DOCSLIB.ORG

Fallen Leaf Lake Trail Access and Travel Management Environmental

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fallen Leaf Lake Trail Access and Travel Management Environmental United States Department of Environmental Agriculture Forest Service Assessment August 2012 Fallen Leaf Lake Trail Access and Travel Management Project Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Region 5 – USDA Forest Service 1 For More Information Contact: USDA Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 35 College Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 (530) 543-2600 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 USDAs 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. 2 Table of Contents Chapter 1 ........................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Document Structure.............................................................................................. 6 1.2 Background .......................................................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Historic Use .................................................................................................... 8 1.2.2 Current Use ..................................................................................................... 8 1.2.3 Ownership ....................................................................................................... 9 1.2.4 Traffic Patterns ............................................................................................... 9 1.2.5 Current Parking..............................................................................................11 1.2.6 Use Conflict ...................................................................................................11 1.3 Overview of the Existing Condition................................................................... 12 1.3.1 Access and Travel Management (ATM) ....................................................... 13 1.4 Desired Condition .............................................................................................. 15 1.5 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................. 15 1.6 Summary of the Proposed Action ...................................................................... 15 1.7 Management Direction ....................................................................................... 16 1.8 Decision Framework .......................................................................................... 18 1.9 Public Involvement ............................................................................................ 18 1.10 Issues .................................................................................................................. 18 1.11 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies ......................................................... 20 1.11.1 National Forest Management Act ................................................................ 20 1.11.2 Endangered Species Act .............................................................................. 20 1.11.3 National Historic Preservation Act .............................................................. 20 1.11.4 Clean Water Act (Public Law 92–500) ........................................................ 20 1.11.5 Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) ........................................... 21 1.11.6 Invasive Species, Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999 .................... 21 1.11.7 Recreational Fisheries, Executive Order 12962 of June 6, 1995 .................. 21 1.11.8 Floodplain Management, Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977, and Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 11990 of May 24, 1977 ............................ 21 1.11.9 Special Area Designations ............................................................................ 21 1.11.10 Local Agency Permitting Requirements and Coordination ........................ 21 Chapter 2 - Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ............................................ 23 2.1 Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 23 2.1.1 Alternatives Considered But Not In Detail ..................................................... 23 2.1.2 Alternatives Considered In Detail................................................................... 25 Alternative 1- No Action ........................................................................................... 25 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ................................................................................ 25 Alternatives 3 through 6 ............................................................................................ 45 The following section details differences between Alternatives 3 through 6: ........... 46 Alternative 3 .............................................................................................................. 46 Alternative 4 .............................................................................................................. 47 Alternative 5 .............................................................................................................. 47 Alternative 6 .............................................................................................................. 47 ....................................................................................................................................... 48 3 2.2 Resource Protection Measures .............................................................................. 49 Soils and Hydrology ..................................................................................................... 56 Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 57 Scenic Resources .......................................................................................................... 59 Cultural and Heritage Resources .................................................................................. 59 Botany ........................................................................................................................... 60 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 61 Aquatic Biology ............................................................................................................ 62 Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences ................................................................... 64 3.