2 has more acres of mechanical treatment and uses more road 

miles. However, any increases in fine sediment would not be measurable under either of the 

action alternatives, and effects have been mitigated to a level below significance for both action 

alternatives. 

F-2 Stream Habitat 

The South Shore project has potential to impact stream habitat quality. The potential for the South 

Shore project to degrade fish habitat would be mitigated through application of BMPs and design 

criteria found in Chapter 2 for system roads, new/existing temporary roads and new/existing 

landings. These BMPs and design criteria would conserve aquatic habitats in the project area. 

Although reduction to stream shade may be detectable, any increases in stream temperature 

would not be measurable. Increases in fine sediment from project activities would also not be 

measurable. Current levels of in-channel LWD are not expected to decrease, and may increase 

where opportunities exist to place trees in streams to enhance fish habitat. Potential for negative 

effects have been mitigated to a level below significance for both action alternatives. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

TRPA Special Interest Species 3-255

F-3 In-stream Flow 

The South Shore project does not include new construction or maintenance of a water diversion, 

therefore there is no potential to affect in-stream flows. 

F-4 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout3 

LCT are known to occur in the Upper Truckee River above Christmas Valley at the upper limit of 

the South Shore project area. This Lahontan cutthroat trout population could be affected by the 

project if individual LCT migrate into the project area before implementation occurs. 

Both action alternatives decrease the amount of combustible fuels within Upper Truckee River 

RCAs/SEZs, which decreases the potential for future effects on LCT resulting from wildfire. 

Stream and watershed restoration efforts would also increase aquatic habitat quality for LCT 

(channel stability, pools, LWD and benthic productivity) over the long-term (> 5 years). The 

potential for negative effects has been mitigated to a level below significance for both action 

alternatives. 

W-1:Threshold Standard for Wildlife4

Disturbance zones for osprey, peregrine falcon, bald and golden eagle, waterfowl, and mule deer 

would apply as described in TRPA Code of Ordinances, Chapter 78. Northern goshawk 

disturbance zones would include each known nest site unless the nest tree is no longer standing, 

as determined by site visits, or is located within an urban zone, as determined by TRPA Plan Area 

Statement maps. Limited operating periods (LOPs) for goshawks would only be applied when 

necessary, as determined by the USFS project biologist, within PACs rather than throughout 

TRPA disturbance zones (i.e. within a 0.5 mile radius of a goshawk nest). Vegetation treatment 

prescriptions within goshawk disturbance zones meet the TRPA non-degradation standard. TRPA 

and LTBMU collaboratively derived resource protection measures have been incorporated into 

both action alternatives to meet TRPA threshold standards, and effects are mitigated to a level 

below significance for both action alternatives. 

W-2: Habitats of Special Significance 

Consistent with fuel reduction objectives, thinning of encroaching conifers would occur in order 

to maintain/reclaim wetland and meadow landscapes. Fuel reduction along riparian corridors 

would maintain sufficient tree structure in order to supply LWD recruitment to stream channels, 

maintain or increase stream shade characteristics, and potentially increase riparian vegetation as 

competition from conifers is reduced. Because non-degradation is the expected result, the South 

Shore project meets the W-2 Threshold Standard. 

 

3

Although the 1991 and 1996 Threshold Evaluations (TRPA 1991 and 1996) acknowledged a threshold 

policy standard for the reintroduction of Lahontan cutthroat trout, the Governing Board did not adopt it as 

an official threshold standard. In the Threshold Evaluation (TRPA 2002), they recommended that the 

TRPA Governing Board adopt the F-4 Threshold Standard and Indicator (TRPA 2002). 

 

4

 Under TRPA Code of Ordinances, Chapter 78-Wildlife Resources, the project biologist(s) must prepare 

appropriate documentation with specific recommendations for avoiding significant adverse impacts to the 

special interest, threatened, endangered or rare species (78.3.C). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-256 Chapter 3 

TRPA Special Interest Species 

Northern Goshawk 

The anticipated impacts of either action alternative are generally characterized as adversely 

affecting individual goshawks and a portion of the suitable habitat in the wildlife analysis area 

during and immediately following project implementation, followed by benefits to goshawks and 

their habitat in the wildlife analysis area as stands mature during the 15-year period following 

implementation. Alternative 3 is expected to be more beneficial than Alternative 2. There would 

be less risk to high quality territories in Alternative 3 because the Middle Saxon Creek and Lower 

Trout Creek B PACs and associated territories would not be treated. Survival and reproduction of 

goshawks within the wildlife analysis area would likely be greater for Alternative 3 than for 

Alternative 2 during and immediately following project implementation. Only six of 26 (23%) 

territories within the Lake Tahoe Basin and less than one percent of goshawk territories in the 

Sierra Nevada would be affected. Effects have been mitigated to less than significant for both 

action alternatives. 

Osprey 

The cumulative effect to habitat (i.e. disturbance zones) of either action alternative would be to 

cause disturbance above background levels during implementation, but benefit the quality and 

quantity of habitats, especially in the shore zones of the Taylor Creek and Tallac Creek 

watersheds. Improved habitat conditions in the disturbance zone following implementation 

compared to pre-treatment conditions in either action alternative would benefit population sites, 

because tree density would be reduced and tree health improved for the lifetime of the treatments. 

Long-term effects are beneficial for ospreys and their habitat. 

Bald Eagle 

Disturbance-type effects (e.g. individual bald eagles avoiding project equipment) may occur 

during implementation, but would likely end following implementation. Effects to reproduction 

are not expected because nest stands would not be treated. Both action alternatives would slightly 

increase the quality and quantity of bald eagle nesting, perching, and foraging habitats present in 

the wildlife analysis area. The action alternatives are consistent with the recovery plan for the 

Pacific bald eagle. 

Peregrine Falcon 

There is no meaningful difference between alternatives in effects to peregrine falcons or their 

habitat. Direct impacts to peregrine habitat would not occur and direct impacts to individual 

peregrines are unlikely given the distance and superior position of the cliffs relative to the 

proposed treatments. Indirect impacts to peregrines may include slight changes in patterns of 

habitat use by prey species, subtly changing peregrine foraging behavior, though overall prey 

abundance is not expected to be affected by project implementation. No significant effects to 

peregrine population sites or habitat within disturbance zones are expected. 

Waterfowl 

No significant effects to waterfowl or waterfowl threshold sites are expected as the result of the 

incremental impact of the action alternatives when added to other past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable future actions because of the limited scope and impacts of the action alternatives. 

Mule Deer 

Mule deer fawning habitat would be treated in both action alternatives; 21% in Alternative 2, and 

20% in Alternative 3. Disturbance-type effects would occur during implementation. Project 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

TRPA Special Interest Species 3-257

implementation in forested stands would reduce shrub and herbaceous cover and forage, but 

would increase sightlines to predators. Meadows are arguably more important to mule deer 

fawning, and treatments in meadows and aspen stands would benefit fawning habitat by removing 

encroaching conifers, leading to increased herbaceous and deciduous cover and forage. No 

cumulative effect to mule deer or their habitat is expected from implementation of either action 

alternative. The deer crossing at Highway 89 and Grass Lake would continue to function as a 

travel route because adjacent, untreated habitats would provide temporary movement corridors. 

Negative impacts are below the level of significance to mule deer or their habitats. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-258 Chapter 3 

Management Indicator Species 

Scope of the Analysis, Indicators, and Issues 

Management indicator species (MIS) are animal species identified in the Sierra Nevada Forest MIS 

Amendment Record of Decision signed December 14, 2007, which was developed under the 1982 

National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning Rule) (36 CFR 

219). Effects are required to be addressed at two spatial scales: (1) at project scale, analyze the effects of 

proposed projects on the habitat of each MIS potentially affected by the projects, and (2) at the 

bioregional scale, monitor populations and/or habitat trends of MIS. Management indicator species for the 

LTBMU are identified in the 2007 Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species (SNF MIS) 

Amendment (USDA FS 2007). Detailed information on the MIS is documented in the SNF Bioregional 

MIS Report (USDA FS 2008), which is hereby incorporated by reference. 

The South Shore project area is defined as the area where vegetation treatments would occur under the 

action alternatives. The South Shore project analysis area includes the project area and the associated 

seventh field hydrologic unit code (HUC7) watersheds. The South Shore project wildlife analysis area is 

spatially defined as the analysis area, plus the Echo Lake, California spotted owl PAC and home range 

core area (HRCA) and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency bald eagle winter habitat mapped between 

Emerald Bay and Taylor Creek, California. The wildlife analysis area is temporally defined to extend 15 

years before and after the present; in correlation with the estimated longevity of the majority of forest 

vegetation treatments. 

Project-level effects to habitat are related to broader bioregional scale population and/or habitat trends. 

The approach for relating project-level impacts to broader scale trends is identified for MIS in the SNF 

MIS Amendment. Where distribution population monitoring for an MIS exists at the bioregional scale, 

the project-level habitat effects analysis for that MIS is informed by the distribution population 

monitoring data gathered at the bioregional scale. The bioregional scale monitoring for MIS analyzed for 

the South Shore project is summarized below. 

Analysis of South Shore project effects to MIS involves the following steps: 

1. Identify which habitats and associated MIS would be either directly or indirectly affected by 

project alternatives; these MIS are potentially affected by the project. 

2. Analyze project-level effects on MIS habitat for this subset of MIS. 

3. Summarize the bioregional-level monitoring for this subset of MIS. 

4. Discuss bioregional scale habitat and/or population trends for this subset of MIS. 

5. Relate project-level impacts on MIS habitat to habitat and/or population trends at the bioregional 

scale for this subset of MIS. 

Habitats are the vegetation types (for example, early seral coniferous forest) or ecosystem components 

(for example, snags in green forest) required by an MIS for breeding, cover, and/or feeding. MIS for the 

Sierra Nevada national forests represent 10 major habitats and 2 ecosystem components (USDA FS 

2007a), as listed in Table 3-90. These habitats are defined using the California wildlife habitat 

relationship (CWHR) system (CDFG 2005). 

Habitat status is the current amount of habitat on the Sierra Nevada forests. Habitat trend is the direction 

of change in the amount or quality of habitat over time. The methodology for assessing habitat status and 

trend is described in detail in the SNF bioregional MIS report (USDA FS 2008). 

MIS are classified into 3 categories for effects analysis. Category 1 MIS habitats are not in or adjacent to 

the project wildlife analysis area and would not be affected by the project. Category 2 MIS habitats are in 

or adjacent to project wildlife analysis area, but would not be directly or indirectly affected by the project. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-259

Category 3 MIS habitat has the potential to be either directly or indirectly affected by the project. There 

are thirteen MIS with the potential to be affected by activities in the South Shore project action 

alternatives. The MIS whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the South Shore 

project are analyzed to evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and 

alternatives on the habitat of these MIS. The habitats, ecosystem components, and associated MIS 

analyzed for the South Shore project are listed in Table 3-90. 

Table 3-90. MIS for project-level habitat analysis 

Habitat or 

Ecosystem 

Component 

CWHR Types 

defining the habitat or ecosystem 

component1

Sierra Nevada forests 

MIS 

Riverine and 

Lacustrine lacustrine (LAC) and riverine (RIV) Aquatic macroinvertebrates 

Riparian montane riparian (MRI), 

valley foothill riparian (VRI) 

yellow warbler 

(Dendroica petechia) 

Wet meadow Wet meadow (WTM), 

freshwater emergent wetland (FEW) 

Pacific tree frog 

(Pseudacris regilla) 

Early seral coniferous 

forest 

ponderosa pine (PPN), 

Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), 

white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), 

eastside pine (EPN), 

tree sizes 1, 2, and 3, all canopy 

closures 

Mountain quail 

(Oreortyx pictus) 

Mid-seral coniferous 

forest 

ponderosa pine (PPN), 

Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), 

white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), 

eastside pine (EPN), 

tree size 4, all canopy closures 

Mountain quail 

(Oreortyx pictus) 

Late seral open 

canopy coniferous 

forest 

ponderosa pine (PPN), 

Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), 

white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), 

eastside pine (EPN), 

tree size 5, canopy closures S and P 

Sooty (blue) grouse 

(Dendragapus obscurus) 

Late seral 

closed canopy 

coniferous forest 

ponderosa pine (PPN), 

Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), 

white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), 

tree size 5 (canopy closures M and D), 

and 

tree size 6. 

California spotted owl 

(Strix occidentalis 

occidentalis) 

American marten 

(Martes americana) 

northern flying squirrel 

(Glaucomys sabrinus) 

Snags in green forest Medium and large snags in green 

forest 

hairy woodpecker 

(Picoides villosus) 

Snags in burned 

forest 

Medium and large snags in burned 

forest (stand-replacing fire) 

black-backed woodpecker 

(Picoides arcticus) 

1

 All CWHR size classes and canopy closures are included unless otherwise specified. 

tree size classes: 1 (seedling: <1" dbh); 2 (sapling: 1"-5.9" dbh); 3 (pole: 6"-10.9" dbh); 4 

(small tree: 11"-23.9" dbh); 5 (medium/large tree: >24" dbh); 6 (multi-layered tree) [In PPN and 

SMC] 

canopy closure classifications: S=Sparse cover (10-24% canopy closure); P= Open cover 

(25-39% canopy closure); M= Moderate cover (40-59% canopy closure); D= Dense cover (60-

100% canopy closure); (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). 

The habitat and/or population monitoring results described in the SNF bioregional MIS report (USDA FS 

2008) are summarized below for the MIS analyzed for the South Shore project. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-260 Chapter 3 

Bioregional monitoring for aquatic macroinvertebrates: Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) and habitat 

condition and trend are measured by collecting aquatic macroinvertebrates, and analyzing the resulting 

data using the River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System (RIVPACS) (Hawkins 2003) to 

determine whether the macroinvertebrate community has been impaired relative to reference condition 

within perennial water bodies. In addition, stream habitat features are measured according to the stream 

condition inventory (SCI) manual (Frasier et al 2005). 

Population monitoring at the bioregional scale for yellow warbler, Pacific tree frog, mountain quail, blue 

grouse, California spotted owl, American marten, northern flying squirrel, hairy woodpecker, and blackbacked woodpecker is distribution population monitoring. Distribution population monitoring consists of 

collecting presence data for the MIS across a number of sample locations over time. 

Existing Conditions and Effects of the Alternatives on the Habitat for 

the Selected Project-Level MIS 

The following section discloses the project scale analysis for the following Category 3 species: aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, yellow warbler, Pacific tree frog, mountain quail, sooty (blue) grouse, California 

spotted owl, American marten, northern flying squirrel, hairy woodpecker, and black-backed woodpecker. 

For clarity and readability, the discussion is organized by MIS habitat with the discussion of indicator 

species included in each habitat. MIS habitat discussion begins with existing conditions, followed by 

direct and indirect effects of the alternatives, and ending with cumulative effects. The action alternatives 

are discussed together for ease of comparison and to reduce redundant text. A discussion of the 

relationship between project-level effects and bioregional status and trend is also included. 

 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-261

Table 3-91. Selection of MIS for Project-Level Habitat Analysis for the South Shore Project 

Habitat or Ecosystem 

Component 

CWHR Type(s) defining the 

habitat or ecosystem 

component1

Sierra Nevada Forests 

Management Indicator 

Species 

Scientific Name

Category 

for 

Project 

Analysis 2

Riverine & Lacustrine lacustrine (LAC) and riverine 

(RIV) 

aquatic 

macroinvertebrates 3 

Riparian montane riparian (MRI), valley 

foothill riparian (VRI) 

yellow warbler 

Dendroica petechia

3 

Wet Meadow Wet meadow (WTM), 

freshwater emergent wetland 

(FEW) 

Pacific tree (chorus) frog 

(Pseudacris regilla) 3 

Early Seral Coniferous 

Forest 

ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran 

mixed conifer (SMC), white fir 

(WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside 

pine (EPN), tree sizes 1, 2, and 

3, all canopy closures 

Mountain quail 

(Oreortyx pictus) 3 

Mid Seral Coniferous Forest ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran 

mixed conifer (SMC), white fir 

(WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside 

pine (EPN), tree size 4, all 

canopy closures 

Mountain quail 

(Oreortyx pictus) 3 

Late Seral Open Canopy 

Coniferous Forest 

ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran 

mixed conifer (SMC), white fir 

(WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside 

pine (EPN), tree size 5, canopy 

closures S and P 

Sooty (blue) grouse 

(Dendragapus obscures) 3 

Late Seral Closed Canopy 

Coniferous Forest 

ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran 

mixed conifer (SMC), white fir 

(WFR), red fir (RFR), tree size 

5 (canopy closures M and D), 

and tree size 6. 

California spotted owl 

Strix occidentalis 

occidentalis

American marten 3 

(Martes Americana)

northern flying squirrel 

(Glaucomys sabrinus)

Snags in Green Forest Medium and large snags in 

green forest 

hairy woodpecker 

(Picoides villosus)

3 

Snags in Burned Forest Medium and large snags in 

burned forest (stand-replacing 

fire) 

black-backed 

woodpecker (Picoides 

arcticus)

3 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-262 Chapter 3 

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat (Aquatic Macroinvertebrates) 

Habitat/species relationship 

Aquatic or benthic macroinvertebrates (BMI) were selected as the MIS for riverine and lacustrine habitat 

in the Sierra Nevada. They have been demonstrated to be very useful as indicators of water quality and 

aquatic habitat condition (Resh and Price 1984; Karr et al 1986; Hughes and Larsen 1987; Resh and 

Rosenberg 1989). They are sensitive to changes in water chemistry, temperature, and physical habitat. 

Habitat factors for the analysis 

Aquatic factors of particular importance are: 

 Flow 

 Sedimentation 

 Water surface shade. 

Existing Conditions 

An estimated 225 miles of streams and 2,665 acres of lacustrine habitats exist within the wildlife analysis 

area. 

Flow: Tributaries in the South Shore wildlife analysis area exhibit a snowmelt hydrograph intermixed 

with occasional rainfall events. The range of flows associated with a complete yield cycle correlate to the 

amount and type of precipitation. Other localized factors influencing base flows include ground water 

recharge zones (e.g. springs), solar input and upland/riparian vegetation. Urbanization and forest 

management (roads, grazing, fire suppression, etc.) have also influenced the duration and magnitude for 

flows from peak runoff to base flow. Channel incision has occurred from vegetative instability resulting 

in increased concentration of velocities (or stream power) where floodplains have been disconnected. 

Sedimentation: Factors influencing sedimentation in the South Shore wildlife analysis area include 

channel condition (vertical and lateral stability), roads and associated road crossings, livestock grazing, 

urbanization and past wildfires. There are streams in the project area, which have undergone vertical and 

lateral adjustment (e.g. channel incision resulting from head-cutting) and currently exhibit bank erosion. 

Lower reaches of Angora Creek and Trout Creek exhibit positive attributes of channel stability 

(width/depth ratio, floodplain connectivity and density of riparian vegetation). 

Water surface shade: Throughout the South Shore wildlife analysis area, the amount of stream shade is 

influenced by riparian shrubs, conifers, channel-spanning coarse woody debris, topographic features and 

channel morphology. Perennial streams with connected floodplains generally tend to have higher amounts 

of surface shade created by vegetation due to favorable growing conditions in the valley bottom. Since the 

1930s the amount of stream shade generated by vegetation has been affected by land use practices (e.g. 

livestock grazing and logging). Contemporary levels of shade are influenced by current land uses (e.g. 

urbanization), geomorphology and ecological interactions (e.g. insect and disease outbreaks in adjacent 

conifer stands). 

Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Flow: No direct or indirect effects would occur from this alternative to flow within lacustrine/riverine 

habitats. Consequences of taking no action include continued conifer encroachment adjacent to streams 

and accretion of woody debris in and over stream channels, resulting in reduced flow and channel 

capacity, especially during periods of peak run-off, and increased potential for over-bank flows. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-263

Sedimentation: No direct or indirect effects would occur from this alternative to sedimentation within 

lacustrine/riverine habitats. Consequences of taking no action include continued conifer encroachment 

adjacent to streams and accretion of woody debris in and over stream channels, resulting in alterations to 

stream geomorphology, including increased localized erosion and aggradation of sediments in low stream 

energy zones. 

Water surface shade: No direct or indirect effects would occur from this alternative to water surface shade 

within lacustrine/riverine habitats. Consequences of taking no action include continued conifer 

encroachment adjacent to streams, accretion of woody debris in and over stream channels, and a loss of 

live streamside deciduous vegetation resulting in a net increase in stream shading. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 

An estimated 21 miles of streams and 9 acres of lacustrine habitats are located within proposed treatment 

boundaries in Alternative 2. An estimated 20 miles of streams and 4 acres of lacustrine habitats are 

located within proposed treatment boundaries in Alternative 3. 

Flow: By decreasing live conifer densities across the South Shore landscape, the duration of higher base 

flow conditions could potentially be extended into the late summer/fall months for both action 

alternatives. . However, under Alternative 3, the effect of higher base flow yield may be comparatively 

less because a number of mechanical treatment units were converted to hand thinning units under 

Alternative 3. The conversion to hand thinning units would decrease the amount of large tree removal, 

which typically uptake more available water. Soil compaction or displacement would not be expected to 

occur at levels resulting in a measurable increase in the magnitude of peak flows within most HUC7 

watersheds under either action alternative. No negative effects are expected to natural ground water 

recharge zones (e.g. springs) that provide sources of flow to streams, because they would not be disturbed 

during implementation. 

Sedimentation: The highest risk of sediment generation would result from mechanical treatments located 

in RCAs where reconstruction and/or construction of temporary roads and landings are needed to stage 

equipment and material. Under Alternative 2 there would be an average of 1.44% of temporary road 

density in RCAs, and Alternative 3 there would have an average of 1.59% of temporary road density in 

RCAs. Both action alternatives would result in 29 temporary road crossings throughout the project area. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would decrease the potential for sediment delivery to streams by utilizing road BMPs 

designed to decrease the potential for sediment delivery to streams. 

Most streams within the South Shore wildlife analysis area mobilize fine particle sizes by nature during 

various stages of discharge. These particle sizes are a product of local geology and channel geometric 

relationships (i.e. width, depth, and slope). Potential sediment generated from temporary roads and/or 

landings could result in a decrease of quality spawning sites for fish where small gravels occur, but would 

not be measurable under either action alternative due to implementation of road BMPs. The highest 

potential for sediment effects resulting from mechanical treatment in SEZs would occur in Trout Creek, 

Grass Lake Creek, Taylor Creek and Tallac Creek. The needed temporary road crossings would not be 

likely to produce sedimentation because they occur mostly over ephemeral tributaries and would be 

constructed and removed when ephemeral channels are dry. 

Water surface shade: Immediate effects to stream shade and the future recruitment of LWD would result 

from fuels treatments within SEZs to achieve less than 150 ft2 basal area per acre. The potential for 

stream shade reduction as a result of fuel treatments would be less than that for Alternative 2 due to 

additional design criteria for stream buffers. Although stream shade within SEZs could be reduced over 

the short-term (< 5 years) it is expected that canopy structure and foliage would become more robust with 

the release of larger healthier trees, while riparian shrubs would increase in size and density as sunlight 

becomes more available under both action alternatives. It is not expected that there would be a 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-264 Chapter 3 

measurable increase in stream temperatures as a result of mechanical and/or hand thinning activities in 

SEZs for either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

There are no cumulative effects of the No Action alternative, because there are no direct or indirect 

effects of the No Action alternative. No changes to lacustrine/riverine habitats will occur as a result of the 

No Action alternative; therefore the No Action alternative will not alter the existing trend in the habitat. 

The recent Angora Fire provides an example of the effects that could be expected under the no action 

alternative if wildfire occurs. The Angora Fire resulted in mostly high burn severities along the Angora 

Creek SEZ and affected stream shade, fine sediment input and local fish populations. Recent observations 

indicate that riparian vegetation is recovering; however, recovery potential is limited due to the incised 

condition of the channel. It is expected that future riparian/wetland restoration projects will increase the 

rate of recovery for aquatic habitat within the Angora Creek watershed. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 

The potential for undesired channel adjustments resulting from increased peak flows in Taylor and Tallac 

Creeks would be reduced under Alternative 3 as compared to Alternative 2 due to a combination of 

.changes in fuel treatment methods and scheduling adjustments. 

Past activities within the South Shore wildlife analysis area which have directly affected aquatic habitat 

include: stream restoration on Angora Creek and Trout Creek, wetland restoration on the Upper Truckee 

River, and erosion control measures for storm water runoff on state, county and municipal properties. 

Stream restoration projects have increased the quality of aquatic habitat in the South Shore wildlife 

analysis area. Erosion control projects have attempted to decrease the amount of fine sediment generated 

from developed lands. Urban lot fuel reduction on Forest Service and California Tahoe Conservancy 

lands has also occurred. Fuel management on urban lots has not created any measurable amounts of fine 

sediment input into streams. Larger, healthier trees are usually retained in the urban lots and have 

contributed to maintenance of stream shade where lots occur adjacent to perennial streams. 

By decreasing the amount of combustible fuels within RCAs the potential for future effects on aquatic 

habitats resulting from wildfire would decrease within the South Shore project area under both action 

alternatives. 

Stream and watershed restoration efforts that are not part of the South Shore project continue to move 

aquatic habitat toward desired conditions within the South Shore project area and contribute to positive 

cumulative effects. .Stream and watershed restoration efforts are also expected to occur in the Upper 

Truckee River, Cold Creek Angora Creek and Big Meadow Creek and increase aquatic habitat quality 

(channel stability, pools and LWD) over the long-term (> 5 years). 

Alternative 3 would decrease the watershed level risks of potential peak flow adjustments as a result of 

fewer temporary roads compared to Alternative 2. Cumulative changes in flow resulting from South 

Shore project conifer removal may be measurable only where long-term stage recorders have been in 

place prior to implementation and recording data immediately adjacent to treatment units. However, 

changes in flow at most locations would not be measurable under either action alternative. The level of 

potential sedimentation would be dependent on precipitation events (during and after implementation) and 

the effectiveness of BMPs and design criteria. Although both alternatives propose fuel reduction in SEZs 

and decreases in stream shade would likely be detectable, any effects to stream temperature would not be 

measurable for either action alternative. The cumulative effect of the South Shore project fuel reduction 

together with continued stream restoration efforts would move degraded aquatic habitats toward desired 

conditions. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-265

Summary of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale 

The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires 

bioregional-scale Index of Biological Integrity and Habitat monitoring for aquatic macroinvertebrates; 

hence, the lacustrine and riverine effects analysis for the South Shore Project must be informed by these 

monitoring data. The sections below summarize the Biological Integrity and Habitat status and trend data 

for aquatic macroinvertebrates. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and 

population trends in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA FS 2010a), which is 

hereby incorporated by reference. 

Habitat and index of biological integrity status and trend 

Aquatic habitat has been assessed using Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) data collected since 1994 

(Frasier et al. 2005) and habitat status information from the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) 

(Moyle and Randall 1996). Moyle and Randall (1996) developed a watershed index of biotic integrity 

(IBI) based on distributions and abundance of native fish and amphibian species, as well as extent of 

roads and water diversions. According to this analysis, seven percent of the watersheds were in excellent 

condition, 36 percent were in good condition, 47 percent were in fair condition and nine percent were in 

poor condition. 

Sierra Nevada MIS monitoring for aquatic (benthic) macroinvertebrates (BMI) was conducted in 2009 

and 2010 (Furnish 2010). Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected from stream sites during both the 

2009 and 2010 field seasons according to the Reachwide Benthos (Multihabitat) Procedure (Ode 2007). 

The initial BMI data from 2009 and 2010 found 46% (6 of 13) of the surveyed streams indicate an 

impaired condition and 54% (7 of 13) indicate a non-impaired condition (see USDA FS 2010a, Table 

BMI-1). This is similar to the IBI conditions estimated by Moyle and Randall (1996). Therefore, current 

data from the Sierra Nevada indicate that status and trend in the RIVPACS scores appears to be stable. 

Relationship of project-level habitat impacts to bioregional-scale aquatic 

macroinvertebrates habitat trend 

Changes in flow, sedimentation, and water surface shading as a result of the action alternatives are not 

likely to impact a substantial amount of existing riverine and lacustrine habitat within the Sierra Nevada. 

Therefore, the effects of the South Shore project will not alter the existing stable trend in the habitat for 

aquatic macroinvertebrates across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

Riparian Habitat (Yellow warbler) 

Habitat/species relationship 

The yellow warbler was selected as the MIS for riparian habitat in the Sierra Nevada. This species is 

usually found in riparian deciduous habitats in summer (cottonwoods, willows, alders, and other small 

trees and shrubs typical of low, open-canopy riparian woodland) (CDFG 2005). Yellow warbler is 

dependent on both meadow and non-meadow riparian habitat in the Sierra Nevada (Siegel and DeSante 

1999). 

Habitat factors for the analysis 

 Acres of riparian habitat (CWHR montane riparian (MRI) and valley foothill riparian (VRI)). 

 Acres with changes in deciduous canopy cover (Sparse=10-24%; Open=25-39%; Moderate=40-

59%; Dense=60-100%) 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-266 Chapter 3 

 Acres with changes in total canopy cover (Sparse=10-24%; Open=25-39%; Moderate=40-59%; 

Dense=60-100%) 

 Acres with changes in CWHR size class [1/2 (Seedling/Sapling: <6" dbh); 3 (Pole: 6"-10.9" dbh); 

4 (Small tree: 11"-23.9" dbh); and 5 (Medium/Large tree: >24" dbh)]. 

Existing Conditions 

Acres of riparian habitat: A total of 3,658 acres of riparian habitat exists within the wildlife analysis area. 

Riparian habitat, as defined for this analysis, consists of deciduous riparian and mixed 

deciduous/coniferous riparian habitats. Nearly half (45%) of the riparian habitat within the wildlife 

analysis area consists of overly dense conifer encroached riparian habitat (e.g. mixed 

deciduous/coniferous). 

Deciduous canopy cover: According to available riparian vegetation GIS data layers for the Lake Tahoe 

Basin, riparian habitat dominated by deciduous canopy cover covers approximately 55% of riparian 

habitat within the wildlife analysis area; approximately 2,014 acres. This is likely an overestimate of 

current deciduous dominated riparian habitat within the wildlife analysis area, as the data used to generate 

the GIS layer is approximately 20 years old, and since this time fire suppression and lack of vegetation 

treatments in riparian areas have only further progressed conifer encroachment in riparian habitats in the 

Lake Tahoe Basin. The only exception to this within the wildlife analysis area is within areas recently 

burned by wildfire (e.g. Angora Fire, Showers Fire, etc). Riparian habitat within recent fire area 

perimeters is generally dominated by deciduous canopy cover due to the removal of most encroaching 

conifers by the wildfire and rapid recovery of deciduous vegetation. However, outside of recent wildfire 

boundaries, deciduous cover likely dominates the overstory of riparian habitat in < 55% of the wildlife 

analysis area. 

Total canopy cover: Canopy cover in riparian habitats within the wildlife analysis area is predominately 

moderate; approximately 35% of riparian habitat contains canopy cover between 40-59%. Only 14 to 

17% of the riparian habitat in the wildlife analysis area is in each of the remaining 3 canopy cover classes: 

sparse (10-24%), open (25-39%), and dense (60-100%). Approximately 17% of riparian habitat in the 

wildlife analysis area has a canopy cover of < 10%. 

CWHR size class: Riparian habitat in the wildlife analysis area is dominated by size class 4 (11-24 in 

dbh); approximately 70% of riparian habitat is in this size class. Less than 2% of riparian habitat is in size 

class 5, 4% is in size class 3 and 24% of riparian habitat in the wildlife analysis area is smaller than size 

class 3. 

Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Acres of riparian habitat: No riparian habitat would be treated under this alternative. No direct or indirect 

effects would occur from this alternative to acres of riparian habitat. Consequences of taking no action 

include continued conifer encroachment into riparian habitat, and possible eventual loss of some 

deciduous riparian habitat, especially aspen. 

Acres of riparian habitat with changes in deciduous canopy cover: No direct or indirect effects would 

occur from this alternative to deciduous canopy cover within riparian habitat. Consequences of taking no 

action include continued conifer encroachment and concomitant declines in deciduous canopy cover over 

time. 

Acres of riparian habitat with changes in total canopy cover: No direct or indirect effects would occur 

from this alternative to total canopy cover within riparian habitat. Consequences of taking no action 

include continued conversion of deciduous habitats to conifer habitat types. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-267

Acres of riparian habitat with changes in CWHR size class: No direct or indirect effects would occur from 

this alternative to CWHR size classes within riparian habitat. Consequences of taking no action include 

continued conifer encroachment and increases in conifer CWHR size classes over time. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 

Acres of riparian habitat: The number of acres of riparian habitat present would not be expected to 

increase or decrease due to implementation of Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. However, a total of 496 

acres of riparian habitat would be affected, primarily enhanced, by Alternative 2, equivalent to 

approximately 14% of the riparian habitat present in the wildlife analysis area. By comparison, a total of 

466 acres (approximately 13% of riparian habitat in the wildlife analysis area) would be affected and 

generally improved by Alternative 3. Direct and indirect effects to riparian habitat include a reduction in 

understory conifer cover in 496 acres of riparian habitat proposed for treatment under Alternative 2, and 

466 acres in Alternative 3. All treatment prescriptions (hand or mechanical) would reduce understory 

conifer cover. Overstory conifer cover would be reduced on 240 acres (7% of riparian habitat) in 

Alternative 2 and 176 acres (5%) in Alternative 3 where mechanical treatments would occur. Treatments 

would be expected to improve the overall condition of riparian habitats in the project area by reducing 

competition from encroaching conifer to deciduous vegetation in both the understory and overstory. 

Acres of riparian habitat with changes in deciduous canopy cover: Understory and overstory deciduous 

canopy cover would be expected to increase within riparian habitat treated under both action alternatives. 

These acres would be expected to show increases in understory deciduous canopy cover due to the 

reduction of understory conifer in all treatments. As indicated above, 240 acres in Alternative 2 and 176 

acres in Alternative 3 may also show increases in overstory deciduous canopy cover due to mechanical 

treatments. 

Acres of riparian habitat with changes in total canopy cover: Total overstory canopy cover in riparian 

habitats in the project area would be expected to change in areas proposed for mechanical treatments in 

riparian habitats. A reduction in total canopy cover by at least one size class due to conifer removal is 

expected on 240 acres (7%) of riparian habitat in Alternative 2, and 176 acres (5%) in Alternative 3. 

Reduction of conifer in the overstory canopy would be likely to show a short term reduction in total 

canopy cover of conifer, and a long term increase in total canopy cover of deciduous species. 

Acres of riparian habitat with changes in CWHR size class: Both hand and mechanical treatments are 

designed to treat from the “bottom up”, meaning that they emphasize removal of smaller tree size classes; 

therefore, size class distributions overall are expected to increase on the acres treated following 

implementation of either action alternative. Approximately 36% of the SEZ (including both riparian and 

meadow habitat) acres treated under Alternative 2 and 30% of SEZ acres treated in Alternative 3 would 

be expected to increase by at least one CWHR size class (e.g. 4 to 5) based on results of a pre-post 

treatment modeling effort. Changes to riparian habitat within the wildlife analysis area would be 

approximately 4%. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

There are no cumulative effects of the No Action alternative, because there are no direct or indirect 

effects of the No Action alternative. 

No changes to riparian habitats will occur as a result of the No Action alternative; therefore the No Action 

alternative will not alter the existing trend in the habitat. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 

A complete listing of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions affecting all special status 

species habitats, including MIS habitat, as well as a description of the cumulative effects analysis area 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-268 Chapter 3 

boundary is provided in the project BE/BA in the project file. Projects affecting MIS riparian habitat 

include: engineering projects for which trails/roads or other infrastructure overlapping SEZs and riparian 

habitat were constructed, decommissioned or re-routed out of the SEZ; stream restoration projects in 

which floodplains were reconnected to the stream or streamside revegetation occurred; and vegetation 

management projects in which treatments were conducted at least partially in riparian habitat. Impacts of 

these projects, in addition to either of the action alternatives of the South Shore project, are positive 

overall for riparian habitats. Impacts of relevant engineering projects on riparian habitat include: reduced 

human disturbance to riparian areas through re-routing and decommissioning roads and trails away from 

riparian areas, and increased area of functional riparian habitat by decommissioning roads and trails in 

riparian habitat. Impacts of stream restoration projects include increased riparian deciduous vegetation 

cover and structure primarily due to increased stream-floodplain connectivity which increases streamside 

water availability. In some cases, direct planting of riparian vegetation increased riparian deciduous 

vegetation cover and structure. Lastly, effects of vegetation management projects, including both action 

alternatives, in riparian habitats primarily involve the direct removal of encroaching conifer and downed 

wood from riparian areas. This generally reduces total canopy cover, increases light availability to the 

understory, and indirectly enhances both the deciduous canopy cover and herbaceous ground cover. In 

summary, the cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the 

wildlife analysis area combined with either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 are: approximately 10 acres of 

riparian habitat with reduced disturbance due to engineering projects, ~100 acres riparian habitat restored 

or otherwise enhanced by stream restoration projects. Increased deciduous and herbaceous cover resulting 

from vegetation treatments in the project wildlife analysis area would be expected on~750 acres for 

Alternative 2 and ~720 acres for Alternative 3.. 

There are approximately 29,000 acres of riparian habitat throughout the Sierra Nevada bioregion. The 

cumulative effects to riparian habitat as a result of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

projects combined with Alternative 2 would provide enhancement of ~860 acres (~3%) of riparian habitat 

throughout the Sierra Nevada bioregion. Of the 860 acres of habitat enhancement within the wildlife 

analysis area, Alternative 2 contributes 496 acres (58%). The cumulative effects to riparian habitat as a 

result of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects combined with Alternative 3 would 

provide enhancement of ~830 acres (~2.8%) of riparian habitat throughout the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

Of the 830 acres of habitat enhancement within the wildlife analysis area, Alternative 3 contributes 466 

acres (56%). The cumulative enhancement of either action alternative to riparian habitat in the Sierra 

Nevada bioregion will not alter the existing trend in riparian habitat. 

Summary of Yellow Warbler Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale 

The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires 

bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the yellow warbler; hence, the 

riparian habitat effects analysis for the South Shore project must be informed by both habitat and 

distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution 

population status and trend data for the yellow warbler. This information is drawn from the detailed 

information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA FS 2010a, 

which is hereby incorporated by reference. 

Habitat status and trend 

There are currently 38,140 acres of riparian habitat on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. 

Over the last two decades, the trend is stable. 

Population status and trend 

Monitoring of the yellow warbler across the ten National Forests in the Sierra Nevada has been conducted 

since 2009 in partnership with PRBO Conservation Science, as part of a monitoring effort that also 

includes mountain quail, hairy woodpecker, and fox sparrow (USDA FS 2010a, 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-269

http://data.prbo.org/partners/usfs/snmis/). Yellow warblers were detected on 13.7% of 160 riparian point 

counts in 2009 and 19.4% of 397 riparian point counts in 2010; additional detections were documented on 

upland point counts. The average abundance (number of individuals recorded on riparian passive point 

count surveys) was 0.166 in 2009 and 0.309 in 2010. In addition, the yellow warblers continue to be 

monitored and surveyed in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by avian point count, spot 

mapping, mist-net, and breeding bird survey protocols. These are summarized in the 2008 Bioregional 

Monitoring Report (USDA FS 2008). Current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales 

indicate that the distribution of yellow warbler populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable. Relationship of 

project-level habitat impacts to bioregional-scale yellow warbler trend 

The change in deciduous canopy closure of 466-496 acres, the change in total canopy cover of 176-240 

acres, and the change in CWHR size class of 140-179 acres (for alternatives 3 and 2, respectively) out of 

a total of 3,658 acres of riparian habitat in the wildlife analysis area, and 29,000 acres in the Sierra 

Nevada bioregion, will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the 

distribution of yellow warblers across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

Wet Meadow Habitat (Pacific tree [chorus] frog) 

Habitat/species relationship 

The Pacific tree frog was selected as an MIS for wet meadow habitat in the Sierra Nevada. This broadly 

distributed species requires standing water for breeding; tadpoles require standing water for periods long 

enough to complete aquatic development, which can be as long as three or more months at high elevations 

in the Sierra Nevada (CDFG 2005). During the day during the breeding season, adults take cover under 

clumps of vegetation and surface objects near water; during the remainder of the year, they leave their 

breeding sites and seek cover in moist niches in buildings, wells, rotting logs or burrows (Ibid). 

Habitat factors for the project-level effects analysis 

 Acres of wet meadow habitat [CWHR wet meadow (WTM) and freshwater emergent wetland 

(FEW)]. 

 Acres with changes in CWHR herbaceous height classes [short herb (<12”), tall herb (>12”)]. 

 Acres with changes in CWHR herbaceous ground cover classes (Sparse=2-9%; Open=10-39%; 

Moderate=40-59%; Dense=60-100%). 

 Changes in meadow hydrology. 

Existing Conditions 

Acres of wet meadow habitat: There are an estimated 1,283 acres of wet meadow habitats located within 

the wildlife analysis area. Wet meadow habitats are generally found in shore zone marshes (Taylor-Tallac 

and Upper Truckee complexes), at Washoe Meadows and Osgood Swamp, and along Trout Creek, 

Angora Creek, Saxon Creek, and the Upper Truckee River. 

Acres with changes in CWHR herbaceous height classes: As data regarding changes in herbaceous height 

classes are not available, this analysis will discuss this habitat factor qualitatively and in general 

quantitative terms (i.e. increases and decreases). The wet meadow habitats (1,283 acres) in the wildlife 

analysis area are composed of a heterogeneous distribution of tall and short herb height classes. 

Acres with changes in CWHR herbaceous ground cover classes: As data regarding changes in herbaceous 

height classes are not available, this analysis will discuss this habitat factor qualitatively and in general 

quantitative terms (i.e. increases and decreases). The wet meadow habitats (1,283 acres) in the wildlife 

analysis area are composed of a heterogeneous distribution of tall and short herb cover classes. 

Changes in meadow hydrology: Wet meadows systems along the fringes of Lake Tahoe shore zones were 

historically influenced by lake level and channel function. Meadows in the shore zone interface have 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-270 Chapter 3 

undergone modifications due to dredging of the Tahoe Keys, road building, community development 

(housing, creation of public utility systems, etc.) and channelization. Stream restoration has occurred in 

Washoe Meadows and Trout Creek and restored wet meadow function. Other modifications have 

occurred to associated meadow channels in Upper Truckee River and Saxon and Angora Creeks, which 

have converted meadows to drier sites and made them susceptible to conifer encroachment. 

Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Acres of wet meadow habitat: No wet meadow habitat would be treated under this alternative. No direct 

or indirect effects would occur from this alternative to acres of wet meadow habitat. Consequences of 

taking no action include continued conifer encroachment and reduced available subsurface water. 

Acres with changes in CWHR herbaceous height classes: No direct or indirect effects would occur from 

this alternative to herbaceous vegetation within wet meadow habitats. 

Acres with changes in CWHR herbaceous ground cover classes: No direct or indirect effects would occur 

from this alternative to herbaceous vegetation within wet meadow habitats. 

Changes in meadow hydrology: No direct or indirect effects would occur from this alternative to meadow 

hydrology within wet meadow habitats. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 

Acres of wet meadow habitat: One of the objectives of the South Shore project is to remove encroaching 

conifers from the edges of meadow landscapes consistent with fuel reduction goals. As displayed in Table 

3-92, Alternative 2 would increase the amount of wet meadow landscapes by approximately 115 acres, 

and Alternative 3 would increase the amount of wet meadow landscapes by approximately 99 acres. 

Removal of encroaching conifers along meadow margins would be expected to increase the amount of 

available water throughout these landscapes, except where channels are incised and water tables are 

below their natural levels. 

Acres with changes in CWHR herbaceous height classes: The distribution of tall and short herb height 

classes in wet meadows would be affected by changes in local water tables caused by the vegetation 

removal in both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. Species adapted to drier conditions would move slightly 

upslope and those adapted to wetter soil conditions would colonize or expand into lower areas. Ground 

cover suitable for Pacific tree frog in wet meadows would be expected to increase shortly after 

implementation and likely persist for the duration of the longevity of the treatments (15-20 years). 

Acres with changes in CWHR herbaceous ground cover classes: Herbaceous ground cover in wet 

meadows would increase as encroaching conifers are removed. Increased ground cover would increase 

soil moisture retention and improve habitat quality for this species. 

Changes in meadow hydrology: Increases in herbaceous ground cover and reductions in soil water uptake 

by conifers after thinning would increase available subsurface water and the duration of or potential for 

soil saturation. The magnitude of changes to meadow hydrology would likely be minimal and difficult to 

measure due to the scale of the change anticipated and the limited amount of pre-implementation data 

available. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

There are no cumulative effects of the No Action alternative, because there are no direct or indirect 

effects of the No Action alternative. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-271

No changes to wet meadow habitats will occur as a result of the No Action alternative; therefore the No 

Action alternative will not alter the existing trend in the habitat. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 

Channel restoration and vegetation prescriptions occurring in the South Shore wildlife analysis area 

would result in reclaiming the amount of wet meadow area, as well as improving how these systems 

function hydrologically. Since the late 1990s stream restoration has occurred in Trout Creek and Angora 

Creek. These channel restoration projects have indirectly increased water availability in associated 

meadow systems, making them more self-sustaining. Future stream restoration in associated meadows 

systems is anticipated to occur in the Upper Truckee River, Cold Creek and Angora Creek. The Big 

Meadow restoration project is anticipated to be implemented in the next three years and will involve hand 

thinning and prescribed fire treatments in and along the margins of Big Meadow. Channel restoration and 

vegetation prescriptions occurring in the South Shore wildlife analysis area would result in reclaiming the 

amount of wet meadow area, as well as how these systems function hydrologically. Currently, no past or 

current vegetation management projects with objectives of reclaiming meadow landscapes from 

encroaching conifers have been implemented. The cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects in the wildlife analysis area combined with either Alternative 2 or Alternative 

3 of the South Shore project are expected increase the quality and quantity of available wet meadow 

habitat. 

61,247 acres of wet meadow habitats currently exist on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains. The cumulative effect to wet meadow habitats from all past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects in the wildlife analysis area plus either action alternative is to increase the 

acreage of wet meadows by less than a thousand acres. The contribution of Alternative 2 is 115 acres of 

wet meadow habitat, while the contribution of Alternative 3 is 99 acres. The addition of either 99 or 115 

acres of wet meadow habitat due, combined with all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

projects in the wildlife analysis area, will not alter the existing trend in this habitat. 

Summary of Pacific Tree Frog Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale 

The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires 

bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the Pacific tree (chorus) frog; hence, 

the wet meadow effects analysis for the South Shore project must be informed by both habitat and 

distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution 

population status and trend data for the Pacific tree (chorus) frog. This information is drawn from the 

detailed information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA 

FS 2010a), which is hereby incorporated by reference. 

Habitat status and trend 

There are currently 61,247 acres of wet meadow habitat on National Forest System lands in the Sierra 

Nevada. Over the last two decades, the trend is stable. 

Population status and trend 

Since 2002, the Pacific tree (chorus) frog has been monitored on the Sierra Nevada forests as part of the 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) monitoring plan(USDA FS 2006b, 2007b, 2009, 2010b; 

Brown 2008) . These data indicate that Pacific tree (chorus) frog continues to be present at these sample 

sites, and current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution 

of Pacific tree (chorus) frog populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable. 

Relationship of project-level habitat impacts to bioregional-scale Pacific tree frog 

Trend changes in wet meadow habitat as a result of either action alternative, while positive and potentially 

beneficial to Pacific tree frog at the scale of the project and probably the Lake Tahoe Basin (potentially 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-272 Chapter 3 

creating a range of 99 - 115 acres of wet meadow habitat), are not likely to impact a substantial amount of 

existing wet meadow habitat within the Sierra Nevada. Therefore, the effects of the South Shore 

Reduction Project will not alter the existing stable trend in the habitat for Pacific tree frog across the 

Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

Early and mid-seral Coniferous Forest Habitat (Mountain quail) 

Habitat/species relationship 

The mountain quail was selected as the MIS for early and mid-seral coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, 

Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, red fir, and eastside pine) habitat in the Sierra Nevada. Early seral 

coniferous forest habitat is comprised primarily of seedlings (<1” dbh), saplings (1”-5.9” dbh), and polesized trees (6”-10.9” dbh). Mid-seral coniferous forest habitat is comprised primarily of small-sized trees 

(11”-23.9” dbh). The mountain quail is found particularly on steep slopes, in open, brushy stands of 

conifer and deciduous forest and woodland, and chaparral; it may gather at water sources in the summer, 

and broods are seldom found more that 0.8 km (0.5 mi) from water (CDFG 2005). 

Habitat Factors for the Project-level Effects Analysis 

 Acres of early (CWHR tree sizes 1, 2, and 3) and mid-seral (CWHR tree size 4) coniferous forest 

(ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, red fir, and eastside pine) habitat [CWHR 

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]. 

 Acres with changes in CWHR tree size class. 

 Acres with changes in tree canopy closure. 

 Acres with changes in understory shrub canopy closure. 

Existing Conditions 

Acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest: A total of 24,157 acres of early and mid-seral coniferous 

forest (as defined above) currently occur in the South Shore wildlife analysis area. 

CWHR tree size class: Currently, only 1% of the total acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest in the 

wildlife analysis area is in early seral condition, CWHR size classes 1, 2 or 3 (< 11” dbh), while 99% is in 

mid-seral condition, size class 4 (11-23.9” dbh). 

Tree canopy closure: Overstory tree canopy closure in early and mid-seral coniferous forest in the wildlife 

analysis area is predominantly in the moderate (40-59% cover) and open (25-39% cover) canopy cover 

classes; 43 and 34% of early and mid-seral conifer forest respectively. Only 5% and 18% of early and 

mid-seral coniferous forest is characterized by either dense (60-100% cover) and sparse (10-24%) canopy 

cover, respectively. 

Understory shrub canopy closure: Data for this habitat factor were not collected for every stand planned 

for treatment under the South Shore project, however, an existing dataset from the multi species inventory 

and monitoring (MSIM) project provided some on the ground data at 61 locations within early and midseral coniferous forest throughout the South Shore wildlife analysis area. Vegetation data from the MSIM 

project, including understory shrub cover, were collected in 2002-2005. Shrub cover estimates at these 61 

stations varied from 0% cover to as much as 70% shrub cover, with an average of 12% shrub cover. 

Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest: No acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest would be 

affected by the No Action alternative, because no treatments would be implemented as a result of this 

alternative. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-273

Acres with changes in CWHR tree size class: The No Action alternative would result in no changes in 

CWHR tree size classes, because no treatments would be implemented as a result of this alternative. 

Acres with changes in tree canopy closure: The No Action alternative would result in no changes in tree 

canopy closure, because no treatments would be implemented as a result of this alternative. 

Acres with changes in understory shrub canopy closure: The No Action alternative would result in no 

changes in understory shrub canopy closure, because no treatments would be implemented as a result of 

this alternative. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 

Acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest: Vegetation thinning treatments of early and mid-seral 

coniferous forest would take place on a total of 6,776 acres under Alternative 2 and 6,589 acres under 

Alternative 3. Under Alternative 2, a net loss of 1,234 acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest (size 

classes 1-4) would result, and under Alternative 3 the net loss would be 1,035 acres. This type conversion 

of early and mid-seral coniferous forest represents 5% of all early and mid-seral coniferous forest in the 

wildlife analysis area for Alternative 2 and 4% for Alternative 3. 

Acres with changes in CWHR tree size class: Because most treatments proposed under both action 

alternatives would focus on removal of understory, small diameter trees, and retention of larger trees 

within the stand, treatments are expected overall to result in an increase in the average tree diameter per 

stand, and a decrease in both understory tree cover and overall vertical vegetation structure. A total of 

1,234 acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest would be expected to change CWHR tree size class as 

a result of Alternative 2, primarily from size class 4 to size class 5. This area represents 5% of all early 

and mid-seral coniferous forest in the wildlife analysis area. A total of 1,035 acres of early and mid-seral 

coniferous forest would be expected to change CWHR tree size class as a result of Alternative 3, 

primarily from size class 4 to size class 5, representing 4% of all early and mid-seral coniferous forest in 

the wildlife analysis area 

Acres with changes in tree canopy closure: Thinning treatments would be expected to reduce total canopy 

closure by removal of the smallest diameter trees within the canopy, and thereby reduce competition for 

resources for trees retained in the canopy after treatments. While canopy closure would be reduced within 

these acres immediately post project, total canopy closure of the remaining large trees would be expected 

to increase over the long term. Treatments under Alternative 2 would result in reduction in tree canopy 

closure by at least one canopy cover class within 2,576acres (11%) of early and mid-seral coniferous 

forest, while Alternative 3 would result in reduction in tree canopy closure by at least one canopy cover 

class within 2,536 acres (10%) of early and mid-seral coniferous forest within the wildlife analysis area. 

Acres with changes in understory shrub canopy closure: Acres with changes in understory shrub canopy 

closure were determined by: 1) determining the number of acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest 

proposed for each unique treatment prescription combination under each action alternative, then 2) 

estimating the percentage of area for which ground disturbance, and hence potential impacts to shrub 

cover, was anticipated for each unique treatment prescription. Estimates were generated by the project 

forester and were based on past experience. Total acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest proposed 

for treatments, anticipated percentage of acres affected by each treatment combination and the resultant 

estimate of acres with changes in understory shrub cover as a result of Alternatives 2 and 3 are 

summarized in Tables 3-95 and 3-96 below. Two primary and follow-up prescription combinations would 

be expected to result in no effects to understory shrub cover: hand thinning followed by either landing 

pile burning or removal by hand. All other treatments vary in the percentage of area with anticipated 

effects to understory shrub cover. 

Direct and indirect effects under Alternatives 2 and 3 to understory shrub canopy closure are primarily a 

short term reduction in total shrub cover due to one or several of the following possible actions: 1) the 

physical disturbance of shrubs from equipment use during mechanical thinning operations, 2) removal of 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-274 Chapter 3 

shrubs within areas to be used for landings, 3) the purposeful burning of shrubs, as occurs in 

underburning treatments, or 4) incidental burning of shrubs, as occurs in pile burning treatments. Shrub 

cover reduction resulting from vegetation treatments would be expected to recover within 3-10 years after 

treatment implementation. The timeframe for regrowth would be dependent upon the dominant shrub 

species, treatment type, and site conditions. 

Tables 3-92 and 3-93 below show effects on understory shrub cover from primary and secondary follow 

up treatments occurring within early and mid-seral coniferous forest under Alternatives 2 and 3. Effects of 

each treatment combination to understory shrub cover are represented as a percentage of treatment acres 

within which ground disturbance is estimated to occur, to estimate effects to shrub cover. Acres with 

changes in understory shrub cover were calculated based on the estimated percentage impact described 

above and total treatment acres proposed for each action alternative. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-275

Table 3-92. Alternative 2 Treatments and effects to understory shrub cover. Acres are not additive 

as some treatments overlap 

Primary 

Thinning 

Treatment 

Follow up Fuels 

Treatment 

Treatment 

Acres in 

early-mid 

seral 

coniferous 

forest 

Combined 

Treatment 

Effects to 

Understory 

Shrub Cover (% 

area affected) 

Acres with 

Changes in 

Understory 

Shrub Canopy 

Cover 

Cut-to-length Chipping/Mastication 327 70 229

Whole Tree 

Removal 

Whole Tree 

Forwarding 

0 15 0

Mechanical 

Thinning 

Landing Pile Burning 951 20 190

 Lop and Scatter 0 20 0

 Underburning 104 70 73

Hand Thin Chipping/Mastication 139 70 97

 Hand Pile and Burn 2,464 6 148
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-276 Chapter 3 

Table 3-93. Alternative 3 treatments and effects to understory shrub cover. Acres are not additive 

as some treatments overlap 

Primary 

Thinning 

Treatment 

Follow up Fuels 

Treatment 

Treatment Acres 

in early-mid 

seral coniferous 

forest 

Treatment Effects 

to Understory 

Shrub Cover (% 

area affected) 

Acres with 

Changes in 

Understory 

Shrub Canopy 

Cover 

Cut-to-length Chipping/Mastication 382 70 267

Whole Tree 

Removal 

Whole Tree 

Forwarding 

0 15 0

Mechanical 

Thinning 

Landing Pile Burning 227 20 45

 Lop and Scatter 0 20 0

 Underburning 15 70 10

Hand Thin Chipping/Mastication 231 70 162

 Hand Pile and Burn 2,915 6 175

*Impacts associated with creation of landings for pile burning operations accounted for in the primary 

thinning treatment categories. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

There are no cumulative effects of the No Action alternative to early and mid-seral coniferous forest 

habitat because there would be no direct or indirect effects of this alternative. 

Due to the lack of direct, indirect and cumulative effects, the No Action alternative would not alter the 

existing trend in early and mid-seral coniferous forest. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 

A complete listing of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions affecting MIS and special 

status species habitats as well as a description of the cumulative effects in the wildlife analysis area is 

provided in the project BE/BA in the project file. Projects affecting early and mid-seral coniferous forest 

habitat include primarily vegetation management projects, but also include a few engineering and stream 

restoration projects in which small areas of early and mid-seral forest were or are planned to be disturbed 

or removed in order to meet the objectives of the project. Impacts of vegetation management projects 

within the wildlife analysis area to early and mid-seral coniferous forest are similar to impacts described 

above for the action alternatives of the South Shore project, and include: an increase in average tree size 

class of stands due to removal of smaller trees and retention of the largest trees within stands, reduction in 

total canopy cover (primarily that of the mid- and under-story components), and a short term reduction in 

understory shrub cover. Impacts of vegetation management actions described in some cases lead to a 

reduction in the overall extent of early and mid-seral coniferous forest across the landscape in favor of 

stands expected to develop into late seral coniferous forest. Impacts of engineering and stream restoration 

projects on early and mid-seral coniferous forest primarily include the loss of small amounts of early and 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-277

mid-seral forest due to trail or stream re-routes into higher capability land types requiring the loss of trees 

along the corridor or path of the re-route. 

Estimates of acres with changes to habitat factors and acres of habitat converted to other forest types 

throughout the wildlife analysis area were based on the percentage of treated acres in the South Shore 

project area that were anticipated to result in similar impacts to early and mid-seral habitat. For 

Alternative 2, 25% of treated acres are anticipated to have changes to habitat factors. For Alternative 3 

21% of treated acres are anticipated to have changes to habitat factors. In total, an estimated 1,694 acres 

of early and mid-seral forest was or would be converted to other forest types due to vegetation treatments 

when combined with Alternative 2 of the South Shore project, and an estimated 1,408 acres would be 

converted to other forest types due to vegetation treatments when combined with Alternative 3. Also, 

approximately 12 acres were or would be lost due to engineering and stream restoration projects 

throughout the wildlife analysis area. In addition, approximately 3,050 acres of early and mid-seral 

habitat are estimated to result in changes to habitat factors as a result of vegetation treatments associated 

with vegetation and restoration projects for Alternative 2 and approximately 1,4202 acres for Alternative 

3. In summary, the cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

affecting early and mid-seral coniferous forest in the wildlife analysis area when combined with 

Alternative 2 include: loss or type conversion of up to ~1,706 acres of early and mid-seral coniferous 

forest to late seral conditions, and a change in tree size class, canopy cover class and understory shrub 

cover to ~3,050 acres. For Alternative 3 the cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects affecting early and mid-seral coniferous forest in the wildlife analysis area 

when combined with Alternative 3 include: loss or type conversion of up to ~1,420 acres of early and 

mid-seral coniferous forest to late seral conditions, and change in tree size class, canopy cover class and 

understory shrub cover to ~1,420 acres 

There are 3,312,000 acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest habitat throughout the Sierra Nevada 

bioregion. The cumulative effects to early and mid-seral coniferous forest of Alternative 2 when added to 

all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the wildlife analysis includes the potential 

loss or conversion of ~1,706 acres, and changes to ~3,050 acres (<0.2%) of early and mid-seral 

coniferous forest habitat throughout the Sierra Nevada bioregion. The contribution of Alternative 2 to the 

above-indicated cumulative effects is 1,234-2,576 acres (~80%) of the 1,706-3,050 acres of early and 

mid-seral coniferous forest habitat with cumulative effects within the wildlife analysis area. The 

cumulative effects to 1,706-3,050 acres of early and mid-seral habitat due to all past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects in the wildlife analysis area will not alter the existing trend in this 

habitat. 

The cumulative effects of Alternative 3 to early and mid-seral coniferous forest added to all past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the wildlife analysis area includes potential loss or 

conversion of ~1,420 acres and changes to ~2,750 acres (<0.2%) of early and mid-seral coniferous forest 

habitat throughout the Sierra Nevada bioregion. The contribution of Alternative 3 to the above-indicated 

cumulative effects is 1,035-2,536 acres (~80%) of the 1,402-2,750 acres of early and mid-seral coniferous 

forest habitat with cumulative effects within the wildlife analysis area. The cumulative effects to 1,420-

2,750 acres of early and mid-seral habitat due to all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

projects in the wildlife analysis area will not alter the existing trend in this habitat. 

Summary of Mountain Quail Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale 

The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires 

bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the mountain quail; hence, the early 

and mid-seral coniferous forest effects analysis for the South Shore project must be informed by both 

habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and 

distribution population status and trend data for the mountain quail. This information is drawn from the 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-278 Chapter 3 

detailed information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA 

FS 2010a, which is hereby incorporated by reference. 

Habitat status and trend 

There are currently 530,851 acres of early seral and 2,766,022 acres of mid-seral coniferous forest 

(ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat on National Forest System lands in 

the Sierra Nevada. Over the last two decades, the trend for early seral is decreasing (changing from 9% to 

5% of the acres on National Forest System lands) and the trend for mid seral is increasing (changing from 

21% to 25% of the acres on National Forest System lands). 

Population status and trend 

Monitoring of the mountain quail across the ten National Forests in the Sierra Nevada has been conducted 

since 2009 in partnership with PRBO Conservation Science, as part of a monitoring effort that also 

includes fox sparrow, hairy woodpecker, and yellow warbler (USDA FS 2010a, 

http://data.prbo.org/partners/usfs/snmis/). Mountain quail were detected on 40.3 percent of 1659 point 

counts (and 48.6% of 424 playback points) in 2009 and 47.4% of 2266 point counts (and 55.3% of 492 

playback points) in 2010, with detections on all 10 national forests in both years. The average abundance 

(number of individuals recorded on passive point count surveys) was 0.103 in 2009 and 0.081 in 2010. 

These data indicate that mountain quail continue to be distributed across the 10 Sierra Nevada National 

Forests. In addition, mountain quail continue to be monitored and surveyed in the Sierra Nevada at 

various sample locations by hunter survey, modeling, and breeding bird survey protocols. These are 

summarized in the 2008 Bioregional Monitoring Report (USDA FS 2008).Current data at the rangewide, 

California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of mountain quail populations in the 

Sierra Nevada is stable. 

Relationship of project-level habitat impacts to bioregional-scale mountain quail trend 

The net loss of 1,035--1,234acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest due to changes in CWHR size 

class from 1-4 to 5, the reduction in tree canopy cover across 2,536-2,576 acres of early and mid-seral 

coniferous forest, out of a total of 24,157 acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest habitat in the 

South Shore wildlife analysis area will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a 

change in the distribution of mountain quail across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat (sooty [blue] grouse) 

Habitat/species relationship 

The sooty grouse was selected as the MIS for late seral open canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, 

Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, red fir, and eastside pine) habitat in the Sierra Nevada. This habitat is 

comprised primarily of medium/large trees (equal to or greater than 24 inches dbh) with canopy closures 

less than 40%. Sooty grouse occurs in open, medium to mature-aged stands of fir, Douglas-fir, and other 

conifer habitats, interspersed with medium to large openings, and available water, and occupies a mixture 

of mature habitat types, shrubs, forbs, grasses, and conifer stands (CDFG 2005). Empirical data from the 

Sierra Nevada indicate that sooty grouse hooting sites are located in open, mature, fir-dominated forest, 

where particularly large trees are present (Bland 2006). 

Habitat factors for the project-level effects analysis 

 Acres of late seral open canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white 

fir, red fir, and eastside pine) habitat [CWHR ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer 

(SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), tree size 5, canopy closures S and 

P]. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-279

 Acres with changes in tree canopy closure class. 

 Acres with changes in understory shrub canopy closure class. 

Existing Conditions 

Acres of late seral open canopy coniferous forest: A total of 443 acres of late seral open canopy 

coniferous forest exist within the South Shore wildlife analysis area. 

Tree canopy closure class: The majority (90%) of late seral open canopy coniferous forest in the South 

Shore wildlife analysis area is characterized by tree canopy closure class P (25-39%), while only 10% of 

the acres are in tree cover class S (10-24%). 

Understory shrub canopy closure class: Data for this habitat factor were not collected for every stand 

planned for treatment under the South Shore project, however, an existing dataset from the Multi Species 

Inventory and Monitoring (MSIM) project (LTBMU 2007) provided some on the ground data at 2 

locations within late seral open coniferous forest in the South Shore wildlife analysis area. Vegetation 

data from the MSIM project, including understory shrub cover, were collected in 2002-2005. Shrub cover 

estimates at these stations varied from 30-35% cover, with an average of 32.5% shrub cover. 

Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Acres of late seral open canopy coniferous forest: No acres of late seral open coniferous forest would be 

affected by the No Action alternative, because no treatments would be implemented as a result of this 

alternative. 

Acres with changes in tree canopy closure class: The No Action alternative would result in no changes to 

tree canopy closure within late seral open coniferous forest, because no treatments would be implemented 

as a result of this alternative. 

Acres with changes in understory shrub canopy closure class: The No Action alternative would result in 

no changes in understory shrub canopy closure within late seral open coniferous forest, because no 

treatments would be implemented as a result of this alternative. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 

Acres of late seral open canopy coniferous forest: Approximately 403 acres of late seral open canopy 

conifer forest would be treated under both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. No changes would be expected 

to occur within existing acres of late seral open canopy coniferous forest, as treatment impacts to existing 

late seral open canopy coniferous forest would not be expected to alter conditions enough to change the 

forest type. However, existing early and mid-seral coniferous forest would be expected to be converted to 

late seral open coniferous forest through removal of smaller understory trees and retention of larger 

overstory trees (see above analysis for early and mid-seral coniferous forest). Alternative 2and three 

would change someearly and mid-seral forest to late seral open canopy coniferous forest, Under both 

action alternatives a small amount of late seral closed canopy forest would be converted to late seral open 

canopy forest (see analysis for late seral closed canopy forest below). A net increase in late seral open 

canopy coniferous forest habitat in the wildlife analysis area would result from both action alternatives, 

with 780 acres (~170%) for Alternative 2 and 769 acres (~173%) for Alternative 3. 

Acres with changes in tree canopy closure class: Treatment prescriptions within this habitat type are 

primarily focused on removing the smaller understory trees and are not intended to remove the overstory 

tree canopy. As a result, only 144 acres of late seral open canopy coniferous forest would be expected to 

result in a reduction in tree canopy closure class from P (25-39%) to S (10-24%) for Alternative 2 and 36 

for Alternative 3. A change in canopy cover would occur for approximately 8-32% of late seral open 

canopy coniferous forest within the wildlife analysis area. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-280 Chapter 3 

Acres with changes in understory shrub canopy closure class: Effects of each unique treatment 

combination shown in Tables 3-99 and 3-99 on shrub cover have been previously described in the above 

analysis of direct and indirect effects for early and mid-seral coniferous forest. 

Tables 3-94 and 3-95 show expected effects of unique treatment combinations to understory shrub canopy 

cover from primary and secondary (i.e. follow up) treatments within late seral open coniferous forest 

under Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Table 3-94. Alternative 2 treatments and effects to understory shrub cover 

in late seral open coniferous forest. Acres are not additive as some treatments overlap 

Primary 

Fuels 

Treatment 

Follow up 

Fuels 

Treatment 

Treatment Acres 

in late seral 

open coniferous 

forest 

Treatment Effects 

to Understory 

Shrub Cover (% 

area affected) 

Acres with 

Changes in 

Understory Shrub 

Canopy Cover 

Cut to 

Length 

Chipping and 

Mastication 0 70 0

Whole Tree 

Removal 

Landing Pile 

Burning 28 20 6

Hand Thin 

Chipping and 

Mastication 0 70 0

Hand Pile 

and Burn 54 6 3

Table 3-95. Alternative 3 treatments and effects to understory shrub cover 

in late seral open coniferous forest. Acres are not additive as some treatments overlap 

Primary 

Fuels 

Treatment 

Follow up 

Fuels 

Treatment 

Treatment Acres 

in late seral 

open coniferous 

forest 

Treatment Effects 

to Understory 

Shrub Cover (% 

area affected) 

Acres with 

Changes in 

Understory Shrub 

Canopy Cover 

Cut to 

Length 

Chipping and 

Mastication 2 70 1

Hand Thin 

Hand Pile 

and Burn 80 6 5

Chipping and 

Mastication 0 70 0

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

There would be no cumulative effect to late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat due to the No 

Action alternative, because there would be no direct or indirect effects of this alternative to this habitat 

type. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-281

Due to the lack of cumulative effects to late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat, the No Action 

alternative would not alter the existing trend in the habitat. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)and Alternative 3 

A complete listing of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions affecting MIS and special 

status species habitats is provided in the project BE/BA found in the project file. Projects affecting late 

seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat are primarily vegetation management projects. Impacts of 

these other vegetation management projects within the wildlife analysis area to late seral open canopy 

coniferous forest are similar to impacts described above for Alternatives 2 and 3of the South Shore 

project. Impacts of vegetation projects to habitat factors include: a reduction in total canopy cover 

(primarily that of the mid- and under-story components), and a short term reduction in understory shrub 

cover. Impacts of vegetation management actions in late seral open canopy coniferous forest are not 

anticipated to result in habitat type conversions; only changes to habitat factors within this habitat type are 

anticipated. Due to the conversion of some early and mid-seral coniferous forest to late seral open and 

closed canopy coniferous forest as a result of vegetation treatments, it is expected that some additional 

acres of late seral open canopy conifer forest may result from the cumulative impacts of vegetation 

projects that have or will occur in the wildlife analysis area. 

Estimates of acres with changes to habitat factors and acres of loss due to vegetation projects throughout 

the wildlife analysis area were based on the percentage of treated acres in the South Shore project area 

that were anticipated to result in similar impacts to late seral open conifer habitat. Alternative 2 is 

expected to have changes to habitat factors on 13% of treated acres, and 12% of early and mid-seral 

habitats treated were expected to result in creation of late seral open canopy conifer forest. The 

cumulative impact of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects affecting late seral open 

canopy coniferous forest in the wildlife analysis area, including Alternative 2, would result in potential 

changes to tree canopy closure on ~64 acres, and creation of as much as 1,096 acres. 

Alternative 3 is expected to produce similar changes to late seral open conifer habitat; 12% of treated 

acres are expected to have changes to habitat factors, and 9% of early and mid-seral habitats treated are 

expected to result in creation of late seral open canopy conifer forest. The cumulative impacts of all past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects affecting late seral open canopy coniferous forest in 

the wildlife analysis area, including Alternative 3, include: potential changes in tree canopy closure and 

understory shrub cover to ~59 acres, and creation of as much as 1,003 acres. 

There are 75,000 acres of late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat throughout the Sierra Nevada 

bioregion. The cumulative effects to late seral open canopy coniferous forest of all past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects in the wildlife analysis area combined with Alternative 2 include 

potential changes to ~64 acres and possible creation of as much as 1,096 acres. For Alternative 3 potential 

changes would be expected on ~59 acres, with the possible creation of 1,003 acres. The cumulative 

effects of an increase of approximately 1% of late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat due to all 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, when combined with either action alternative in 

the wildlife analysis area, will not alter the existing trend in this habitat. 

Summary of Sooty Grouse Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale 

The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LRMP (as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests [SNF] MIS 

Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the sooty 

grouse; hence, the late seral open canopy coniferous forest effects analysis for the South Shore project 

must be informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The sections below 

summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the sooty grouse. This 

information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 SNF 

Bioregional MIS report (USDA FS 2010a, which is hereby incorporated by reference. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-282 Chapter 3 

Habitat status and trend 

There are currently 63,795 acres of late seral open canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran 

mixed conifer, white fir, red fir, and eastside pine) habitats on National Forest System lands in the Sierra 

Nevada. Over the last two decades, the trend is decreasing (changing from 3% to 1% of the acres on 

National Forest System lands). 

Population status and trend 

The sooty grouse has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by hunter survey, 

modeling, point counts, and breeding bird survey protocols, including California Department of Fish and 

Game Blue (Sooty) Grouse Surveys (Bland 1993, 1997, 2002, 2006); California Department of Fish and 

Game hunter survey, modeling, and hunting regulations assessment (CDFG 2004a, CDFG 2004b); Multispecies inventory and monitoring on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU 2007); and 1968 

to present – BBS routes throughout the Sierra Nevada (Sauer et al 2007). These data indicate that sooty 

grouse continue to be present across the Sierra Nevada, except in the area south of the Kern Gap, and 

current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of sooty 

grouse populations in the Sierra Nevada north of the Kern Gap is stable. 

Relationship of project-level habitat impacts to bioregional-scale sooty grouse trend 

The reduction in overstory canopy cover within 36-144 acres out of the total of 443 acres of this habitat 

type in the wildlife analysis area, will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change 

in the distribution of sooty grouse across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. The net increase of 769-780 acres 

of late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat within the South Shore wildlife analysis area, while 

contributing to a relatively large (~200%) increase in this habitat type in the wildlife analysis area, is 

relatively insignificant across the Sierra Nevada bioregion, where there are currently 75,000 acres. 

Therefore, the increase in this habitat type in the South Shore project area also will not alter the existing 

trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of sooty grouse across the Sierra 

Nevada bioregion. 

Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat (California spotted 

owl, American marten, and northern flying squirrel) 

Habitat/species relationship 

California spotted owl: The California spotted owl was selected as an MIS for late seral closed canopy 

coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat in the Sierra 

Nevada. This habitat is comprised primarily of medium/large trees (equal to or greater than 24 inches 

dbh) with canopy closures above 40% within ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir 

coniferous forests, and multi-layered trees within ponderosa pine and Sierran mixed conifer forests. The 

California spotted owl is strongly associated with forests that have a complex multi-layered structure, 

large-diameter trees, and high canopy closure (CDFG 2005, USFWS 2006). It uses dense, multi-layered 

canopy cover for roost seclusion; roost selection appears to be related closely to thermoregulatory needs, 

and the species appears to be intolerant of high temperatures (CDFG 2005). Mature, multi-layered forest 

stands are required for breeding (Ibid). The mixed-conifer forest type is the predominant type used by 

spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada: about 80 percent of known sites are found in mixed-conifer forest, with 

10 percent in red fir forest (USDA FS 2001). 

American marten: The American marten was selected as an MIS for late seral closed canopy coniferous 

forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat in the Sierra Nevada. This 

habitat is comprised primarily of medium/large trees (equal to or greater than 24 inches dbh) with canopy 

closures above 40% within ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir coniferous 

forests, and multi-layered trees within ponderosa pine and Sierran mixed conifer forests. Martens prefer 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-283

coniferous forest habitat with large diameter trees and snags, large down logs, moderate-to-high canopy 

closure, and an interspersion of riparian areas and meadows. Important habitat attributes are: vegetative 

diversity, with predominately mature forest; snags; dispersal cover; and coarse woody debris (Allen 

1987). Key components for westside and eastside marten habitat can be found in the Sierra Nevada Forest 

Plan Amendment FEIS (USDA FS 2001), Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.4, pages 20-21. 

Northern flying squirrel: The northern flying squirrel was selected as an MIS for late seral closed canopy 

coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat in the Sierra 

Nevada. This habitat is comprised primarily of medium/large trees (equal to or greater than 24 inches 

dbh) with canopy closures above 40% within ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir 

coniferous forests, and multi-layered trees within ponderosa pine and Sierran mixed conifer forests. The 

northern flying squirrel occurs primarily in mature, dense conifer habitats intermixed with various 

riparian habitats, using cavities in mature trees, snags, or logs for cover (CDFG 2005). 

Habitat factors for the project-level effects analysis 

 Acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white 

fir, and red fir) habitat [CWHR ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir 

(WFR), red fir (RFR), tree size 5 (canopy closures M and D), and tree size 6]. 

 Acres with changes in canopy closure (D to M). 

 Acres with changes in large down logs per acre or large snags per acre. 

Existing Conditions 

Acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest: A total of 481 acres of late seral closed canopy 

coniferous forest exist within the South Shore wildlife analysis area. 

Canopy closure (D to M): The majority (75%) of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest in the South 

Shore wildlife analysis area is characterized by the moderate tree canopy closure class M (40-59%), while 

25% of the acres are in the dense tree cover class D (60-100%). 

Large down logs per acre or large snags per acre: An existing dataset from the multi-species inventory 

and monitoring (MSIM) project provided snag and downed wood data for 11 locations within late seral 

closed canopy coniferous forest throughout the South Shore wildlife analysis area; from the Cascade 

watershed to Burke Creek watershed. Vegetation data from the MSIM project, including snag densities 

and coarse woody debris volumes, were collected in 2002-2005. Stand exam data within 10 proposed 

treatment stands in late seral closed canopy forest were also collected in 2007 and provide additional 

information on existing snag and downed wood conditions in the project treatment area. Snag densities 

from common stand exams were calculated using weighted averages based on the size of the stand 

representing each snag density value. Snag densities from the MSIM data represent unweighted averages 

because sites did not vary in size. In general snag densities and downed wood volumes were lower in the 

South Shore project treatment area than throughout the wildlife analysis area. This is probably because 

fuels treatments were prioritized to occur in the Wildland-Urban intermix zone (WUI), where previous 

thinning and fuels treatments were likely to have already occurred as part of past projects. 

Large snags per acre: MSIM data indicated an average of 3.5 large snags/acre > 30 inches dbh throughout 

the wildlife analysis area. Stand exam data indicated an average of 1.5 large snags/acre > 30 inches dbh. 

Large down logs per acre: Based on the MSIM dataset, an average of 23.6 tons/acre of downed wood > 

12 inches in diameter occurs in late seral closed canopy forest within the wildlife analysis area, while 

stand exam data indicated an average of only 1 ton/acre of similarly sized downed wood existing in late 

seral closed canopy forest in the project treatment area. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-284 Chapter 3 

Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest: No acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest 

would be affected by the No Action alternative, because no treatments would be implemented as a result 

of this alternative. 

Acres with changes in canopy closure (D to M): - The No Action alternative would result in no changes in 

canopy closure from class D to M within late seral closed canopy coniferous forest, because no treatments 

would be implemented as a result of this alternative. 

Acres with changes in large down logs per acre or large snags per acre: The No Action alternative would 

result in no changes in large down logs or large snags per acre within late seral closed canopy coniferous 

forest, because no treatments would be implemented as a result of this alternative. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 

Acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest: Alternative 2 would treat approximately 283 acres and 

Alternative 3 would treat approximately 273 acres of late seral closed canopy conifer forest. Both action 

alternatives would result in a net increase in late seral closed canopy habitat; Alternative 2 would produce 

a net increase of 260 acres (54%), while Alternative 3 would produce a net increase of 203 acres (42%). 

Acres with changes in canopy closure (D to M): Of the 481 acres of existing late seral closed canopy 

forest occurring in the wildlife analysis area, 70 acres would have canopy closure class reductions from 

dense (60-100%) to moderate (40-59%) due to thinning treatments in both action alternatives. This 

represents potential impacts to canopy closure in 15% of late seral closed canopy forest in the wildlife 

analysis area. Canopy cover reductions would result primarily from thinning of the smallest trees in the 

stand in order to meet fuels reduction objectives. 

Acres with changes in large down logs per acre or large snags per acre: All proposed treatment stands in 

late seral closed canopy forest with large snags or large down logs present, and in quantities greater than 

the minimum retention standards set forth by the Forest Plan, have the potential for reductions in these 

factors due to treatments planned as part of both action alternatives. In Alternative 2, a total of 31 acres 

(6%) of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest in the wildlife analysis area containing either large 

snags or downed logs above minimum retention levels would be expected to have a reduction in snag 

densities or log volumes. Alternative 3 would be likely to have a similar reduction on 20 acres (4%). 

Effects under either action alternative to these acres include: 1) a reduction primarily in large downed logs 

per acre to a minimum of 10 tons/acre on average (as defined by project resource protection measures) in 

order to reduce fire risk, and 2) to a lesser extent a reduction in large snags/acre; since only hazard snags 

greater than 30 inches dbh would be removed as part of either action alternative. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

There would be no cumulative effects to late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat due to the No 

Action alternative, because there would be no direct or indirect effects of this alternative to this habitat 

type. 

Due to the lack of cumulative effects to late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat, the No Action 

alternative would not alter the existing trend in the habitat. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 

A complete listing of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions affecting MIS and special 

status species habitats as well as a description of the cumulative effects analysis area is provided in the 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-285

project BE/BA in the project file. Projects affecting late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat are 

primarily vegetation management projects. Impacts of these other vegetation management projects within 

the wildlife analysis area to late seral open canopy coniferous forest are similar to impacts described 

above for the South Shore project action alternatives. Impacts of vegetation projects to habitat factors 

include: reduction in total canopy cover (primarily that of the mid- and under-story components, but in 

some cases of the overstory tree canopy closure); reduction in small/medium downed log and snag 

densities primarily due to resource protection measures, but occasionally large downed log and large snag 

densities in areas with high fuels risk or areas with hazard trees. Due to the conversion of some early and 

mid-seral coniferous forest to late seral open and closed canopy coniferous forest as a result of vegetation 

treatments, some additional acres of late seral closed canopy conifer forest are expected from the 

cumulative impacts of vegetation projects that have or will occur in the wildlife analysis area. 

Estimates of acres with changes to habitat factors and acres of loss due to vegetation projects in the 

wildlife analysis area were based on the percentage of treated acres in the South Shore project area that 

were anticipated to result in similar impacts to late seral closed conifer habitat. For the action alternatives, 

25% of treated acres are anticipated to have changes to habitat factors in Alternative 2, and 26 % of 

treated acres would be affected in Alternative 3. For both action alternatives, 4% of early and mid-seral 

habitats treated are expected to result in creation of late seral closed canopy conifer forest. Cumulatively, 

~120 acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest are estimated to result in changes to habitat 

factors, and as many as 370 acres of late seral closed canopy conifer forest may be created due to past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the wildlife analysis area when combined with 

Alternative 2. For Alternative 3, the cumulative changes to habitat factors are estimated to be ~122 acres, 

and up to 249 acres of late seral habitat creation is expected to occur. 

There are 994,000 acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat throughout the Sierra Nevada 

bioregion. The cumulative effects to late seral closed canopy coniferous forest of all past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects in the wildlife analysis area when combined with the action 

alternatives of the South Shore project would result in potential changes to between 120 and 122 acres 

and possible creation of between 249 and 370 acres of closed canopy coniferous forest habitat. 

Cumulative effects are expected on less than 0.04% o the 994,000 acres of late seral closed canopy 

coniferous forest habitat throughout the Sierra Nevada bioregion. The contribution of Alternative 2 to 

cumulative effects within the wildlife analysis area is 70-260acres (~58%) of the 120-370total acres of 

habitat with cumulative effects from all sources within the wildlife analysis area. The contribution of 

Alternative 3 to these cumulative effects is 70-139 acres (~58%) of the 122-249 total acres of late seral 

closed canopy coniferous forest habitat with cumulative effects from all sources within the wildlife 

analysis area. The cumulative effects to 120-370acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat 

due to either action alternative when combined with all other past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

future projects in the wildlife analysis area will not alter the existing trend in this habitat. 

Summary of Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale 

California spotted owl, American marten, and northern flying squirrel 

The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires 

bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the California spotted owl, American 

marten, and northern flying squirrel; hence, the late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa 

pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat effects analysis for the South Shore project must 

be informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize 

the habitat and distribution population status and trend data. This information is drawn from the detailed 

information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS report (USDA FS 2010a 

which is hereby incorporated by reference. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-286 Chapter 3 

Habitat status and trend 

There are currently 1,006,923 acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran 

mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir) habitat on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over 

the last two decades, the trend is slightly increasing (changing from 7% to 9% of the acres on National 

Forest System lands); since the early 2000s, the trend has been stable at 9%. 

Population status and trend 

California spotted owl has been monitored in California and throughout the Sierra Nevada through 

general surveys, monitoring of nests and territorial birds, and demography studies(Verner et al. 1992; 

Gutierrez et al. 2008, 2009, 2010; USDA FS 2001, 2004, 2006b; USFWS 2006; Sierra Nevada Research 

Center 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010). Current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales 

indicate that, although there may be localized declines in population trend [e.g. localized decreases in 

“lambda” (estimated annual rate of population change)], the distribution of California spotted owl 

populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable. 

