DOCSLIB.ORG

PCWA-L-397.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PCWA-L-397.Pdf Draft DISTRIBUTION FORMAT The text of the Existing Resource Information Reports and all associated tables, figures and appendices are provided on the enclosed CD. Text and tables are provided in their original Microsoft Word or Excel formats. Figures are provided electronically in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). Note that several of the figures discussed in the Existing Resource Information Reports show the location of Project facilities with respect to roads and other landmarks. These figures are considered Non-Internet Public (NIP) and should not be posted on the Internet. Color paper copies of these NIP figures are enclosed in this distribution for reference, as follows: Figure 6.9-1. Developed Recreation Facilities in the Vicinity of the MFP. Includes an index map and 3 detailed sheets, as follows: • Sheet 1 of 3, Duncan Creek and French Meadows Reservoir Areas • Sheet 2 of 3, Hell Hole Reservoir and Long Canyon Area • Sheet 3 of 3, Ralston Afterbay Area Figure 6.9-2. Specially-designated Areas in the Middle Fork American Watershed. Figure 6.9-3. Dispersed Recreation Resources in the Vicinity of the MFP. Figure 6.10-1. Land Jurisdictions in the Middle Fork American River Watershed. Figure 6.10-2. USDA-FS Range Allotments in the Middle Fork American River Watershed. Figure 6.10-3. Fire History in the Middle Fork American River Watershed. Figure 6.11-1. (5 sheets) Visual Quality Objectives in the Vicinity of the MFP. Copyright 2006 by Placer County Water Agency Slipsheet_V1_Jul 06 TABLE OF CONTENTS [Please note: The Existing Resource Information Reports will be included as Chapter 6.0 in the Pre-Application Document. Therefore, the table of contents begins with 6.0 and not 1.0.] Page 6.0 Introduction (distributed in June 2006) 6.1 Description of the River Basin (to be distributed in August 2006) 6.2 Geology and Soils (distributed in June 2006) 6.3 Water Use (to be distributed in August 2006) 6.4 Water Quality (to be distributed in August 2006) 6.5 Fish and Aquatic Resources (distributed in June 2006) 6.6 Botanical and Wildlife Resources (distributed in June 2006) 6.7 Geomorphology (distributed in June 2006) 6.8 Riparian Resources (distributed in June 2006) 6.9 Recreation Resources 6.9.1 Information Sources ............................................................... 6.9-2 6.9-2 Overview of Recreation Resources in the Watershed ............ 6.9-3 6.9-3 Specially Designated Areas in the Watershed........................ 6.9-4 6.9.3-1 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System .............. 6.9-5 6.9.3-2 State Protected River Segments........................... 6.9-5 6.9.3-3 National Trails System .......................................... 6.9-6 6.9.3-4 Wilderness Areas.................................................. 6.9-7 6.9.3-5 Regionally or Nationally Important Recreation Areas..................................................................... 6.9-7 6.9.3-6 Other Protected Areas .......................................... 6.9-8 6.9-4 Developed Project Recreation Facilities................................. 6.9-8 6.9.4-1 French Meadows Reservoir Area.......................... 6.9-8 6.9.4-2 Hell Hole Reservoir Area..................................... 6.9-12 6.9.4-3 South Fork of Long Canyon Creek Area ............. 6.9-14 6.9.4-4 Ralston Afterbay Area......................................... 6.9-15 6.9-5 Estimated Recreation Use and Percent Capacity Reached at Project Recreation Facilities ................................................. 6.9-15 6.9-6 Dispersed Recreation........................................................... 6.9-15 6.9.6-1 Whitewater Boating on the Middle Fork American River ................................................... 6.9-16 Copyright 2006 by Placer County Water Agency i 6.0_Master TOC_V1_Jul 06 6.9.6-2 Whitewater Boating on the Rubicon River........... 6.9-18 6.9-7 Current and Future Recreation Needs Identified in Management Plans .................................................................................... 6.9-19 6.9-8 References ........................................................................... 6.9-20 6.10 Land Use 6.10.1 Information Sources ............................................................. 6.10-2 6.10-2 Overview of Land Use in the Middle Fork American River Watershed ............................................................................ 6.10-2 6.10-3 Land Management Plans...................................................... 6.10-3 6.10.3-1 Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan............................................... 6.10-3 6.10.3-2 Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan .............................................. 6.10-4 6.10.3-3 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendments............ 6.10-5 6.10.3-4 Placer County General Plan................................ 6.10-5 6.10.3-5 El Dorado County General Plan.......................... 6.10-6 6.10.3-6 Auburn State Recreation Area Interim Resource Management Plan............................................... 6.10-6 6.10-4 Land Use within the FERC Project Boundary....................... 6.10-6 6.10.4-1 Shoreline Buffer Zones ....................................... 6.10-7 6.10.4-2 Shoreline Management Plan............................... 6.10-7 6.10-5 Other Land Uses within the Watershed................................ 6.10-7 6.10.5-1 Recreation........................................................... 6.10-7 6.10.5-2 Timber Management........................................... 6.10-8 6.10.5-3 Grazing ............................................................... 6.10-8 6.10.5-4 Mining ................................................................. 6.10-8 6.10.5-5 Natural Resource Protection ............................... 