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 64 3.0.1 Organization of Chapter 3 ............................................................................. 64 3.0.2 Projects Considered for Cumulative Effects ................................................ 65 3.0.2.1 Past Projects ................................................................................................. 65 3.0.2.2 Present Projects.......................................................................................... 67 3.0.2.3 Projects in the Planning Stage ................................................................... 67 3.0.3 Resources Considered for Analysis .............................................................. 68 3.1 Soil and Hydrology Resources ........................................................................... 69 3.1.1 Affected Environment and Existing Conditions ........................................... 69 3.1.2 Analysis Indicators and Project Elements with Potential to Affect Hydrology and Soil Resources..................................................................................................... 73 3.1.3 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects ....................................................... 73 3.2 Recreation Resources ......................................................................................... 83 3.2.1 Affected Environment and Existing Conditions ........................................... 83 3.2.2 Analysis Indicators and Project Elements with Potential to Affect Recreation ................................................................................................................................... 88 3.2.3 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects ....................................................... 88 3.3 Scenic Resources ................................................................................................ 96 3.3.1 Affected Environment and Existing Condition ............................................ 96 3.3.2 Analysis indicators .......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lake Tahoe Geographic Response Plan
    Lake Tahoe Geographic Response Plan El Dorado and Placer Counties, California and Douglas and Washoe Counties, and Carson City, Nevada September 2007 Prepared by: Lake Tahoe Response Plan Area Committee (LTRPAC) Lake Tahoe Geographic Response Plan September 2007 If this is an Emergency… …Involving a release or threatened release of hazardous materials, petroleum products, or other contaminants impacting public health and/or the environment Most important – Protect yourself and others! Then: 1) Turn to the Immediate Action Guide (Yellow Tab) for initial steps taken in a hazardous material, petroleum product, or other contaminant emergency. First On-Scene (Fire, Law, EMS, Public, etc.) will notify local Dispatch (via 911 or radio) A complete list of Dispatch Centers can be found beginning on page R-2 of this plan Dispatch will make the following Mandatory Notifications California State Warning Center (OES) (800) 852-7550 or (916) 845-8911 Nevada Division of Emergency Management (775) 687-0300 or (775) 687-0400 National Response Center (800) 424-8802 Dispatch will also consider notifying the following Affected or Adjacent Agencies: County Environmental Health Local OES - County Emergency Management Truckee River Water Master (775) 742-9289 Local Drinking Water Agencies 2) After the Mandatory Notifications are made, use Notification (Red Tab) to implement the notification procedures described in the Immediate Action Guide. 3) Use the Lake Tahoe Basin Maps (Green Tab) to pinpoint the location and surrounding geography of the incident site. 4) Use the Lake and River Response Strategies (Blue Tab) to develop a mitigation plan. 5) Review the Supporting Documentation (White Tabs) for additional information needed during the response.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallen Leaf Lake Fishing Report
    Fallen Leaf Lake Fishing Report Thaddeus is inflexibly tinned after cislunar Jimmie craving his plashes motherless. Wry and spermophytic Nelsen still crimps his Waldheim hurryingly. Unextinguishable and calendric Gershom costuming some boa so centrically! Big and baits, peripheral vascular surgery for them up on our boat launch boat and small Desolation Wilderness. Are usually near Fallen Leaf area between Emerald Bay and Echo Lakes. Vertically fishing guide of both the many visitors, how to withstand an eye of commerce, and should know how many coves around fallen leaf lake fishing report covers water. From brown and rainbow to cutthroat and golden, here are the lakes Babbit recommends to get your trout on in the Sierra Nevada backcountry. Rollins Lake is located in Marinette County, Wisconsin. Plus Le Conte and Jabu according to US Forest Service reports Nevertheless fish still populate most of Desolation's lakes including rainbow. Hot spring: The parking around Fallen Leaf score is limited, so somehow there early. Largemouth bass can also be caught in most of the main lake coves as well as in the state park using spinnerbaits, crankbaits, and Senkos. Lake Toho Fishing Reports on well the Lake Toho for it trophy bass and record distance to Orlando, Florida. Basin once consisted of stable small natural lakes, called Medley Lakes. After losing other one, quiet took hold air we spun around atop the eastern flats back towards the poor Island. Adults are allowed to help children fish, but not allowed to fish themselves. The two body in Lake Tahoe does the freeze The stored heat in town Lake's massive amount off water compared to claim relative new area prevents the match from reaching freezing temperature under the prevailing climatic conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B: Wild and Scenic River Inventory and Evaluation