American marten has been monitored throughout the Sierra Nevada as part of general surveys and 

studies since 1996 (e.g., Zielinski et al. 2005, Moriarty 2009). Since 2002, the American marten has 

been monitored on the Sierra Nevada forests as part of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

(SNFPA) monitoring plan (USDA FS 2005, 2006b, 2007b, 2009, 2010b). Current data at the rangewide, 

California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that, although marten appear to be distributed throughout 

their historic range, their distribution has become fragmented in the southern Cascades and northern 

Sierra Nevada, particularly in Plumas County. The distribution appears to be continuous across highelevation forests from Placer County south through the southern end of the Sierra Nevada, although 

detection rates have decreased in at least some locatized areas (e.g., Sagehen Basin area of Nevada 

County). 

Northern flying squirrel has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by livetrapping, ear-tagging, camera surveys, snap-trapping, and radiotelemetry: 2002-present on the Plumas and 

Lassen National Forests (Sierra Nevada Research Center 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010), and 1958-2004 

throughout the Sierra Nevada in various monitoring efforts and studies (see USDA FS 2008, Table 

NOFLS-IV-1). These data indicate that northern flying squirrels continue to be present at these sample 

sites, and current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution 

of northern flying squirrel populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable. 

Relationship of project-level habitat impacts to bioregional-scale trends 

California spotted owl: The addition of 203-260 acres of late seral closed canopy forest, the changes in 

canopy closure of 70 acres, and the potential changes in large snag and log densities within 20-31 acres 

out of 481 acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat in the South Shore wildlife analysis 

area, and 994,000 acres in the Sierra Nevada, will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead 

to a change in the distribution of California spotted owl across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

American marten: The addition of 203-260 acres of late seral closed canopy forest, the changes in canopy 

closure of 70 acres, and the potential changes in large snag and log densities within 20-31 acres out of 481 

acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat in the South Shore wildlife analysis area, and 

994,000 acres in the Sierra Nevada, will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a 

change in the distribution of American marten across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

Northern flying squirrel: The addition of 203-260 acres of late seral closed canopy forest, the changes in 

canopy closure of 70 acres, and the potential changes in large snag and log densities within 20-31 acres 

out of 481 acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat in the South Shore wildlife analysis 

area, and 994,000 acres in the Sierra Nevada, will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead 

to a change in the distribution of Northern flying squirrel across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-287

Snags in Green Forest Ecosystem Component (Hairy woodpecker) 

Habitat/species relationship 

The hairy woodpecker was selected as the MIS for the ecosystem component of snags in green forests. 

Medium (diameter breast height between 15 to 30 inches) and large (diameter breast height greater than 

30 inches) snags are most important. The hairy woodpecker uses stands of large, mature trees and snags 

of sparse to intermediate density; cover is also provided by tree cavities (CDFG 2005). Mature timber and 

dead snags or trees of moderate to large size are apparently more important than tree species (Siegel and 

DeSante 1999). 

Habitat factors for the project-level effects analysis 

 Medium (15-30 inches dbh) snags per acre. 

 Large (greater than 30 inches dbh) snags per acre. 

Existing Conditions 

A total of 60,193 acres of green forest containing a snag component exist within the wildlife analysis 

area. Data from two sources were available for characterizing snag densities in green forest within the 

wildlife analysis area: common stand exam data collected within each of approximately 200 proposed 

treatment stands, and vegetation condition data collected at 48 sites in the wildlife analysis area as part of 

the Multi-Species Inventory and Monitoring (MSIM) project in 2002-2005. Snag densities from common 

stand exams were calculated using weighted averages based on the size of the stand representing each 

snag density value. Snag densities from the MSIM data represent un-weighted averages because sites did 

not vary in area. 

Medium (15-30 inches dbh) snags per acre: Medium snag densities of 4.5 snags per acre were observed at 

MSIM sites within green forest throughout the South Shore wildlife analysis area, while stands within the 

proposed treatment areas in green forest averaged 6.96 medium snags per acre. 

Large (greater than 30 inches dbh) snags per acre: MSIM data indicated an average of 1.29 large snags 

per acre in green forest throughout the South Shore wildlife analysis area, while stands within the 

proposed treatment areas averaged 1.1 large snags per acre. 

Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

No changes in the total area of green forest habitat containing snags are anticipated due to the No Action 

alternative of the South Shore project, because no treatments are planned under this alternative. 

Medium (15-30 inches dbh) snags per acre: Medium snag densities in green forest would not be affected 

by the No Action alternative, because no treatments would be implemented as a result of this alternative. 

Large (greater than 30 inches dbh) snags per acre: Large snag densities in green forest would not be 

affected by the No Action alternative, because no treatments would be implemented as a result of this 

alternative. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 

No changes in the total area of green forest habitat containing snags would be anticipated as a result of the 

action alternative in the South Shore project; minimum levels of snag retention per acre have been 

established in the Forest Plan. However, changes to snag densities among acres of green forest treated 

would be anticipated as discussed below. A total of 10,670 acres of green forest habitat containing snags 

would be treated under Alternative 2, and 10,112 acres would be treated under Alternative 3.. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-288 Chapter 3 

Medium (15-30 inches dbh) snags per acre: Forest Plan guidelines and project resource protection 

measures require minimum snag retention levels of 3-8 medium to large snags per acre on average; 

therefore, only treatment stands with an average snag density > 3 medium to large snags per acre would 

have snags removed as part of either action alternative. Effects of Alternative 2 on medium snag density 

in green forest include the potential reduction in snag density in an estimated 5,517 acres, which 

represents the acres of stands proposed for treatment that currently contain greater than 3 medium to large 

snags per acre. Because minimum snag retention levels have been identified in the project resource 

protection measures, medium snag densities would not be reduced below 3 snags/acre in the absence of 

larger sized snags, and likely not below 2 snags/acre in the presence of larger snags (which currently 

average ~1/acre). Out of the total 60,193 acres in the wildlife analysis area containing snags in green 

forest, the 5,517 acres that would be treated under Alternative 2 represent a potential change in medium 

snag density within 9% of the wildlife analysis area. Alternative 3 would treat 5,376 acres, which would 

also project a change in snag density for 9% of the wildlife analysis area. 

Large (greater than 30 inches dbh) snags per acre: Due to project resource protection measures limiting 

removal of snags > 30 inches dbh, either of the action alternatives would have a very limited effect on 

large snag densities in green forest throughout the wildlife analysis area. Only hazard trees greater than 30 

inches dbh would be removed adjacent to established infrastructure (e.g. houses, roads/trails, etc). 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

There are no cumulative effects to late snags in green forest due to the No Action alternative, because 

there are no direct or indirect effects of this alternative to this habitat type. 

Due to the lack of cumulative effects to snags in green forest habitat, the No Action alternative would not 

alter the existing trend in the habitat. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 

Of the list of projects affecting MIS and special status species habitats contained in the BE/BA found in 

the project file, those affecting snags in green forest habitat are primarily vegetation management 

projects, plus engineering and stream restoration projects to a limited extent. The maximum number of 

acres with potential reductions in medium and large snag densities throughout the wildlife analysis area 

from treatments in all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future vegetation management projects is 

approximately 8,280 acres in Alternative 2 and 8,140 acres in Alternative 3. Vegetation management 

projects remove snags only when necessary to meet fuels reduction or safety objectives, and on average 

retain a minimum of 3-8 medium to large snags per acre, per Forest Plan guidelines and project resource 

protection measures. These levels of snag retention are within the range of average snag densities 

observed across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

The cumulative effects to snags in green forest from all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

projects in the wildlife analysis area when combined with Alternative 2 would reduce medium and large 

snags densities to 3-8 snags/acre within ~8,280 acres of green forest within the wildlife analysis area. The 

cumulative acreage for Alternative 2 is approximately 8,280, while the cumulative acreage for Alternative 

3 is 8,140. Alternative 2 would change snag densities on an estimated 5,517 acres, which represents 67% 

of the total cumulative effects within the wildlife analysis area under Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would 

change snag densities on an estimated 5,376 acres, which represents 66% of the total cumulative effects 

within the wildlife analysis area under Alternative 3. The potential cumulative reduction in snag densities 

within between 8,140 and 8,280 acres of green forest due to the combination of either action alternative 

plus all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the wildlife analysis area will not alter 

the existing trend in this habitat element across the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. These reduced snag 

densities are within the range of snag densities observed across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-289

Summary of Hairy Woodpecker Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale 

The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS amendment) requires 

bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the hairy woodpecker; hence, the 

snag effects analysis for the South Shore project must be informed by both habitat and distribution 

population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status 

and trend data for the hairy woodpecker. This information is drawn from the detailed information on 

habitat and distribution population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS report (USDA FS 2010a, 

which is hereby incorporated by reference. 

Ecosystem component status and trend 

The current average number of medium-sized and large-sized snags (> 15" dbh, all decay 

classes) per acre across major coniferous and hardwood forest types (westside mixed conifer, 

ponderosa pine, white fir, productive hardwoods, red fir, eastside pine) in the Sierra Nevada 

ranges from 1.5 per acre in eastside pine to 9.1 per acre in white fir. In 2008, snags in these types 

ranged from 1.4 per acre in eastside pine to 8.3 per acre in white fir (USDA FS 2008). 

Data from the early-to-mid 2000s were compared with the current data to calculate the trend in 

total snags per acre by Regional forest type for the 10 Sierra Nevada national forests and indicate 

that, during this period, snags per acre increased within westside mixed conifer (+0.76), white fir 

(+2.66), productive hardwoods (+0.35), and red fir (+1.25) and decreased within ponderosa pine 

(-0.16) and eastside pine (-0.14) 

Detailed information by forest type, snag size, and snag decay class can be found in the 2010 

SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA FS 2010a). 

Population status and trend 

Monitoring of the hairy woodpecker across the ten National Forests in the Sierra Nevada has been 

conducted since 2009 in partnership with PRBO Conservation Science, as part of a monitoring 

effort that also includes mountain quail, fox sparrow, and yellow warbler (USDA FS 2010a, 

http://data.prbo.org/partners/usfs/snmis/). Hairy woodpeckers were detected on 15.1% of 1659 

point counts (and 25.2% of 424 playback points) in 2009 and 16.7% of 2266 point counts (and 

25.6% of 492 playback points) in 2010, with detections on all 10 national forests in both years. 

The average abundance (number of individuals recorded on passive point count surveys) was 

0.116 in 2009 and 0.107 in 2010. These data indicate that hairy woodpeckers continue to be 

distributed across the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests. In addition, the hairy woodpeckers 

continue to be monitored and surveyed in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by avian 

point count and breeding bird survey protocols. These are summarized in the 2008 Bioregional 

Monitoring Report (USDA FS 2008). Current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra 

Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of hairy woodpecker populations in the Sierra Nevada 

is stable. 

Relationship of project-level habitat impacts to bioregional-scale hairy woodpecker 

trend 

The potential changes in medium-sized snags per acre on 5,376-5,517 acres out of 60,193 acres in the 

South Shore wildlife analysis area will not alter the existing trend in medium or large snag densities in 

green forest, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of hairy woodpecker across the Sierra Nevada 

bioregion. 

Snags in Burned Forest Ecosystem Component (black-backed 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-290 Chapter 3 

woodpecker) 

Habitat/species relationship 

The black-backed woodpecker was selected as the MIS for the ecosystem component of snags in burned 

forests. Recent data indicate that black-backed woodpeckers are dependent on snags created by standreplacement fires (Hutto 1995, Kotliar et al 2002, Smucker et al 2005). The abundant snags associated 

with severely burned forests provide both prey (by providing food for the specialized beetle larvae that 

serve as prey) and nesting sites (Hutto and Gallo 2006). Recent habitat relationship information gathered 

on several Sierra Nevada National Forests, including the LTBMU, are considered and incorporated by 

reference (Siegel et al 2009). 

Habitat factors for the project-level effects analysis 

 Medium (15-30 inches dbh) snags per acre within burned forest created by stand-replacing fire. 

 Large (greater than 30 inches dbh) snags per acre within burned forest created by stand-replacing 

fire. 

Existing Conditions 

A total of 3,614 acres of burned forest containing a snag component exist within the wildlife analysis 

area. Data from common stand exam data were available for characterizing snag densities in burned forest 

within the project proposed treatment areas; 12 stands dominated by burned forest were surveyed for 

snags. Average snag densities in burned forest were calculated using weighted averages based on the size 

of each stand. 

Medium (15-30 inches dbh) snags per acre: An average of 13.9 medium snags occur per acre in burned 

forest within the wildlife analysis area. 

Large (greater than 30 inches dbh) snags per acre: An average of 2.3 large snags occur per acre within 

burned forest stands in the wildlife analysis area, based on data from 12 burned stands in the wildlife 

analysis area. 

Direct and Indirect Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

No changes in the total area of burned forest habitat containing snags would be anticipated due to the No 

Action alternative of the South Shore project, because no treatments would occur under this alternative. 

Medium (15-30 inches dbh) snags per acre: Medium snag densities in burned forest would not be affected 

by the No Action alternative, because treatments would not be implemented as a result of this alternative. 

Large (greater than 30 inches dbh) snags per acre: Large snag densities in burned forest would not be 

affected by the No Action alternative, because treatments would not be implemented as a result of this 

alternative. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 

No changes in the total area of burned forest habitat containing snags would be anticipated due to 

Alternative 2 or 3 of the South Shore project; minimum levels of snag retention per acre have been 

established in the Forest Plan. However, changes to snag densities among acres of burned forest treated 

are anticipated as discussed below. 

Medium (15-30 inches dbh) snags per acre: The same area of burned forest would be treated under 

Alternatives 2 and 3; therefore, 315 acres of burned forest may have medium snag densities reduced. This 

represents the acres of burned forest in the wildlife analysis area that currently contain greater than 3 

medium to large snags per acre. Forest Plan guidelines require minimum snag retention levels of 3 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-291

medium to large snags per acre on average; hence, only treatment stands with an average snag density > 3 

per acre would be anticipated to have snags removed as part of project proposed actions under either 

action alternative. Out of the total 3,614 acres in the wildlife analysis area containing snags in burned 

forest, this represents a change in medium snag density within 9% of burned forest in the wildlife analysis 

area. Because minimum snag retention levels have been identified as project resource protection 

measures, medium snag densities would not be reduced below 3 snags/acre when there is an absence of 

larger sized snags, or not below ~1 snag/acre in the presence of larger snags (which currently average 2.3 

snags/acre). 

Large (greater than 30 inches dbh) snags per acre: Due to project resource protection measures limiting 

removal of snags > 30 inches dbh, both action alternatives would have limited effect on large snag 

densities in burned forest in the wildlife analysis area; only hazard trees would be removed adjacent to 

established infrastructure (e.g. houses, roads/trails, etc). 

Because burned forests contain higher snag densities than green forests in the wildlife analysis area, the 

potential reduction in snag density within burned forest would be greater than the reduction in green 

forest. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

There are no cumulative effects to snags in burned forest habitat due to the No Action alternative, because 

there would not be direct or indirect effects of this alternative to this habitat type. 

Due to the lack of cumulative effects to snags in burned forest habitat, the No Action alternative would 

not alter the existing trend in the habitat. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 

The list of projects affecting snags in burned forest habitat includes vegetation management projects and 

restoration projects within burned forest, primarily future projects proposed within the Angora Fire burn 

area. The total acreage of this habitat treated, or proposed for treatment in all past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future vegetation management projects combined with either South Shore project action 

alternative is ~3,075 acres. This represents the cumulative acreage of burned forest with potential 

reductions in medium and large snag densities in the wildlife analysis area. Vegetation management 

projects remove snags when necessary to meet fuels reduction or safety objectives, and on average retain 

a minimum of 3-8 medium to large snags per acre, per Forest Plan guidelines and project resource 

protection measures. These levels of snag retention are within the range of average snag densities 

observed across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. 

There are 211,000 acres of burned forest throughout the Sierra Nevada bioregion. The cumulative effects 

to snags in burned forest of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the wildlife 

analysis area, including either Alternative 2 or 3 of the South Shore project, would produce a potential 

reduction of medium and large snags densities to 3-8 snags/acre within ~3075 acres in the wildlife 

analysis area. The resulting snag densities are within the range of snag densities observed across the 

Sierra Nevada bioregion. Either action alternative would contribute 10% to the total cumulative effects 

within the wildlife analysis area from the estimated 315 acres may have changes in snag densities. The 

potential cumulative effects to snag densities within ~3,075 acres of burned forest due to all past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the wildlife analysis area will not alter the existing trend in 

this habitat element across the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. 

Summary of Black-backed Woodpecker Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale 

The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS amendment) requires 

bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the black-backed woodpecker; hence, 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-292 Chapter 3 

the snags effects analysis for the South Shore project must be informed by both habitat and distribution 

population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status 

and trend data for the black-backed woodpecker. This information is drawn from the detailed information 

on habitat and distribution population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS report (USDA FS 2010a, 

which is hereby incorporated by reference. 

Ecosystem component status and trend 

The current average number of medium-sized and large-sized snags (> 15" dbh, all decay classes) per 

acre across major coniferous and hardwood forest types (westside mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, white 

fir, productive hardwoods, red fir, eastside pine) in the Sierra Nevada ranges from 1.5 per acre in eastside 

pine to 9.1 per acre in white fir. In 2008, snags in these forest types ranged from 1.4 per acre in eastside 

pine to 8.3 per acre in white fir (USDA FS 2008). Data from the early-to-mid 2000s were compared 

with the current data to calculate the trend in total snags per acre by Regional forest type for the 10 Sierra 

Nevada national forests and indicate that, during this period, snags per acre increased within westside 

mixed conifer (+0.76), white fir (+2.66), productive hardwoods (+0.35), and red fir (+1.25) and decreased 

within ponderosa pine (-0.16) and eastside pine (-0.14). 

Detailed information by forest type, snag size, and snag decay class can be found in the 2010 SNF 

Bioregional MIS Report (USDA FS 2010a). 

These data include snags in both green forest and burned forest. Between 2000 and 2007, 211,000 acres 

underwent severe burn and 176,000 acres underwent moderate burn in the Sierra Nevada. 

Population status and trend 

Monitoring of the black-backed woodpecker across the 10 National Forests in the Sierra Nevada has been 

conducted since 2008 in partnership with the Institute for Bird Populations (IBP) (USDA FS 2010a, 

http://www.birdpop.org/Sierra/bbwo.htm). In 2008, black-backed woodpeckers were detected at 68 

survey stations distributed across 10 of the 19 fire areas surveyed. In 2009, black-backed woodpeckers 

were detected at 169 survey station distributed across 28 of the 51 fire areas surveyed. In both years, 

occupied sites were well distributed across the Sierra Nevada national forests, included burned areas of a 

variety of sizes, and included areas 1 to 10 years post-fire. These data indicate that black-backed 

woodpeckers continue to be distributed across the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests. Additionally, mean 

occupancy probability for stations surveyed during 2009 was 0.253 (95% credible interval: 0.222 – 

0.289); applying this probability across the 10 national forests yields an estimate that approximately 

81,814 ha (25.3%) (range of 71,921 – 93,610 ha) the 323,358 ha of burned forest (burned between 1999 

and 2008) on the ten national forest units within monitoring area was occupied by Black-backed 

Woodpeckers in 2009. In addition, the black-backed woodpeckers continue to be surveyed in the Sierra 

Nevada at various sample locations by avian point count, spot mapping, mist-net, and breeding bird 

survey protocols. These are summarized in the 2008 Bioregional Monitoring Report (USDA FS 2008). 

Current data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of blackbacked woodpecker populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable. 

Relationship of project-level habitat impacts to bioregional-scale trend 

The potential change in snag densities, primarily in medium-sized snags, on 315 acres out of 3,614 acres 

of burned forest in the South Shore wildlife analysis area will not alter the existing trend in the ecosystem 

component, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of black-backed woodpecker across the Sierra 

Nevada bioregion. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-293

Comparison of Alternative Effects 

Anticipated effects of the action alternatives considered under the South Shore project on MIS Habitat are 

summarized below (Table 3-96). 

Table 3-96. Summary of pre-treatment MIS habitat acres as a result of each alternative 

MIS habitat or 

ecosystem 

component 

Pre-treatment 

MIS habitat 

acres 

(same as no 

action) 

Posttreatment 

MIS habitat 

acres 

Alt.2 

Change in 

MIS 

habitat 

acres 

Alt. 2 

Posttreatment 

MIS habitat 

acres 

Alt.3 

Change in 

MIS 

Habitat 

acres 

Alt. 3 

Riverine & 

Lacustrine1

225 miles stream;

2,665 acres 

lacustrine

225 miles/ 

2,665 acres

0 225 miles/ 

2,665 acres 

0

Riparian2 3,658 3,658 0 3,658 0

Wet meadow3 1,283 1,398 +115 1,382 +99

Coniferous forest, 

early and mid-seral4

24,157 22,923 -1,234 23,690 -1,035

Coniferous forest, 

late seral, open 

canopy4

443 1,223 +780 1,212 +769

Coniferous forest, 

late seral, closed 

canopy4

481 741 +260 684 +203

Snags in green 

forest5

60,193 60,193 0 60,193 0

Snags in burned 

forest6

3,614 3,614 0 3,614 0

1

 Riverine habitat is defined as miles of perennial streams and was based on the existing stream data. 

Lacustrine habitat is defined as area covered by water in the existing vegetation data layer. 2

 Riparian habitat is defined as deciduous and mixed deciduous/conifer riparian types based on the 

existing riparian vegetation data. The deciduous riparian type encompasses some SEZs. 3

 Meadow habitat was defined as CWHR designated wet meadow habitat within the existing vegetation 

data layer. Wet meadow systems also include some SEZs. 4

 Acres of all coniferous forest habitat types were calculated using the area of each respective habitat 

type within the existing vegetation data, but outside recent fire area perimeters (see note 6 below). 5

 Snags in green forest habitat (i.e. containing medium to large snags) is defined as CWHR size class 4 

(> 24 inch dbh) or greater, with any canopy cover class (S, P, M or D), but outside recent fire area 

perimeters (see note 6 below). 6

 Snags in burned forest includes acres designated as CWHR size class 4 or greater in any canopy 

cover class, and within the boundaries of wildfires occurring in the last 10 years (Angora Fire: 2007, 

Cathedral Fire: 2006, Showers Fire: 2002, Gondola Fire: 2002, Pioneer Fire: 2002 and Kiva Fire: 

2002).

The change in acres by alternative for individual habitat factors of MIS habitat types is displayed below in 

Table 3-101. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-294 Chapter 3 

Table 3-97. Summary of MIS habitat acres within the South Shore project wildlife analysis area and 

acres with changes to individual habitat factors as a result of each alternative 

MIS habitat 

and 

habitat factors 

Acres in project 

wildlife analysis 

area 

Acres with 

changes to 

habitat factors 

Alt. 1 

Acres with 

changes to 

habitat factors 

Alt. 2 

Acres with 

changes to 

habitat factors 

Alt. 3 

Riverine & Lacustrine 225 miles stream;

2,665 acres 

lacustrine

0 21 miles stream; 

9 acres 

lacustrine 

20 miles stream

4 acres 

lacustrine

 Flow N/A N/A N/A N/A

 Sedimentation N/A N/A N/A N/A

 Water Surface Shade N/A N/A N/A N/A

Riparian 3,658 0 496 466

 Deciduous canopy cover 2,014 0 496 466

 Total Canopy Cover 3,658 0 240 176

 CWHR size class 3,658 0 179 140

Wet Meadow 1,283 0 115 99

 CWHR herbaceous height 

class 

N/D N/D N/D N/D

 CWHR herbaceous 

ground 

 cover class 

N/D N/D N/D N/D

 meadow hydrology N/A N/A N/A N/A

Coniferous Forest, 

early and mid-seral 

24,157 0 1,234 1,035

 CWHR size class 24,157 0 1,234 1,035

 tree canopy cover class 24,157 0 2,576 2,536

 understory shrub cover 25,157 0 N/D N/D

Coniferous Forest, 

late seral, open canopy 

443 0 780 769

 tree canopy cover class 443 0 142 36

 understory shrub cover 443 0 N/D N/D

Coniferous Forest, 

late seral, closed canopy 

481 0 260 203

 tree canopy cover 

 (from D-M) 

481 0 70 70

 Large log/large snag 

density 

481 0 31 20

Snags in green forest 60,193 0 10,670 10,112

 medium snag density 60,193 0 5,517 5,376

 large snag density 60,183 0 minimal minimal

Snags in burned forest 3,614 0 0 0

 medium snag density 3,614 0 315 315

 large snag density 3,614 0 minimal minimal

N/A = Not Applicable; N/D = No Data
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Management Indicator Species 3-295

Analytical Conclusions 

This section provides a summary of the analysis of the environmental effects on MIS from project 

activities. 

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat (Aquatic Macroinvertebrates) 

The recent Angora Fire provides an example of the effects that could be expected under the no action 

alternative if wildfire occurs. The Angora Fire resulted in mostly high burn severities along the Angora 

Creek SEZ and affected stream shade, fine sediment input and local fish populations. 

Changes in flow, sedimentation, and water surface shading as a result of the proposed action are not likely 

to impact a substantial amount of existing riverine and lacustrine habitat within the Sierra Nevada. 

Therefore, the effects of the South Shore project will not alter the existing stable trend in the habitat for 

aquatic macroinvertebrates across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. The effects of both action alternatives are 

below the level of significance. 

Riparian Habitat (Yellow warbler) 

The change in deciduous canopy closure in 466-496 acres, the change in total canopy cover of 176-240 

acres, and the change in CWHR size class of 140-179 acres (for alternatives 3 and 2, respectively) out of 

a total of 3,658 acres of riparian habitat in the wildlife analysis area, and 29,000 acres in the Sierra 

Nevada bioregion, will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the 

distribution of yellow warblers across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. The effects are below a level of 

significance for both action alternatives. 

Wet Meadow Habitat (Pacific tree frog) 

Trend changes in wet meadow habitat as a result of the both action alternatives, while positive and 

potentially beneficial to Pacific tree frog at the scale of the project and probably the Lake Tahoe Basin 

(potentially creating a range of 99 - 115 acres of wet meadow habitat), are not likely to impact a 

substantial amount of existing wet meadow habitat within the Sierra Nevada. Therefore, the effects of the 

South Shore Reduction Project will not alter the existing stable trend in the habitat for Pacific tree frog 

across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. The effects of both action alternatives are below a level of 

significance. 

Early and mid-seral Coniferous Forest Habitat (Mountain quail) 

The net loss of 1,035-1,234 acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest due to changes in CWHR size 

class from 1-4 to 5, the reduction in tree canopy cover across 2,536-2,576 acres of early and mid-seral 

coniferous forest out of a total of 24,157 acres of early and mid-seral coniferous forest habitat in the 

South Shore wildlife analysis area will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a 

change in the distribution of mountain quail across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. The effects for both 

action alternatives are below a level of significance. 

Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat (sooty [blue] grouse) 

The reduction in overstory canopy cover within 12 acres, and the change in understory shrub canopy 

closure within 47-51 acres out of the total of 443 acres of this habitat type in the wildlife analysis area, 

will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of sooty 

grouse across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. The net increase of 769-456 acres of late seral open canopy 

coniferous forest habitat within the South Shore wildlife analysis area, while contributing to a relatively 

large (~100%) increase in this habitat type in the wildlife analysis area, is relatively insignificant across 

the Sierra Nevada bioregion, where there are currently 75,000 acres. Therefore, the increase in this habitat 

type in the South Shore project area also will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-296 Chapter 3 

change in the distribution of sooty grouse across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. Effects are below a level of 

significance for both action alternatives. 

Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat (California spotted owl, 

American marten, and northern flying squirrel) 

The addition of 139-144 acres of late seral closed canopy forest, the changes in canopy closure of 70 

acres, and the potential changes in large snag and log densities within 20-31 acres out of 481 acres of late 

seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat in the South Shore wildlife analysis area, and 994,000 acres 

in the Sierra Nevada, will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the 

distribution of California spotted owl, American marten, or northern flying squirrel across the Sierra 

Nevada bioregion. The effects for both action alternatives are below the level of significance. 

Snags in Green Forest Ecosystem Component (Hairy woodpecker) 

The potential changes in medium-sized snags per acre on 5,376-5,517 acres out of 60,193 acres in the 

South Shore wildlife analysis area will not alter the existing trend in medium or large snag densities in 

green forest, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of hairy woodpecker across the Sierra Nevada 

bioregion. Effects are below a level of significance for both action alternatives. 

Snags in Burned Forest Ecosystem Component (black-backed woodpecker) 

The potential change in snag densities, primarily in medium-sized snags, on 315 acres out of 3,614 acres 

of burned forest in the South Shore wildlife analysis area will not alter the existing trend in the ecosystem 

component, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of black-backed woodpecker across the Sierra 

Nevada bioregion. The effects for both action alternatives are below the level of significance. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Sensitive Plants 3-297

Sensitive Plants 

Scope of the Analysis and Indicators of Effect 

None of the species considered here require consultation with the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

however, Rorippa subumbellata, Tahoe yellow cress, is a candidate species for federal listing and exists 

256 feet north of stand #40 of the proposed project. This stand is proposed for mechanical treatment in 

Alternative 2. On April 18, 2008 the LTBMU asked the USFWS, Reno Office if Technical Assistance 

would be required for the Tahoe yellow cress for the South Shore project. On April 25, 2008 the USFWS 

replied that after review of the current action alternatives technical assistance would not be needed. 

Species considered in this analysis are based on 1) the May 25, 2010 (updated on April 29, 2010) 

customized list of federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species for the Lake Tahoe 

Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) from the USDI. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2010), and 2) on 

the USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region’s list of sensitive plant species, dated October, 2006. 

This list is the most current version for the LTMBU. All applicable standards and guidelines from the 

LTBMU – Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA FS LTBMU 1988) and associated amendments 

(USDA FS 2004a and USDA FS 2004b), and other applicable laws and regulations will be applied to this 

project. 

The scope of analysis for sensitive plant existing conditions and effects in the South Shore project is 

defined as the action area. The action area is the area of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. 

The action area can be larger than the physical footprint of the project – the project area. The project area 

is the area where the vegetation treatments would occur under the action alternatives. 

Cover of the sensitive plants within the populations identified in the Biological Assessment for this 

project would be used as the indicator for effects. Cover is the amount of ground covered by the vertical 

projection of live plant matter and can be visualized by considering a bird’s-eye photograph of the 

vegetation, and is a common measure to determine effects to plants. A decrease in cover is considered a 

negative, or adverse, impact and an increase in cover would be a positive impact to sensitive plant 

species. Plant cover, including that of sensitive species, can decrease if plants are injured or killed or if 

habitat is changed so as to no longer support the sensitive species. 

Design Features have been incorporated in the South Shore FEIS that would minimize or eliminate 

adverse effects to sensitive plant species. The objective of the Design Features listed in Chapter 2 is to 

protect sensitive plant populations. Complete species listings and analysis details are given in the 

Biological Evaluation (BE) for sensitive plants, located in the project file and incorporated here by 

reference. There are no Threatened or Endangered plant species on the LTBMU, and subsequently, a BA 

(Biological Assessment), was not required. 

Existing Conditions – Sensitive Plants 

In addition to known locations of sensitive plants, sensitive plant surveys were conducted in June, July, 

and August of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 by Forest Service TEAMS planning enterprise crew and 

LTBMU botany staff (Map 18). A review of LTBMU plant survey documents and available GIS coverage 

was performed to evaluate the extent of potential habitat within the proposed project areas. Botanical 

surveys conducted in the proposed project areas focus on species with potential habitat; however, surveys 

are floristic in nature and attempts are made to identify all plants encountered in the field. Many species 

have specific habitat preferences. These habitats include wet meadows, fens, or granite scree (fens are a 

wetland-type of ecosystem that are supported by groundwater). Species that do not have potential habitat 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 

 Chapter 3

3-298

in the project area are not analyzed in this FEIS. The following Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) botanical 

species are located within the South Shore project area : 

Botrychium acendens, upswept moonwort 

Meesia triquetra, three-ranked hump-moss 

Meesia uliginosa, broad-nerved hump-moss 

The following Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) plant species have suitable habitat1

 within the action area of 

the South Shore project: 

Arabis rigidissima var. demota, Galena Creek rock cress 

Botrychium acendens, upswept moonwort 

Botrychium crenulatum, scalloped moonwort 

Botrychium lineare, slender moonwort 

Botrychium lunaria, common moonwort 

Botrychium minganense, Mingan moonwort 

Botrychium montanum, western goblin 

Bruchia bolanderi, Bolander’s candle moss 

Dendrocollybia racemosa, branched collybia 

Epilobium howellii, subalpine fireweed 

Erigeron miser, starved daisy 

Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum, Donner Pass buckwheat 

Helodium blandowii, Blandow’s bog-moss 

Hulsea brevifolia, short-leaved hulsea 

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. Hutchisonii, Hutchinson’s lewisia 

Lewisia kelloggii ssp kelloggii, Kellogg’s lewisia 

Meesia triquetra, three-ranked hump-moss 

Meesia uliginosa, broad-nerved hump-moss 

Peltigera hydrothyria, veined water lichen 

One Candidate for listing exists 256 feet north of stand 40, within the action area of the proposed 

project: 

Rorippa subumbellata, Tahoe yellow cress 

The following sensitive plant community was located within the project area of the South Shore Project: 

Fen – several fens were located within the South Shore project. Some of the fens had either sensitive 

(three-ranked hump-moss or broad-nerved hump-moss) or special interest plant species 

(sphagnum). Populations of sphagnum moss are located near Osgood Swamp. Another fen in the 

Grass Lake research natural area (RNA) exists just south of the proposed project, adjacent to, but 

not within the proposed project footprint. This fen has large populations of both three-ranked 

hump-moss and sphagnum moss. 

 

1

 Habitat suitability models for LTBMU sensitive species were run using available GIS layers such as elevation, 

topography, plant community, aspect, canopy cover, parent material, etc against factors that were postulated to be 

necessary for that plant’s survival/reproduction. Habitat models for the LTBMU are still in process of validation, 

and ‘suitable habitat’ as used here does not indicate that sensitive plants would be found in these locations. Habitat 

modeling is a tool to aid in predicting where plants may be found. This allows botanists to visit those suitable 

habitats to see if plants exist at those locations. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Sensitive Plants 3-299

The wet meadow/fen habitat within the project area (Map 18) is dominated by mosses, mesic forbs, and 

mesic graminoids. The shrub layer includes willows, Lonicera ssp. (honeysuckles), and Vaccinium 

uliginosa (western blueberry). The overstory is dominated by encroaching lodgepole pine. 

Fens in the Sierra Nevada are important biologically diverse ecosystems that provide habitats for many 

rare vascular and nonvascular plants. Fens are ground water formed wetlands. Saturated soils with low 

oxygen content drive plant species to grow faster than their carbon and litter can decay. Organic soils or 

peat accumulates in fens very slowly over time. In a fen at least forty cm out of the top eighty cm of soil 

must be peat or organic soils. Sedges including Carex utriculata (beaked sedge), Carex nebrascensis

(Nebraska sedge), and Carex aquatilis (water sedge) with deep rhizomatous root masses are an essential 

component of fens. These sedges help develop and provide stability for peat layers. Other plant species 

including Drosera rotundifolia (sundew), and mosses such as sphagnum moss, Drepanocladus sp.

(drepanocladus moss), and Philonotis sp. (Philonotis moss) are also important in forming peat. (USDA 

Forest Service 2007c) 

Fens in the National Forests of the Sierra Nevada are considered “special aquatic features” and receive a 

default riparian conservation area buffer width of 300 feet from the edge of the fen (USDA Forest Service 

2004b, pg 339). Standards and guidelines for these special aquatic features are listed on pages 340-349 of 

the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2004b). Although these standards and 

guidelines are intended to maintain or restore the geomorphic and biological characteristics of fens and 

other aquatic features, they do not prohibit other forest activities such as fuel reduction. (USDA Forest 

Service 2004b, pg 345). 

There are several fens found within the South Shore project area. The Angora Fen located in Unit 269 was 

known prior to project surveys. The Angora Fen has an occurrence of three-ranked hump-moss and an 

occurrence of broad-nerved hump-moss. Several other fens were found within the project area during 

project surveys conducted in 2006. These areas are sphagnum fens composed of Sphagnum moss species 

and located adjacent to Osgood Swamp in two treatment stands (184 and 187). 

In addition the Grass Lake RNA is located adjacent to the project area. Grass Lake is the largest 

sphagnum fen in California and the best representation of a floating fen in the Sierra Nevada. There are 

360 acres in the Grass Lake RNA. The RNA has the three-ranked hump-moss and the sphagnum moss. 

The populations of these plant species are large with a high percent cover throughout many acres in the 

RNA. Permanent monitoring plots have been established within the RNA by the LTBMU botany 

department. In addition the populations have been mapped and recorded. 

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) has established environmental thresholds for uncommon 

plant communities and sensitive plants. These environmental thresholds are used to establish the 

significance of an environmental affect to vegetation resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin. TRPA 

environmental thresholds include: provide for the non-degradation of the natural qualities of any plant 

community that is uncommon to the Basin or of exceptional scientific, ecological, or scenic value. This 

threshold applies to Grass Lake RNA and Osgood swamp within or adjacent to the South Shore project 

area. 

Environmental Consequences – Sensitive Plants 

Direct and Indirect 

Direct effects occur when sensitive plants or their potential habitat are physically impacted by activities 

associated with the proposed action. Direct impacts may include: physically breaking, crushing, or 

uprooting sensitive plants by driving over them, covering them with wood chips or slash, and prescribed 

fire treatments. Individuals may be displaced by compromising suitable sensitive plant habitat, including 

changing the hydrology to sensitive plant communities. When plants are damaged, those individuals may 

experience altered growth and development, reduced or eliminated seed-set, and reduced reproduction. If 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 

 Chapter 3

3-300

the disturbance is severe, mortality of individuals or populations can occur. Impacts to individual plants 

can negatively affect growth and development, population size, and species’ viability across a landscape. 

For annual plant species, the timing of impacts is critical. Management actions that are implemented 

subsequent to seed-set have less effect than management actions conducted prior to seed-set, as the seeds 

may still have an opportunity to germinate in the future. All of these impacts can result in a decrease of 

cover, a measurable indicator of impact. 

Indirect effects on sensitive species or their potential habitat are effects that are separated from an action 

in either time or space. Indirect effects resulting from project implementation may affect the quantity, 

quality, and distribution of habitats and may have positive or negative effects on sensitive plant 

populations. Artificial regeneration, hand release of competing vegetation, and road construction can 

indirectly impact sensitive plants by altering vegetation composition and successional pathways of 

vegetation and/or changing local hydrologic patterns or soil characteristics in sensitive plant habitats. 

Indirect effects can also occur from noxious weed invasion or from impacts to pollinators or mycorrhizae 

associated with sensitive plant species. Indirect effects being considered in this discussion include impacts 

on sensitive plant species and their habitats as a result of project implementation. Indirect effects include: 

potential noxious weed invasions, changes in vegetation community composition, loss of suitable 

sensitive plant habitat, change of hydrologic patterns that affect sensitive plants, and change in soil 

characteristics of sensitive plant habitats. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct Effects: Alternative 1 calls for “no action” within the total project area. There would be no 

implementation or activities within the project area therefore there would be no direct effects resulting 

from this alternative. 

Indirect Effects: The following species may experience indirect effects from Alternative 1: 

Arabis rigidissima var. demota (Galena Creek rock cress), Botrychium acendens (upswept moonwort), 

Botrychium crenulatum (scalloped moonwort), Botrychium lineare (slender moonwort), Botrychium 

lunaria (common moonwort), Botrychium minganense (Mingan moonwort), Botrychium montanum

(western goblin), Bruchia bolanderi (Bolander’s candle moss), Epilobium howellii (subalpine fireweed), 

Erigeron miser (starved daisy), Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum (Donner Pass buckwheat), 

Helodium blandowii, (Blandow’s bog-moss), Hulsea brevifolia (short-leaved hulsea), Lewisia kelloggii 

ssp. hutchisonii (Hutchinson’s lewisia) and Lewisia. kelloggii ssp kelloggii (Kellogg’s lewisia), Meesia 

triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss), Meesia uliginosa (broad-nerved hump-moss), Peltigera hydrothyria

(veined water lichen). 

Indirect effects may occur as a result of the No Action alternative within the proposed project area. There 

would be an increase in fuel loading across the landscape. This would be facilitated by a natural 

progression over time including increased growth of trees, additional dead trees, additional dead and 

downed fuels, and an increase of ladder fuels. There may be an increase of conifer encroachment into 

meadows and riparian ecosystems. The potential increase in tree and shrub density across the landscape 

may decrease available water for riparian plant species. Sensitive plants found within riparian and mesic 

meadow ecosystems may be impacted through habitat loss resulting from decreased soil moisture. The 

increased fuel loading and overstory growth would add to a shading of understory layers. This would alter 

the plant communities and structure. There may also be an increase in growth and density of the existing 

shrub layer across the landscape. All these combined factors can result in the loss of potential habitat for 

all listed sensitive species with suitable habitat within the project area by decreasing the amount of 

available suitable acreage. This may occur in forest, meadow, riparian, and shrub dominated areas. 

Another indirect effect of the “no action” alternative can be an increase in the risk for catastrophic 

wildland fire and extreme fire behavior across the landscape. This is due to the excessive fuel loading that 

exists presently within the project area in addition to a projected increase in fuel loading. If a catastrophic 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Sensitive Plants 3-301

wildland fire occurs, there may be adverse impacts to sensitive plant occurrences, suitable habitat, 

sensitive plant communities, and mycorrhizae dependent plant communities. This potential impact would 

entail a loss of suitable habitat, a loss of occupied habitat, a loss of individuals, and the introduction and 

spread of noxious weeds. 

No LTBMU sensitive plants life cycles, establishment, or regeneration are known to be dependent on 

catastrophic fire. Sensitive plant occurrences and suitable habitat may be impacted by burning individuals 

or modifying suitable habitat into unsuitable habitat. Mycorrhizal mats existing in organic soils may be 

burnt, impacting branched collybia and moonwort species habitat dependent on organic soils containing 

healthy mycorrhizae. 