6.10-9 6.10-6 Fire History ......................................................................... 6.10-10 6.10-7 Fuels Management............................................................. 6.10-10 6.10-7 References ......................................................................... 6.10-12 6.11 Aesthetic Resources 6.11.1 Information Sources ............................................................. 6.11-1 6.11-2 Overview of the USDA-FS Visual Management System ...... 6.11-1 6.11-3 Description of Existing Conditions ........................................ 6.11-3 6.11.3-1 Duncan Creek Area ............................................ 6.11-3 6.11.3-2 French Meadows Area........................................ 6.11-5 Copyright 2006 by Placer County Water Agency ii 6.0_Master TOC_V1_Jul 06 6.11.3-3 Hell Hole Area..................................................... 6.11-6 6.11.3-4 Long Canyon Area .............................................. 6.11-7 6.11.3-5 Interbay Area ...................................................... 6.11-8 6.11.3-6 Ralston Area ....................................................... 6.11-9 6.11-4 References ......................................................................... 6.11-11 6.12 Cultural Resources (distributed in June 2006) 6.13 Tribal Resources (distributed in June 2006) 6.14 Socioeconomics 6.14.1 Information Sources ............................................................. 6.14-1 6.14.2 Description of Existing Conditions ........................................ 6.14-2 6.14.2-1 Placer County Demographics ............................. 6.14-2 6.14.2-2 Key Industries and Employment in Placer County................................................................. 6.14-4 6.14.2-3 Placer County Government................................. 6.14-5 6.14.3 References ........................................................................... 6.14-8 7.0 Relevant Comprehensive Plans and Resource Management Plans 7.1 Description of Pertinent Comprehensive Plans.................................... 7.0-1 7.1-1 Rubicon River Wild Trout Management Plan.......................... 7.0-3 7.1-2 Public Opinions and Attitudes on Outdoor Recreation in California ................................................................................ 7.0-4 7.1-3 Recreation Outlook in Planning District 3: An Element of the California Outdoor Recreation Resources Plan...................... 7.0-4 7.1-4 Recreation Needs in California............................................... 7.0-5 7.1-5 California Outdoor Recreation Plan - 1993............................. 7.0-6 7.1-6 The California Water Plan and the California Water Plan Update.................................................................................... 7.0-6 7.1-7 Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Central Valley Region, the Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin ...................................................................................... 7.0-7 7.1-8 Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan .................................................................. 7.0-8 7.1-9 Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan ........................................................................................ 7.0-9 7.1-10 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD)................................................................................... 7.0-10 Copyright 2006 by Placer County Water Agency iii 6.0_Master TOC_V1_Jul 06 7.1-11 Auburn State Recreation Area Interim Resource Management Plan ...................................................................................... 7.0-10 7.1-12 American River Water Resources Investigation:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan
    Squaw Valley Real Estate, LLC Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan THE VILLAGE AT SQUAW VALLEY 6/28/2016 This Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan (EPEP) has been prepared for The Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan (VSVSP) project under the supervision of Placer County and in coordination with Pete Hnat, Chief Executive Officer, Emergency Management Consultants. The focus of the EPEP is primarily on emergency preparedness and evacuation protocols as related to emergency events, such as fire. However, other hazards are addressed as well, including avalanche, seismic and flood protection measures. Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 4 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Project Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.3.1 Location .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................ 6 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Squaw Valley |Alpine Meadows Base-To-Base Gondola Project Draft EIS/EIR 4.3-1 Wilderness SE Group & Ascent Environmental
    SE Group & Ascent Environmental Wilderness 4.3 WILDERNESS This section includes discussion of potential impacts of the proposed Base-to-Base Gondola project on the National Forest System-Granite Chief Wilderness (GCW), which is adjacent to the project area (i.e., the area generally encompassed by all three action alternatives). No construction, and therefore no direct effects, would occur on National Forest System (NFS) lands within the GCW. However, indirect impacts on its wilderness character and wilderness users could occur, as described below. This section additionally assesses impacts associated with a portion of privately owned land that was included within the area mapped by Congress as part of the GCW within the 1984 California Wilderness Act. For clarity, this section references the NFS lands within the GCW as “National Forest System-GCW” and refers to the privately owned land included within the congressionally mapped wilderness boundary as “private lands within the congressionally mapped GCW.” In accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, federally-managed Wilderness areas, like the National Forest System-GCW, are defined as follows: (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without