    Appendices for the FEIS Appendix B: Wild and Scenic River Inventory and Evaluation Introduction This FEIS and Land Management Plan were subject to the objection process under 36 CFR 219 Subpart B (2102). Because the project record documentation for the original inventory could not be located, the Objection Reviewing Official’s instructions included completing and documenting a comprehensive evaluation and systematic inventory of the potential for rivers in the unit to be eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This appendix fulfills that instruction. River Inventory The following inventory of rivers within the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) was developed using the National Stream Inventory layer in the LTBMU Geographical Information System (GIS) database1. Each river in that layer was checked against the 7.5’ Quadrangle topographic map (USDA Forest Service Publication R5-RG-172, 2011) to confirm that all named rivers were included in this inventory. One additional river (Eagle Creek) was added to the inventory even though it was not named in either the National Stream Inventory layer or the quadrangle topographic map. Each River is described by its unique identifier in the GIS database GNIS number) and GIS mileage. Table B 1. LTBMU inventory of rivers National Non-National Stream Name GNIS Number Total Miles Forest Miles Forest Miles Angora Creek 26 2.38 1.46 3.84 Big Meadow Creek 21 4.21 0.01 4.23 Blackwood Creek 45 5.76 0.89 6.65 Bliss Creek 9 1.3 0.02 1.32 Burke Creek 22 2.71 0.76 3.48 Burton Creek 15 1.35 3.01 4.36 Cascade Creek 20 2.58 0.79 3.37 Cathedral Creek 4 0.96 0 0.96 Cold Creek 42 5.73 1.35 7.08 Dollar Creek 12 0.31 2.12 2.42 1 The Friends of the River website was also checked to ensure that any rivers identified by that group were included in the eligibility evaluation.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Tahoe Region Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan CALIFORNIA ‐ NEVADA
    Lake Tahoe Region Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan CALIFORNIA ‐ NEVADA DRAFT September 2009 Pending approval by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force This Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan is part of a multi-stakeholder collaborative effort to minimize the deleterious effects of nuisance and invasive aquatic species in the Lake Tahoe Region. This specific product is authorized pursuant to Section 108 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, Public Law 108-447 and an interagency agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Tahoe Conservancy. This product was prepared by: Suggested citation: USACE. 2009. Lake Tahoe Region Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan, California - Nevada. 84 pp + Appendices. Cover photo credits: Lake Tahoe shoreline, Toni Pennington (Tetra Tech, Inc.); curlyleaf pondweed, Steve Wells (PSU); Asian clams, Brant Allen (UCD); bullfrog (USGS), zebra mussels (USGS); bluegill and largemouth bass (USACE) ii i Table of Contents Acknowledgements................................................................................................................ iii Acronyms ............................................................................................................................... iv Glossary.................................................................................................................................. vi Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Development and Application of a Geospatial Database of Sierra Nevada Lakes and Reservoirs
    ABSTRACT DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF A GEOSPATIAL DATABASE OF SIERRA NEVADA LAKES AND RESERVOIRS by Molly Gail Mehling High-elevation, mountain regions, such as the Sierra Nevada, are characterized as extremely heterogeneous and ecologically fragile. The Sierra Nevada has been recognized for its high conservation value, but historical and predicted tourism and development threaten the ecological resources of the region. Assessment and monitoring of the Sierra Nevada’s aquatic resources and their catchments is crucial to their balanced management. Using a digital geospatial database, landscape-scale variables of morphometry, land cover and human activities were quantified for 20 assessment sites and their catchments in the most rapidly developing area of the ecoregion, the central Sierra Nevada. Landscape-scale variables revealed ecological and anthropogenic heterogeneity among the sites. These measurements were incorporated into a multi-level index of ecological integrity and were analyzed with multivariate statistical methods to objectively assess similarity among sites. It is expected that these metrics will be incorporated into a multi-level assessment protocol. DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF A GEOSPATIAL DATABASE OF SIERRA NEVADA LAKES AND RESERVOIRS A Practicum Report Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Science Institute of Environmental Sciences By Molly Gail Mehling Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2006 Advisor: ____________________ Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft - Potential ORV Table
    Draft - Potential ORV Table Watercourse Name GNIS Number Hydrographic Category Miles Potential Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORV’s) Scale of Importance Free Flowing Recreation - Angora Lakes Resort is located on the shore of one of the Angora Lakes. Angora Creek flows from Angora Lakes. The Resort is Angora Creek 26 Stream/River: Hydrographic Category = Perennial 3.84 Less than Regional dependent on the setting of the lakes but does not depend on the setting of the creek which is downstream. Big Meadow Creek 21 Stream/River: Hydrographic Category = Perennial 4.23 Wildlife - habitat and species diversity - spotted owl PAC and HRCA, multiple goshawk PACs and HRCAs, known goshawk nesting, reports of Blackwood Creek 45 Stream/River: Hydrographic Category = Perennial 6.65 marten use, known FSS bat use, willow flycatcher emphasis habitat and Less than Regional known nests, muledeer habitat, aspen habitat known to be used by a variety of songbirds. Bliss Creek 9 Stream/River: Hydrographic Category = Perennial 1.32 Burke Creek 22 Stream/River: Hydrographic Category = Perennial 3.48 Burton Creek 15 Stream/River: Hydrographic Category = Perennial 4.36 Geo/Hydro - Large waterfall into lake created by geologic faulting and glaciation (Cascade Falls). Very high visitor use to these features - the falls Less than Regional are a popular destination accessed by relatively short hiking trail. Cascade Creek 20 Stream/River: Hydrographic Category = Perennial 3.37 Scenic - Area of falls is highly scenic because of the views of the landscape. Less than Regional Recreation - Waterfalls, unique geology and viewing Less than Regional Cathedral Creek 4 Stream/River: Hydrographic Category = Perennial 0.96 Wildlife - multiple goshawk PACs and nesting, FSS bat use of area, mule Cold Creek 42 Stream/River: Hydrographic Category = Perennial 7.08 Less than Regional deer habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Revised Land and Resource Management Plan