The disturbance that wildland fire can create opens pathways for new noxious weed invasions and a 

spread of existing infestations. Noxious weed invasion can result in negative impacts to all ecosystems, 

although different habitats may be invaded by different noxious weed species. Noxious weed infestations 

can lead to changes in habitat characteristics that are detrimental to sensitive plant species. Once weeds 

have become established they can indirectly impact sensitive species through allelopathy (the production 

and release of chemical compounds that inhibit the growth of other plants), altering fire regimes, and 

competing for nutrients, light, and water. Because noxious weeds can be difficult to control or eradicate, 

weed control efforts that must be conducted on a regular basis, such as hand-pulling or digging, could 

also negatively impact sensitive plants and suitable habitat. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Effects of project activities are similar for both action alternatives, therefore they will be discussed 

together.. The direct and indirect effects of project activities on botanical resources in general are 

described first followed by species specific effects. Cumulative effects will be described last. 

Direct effects 

Construction of temporary roads effects within suitable sensitive plant habitat includes ground 

disturbance, the removal of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants, soil compaction, and the creation of open 

disturbed areas. The creation of landings effects within suitable sensitive plant habitat include ground 

disturbance and soil compaction, the removal of tree, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. Landings would 

create or may enlarge disturbed openings within the forested stands. 

Effects of hand thinning for fuel reduction and thinning within suitable sensitive plant habitat include 

crushing, killing, or injuring herbaceous and non vascular plants (which can reduce growth or seed 

production), felling and removing overstory trees reducing the canopy cover, removing or killing 

understory shrubs reducing the shrub cover, removal of coarse woody debris, accumulation of slash 

dispersed on the ground, the creation of burn piles, reduction of the ground litter layer, ground 

disturbance, soil disturbance, soil compaction, and the creation of open disturbed areas. Stand tree density 

and shading of the understory would be reduced. 

Direct effects from mechanical fuel reduction and thinning within suitable sensitive plant habitat include 

the same direct effects as hand thinning: crushing, killing, or injuring herbaceous and non vascular plants 

(which can reduce growth or seed production), felling and removing overstory trees reducing the canopy 

cover, removing or killing understory shrubs reducing the shrub cover, removal of coarse woody debris, 

accumulation of slash and wood chips dispersed on the ground, the creation of wood piles, reduction of 

the ground litter layer, ground disturbance, soil disturbance, soil compaction, and the creation of open 

disturbed areas. Stand tree density and shading of the understory would be reduced. Additional 

mechanical fuel reduction and thinning direct effects include: creation of skid trails and driving over 

plants killing or uprooting them and disturbance of mycorrhizal soils caused from mechanized and 

motorized equipment moving throughout the project area. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 

 Chapter 3

3-302

Direct effects from prescribed fire and underburning within suitable sensitive plant habitat include killing 

trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants and creating open disturbed areas. Mycorrhizal soils may be 

impacted depending on the intensity of the prescribed fire or underburn. 

Indirect effects 

Effects from the creation of temporary roads and landings within suitable sensitive plant habitat include 

altering plant communities, changing vegetation composition and successional pathways, impacts to soils 

and mycorrhizal soils of sensitive plants, and the potential for noxious weed invasion or spread. 

Effects of hand thinning for fuel reduction and thinning within suitable sensitive plant habitat include 

altering plant communities, changing vegetation composition and successional pathways, impacts to soils 

and mycorrhizal soils of sensitive plants, and the potential for noxious weed invasion or spread. 

Indirect effects of mechanical methods of fuel reduction and thinning within suitable sensitive plant 

habitat include altering plant communities, changing vegetation composition and successional pathways, 

impacts to soils and mycorrhizal soils of sensitive plants, impacts to hydrology of sensitive plant 

communities, and the potential for noxious weed invasion or spread. 

Indirect effects from prescribed fire and underburning within suitable sensitive plant habitat include 

altering plant communities, changing vegetation composition and successional pathways, impacts to soils 

and mycorrhizal soils of sensitive plants, and the potential for noxious weed invasion or spread. 

Indirect effects to fens, wetlands, wet meadows, and riparian areas within suitable sensitive plant habitat 

include altering hydrology, flow patterns, and water regimes which affect sensitive plants and sensitive 

plant communities. Design Features have been developed to eliminate adverse effects from mechanical 

treatment utilizing motorized vehicles such as open disturbed areas, ruts and soil disturbance which can 

lead to altered hydrology, drying out of soils, change in species composition and plant communities, and 

the loss of sensitive plant habitat and sensitive plants. (Chapter 2, Sensitive Plant BE Appendix B). 

Although suitable habitats may be directly altered initially, there may be long term beneficial indirect 

effects from the South Shore project. The activities under both action alternatives may enhance and 

increase available sensitive plant suitable habitat by changing the present condition to a more desirable 

condition. This may include an increase of available water in the soils and riparian areas and the reduction 

of canopy cover of trees and shrubs, along with a reduction in the risk of high-intensity wildfire. 

Beneficial indirect effects to fens, wetlands, wet meadows, and riparian areas can result from hand or 

mechanical fuel reduction and thinning which may enhance and increase suitable sensitive plant habitat. 

Cutting trees reduces the evapotransporation rates around fens, wetlands, wet meadows, and riparian areas 

which can increase available ground and runoff water to the ecosystems over the longer growing season. 

Reducing the overstory through fuel reduction and thinning also creates openings with less shading which 

can promote more evaporation of wetlands to reduce water levels early in the growing season. 

Organic soils are included in the factors that regulate the health and productivity of forests. Fuels 

reduction, thinning, and prescribed burning may reduce the amount of soil surface organic matter, which 

could reduce mycorrhizae development. Moonwort complex species and branched collybia are dependent 

on soil mycorrhizae for establishment and growth. Reduction in mycorrhizae in these soils can cause 

indirect effects to these sensitive plant species, including: compromised vegetative and reproductive 

growth, loss of individuals, and loss of suitable habitat. Studies have correlated mycorrhizae reduction 

and reduced tree growth to the removal of organic soil horizons and high levels of soil disturbance. 

Removal of large coarse woody debris through fuels reduction and thinning also may have impacts on soil 

health and productivity (Jurgensen et al 1997). 

There is potential for indirect effects from noxious weeds as a result of project implementation. Noxious 

weed invasion can result in negative impacts to all ecosystems, although different habitats may be 

invaded by different noxious weed species. Noxious weed infestations can lead to changes in habitat that 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Sensitive Plants 3-303

are detrimental to sensitive plant species. Once weeds have become established they can indirectly impact 

sensitive species through allelopathy (the production and release of chemical compounds that inhibit the 

growth of other plants), altering fire regimes, and competing for nutrients, light, and water. Weed control 

efforts that must be conducted on a regular basis once weeds have become established, such as handpulling or digging, could also negatively impact sensitive plants. Standard management practices would 

be required to minimize the threat from noxious weed establishment and infestation. (See Chapter 2 for 

weed prevention design features.) 

Species specific effects for Alternatives 2 & 3 

Arabis rigidissima var. demota (Galena Creek rock cress): There would be no direct, indirct, or 

cumulative effects to Galena Creek rock cress from either action alternative in the South Shore project; 

Galena Creek rock cress was not located in the project area during surveys. 

Botrychium species, moonwort complex include: 

Botrychium acendens, upswept moonwort 

Botrychium crenulatum, scalloped moonwort 

Botrychium lineare, slender moonwort 

Botrychium lunaria, common moonwort 

Botrychium minganense, Mingan moonwort

Botrychium montanum, western goblin 

Moonworts are perennial herbs. They are very small, thin, delicate, primitive ferns, typically less than 5 in 

tall. Literature suggests species in the moonwort complex share similar preferences in habitat, such as wet 

or moist soils in marshes, meadows, and along the edges of lakes and streams at elevations between 4,700 

and 9,000 ft. They grow with mosses, grasses, sedges, rushes, and other riparian vegetation and are 

closely associated with mycorrhizal fungi at all life stages. The moonworts are sensitive to drought and 

may be dormant in dry years. Important habitat requirements are shade and soil moisture, presence of 

organic matter, and avoiding disturbance such as defoliation or root/mycorrhizal disruption. Potential 

habitat for moonwort species is found in riparian zones and seeps in the proposed project. This includes 

wet or moist soils in marshes, meadows, and along the edges of lakes and streams. There are 

approximately 2059 acres of potential moonwort complex (Botrychium spp.) habitat within the total 

project area. 

There are no known sites of slender moonwort, or common moonwort on the LTBMU. There are two 

documented occurrences of scalloped moonwort in the Lake Tahoe Basin; one is on California Tahoe 

Conservancy property in Ward Canyon at an elevation of approximately 6,400 ft with 36 individuals, and 

the other is on the LTBMU in Blackwood Canyon at the same elevation with 2 individuals. Both sites are 

on volcanic soils. There is one documented occurrence of Mingan moonwort, consisting of two 

individuals, on the east shore of Lake Tahoe within a riparian zone. One occurrence of western goblin, 

consisting of 34 individuals, was found and confirmed in 2006 near Meeks Meadow in a seep adjacent to 

a hiking trail. There is one occurrence of upswept moonwort in the South Shore project area which was 

found during project surveys conducted in 2007. Following are the individual moonwort species findings: 

Botrychium acendens (upswept moonwort): Upswept moonwort is designated as sensitive by the 

Regional Forester. This species is often found in wet meadows or in riparian areas in coniferous forests 

and is currently known from 1500-2285 meters. Four individuals were identified in a small seep area 

north of Pioneer Trail in Unit 241 below alders (Alnus incana) within a mixed conifer forest. Moonworts 

and their roots are dependent on mycorrhizal soils. Any impacts or loss of these organic soils can lead to 

loss of habitat, individuals, or occurrences. No fuels reduction or thinning activities would occur near the 

upswept moonwort population or associated organic mycorrhizal soils. This unit is designated for hand 

thinning. Trees would be directionally felled away from the population and buffered area. Prescribed fire 

or underburning would not be allowed within the population vicinity. If any new populations are found 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 

 Chapter 3

3-304

they would be protected, avoided, and sensitive plant design criteria (SP-1 through SP-3 would be 

applied. There would be no direct effects to upswept moonwort from the proposed project. 

Due to years of fire suppression the natural fire regime and fire return interval across the LTBMU 

landscape has been altered. This has promoted an increased fuel loading, increased tree density, and 

increased overstory shading. This ecosystem dynamic may have resulted in a loss or decreased quality of 

suitable upswept moonwort habitat through loss of available ground moisture and decreased suitable 

riparian habitat. 

The proposed project may yield beneficial indirect effects to upswept moonwort. Fuel reduction and hand 

thinning project activities would reduce the basal area, density, and overstory shading of conifers 

throughout the stand. Although there may be initial disturbance from fuel reduction activities outside of 

the existing upswept moonwort buffered area, a healthier stand ecosystem would result in the long term. 

This would increase available moisture and nutrients within the stand, enhancing the small stream/seep 

where the population exists. There is also the possibility of negative indirect effects resulting from the 

spread of noxious weed spread from the implementation of the proposed project. 

Cumulative effects to upswept moonwort include past, present, and foreseeable future actions are 

bounded by the LTBMU Bijou Frontage HUC7 watershed where upswept moonwort is found in the South 

Shore project area. This bounding was chosen because there is only one occurrence of upswept moonwort 

on the LTBMU. Although Botrychium spp. reproduce through underground rhizomes with associated 

mycorrhizae and organic soils, they also have sporophores which produce viable spores for reproduction. 

Because of the ability of moonwort gametophytes to self-fertilize, it is reasonable to expect that a single 

spore is capable of dispersing and establishing a new population. However, these spores have highly 

specific germination requirements and some researchers have hypothesized that the average dispersal 

distance for some Botrychium spp. ranges from a few centimeters up to three meters. Establishment of 

new populations outside the vicinity of the project area from the existing upswept moonwort population is 

low. Therefore past, present, and foreseeable future actions would only have potential or incremental 

cumulative effects to the one isolated occurrence found within the project boundary. 

Past and Present actions and projects in the upswept moonwort area include and the following fuels 

reduction projects: 

 Hand thinning 1997-2006 (200 acres) 

 Mechanical thinning 1988 and 2004 (297 acres) 

 Pile burning 1989, 2004, 2006, and 2007 (236 acres) 

 Mastication/Chipping/Rearrangement of Activity Fuels/Lop and Scatter 2004, 2005, 2006 (81 

acres) 

Current management direction is designed to eliminate or reduce possible negative cumulative impacts by 

protecting known sensitive plants species from direct and indirect impacts. Overall, management of the 

direct and indirect effects through project design features would result inno cumulative effects. 

Botrychium crenulatum (scalloped moonwort), Botrychium lineare (slender moonwort), Botrychium 

lunaria (common moonwort), Botrychium minganense (Mingan moonwort), and Botrychium 

montanum (western goblin): There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to scalloped 

moonwort, slender moonwort, common moonwort, Mingan moonwort, or western goblin from the 

proposed project. Scalloped moonwort, slender moonwort, common moonwort, Mingan moonwort, or 

western goblin were not located during project surveys. Sensitive plant and floristic surveys were 

conducted in suitable habitat during the 2006 - 2008 field seasons by LTBMU botanists. 

Bruchia bolanderi (Bolander’s candle moss): There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects 

to Bolander’s candle moss from the proposed project. Bolander’s candle moss was not located during 

project surveys. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Sensitive Plants 3-305

Dendrocollybia racemosa (branched collybia): There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects 

to branched collybia from the proposed project. Branched collybia was not located during project surveys. 

However, in 2008, permanent Region 5 branched collybia monitoring plots were established, one of 

which is within the South Shore project area. These plots are one acre in size. Regional habitat modeling 

determined that branched collybia potential is highest for LTBMU within these plots. A Design Feature 

has been included to prevent direct impact or degradation to the branched collybia monitoring plot within 

the South Shore project area (See Appendix C of the sensitive plant BE, design criteria for branched 

collybia,). 

Epilobium howellii (subalpine fireweed): There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to 

subalpine fireweed from the proposed project. Subalpine fireweed was not located during project surveys. 

Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum (Donner Pass buckwheat): There would be no direct, indirect, 

or cumulative effects to Donner Pass buckwheat from the proposed project. Donner Pass buckwheat was 

not located during project surveys. 

Helodium blandowii, (Blandow’s bog-moss): There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to 

Blandow’s bog-moss from the proposed project. Blandow’s bog-moss was not located during project 

surveys. 

Hulsea brevifolia (short-leaved hulsea): There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to 

short-leaved hulsea from the proposed project. Short-leaved hulsea was not located during project 

surveys.

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii (Hutchinson’s lewisia): There would be no direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects to Kellogg’s lewisia from the South Shore project action alternatives; Hutchinson’s 

lewisia was not located during project surveys. 

Lewisia kelloggii ssp kelloggii (Kellogg’s lewisia): There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative 

effects to Kellogg’s lewisia from the proposed project. Kellogg’s lewisia was not located during project 

surveys. 

Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss): There would be no direct effects to three-ranked humpmoss from the proposed project. Two occurrences of three-ranked hump-moss exist within the footprint of 

the proposed project known from prior surveys, one of which is in a fen. There is also a large population 

of three-ranked hump-moss in the Grass Lake research natural area (Map 21) which is located adjacent, 

but outside of, the South Shore project footprint. Project surveys did not locate any additional 

populations. Design criteria would eliminate any direct impacts to three-ranked hump-moss. 

No project activities would be allowed within a buffered area of the three-ranked hump-moss populations. 

In addition, no project activities would be conducted in any adjacent fen, wet, or saturated soils to keep 

from impacting the hydrology required by the sensitive moss. Directional felling of trees would occur 

away from any wet soils. Underburning would not occur within the buffered area near the population or 

surrounding wet soils. Hand thinning rather than mechanical thinning would occur in the areas adjacent to 

the buffered areas to ensure that no impacts to the habitat hydrology would occur due to heavy machinery. 

There will be no project activities within Grass Lake RNA. The project activities will be restricted to 

ingress and egress along the access road which borders the RNA. There will be no disturbance or impacts 

to the RNA or sensitive plant communities within the RNA. 

However, there may be some beneficial indirect effects from the proposed action to three-ranked humpmoss. Cutting trees reduces the evapotransporation rates around fens, wetlands, wet meadows, and 

riparian areas. This can increase available ground and runoff water to these ecosystems. An increase in 

available water can increase the size and health of both fen and riparian areas populated by three-ranked 

hump-moss. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 

 Chapter 3

3-306

The following are the past, present, and foreseeable future actions that have affected or may affect threeranked hump moss in the South Shore FEIS action area. This includes the project footprint, Grass Lake 

RNA, and an occurrence of three-ranked hump-moss near the proposed project footprint which is located 

2,000 ft from a treatment unit. This bounding was chosen because all of the known occurrences of the 

species on the LTBMU are near South Lake Tahoe. 

Past and present actions and projects in the three-ranked hump-moss bounded area include: 

Angora Creek restoration [sewer reach (constructed 2002), golf course reach (constructed 1997-98), 

above View Circle and low water crossing replacement (constructed 2005 and 2006)] 

In Angora Creek HUC7: Approx. 8,000 ft of restored stream length from sewer reach and golf course 

reach combined; 2,300 ft of restored channel and 4.5 acres of SEZ enhancement from the project 

above View Circle 

Creation of Grass Lake Research Natural Area (RNA) 

Previous fuel reduction projects near Saxon Creek 

Hand thinning 1999-2007 (512 acres) 

Mechanical thinning 1998-2002 (479 acres) 

Pile burning 2001-2005 (457 acres) 

Mastication/Chipping/Rearrangement of Activity Fuels/Lop and Scatter 2001, 2002, 2007 (252 acres) 

Recreation 

Present and future actions and projects in the three-ranked hump-moss bounded area include: 

Lake Tahoe ecosystem underburn project 

Angora Fire ecosystem restoration project 

Angora hazard tree removal project 

Aspen community restoration project 

Upper Truckee River – Sunset Reach (planned 2009-2011 construction) 

Lower Upper Truckee HUC7 – expected length of restored channel is 12,000 ft 

Current management direction is designed to eliminate or reduce possible negative cumulative impacts by 

protecting known sensitive plants species from direct and indirect impacts. Overall, management of the 

direct and indirect effects through project design criteria and implementation of those design criteria 

would minimize the potential for negative cumulative effects. Because there would be no adverse direct 

or indirect effects there would be no negative cumulative effects to three-ranked hump-moss as a result of 

the South Shore project. 

Meesia uliginosa (broad-nerved hump-moss): Two occurrences of broad-nerved hump-moss known 

from prior surveys exist within the of the South Shore project area. Project surveys did not locate any 

additional occurrences. Design criteria have been developed to eliminate any direct impacts and adverse 

indirect impacts to broad-nerved hump-moss. There would be no direct effects to broad-nerved humpmoss from the proposed project. 

One of these populations is located in a unit that would be hand thinned. No project activities would be 

conducted within a buffered area around the broad-nerved hump-moss population or in wet or saturated 

soils to avoid impacting the hydrology required by this sensitive moss. Directional felling of trees would 

occur away from any wet soils and underburning would not occur near the sensitive moss population or 

wet soils. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Sensitive Plants 3-307

The other population is located in a fen within in a unit that would be mechanically thinned. The fen 

would be flagged and buffered. No project activities would occur within the fen or buffer which support 

the hydrology of the fen. Hand thinning rather than mechanical thinning would occur in the areas adjacent 

to the buffered area to ensure that no impacts to the fen hydrology due to heavy machinery would occur. 

No underburning would occur within buffered areas. 

Design features would also ensure that there would be no adverse indirect effects to the broad-nerved 

hump-moss from the proposed project. However, there may be some beneficial indirect effects from the 

proposed action to broad-nerved hump-moss. Removing trees reduces the evapotransporation rates around 

fens, wetlands, wet meadows, and riparian areas. This can increase available ground and runoff water to 

the ecosystems. An increase in available water can increase the size and health of both populated fen and 

riparian areas in the South Shore project. 

The following are the past, present, and foreseeable future actions that have affected or may affect broadnerved hump moss in the South Shore project area. Past, present, and foreseeable future actions are 

bounded where broad-nerved hump moss is found in the vicinity of the South Shore Fuels Reduction and 

Healthy Forest Restoration Project. This bounding was chosen because it contains the only occupied 

habitat of broad-nerved hump moss within the Lake Tahoe Basin. 

Past and Present actions and projects in the broad-nerved hump-moss bounded area include: 

Angora Creek Restoration [sewer reach (constructed 2002), golf course reach (constructed 1997-98), 

above View Circle, and low water crossing replacement (constructed 2005 and 2006)] 

Angora Creek HUC7: Approx. 8,000 ft of restored stream length from sewer reach and golf course 

reach combined; 2,300 ft of restored channel and 4.5 acres of SEZ enhancement from the project 

above View Circle 

Upper Truckee River – Sunset Reach (planned 2009-2011 construction) 

Lower Upper Truckee HUC7 - Expected length of restored channel is 12,000 ft 

Future actions and projects in the broad-nerved hump-moss bounded area include: 

Upper Truckee River – Sunset Reach (planned 2009-2011 construction) 

Lower Upper Truckee HUC - Expected length of restored channel is 12,000 ft 

Current management direction is designed to eliminate or reduce possible negative cumulative impacts by 

protecting known sensitive plants species from direct and indirect impacts. Overall, management of the 

direct and indirect effects through project design criteria and implementation of the project design 

features would minimize the potential for negative cumulative effects. Because there would be no adverse 

direct or indirect effects, there would be no negative cumulative effects as a result of the South Shore 

project. 

Peltigera hydrothyria (veined water lichen): Suitable habitat exists in cold unpolluted streams. Veined 

water lichen is known on the LTBMU only from a tributary to Upper Echo Lake, was not located during 

project surveys. There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to veined water lichen from the 

proposed project. 

Rorippa subumbellata (Tahoe yellow cress): Tahoe yellow cress is designated as a candidate species for 

listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA, sensitive by the regional forester, and a special interest 

species by TRPA. Tahoe yellow cress is a Lake Tahoe endemic species, found only along the Lake Tahoe 

shoreline and beaches in both California and Nevada. In 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

recognized Tahoe yellow cress as a Candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 

 Chapter 3

3-308

There are 62 occurrences of Tahoe yellow cress in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Tahoe yellow cress has been 

managed over the long-term as Forest Service Sensitive, and various actions have been taken to ensure its 

protection on lands managed by the LTBMU and other public agencies. Most recently, a conservation 

strategy was developed and signed by 13 partners around Lake Tahoe. The strategy outlines management 

and conservation goals and objectives necessary to ensure the long-term survival of the species. 

The species is sometimes associated with stream mouths and backshore areas in very dynamic 

environments to which the species is well adapted. The number of Tahoe yellow cress stems fluctuates 

over time as the level of Lake Tahoe changes due to precipitation and dam operations. 

The species is threatened by human activities in the shorezone, especially when the lake level is high. 

Recreation, along with development and maintenance of marinas, piers, boat ramps, and other 

recreational facilities within the shorezone impact this species and its habitat. When the lake level is high, 

beach users are heavily concentrated in areas occupied by the species, which results in trampling of 

individual plants as well as habitat disturbance. 

Tahoe yellow cress does not exist within the footprint of the proposed project. However, there is a core 

population 256 ft from the project area. Design criteria have been developed to eliminate potential 

impacts to this sensitive plant species. No operations would be allowed near critical Tahoe yellow cress 

habitat. This insures that no individuals or potential habitat would receive direct effects from the proposed 

project. Design criteria would also ensure that there would be no direct or indirect effects to the ecological 

processes of Taylor Creek which is the driving dynamic ecological force responsible for this core 

population. No underburning or prescribed fire would occur near Tahoe yellow cress populations. There 

would be no direct or indirect effects to Tahoe yellow cress resulting from the proposed project. 

The following are the past, present, and foreseeable future actions that have affected or may affect Tahoe 

yellow cress in the South Shore project area. Past, present, and foreseeable future actions are bounded by 

habitat where Tahoe yellow cress is found in the vicinity of the South Shore project. This bounding was 

chosen because Tahoe yellow cress only occurs on beach habitat around Lake Tahoe. For this reason the 

past, present, and foreseeable future actions are most important along the beach habitat where this species 

occurs near the footprint of the proposed project. 

Past and Present actions and projects in the Tahoe yellow cress bounded area include: 

Establishment of public beaches, boat launches, private homes, and structures 

Visitor use and recreation on the public beaches 

Water intake line construction 

Pier construction 

Future actions and projects in the Tahoe yellow cress bounded area: 

Human use would not increase as a direct result of this project but is expected to increase over time as 

population centers near the lake continue to grow. 

Increased visitor use and recreation on the public beaches where Tahoe yellow cress populations and 

habitat exist 

Valhalla Pier accessibility retrofit project 

Upper Truckee River – marsh reach (planned 2011/2012 construction) 

Lower Upper Truckee HUC7 – propose to restore approximately 9,000 ft of channel 

Past, present, and future actions may have a negative affect on Tahoe yellow cress populations and 

habitat. Visitor use and recreation have crushed plants, caused ground disturbance, altered beach habitat, 

and possibly changed plant species composition. Construction of piers have caused ground disturbance, 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Sensitive Plants 3-309

altered potential beach habitat, may have compromised potential seed banks, and may have impacted 

individuals. 

The Tahoe yellow cress population described here is an important core population in the Tahoe yellow 

cress occurrences around Lake Tahoe. Current management direction is designed to eliminate or reduce 

possible negative cumulative impacts by protecting known sensitive plants species from direct and 

indirect impacts. Overall, management of the direct and indirect effects through project design criteria and 

implementation of appropriate recommendation measures would minimize the potential for negative 

cumulative effects. Because there are no direct or indirect effects there would be no cumulative effects as 

a result of the South Shore project. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

As mentioned above, there may be some indirect effects on sensitive plant populations and 

habitat from the No Action Alternative resulting from increased fuel loading across the landscape 

and increased conifer encroachment into meadows and riparian systems. Impacts from 

catastrophic fires or invading noxious weeds can be compounded when plants are already at risk 

from such activities as changing hydrologic regimes in fen habitats, trampling by recreationists, 

or sedimentation buildup from eroding landscapes. Modeled climate change in the Basin shows 

potential increase in temperature and earlier melting of snow over the next 50 years. This may 

further stress those sensitive species that are found within the project footprint and may require 

cooler temperatures and insulating snowpack: upswept moonwort, three-ranked hump-moss, and 

broad-nerved hump-moss. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

The following are the past, present, and foreseeable future actions that have affected or may 

affect botanical resources in the Project area. These actions provide additional specificity than 

what is described in Appendix A. Past and present activities have already altered sensitive plant 

occurrences and their habitats. Current management direction is designed to eliminate or reduce 

possible negative cumulative impacts by protecting known sensitive plants species from direct 

and indirect impacts. 

Past: 

Hand thinning 1997-2006 (200 acres) 

Mechanical thinning 1988 and 2004 (297 acres) 

Pile burning 1989, 2004, 2006, and 2007 (236 acres) 

Mastication/Chipping/Rearrangement of Activity Fuels/Lop and Scatter 2004, 2005, 2006 

(81 acres) 

Angora Creek restoration [sewer reach (constructed 2002), golf course reach (constructed 1997-98), 

above View Circle and low water crossing replacement (constructed 2005 and 2006)] 

In Angora Creek HUC7: Approx. 8,000 ft of restored stream length from sewer reach and golf course 

reach combined; 2,300 ft of restored channel and 4.5 acres of SEZ enhancement from the project 

above View Circle 

Creation of Grass Lake Research Natural Area (RNA) 

Previous fuel reduction projects near Saxon Creek 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 

 Chapter 3

3-310

Hand thinning 1999-2007 (512 acres) 

Mechanical thinning 1998-2002 (479 acres) 

Pile burning 2001-2005 (457 acres) 

Mastication/Chipping/Rearrangement of Activity Fuels/Lop and Scatter 2001, 2002, 2007 (252 acres) 

Recreation 

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions include: 

Lake Tahoe ecosystem underburn project 

Angora Fire ecosystem restoration project 

Angora hazard tree removal project 

Aspen community restoration project 

Upper Truckee River – Sunset Reach (planned 2009-2011 construction) 

Lower Upper Truckee HUC7 – expected length of restored channel is 12,000 ft 

Human use and recreation 

Upper Truckee River – Sunset Reach (planned 2009-2011 construction) 

Lower Upper Truckee HUC - Expected length of restored channel is 12,000 ft 

 

The extent of cumulative effects to sensitive plants depends on the management of potential 

direct and indirect effects, as well as the attributes of the sensitive plant species located within 

the project area, their distribution within the project area, and the ability to design future projects 

with sensitive plant attributes in mind. Adverse cumulative effects are not expected as a result of 

implementation of the proposed project because resource protection measures have been 

implemented to provide protection into the project areas (see Resource Protection Measure Table 

VII – Sensitive Plants). 

Determination Of Effects

The determinations follow the guidelines and definitions established by the Pacific Southwest Region of 

the Forest Service (USDA FS 1996 and USDA FS 2000) for sensitive species and are described 

previously. Based on the description of the South Shore project and the evaluation of effects, the LTMBU 

botanist has determined the following: 

For all three alternatives, there would be no effect to Rorippa subumbellata (Tahoe yellow cress) or any 

other plant species listed as threatened, endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS). This determination is based on the absence of suitable habitat within the footprint of the 

proposed project for this species. 

For all three alternatives, there would be no effect to the following sensitive species:

Arabis tiehmii (Tiehm’s rock cress)

Draba asterophora var. asterophora (Tahoe draba) 

Draba asterophora var. macrocarpa (Cup Lake draba) 

Lewisia longipetala (Long-petaled lewisia).
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Sensitive Plants 3-311

This determination is based on the absence of suitable habitat within the project areas and the absence of 

individuals known or expected to occur. 

For all three alternatives the project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward 

Federal listing or loss of viability for the following species: 

Botrychium ascendens (upswept moonwort) 

Meesia triquetra (three-ranked hump-moss) 

Meesia uliginosa (broad-nerved hump-moss). 

These three species are known from the project area. Design Features have been incorporated to the South 

Shore FEIS that would eliminate adverse effects to these species. However, these species may be affected 

during project implementation if undetected individuals or populations are present but were not detected 

within the project area where suitable habitat occurs. 

For all three alternatives the project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward 

Federal listing or loss of viability for the following species with suitable habitat within the proposed 

project footprint: 

Arabis rigidissima var. demota (Galena Creek rock cress) 

Botrychium crenulatum (Scalloped moonwort) 

Botrychium lineare (Slender moonwort) 

Botrychium lunaria (Common moonwort) 

Botrychium minganense (Mingan moonwort) 

Botrychium montanum (Western goblin) 

Bruchia bolanderi (Bolander’s candle moss) 

Dendrocollybia racemosa (branched collybia) 

Epilobium howellii (Subalpine fireweed) 

Erigeron miser (Starved daisy) 

Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum (Donner Pass buckwheat) 

Helodium blandowii, (Blandow’s bog-moss) 

Hulsea brevifolia (short-leaved hulsea) 

Lewisia kelloggii ssp. Hutchisonii (Hutchinson’s lewisia) 

Lewisia kelloggii ssp kelloggii (Kellogg’s lewisia) 

Peltigera hydrothyria (Veined water lichen) 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 

 Chapter 3

3-312

This page intentionally left blank. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Noxious Weeds 3-313

Noxious Weeds 

Scope of the Analysis, Indicators, and Issues 

Species considered are based on the Lake Tahoe Basin weed coordinating group priorities for invasive 

and noxious weeds of concern, the California Department of Food and Agriculture noxious weed list, and 

the Nevada Department of Agriculture noxious weed list. These lists are the most current versions for the 

LTMBU. All applicable standards and guidelines from the LTBMU LRMP (USDA FS LTBMU 1988), as 

amended, including the SNFPA EIS and Record of Decision (USDA FS 2004a and USDA FS 2004b), and 

other applicable laws and regulations will be applied to this project. 

The scope of analysis for noxious weed existing conditions and effects for the South Shore project is 

defined as the area where the vegetation treatments would occur under the action alternatives. Sightings 

of noxious weeds adjacent or near the project area should be reported to the Noxious Weed Coordinator. 

Indicators of implementation of the Resource Protection Measures (RPM) for the action alternatives 

would be that the flagged weed populations remain intact throughout project activities, and any new 

noxious weed occurrences in project activity areas are promptly treated depending on the species present. 

The objective of the RPMs for noxious weeds given in Chapter 2 of this EIS is to prevent the spread or 

introduction of noxious weeds. Complete species listings and analysis details are given in the noxious 

weed risk assessment, located in the project file and incorporated here by reference. 

Existing Conditions – Noxious Weeds 

In addition to known locations of noxious weeds, surveys were conducted in June, July, and August of 

2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 by Forest Service TEAMS planning enterprise crew and LTBMU botany staff 

(Map 18). A review of the LTBMU weed atlases and available GIS coverage was used to evaluate the 

extent of potential weed risk within the proposed project areas. Weed surveys conducted in the proposed 

project areas focus on species with potential to occur; however, attempts are made to identify all plants 

encountered in the field. Some species have specific areas of greater risk of occurrence, and botanists 

search for these as well. Species that are not found in or adjacent to the project area are not analyzed in 

this EIS. 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) part 3.6 defines noxious weeds as: those plant species 

designated as noxious weeds by Federal or State law. Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the 

following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host 

of serious insects or disease, and generally non-native. Noxious weeds are categorized by several entities, 

with similar, but slightly different systems. The Lake Tahoe basin weed coordinating group (LTBWCG) 

prioritizes invasive and noxious weeds of concern by management group: Group 1: watch for, report, and 

eradicate immediately; Group 2: manage infestations with the goal of eradication. 

The California Department of Food and Agriculture’s (CDFA) noxious weed list 

(http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/ ) divides noxious weeds into categories A, B, C and Q. A-listed weeds 

are those for which eradication or containment is required at the state or county level. For B-listed weeds, 

eradication or containment is at the discretion of the county agricultural commissioner. C-listed weeds 

require eradication or containment only when found in a nursery or at the discretion of the county 

agricultural commissioner. Q-listed weeds require temporary “A” action pending determination of a 

permanent rating. 

The following table reflects the noxious weeds or their habitat are located within the South Shore project 

treatment areas: 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 

3-314 Chapter 3

Table 3-98. Noxious and invasive weed species within the project area 

Common Name Scientific Name LTBWCG CDFA NDA SNFPA Species 

Present?

Y or N 

Cheat grass Bromus tectorum NW Y 

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Group 2 C NW Y 

Scotchbroom Cytisus scoparius Group 2 C NW Y 

St. John’s wort/ 

Klamath weed 

Hypericum 

perforatum 

Group 2 C A NW Y 

Tall whitetop/ 

Perennial 

pepperweed 

Lepidium latifolium Group 2 B C NW Y 

Ox eye daisy Leucanthemum 

vulgare 

Group 2 NW Y 

Dalmatian 

toadflax 

Linaria genistifolia 

spp. dalmatica 

Group 2 A A NW Y 

Eurasian 

watermilfoil 

Myriophyllum 

spicatum 

Group 2 C A NW Y 

Sulfur 

cinquefoil 

Potentilla recta Group 1 Q A Y 

 

Woolly mullein Verbascum thapsus NW Y 

Noxious weeds are well-adapted to colonize disturbed sites, and the existing noxious weed infestations in 

the project area can be spread by the same types of activities that provided sites for the existing weed 

populations. The vectors to spread or introduce noxious weeds include: 

Vehicle traffic flow through the project area. 

Recreation use, including use of foot and bicycle trails. 

Livestock, or pack stock movements and wildlife migrations. 

Wind patterns and drainage flow direction. 

Noxious weed invasion can result in negative impacts to all ecosystems, although different habitats may 

be invaded by different noxious weed species. Noxious weed infestations can lead to changes in habitat 

characteristics that are detrimental to other plant species and wildlife. Once weeds have become 

established they can indirectly impact other species through the production and release of chemical 

compounds that inhibit the growth of other plants, altering fire regimes, and competing for nutrients, 

light, and water. Because noxious weeds can be difficult to control or eradicate, weed control efforts that 

must be conducted on a regular basis, such as hand-pulling or digging, can also negatively impact other 

plants, habitats, and soils. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Noxious Weeds 3-315

Environmental Consequences – Noxious Weeds 

Direct and Indirect 

Noxious weed invasion would be an indirect effect of South Shore project implementation. While grounddisturbing activities may provide sites for noxious weed establishment, objectives and RPMs of the 

project are to prevent noxious weed invasion. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Alternative 1 calls for “No Action” within the total project area. There would be no implementation or 

activities within the project area therefore there would be no direct effects resulting from this alternative. 

An indirect effect of the “no action” alternative would be an increase in the risk for catastrophic wildland 

fire and extreme fire behavior across the landscape due to the fuel loading that exists presently in addition 

to a projected increase in fuel loading. The disturbance of wildland fire can create pathways for new 

noxious weed invasions and a spread of existing infestations. In addition, there would be no efforts made 

to control or eliminate invasive and noxious weed species under Alternative 1, although other projects 

could include activities to control or eradicate noxious weeds. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have similar effects, and will be discussed together to reduce redundant text 

and clarify differences between the action alternatives. Both action alternatives include ground 

disturbance and soil compaction from thinning operations to remove trees with large machinery. There 

would be ground disturbance and soil compaction due to construction of landings and temporary roads, as 

well as reconstruction and maintenance of existing roads. Further ground disturbance could occur from 

either machine or hand piling and burning. Both action alternatives would increase the risk of noxious 

weed invasion from the creation of new disturbed and open areas. The use of vehicles and machinery 

increases the risk of spreading noxious weeds into new areas. Implementation of project RPMs would 

reduce the risk of spread or introduction of noxious weeds for both action alternatives. While the type of 

effects are the same for both action alternatives, Alternative 3 would reduce the potential for noxious 

weed invasion through a reduction in the acres treated, a reduction in road mileage needed, and changes 

from mechanical treatment methods to hand treatments as described in Chapter 2. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the No Action alternative, the existing factors for noxious weeds would continue, as discussed 

above. The increased risk of high intensity wildfire would also continue. However, there would be no 

additive effect from project implementation, and therefore there would be no cumulative effects from 

Alternative 1. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Cumulative effects are similar for both action alternatives, and the direct and indirect effects discussed 

above would add to the existing factors for noxious weeds, including vehicle traffic, recreation use of 

roads and trails, movement of wildlife and livestock, and the physical factors of wind and water flow 

patterns. The cumulative effects of Alternative 3 would be less than Alternative 2 because the acres of 

ground disturbance and miles of road used are both less. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 

3-316 Chapter 3

Analytical Conclusions 

This section provides a brief summary of the effects analysis for invasive and noxious weed species, 

including the magnitude, scope, and intensity of the environmental risks for noxious weeds from project 

activities. 

Effects are similar for both action alternatives, and the direct and indirect effects of both action 

alternatives would add to the existing factors for invasive and noxious weeds, including vehicle traffic, 

recreation use of roads and trails, movement of wildlife and livestock, and the physical factors of wind 

and water flow patterns. The cumulative effects of Alternative 3 would be less than Alternative 2 because 

the acres of ground disturbance and miles of road used are both less. Because of the RPMs for both action 

alternatives to prevent introduction and spread of noxious weeds, neither action alternative would result in 

significant effects for invasive and noxious weed species. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Air Quality 3-317

Air Quality 

Scope of the Analysis and Indicators of Effect 

The area of analysis for air quality effects is the Lake Tahoe Basin, including the project area extending 

through the watersheds that define the South Shore project analysis area. Air quality effects from 

implementation of either of the action alternatives would be expected to occur mainly within the spatial 

boundary of the project analysis area for two reasons: 1) because these watersheds extend beyond the 

treatment units to the crest of the mountains surrounding the South Shore project activities, and 2) 

because both vertical and horizontal mixing of air within the treatment units would reduce effects to air 

quality through dispersion over distance from the treatment activities. However, the effects to air quality 

could potentially spread further into the Lake Tahoe Basin during weather conditions that prevent 

dispersion. The timeframe for effects to air quality would be from the beginning of thinning operations 

through final prescribed fire activities, a period of approximately eight years, depending on the length of 

time needed for project implementation and prescribed burning conditions to be met, both for fuels to be 

dry enough to produce a minimum amount of smoke, and for availability of approved burn days. 

The potential impacts of concern to air quality are associated primarily with 1) temporary dust from 

equipment that is used for the removal of trees and transporting to landings, 2) dust from the surface of 

roads (both permanent and temporary) from truck traffic, and 3) smoke emissions from the burning of 

activity-related fuels. 

Existing Conditions – Air Quality 

The project area lies within the jurisdiction of the El Dorado Air Quality Management District 

(EDAQMD) which is responsible for the El Dorado County portion of the Lake Tahoe Air Basin. The 

proposed treatment areas, where both prescribed pile and underburning is proposed, are within and 

adjacent to the city of South Lake Tahoe and surrounding unincorporated communities. 

The basin shape of the Lake Tahoe Basin influences both its air movement and meteorology. Prevailing 

winds are from the west and southwest, and temperature inversions caused by atmospheric cooling are 

common throughout the seasons, occurring approximately 225 to 250 days per year. Mixing depth ranges 

from 500 feet to as high as 2,000 feet. During summer, nocturnal inversions can trap pollutants and smoke 

until daybreak when good ventilation commonly occurs. Summer inversions usually dissipate by midmorning, with the western part of the Tahoe basin being first to experience dispersion due to the shadow 

effect of the mountains at the western rim of the basin. Winter inversions are typically stronger and 

persistent, increasing the probability for local emissions to become entrapped for longer periods of time. 

Air pollutants can also be blown into the Lake Tahoe Basin from areas west (upwind) of the basin. 

Wilderness areas are designated Class I airsheds, with strict air quality objectives, to protect and maintain 

the pristine air resources of wilderness. Desolation Wilderness is located immediately adjacent to the 

western portion of the South Shore project. The southern part of Mt Rose Wilderness and the southern 

part of Granite Chief Wilderness are located about 25 to 30 miles north of the South Shore project. 

Sensitive urban areas located within the South Shore project area include the City of South Lake Tahoe, 

Meyers, Christmas Valley, and numerous suburban neighborhoods in the South Lake Tahoe area. Because 

of Tahoe’s basin shape, any urban community with in the Lake Tahoe Basin could be affected by smoke 

from the South Shore project. However, the communities adjacent to the project or downwind are most 

likely to experience noticeable effects. Downwind populated areas outside the Basin that may be affected 

include the Carson and Washoe Valleys to the east, including the cities of Reno and Carson City, Nevada. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-318

Existing air quality and clarity in the Lake Tahoe Basin meets Federal Air Quality Standards the majority 

of the year, and is valued highly by residents and visitors. Traffic during peak recreation periods causes 

minor air quality impacts from NO2 and Ozone buildup when heavy recreation traffic coincides with 

temporary inversions. Most of the year, prevailing winds carry pollutants eastward out of the basin. Class 

I air standards for the Desolation Wilderness on the western side of the Lake Tahoe Basin are met, unless 

air pollution from the Central Valley crosses the Sierra crest into the Lake Tahoe Basin. Smoke from 

wildfire within the Lake Tahoe Basin itself can create a significant impact, exemplified by the 2007 

Angora Fire (pictured below). Impacts can also occur from wildfires on adjacent Forests. In addition 

wildfire from more distant locations can impact air quality in the Lake Tahoe Basin such as during the 

2008 fire season, when the Lake Tahoe Basin was impacted for over a month by wildfires throughout 

northern California. 

 

Figure 18. Smoke at the start of the 2007 Angora wildfire 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Air Quality 3-319

Figure 19. Smoke darkens the sky during the 2007 Angora wildfire 

Environmental Consequences – Air Quality 

Direct and Indirect

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under this alternative, no increase in ozone precursors or PM10 emission levels would be produced from 

burning of activity generated fuels, harvest operations or treatments of existing surface fuels. The 

potential for substantial degradation of air quality from wildfire in the future as surface fuel deposition 

occurs would not be reduced. The No Action alternative would not provide any opportunities to reduce 

existing forest fuels and the hazard they pose in wildland fires. During the flaming phase of a catastrophic 

wildfire, air quality degradation can exceed Federal and State standards as far as 50 miles downwind. 

Forest fuels would continue to increase with biomass production out-producing the decomposition rates in 

this climate. Long-term chronic effects of wildfires include higher PM10 emissions. 

The threat of wildfire moving into communities lying within the South Shore project analysis area would 

remain high. Associated smoke from intense, severe wildfires would create both a nuisance and health 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-320

concerns in these communities for considerable durations (days or weeks). Air quality standards would 

not be met for the duration of a wildfire. Air quality can be severely impacted by particulate matter and 

other pollutants during large wildfire events. Impacts from the 2007 Angora Fire affected air quality 60 

miles away in Reno, Nevada. People with severe respiratory effects from the smoke inundation that were 

not relieved by staying indoors were advised to leave the area. Sacramento Metro Air Quality 

Management District published a Public Health Notice on October 14, 2004 in the Sacramento region 

after ash fallout was reported in Rocklin, Orangevale, and Carmichael from the combined effects of the 

Power and Freds Fire. Sacramento Metro AQMD issued a warning for the possibility of smoke impacting 

visibility down to ground level and also advised against strenuous, sustained outdoor activity due to the 

possibility of increased levels of particulate matter. 

Uncontrolled wildfires can contribute relatively large amounts of greenhouse gasses, including carbon 

dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. Wildfires present a risk for high levels of emissions and associated 

negative effects to air quality, in part due to the release of carbon that was sequestered in the forest 

biomass prior to the wildfire. Although Alternative 1 has the greatest potential for negative effects to air 

quality of the three alternatives analyzed, timing of those effects are not predictable, and would not be 

measurable at the scale used for modeling climate change. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

The South Shore project can be divided into two phases in terms of air quality impacts for both action 

alternatives. The first phase would be the thinning for forest health, removal of small diameter trees for 

ladder fuel reduction and piling of the activity created fuels. Mechanical operations are estimated to take 

four to five operating seasons to complete. Effects to air quality are largely from fugitive dust and 

emissions from trucks and mechanized equipment. 

The second phase would be piling the fuels followed by prescribed fire (under-story and pile burns). Air 

quality effects would be both from fugitive dust and burning. Prescribed burning would begin the second 

year after mechanical operations begin and would be spread over as many as eight subsequent years until 

residual fuels goals are met. The pollutants that would be released are the EPA criteria pollutants i.e. 

PM10, PM2.5, Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Oxides (NO2), Volatile Organic Carbons (VOCs) and 

minute quantities of non-criteria air toxics. Spacing of the prescribed burning and mechanical operations 

over several years would ensure compliance with federally mandated threshold levels for ozone 

precursors (VOC and/or NO2) and conformity with the state implementation plan. 

Prescribed pile and underburning affects air quality in ways similar to wildfires, however, prescribed 

burning offers many advantages over wildfire. The effects of prescribed fire can be manipulated to reduce 

effects to air quality. Guidelines that would reduce the effects of prescribed burns are termed best 

available control measures (BACM) and are based on “Prescribed Burning Background Document and 

Technical Information Document for Prescribed Burning Best Available Control Measures” (EPA). 

BACMs are based on avoidance, dilution, and emission reduction strategies. Smoke mitigation techniques 

include consideration of atmospheric conditions, season of burn, fuel and duff moisture, diurnal wind 

shifts, appropriate ignition techniques and rapid mop-up. Following these BACMs and identifying them 

in burn plans is critical in preventing adverse air quality effects. 

Temporary and short-term visibility impacts can be expected in the immediate project area during actual 

ignition and would be affected by inversions, as well as wind speed and direction. Smoke from burning 

forest fuels can impact human health, particularly for the ground crews at the site. The localized effects of 

burning in the project area would be short-term degradation of air quality, primarily during the burnout 

stage and during nighttime inversions. 

A smoke management plan would be approved by the EDAQMD prior to any burning activity that would 

occur within the South Shore project area. Several communities lie within proximity of the areas where 

both pile and prescribed burning is proposed to occur. Adherence to the smoke management plan for pile 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Air Quality 3-321

and understory burning would reduce negative impacts to communities. By adhering to a smoke 

management plan approved by the EDAQMD, particulate matter emissions from pile or understory 

burning would not violate California Ambient Air Quality (CAAQ) emission standards. Short duration 

production of smoke and associated emissions would occur during pile and understory burning. 

Figure 20. Example of understory burning 

Treatment of fuels under Alternative 2 would result in decreased production of smoke and associated 

greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions in the event of a wildfire. Because wildfires would become more 

manageable, associated smoke would be less intense and would produce lower amounts of CO2, 

greenhouse gasses, and particulate emissions in shorter durations, as compared to the larger and more 

intense fires that would occur under current conditions. This decrease would result in improved 

conditions for nuisance and associated health concerns for people in nearby communities. Vegetation 

management treatments provide the opportunity on a long-term basis to reduce the magnitude of air 

quality effects from wildfire, including greenhouse gasses and CO2. Examining four of the largest 

wildfires in the US in 2002, Hurteau et al (2008) found that, for forest land that experienced catastrophic 

stand-replacing fire, prior thinning would have reduced CO2 release from live tree biomass by as much as 

98%. 

If a wildfire event does occur after project implementation of the Proposed Action, concentrations of all 

smoke related emissions would be expected to be less than in the No Action alternative due to the reduced 

levels of fuel available and generally greater survival rates for the existing forest. This combination of 

reduced fuels and higher residual tree survival would also reduce the release of greenhouse gasses and 

CO2 and preserve greater amounts of carbon sequestration in the surviving trees in the event of a wildfire 

as compared to Alternative 1, the no action alternative (Safford et. al 2009). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-322

Fugitive dust could result from thinning operations, such as skidding and hauling during dry seasons. 

Fugitive dust caused by construction and use of unpaved roads can produce PM10 in quantities great 

enough to impair the visual quality of the air. Dust generated by skidding, loading, and site preparation 

activities also contributes to fugitive dust. These effects are localized and can be mitigated by effective 

dust abatement methods. Contractual requirements for standard road watering procedure would mitigate 

much of the problem. Best management practices (BMPs) in Appendix B and resource protection 

measures listed in Chapter 2 are specified for mitigating dust produced from operations. As a result of 

applying these BMPs fugitive dust would be minimized. 

Mechanical equipment used for road maintenance and reconstruction, water trucks for dust abatement and 

trucks that transport biomass in any form would produce exhaust containing greenhouse gases, including 

CO2 and NO2. Mechanical equipment used in thinning would also produce similar greenhouse gases from 

engine exhaust. Considering the large project area, exhaust would dissipate quickly and not have 

measurable effect. 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

The effects of Alternative 3 are similar to Alternative 2. While Alternative 3 treats 532 fewer acres, this 

would be offset by approximately 800 more acres of hand pile burning due to shifting the prescription 

from mechanical to hand thinning on some treatment units. With respect to the effects on air quality the 

differences between the alternatives is minimal and would not be measurable in the scale of the South 

Shore project area. Air quality effects depend more on the timing and conditions during burning than the 

total amount of material burned over the life of the entire project. Both alternatives would substantially 

reduce the expected smoke, including greenhouse gasses and CO2, as compared to a high intensity 

wildfire. 

Alternative 3 would have a slight reduction in fugitive dust production from thinning operations such as 

skidding and hauling during dry seasons, because there are fewer mechanically treated acres as well as 

fewer total acres of treatments. As with Alternative 2, the resource protection measures for mitigating dust 

would reduce dust produced from mechanical operations and road use to an acceptable level. 

Because Alternative 3 would use fewer miles of road, mechanical equipment used for road maintenance 

and reconstruction, water trucks for dust abatement and trucks that transport biomass in any form would 

produce somewhat less exhaust containing greenhouse gases, including CO2 and NO2. Mechanical 

equipment used in thinning would also produce less greenhouse gases from engine exhaust due to fewer 

mechanical treatment acres in Alternative 3. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Since no project activities would occur, the air quality would not change from the current condition and 

there would be no cumulative effects. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Air quality impacts generally do not have long term lingering effects so that effects from past projects 

listed in Appendix A are no longer evident and would not add to the effects of the South Shore project. 

Only those projects that temporally overlap with the South Shore project have the potential to generate 

cumulative effects. The EDAQMD provides oversight on all prescribed burning activities within its 

jurisdiction regardless of agency. This oversight ensures that atmospheric stability and mixing heights are 

advantageous for the dispersion of smoke. For this reason there would be no significant cumulative 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Air Quality 3-323

effects from burning operations on other projects when added to the South Shore activities in the project 

area. Air quality standards would be met by all the concurrent projects in compliance with the EDAQMD. 

Fugitive dust generated from the South Shore project will be limited spatially and temporally to where 

and when equipment is working. There are no other on-going projects that will be in close proximity to 

operations on the South Shore project that will cumulatively add to dust to the air. There may be some 

recreational or administrative use of dirt roads that would create some dust, but implementation of BMPs 

will minimize dust regardless of road users. 

Alternative 3- Preferred Alternative 

With respect to air quality there are no differences cumulative effects differences between Alternative 2 

and 3. 

Analytical Conclusions 

This section provides a summary of the conclusions from the effects analysis for air quality. It provides 

linkage from resource protection measures, listed in Chapter 2, to their influence on the magnitude, scope, 

intensity, and significance of the environmental effects to air quality from project activities. 

Under Alternative 1, the threat of wildfire moving into communities lying within the South Shore project 

analysis area would remain high. Associated smoke from intense, severe wildfires would create both a 

nuisance and health concerns for adjacent communities for considerable durations (days or weeks). Air 

quality standards would not be met for the duration of a wildfire. Uncontrolled wildfires can contribute 

relatively large amounts of greenhouse gasses, including carbon dioxide (CO2) and Particulate Matter 

(PM10 and PM2.5) to the atmosphere. Wildfires present a risk for high levels of emissions and associated 

negative effects to air quality, in part due to the release of carbon within a short period of time that was 

sequestered in the forest biomass prior to the wildfire. For both action alternatives, temporary and shortterm visibility impacts can be expected in the immediate project area during prescribed fire ignition and 

would be affected by inversions, as well as wind speed and direction. The localized effects of burning in 

the project area would be short-term degradation of air quality, primarily during the burnout stage and 

during nighttime inversions. Production of smoke and associated emissions would occur during pile and 

understory burning but under an approved burn plan. In comparison to a wildfire, prescribed burning 

produces smoke in accordance with an approved Smoke Management Plan. PM emissions were modeled 

using the Fire and Environmental Research Applications Team hand pile calculator. 

Treatment of fuels under either action alternative would result in decreased production of smoke and 

associated greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions and particulate matter in the event of a subsequent wildfire. 

Because wildfires would become more manageable, associated smoke would be less intense and would 

produce lower amounts of CO2, greenhouse gasses, and particulate emissions in shorter durations, as 

compared to a larger and more intense wildfire that could occur under current conditions. Vegetation 

management treatments provide the opportunity on a long-term basis to reduce the magnitude of air 

quality effects from wildfire, including greenhouse gasses and CO2. 

Fugitive dust could result from thinning operations, such as skidding, loading, and hauling. Fugitive dust 

caused by construction and use of unpaved roads can produce particulate matter in quantities great 

enough to impair the visual quality of the air. These effects are localized and would be mitigated by 

effective dust abatement methods. Contractual requirements for standard road watering procedure would 

mitigate much of the problem. Best management practices (BMPs) in Appendix B and resource protection 

measures in Chapter 2 are specified for mitigating dust produced from operations. As a result of applying 

these BMPs fugitive dust would be minimized. Mechanical equipment used for road maintenance and 

reconstruction, water trucks for dust abatement and trucks that transport biomass in any form would 

produce exhaust containing greenhouse gases, including CO2, NO2 and PM. Mechanical equipment used 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-324

in thinning would also produce similar greenhouse gases from engine exhaust. Cumulative effects for 

smoke, greenhouse gasses and CO2 would not be measurably different between the action alternatives. 

There would be a minor reduction in the creation of fugitive dust, due to fewer mechanically treated acres 

and fewer acres treated overall in Alternative 3. 

By adhering to the resource protection measures in Chapter 2, as well as a smoke management plan 

approved by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Forest Supervisor and the EDAQMD, particulate 

matter emissions from pile or understory burning would not violate California Ambient Air Quality 

(CAAQ) emission standards for either action alternative, and effects to air quality would not rise to a level 

of significance. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 3-325

Heritage and Cultural Resources 

Scope of the Analysis and Indicators of Effect 

The area of potential effects (APE) for heritage and cultural resources analysis extends to proposed areas 

of disturbance across NFS lands within the South Shore project area. The survey of the proposed 

treatment areas was conducted at the intensity appropriate to identify all heritage resources that might be 

affected by project activities. Copies of all archaeological surveys are on file at the LTBMU Supervisor’s 

Office. 

Current environmental review policies must be in compliance with antiquities mandates and guidelines 

established by NEPA, Section 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and 

regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (e.g., ACHP, 36 CFR 800). These mandates 

require public agencies to identify, evaluate, and protect heritage resources on lands under their 

jurisdiction, and to ensure that their actions do not inadvertently impact heritage remains. Tasks that were 

conducted for this analysis included the following: 

Pre-field research to determine the presence of known cultural properties, adequate previous surveys, 

and expected level of archaeological sensitivity of the project area; 

An archaeological field surface survey of previously unsurveyed portions of the project area; and 

Reporting field findings to include a general assessment of project-related impacts to inventoried 

heritage properties and recommendations for mitigating measures to minimize the adverse 

impacts (where appropriate). 

The inventory of heritage resources within the South Shore project was guided by the following two 

documents: the First Amended Regional Programmatic Agreement among the USDA 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, et al 2001) and the Interim Protocol for Non-Intensive Inventory Strategies for Hazardous Fuels 

and Vegetation Reduction Projects Annex to Stipulation IX in the First Amended Regional Programmatic 

Agreement among the USDA 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 [Regional PA] and Stipulation XIV in the 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 Identification, 

Evaluation and Treatment of Historic Properties Managed by the National Forests of the Sierra Nevada, 

California [Sierra PA] (USDA Forest Service, et al. 2004). The above PA’s provides direction regarding 

the treatment of heritage resources; including survey strategy, mitigation measures, and procedural details 

of section 106 compliance. 

Existing Conditions – Heritage and Cultural Resources 

The South Shore project has had numerous previous heritage surveys conducted across the area. At the 

inception of the project it was determined that 3894 acres (about 45%) of the projects slightly less than 

11,000 acres had been inventoried adequately to the standards outlined in the First Amended Regional 

Programmatic Agreement and the Interim Protocol. There were 70 previous inventories that intersected 

the current project area. Of those 15 were determined to not be adequate to present standards and 55 

previous projects were considered adequate to the PA standards. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-326

The South Shore project is large and topographically diverse. The First Amended Regional Programmatic 

Agreement and the Interim Protocol were used to develop an appropriate inventory plan (USDA Forest 

Service, et al. 2001; USDA Forest Service, et al. 2004). A detailed pre-field inventory of all known sites 

and possible historic activity areas was conducted. These data were compared to the proposed project and 

a survey strategy was developed. Generally all areas of proposed project impacts were surveyed unless 

the area was too steep or thick with vegetation for safe field survey (USDA Forest Service, et al 2001; 

USDA Forest Service, et al. 2004). Additionally, areas of previous adequate survey were not resurveyed, 

but all known site locations were revisited and sites were brought up to current recording standards. Any 

known or suspected site locations were visited, regardless of the slope or vegetation on which they were 

located. 

A total of 188 heritage resources were investigated. Seventeen of these sites were recorded in prior 

surveys, but could not be relocated during site re-visitation, for a variety of reasons. Sixteen previously 

recorded sites were determined to be outside the project area of potential effect, and would not be affected 

by project activities. Seven sites, of which four are not eligible to the NRHP and three are eligible to the 

NRHP, are recreation residence tracts and lie outside the scope of the current heritage inventory. Ten sites 

were determined through a records search to have been previously determined not to be eligible to the 

NRHP and thus require no further work. 

The remaining 138 heritage resources were identified during previous (121) and new survey (17). These 

include 89 historic sites, 40 prehistoric sites, and 9 with both prehistoric and historic components. 

Environmental Consequences – Heritage and Cultural Resources 

Direct and Indirect 

Direct physical impacts to heritage resources can occur if alterations are made to the integrity of the 

resource itself or to its surroundings. A project is regarded as having an effect on a heritage property if it 

alters any of the characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP). An adverse effect is one that diminishes the integrity of any of those characteristics that 

qualify the resource for inclusion in the NRHP. Projects are considered to have no adverse effect or no 

effect if sites in the area have been shown to be ineligible or the impacts to the qualities that make the 

heritage resource important are mitigated as defined in 36 CFR 800.9(c)1. 

Although the APE received systematic surface archaeological investigations, it is possible that buried or 

concealed heritage resources could be present and detected during project ground disturbance activities. 

In the event of fortuitous discoveries of additional heritage resources, which have not previously been 

inventoried, project activities would cease in the area of the find and the project operator would consult 

the LTBMU archaeologist for recommended procedures. 

In the event that human remains are discovered during project activity, law requires that project managers 

contact the county coroner. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, both the Native 

American Heritage Commission and any identified descendants should be notified (Health and Safety 

Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 and 5097.98). 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the No Action alternative, existing fuel conditions and conifer encroachment into aspen stands 

would continue to present a hazard to cultural and heritage resources. If a wildfire occurred under these 

conditions, fire behavior modeling has shown there is the possibility for a high intensity crown fire over 

much of the project area. A high intensity wildfire would have the potential to consume or kill aspen 

arborglyphs, and damage cultural sites and heritage remains. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Heritage and Cultural Resources 3-327

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 contain the same resource protection measures for heritage and cultural 

resources, and the effects would be the same for both action alternatives. Therefore, both action 

alternatives will be discussed together. The action alternatives would increase the protection of heritage 

and cultural resources by reducing the likelihood for high intensity wildfire in the project area. No direct 

or indirect negative impacts are anticipated because project activities would be controlled through 

identification and protection of sites, either through avoidance, or implementation of hand treatments to 

reduce fuels in sites recommended by the Forest Service archeologist, and consultation with the Washoe 

Tribe of Nevada and California. Removal of conifer encroachment from aspen stands would enhance the 

health and integrity of aspen stands where arborglyphs are present. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Because no fuel reduction or aspen stand enhancement would occur under the No Action alternative, the 

No Action alternative would not generate cumulative effects per se. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Cumulative effects are similar for both action alternatives. None of the proposed activities in either of the 

action alternatives would negatively affect the physical attributes of the cultural and heritage resources in 

the South Shore project area, therefore when considered with the past, present and foreseeable future 

projects listed in Appendix A there would be no cumulative effects from implementation of either of the 

action alternatives. 

Analytical Conclusions 

This section provides linkage from resources protection measures, listed inn Chapter 2, to their influence 

on the magnitude, scope, and intensity of the environmental effects on heritage or cultural resources from 

project activities. 

Due to the unpredictable nature of high intensity wildfire effects, Alternative 1 has potential for 

irretrievable and irreversible loss of heritage and cultural resources. 

The action alternatives would increase the protection of heritage and cultural resources by reducing the 

likelihood for high intensity wildfire in the project area. Removal of conifer encroachment from aspen 

stands would enhance the health and integrity of aspen stands where arborglyphs are present. No direct or 

indirect negative impacts are anticipated because resource protection measures provide that project 

activities would be controlled through identification and protection of sites, either through avoidance, or 

implementation of hand treatments to reduce fuels in sites recommended by the Forest Service 

archeologist, and consultation with the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California. No significant effects to 

cultural resources are expected for either action alternative. 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

 Chapter 3 3-328

This page intentionally left blank. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Scenic Resources 3-329

Scenic Resources 

Scope of the Analysis and Indicators of Effects 

The South Shore project analysis area is substantially larger than the area proposed for treatment under all 

action alternatives; the project analysis area is over 86,000 acres while the area proposed for treatment is 

between 10,000 and 11,000 acres for the action alternatives. This larger project analysis area includes the 

hillsides that extend beyond the wildland urban interface (WUI). Management of scenic resources 

considers background views of the landscape as well as closer foreground and middleground distance 

zone views. For this reason, the analysis of effects to scenic resources addresses the entire, larger project 

analysis area including direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with proposed management 

activities. 

Indicators

Indicators of effects to the scenic resource include meeting visual quality objectives (VQOs) of retention 

and partial retention identified in the Forest Plan; changes in distance zone views, and scenic stability. 

Concerns for scenic resources include potential loss or reduction in value of scenic views of healthy forest 

landscapes, impacts to water clarity, and loss or reduction in scenic views of meadows and aspen. 

Existing Conditions – Scenic Resources 

The scenic resources of the LTBMU are highly valued by the Forest’s visitors and residents. National 

visitor use monitoring (NVUM) surveys in 2002 identified that “viewing of National Forest lands” is the 

fourth most frequently recorded primary visitor activity on the LTBMU following hiking, skiing, and 

relaxing. For these top three primary visitor activities, scenic quality plays a substantial role in the visitor 

experiences and helps define what “Lake Tahoe” means to people (USDA FS LTBMU 2002). 

The landscape character of the project area includes the granitic mountains of the Sierra crest as well as 

Carson mountain ranges. This alpine environment is characterized by dense coniferous forests with 

occasional stands of large diameter trees, glacially-formed lakes, rock outcrops, meadows and other 

riparian environments including stands of aspen trees. Other valued scenic attributes of the project area 

include clear skies, and the clear, blue waters of Lake Tahoe and the area’s other lakes. These scenic 

attributes are elements of the visual landscape which are important to visitors and locals - the elements 

that help to define the visual “identity” of a place. 

Views of the project area from several travel routes and communities within the project area are valued by 

the public. Community development within the project area includes the City of South Lake Tahoe and 

the community of Meyers. US Highway 50, one of the major east-west travel routes in the region passes 

through the project area from Echo Summit in the west to Stateline, Nevada in the east. State Highway 89 

carries travelers through the project area from Luther Pass in the south to the project’s northern boundary 

near Cascade Lake. Both Highway 50 and 89 are designated scenic byways. Pioneer Trail connects the 

communities of Meyers and Stateline and is an important travel route. Other important non-motorized 

travel routes include the area’s trail systems. The Pacific Crest Trail, Tahoe Rim Trail, and Hawley Grade 

Historic Trail each pass through the project area. Views of the project area are primarily managed by both 

the USFS and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 

Views of the current forest density levels are a result of Comstock era clear-cutting followed by a 

management policy of fire prevention. While regular low-intensity fires prior to the 1880’s maintained a 

relatively open, low density, forest with a mosaic of tree size classes and openings, the suppression of this 

natural cycle added to the Comstock logging has resulted in the current forest vegetation structure, which 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-330 Chapter 3 

has never been seen before in this landscape. The current densely forested hillsides of the project area 

provide visual screening for much of the community development including houses, businesses and 

infrastructure. However, the current landscape has low scenic stability. 

Scenic stability is a measure of a landscape’s ability to perpetuate its valued scenic attributes over time. 

The forested landscape of the project area is at variable risk of high intensity wildfire – fire which could 

kill all trees within the burn area and temporarily darken the clear skies with smoke. The result of high 

intensity wildfire can be the loss of valued scenic attributes. The overly dense forest stands have resulted 

in excessive competition between individual trees, leaving them weakened and susceptible to fatal insect 

infestations, as evidenced by the dead and dying trees seen in some areas of the landscape. Additionally, 

scenic meadows, riparian corridors and aspen stands are being encroached upon by lodgepole pine and 

white fir which are slowly converting these areas to coniferous forest in the absence of natural fire 

regimes. While threats to Lake Tahoe’s clarity primarily come from sediment and airborne dust associated 

with ground disturbing development projects, catastrophic wildfire also poses a substantial risk to this 

valued scenic attribute. Watershed erosion prediction models show the potential for erosion and sediment 

flow to the lake following a substantial, high-intensity wildfire to far exceed background sediment loads 

in a non-fire or low-intensity fire condition (refer to the Water and Soils sections for a more detailed 

discussion of sedimentation and erosion). 

Current landscape effects from fuels management activities within the project area designed to reduce the 

threat of wildfire include the use of hand crews to cut and pile smaller diameter vegetation for subsequent 

burning. These burn piles are required to cure or dry for one to two years prior to burning and can only be 

burned when regulated “burn days” occur. This has resulted in existing short-term visual impacts within 

some foreground views of the landscape. 

Distance zones are divisions of the landscape being viewed. They are used to describe the part of a 

characteristic landscape that is being inventoried or evaluated. The three distance zones are foreground, 

middleground, and background. The foreground zone is based upon distances at which details can be 

perceived. In normal foreground views, the individual boughs of trees form texture. The foreground is 

usually limited to areas within one-quarter to one-half mile of the observer, but must be determined on a 

case-by-case basis, as is true of all distance zones. The middleground distance zone extends from the 

foreground to three to five miles from the observer. Texture is normally characterized by the masses of 

trees in stands of uniform tree cover. Individual tree forms are usually only discernable in very open or 

sparse stands. The background zone extends from the middleground to as far as the eye can see. Texture 

in stands of uniform tree cover is generally weak or non-existent. In very open or sparse vegetation 

stands, texture is often seen as groups or patterns of trees in the background zone. (FSH 462 1974) 

The project analysis area occurs within areas of the forest that have visual quality objectives (VQOs) of 

retention and partial retention as identified in the Forest Plan. The retention VQO provides for 

management activities on National Forest lands which are not visually evident. Under the retention VQO, 

activities may only repeat form, line, color, and textures that are frequently found in the characteristic 

landscape. The partial retention VQO provides for management activities that remain visually subordinate 

to the characteristic landscape. Activities under partial retention may repeat form, line, color, or texture 

common within the landscape, but changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, 

and duration must remain visually subordinate when compared to the surrounding landscape character. 

Short term deviations from the VQO are permitted and considered consistent with the VQO ratings. The 

project area currently meets established VQOs. Supporting scenic resource mapping of the project area 

also identifies scenic classes. Class One landscapes have the greatest valued scenic attributes 

(attractiveness and visibility) within a range of one to seven. The project area contains scenic Class One 

and Class Two landscapes, both of which are considered to have “high” scenic value (Map 19). 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Scenic Resources 3-331

Environmental Consequences – Scenic Resources 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, would result in no short term or direct changes to existing scenic 

resource conditions or distance zone views. The visual quality objectives (VQOs) of retention and partial 

retention identified in the Forest Plan are currently being met within the landscape of the project area and 

would continue to be in compliance barring any landscape-scale events such as forest stand die-off, blowdown, or severe wildfire which would significantly alter the visual character of the area. The scenic 

attributes of the area would remain in their current condition. 

Long term and indirect effects of the No Action alternative could result in a decrease in the presence of 

valued scenic attributes, and may result in a situation in which the VQOs are not met. The No Action 

alternative would not change the current density and composition of the forest vegetation. By taking no 

action, the existing forest vegetation would continue to compete for scarce water, nutrients, and sunlight 

resulting in increasingly weak individual trees that are increasingly susceptible to insect mortality and 

wildfire. This would represent an increased risk to scenic stability. If no action is taken within the project 

area the probability of stands of live trees dying and/or being killed during wildfire events would increase. 

These possible events would result in the loss of the scenic attribute of forested views at the various 

distance zone views. Indirect effects of potential severe wildfire would include the temporary loss of clear 

skies resulting from smoke. Another indirect effect of a wildfire event linked to the no action Alternative 

would be an increase in the potential for sedimentation and erosion which would negatively affect the 

scenic attribute of clear waters within the project area and Lake Tahoe. Under the No Action alternative, 

conifer encroachment into aspen stands, meadows and riparian corridors would not be treated and would 

continue to increase. The indirect effect of taking no action to address this would be a decreasing presence 

of these scenic attributes and landscape features. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Alternative 2 would implement three types of thinning treatments within approximately 10,670 acres of 

the project area; including cut-to-length and whole-tree mechanical treatments, and hand-thinning 

treatments. The short term effects would be visible to varying degrees over a 7-15 year period. 

Direct effects to scenic resources within the project area include a change to the current density and 

composition of forest vegetation, evidence of cut tree stumps, creation of cleared landing areas to 

facilitate mechanical treatment, and creation of burn piles associated with hand treatment. Proposed 

vegetation treatments that alter the forest vegetation would result in stands that are visually more open 

than existing conditions. Historically the landscape within the project area experienced more frequent 

surface fires which resulted in a more open forest character compared to current conditions. The effects of 

implementing the proposed vegetation treatments would mimic these historic conditions and would be 

consistent with the Forest Plan VQOs of retention and partial retention. 

During vegetation treatment implementation, management activity in the form of mechanical equipment 

or hand crew activities would cause a visual impact that exceeds VQO standards, but these activities 

would occur within short time durations of usually less than one month. Proposed landings required to 

facilitate mechanical treatments would average less than one acre in size and the maximum size would be 

two acres. These clearings would be treated following their use to reduce their visual contrast with the 

surrounding landscape. Implementation of these landing areas is considered a short-term impact that 

would temporarily exceed compliance with the VQOs. These areas would comply with the VQO 

following implementation of proposed resource protection measures, restoration efforts, and one to three 

years of vegetative growth. Similarly, the creation of burn piles associated with hand treatments would 

remain in the landscape for one to three years following their creation until they were adequately cured 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-332 Chapter 3 

and burned during available burn days. Smoke from prescribed fire would likely be visually evident, 

however, it would be short-lived and minimized as part of any approved burn plan. Evidence of 

prescribed burning would be visually evident in foreground views of the landscape until understory 

vegetation covered any partially burned material. When these burn piles are visible in foreground views 

from neighborhoods and travel routes (approximately 200 feet from viewing location) they would comply 

with the VQO of retention or partial retention as soon as they were burned. The evidence of cut stumps 

would be visually apparent when viewed in close foreground range. The action alternatives includes a 

resource protection measure to limit stump heights to a six-inch maximum (measured from the uphill side 

of stump) to minimize this visual impact (VQ-3). 

Foreground distance zone views are the most sensitive to the effects of proposed management activities. 

Short-term effects to foreground views are consistent with overall VQO, with recovery expected within 1-

3 years. Changes to middleground and background views may occur as a result of implementing the 

vegetation treatments proposed in Alternative 2, however these changes would not affect the area’s 

compliance with Forest Plan VQOs nor the perpetuation of identified valued scenic attributes. An indirect 

effect of implementing Alternative 2 would be the increased viewing distances through foreground forest 

stands. Views that were previously blocked by dense vegetation may be revealed following treatment 

activities. This is likely to result in both positive visual effects, such as reclaimed views of Lake Tahoe or 

surrounding landforms, and in negative visual effects, such as exposed views of neighborhoods or 

community infrastructure. 

Implementation of the proposed action would have an indirect benefit to the scenic stability of the project 

analysis area. Reduction of forest vegetation and biomass would stimulate the growth of larger, more 

disease-resistant trees, and reduce the probability of the area suffering high levels of mortality from 

disease, drought, or severe wildfire. This reduced probability of landscape-scale tree mortality would 

increase the likelihood that the area would retain its compliance with Forest Plan VQOs. Additionally, the 

removal of conifers from aspen stands, meadows and riparian corridors would help perpetuate these 

scenic valued landscapes into the future. 

While smoke associated with prescribed burning of hand treated piles would have an effect on air clarity, 

this scenic effect is less than the effect of smoke associated with a wildfire in the project area if vegetation 

were untreated. There will be no visual impacts to water clarity resulting from hand treatment activities. If 

a wildfire were to burn through the area following implementation of the proposed treatments, the amount 

of sedimentation and erosion and the resulting decrease in the valued scenic attribute of water clarity is 

anticipated to be noticeably less than if the same fire were to burn through the same area if proposed 

treatments were not implemented (USDA Forest Service, LTBMU 2007 unpbl.). 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

The effects to scenic resources of implementing Alternative 3 are nearly the same as those of 

implementing Alternative 2, with a few exceptions. 

Alternative 3 would implement vegetation treatments within fewer acres compared to Alternative 2, 

especially within wildlife protected activity centers. The effects of this change from Alternative 2 would 

not affect the area’s compliance with its adopted VQO. By treating fewer acres under Alternative 3 there 

would be an incremental reduction in the benefit of improving landscape scenic stability compared with 

the effects of implementing Alternative 2. Similarly, there would be a slight reduction in the changes to 

distance zone views. 

The total number of acres of hand treatment proposed under Alternative 3 is greater than under 

Alternative 2. By implementing approximately 1,000 more acres of hand treatment, a greater number of 

burn piles would be created within the project area. An increased number of burn piles visible within 

foreground views from neighborhoods and travel routes would represent a greater effect to scenic 

resources compared to the effects of implementing Alternative 2. However, as noted in the analysis of 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Scenic Resources 3-333

Alternative 2 effects, the scenic impact of burn piles is a short term effect lasting one to three years 

following their creation until they are adequately cured and burned during available burn days, and until 

understory vegetation obscures evidence of partially burned material. 

Alternative 3 proposes a greater number of acres for mechanical treatment by cut-to-length techniques 

compared to whole-tree techniques in Alternative 2. Implementing Alternative 3 would result in some 

cleared landing locations that were smaller in size than those needed under Alterative 2. This would 

reduce the total number of landing acres under Alternative 3 that experience short-term negative scenic 

resource effects compared to Alternative 2. 

Short term impacts would be limited to foreground views. Background distance zone views would not be 

impacted during or following treatment activities. Background VQOs would be maintained throughout 

project. Short term effects to foreground views are acceptable and consistent with overall VQO, with 

recovery expected within 1-3 years 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Cumulative effects of taking no action to treat forest health conditions within the project area take into 

account the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future management activities of other ownerships 

and non-WUI lands within the project area (see Appendix A). Previous forest fuel reduction activities on 

Forest Service lands and other ownerships have incrementally improved the landscape’s resilience to 

wildfire and incrementally reduced risks to scenic stability. During the 2007 Angora Fire analysis shows 

that areas that were previously treated to reduce fuel levels affected fire behavior and intensity and 

resulted in lower tree mortality levels (Safford et al 2009). Previous treatments are limited in their scope 

and effectiveness due to limited acreage and the age of these treatments. The effect of previously treated 

areas on overall forest health and WUI protection is not enough to reduce current risks to scenic stability 

at the landscape level into the future. 

If other ownerships are able to implement treatments while the Forest Service takes no action within the 

project area, the effects are likely to incrementally reduce risks to scenic stability and valued visual 

attributes within foreground views, but are unlikely to reduce current risks to scenic stability and valued 

visual attributes within middleground and background views. This is due to the ownership patterns within 

the project area and the fact the vast majority of lands within the middleground and background views as 

seen from travel routes, communities, and neighborhoods are Federal lands managed by the Forest 

Service. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Previous forest fuel reduction and forest health activities on Forest Service lands and other ownerships 

have improved the treated area’s resilience to wildfire and incrementally reduced risks to scenic stability, 

however the scale of these previous activities have not resulted in a landscape-scale change that stabilizes 

or improves scenic stability. Cumulative effects of implementing the proposed action would build on 

these previous treatments and result in change to the landscape of the WUI that would improve scenic 

stability over the next 10 to 25 years. 

Short term effects such as the piling of cut material for future burning would cumulatively be added to the 

effects of previously approved hand treatment activities. This cumulative effect would remain consistent 

with established VQOs. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-334 Chapter 3 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

Cumulative effects would be the same as the proposed action. Implementing Alternative 3 would also 

build on previous fuel reduction and treatments to improve forest health and result in change to the 

landscape of the WUI that would reduce risks to scenic stability over the next 10 to 25 years. 

Analytical Conclusions 

This section provides a brief summary of the conclusions of the effects analysis for scenic resources. 

Long term and indirect effects of the No Action alternative could result in a decrease in the presence of 

scenic attributes, and may result in a situation in which the VQOs are not met. The No Action alternative 

would not change the current density and composition of the forest vegetation and existing forest 

vegetation would continue to compete for scarce water, nutrients, and sunlight resulting in a forest that is 

increasingly susceptible to insect mortality and wildfire. The probability of stands of live trees dying 

and/or being killed during wildfire events would increase and would likely result in the loss of the scenic 

attribute of forested views at the foreground, middleground, and background level. 

Previous forest fuel reduction and forest health activities on Forest Service lands and other ownerships 

have incrementally improved the area’s resilience to wildfire and incrementally reduced risks to scenic 

stability, however the scale of these previous activities have not resulted in a landscape-scale change that 

stabilizes or improves scenic stability. Cumulative effects of implementing either action alternative would 

build on previous treatments and result in change to the landscape of the WUI that would reduce risks to 

scenic stability over the next 10 to 25 years. Neither action alternative would result in significant direct, 

indirect, or cumulative effects to scenic resources. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Recreation 3-335

Recreation 

Scope of the Analysis and Indicators of Effect 

The South Shore project analysis area provides the appropriate scope for analysis of existing recreation 

conditions and the effects of the alternatives. Indicators of effects are linked to the types of activities that 

would occur with implementation of the alternatives, including effects from user-created, unauthorized 

travel routes; access restrictions or closures on areas, trails, and roads; changes in locations for obtaining 

Christmas trees; and overall recreation experience. 

Indicators 

User-Created Trails

A well designed trail system provides for a range of recreation experiences and challenges, provides a 

means for users to get from one place to another, and minimizes resource impacts and maintenance 

requirements. Occasionally, trail users take “short cuts” from one trail to another, or try to create their 

own, new trail. Such user-created trails often have negative impacts to wildlife habitat, sensitive plant 

populations, water quality, other recreation resources, and public safety. In many locations within the 

project area, the density of existing vegetation or surface material physically discourages users from 

leaving a designated trail. 

In some instances, off-highway vehicle or over-the-snow vehicle users access areas of the forest which 

have been administratively closed to such use in order to protect resources or non-motorized recreation 

experiences. Such illegal use also creates impacts associated with user-created trails. 

The potential for the establishment of user-created trails is difficult to quantify or assign predictive 

probabilities because it relates to social factors and even actions of single individuals. Visibility of 

desired destinations and the appearance of potential “short cuts” relates to the density of vegetation and 

existing barriers. This analysis will not consider the role that effective trail network design plays in 

preventing the creation of user-created trails, as trail system design is beyond the scope of the actions 

being considered in this project. 

Access Restrictions or Closures 

Administrative forest closures of National Forest System lands are issued for limited time periods in 

designated areas to protect fragile resource conditions or to protect the public during forest management 

activities that pose a risk to bystanders. For example, following the Angora Fire, an administrative 

closure was issued in the burn area to prevent further resource damage from recreational use on freshly 

burned sensitive soils and to protect visitors from hazards related to damaged trees. Similarly, during 

vegetation treatment activities the public may be prohibited from entering a work area while equipment is 

being operated, in order to minimize potential safety risks associated with the management activities. 

Christmas Tree Program 

In recent years the LTBMU has offered permits to the public to cut Christmas trees from designated areas 

on National Forest System lands. The designated areas are often in close proximity to neighborhoods or 

major roads and are located within the Wildland Urban Interface. The opportunity to cut a Christmas tree 

from the forest is a popular activity in December and is valued by the public. This program has 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-336 Chapter 3 

encouraged the public to experience undeveloped National Forest System lands during the winter when 

they may not ordinarily do so. 

Recreation Experience 

The overall quality of a visitor or resident’s recreation experience is related to the setting in which the 

experience occurs, the facilities that are provided, and the user’s expectations. As a recreation provider, 

the LTBMU has the ability to manage settings and facilities. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

(ROS) is a tool that the Forest Service uses to plan for a diversity of recreation experiences ranging from 

“primitive” to “urban”. The ROS is a “macro-scale” planning tool and is not intended for small-scale or 

site planning. Analysis determines if proposed management activities will alter the ROS classification for 

an area. 

Existing Conditions - Recreation 

The Lake Tahoe Basin is an internationally recognized recreation destination attracting visitors yearround. Winter and summer seasons represent the times of greatest visitor concentration. National Forest 

System lands within the project area contain the most concentrated recreation use within the Lake Tahoe 

Basin. Annual recreation use within the project area is estimated to be 2,261,800 visitor days (one person 

engaged in an activity for 12 hours, or 12 visitors engaged for one hour each) (USDA FS LTBMU 2004). 

Recreation visitors within the project area come from around the world and nation, however the greatest 

concentration of users come from nearby population concentration centers such as San Francisco, 

Sacramento, and Reno that are within a few hours driving distance. Additionally, many local residents 

enjoy recreation activities on National Forest lands and consider this public land part of their “backyard”. 

Public interest in recreation resources and access within the project area is high. Many visitors have 

generational connections to Lake Tahoe, with families regularly sharing their favorite Tahoe locations 

with younger generations. 

Developed recreation facilities (Map 20) within or adjacent to the project area include day use beach and 

picnic areas, family campgrounds, resorts, interpretive and visitor information sites, recreation residences, 

and organizational camps. Existing developed recreation sites within the project area are listed below. 