    United States Department of Agriculture Draft Revised Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Service Pacific Southwest Volume III – Region DEIS and Draft Plan Appendices R5-MB-241C June 2012 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Cover photo: Eagle Falls Trail located on National Forest System lands on Lake Tahoe’s southwest shore. The trailhead and parking lot kiosk, across US Highway 89 from the Emerald Bay overlook, offer information about hiking into Desolation Wilderness, looking westward toward Eagle Lake, a popular short, but steep, hike (less than half an hour). Credit – all photos, graphs and maps: U.S. Forest Service staff, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit may be duplicated for public use (not for profit) 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Angora Fire – Entrapment & Fire Shelter Deployment Accident Prevention Analysis Report
    Angora Fire – Entrapment & Fire Shelter Deployment Accident Prevention Analysis Report Pacific Southwest Region ­ Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit January 17, 2008 Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction 5 Description of the Angora Fire 7 Narrative of the Accident 9 Lessons Learned by Peers 35 Equipment, Environmental, and Human Factors 39 Lessons Learned Analysis 40 Key Issues, Decisions, and Behaviors 41 Summary of All Recommendations (#1­10) 57 Evaluation of Lessons Learned.............................................................................59 Summary 62 Appendix A, Chronology of Events 63 Appendix B, Fire Behavior Summary 73 Appendix C, Briefing Paper: Accident Prevention Analysis 91 Appendix D, Personal Protective Equipment Report 92 Appendix E, Fire Shelter Tech Tip 95 Appendix F, APA Team Members 99 2 Executive Summary On June 26, 2007, two Forest Service firefighters assigned to the Angora Fire were entrapped by fire and forced into their fire shelters. Fortunately, they were uninjured. This report tells what happened and examines the social and organizational causes that led to this outcome. In conducting an investigation, the review team learned of another story—that of a near­ catastrophic tragedy for dozens of other firefighters who were within minutes of also being entrapped. Accidents and near­misses such as this are proof of the high risks of wildland firefighting as well as proof that our firefighting organization could better manage these risks. The review team consisted of two line officers under delegations from the Chief and Regional Forester, a peer subject matter expert (engine captain), local and national NFFE representation, and experts in Fire Safety, Information, Behavior, and Personal Protective Equipment.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallen Leaf Lake Trail Access and Travel Management Proposed Action
    United States Forest Lake Tahoe Basin Management 35 College Drive Department of Service Unit South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Agriculture (530) 543-2600 (530) 543-0956 TTY Proposed Action for Fallen Leaf Lake Trail Access and Travel Management Project US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit El Dorado County, California Desired Condition The desired condition of the project area is a planned system of interconnected, environmentally sustainable trails to serve the entire spectrum of non-motorized recreational and commuting users. Measures to achieve this desired condition include reduced sediment loads, reduced and controlled stormwater runoff, and construction and/or adopting trail segments to provide trail connections to features and destinations. Implementing these retrofits will increase the quality, safety, and accessibility of the recreation experience for all visitors to the Fallen Leaf Lake trail system and help protect the natural, cultural, and historic resources of the area. Background/Existing Conditions The project area is currently one of the largest recreational usage areas in the Lake Tahoe Basin. It contains one Class I multiuse paved trail (Pope Baldwin Bike Path National Recreation Trail) and numerous authorized and unauthorized native surface trails of varying levels of challenge, maintenance, and environmental sustainability. The existing trail system is a collection of a few planned trails, previously existing roads, and user- created trails. Wildlife, hydrology, and botanical concerns
    [Show full text]
  • Dam Removal on Total Phosphorus Concentration in Taylor Creek and Wetland, South Lake Tahoe, California
    THE EFFECT OF BEAVER (Castor canadensis) DAM REMOVAL ON TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION IN TAYLOR CREEK AND WETLAND, SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CALIFORNIA by Sarah A. Muskopf A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science In Natural Resources October 2007 THE EFFECT OF BEAVER (Castor canadensis) DAM REMOVAL ON TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION IN TAYLOR CREEK AND WETLAND, SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CALIFORNIA by Sarah A. Muskopf Approved by the Master’s Project Committee: Kristine Brenneman, Major Professor Date Hobie Perry, Committee Member Date Howard Stauffer, Committee Member Date Steve Smith, Graduate Coordinator Date Chris A. Hopper Date Interim Dean, Research and Graduate Studies ABSTRACT The effect of beaver (Castor canadensis) dam removal on total phosphorus concentration in Taylor Creek and Wetland, South Lake Tahoe, California Sarah A. Muskopf Taylor Creek is located in the Lake Tahoe basin and drains into Lake Tahoe. A beaver colony in Taylor Wetland has built 14 dams along Taylor Creek and in the wetland, creating nine beaver ponds upstream. All of the dams in the main channel of Taylor Creek are destroyed annually in early fall by United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service to allow kokanee salmon (Onchorynchus nerka) to spawn. In addition, flows from Fallen Leaf Dam, located upstream of Taylor Wetland, are increased to supply ample flows for spawning (United States Department of Agriculture 1981). To determine whether beaver activity, specifically the creation of beaver dams and ponds, improve water clarity by reducing the amount of total phosphorus entering Lake Tahoe, water samples were taken before and after beaver dam removal at sites upstream from beaver influence (control sites) and downstream from beaver pond sites (impacted sites).