Sites listed in bold are located within one-quarter mile of treatment areas described in the action 

alternatives, sites listed in italics are within the larger project analysis area but farther than one-quarter 

mile from a unit proposed for treatment. 

-Angora Lakes Resort 

-Baldwin Beach 

-Berkeley Camp 

-Big Meadow Trailhead 

-Camp Concord 

-Camp Richardson Corral 

-Camp Richardson Resort 

-Camp Shelly 

-Echo Lakes Chalet 

-Fallen Leaf Campground 

-Glen Alpine Springs Resort 

-Glen Alpine Trailhead 

-Heavenly Mountain Ski Resort 

-Kiva Picnic Area 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Recreation 3-337

-Meyers Interagency Visitor Center 

-Pope Beach 

-Tallac Historic Site 

-Taylor Creek Visitor Center 

-Valhalla Estate. 

Dispersed recreation facilities include trailheads and a network of trail and road systems. 

Forest Service System road and trail networks provide valued public recreation opportunities. Among the 

important trails within the project area are portions of the Pacific Crest Trail, the Tahoe Rim Trail, the 

Hawley Grade trail (a portion of the Pony Express trail), and the Class One Pope-Baldwin bike trail. 

Existing dispersed recreation sites within the project area are listed below. Sites listed in bold are located 

in or within one-quarter mile of treatment areas described in the action alternatives. 

-Angora Lake Trailhead 

-Fountain Place Trailhead 

-Freel Roadless Area 

-High Meadows Trailhead 

-Luther Pass Overflow Campground 

-Meiss Meadow Cabin 

-Dardanelles Roadless Area 

-Mt. Tallac Trailhead 

-Sand Pit OHV Area 

-Sawmill Pond 

-Taylor Creek Snopark 

The 2006 National Visitor Use Monitoring project (USDA Forest Service, LTBMU 2006a), a Forest 

Service-wide program aimed at understanding visitor use patterns, demographics, and satisfaction levels, 

indicated that LTBMU users participated in the following primary activities at the following rates: 

54% - Viewing natural features and scenery 

45% - Relaxing, or “hanging out” 

45% - Hiking or walking 

45% - Viewing wildlife 

31% - Downhill skiing 

29% - Driving for pleasure 

While these statistics are for total LTBMU recreation use, the range of activities can be inferred to apply 

within the project area. It is also important to note that one activity is not exclusive of others. For 

example, virtually all recreation experiences on National Forest System lands include viewing of natural 

scenery. 

In addition to National Forest recreation opportunities, California State Parks, California Tahoe 

Conservancy, City of South Lake Tahoe, and private recreation providers offer valued opportunities for 

recreation within the project area. 

The Forest Plan identifies areas of different recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classifications based 

on a range of settings and probable activities that contribute toward the goal of providing a variety of 

outdoor recreation opportunities. A recreation opportunity setting is defined as the combination of 

physical, biological, social, and managerial conditions that give value to a place. By combining variations 

in these conditions it is possible to provide a diversity of recreational settings for visitors to enjoy. The 

ROS classifications within the South Shore area are as follows (USDA FS LTBMU 2004): 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-338 Chapter 3 

Table 3-99. ROS Classifications in South Shore project area, by acres 

ROS Classifications Acres within 

project area 

Primitive / Non-motorized 43, 067

Semi-Primitive / Non-motorized 5,430

Natural / Roaded 28,166

Rural 7,901

Urban 201

Environmental Consequences – Recreation 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 - No Action 

Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, would implement no changes within the project area. Current 

management activities would continue. Alternative 1 would result in no short term, direct, effects to 

recreation resources. 

User‐Created Trails

Under Alternative 1 the potential for establishment of user-created trails would remain somewhat 

restricted by the current density of standing and downed vegetation within dispersed recreation areas. Ongoing trail access and travel management planning and implementation within the project area include 

efforts to eliminate user-created trails that pose a threat to ecological resources or public safety. The 

conditions and current potentials for the creation of user-created trails within the project area would 

remain. 

Access Restriction or Closures

No project-related access restrictions or closures would result from the selection of Alternative 1. 

Christmas Tree Program

The selection of Alternative 1 would not result in any changes to the current Christmas Tree program. 

Recreation Experience

Under Alternative 1, the current quality of recreation experience would be expected to remain. There 

would be no change to current ROS classifications. The area is in conformance with current ROS 

classifications delineated in the Forest Plan. 

Indirect Effects 

Since under the no action alternative no fuels treatments would occur, there is increased risk that a 

wildfire might occur at some time in the future. It is reasonable to assume that given the right conditions 

a repeat of the Angora fire is possible. As demonstrated by the aftermath of the Angora fire (Jun 2007), 

an event of this magnitude has the potential to affect the recreation experience and opportunities. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Recreation 3-339

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Implementation of Alternative 2, the proposed action, would have direct effects to the recreation resources 

within the project area. 

User‐Created Trails		

The forested landscape that would result from implementing Alternative 2 would be more open in 

character than the current landscape. Much of the standing and downed vegetation that currently helps to 

keep recreation users on designated trails would be removed. Removal of this material could tempt users 

to create trail short-cuts or new trails within the project area. The proposed action includes resource 

protection measures, such as placement of physical barriers, increased signage and where feasible, 

increased enforcement, to discourage establishment of user-created trails. 

Access Restriction or Closures

A short-term, direct effect during project management activities would be temporary area closure Forest 

Orders implemented to protect the public from safety hazards associated with tree removal and operation 

of mechanical equipment. These closures would reduce the public’s opportunity to access limited areas of 

National Forest land for dispersed recreation for periods ranging from one to six weeks. Advanced 

signage and public outreach would notify as many people as practical of proposed closure periods ahead 

of time, allowing them to make alternate recreation access plans. 

Christmas Tree		Program

Implementation of Alternative 2 would have short term effects on the current Christmas tree program 

administered by the LTBMU. Opportunities for individuals and families to cut these small diameter trees 

within the project area would be reduced during the short term in areas that were recently treated for fuels 

reduction. This opportunity is unlikely to be eliminated, however, as forest stand areas are proposed for 

treatment during different years. This schedule would allow for treated portions of the project area to regrow small, desirable “Christmas trees” while other untreated portions of the project area continue to 

offer suitable trees and this valued recreation opportunity. Additionally, the program is Basin-wide and the 

opportunity to select and cut Christmas trees would not be affected in areas outside of the project area. 

Areas selected for the program are partially selected based on availability of suitable trees. 

Recreation Experience

Management activities within or adjacent to developed recreation facilities have the potential to 

negatively affect visitor’s recreation experience. The action alternatives include resource protection 

measures to manage the timing of fuels management activities when practical within these areas to nonpeak season periods when visitation rates are anticipated to be lower. 

During fuels management activities trucks and other equipment would be utilizing public travel routes. 

These additional vehicles have the potential to increase traffic congestion and negatively affect the 

driving experience of highway users. Since “driving for pleasure” is an identified recreation use within 

the project area, this user group, as well as those traveling to recreation destinations could be affected. 

Landing or staging areas associated with mechanical treatment units that are located near residential 

roads, especially those roads that provide public access to general forest areas, would alter the visual 

landscape and the experience of those recreating in these areas following treatment. Resource protection 

measures, listed in Chapter 2, are incorporated within the action alternatives to return these areas to as 

“naturally appearing” a condition as practical following use. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-340 Chapter 3 

No changes to the ROS classification are anticipated as a result of implementing Alternative 2. This 

alternative conforms to the ROS classifications delimitated in the Forest Plan. 

Alternative 3- Preferred Alternative 

Implementation of Alternative 3 would treat fewer overall acres of the landscape and would include more 

hand treatments compared to Alternative 2. The effects of implementing Alternative 3 would be the same 

as implementing the proposed action with a few exceptions. 

User‐Created Trails

The potential of user-created trail establishment is not anticipated to be different between Alternatives 2 

and 3. Alternative 3 would treat fewer acres; however, therefore the current vegetation density remaining 

across the landscape in this alternative could serve as an incrementally greater deterrent to the creation of 

these trails compared to the proposed action. 

Access Restriction or Closures

Fewer temporary public access Forest closures would be required under Alternative 3. This would reduce 

the temporary negative effects on recreation access associated with Alternative 2 management activities. 

Christmas Tree		Program

The effects of implementing Alternative 3 on the Christmas tree program are the same as those resulting 

from Alternative 2. 

Recreation Experience

Fewer vehicle trips would be required to implement Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 2. This is due 

to the reduction in mechanical treatment acres. However this would be somewhat offset by increased hand 

crew traffic. This incremental reduction in vehicle trips would in turn result in incrementally less traffic 

congestion on local roadways. Additionally, the increase in cut-to-length operations compared to whole 

tree operations would reduce the acreage of required landing or staging areas. Within neighborhood areas 

the reduced acreage of landings would have less effect on recreation experience than the larger landings 

associated with the whole tree operations proposed in Alternative 2. 

No changes to the ROS classification are anticipated as a result of implementing Alternative 3. This 

alternative conforms to the ROS classifications delimitated in the Forest Plan. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Because there would be no direct or indirect effects to recreation resources as a result of the No Action 

alternative, there would be no cumulative effects. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Cumulative effects of the proposed action would be additive to the effects of recreation activities and 

other management activities affecting recreation use within the analysis area. These cumulative effects 

would be both positive and negative in nature when combined with other fuel reduction, forest health, the 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Recreation 3-341

Angora fire follow-up area restoration, and recreation facility improvement projects in the South Shore 

project analysis area. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future management activities, particularly those implementing 

access and travel management projects (the Fallen Leaf trail ATM project proposal is anticipated to be 

analyzed during NEPA process in 2011), may add to the cumulative effects of the proposed action. 

Temporary recreation closures to repair or re-route Forest Service system trails within the project area but 

the result of other projects would be short in duration and limited in scale. These temporary closures, 

coupled with temporary closures associated with the proposed action have the potential to further reduce 

public access to dispersed recreation opportunities. Access and travel management activities are 

anticipated to reduce the overall number of user-created trails, and develop a sustainable trail system that 

both meets user needs and protects resources. On-going trail access and travel management planning and 

implementation within the project area include efforts to inventory and eliminate user-created trails that 

pose a threat to ecological resources or public safety. 

The proposed action resource protection measures to discourage establishment of user-created trails, such 

as placement of physical barriers, increased signage, and increased enforcement where feasible, would 

compliment on-going trail access and travel management planning and implementation within the project 

area. ATM trail planning efforts also serve to discourage the establishment of user-created trails through 

the maintenance of a high quality Forest Service system trail network. 

There is the potential that vehicle traffic associated with implementing the proposed action would be 

additive to vehicle traffic associated with other land management activities, and have a cumulative effect 

on traffic congestion and impacts to the quality of recreation visitors’ experience. Many management 

activities manage the time of day and week that project-related vehicle trips occur to minimize 

congestion, where possible. Under certain circumstances, however, vehicle travel associated with the 

action alternatives may be unable to avoid peak use periods and may add to already congested travel 

routes. This could negatively affect the experience of those recreation users driving for pleasure or those 

en route to a recreation destination. 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

Implementation of Alternative 3 would treat fewer overall acres of the landscape and would include more 

hand treatments compared to Alternative 2. The cumulative effects of implementing Alternative 3 would 

be the same as implementing the proposed action with the following exceptions: 

As a result of implementing fewer acres of mechanical treatment, compared to the proposed action, there 

is likely to be less need for forest closures to protect public safety. While hand treatment operations may 

still require temporary closures, they are likely to be of a shorter duration and even more localized than 

those required during mechanical fuel reduction operations. There is still the potential that these closures, 

when combined with temporary closures associated with the other projects including the Trail ATM work 

would have a negative effect on public access to dispersed recreation opportunities. 

By reducing the acres of mechanical fuel treatment operations, compared to the proposed action, there 

would be fewer vehicle trips generated as a result of implementing Alternative 3. The trips that the project 

would generate would still have the potential to additively contribute to other land management activity -

related traffic and cause roadway congestion during peak use periods. This potential cumulative effect 

could have a negative effect on recreation experiences that are dependent on vehicle travel on designated 

travel routes and highways. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-342 Chapter 3 

Analytical Conclusions 

This section summarizes the conclusions of the effects analysis for recreation. It provides linkage from 

resource protection measures in Chapter 2 to their influence on the magnitude, scope, and intensity of the 

environmental effects on recreation opportunities from project activities. 

Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, would result in no short term, direct, or indirect effects to the 

recreation resources, access or quality of recreation experience within the project area. Existing patterns 

and volume of recreation use are expected to remain. The existing potential for establishment of usercreated trails remains. 

For the action alternatives, a short-term, direct effect during project management activities would result 

from temporary Forest orders closing active thinning areas to protect the public from safety hazards 

associated with tree removal and operation of mechanical equipment. These closures would reduce the 

public’s opportunity to access limited areas of National Forest System land for dispersed recreation for 

periods ranging from one to six weeks. During fuels management activities trucks and other equipment 

would be utilizing public travel routes. These additional vehicles have the potential to increase traffic 

congestion and negatively affect the driving experience of recreation users within the project area. 

The action alternatives include resource protection measures to discourage establishment of user-created 

trails, such as placement of physical barriers, and increased enforcement where feasible. These resource 

protection measures would compliment on-going trail access and travel management planning and 

implementation within the project area. Other resource protection measures would reduce the negative 

effects of temporary restrictions to forest access by providing advanced public notice of the closures and 

alternative access options. Potential traffic congestion would be minimized by encouraging management 

activities to occur during non-weekend days during peak use periods. 

The effects of either action alternative are not anticipated to result in a reduction in the overall quality of 

recreation experience for visitors within the project area. Short-term inconveniences to visitors are off-set 

by the fact that numerous alternative access points to dispersed recreation opportunities will remain, and 

management activities adjacent to developed recreation facilities will be timed to occur during non-peak 

visitation periods where feasible. 

No significant effects to recreation resources will result from implementation of any of the alternatives 

under consideration. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Transportation and Access 3-343

Transportation and Access 

Scope of the Analysis and Indicators of Effect 

Scope 

The transportation system plays a critical role in supporting project activities through providing access to, 

from, and within treatment units. In addition the road system also provides access to the public and for 

forest administration beyond the South Shore project. The transportation analysis for this project is 

limited to the roads in the South Shore project analysis area. 

The transportation system includes Forest Service (FS) System roads, temporary roads and landings, plus 

existing state, county and city roads and streets. The analysis in this section covers the transportation 

system as means to access the area. The impacts of roads, road maintenance and road construction are 

covered in detail in each of the appropriate resource sections (Soils, Water and Riparian, Aquatic Wildlife, 

Terrestrial Wildlife, Recreation). 

Indicators 

This section analyzes the road system that is proposed for use in the South Shore project as it relates to 

changes in access to the project analysis area by the public and for Forest Service administration. 

Existing Conditions – Transportation and Access 

There are a total of 328 miles of State, County, City and Forest Service System roads within the project 

area (see Table 3-100). 

Table 3-100. Jurisdiction of Roads 

within the Project Area (rounded to the nearest mile) 

Jurisdiction Miles 

USFS System 51

El Dorado County 121

City South Lake Tahoe 127

State of California 29

TOTAL 328

The California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) manages and maintains the state highway system 

that provides access into and out of the project area. This system of highways provides a high degree of 

user comfort and mobility. Speed is controlled by speed limits and traffic congestion, vertical and 

horizontal alignments are seldom a factor in determining vehicle speeds. All of the state routes into the 

project area are double-lane paved roads. 

El Dorado County manages and maintains a system of urban and rural roads within the project area. This 

system of roads provides access to homes, businesses and recreation sites from the State highway system. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-344 Chapter 3 

These roads provide an adequate degree of user comfort and mobility. Speed is usually determined by 

local speed limits and occasionally by traffic congestion. There are several county roads within the project 

area where speeds are controlled by horizontal and vertical alignment as well as road width. The 

preponderance of the county transportation system consists of double-lane paved roads. 

The City of South Lake Tahoe manages and maintains a system of streets linking homes and businesses to 

the state and county road network. User comfort and mobility is adequate for the intended use. Speeds are 

controlled by posted speed limits and prima facia speed laws. Horizontal and vertical alignments are not 

the limiting factor in determining speed. All city streets within the project area are paved and double-lane. 

The Forest Service manages and maintains a system of permanent roads (identified as FS System roads) 

that links the forest user or administrator to the state, county and city network of roads and streets. User 

comfort and mobility are not the primary purpose of these roads. Speed is generally controlled by 

horizontal and vertical alignment as well as road width and surface type. The standard for FS System 

roads vary based on the purpose and need of the road. They are categorized by an assigned Maintenance 

Level (ML). 

The existing Forest Service road system in the South Shore project area is a combination of ML 1 (closed; 

basic custodial care; native surface); ML 2 (open; high vehicle clearance; native or improved native 

surface); ML 3 (open; suitable for passenger cars; native/gravel material or asphalt surface); and ML 4 

(open; moderate user comfort; asphalt surface). In their current configuration ML 1, 2, 3 and 4 roads have 

stream crossings (perennial and intermittent) associated with them. In some cases, past road crossing 

restoration has occurred and involved changing undersized culverts with channel spanning bottomless 

arches or bridges (i.e. Trout Creek) In other cases, undersized culverts still exist and have restoration 

needs to provide stability, fish passage and natural sediment transport (i.e. Spring Creek and Saxon 

Creek). 

In 2001 and 2003 two road access travel management plans (ATM) were developed and implemented 

within the project area. The Powerline/Pioneer ATM decommissioned 6.17 miles of road, permanently 

closed 1.38 miles and treated the surface of 5.64 miles. The Camp Richardson/Emerald Bay ATM 

decommissioned 0.9 miles of road and converted 0.8 miles to non-motorized trail. 

In an effort to reduce sediment delivery from existing roads, BMPs were applied to all of the remaining 

Forest System roads within these ATM plan areas. As a result, many of the ML 3 and 4 roads were 

surfaced. Native surfaces remained for ML 1 and 2 roads. On all maintenance levels new drainage 

crossings were installed, waterbars and dips were added, and both ditches and sediment basins were 

armored. 

There also exists a network of old road prisms across the project area, that are not managed as part of the 

Forest Service Road or Trail System. These are the legacy of human activities over the past 100+ years. 

They have many origins such as relics of old wagon roads, unbuilt subdivisions on acquired land or 

decommissioned Forest Service roads. Whatever their origin, they are in various states of condition and 

use. In some cases they may still be used as a trail, on the other extreme; they are barely discernable and 

covered with vegetation. Some of these old existing non-system tracks are proposed for use as temporary 

roads to access activities proposed in the South Shore project. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Transportation and Access 3-345

Environmental Consequences – Transportation and Access 

Direct and Indirect 

To avoid redundant text and facilitate comparison between the action alternatives, they are discussed 

together in this section. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the No Action alternative, none of the transportation system related activities for the South Shore 

project would occur. Therefore, there would be no direct effects from the project. The existing matrix of 

FS System and non-system unclassified roads would remain the same. Access within the project area 

would not change. Routine annual road maintenance would continue to occur on some portion of the 

System roads each year. 

The three crossings proposed for reconstruction in Alternatives 2 and 3 would not be reconstructed. This 

would have the possible indirect effect of reducing access in the future if any of the three crossings were 

to fail and funds were not available for maintenance or repair. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

For both of the action alternatives, most of the project activities would be accomplished on the existing 

permanent FS System roads. No new permanent FS System roads would be constructed under either 

Alternative 2 or 3. Out of the total of 328 miles of all roads of all jurisdictions, a total of approximately 

112 miles would be needed in Alternative 2, and 108 miles in Alternative 3. 

County/City Roads: For both action alternatives, the Forest Service would use only 3.9 miles of City of 

South Lake Tahoe streets out of a total of 127 miles within the project area. There would be no 

environmental effects because there would not be a need to improve or reconstruct any of these streets. 

There are approximately 38 miles of El Dorado Count/State roads that would be utilized for both action 

alternatives out of a total of 121 miles in the project area. As with the City streets, there would be no 

environmental effects because there would not be a need to improve or reconstruct any of these roads. 

There is a potential for some Forest Service roads to be expanded or improved at existing intersections 

with both City, County, and State roads to accommodate the equipment and vehicles that would be used 

for project activities. Resource protection measures would be applied appropriate to the soil type, grade 

and alignment that would prevent environmental impacts. 

Where native surface Forest Service roads, both permanent and temporary, used in the South Shore 

project intersect any paved or chip sealed road from any jurisdiction, resource protection measures 

(Chapter 2) will be implemented that prevent the tracking of soil onto the surfaced road. Consequently 

there are no environmental impacts associated with road junctions. 

Overall there would be no lasting effect on the State/County/City road systems. Traffic may increase 

temporarily on roads that access active units during different stages of the project. There is no way to 

estimate the exact increase since it depends on what stage of the project is being implemented. It can be 

anticipated that in some areas heavy equipment will move in then spend time operating in the forest. 

During this time service trucks, crew transport, chip hauling trucks etc. will be using the public road 

system in varying amounts. There may then be a period up to several years with little increased traffic in 

any given area until the follow up fuels treatments are initiated (primarily prescribed burning). FS System 

Roads: Of the 51 miles total FS System roads within the project area both action alternatives will use 26.7 

miles. In Alternative 2, 15 miles of this will be reconstructed leaving 11.7 that would receive 

maintenance. In Alternative 3, 11 miles would be reconstructed leaving 15.7 miles receiving maintenance. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-346 Chapter 3 

The roads to be reconstructed within the project area are either ML 1 or 2 and are administrative in use; 

none are ML 3 or 4. Reconstruction would not change assigned Maintenance Levels. ML 1 and 2 roads 

would be used for access in the South Shore project the same. The difference is that ML 1 roads would be 

closed and placed in custodial care at the conclusion of the project and ML 2 roads will remain open for 

high clearance vehicles to the public seasonally. At the completion of the project no changes will be made 

to the current access available to the public. In addition, there are no roads that the public is currently 

using that will be closed as part of this project. 

Implementation of either action alternative would require replacement of three existing permanent stream 

crossings. One is on an intermittent channel in the Lower Trout Creek watershed (12N01A), one is on an 

ephemeral channel in the Cold Creek watershed (12N08), and one is on a perennial channel in the Osgood 

Swamp watershed (12N20). For each of these crossing the design criteria are detailed in Chapter 2 and the 

environmental consequences are detailed in the appropriate resource section of this chapter (Soils, Water 

and Riparian, Aquatic Wildlife, Terrestrial Wildlife, etc.). Improvement of these three crossings does not 

have direct effect on current access, as the crossings are currently open and passable to the public. But 

because the stability of these crossings would be improved they would be more lasting and resilient to 

future damage at high stream flows. Therefore it is likely that these crossings will remain passable farther 

into to the future than if left in their current condition. 

As with the State/County/City roads, traffic on Forest System roads will temporarily increase during 

times when various stages of the project are active. There is no change proposed from the current 

Maintenance Level objectives assigned to the FS System roads that would be used in this project, 

consequently access would not be affected at the conclusion of the project. While project operations are 

active there may be temporary delays and/or detours on FS System roads. 

Temporary Roads: Temporary roads would account for approximately eight percent of the total road 

mileage that would be used for the project but the primary difference in the transportation system between 

the two alternatives is the length of temporary roads needed to access treatment units. 

Alternative 2 proposed to use 15.1 miles of temporary road, and Alternative 3 proposed to use 12.3 miles. 

In both alternatives two-thirds of the temporary roads would be constructed on old existing road prisms. 

The use of existing road prisms would reduce impacts from the construction that would be required as the 

route has already been disturbed in the past. 

Construction and use of temporary roads does not affect access to the project area for the public. Since 

temporary roads would be decommissioned at the end of the season and no temporary roads are proposed 

for incorporation into the permanent road or trail system, they would not add to the network of roads and 

trails currently approved. Since motorized vehicles are only allowed on approved routes there would be 

no change in the authorized motor vehicle routes. There may be some old road prisms, not part of the 

classified road system, that are currently used by the public for foot or bicycle access within the area. If 

these are used for temporary roads, decommissioning activities could leave them in a condition that would 

be difficult to walk or bike, but cross country travel would not be prohibited. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the No Action alternative, there would be no activities; therefore there would be no impacts from 

road maintenance, construction, or reconstruction. Consequently there would be no cumulative effects. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Cumulative effects are similar for both action alternatives. A list of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions is found in Appendix A. There are no projects listed that effect a change in road access 

in the project area. In the past there have been projects that decommissioned roads, The South Shore 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Transportation and Access 3-347

project may use some of these old alignments for temporary road access, but they would be returned to 

the decommissioned status at the conclusion of the project. With respect to road access implementation of 

either of the action alternatives does not cause any cumulative effects. 

Analytical Conclusions 

This section summarizes the conclusions of the effects analysis for the transportation system that would 

be used for the project. It provides linkage from resource protection measures in Chapter 2 to their 

influence on the magnitude, scope, intensity, and significance of the environmental effects from the 

transportation system. 

Under the No Action alternative, none of the transportation activities for the South Shore project would 

occur. Therefore, there would be no direct effects from the project. Access on FS System roads would not 

change from the current pattern. 

There would be no permanent changes in access in the project area as a result of implementing either 

Alternative 2 or 3. While 26.7 miles of FS System roads would be used, neither alternative proposes 

changing the Maintenance Levels currently assigned to the FS System roads included in the project. No 

new permanent roads would be built and existing FS System roads would be returned to the assigned 

Maintenance Levels at the conclusion of the project. There would be no significant effect to access of the 

project area. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-348 Chapter 3 

This page intentionally left blank. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Economics 3-349

Economics 

Scope of the Analysis and Indicators of Effect 

This section provides the methodology and analytical basis for the economic comparison of alternatives. 

The values used in the analysis are approximate and discounted to the value of 2008 dollars. When 

applied consistently throughout the analysis, they give a relative value to compare the alternatives. These 

values are not intended to be a precise measure of an alternative’s economic effect. 

It should be emphasized that the revenues displayed are hypothetical based on estimates of the maximum 

wood fiber that might be available for sale and are presented for comparison of the alternatives. The 

actual amount of wood fiber sold and possible income will depend on the market conditions at the time of 

implementation. The wood fiber that might be available for sale is a byproduct of meeting the fuels and 

forest health objectives set forth in Chapter 2. No part of any of the Alternatives depends on the sale of 

wood fiber to implement the project, and there is no project objective for production of commercial 

products. 

Analysis Methods 

The economic efficiency of the alternatives was analyzed using the present net value (PNV) of possible 

revenues and anticipated costs during the life of the project. Present net value can be viewed as the lump 

sum of money the decision maker would have in hand as a result of committing forest resources to a 

particular alternative. 

Present net value is used as an indicator of economic efficiency and is used in conjunction with other 

factors in the decision-making process. Present net value combines benefits and costs that occur at 

different times and discounts them into an amount that is equivalent to all economic activity occurring in 

a single year. Economic impacts are displayed as cost and revenue estimated to result from 

implementation of each alternative. 

Project planning costs are sunk costs incurred initially because they are incurred regardless of the 

alternative selected. Planning cost for the project is estimated at $2,220,000 for all alternatives. 

Environmental Effects – Economics 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

This alternative proposes no action and produces no economic outputs. No thinning, road management, or 

monitoring activities would occur. No market benefits, (direct, indirect or non-quantifiable) can be 

attributed to this alternative. Implementation of the No Action alternative would not provide additional 

public benefits to local jobs or income generated from the forest products industry. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Direct Effects 

Costs and revenues associated with all alternatives are displayed in Table 3-101. Values in Table 3-102 are 

expressed in current day dollars. Present net values are discussed below and are summarized in Table 

3-109. Activity revenues are the estimated value of wood fiber to be removed from the project as a result 

of implementing thinning treatments and meeting the residual fuel loading goals. Revenues could be 

collected in the form of stumpage paid by contractors for both sawtimber size material (generally trees 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-350 Chapter 3 

larger than 10 inches dbh), and biomass material (generally trees between 3 and 10 inches dbh). 

Alternative 2 could generate an estimated $11,087,000 in revenues. Costs for each alternative outlined 

below include all dollars that would be expended to plan and implement the alternatives. Total cost for 

Alternative 2 is estimated at $20,643,000. 

Table 3-101 shows the total present value costs for each alternative. Present value revenues for 

Alternative 2 are estimated to be $10,706,000. Revenue generated from the sale of wood fiber is a direct 

benefit. Alternative 2 would remove an estimated 2,948 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of wood fiber in the 

form of both sawlogs and biomass. Present value cost was estimated to be $19,624,000. The present net 

value for Alternative 2 was estimated at $-8,918,000 for a benefit-cost ratio of 0.55, which indicates that 

the project costs would exceed the value of the wood fiber. As this alternative produces revenues from 

thinning only, values generated from the sale of generally smaller trees would not cover the costs 

associated with tree removal and extensive slash cleanup from past tree mortality. 

Table 3-101. Costs and Revenues for The South Shore Project, by Alternative 

Costs / Revenues, 2008 Dollars Alternative 1 

- No Action 

Alternative 2 -

Proposed Action 

Alternative 3 – 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Revenues 

Estimated Value of Wood Fiber $0 $10,706,000 $6,942,000

Costs 

Administrative costs, project preparation 

and contract administration $0 $751,000 $708,000

Mechanical Thin $0 $10,648,000 $8,056,000

Hand Thin and Pile $0 $3,961,000 $4,766,000

Masticate/Chip Fuels $0 $1,789,000 $1,883,000

Pile Burning $0 $1,960,000 $2,341,000

Prescribed Underburn $0 $347,000 $317,000

Temporary Roads $0 $83,000 $70,000

Road Reconstruction $0 $85,000 $57,000

Cost Total $0 $19,624,000 $18,198,000

Source: South Shore Fuels Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project Economic Spreadsheet 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Economics 3-351

Table 3-102. Present Value Costs, Revenue, Net Value and Benefit-Cost Ratio by Alternative 

Alternative Present Value 

Costs 

Present Value 

Revenue 

Present Net 

Value 

Benefit-Cost 

Ratio 

Alternative 1 - 

No Action $0 $0 $0 0.00

Alternative 2 - 

Proposed Action $19,624,000 $10,706,000 $-8,918,000 0.55

Alternative 3 – 

Preferred Alternative $18,198,000 $6,942,000 $-11,256,000 0.38

Source: South Shore Fuels Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project Economic Spreadsheet 

Indirect Effects 

Indirect effects of Alternative 2 are additional public benefits such as local employment, income 

generated from the forest products industry, and energy from cogeneration plants. Based on relationships 

between employment and harvest in northwest California for 1994 each million board feet of sawtimber 

harvested supported 22.3 year round jobs in timber industry employment (Raettig 1999). Assuming the 

relationship of sawtimber harvested to employment in northwest California is similar to central and 

northern California. Table 3-103 displays the predicted total full time jobs and associated employeerelated income resulting for each alternative. Alternative 2 would create an estimated 25 full time jobs for 

timber industry employment. Based on a medium income of $70,516 for El Dorado County residents (US 

Census 2000, adjusted to 2006), the total employee related income for Alternative 2 would be $1,762,900. 

A further indirect effect of this project would include the maintenance costs associated with the various 

treatments. Maintenance of treatments within the defense zone of the wildland urban interface is 

estimated to cost $13,956,000. These treatments would occur where understory trees have regenerated 

causing live fuel buildup of fire ladders and would consist of thinning or understory burning in 

approximately twenty years. 

Table 3-103. Comparison of Employment Related Effects 

Alternative Total 

Full-time Jobs 

Total 

Employee Related 

Income 

Alternative 1 - No Action 0 $0 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 25 $1,762,900 

Alternative 3 - Preferred 

Alternative 21 $1,481,000 

Cumulative Effects 

The projected cumulative impacts of this project when combined with other projects of a similar activity 

in the area would be to further increase employment and contracts to accomplish vegetation management 

work. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-352 Chapter 3 

Alternative 3 – Preferred Alternative 

Direct Effects 

Costs and revenues associated with Alternative 3 are displayed in Table 3-104. Alternative 3 could 

generate an estimated $7,196,000 in revenues. Total cost for Alternative 3 is estimated at $19,202,000. 

Table 3-105 shows the total present value costs. The present value cost for Alternative 3 is estimated to be 

$18,198,000. Revenue generated from the sale of wood fiber is a direct benefit. Alternative 3 would 

remove an estimated 2,533 CCF of wood fiber in the form of both saw logs and biomass. Present value 

revenue was estimated to be $6,942,000. The present net value for Alternative 3 was estimated at $-

11,256,000 for a benefit-cost ratio of 0.38, which indicates that project costs would exceed the value of 

the wood fiber. This alternative also produces revenues from thinning only, and values generated from the 

sale of generally smaller trees would not cover the costs associated with tree removal and extensive slash 

cleanup from past tree mortality. Alternative 3 would utilize more cut-to-length harvesting over whole 

tree harvesting than in Alternative 2. The ratio of costs to revenues is higher in Alternative 3 because cutto-length harvesting systems are more expensive than whole tree systems, and there are fewer acres of 

mechanical treatment in Alternative 3 than Alternative 2. 

Indirect Effects 

Indirect effects of Alternative 3 are similar to those discussed for Alternative 2. Table 3-106 displays the 

predicted total full time jobs and associated employee-related income resulting for Alternative 3. 

Alternative 3 would create an estimated 21 full time jobs for direct and induced employment. The total 

employee related income for Alternative 3 would be $1,481,000. 

Maintenance of treatments within the defense zone of the wildland urban interface is estimated to cost 

$12,310,000. These treatments would also occur in twenty years and would consist of thinning or 

understory burning, where understory trees have regenerated causing live fuel build up in the form of fire 

ladders. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of Alternative 3 would be the same as those described for Alternative 2. 

Analytical Conclusions 

This section provides a brief summary of the conclusions of the effects analysis to economic conditions, 

including influence on the magnitude, scope, and intensity of the economic effects from project activities. 

The no action alternative proposes no action and produces no economic outputs. No market benefits, 

(direct, indirect or non-quantifiable) can be attributed to this alternative. Planning costs would be lost. 

For both action alternatives, project costs would exceed the value of the wood fiber. Alternative 3 would 

utilize more cut-to-length harvesting over whole tree harvesting than in Alternative 2. Cut-to-length 

harvesting systems are more expensive than whole tree systems, and with fewer acres of mechanical 

treatment in Alternative 3 than Alternative 2, the ratio of costs to revenues is higher in Alternative 3. 

Neither of the action alternatives are dependent on the sale of wood fiber, any wood fiber that may be 

available for sale is a byproduct of meeting the fuel reduction and forest health objectives stated in the 

Purpose and Need for the project, and any income would depend on market conditions at the time of 

implementation. Both action alternatives would provide jobs, but the economic value of either action 

alternative, compared to the entire economy in the South Lake Tahoe area, is not significant. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Special Designated Areas 3-353

Special Designated Areas 

Scope of the Analysis and Indicators of Effect 

Within the boundary of the South Shore project analysis area there are several special designated areas, 

shown in the table below. There are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) in the analysis area but 

the portion of the Upper Truckee River within the Dardanelles Inventoried Roadless Area has been 

recommended for inclusion into the WSR system (USDA FS Tahoe NF and LTBMU Feb 1999). 

Table 3-104. Special Designated Areas 

Special Area Acres in 

Analysis Area 

Desolation Wilderness 10,984 

Grass Lake Research Natural Area 356 

Dardanelles Inventoried Roadless Area 13,932 

Freel Inventoried Roadless Area 14,881 

Pyramid Inventoried Roadless Area 3,346 

No treatments are proposed within the Desolation Wilderness or the Grass Lake Research Natural Area so 

there are no direct effects on these areas. Additionally there are no treatments planned within or in close 

proximity to the portion of the Upper Truckee River that has been recommended for WSR status. There 

are treatments proposed in each of the three Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) as shown in the following 

table. 

Table 3-105. Inventoried Roadless categories and activity acres 

IRA Proposed 

Treatment 

Alternative 2 

Acres 

Alternative 3 

Acres Change 

Dardanelles 

Hand Treatment 222 202 -20 

Mechanical 9 0 -9 

Freel 

Hand Treatment 151 136 -15 

Mechanical 0.3 0 -0.3 

Pyramid 

Hand Treatment 215 227 12 

Mechanical 49 37 -12 

In all cases the treatments proposed occur in areas where the IRA and WUI overlap. There are no roads or 

landings proposed within the IRAs. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-354 Chapter 3 

Management of IRAs on National Forest System lands is currently the subject of conflicting Federal 

Court decisions. On November 5, 2009, Regional Forester Randy Moore issued a letter outlining 

Roadless Area Management Direction for the Pacific Southwest Region (R5) based on delegations made 

by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to the Forest Service. Based on R5 direction the South Shore project 

is within a class of action that requires review by the Regional Office and notification to the State of 

California. The State of California has not filed a petition for these IRAs under the 2003 Roadless Rule. 

The following analysis is based an assessment of the impacts on the IRA that would affect the roadless 

character of the IRA. Roadless character is defined for purposes of this analysis, as a permanent change 

in motorized access within the IRA. 

Environmental Consequences – Special Designated Areas 

Direct and Indirect 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Selection of Alterative 1 would result in no activities within the IRA so there would be no direct effect. 

Fuel loading would continue to increase and the risk of wildfire would correspondingly also increase both 

within and adjacent to the IRAs. In the event of a wildfire within the IRA, suppression activities could 

temporarily impact the roadless character i.e. the construction of dozer fireline. However post fire 

rehabilitation would likely mitigate any motorized intrusion. While a wildfire could affect the visual or 

recreational values of the IRAs they would remain roadless and the roadless character would be 

preserved. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Both action alternatives propose a relatively small amount of treatment activities on the fringes of the 

three IRAs as listed in Table 3-111 and shown on Map 17. The differences between the two alternatives 

are not measurable considering the scale of the project so they are considered together in this analysis. 

Since there would be no roads or landings constructed within the IRAs in either alternative there would be 

no change in the roadless character. While mechanical treatments would be discernable after thinning 

operations there would be no new permanent roads or authorized motorized access remaining after the 

project. The project would not forego any future management decisions for the IRAs and is compliant 

with all pending litigation regarding roadless policy. 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Since no fuel reduction activities would take place as part of the South Shore project there would be no 

direct effects on the roadless character of the IRAs, therefore there would be no cumulative effects when 

considering the past, present or foreseeable actions in the analysis area. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

There are no past, present or foreseeable actions (see Appendix A) that when added to the activities 

proposed in Alternative 2 or 3 that would result in cumulative impact that would alter the roadless 

character of the three IRAs. Since neither Alternative 2 nor 3 would affect the roadless character, 

implementation of the South Shore project would result in no change from the current situation. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Environmental Justice 3-355

Required Federal Considerations and Disclosures 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 requires that all federal actions consider potentially disproportionate 

effects on minority and low-income communities especially if adverse effects to environmental or 

human health conditions are identified. 

The activities proposed in all alternatives were based solely on the existing and desired condition 

of the vegetation, sensitivity of the environment and practical treatment access in response to the 

Purpose and Need. In no case was the treatment prescription design based on the demographic 

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

adjacent non-federal land. Federally owned lands proposed for treatment are randomly 

distributed throughout the project area, and are intermixed with non-federal lands. In reviewing 

the location of the proposed treatments in any of the alternatives in relationship to non-federal 

land, there is no evidence to suggest that any minority or low income neighborhood will be 

affected disproportionately. Conversely there is no evidence that any individual, group or portion 

of the community will benefit unequally from any of the actions in the proposed alternatives. The 

environmental effects as described in each resource section are connected to the location of the 

subject resource and not influenced by any current human community distribution. 

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared 

by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and 

technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create 

and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill 

the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans 

(NEPA Section 101). 

There are no short term uses proposed in Alternatives 2 or 3 that would reduce long term 

productivity. As stated in the Purpose and Need (Chapter 1) the South Shore project is designed 

to reduce the risk of wildfire, promote a healthy forest that is resistant to drought and disease, and 

restore meadows and aspen stands, thus enhancing long-term productivity of the project area. 

There would be short term effects as the project is implemented but the design of the action 

alternatives coupled with the Resource Protection Measures result in no trade off of long-term 

productivity within the project area. 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Implementation of any of the three alternatives presented would result in some unavoidable 

adverse environmental effects such as the creation of smoke during prescribed burning. The 

design of the action alternatives, Alternatives 2 and 3, combined with the Resource Protection 

Measures mitigate the effects to a level of impact less than significant. The environmental 

consequences section for each resource area discusses the consequences in detail. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

3-356 Chapter 3 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of 

a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a 

period of time. 

Under both action alternatives, there would be an irreversible loss of the individual trees that are 

cut and removed or burned, although some may be repurposed into sawlogs, fuelwood and/or 

biomass. The site productivity would remain virtually unchanged so there is no irreversible 

commitment of resources anticipated. The treated landscapes will continue to grow trees and 

other vegetation, and provide quality habitat and recreational opportunities. 

Irretrievable commitments of resources would be only for very short periods, generally during 

operational periods. Recreational users and wildlife could be displaced from sites where project 

activities are taking place for short periods of time, generally not lasting more than a few weeks. 

Some use of these active sites would be irretrievably lost. As the operations moved to new 

locations, both people and wildlife would return to use the site. Taken in context of the whole 

project area and duration of the project this irretrievable commitment would be so small as to be 

insignificant. The sites of active treatment would be small compared to the entire analysis area 

which includes the areas proposed for treatment and area that is not proposed for treatment. 

Recreational users would have innumerable options to use other nearby inactive portions of the 

forest. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Monitoring 4-1

Chapter 4 – Monitoring 

Monitoring 

This chapter describes the monitoring that would be required for the South Shore project. The 

purpose of project monitoring is to track the implementation of the resource protection measures 

found in Chapter 2 and the prescribed BMPs (Appendix B), and in some cases, to measure their 

short-term effectiveness at protecting resources. If unacceptable impacts are identified through 

monitoring, measures would be taken to mitigate impacts and adapt management techniques to 

protect resources as described in the resource sections below. Project resource protection 

measures are detailed in Chapter 2 and not duplicated in this section (e.g. operable soil moisture 

conditions , WS-21). 

Types of Monitoring 

Implementation monitoring consists of visual monitoring of project treatment areas, roads, 

stream crossings, landings, etc., to ensure that all management practices and project resource 

protection measures (termed “design features” in the DEIS) are implemented, including those 

designed to prevent sediment delivery and protect water quality (e.g., erosion control measures, 

riparian buffers, waterbars, critical dips) are in place as prescribed. 

Effectiveness monitoring consists of visual monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

prescribed resource protection measures and management practices at meeting their objectives. It 

includes evaluating the effectiveness of management practices designed to prevent sediment 

delivery and protect water quality (e.g., erosion control measures, riparian buffers, waterbars, 

critical dips). 

Organization of Chapter 4 

Chapter 4 describes the monitoring that is required specific to the South Shore project. A 

discussion of differences between alternatives is organized by resource area and described when 

there would be a change in required monitoring based on a difference between the action 

alternatives. The monitoring requirements are separated into specific resource areas for ease in 

reading in the following order: 

 Soil, Water and Riparian Resources Monitoring 

 Aquatic Resources Monitoring 

 Transportation Monitoring 

 Sensitive Plant Monitoring 

 Invasive Weed Monitoring 

The best management practices (BMPs) referred to in the following discussion are found in 

Appendix B, with a short description. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

4-2 Chapter 4 

Soil, Water and Riparian Resources 

Required Monitoring 

SEZ Pile Burning 

The resource protection measures (aka design features) (Chapter 2) for pile burning in SEZs 

under both action alternatives are new to the Lake Tahoe Basin, and their effectiveness at 

protecting soil and water quality in SEZs has not been quantified. For the first two years after 

piles are burned, monitoring would be used in a representative sample of SEZ pile burn units to 

determine whether the resource protection measures were successful in avoiding significant 

impacts to soil stability, soil productivity, water quality, and riparian plant growth. Monitoring 

would be implemented for up to 2 years after piles are burned. If the monitoring efforts or visual 

observations of SEZ areas indicate ash or sediment delivery to a surface water occurs, season of 

burning may be changed, piles may be moved further from channels, or another comparable 

mitigation measure may be used to prevent the delivery of piled or burned material to surface 

waters. 

BMP and Resource protection measure Implementation 

Implementation monitoring would occur in each treatment unit (or group of similar nearby units), 

and in other areas affected by the South Shore project such as access roads, staging areas, water 

supply areas, etc. This would include completing a checklist that includes BMPs and resource 

protection measures contained in the NEPA document that apply to soil and water quality 

protection. The checklist would require visits to the treatment units before, during and after 

implementation to ensure that BMPs and resource protection measures are carried out on the 

ground as they were prescribed. If implementation monitoring indicates a deficiency in 

completing all required BMPs and resource protection measures, the contract administrator would 

be notified and the contractor would be required to take corrective action (whether that is to fix 

the deficiency where found, or to discuss how to properly implement the BMP or resource 

protection measure in the future). 

Implementation monitoring for select BMPs would also occur prior to a large storm event (1 inch 

or greater forecasted). A watershed or transportation specialist would review project BMPs and 

notify the contract administrator if additional BMPs are recommended to disconnect runoff from 

surface water features. 

BMP Evaluation Program 

Best management practice evaluation program (BMPEP) protocols developed by the USFS and 

CA State Water Resources Control Board (USDA FS 2002) would be followed to provide 

qualitative information about whether BMPs are implemented as prescribed in the NEPA 

document (and subsequent contract and permit requirements and specifications) and that they are 

effective in protecting soil and water resources. Regionally, targets are set for each forest 

(including the LTBMU) identifying how many of each type of evaluation should be completed 

each year. The South Shore proposed treatment units and roads would be included in the pool of 

randomly selected BMPEP evaluations to meet this target. In addition to the Regional targets, this 

program requires use of the Prescribed Fire (F25) protocol for up to 5 underburns per year.. 

Additional BMPEP Monitoring 

The DEIS described different triggers for additional BMPEP monitoring than what is described 

below. However, the timber waiver has now been revised for projects initiated in 2009 or later. 

Based on comments received from the public, the Lahontan Water Board, and the TRPA, the 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Monitoring 4-3

selection criteria for sites for additional BMPEP evaluations have been revised to be consistent 

with the latest Timber Waiver revision. The LTBMU and Lahontan Water Board concluded that 

modifying the additional monitoring triggers, using other criteria instead of reliance only on 

modeled CWE results, would be more consistent with the 2009 Timber Waiver monitoring 

requirements, and would provide a higher confidence level for evaluating the effectiveness of the 

resource protection measures and BMPs for the project. 

The following methods would be used to select monitoring sites for additional BMPEP 

evaluations to comply with the revised Timber Waiver language for 2009, rather than using the 

CWE results to make this determination. 

Focused high risk BMP monitoring would be completed annually at stream crossings and SEZ 

boundaries to verify and document that protection measures are implemented as prescribed and 

that they are effectively protecting soil and water quality. The focused “high risk” BMP 

evaluations would be done in addition to those required to meet the BMPEP regional targets in 

order to comply with 2009 Timber Waiver attachment O, and would be done in stands adjacent to 

streamside management zones and at stream crossings (BMPEP Protocols T01, E09, and E14). 

Photos would be taken for documentation of “not effective” ratings. Corrective actions would be 

prescribed as necessary to correct documented deficiencies, and repeat evaluations would be 

conducted until deficiencies have been corrected. 

If sites beyond the regional target are available each year, the T01 protocol would be followed at 

1 to3 additional streamside management zones (i.e., SEZs) present within treatment stands. Sites 

for this monitoring would be selected based on the potential that project activities may affect soil 

or water quality, such as proximity of treatments to perennial channels, lakes and ponds, and the 

presence of steep slopes. 

The E09 BMPEP protocol would be followed at each permanent stream crossing replacement (3 

total) and at the single intermittent stream crossing that would remain in place over winter. This 

protocol would be completed at 3 points in time: during installation, after the first major storm 

event (1 inch, 24 hour storm) and after spring runoff the year following crossing installation. 

Finally, the E14 protocol would be followed at 1 to 5 temporary road stream crossings (as 

available each year) within the treatment stands immediately after installation, after storm events 

(1 inch or greater) during their use,, and to monitor temporary road stream crossing removal 

immediately after the crossing is removed and after the first winter season. Ephemeral channel 

crossings would be selected for this monitoring based on the presence of riparian vegetation, 

slope, and their proximity and connectivity to intermittent or perennial channels. 

Forensic Monitoring 

In addition to the detailed monitoring described above, forensic monitoring would be conducted 

whenever visual observations from the project IDT, Contract Administrator, the public, or 

regulatory agency staff identify a soil or water quality resource concern. This monitoring would 

involve evaluation of the resource concern from a watershed specialist, identification and 

application of corrective actions where needed, and repeated monitoring until the concern has 

been resolved. When safety of employees is of concern, monitoring would occur as soon as 

conditions are safe. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

4-4 Chapter 4 

Aquatic Resources 

Required Monitoring 

Stream Temperature and Shade 

The objective of fuel treatments in SEZs (along or adjacent to perennial flowing tributaries) is to 

have no measurable increase in stream temperature as a by-product of conifer removal. Therefore, 

the critical monitoring question is, will the decrease in density of live conifers result in a decrease 

in stream shade and a measurable increase in stream temperature? 

Monitoring parameters would include: a) selection of a minimum of 6 SEZ treatments (2 whole 

tree units, 2 cut-to-length units, and 2 hand thinning units), b) installation of 3 temperature 

loggers associated with each unit type, c) locate temperature monitoring sites above, within and 

below each selected unit and d) measurement of stream shade at each temperature monitoring 

location and at two points equidistant between stream temperature monitoring locations. 

Stream data loggers record water temperatures during a normal spring to fall flow cycle (May – 

November) which would encapsulate pre- and post-fuels treatment conditions. Stream 

temperature would be recorded for 1 – 2 years depending on when units are treated. The 

following table summarizes the stream temperature monitoring parameters. 

Table 4-1. Stream Temperature Monitoring Temperatures (May-November) 

WHOLE TREE CUT TO LENGTH HAND THIN 

Unit 

No. 

No. of 

SEZ 

Acres 

No. of 

Data 

Loggers 

Unit 

No. 

No. of 

SEZ 

Acres 

No. of 

Data 

Loggers

Unit 

No. 

No. of 

SEZ 

Acres 

No. of 

Data 

Loggers

9 21.63 

UU – 1 

IU – 1 

DU – 1 133/135 1.06 

UU – 1

IU – 1

DU – 1 99/56 1.24 

UU – 1

IU – 1

DU – 1

192 3.90 

UU – 1 

IU – 1 

DU – 1 343 9.72 

UU – 1

IU – 1

DU – 1 82/84 0.10 

UU – 1

IU – 1

DU – 1

Unit 22 

(alternate) 0.03 

UU – 1 

IU – 1 

DU – 1 

186/187 

(alternate)

0.20 

UU – 1

IU – 1

DU – 1

95 

(alternate) 0.11 

UU – 1

IU – 1

DU – 1

UU = Upstream of unit TOTAL NO. OF DATA LOGGERS = 18

IU = Inside the unit TOTAL NO. OF SITES = 6

DU = Downstream of the units

 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Monitoring 4-5

Transportation 

Required Monitoring 

The mechanism for monitoring and documenting the implementation of all transportation 

resource protection measures and BMPs would be the implementation monitoring checklist, 

previously described under the Soils, Water, and Riparian Resource section of this chapter. In 

addition, Transportation (Roads and Access) BMPs would be included in the sampling pool for 

the Regional BMPEP program each year. 

Some elements of the South Shore Project will require a Storm Water Pollutions Prevention Plan 

(SWPPP) or Erosion Control Plan (ECP), depending on the required level of permitting. The 

SWPPP and ECP may include additional monitoring elements required by the permitting agency. 

Sensitive Plants and Fungi 

Required Monitoring 

Sensitive plant monitoring is an ongoing forest-wide program conducted regularly with results 

reported to the National Resource Information System (NRIS) database. Project Sensitive plant 

monitoring would occur under this program and not specific to the South Shore Project. A 

regionally designated fungi monitoring plot exists within the project area. No detections of 

sensitive fungi have occurred. This plot is monitored periodically and no additional monitoring is 

required for the South Shore Project. 

Invasive Weeds 

Required Monitoring 

The invasive weed monitoring process would occur similar to monitoring described above for 

sensitive plants. Invasive weed monitoring is an ongoing forest-wide effort conducted regularly 

with results reported to the NRIS database. This information is used to help determine effective 

application of project resource protection measures and potential treatment options. Project 

invasive weed monitoring would occur under this program and not specific to the South Shore 

Project. 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

4-6 Chapter 4 

This page intentionally left blank 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Acronyms 5-1

Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination, 

Acronyms, Glossary, and References Cited 

Chapter 5 is organized under the following subsection headings: 

 Consultation and Coordination 

o Preparers and Contributors 

 Interdisciplinary Team Members – USDA Forest Service 

 Other Contributors 

o Consultation 

o Distribution of DEIS Document 

 Notification to Individuals & Organizations 

 Distribution to Additional Agencies and Community Locations 

o Acronyms 

o Glossary 

o References Cited 

 Forest Service Handbooks and Manuals 

Consultation and Coordination 

Preparers and Contributors 

Interdisciplinary Team Members - USDA Forest Service 

Barak Shemai, Fisheries Biologist 

Education: M.S. Fisheries Biology/Experimental Statistics, New Mexico State University, Las 

Cruces, NM, (2004) 

B.S. Wildlife Biology, Ohio University, Athens, OH, (1999) 

Experience: LTBMU Fisheries Biologist (2004-2008) 

Daniel Cressy, Landscape Architect / Recreation Planner 

Education: B.A. Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz 

M.L.A. Landscape Architecture, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 

Experience: Consulting Landscape Architect, 1997-2003 

Landscape Architect / Recreation Planner, USDA Forest Service, LTBMU, 2003-present 

Denise Downie, Soil Scientist 

Education: M.S. Agriculture/Soil Science, California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo 

B.A English Literature, University of California at Los Angeles 

Experience: Soil Scientist, USDA Forest Service, LTBMU, South Lake Tahoe, CA (2001 to present) 

Soil Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Steamboat Springs, CO (1998-2000) 

Soil Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Pueblo, CO (1996-1998) 

Soil Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Bend Oregon (1995) 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

5-2 Chapter 5 

Soil Scientist, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Lancaster, CA (1993-

1994) 

Duncan Leao, IDT Team Leader 

Education: B.S. and M.S., Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff AZ, (2001, 2004) 

Experience: Forester/Vegetation Planner, LTBMU, South Lake Tahoe, CA (2006 to present) 

Forester/Fuels Specialist, Lassen NF, Fall River Mills and Chester, CA (2004-2006) 

Research Assistant, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ (2002-2004) 

Forester, University of California/Los Alamos National Laboratories, Los Alamos, NM 

(2000-2002) 

Forestry Technician, Modoc NF, Tulelake, CA (1998-2000) 

John Washington, Fuels Division Chief (Specialist) 

Education: Technical Fire Management, Washington Institute, Duvall, WA (2002) 

Experience: Fuels Division Chief (Specialist), (2008 to present) 

Kurt Teuber, Geographic Information Systems Analyst 

Education: B.S. Forest Management, University of Montana, Missoula, MT (1979) 

M.S. Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT (1983) 

Experience: Research Forester, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Starkville, MS (1985-1989) 

Forester/Planner, Beaverhead NF, Dillon, MT (1989-1992) 

GIS Coordinator, Lewis & Clark NF, Great Falls, MT (1993-1998) 

GIS Specialist, Region 5 Remote Sensing Lab, Sacramento, CA (1998-2004) 

GIS Coordinator, LTBMU, South Lake Tahoe, CA (2004-present) 

Richard Vacirca, Forest Aquatics Program Manager 

Education: BS, Fisheries Science, New Mexico State University 

BS, Wildlife Science, New Mexico State University 

Experience: Forest Aquatics Biologist, USDA Forest Service, LTBMU (2006-present) 

Fisheries Biologist, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Office (2003-

2006) 

Fisheries Biologist, USDA Forest Service, Ochoco NF (1997- 2003) 

Biological Science Technician (Fisheries), USDA Forest Service, Lincoln NF (1995-

1997) 

Rita Mustatia, Forester, Silviculturist 

Education: B.S. Forest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO (1999) 

Experience: Forester, Silviculturist, LTBMU (2006 to present) 

Forester, Silviculturist, Willamette NF, (1997 to 2006) 

Stuart Osbrack, Biological Science Technician (Botany) 

Education: B.S. Natural Resource Management, University of Vermont, Burlington 

Experience: Botanist, Ecologist, Biological Science Technician (Botany), USDA Forest Service, 

LTBMU, South Lake Tahoe, CA (2005 to 2009) 

Biological Science Technician, (Fire Effects Monitor), National Park Service, Grand 

Teton National Park, Moose WY (2004) 

Biological Science Technician, (Restoration/Revegetation), National Park Service, 

Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Park, CO (2003) 

Biological Science Technician, (Restoration), National Park Service, Joshua Tree 

National Park, Twentynine Palms, CA (2003) 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Acronyms 5-3

Biological Science Technician (Restoration/Revegetation), National Park Service, Mount 

Rainier National Park, Ashford, WA (2002) 

Scott Parsons, Forester, Silviculturist 

Education: B.S. Forest Management, University of California, Berkeley, CA (1978) 

Experience: Forester, Silviculturist, LTBMU, (1991 to present) 

Forester, Sequoia NF, (1989 to 1991) 

Forestry Technician, Mendocino NF (1980 to 1989) 

Sue Rodman, IDT Team Co-leader 

Education: B.S. Zoology, ecology emphasis (1969 Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. 

Experience: Forest Planner, Eldorado NF, Placerville, Ca (1992 to present) 

Operations Research Analyst, Eldorado NF, Placerville, CA (1989 to 1992) 

Operations Research Analyst, Deerlodge NF, Butte, MT (1980 to 1989) 

Microbiological Technician, Salt Lake City Research Station, USDA Bureau of Mines, 

Salt Lake City, UT (1977 to 1979) 

Theresa Loupe, Hydrologist 

Education: B.S. Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara (2000) 

M.S. Hydrologic Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno (2005) 

Experience: Hydrologist, LTBMU, South Lake Tahoe, CA (2006 to present) 

Hydrologist Assistant, CA Department of Parks and Recreation, Tahoe City, CA (2001 to 

2003) 

Victor J. Lyon, Wildlife Biologist 

Education: B.S. Wildlife and Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis 

Experience: Wildlife Biologist, USDA, Forest Service, LTBMU, South Lake Tahoe, CA (2001-2010) 

Wildlife Biologist, USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Los Banos, CA (1997-2000) 

Wes Christensen, Hydrologist 

Education: M.S., Geology University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT (2002) 

PhD student at University of California Davis, Davis, CA (2008 to present) 

Experience: Hydrologist, USDA Forest Service, LTBMU, South Lake Tahoe, CA (2006 to 2008) 

Hydrologist, Riverside Fire Lab, Riverside, CA (2003 to 2006) 

Hydrologic Technician, Uinta NF, Provo, UT (2001 to 2003) 

Field Assistant/Laboratory Technician, University of Utah-Stable Isotope Lab, Salt Lake 

City, UT (1996 to 2001) 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

5-4 Chapter 5 

Additional Contirbutors 

Brian Garrett, Urban Lots Coordinator, 

LTBMU

Cheryl Beyer, Forest Botanist, LTBMU

Chuck Brickey, GIS Specialist, LTBMU

Dave Marlow, Fire, Fuels, Veg, Urban 

Lots Staff Officer, LTBMU (Retired)

Holly Eddinger, Supervisor Forest 

Biologist, LTBMU

Ken Pence, Transportation Planner 

Kurt Teuber, GIS Specialist, LTBMU

Lynda Philipp, Writer-Editor

Mike LeFevre, Planning Staff Officer, 

LTBMU

Shay Zanetti, Wildlife Biologist, LTBMU

Susan Norman, Physical Sciences 

Group Leader, LTBMU 

Todd Chaponot, Writer-Editor, LTBMU

Tom Koler, Minerals & Geology 

Consultation 

The following individuals, federal, state, and local agencies, and tribes were consulted during the 

development of this EIS. 

Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 

The City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department 

Lake Valley Fire Protection District 

Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District 

Fallen Leaf Fire Department 

Lahontan Water Board 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) 

Distribution of FEIS Document 

Notification to Individuals & Organizations 

The following list contains the names of those who have participated in the project public 

collaboration process, and were notified of the publication of the South Shore Fuel 

Reduction Final EIS (consistent with 36 CFR part 218, subpart A). 

Andrew List, Nevada Fire Safe Council 

Andrew Strain , Heavenly Lake Tahoe Ski Resort 

Art Darrow, Fallen Leaf Lake Tract Association 

Arthur Chesterfield , Sierra Pacific Power Company 

Ben Pignatelli, League to Save Lake Tahoe 

Beth Mcmorrow, Bridge Tract Cabinowners Association 

Betsey Thornton, Spring Creek Tract Association 

Bill Holmes, Cal Fire Alpine-Amador-El Dorado-Sacramento Unit, California Department 

of Forestry and Fire Protection 

Bill Harris, Senior Engineering Geologist, CA Geological Survey 

Bill Snyder, Deputy Director, Resource Management, CALFIRE 

Brian Hirt, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

Carl Young, League to Save Lake Tahoe 

Chad Hanson, PhD, John Muir Project 

Chris Sauer, Chief, Fallen Leaf Fire Department 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Acronyms 5-5

Craig Thomas, Sierra Forest Legacy 

Darrell Cruz, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 

Dan Young 

Dave Hamilton 

Dave Jinkens , City of South Lake Tahoe City Manager 

Del Laine, Upper Truckee Tract Association 

Dennis Thibeault , Sierra Pacific Industries 

Department of Water Resources, 1416 9th St., Sacramento, CA 

Don Odell, Echo Summit/Echo Road Association 

Don Smith , Emerald Bay Tract Association 

Douglas Cushman, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board 

E. Robertson , California Native Plant Society 

Gerald & Kristine Brooks 

Gregory & Judy Thomas 

Guy LeFever, Chief, Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District 

Harold Singer, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Hillary Hodges 

J. Evans 

Jeff Michael, Chief, Lake Valley Fire Protection District 

Jennifer Johnson, Environmental Protection Dept., Washoe Tribe of Nevada and 

California 

Jennifer Quashnick, Tahoe Sierra Club 

Jim Hildinger , Angora Lakes Resort 

John Adamski 

Jonathan F. Hoefer 

Joanne Howard, Echo Lakes Association 

Joanne Marchetta, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

Karen Schambach, Public Employees for Env. Responsibilities 

Kathleen Goforth, Environmental Review Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ken Anderson, California Department of State Parks 

Kevin Thomas, California Department of Fish and Game 

Laurel Ames 

Lorena Herrig 

Lorenzo Gigliotti, Chief, South Lake Tahoe Fire Department 

Malcom Sproul, LSA Associates 

Marcella McTaggart, El Dorado Co. Air Quality Management Dist 

Marie Barry, Environmental Coordinator Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 

Mark & Rebecca Novak 

Mark Novak, Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District 

Mary Ann Morris 

Mary Huggins, California Department of Forestry 

Michael Donahoe, Sierra Club - Lake Tahoe Chapter 

Mike Graf, Sierra Forest Legacy 

Mike Klug, FMO, Nevada Division of Forestry 

Mike Volmer, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

Norma Santiago, Eldorado County Board of Supervisors 

Pam Armas, District Superintendent, CA Dept of Parks and Rec, Sierra District 

Patricia Sanderson Port, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Dept. 

Interior, Office of the Secretary 

Peter Tittman 

Reid Fisher 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

5-6 Chapter 5 

Rich Fairbanks,The Wilderness Society 

Richard Solbrig, South Tahoe Public Utility District 

Rochelle Nason - League to Save Lake Tahoe 

Roland Shaw, Nevada Tahoe Resources Team 

Sandy Morey, CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Region 2 

Sharon Duggan, Attorney, Environmental Prot. Info. Center 

Shirley Taylor 

Steve Morales , Lake Tahoe Unified School District 

Steve Wiard , Sierra Pacific Industries 

Susan Statton, Office of Historic Preservation 

Ted Thayer, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

Terri Jamin , City of South Lake Tahoe, Public Service 

Tony Appleby 

Vada Camacho, California Department of Fish and Game 

Vince Puccetti, President, Rainbow Tract Association 

 

Distribution to Additional Agencies and Community Locations 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Director, Planning and Review 

California Land Management 

California Tahoe Conservancy 

Caltrans District 3, 703 B St., Marysville, CA 

Camp Richardson Resort 

DeLaMare Library, University of Nevada, Reno 

El Dorado County Library, South Lake Tahoe, CA 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, EIS Review Coordinator 

Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, Regional Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservationists Division, Southwest Region 

State Water Resources Control Board, Water Quality, 1001 I St., Sacramento, CA 

Tahoe Rim Trail Association, DWR Community Non Profit Center 

USDA Forest Service, Ecosystem Planning/Attn: Appeals 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Acronyms 5-7

Acronyms 

CAR Critical aquatic refuge: Forest Plan land allocation from the Sierra Nevada 

Forest Plan Amendment to designate areas for management emphasis on aquatic 

resources. 

CASQA California Stormwater Quality Association: Assists the State Water 

Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and municipalities throughout the state of 

California in implementing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) stormwater mandates of the Federal Clean Water Act.

CTL Cut to length: Method of thinning using mechanical harvester equipment that 

processes logs and bunches biomass for removal while traveling over a portion of 

the limbs and tops from the trees harvested. A forwarder self-loads logs with or 

without branches for transport to a landing as well as biomass that will be 

removed from the project area usually in the form of chip. Logs are generally not 

skidded. A chipper at the landing usually processes material into clean chip for 

manufacturing into oriented stand boards and biomass utilization. 

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.

EIS Environmental Impact Statement: The document required by the NEPA for 

disclosing to the public the activities and effects of an action by a federal agency. 

ERA Equivalent roaded acres: Used to estimate the impacts of various land use 

activities in a watershed. The ERA method relates the relative magnitude of 

disturbance from land use activities compared to an acre of road disturbance. 

Land uses are assigned a coefficient based on relative impact, ranging from 1.0 for 

roads, structures, and other impervious surfaces to 0.0 for land uses that have a 

negligible or positive impact on the soil hydrologic properties. 

HFRA Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003: The central legislative component of 

the Healthy Forests Initiative, containing a variety of provisions aimed at 

expediting the preparation and implementation of hazardous fuels reduction 

projects.

HRCA Home range core area: Approximately 1000 acre area designated by the SNFPA 

as the area surrounding the PAC to be maintained as foraging and PAC 

replacement habitat for CA spotted owls. 

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). 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

5-8 Chapter 5 

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.

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. 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act: Law that requires federal agencies to 

disclose major actions and their environmental consequences to the public. 

NWCG National Wildfire Coordinating Group: A formal collective of wildfire 

management agency representatives from the USDA Forest Service; four 

Department of the Interior agencies: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS);and State forestry agencies (through the National 

Association of State Foresters). NWCG’s purpose is to coordinate programs of 

the participating agencies so as to avoid wasteful duplication and to provide a 

means of constructively working together.

PAC Protected activity center: Approximately 300 acre area designated by the SNFPA 

centered on a nest tree to be managed as nesting habitat for CA spotted owls. 

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) 

RAWS Remote automated weather station: A network of semi-permanent data 

acquisition and transmission towers, transmitting site-specific weather data linked 

from Geostationary Operational Environmental (GOES) Satellite data. The radio 

transmission of weather data occur when the user "interrogates" a station with a 

handheld radio on the designated RAWS frequency, or when weather conditions 

exceed a predetermined threshold an alert broadcast is transmitted to an a local 

emergency channel. Reference: http://raws.fam.nwcg.gov/

RR Risk Ratio: The total ERA from all land uses in each watershed is compared to 

TOC for that watershed in order to define the risk ratio using the following 

equation: Risk Ratio = ERA/TOC 

ROD Record of decision: The decision document for an environmental impact 

statement (EIS). 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Acronyms 5-9

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). 

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. 

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. 

WT Whole tree: Mechanical method of thinning where the entire tree is moved to a 

landing for further processing to remove limbs and tops after it is cut. 

WUI Wildland urban interface (intermix): Where homes, businesses, and/or 

communities are juxtaposed with public lands. The SNFPA defines the WUI as 3 

zones: the urban core where undeveloped public and developed private lands are 

adjacent; the defense zone where undeveloped public lands extend 1⁄4 mile from 

places where people live and/or work; and the threat zone where undeveloped 

public lands extend 1.5 miles from places where people live and/or work. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

5-10 Chapter 5 

Glossary 

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 less-than-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).

Basal area The cross-sectional area of a single stem, including the bark, measured at 

breast height (4.5 ft or 1.37 m above the ground)

Backing fire A fire spreading, or ignited to spread, into (against) the wind, in the 

absence of wind, or downslope. 

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. 

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. 

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. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Glossary 5-11

Flag and avoid The hanging of flagging in order to identify for the purpose of avoidance 

of a special feature in an area. 

Forest 

Development 

Road 

See Road Categories

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%. 

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. 

Hot piling Placing and consolidating unburned fuel into an already burning pile for 

the purpose of isolating or localizing a prescribed fire. 

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 

Lacustrine Lake ecosystem; includes the lake and lake shore. 

Lentic Stream ecosystem; includes the stream and stream bank. 

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.

Road management is further defined in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 

7709.58,10,12.3. 

Mastication A process to manipulate fuels or biomass (trees, thinning slash, shrubs, 

etc.) from a larger size to a smaller size. 

Mesic Of sites or habitats characterized by intermediate moisture conditions, i.e., 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

5-12 Chapter 5 

 

neither decidedly wet nor dry. 

Objection The written document filed with a reviewing officer by an individual (or 

organization) seeking predecisional administrative review of a proposed 

authorized hazardous fuel reduction project as defined in the HFRA.

Perennial stream A creek or river that flows all year (see intermittent and ephemeral). 

Prescription 

Raws 

Direction given for land and resource management in a given area. 

Remote Automated Weather Station 

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. 

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 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Glossary 5-13

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. 

Treatment A specified method for the purpose of reaching or bringing land and/or 

resource conditions towards a desired condition or goal. 

Underburn Fire in the forest understory; a prescribed or wildfire that consumes 

surface fuels but not trees 

Vernal pool A contained basin depression lacking a permanent above ground outlet. 

An ephemeral (temporary) pool that fills with snowmelt and spring runoff. 

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 

5-14 Chapter 5 

References Cited 

2NDNATURE. 2011. Methodology to Predict Fine Sediment Load Reductions as a Result of 

Floodplain Inundation in Lake Tahoe Streams. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service 

Pacific Southwest Research Station. Technical Report. 

ftp://2ndnaturellc.com/2ndnature/2NDNATURE_Reports/Lake%20Tahoe/UTRFloodplai

nAnalysis_2011.pdf. 

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of the Pacific Northwest forests. Washington D.C.: Island Press. 

25-52. 

Agee, J.K. 1996. The influence of forest structure on fire behavior. In Proceedings, 17th annual 

Forest Vegetation Management Conference. Redding, CA. Alexander, M.E. 1988. Help 

with making crown fire assessments. In W.C. Fisher and S.F. Arno, comps. Protecting 

people and homes from wildfire in the interior West: Proceedings of the symposium and 

workshop; 1987 October 6-8; Missoula Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-INT-251. 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service: 147-

156.January 16-18, 1996: 52-68. 

Agee, J.K., B. Bahro, M.A.Finney, P.N. Omi, D.B. Sapsis, C.N. Skinner, J.W. van Wagtendonk, 

C.P. Weatherspoon. 2000. The use of shaded fuelbreaks in landscape fire management. 

Forest Ecology and Management 127:55-66. 

Allen, A.W. 1987. The relationship between habitat and furbearers. Pages 164-179 In: M. 

Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, and B. Mallock, eds. Wild Furbearer Management and 

Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Canada. 1150 p. 

Ammon, V. and M.V. Patel. 2000. Annosum Root Rot. Ornamental and Tree Diseases. Plant 

Disease Dispatch Sheets. M-416. 

http://msucares.com/lawn/tree_diseases/416annosum.html. 

Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. General 

Technical Report INT-122 

Anderson, M.D. 2001. Salix scouleriana. In Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. Fire Sciences Laboratory. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2005, April 6]. 

Alexander, M. E. 1988. Help with making crown fire hazard assessments. In: Fischer, W. 

C.; Arno, S. F., comps. Protecting people and homes from wildfire in the Interior West: 

proceedings of the symposium and workshop; 1988 October 6–8; Missoula, MT. Proc. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-251. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service,Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 147–156. 

 Anderson, H.E. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. General 

Technical Report, INT-122. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 

Angermeier P.L and J.R. Karr. 1984. Relationships between woody debris and fish habitat in a 

small warmwater stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113: 716-726. 

Annesi, T., G. Curcio, L. D’Amico and E. Motta. 2005. Biological control of Heterobasidion 

annosum on Pinus pinea by Phlebiopsis gigantea. Forest Pathology. 35(2): 127-134. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

References Cited 5-15

Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by 

nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. American. Wildl. 

and Nat. Res. Conf. 47: 332-342. 

Austin, K.K. 1993. Habitat use and home range size of breeding northern goshawks in the 

southern Cascades. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 56pp. 

Bailey, R.G. 1974. Land-capability classification of the Lake Tahoe basin, California-Nevada. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Zephyr Cove, Nevada, 31 p. 

Baker, P.H., and A.J. Cordone. 1969. Distribution, size composition, and relative abundance of 

Piute sculpin Cottus beldingi Eigenmann and Eigenmann, in Lake Tahoe. Calif. Fish and 

Game 55: 285-297. 

Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. In: L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. 

Zielinski, eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, 

lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. Gen Tech Rpt RM-254. USDA, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. Univ. Press, Kentucky, Lexington, 286 p. 

Barrows, C.W. 1981. Roost selection by spotted owls: an adaptation to heat stress. Condor 83: 

302-309. 

Barrows, C. and K. Barrows. 1978. Roost characteristics and behavioral thermoregulation in the 

spotted owl. West. Birds. 9: 1-8. 

Beardsley, D.; C. Bolsinger, and R. Warbington. 1999. Old-growth Forests in the Sierra Nevada: 

by type in 1945 and by ownership in 1993. PNW-RP-516. Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, USDA Forest Service: 46 p. 

Beier, P. and J.E. Drennan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of 

northern goshawks. Ecological Applications. 7(2): 564-571. 

Berg, N., A. Carlson, and D. Azuma. 1998. Function and dynamics of woody debris in stream 

reaches in the central Sierra Nevada, California. Canadian J. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 

55(8): 1807-1820. 

Bent, A.C. 1961. Life histories of North American birds of prey, part 1. Dover Publications, Inc. 

New York, New York. 321-349. 

Beschta, R.L. 1997. Riparian shade and stream temperature: An alternative perspective. 

Rangelands 19: 25-28 

Bias, M.E. and R.J. Gutierrez. 1992. Habitat associations of California spotted owls in the central 

Sierra Nevada. J. Wildl. Manage. 56: 584-595. 

Blakesley, J.A., B.R. Noon, 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., D.W.H. Shaw, and B.R. Noon. 2005b. Ecology of the California spotted owl on 

the Lassen National Forest, 1990-2004; Final Report. Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins. 

30pp. 

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. 

California. Wildlife Biology 3(3/4):270. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

5-16 Chapter 5 

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. 

Boal, C.W. and W. Mannan. 1994. Northern goshawk diets in ponderosa pine forests on the 

Kaibab Plateau. Studies in Avian Biology No. 16: 97-102. 

Bombay, H.L. 1999. Scale perspectives in habitat selection and reproductive success for willow 

flycatchers (Empidonax traillii) in the central Sierra Nevada, California. Masters Thesis, 

California State Univ., Sacramento. 225 p. 

Bombay, H.L., T.M. Benson, B.E. Valentine, and R.A. Stefani. 2003. A willow flycatcher survey 

protocol for California. June 6, 2000. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 

Vallejo, CA. 50 p. 

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. No. 26: 60-72. 

Bombay, H.L., M.L. Morrison, D.E. Taylor, and J.W. Cain. 2001. Annual report and preliminary 

demographic analysis for willow flycatcher monitoring in the central Sierra Nevada. White 

Mountain Research Station, Univ. California, San Diego and USDA Forest Service, Tahoe 

National Forest. 46 p. 

Bond, M.L., M.E. Seamans, and R.J. Gutierrez. 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: 773-780. 

Bonnickson and Stone, 1982, Restoring Natural Fire to the Sierra-Mixed Conifer Forest 

Breibart, A., J. Harris, and S. Norman. 2007. Forest Road BMP Upgrade Monitoring Report 

2003-2005. USDA Forest Service, LTBMU. 

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. 

Brown, J.K. and J.K. Smith, eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA 

Forest Service: 257 p. 

Byram, G.M. 1959. Combustion of forest fuels. In Forest fire: control and use (edited by K.P. 

Davis). McGraw-Hill, New York. pp. 61-89. 

Bull, E.L., and M.G. Henjum. 1990. Ecology of the great gray owl. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-265. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 39pp. 

Burnett, R.D., and D.L. Humple. 2003. Songbird monitoring in the Lassen National Forest: 

Results from the 2002 field season with summaries of 6 years of data (1997-2002). PRBO 

Conservation Science Contribution Number 1069. 36p. 

Burnett, R.D., D.L. Humple, T.Gardali, and M.Rogner. 2005. Avian monitoring in Lassen 

National Forest 2004 Annual Report. PRBO Conservation Science Contribution Number 

1242. 96p. 

Buskirk, S.W., and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pages 

283–296 In: S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, 

sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York, USA. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

References Cited 5-17

Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. American Marten. In: L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. 

Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest 

carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RM-254. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Buskirk, S.W. and W.J. Zielinski. 2003. Small and mid-sized carnivores. Pages 207-249 In: C.J. 

Zabel and R.G Anthony, eds. Mammal community dynamics: Management and 

conservation in coniferous forests of western North America. Cambridge Univ. Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

Brown, J.K., Reinhardt, E.D., Kramer, K.A., 2003. Coarse Woody Debris:Managing Benefits and 

Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-105. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, 16 pp. 

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). 

Byram, G. M. 1959. Combustion of forest fuels. In: Davis, K. P., ed. Forest Fire: Control 

and Use. New York: McGraw Hill.

Cain III, J.W., M.L. Morrison, and H.L. Bombay. 2003. Predator activity and nest success of 

willow flycatchers and yellow warblers. Journal of Wildlife Management 67(3): 600-

610. 

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). 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 Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. 2005. Ambient Air Quality 

(CAAQS). http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm. Nov. 24, 2009. 

California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. 2007. Air Quality/Emissions 

Data and Statistics. http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/publications.htm. Feb. 24, 2011. 

California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. 2008. El Dorado County Air 

Quality Management District Rule 300-Open Burning, June 3, 2008. 

California Native Plant Society. 2008. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of 

California. Sacramento, CA. 

California Partners in Flight (CPIF). 2002. CalPIF Study Area Database and Focal Species Range 

Maps.http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/mapdocs/conifer/2002/fospmap2002.html. 

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/mapdocs/conifer/2002/bbwomap2002.html. 

California Partners In Flight (CPIF). 2004. CalPIF Study Area Database and Focal Species Range 

Maps. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/mapdocs/riparian/2004/ywarmap2004.htm

California Soil Survey Committee. 1989. Computation of erosion hazard rating (EHR). 

ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/CA/intranet/techres/mlra/guides/ehrform.pdf. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

5-18 Chapter 5 

California Stormwater Quality Association. 2003. Best Management Practices (BMP) 

Handbook: New Development and Redevelopment. CA,Menlo Park: 

http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Development.asp. 

California Water Boards and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. March 2008. Lake 

Tahoe TMDL Pollutant Reduction Opportunity Report, v2.0. CA, South Lake Tahoe: California 

Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region. 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb6/water_issues/programs/tmdl//lake_tahoe/docs/presentations/pro

_report_v2.pdf. 

California Regional Water Board, Lahontan and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 

November 2010. Final Lake Tahoe TMDL Report. 

Call, D.R., R.J. Gutierrez, and J. Verner. 1992. Foraging habitat and home-range charcteristics of 

California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada. Condor 94: 880-888. 

Call, M.W. 1978. Nesting habitats and survey techniques for common western raptors. USDI 

Bur. Of Land Manage., Sacramento. Tech. Rep. 24 p. 

Canadell J.G. and M.R. Raupach. 2008. Managing Forests for Climate Change 

Mitigation. Washington D.C: .Science. Volume 320. www.sciencemag.org. 

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. 59 p. 

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. 

Christensen, W. and S. Norman. June 2007. 2006 Ward Unit 5 Soil Monitoring Report. Lake 

Tahoe Basin Management Unit, USDA Forest Service. 

Citygate Associates. 2004. Fire Planning Process for the Urban-Wildland Interface in the City of 

South Lake Tahoe. 

Connaughton, J.L. 2005. Memorandum to Heads of Federal Agencies (Jun 24, 2005) – “re: 

Guidance on the. Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis.” Council on 

Environmental Quality: Washington D.C. 

Copeland, J. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in Central Idaho. M.S. Thesis: University of Idaho, 

Moscow. 138pp. 

Copeland, J. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in Central Idaho. M.S. Thesis: University of Idaho, 

Moscow. 138 p. 

Cordone, A.J. and T.C. Frantz. 1968. An evaluation of trout planting in Lake Tahoe. California 

Department of Fish and Game 54: 68-69 

County of El Dorado Department of Transportation (EDOT). August 2003. CEQA Initial Study 

for the Angora Creek SEZ Restoration Project. 

Crocker-Bedford, D.C. 1990. Goshawk reproduction and forest management. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 18: 262-269. 

DeBano, L.F, D.G. Neary, and P.F. Ffolliott. 1998. Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems. John Wiley 

and Sons, Inc. New York, NY. 

Decker, L.M. 1989. Coexistence of two species of suckers, Catastomus, in Sagehen Creek, 

California and notes on their status in the western Lahontan basin. Great Basin Naturalist. 

49: pp. 540-551. 

DeMars, C.J. and B.H. Roettgering. 1982. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 1:Western Pine 

Beetle (Berkley CA.). USDA Forest Service, PSW. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

References Cited 5-19

Detrich, P.J. 1986. The status and distribution of the bald eagle in California. M.S. Thesis. 

California Sate University, Chico. 

Detrich, P.J. and B. Woodbridge. 1994. Territory fidelity, mate fidelity, and movements of colormarked northern goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. Studies in Avian Biology 

No. 16: 130-132. 

Dost, F.N., L. Norris, and C. Glassman. 1996. (Unpubl.) Assessment of human health and 

environmental risks associated with the use of borax for cut stump treatment. prepared for 

USDA Forest Service Regions 5 and 6. 110. 

Duncan, J.R. 1987. Movement strategies, mortality, and behavior of radio-marked great gray owls 

in southeastern Manitoba and northern Minnesota. In: R.W. Nero, R.J. Clark, R.J. Knapton, 

and R.H. Hamre, eds.: Biology and conservation of northern forest owls: Symposium 

proceedings; 1987, February 3-7; Winnipeg, MB. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-142. Fort Collins, 

CO. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Station. 

Eaglin, G.S. and W.A. Hubert. 1993. Effect of logging and roads on substrate and trout in 

streams of the Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming. North American J Fisheries 

Management 13: 844-846. 

EDAW and PWA consultants. May 2005. Taylor, Tallac, and Spring Creek Watershed Ecosystem 

Assessment Report. Prepared for USDA Forest Service, LTBMU. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Erman, D.C. 1986. Long-term changes of fish populations in Sagehen creek, California. Trans. 

Am. Fish. Soc. 115: 682-692. 

Fausch, K.D. and R.J. White. 1981. Competition between brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and 

brown trout (Salmo trutta) for positions in a Michigan stream. Canadian J Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 38: 1220–1227. 

FARSITE. Finney, Mark 2006. Fire area simulator version 4.1052. 

http://www.firelab.org/science-applications/science-synthesis/72-farsite. 

Fellers, G.M. and E.D. Pierson. 2002. Habitat use and foraging behavior of Townsend’s bigeared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in coastal California. J Mammalogy, 83(1):167-177. 

Ferrel, G.T. 1986. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 13: Fir Engraver. USDA Forest Service. 

Washington, D.C.:8 p. 

Fettig, C.J., Kier D. Klepzig, R.F. Billings, A. S. Munson, T.E. Nebeker, J.F. Negron, J.T. Nowak. 

2007. The Effectiveness of Vegetation Management Practices for Prevention and Control of 

Bark Beetle Infestations in Coniferous Forests of the Western and Southern United States. 

Forest Ecology and Management 238: 24-53 

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. 2743-2750. 