    [Show full text]
  • Morgan's Tahoe
    MORGAN’S TAHOE By William A. Morgan 2nd Edition All Rights Reserved Copyright 2015 Published by Memdewee Books LLC Cover Photo by Craig Morgan Printed in the United States of America FOREWORD The following is sort of a memoir, a series of articles about some of the experiences of the author while he lived and worked in the Lake Tahoe Basin of California and Nevada. During the period from the spring of 1965 to the fall of 1989, he was involved in a wide range of activities, some of which had considerable influence on the environment and the political situation in the Basin. As Forest Supervisor of the National Forest lands at Tahoe for nine years, followed by four and a half years as the Executive Director of the most controversial agency in existence at Tahoe during this period, he provides his unique perspective of happenings and accomplishments with which he was associated. Some of these tales might satisfy the curiosity of residents of Tahoe as well as those who visit the area and wonder, “How did that come about?” Or “What’s the story behind the 64 Acres?” Or “What happened to the Jennings Casino?” You can learn about those things in this book. Some of you will come across familiar names, too. Maybe your own. ~ 2 ~ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS These people provided me information and/or assistance, that helped make it possible for me to write this book, and I’m indebted to them. Dave Allessio – Retired USFS Lori Allessio – Retired USFS Virgil Anderson – Retired USFS Gary Cooper – Retired USFS Bill Craven – Fallen Leaf Jonathan Cook-Fisher Tom
    [Show full text]
  • Airborne Lidar Analysis and Geochronology of Faulted Glacial
    Airborne LiDAR analysis and geochronology of faulted glacial moraines in the Tahoe-Sierra frontal fault zone reveal substantial seismic hazards in the Lake Tahoe region, California-Nevada, USA James F. Howle1,†, Gerald W. Bawden2,†, Richard A. Schweickert3,†, Robert C. Finkel4,†, Lewis E. Hunter5,†, Ronn S. Rose5,†, and Brent von Twistern6,† 1U.S. Geological Survey, P.O. Box 1360, Carnelian Bay, California 96140, USA 2U.S. Geological Survey, 3020 State University Drive East, Modoc Hall, Suite 4004, Sacramento, California 95819, USA 3University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Geological Sciences, 1900 Greensburg Circle, Reno, Nevada 89509, USA 4University of California, Berkeley, Earth and Planetary Science Department, 371 McCone Hall, Berkeley, California 94720, USA 5U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, California 95814, USA 6P.O. Box 5401, Incline Village, Nevada 89450, USA ABSTRACT moment magnitudes (Mw) range from 6.3 ± fault zone; it demonstrates that the Tahoe-Sierra 0.25 to 6.9 ± 0.25. A close spatial association frontal fault zone is an important seismic source We integrated high-resolution bare-earth of landslides and active faults suggests that for the region. airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR ) landslides have been seismically triggered. Bare-earth airborne light detection and imagery with fi eld observations and modern Our study underscores that the Tahoe-Sierra ranging (LiDAR) imagery has revolutionized geochronology to characterize the Tahoe- frontal fault zone poses substantial seismic geomorphic mapping in densely vegetated, Sierra frontal fault zone, which forms the and landslide hazards. mountainous, and otherwise inaccessible ter- neotectonic boundary between the Sierra rain (Fig. 1). Recent studies of known fault Nevada and the Basin and Range Province INTRODUCTION zones (Hudnut et al., 2002; Frankel et al., 2007; west of Lake Tahoe.
    [Show full text]