Fire Family Plus. 2002, Fire Family Plus User’s Guide, Version 3.0. ID, Boise: USDA Forest 

Service, National Interagency Fire Center. 

http://www.firemodels.org/downloads/firefamilyplus/publications/ffp_v3_user_guide.pdf. 

FLAMMAP. Finney, M, S. Brittain, R. Seli. 2004-2006. Version 3.0. 

http://www.firelab.org/science-applications/fire-fuel/77-flammap. 

FMAPlus®. 1999-2007. Fuels Management Analyst Plus. Version 3. 

http://www.fireps.com/fmanalyst3/index.htm. (July 2008). 

Forsman, E.D. 1980. Habitat utilization by spotted owls in the west-central Cascades of Oregon. 

Ph.D. Thesis. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 95 p. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

5-20 Chapter 5 

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 Paiute Fishing: The Ethnographic 

Record. J California and Great Basin Anthropology. 

Frantz, T.C. and A.J. Cordone. 1970. Food of Lake Trout in Lake Tahoe. California Fish and 

Game 56: 21-35. 

Frazier J.W., K.B. Roby, J.A. Boberg, K. Kenfield, J.B. Reiner, D.L. Azuma, J.L. Furnish, B.P. 

Staab, S.L. Grant. 2005. Stream Condition Inventory Technical Guide. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region - Ecosystem Conservation Staff. Vallejo, CA. 111 p. 

Fretwell, S.D. and H.L. Lucas. 1970. On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat 

distribution in birds. Acta Biotheoretica 19: 16-36. 

Froehlich, H.A., D.W.R. Miles, and R.W. Robbins. 1985. Soil bulk density recovery on 

compacted skid trails in central Idaho. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49: 1015–1017. 

Froelich, R.C., C.S. Hodges, Jr., and S.S. Sackett. 1978. Prescribed burning reduces severity of 

annosus root rot in the South. Forest Science. 24(1): 93-100. 

Furnish, J. 2005. Sensitive aquatic mollusks of the US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 

FVS-FFE (Forest Vegetation Simulator – Fire and Fuels Extension) model. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/fvs/description/ffe-fvs.shtml. 

Gellman, S.T. and W.J. Zielinski. 1996. Use by bats of old-growth redwood hollows on the north 

coast of California. Journal of Mammalogy 77(1): 255-265. 

Gerstung, E.R. 1988. Status, life history, and management of Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium 4: 93-106. 

Gibilisco, C.J. 1994. Distributional dynamics of modern Martes in North America. In: S.W. 

Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, Sables, and Fishers: 

Biology and Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA. 59-71. 

Godfrey, W.E. 1986. The birds of Canada (revised edition). National Museum of Natural 

Science, Ottowa, Canada. 

Goines B, and M. Nechodom. 2009. National Forest Carbon Inventory Scenarios for the 

Pacific Southwest Region (California). Report to Regional Forester and PSW 

Station Director. CA, Albany: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

Region 5 Climate Change Interdisciplinary Team. 

Goldberg, M. August 2006. Lake Valley Fire Protection District Christmas Valley 3 Defense 

Zone Project, Operational and Monitoring Program. 

Gomez, A., R.F. Powers, M.J. Singer, and W.R. Horvath. 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. 

Graham, R.E. 1966. Observations on the roosting habits of the big-eared bat, Plecotus 

townsendii, in California limestone caves. Cave Notes. 8: 17-22. 

Graham, R.T., R.T. Reynolds, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, and D.A. Boyce. 1994. Sustaining 

forest habitat for the northern goshawk: a question of scale. Studies in Avian Biology No. 

16: 12-17. 

Graham, R.T., A. Harvey, E. Alan, T.B. Jain, J.R. Tonn. 1999. The effects of thinning and 

similar stand treatments on fire behavior in western forests. Gen. Tech. Report. PNWGTR-463. Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

References Cited 5-21

Graham, R.T., R.L. Rodriguez, K.M. Paulin, R.L. Player, A.P. Heap, and R. Williams. 1999. The 

northern goshawk in Utah: habitat assessment and management recommendations. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Gen Tech Rep RMRS-GTR-22. 

Graham, R.W. and M.A. Graham. 1994. The Late Quaternary distribution of Martes in North 

America. In: S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, 

Sables, and Fishers: Biology and Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 

USA. 26-58 

Green, C. 1995. Habitat requirements of great gray owls in the central Sierra Nevada. M.S. 

Thesis. University of Michigan, MI. 94 p. 

Green, G.A., H.L. Bombay, 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 p. 

Green, R.E. 2007. Distribution and habitat associations of forest carnivores and an evaluation of 

the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships model for American marten in Sequoia and 

Kings Canyon National Parks. Masters Thesis, Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, CA. 103 p. 

Grinnell, J., J.S. Dixon, and J.M. Linsdale. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of California: their 

natural history, systematic status and relations to man, volumes 1-2. Univ. California Press, 

Berkeley, California, USA. 777 p. 

Grinnell, J. and A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific Coast 

Avifauna No. 27. Cooper Ornitological Society, Berkeley, CA. 608 p. 

Gutierrez R.J. and G.F. Barrowclough. 2005. Redefining the distributional boundaries of the 

northern and California spotted owls: implications for conservation. Condor. 107: 182-187. 

Gutierrez R.J., A.B. Franklin, and W.S. LaHaye. 1995. Spotted owl (Strix occidentalis). The 

birds of North America, No 179. The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington D.C., 

USA, and the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2d ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1,181 

p. 

Han, S.K., H.S. Han, L.R. Johnson, and D.S. Page-Dumroese. 2006. Impacts on soils from cut-tolength and whole tree harvesting. Unpublished Masters Thesis. University of Idaho. 

Hargis, C.D., C. McCarthy, and R.D. Perloff. 1994. Home ranges and habitats of northern 

goshawk in eastern California. Studies in Avian Biology 16: 66-74. 

Hawkins, C.P. 2003. Development, evaluation, and application of a RIVPACS-type predictive 

model for assessing the biological condition of streams in Region 5 (California) national 

forests. Completion Report. Western center for Monitoring and Assessment of Fresh Water 

Ecosystems. Utah State University. Logan, Utah 23 p. 

Haskins, W. and D. Mayhood. 1997. Stream crossing density as a predictor of watershed 

impacts. ESRI User Conference Proceedings, San Diego, CA. 

Havlina et al. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class website. USDA Forest Service, 

USDA Department of the Interior, and The Nature Conservancy. www.frcc.gov. 

Hayward, G.D., and J. Verner, eds. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United 

States: a technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. Fort Collins, CO: 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 214 p. 

Heath, S.K., and G. Ballard. 2003. Bird species composition, phenology, nesting substrate, and 

productivity for the Owens Valley alluvial fan, Eastern Sierra Nevada, California 1998-2002. 

Great Basin Birds 6(1):18-35. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

5-22 Chapter 5 

Hickman, J.C., Editor. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Univ. California 

Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Hokanson, K.E.F., F. Kleiner, and T.W. Thorslund. 1977. Effects of constant temperatures and 

diel temperature fluctuations on specific growth and mortality rates and yield of juvenile 

rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri. J. Fish Res. Board Can. 34: 639-648. 

Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwest Montana. 

Canadian J Zoology. 59: 1286-1301. 

Huffman, E.L., L.H MacDonald, and J.D. Stednick. 2001. Strength and persistence of fireinduced soil hydrophobicity under ponderosa and lodgepole pine, Colorado Front Range. 

Hydrol. Process. 15:2877-2892. 

Hughes, R.M. and D.P. Larsen. 1987. Ecoregions: an approach to surface water protection. 

Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 60:486-493. 

Hurteau, Matthew. 2008. Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon storage and emissions 

under modeled wildfire scenarios 

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. The Condor 108:817-831. 

Implementation of the Conservation Strategy for Tahoe Yellow Cress (Rorippa subumbellata). 

2006. Annual Report January 2007 

Johnson, S.L. 2004. Factors influencing stream temperatures in small streams: substrate effects 

and a shading experiment. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 61: 913-923. 

Jurek, R.M. 1988. Five-year status report, bald eagle. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. Sacramento, 

California. 15 p. 

Jones, I. R. and E. Allen. 2002. Detection of large woody debris accumulations in old-growth 

forests using sonic wave collection. Trans. Imp. Tree Sci. 120(2): 201-209. 

Kamerath, M., S. Chandra and B.C. Allen. 2008. Distribution and impacts of warm water 

invasive fish in Lake Tahoe, USA. Aquatic Invasions. 3(1): 35-41. 

Karr, J.R. and E.W. Chu. 1999. Restoring life in running waters - better biological monitoring. 

Island Press, Covelo, CA 

Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing 

biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History 

Survey Special Publication 5, Champaign, IL. 

Keane, J. J. 1999. Ecology of the northern goshawk in the Sierra Nevada, California. PhD. 

Dissertation. University of California, Davis, CA. 123 p. 

Kegley, S.J; R.L. Livingston, and K.E. Gibson. 1997. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 122: 

Pine Engraver, Ips pini (Say), in the Western United States. Washington, D.C. USDA 

Forest Service: 8 p. 

Kelsall, J.P. 1981. Status report on the wolverine, Gulo gulo, in Canada in 1981. Ottawa, On: 

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 47 p. 

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. 

Koronkiewicz, T.J., M.K. Sogge, C. Van Riper III, and E.H. Paxton. 2006. Territoriality, site 

fidelity, and survivorship of willow flycatchers wintering in Costa Rica. Condor 108: 

558-570. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

References Cited 5-23

Kotliar, N.B., S.J. Hejl, R.L. Hutto, V.A. Saab, C.P. Melcher, and M.E. McFadzen. 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. 

Krohn, W.B., K.D. Elowe, and R.B. Boone. 1995. Relations among Fishers, Snow, and Martens: 

Development and Evaluation of Two Hypotheses. Forestry Chronicle 71: 97-105. 

Krohn, W.B., W.J. Zielinski, and R.B. Boone. 1997. Relations among fishers, snow, and martens 

in California: results from small-scale spatial comparisons. In: G. Proulx, H.N. Bryant, 

and P.M. Woodard, eds. Martes: Taxonomy, Ecology, Techniques, and Management. 

Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 211-32. 

Kunz, T.H. and R.A. Martin. 1982. Plecotus townsendii. The American Society of 

Mammalogists, Mammalian Species, No. 175. 6 p. 

Kundert, A. 1990. Interim Management Prescription for Arabis rigidissima var. demota. USDA 

Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. South Lake Tahoe. 

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. 

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU). 2007. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

Multi Species Inventory and Monitoring (MSIM): A Foundation for Comprehensive 

Biological Status and Trend Monitoring in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Draft Report. 

Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy. 2007. 

(California Tahoe Conservancy, California State Parks, Nevada Division of Forestry, 

Nevada Division of state Lands, Nevada Division of State Parks, Nevada Fire Safe 

Council, USDA Forest Service, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Tahoe Basin 

Fire Chiefs [Fallen Leaf Fire Department, Lake Valley Fire Protection District, Meeks 

Bay Fire Protection District, North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District, North Tahoe Fire 

Protection District, South Lake Tahoe Fire Department, and Tahoe-Douglas Fire 

Protection District]). 

Lake Tahoe Basin Weeds Coordinating Group. December 2007. Priority Invasive Weeds of the 

Lake Tahoe Basin. 

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. 

Laverty, L. and J. Williams. 2000. Protecting people and sustaining resources in fire-adapted 

ecosystems-a cohesive strategy. GAO Report GAO/RCED-99-65. Appendix A. General 

Accounting Office:70-71. 

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 p. 

Laymon, S.A. 1987. Brown-headed cowbirds in California: historical perspectives and 

management opportunities in riparian habitats. Western Birds 18: 63-70. 

Lehane, B.M., P.S. Giller, J.O Halloran, C. Smith, and J. Murphy. 2002. Experimental provision 

of large woody debris in streams as a trout management technique. Aquatic Conservation: 

Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 12(3): 289-311. 

Lewis, J.C., R.T. Golightly, Jr., and R.M. Jurek. 1995. Introduction of nonnative foxes in 

California: Implications for the Sierra Nevada red fox. Transactions of the Western Section 

of The Wildlife Society 31: 29-32. 

Lewis, J.C., K.L. Sallee, and R.T. Golightly Jr. 1993. Introduced red fox in California. 

Nongame Bird and Mammal Report 93-10. CA Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, 

CA, USA. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

5-24 Chapter 5 

Lewis, J.C., K.L. Sallee, and R.T. Golightly Jr. 1999. Introduction and range expansion of 

nonnative red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in California. Am. Midl. Nat. 142: 372-381. 

Liechty, H.O., M.G. Shelton, K.R. Luckow, and D.J. Turton. 2002. Impacts of shortleaf pine–

hardwood forest management on soils in the Ouachita Highlands: a review. South. J. Appl. 

For. 26: 43-51. 

Long, J.N. 1985. A Practical Approach to Density Management. Forestry Chronicle 61: 23-27. 

Loupe, T.M., W.W. Miller, D.W. Johnson, E.M. Carroll, D. Hanseder, D. Glass, and R.F. Walker. 

March 2007. Inorganic Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Sierran Forest O Horizon Leachate. 

J Environmental Quality. 36: 498-507. 

Loupe, T.M., W.W. Miller, D.W. Johnson, J.S. Sedinger, E.M. Carroll, R.F. Walker, J.D. 

Murphy, and C.M. Stein. 2009. Effects of Mechanical Harvest plus Chipping and 

Prescribed Fire on Sierran Runoff Water Quality. Journal of Environmental Quality. 38: 

537-547. 

Lynch, J.A., G.B. Rishel and E.S. Corbett. 1984. Thermal alterations of streams draining 

clearcut watersheds: quantification and biological implications. Hydrobiologia. 111: 161-

169. 

Maholland, B. and T.F. Bullard. 2005. Sediment-related road effects on stream channel networks 

in an eastern Sierra Nevada watershed. J Nevada Water Resources Association 2: 57-70. 

Mathewson, H.A., H.L. Loffland, M.L. Morrison, L. Vormwald, and C. Cocimano. 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 USDA Forest Service, Region 5. Tahoe National Forest. 

December 31, 2007. 59 p. 

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. 166p. 

Mayfield, H.F. 1977. Brown-headed cowbird: agent of extinction? American Birds 31: 107-113. 

McCreedy, C. and S.K. Heath. 2004. Atypical willow flycatcher nesting sites in a recovering 

riparian corridor at Mono Lake, California. Western Birds. 35: 197-209. 

McGrath, M.T., S. DeStefano, R.A. Riggs, L.L. Irwin, and G.J. Roloff. 2003. Spatially explicit 

influences on northern goshawk nesting habitat in the Pacific Interior Northwest. Wildlife 

Monographs, No. 154. 

McNabb, D.H, A. D. Startsev, and H. Nguyen 2001. Soil Wetness and Traffic Level 

Effects on Bulk Density and Air-Filled Porosity of Compacted Boreal Forest 

Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65:1238–1247 

McNeel, T.F. and H.M. Ballard. 1992. Analysis of site stand impacts from thinning with 

a harvester-forwarder system. J. For. Eng. 4(1):23-29. 

McNeil, T.F. and H.M. Ballard. 1992. Analysis of site stand impacts from thinning with a 

harvester-forwarder system. J. For. Eng. 4(1): 23-29. 

Miller, G.S. 1989. Dispersal of juvenile northern spotted owls in western Oregon. M.S. Thesis, 

Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 139 p. 

Miller, R.G. 1951. The natural history of Lake Tahoe fishes [thesis]. CA, Stanford: Stanford 

University. 

Miller, R.M., S.R. Colbert, 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. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

References Cited 5-25

Miller, W.W., D.W. Johnson, T.M. Loupe, J.S. Sedinger, E.M. Carroll, J.D. Murphy, R.F. Walker, 

and D. Glass. April-June 2006. Nutrients Flow from Runoff at Burned Forest Site in Lake 

Tahoe Basin. California Agriculture. 60(2): 65-71. 

Miner, K.L. and D.C. Stokes. 2005. Bats in the south coast ecoregion: status, conservation 

issues, and research needs. In: USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-195. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA: 211-227. 

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California, revised and expanded. University of California 

Press, Berkeley, California, USA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, As amended 

through 2000 [With annotations]. In Sections 308 and 309, pp. 1-47. vol. 16 U.S.C. 470. 

Moyle, P.B. and R.A. Daniels. (1982). Fishes of the Pit River system, and Surprise Valley 

region. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 115: 1-82. 

Moyle, P. B., and P.J. Randall. 1996. Biotic integrity of watersheds. Pages 975-985 In Sierra 

Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress , Vol. II, assessments, commissioned 

reports, and background information. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and 

Wildland Resources. 

Murphy, D.D. and C.M. Knopp, eds. 2000a. Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment: Volume 1. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-175. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

Albany, CA. 736 p. 

Murphy, D.D. and C.M. Knopp, eds. 2000b. Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment: Volume 2. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-175. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

Albany, CA. 407 p. 

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. J. Environ. 

Qual. 35: 479-489. 

Murphy, K., T. Rich, and T. Sexton. August 2007. An Assessment of Fuel Treatment Effects on 

Fire Behavior, Suppression Effectiveness, and Structure Ignition on the Angora Fire. USDA 

FS, R5-TP-025. 

National Park Service. 1983. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation: Professional Qualification Standards. Federal 

Register, Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61, Washington DC. 

Nature Serve Explorer. [Online] An online encyclopedia of life. Available at: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?init=Species (Accessed 4/2008). 

Neary, D.G., K.C. Ryan, 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. USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station Ogden, UT. 250 p. 

Nevada Natural Heritage Program. 2006. Nevada rare plant and lichen list. Carson City, NV. 

Norman, S., T. Loupe, and J. Keely. January 2008. Heavenly Creek SEZ Demonstration Project 

Monitoring Report. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, USDA Forest Service. 

North M.P, and M.D. Hurteau. 2011. High-severity wildfire effects on carbon stocks 

and emissions in fuels treated and untreated forest. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 261 (2011) 1115–1120. 

Omi, P.N. and E.J. Martinson. 2002. Effect of Fuels Treatment on Wildfire Severity. Western 

Forest Fire Research Center, Colorado State Univ. 

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. 2006. 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. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

5-26 Chapter 5 

Perrine, J.D. 2005. Ecology of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in the Lassen Peak region of California, 

USA. Dissertation, Univ. California, Berkeley. 251 p. 

Peterson, A. 1986. Habitat suitability index models (breeding season). USDI Fish and Wildl. 

Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(10.126). 25 p. 

Petersen, D.L., M.C. Johnson, J.K. Agee, K. James T.B. Jain, D. Mckenzie, and E.D. Reinhardt. 

2003. Fuels Planning: managing Forest Structure to Reduce Fire Hazard. Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. Seattle, WA. 

Pierson, E.D. and W.E. Rainey. 1998. Distribution, status, and management of Townsend’s bigeared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) In: California. Wildlife Management Division Bird and 

Mammal Conservation Program Final Report for Contract No. FG7129. CA Dept. Fish and 

Game. 34 p. 

Pollet, J. and P.N. Omi. 2000. Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity 

in ponderosa pine forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire 11:1-10 

Powell, R.A. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology, and behavior. Univ. Minnesota Press, 

Minneapolis, USA. 

Powell, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. Pages 38–73 In: L.F. Ruggerio, K.B. Aubry, S.W. 

Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest 

carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. 

General Technical Report RM-254. USDA Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental 

Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. 183 p. 

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: 31-50. 

Quigley, T.M. 1981. Estimating Contribution of Overstory Vegetation to Stream Surface Shade. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 9: 22-27. 

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. 

Reuter J.E. and W.W. Miller. 2000. Aquatic resources, water quality and limnology of Lake 

Tahoe and its upland watershed Ch. 4: 150-166, In: Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment. 

USDI. 

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Resier, and others. 1992. Management recommendations for 

the northern goshawk in the Southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217. Fort 

Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Station. 

Roest, A.I. 1977. Taxonomic status of the red fox in California. Final Report, Job II-1.3 CA 

Polytechnic State Univ., San Luis Obispo, CA, USA. 

Rothermel, Ri.C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. GTR-INT-143.Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA 

Forest Service. 

Ryan M.G, M.E. Harmo, R.A. Birdsey et al. 2010. A Synthesis of the Science on Forests and 

Carbon for U.S. Forests. Ecologic Society of America. Issues in Ecology (13). 

Safford, H.D, Hayward, G.D, C.H. Flather, E. Uloth, D.A. Cleaves. 2009. Managing fish and 

wildlife habitat in the face of climate change: USDA Forest Service Perspective. In: 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

References Cited 5-27

Transactions of the 74th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference; March 

16-20, 2009; Arlington, VA. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute. p. 98-109. 

Safford, H.D, Schmidt, D.A, C.H. Carlson. 2009. Effects of fuel treatments on fire severity in 

area of wildland-urban interface, Angora Fire, Lake Tahoe Basin, Califonia. Forest Ecology 

and Management 258(5): 773-787. 

Sanders, S.D. and M.A. Flett. 1989. Montane riparian habitat and willow flycatchers: threats to a 

sensitive environment and species. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California. 262-266. 

Sands, R., E.L. Greacen, and C.J. Gerard. 1979. Compaction of sandy soils in radiata pine 

forests: I. A penetrometer study. Aust. J. Soil Res. 17: 101-113. 

Saucedo, George J. 2004. Geologic Map of the Lake Tahoe Basin, California and 

Nevada. California Department of Conservation California Geological Survey. 

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. 

Sears, C.L. 2006. Assessing distribution, habitat suitability, and site occupancy of great gray 

owls (Strix nebulosa) in California. Thesis, Univ. California, Davis. 88 p. 

Schempf, P.F. and M. White. 1977. Status of six furbearer populations in the mountains of 

northern California. USDA ForestService. 51 p. 

Schmitt, C.L., J.R. Parmeter, and J.T. Kliejunas. 2000. Annosus Root Disease of Western 

Conifers. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 172. USDA Forest Service. 

Scott, J. H.; Reinhardt, E. D. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface 

and crown fire behavior. Research Paper. RMRS-RP-29. Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, USDA Forest Service. Ft. Collins, CO. 

Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fish Res. Board Can. Bull. 

184. 966 p. 

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. 

Shepperd W.D., P. Rogers, D. Burton, and D.L. Bartos. 2006. Ecology, Biodiversity, 

Management, and Restoration of Aspen in the Sierra Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-178. 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 

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. and D.R. Kaschube. 2007. Landbird Monitoring Results from the Monitoring Avian 

Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program in the Sierra Nevada. Final report in 

fulfillment of Forest Service Agreement No. 05-PA-11052007-141. The Institute for Bird 

Populations. February 13, 2007. 33p. 

Siegel, R.B., Wilkerson, R.L., and D. DeSante. 2008. Extirpation of the willow flycatcher from 

Yosemite National Park. Western Birds 39: 8-21. 

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. 

Slauson, K.M. 2003. Habitat selection by American martes (Martes americana) in coastal 

northwestern California. Thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Oregon, USA. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

5-28 Chapter 5 

Smith, J.J. 1982. Fishes of the Parajo River system. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 115: 83-170. 

Smith, R.H. 1971. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 11: Jeffrey Pine Beetle. USDA Forest 

Service. Washington, D.C.:7 p. 

Smucker, K.M., R.L. Hutto, and B.M. Steele. 2005. Changes in bird abundance after wildfire: 

importance of fire severity and time since fire. Ecological applications 15(5):1535-1549. 

Solis, D.M. Jr. 1983. Summer habitat ecology of spotted owls in northwestern California 

[thesis]. CA, Arcata: Humboldt State University. 

Solomon S, D. Qin, M. Manning, et al (eds.). 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. UK, 

Cambridge and USA, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 996 pp. 

Squires, J.R. and R.T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), the birds of North 

America online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the 

Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/298

Stantec Consulting Inc. March 2006. Montgomery Estates Erosion Control and Cold Creek 

Fisheries Enhancement Projects Existing Conditions Report, Vol 1. Prepared for El Dorado 

County DOT. 

State of California. Department of Food and Agriculture. Division of Plant Health & Pest 

Prevention Services. January 2004. Pest Ratings of Noxious Weed Species. 

State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region. 2005. 

Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Plan effective March 31, 1995, 

amendments effective August 1995 through December 2005). CA: South Lake 

Tahoe. 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/docs/ch1

_intro.pdf

State of Nevada. Department of Agriculture, Plant Industry Division. 24. March 2005. Noxious 

Weed List. 

Stefani, R.A., H.L. Bombay, and T.M. Benson. 2001. Willow flycatcher. In: USDA FS, Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 3, Chapter 

3, Part 4.4. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 143-195 

Swanson Hydrology + Geomorphology. February 2006. Big Meadow Creek Watershed 

Ecosystem Assessment Report. Prepared for USDA Forest Service-, LTBMU. 

Swanson Hydrology + Geomorphology. June 2007. Ecological Assessment Report for High 

Meadow Complex. Prepared for USDA Forest Service, LTBMU. 

Swift L.W. and J.B. Messer. 1971. Forest cutting raise temperatures of small streams in the 

Southern Appalachians. J. Soil Water Conserv. 26:111-116 

Tahoe-Douglas Fire Protection District. 2004. Community Wildfire Protection Plan for TahoeDouglas Fire Protection District. 

Tahoe Resource Conservation District. January 2003. Upper Truckee River Reclamation Project 

Environmental Assessment, Feasibility Report and Conceptual Plans. Prepared for the City 

of South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 1982. Regional Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin: 

Threshold Carrying Capacities. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Zephyr Cove, NV. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 1986. Regional Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin: Goals 

and Policies. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Zephyr Cove, NV. 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

References Cited 5-29

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 1987. Regional Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin: Code 

of Ordinances, Rules of Procedures (Chapter 78 &79). Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 

Zephyr Cove, NV. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 1996. Regional Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin: 

Threshold Evaluation. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Zephyr Cove, NV. 

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. 

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. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Zephyr Cove, NV. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2004. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Code of 

Ordinances. Zephyr Cove, NV. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). May 2006. Threshold Evaluation Report. Tahoe 

Regional Planning Agency. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2007. Fuel Reduction and Forest Restoration Plan for 

the Lake Tahoe Basin WUI. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2009. Tahoe Integrated Information Management 

System (TIIMS) website at http://www.tiims.org/Content/Projects/EIP/default.asp. 

Tahoe Resource Conservation District. January 2003. Upper Truckee River Reclamation Project 

Environmental Assessment, Feasibility Report and Conceptual Plans. Prepared for the City 

of South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County. 

Tiarks, A.E., and J.D. Haywood. 1996. Effects of site preparation and fertilization on growth of 

slash pine over two rotations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60: 1654-1663. 

Timossi, I. 1990. California’s statewide wildlife habitat relationships system. CA Dept. Fish and 

Game. Sacramento, CA. Computerized database. 

Turner, M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual review of 

Ecology and Systematics. 20:171-197. 

Ulery, A.L. and R.C. Graham. 1993. Forest fire effects on soil color and texture. Soil Sci. Soc. 

Am. 57:(11) 135-140. 

USDA Forest Service. 1981. Photo Series for Quantifying Natural Forest Residues : Southern 

Cascades Northern Sierra Nevada” National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 

USDA Forest Service. 1991 (revised 1993). Protocol for surveying for spotted owls in proposed 

management activity areas and habitat conservation areas, March 12, 1991 (revised February 

1993). Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 

USDA Forest Service 1992. Timber Sale Administration Handbook 

WO Amendment 2409.15-92-6. Effective 8/3/92 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Borax, Pesticide Fact Sheet. November 1995. Prepared for USFS 

by Information Ventures, Inc. http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pesticide/borax.html

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Biological Evaluation and Assessment and impact analysis check 

list. Updated January 1996 by John C. Robinson. Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA. 16 

p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000a. Assessment of BE’s and BA’s – Region 5 webpage reference at 

http://fsweb.r5.fs.fed.us/unit/ec/be_ba/BEBA_assessment.html by John C. Robinson. Pacific 

Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA. 8 p. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

5-30 Chapter 5 

USDA Forest Service, 2000b. Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in 

California: Best Management Practices. Pacific Southwest Region, September 2000. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Final 

Environmental Impact Statement of Record of Decision. Pacific Southwest Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 2002a. Fire Family Plus. Version 3.0. Boise, ID. National Interagency 

Fire Center. http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/planning/nist. (July 2008). 

USDA Forest Service. 2002b. Investigating Water Quality in the Pacific Southwest Region Best 

Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP User’s Guide. Pacific Southwest 

Region, Vallejo, CA. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; Record of Decision. Pacific Southwest 

Region; R5-MB-046. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA): Record of 

Decision and Final EIS. Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Conservation Guidelines for Seven Sensitive Fungi Species. Pacific 

Southwest Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 

2004. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-026. 8p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 

2005. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-000. 12p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Forest Vegetation Simulator – Prognosis Model Version 6.21. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006c. Sensitive Species List 2006. Pacific Southwest Region. San 

Francisco, CA. 

USDA Forest Service. September 2006d. Ecology, Biodiversity, Management, and Restoration of 

Aspen in the Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-178. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator 

Species Amendment. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December, 2007. 18p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 

2006. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-149. 12p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007c. Region 5 Draft Fen Assessment, “Mountain Studies Institute. Fen 

project” [Online] Available at: http://www.mountainstudies.org/Research/fenProject.htm

2006. David Cooper, et al. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. 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. 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 1988. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Lake Tahoe 

Basin Management Unit. CA: South Lake Tahoe. 

USDA Forest Service, LTBMU. 2000. ATM and Roads Analysis Report. Lake Tahoe Basin 

Management Unit; unpublished. 

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 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

References Cited 5-31

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, LTBMU. 2002. USDA Forest Service, Region 5, National Visitor Use 

Monitoring Results for Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

USDA Forest Service, LTBMU. 2004. South Shore Landscape Analysis. South Lake Tahoe, CA. 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 2005. Updated sensitive species accounts. South Lake Tahoe, 

CA. 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 2006a. Region 5, National Visitor Use Monitoring Results for 

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 2006b. LTBMU Habitat Models, LTBMU Botany Department, 

South Lake Tahoe, CA. 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 2006c. (unpubl). GIS habitat model developed by Victor Lyons. 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 2006 and 2007. LTBMU Botanical field survey results, LTBMU 

Botany Department, South Lake Tahoe, CA. 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 2007a. Lake Tahoe Basin Fuel Reduction and Wildfire 

Prevention Strategy: 10 year Plan. Sep. 20, 2007 Draft. South Lake Tahoe, CA. 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU 2007b. 2006 Ward Unit 5 Soil Monitoring Report. 

Ecosystem Conservation Department. 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. 2008. (unpub) Heavenly Creek SEZ Demonstration Project 

2007 Soil Monitoring Report. On file at: LTBMU Ecosystem Conservation Department. 

USDA Forest Service LTBMU. Jun 2007. (unpub) Stewardship and Fireshed Assessment, TenYear Integrated Vegetation and Fuels Management Program of Work 2007-2016. 

USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. 2000. Regional Noxious Weed 

Management Strategy (RNWMS). Natural Resources Management staff. CA: 

Vallejo/

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region; California State Historic Preservation Officer 

and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 2004. Interim Protocol for Non-Intensive 

Inventory Strategies for Hazardous Fuels and Vegetation Reduction Projects: (Sierra PA). 

USDA Forest Service, Tahoe NF and LTBMU. Feb 1999. Eight East-Side Rivers Wild and 

Scenic River Study Report, Record of Decision and FEIS. 

USDA Forest Service Washington Office. 2006. Four Threats to the Health of the Nation’s 

Forests and Grasslands. 30 October 2006. http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats/

US Department of the Interior and U.S. Geologic Survey. Ranalli, A. J. 2004. A Summary of the 

Scientific Literature on the Effects of Fire on the Concentrations of Nutrients in Surface Waters. 

Open-file Report 2004-1296. 

U.S. Geological Survey. K.D. Cartier, L.A. Peltz, and J.L. Smith. 1994. Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 93-4182. Development and Documentation of Spatial Data Bases for 

the Lake Tahoe Basin, California and Nevada. 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1998. National Forestry Manual, 

September 1998. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/nfmanual/. 

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/.
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

5-32 Chapter 5 

USDA NRCS. 2007. Soil survey of the Tahoe Basin Area, California and Nevada. Accessible 

online at: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/printed_surveys/.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1995. Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhuynchus 

clarkihenshawi) recovery plan. Portland, OR. 

USDI FWS. 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. 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. 2010. Endangered Species List, Sacramento Fish & Wildlife 

Office. Sacramento, CA.. http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_list.htm. 

USDI and U.S. Geological Survey. A.J. Ranalli. 2004. A Summary of the Scientific Literature 

on the Effects of Fire on the Concentrations of Nutrients in Surface Waters. Open-file Report 

2004-1296. 

Unitt, P. 1999. A multivariate approach to identification of the willow flycatcher and its 

subspecies. Unpublished report. Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix, Arizona. In U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (2001) Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Chapter 3, Part 4. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 

Van Wagner, C. E. 1977. Conditions for the start and spread of crown fire. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 7: 23–34. 

Vander Zanden, J., S. Chandra, B.C. Allen, J.E. Reuter, and C.R. Goldman. 2003. Historical 

Food Web Structure and Restoration of Native Aquatic Communities in the Lake Tahoe 

(California-Nevada) Basin. Ecosystems 6: 274-288. 

Verner, J.and K.S. McKelvey. 1994. Developing and Managing Sustainable Forest Ecosystems 

for Spotted Owls in the Sierra Nevada. In: L. Foley, ed. Silviculture: From the Cradle of 

Forestry to Ecosystem Management, Proceedings of the National Silviculture Workshop; 

November 1-4, 1993 Gen. Tech Rep. GTR.-SE-88. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, 

USDA Forest Service: 82-98. 

Verner, J., K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutierrez, I.G. Gould, Jr., and T.W. Beck, Tech. 

Coords. 1992. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA FS. 

285 p. 

Watershed Restoration Associates (WRA). December 2000. Trout Creek Stream Restoration and 

Wildlife Enhancement Project Phase 3 Design Report. Prepared for City of South Lake 

Tahoe. 

Weathers, W.W., P.J. Hodum, and J.A. Blakesley. 2001. Thermal ecology and ecological 

energetics of California spotted owls. Condor. 103:678-690. 

Weaver, R., T. Biddinger, and B. Rust. July 2007. Hydrology and Soil Resource Assessment; 

Angora Fire Burn Area Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management 

Unit. 

Weisberg, P.J., S. Ganschow, W.W. Miller, and D.W. Johnson. November 2008. 

Validation of a landscape-level simulation model for analyzing biomass 

management impacts on forest ecosystems. Final Report. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/ltbmu/publications/

Whitfield, M.J. and M.K. Sogge. 1999. Rangewide impact of brown-headed cowbird parasitism 

on the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). In: M.L. Morrison, L.S. 

Hall, S.K. Robinson, S.I. Rothstein, D.C. Hahn, and T.D. Rich, eds. Research and 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

References Cited 5-33

management of the brown-headed cowbird in western landscapes. Studies in Avian Biology 

No. 18. Cooper Ornithological Society, Camarillo, CA. 182-190. 

Wilbur-E. (undated). Sporax, a borax fungicide for control of annosus root disease. Label 

published by Wilbur-Ellis Co., Fresno California. Accessed on-line at 

http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld1NU004.pdf on September 1, 2005. 

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. 

Wilson, D.E. 1982. Wolverine. In: J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild mammals of 

North America. Biology, management and economics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins 

University Press: 644-652. Chapter 32. 

Woodbridge, B. and C.D. Hargis. 2006. Northern goshawk inventory and monitoring technical 

guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-71. Washington, DC: USDA FS. 80 p. 

Young, R.J. and M.L. Morrison. 2007. Assessment of goshawk territories within the Lake Tahoe 

basin; March 2004 – September 2005. Unpubl. report. 61 p. 

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, K.E.Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990. California’s wildlife: 

birds. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA. 

Zielinski W.J., and T.E. Kucera, (Eds). 1995. American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine: 

Survey Methods for their Detection. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, Gen Tech Rep PSW-GTR-157. 

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. 

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, F.V. Schlexer, L.A. Campbell, and C. Carroll. 2005. Historical and 

contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. 

Journal of Biogeography 32:1385-1407. 

Zeilinski, W.J., J. Werren, T. Kirk, and K. Slauson. 2006. Interactions between fishers and 

martens in California and implications for their conservation. Oral presentation in Fisher 

and marten in California, moving science & management forward; symposium presented by 

the California North Coast Chapter of the Wildlife Society and the Western Section of the 

Wildlife Society, Sacramento, CA. February 7-8, 2006. 

Zimmerman, G.S., W.S. LaHaye, and R.J. Gutierrez. 2003. Empirical support for a despotic 

distribution in a California spotted owl population. Behavioral Ecology. 14: 433-437. 

Forest Service Handbooks and Manuals 

FSH 462. National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2, Chapter 1. The Visual 

Management System. USDA Forest Service. 1974. 

FSH 701. Landscape Aesthetics A Handbook For Scenery Management. USDA Forest Service. 

1995. 

FSH 701. Landscape Aesthetics A Handbook for Scenery Management – Appendix J. USDA 

Forest Service. 8/30/07 

FSH 2409.15-92-6. Timber Sale Administration Handbook WO Amendment. USDA Forest 

Service. Effective 8/3/92. 

FSH 2509.18-95-1. Soil Management Handbook WO Amendment. USDA Forest Service. 

Effective 9/3/91. 

FSH 2509.18-95-1. Soil Mangement Handbook R5 Supplement. USDA Forest Service. 6/1/95. 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

5-34 Chapter 5 

FSH 2509.22, Ch. 50. R5 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. California Interagency 

Erosion Hazard Rating. USDA Forest Service and California Soil Survey Committee. 1990. 

FSH 2520. Chapter 20, Amendment 1. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Cumulative 

Off-site Watershed Effects Analysis. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 

Vallejo, California. 1988. 

FSH 7709.58, Transportation System Maintenance Handbook: Maintenance Level Descriptions, 

Maintenance Activities and Maintenance Standards, and Maintenance Sharing, WO 

Amendment 7709.58-92-1, 9/4/92. 

FSH 7709.59 Transportation Systems Operations Handbook: Travel Management 7709.59-91-1. 

3/1/91. 

FSM 2080. Noxious Weed Management. USDA Forest Service. 11/29/95. 

FSM 2550 - Soil Management, Amendment No. 2500-2010-1. USDA Forest Service. Effective 

11/23/2010. 

FSM 2609.25. Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region. 2006. 

FSM 7700 – Travel Management. USDA Forest Service. 1/8/09 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Index In-1

Index 

A

Air quality........................................................................... xiii, 1-18, 1-20, 2-20, 3-317 

Alternatives........................................................................ 1-1, 2-2 

Alternatives Considered in Detail...................................... v, 2-2 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study.... .2-49 

Comparison of Alternatives............................................. vii, 

American marten.................................................................. 2-22, 3-158, 3-195, 3-260, 

 3-282 

Aquatic habitat..................................................................... 2-25, 3-121 

B

Bald Eagle............................................................................2-14, 2-22, 2-50, 3-162 

Bat (See Townsend’s big-eared bat) 

C

California spotted owl............................................................ v, 1-16, 2-19, 3-173 

Clean Water Act.................................................................. 1-9, 1-17, 2-27 

Comparison of alternatives (see Alternatives) 

Consultation............................................................................1-18, 3-64, 3-121, 3-139, 

 3-297, 3-326, 5-4 

Cultural resources.....................................................................xiii, 2-48, 3-325 

E

Economics........................................................................... ...xv, 3-349 

Erosion.................................................................................3-60, 3-64, 3-75, 3-83, 

 3-93, 3-108, 3-119, 3-125, 4-2 

F

Frog 

 Pacific tree frog......................................................... 3-260, 3-269, 3-271, 3-295 

Sierra-Nevada (mountain) yellow-legged frog..................... 3-122, 3-149 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

In-2 Index 

H

Habitat 

 Aquatic.................................................................. 2-25, 3-101, 3-121, 3-123, 

 3-127, 3-133 

 Wildlife.................................................................. 3-33, 3-135, 3-137, 3-342, 

 3-333 

Heritage resources............................................................... xiii, 2-48, 3-323 

I

Invasive species 

 Aquatic..................................................................... 3-60, 3-127 

 Weeds and plants......................................................... 3-34, 3-45, 3-313, 3-315, 

 4-5 

Issues................................................................................. iv, vii, 1-15 

L

Lahontan cutthroat trout............................................................1-18, 2-25, 3-121, 3-122, 

 3-126, 3-137, 3-244 

M

Management indicator species (MIS)..........................................2-22, 33-158, 3-165, 3-173, 

 3-258 

Marten (see American Marten) 

N

National Historic Preservation Act............................................. 1-20, 3-323 

Northern goshawk............................................................... v, 1-16, 2-14, 2-19, 2-50, 

 3-33, 3-140, 3-142, 3-165, 3-204, 

 3-245 

P

Plant Communities............................................................... 1-8, 2-42, 3-37, 3-46, 

 3-124, 3-297, 3-310, 4-5 

Proposed Action.................................................................. iv, vii, 1-5, 1-12, 1-17, 2-2, 

 2-49, 3-1 

Public involvement................................................................ iv, 1-14 

Purpose and need.................................................................. ii, vii, 1-12, 2-49 
FINAL South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration EIS 

Index In-3

R

Recreation........................................................................... ii, xiv, 2-46, 3-333 

Roads.............................................................................. 1-12, 2-5 – 2-7, 

 2-18, 2-38, 2-57, 3-43, 3-50, 

 3-58, 3-68, 3-92, 3-145, 3-316, 

 3-343 

S

Sediment........................................................................... 2-6, 2-27, 3-66, 3-83, 

 3-91, 3-119, 3-125, 3-137, 

 3-243, 4-1

SEZ (Stream environment zone) 

Soil 

 Compaction...............................................................3-62, 3-70, 3-77, 3-94, 

 3-104, 3-261, 3-301 

 erosion (see Erosion) 

T

Townsend’s big-eared bat....................................................... 3-156 

Transportation (see Roads) 

W

Water Quality....................................................................... .iii, v, 1-9, 1-15, 1-20, 

 2-7, 2-9, 2-27, 3-59, 3-82, 3-89, 

 3-91, 3-119, 4-1 

Wildlife (see Habitat) 

Woodpecker 

Black-backed woodpecker.............................................. 3-260, 3-289, 3-296 

Hairy woodpecker...................................................... 3-260, 3-278, 3-289, 3-296 

Y

Yellow warbler..................................................................... 3-260, 3-265, 3-268, 3-278, 

 3-289, 3-295 

 
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 

In-4 Index 

This page intentionally left blank.