    [Show full text]
  • Bear Creek Watershed Assessment Report
    BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Prepared by: PO Box 8568 Truckee, California 96162 February 16, 2018 And Dr. Susan Lindstrom, PhD BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA February 16, 2018 A REPORT PREPARED FOR: Truckee River Watershed Council PO Box 8568 Truckee, California 96161 (530) 550-8760 www.truckeeriverwc.org by Brian Hastings Balance Hydrologics Geomorphologist Matt Wacker HT Harvey and Associates Restoration Ecologist Reviewed by: David Shaw Balance Hydrologics Principal Hydrologist © 2018 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Project Assignment: 217121 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 ~ Berkeley, California 94710-2251 ~ (510) 704-1000 ~ [email protected] Balance Hydrologics, Inc. i BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA < This page intentionally left blank > ii Balance Hydrologics, Inc. BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives 1 1.2 Structure of This Report 4 1.3 Acknowledgments 4 1.4 Work Conducted 5 2 BACKGROUND 6 2.1 Truckee River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 6 2.2 Water Resource Regulations Specific to Bear Creek 7 3 WATERSHED SETTING 9 3.1 Watershed Geology 13 3.1.1 Bedrock Geology and Structure 17 3.1.2 Glaciation 18 3.2 Hydrologic Soil Groups 19 3.3 Hydrology and Climate 24 3.3.1 Hydrology 24 3.3.2 Climate 24 3.3.3 Climate Variability: Wet and Dry Periods 24 3.3.4 Climate Change 33 3.4 Bear Creek Water Quality 33 3.4.1 Review of Available Water Quality Data 33 3.5 Sediment Transport 39 3.6 Biological Resources 40 3.6.1 Land Cover and Vegetation Communities 40 3.6.2 Invasive Species 53 3.6.3 Wildfire 53 3.6.4 General Wildlife 57 3.6.5 Special-Status Species 59 3.7 Disturbance History 74 3.7.1 Livestock Grazing 74 3.7.2 Logging 74 3.7.3 Roads and Ski Area Development 76 4 WATERSHED CONDITION 81 4.1 Stream, Riparian, and Meadow Corridor Assessment 81 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • French Meadows Forest Restoration Project February 2019
    French Meadows Forest Restoration Project February 2019 The 28,000-acre French Meadows Forest Restoration Project is using a collaborative, all-lands approach to restore forest health and resilience and reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire in the headwaters of the Middle Fork of the American River, a critical municipal watershed located on the Tahoe National Forest in California’s Sierra Nevada. The Project was developed by a diverse partnership, including the U.S. Forest Service, which manages most of the land within the project area; Placer County Water Agency, which manages two reservoirs downstream of the project for municipal water and hydropower; The Nature Conservancy, one of the world’s largest conservation organizations; the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, a state agency and funder; Placer County, a business partner in the hydropower project; the American River Conservancy, an adjacent private landowner; and the Sierra Nevada Research Institute at UC Merced. The French Meadows Project aims to accelerate ecologically-based forest and watershed restoration on the Tahoe National Forest through a shared stewardship approach involving: • Collaborative Management. The partners co-led development of the project and hired consultants to undertake planning and environmental analysis, substantially reducing the planning time for similar Forest Service projects. • Diverse Fundraising. The partners raised funds from a wide variety of federal, state, local, and private sources, including significant investment from downstream water beneficiaries like the water utility and private beverage companies. • Innovative Project Implementation. Placer County will hire contractors to implement thinning and other mechanical treatments, under a Master Stewardship Agreement with the Forest Service. The Nature Conservancy and the Forest Service will work together to develop and implement a prescribed burn plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project Citation: Edelson, David and Hertslet, Angel
    Restoring Forests through Partnership: Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project Citation: Edelson, David and Hertslet, Angel. 2019. Restoring Forests through Partnership: Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project. Unpublished report of The Nature Conservancy, Placer County Water Agency, Sierra Nevada Conservancy, Placer County, American River Conservancy, and Sierra Nevada Research Institute at the University of California, Merced. San Francisco, California. 16 pp. May 2019 Contributors: This paper benefitted from thorough review, edits and contributions from Ed Smith, Andy Fecko, Marie Davis, Brett Storey, Andy Fristensky, Chris Dallas, Roger Bales, Elena DeLacy, Eli Ilano, Michael Woodbridge, Victor Lyon, Karen Walden, Laurie Perrot, Robert Galiano, Pat Farrell, Karen Quidichay, Susan Dewar, Sara Reese and Janelle Nolan. David Edelson, The Nature Conservancy, [email protected] Angel Hertslet, The Nature Conservancy, [email protected] Andy Fecko, Placer County Water Agency, [email protected] Andy Fristensky, Sierra Nevada Conservancy, [email protected] Brett Storey, Placer County, [email protected] Elena DeLacy, American River Conservancy, [email protected] Roger Bales, Sierra Nevada Research Institute, [email protected] Acknowledgments: The Nature Conservancy appreciates the generous support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Northern Sierra Partnership, and contributors to TNC’s Sierra Forest and Water Challenge, which helped make this report possible. COVER: The French Meadows Project area, including the French Meadows Reservoir. © David Edelson/TNC Restoring Forests through Partnership: Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project ealthy forests provide important benefits to people California’s northern Sierra Nevada (see map). The Project and nature, including clean water, clean air, carbon area includes 27,623 acres, of which 22,152 acres are national Hstorage, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C: Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness
    Appendices for the FEIS Appendix C: Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness Introduction This document describes the process used to evaluate the wilderness potential of areas on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU). The March 2009 inventory conducted according to Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70, 2007 is the basis for this evaluation. The LTBMU was evaluated to determine landscape areas that exhibited inherent basic wilderness qualities such the degree of naturalness and undeveloped character. In addition to the wilderness qualities an area might possess, the area must also provide opportunities and experiences that are dependent on and enhanced by a wilderness environment and area boundaries that could be managed as wilderness. It was determined that areas adjacent to existing wilderness and existing Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) were areas were most likely to have the characteristics described above. Other areas around the basin exhibited some of the required characteristics but not enough to be qualified for a congressional wilderness designation. Six areas were identified and evaluated. The analysis is based on GIS mapping of existing wilderness and inventoried roadless area polygon data, adjusted based on local knowledge. Three tests were used—capability, availability, and need—to determine suitability as described in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70, 2007. In addition to the inherent wilderness qualities an area might possess, the area must provide opportunities and experiences that are dependent on and enhanced by a wilderness environment. The area and boundaries must allow the area to be managed as wilderness. Capability is defined as the degree to which the area contains the basic characteristics that make it suitable for wilderness designation without regard to its availability for or need as wilderness.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Existing Resources
    M I dd L E F O R K 80 A M E R I C A N FRENCH MEADOWS RESER VOIR HELL HOLE R LAKE RESER IVERTAHOE PROJECT VOIR MIDDLE FORK INTERBAY RALSTON AFTERBAY FORESTHILL RUBICON 49 MIDDLE FORK RIVER AMERICAN RIVER 80 AUBURN 50 The Middle Fork 49 River watershed rests in the heartAmerican of the Sierra Nevada, between the Sacramento V Lake alley to the west and Tahoe to the east. S FOLSOM u p p RESER o r t VOIR i n g D SD E o Existing c u Relevant S m u p e p n Comprehensive o t r E Plans & t i n g Resource D SD F o Resources Mgmt. Plans HE MFP IS SITUATED IN THE FOOTHILLS AND c u Existing m e n Resource mountainous uplands of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada t S F u p Information p WatershedT (totaling 616 square miles) is characterized by hot, dry range, northeast of Auburn, California. The surrounding o r Report t i n g summers and mild, wet winters, with most of the precipitation falling D SD G o c S u 00/00 between October and March. Precipitation primarily falls as rain in the u m p p e n Technical o t r lower elevations and snow at elevations greater than 5,000 feet above t G i Study Plans n g D SD J mean sea level (msl). Elevations higher than about 6,000 feet msl are & Reports o c u Confi dential m e typically covered by snow until May.
    [Show full text]
  • Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement – September 2008 Chapter 3: Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences – 3.08
    Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement – September 2008 Chapter 3: Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences – 3.08. Transportation 3.08. Transportation _____________________________________ Affected Environment Introduction This section of the environmental analysis examines the extent to which alternatives respond to transportation facilities direction established in the Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The Forest Plan transportation facilities direction was established under the implementing regulations of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Forest Roads and Trails Act (FRTA). The National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) consists of roads, trails, airfields, and areas. The NFTS provides for protection, development, management, and utilization of resources on the National Forests. There are other roads and trails existing on the Forest that are not currently part of the NFTS. Transportation facilities considered in this analysis include roads and trails that are suitable for motor vehicle use. This analysis considers changes needed to the NFTS to meet the purpose and need of this analysis. Decisions regarding changes to the transportation facilities must consider: 1) providing for adequate public safety, and 2) providing adequate maintenance of the roads and trails that will be designated for public use. The analysis in this section primarily focuses on these two aspects of the NFTS. Background A majority of national forest visitors travel on national forest system roads. Roads have opened the Tahoe National Forest to millions of national and international visitors. Forest roads are also an integral part of the transportation system for rural counties. They provide access for research, fish and wildlife habitat management, grazing, timber harvesting, fire protection, mining, insect and disease control, and private land use.
    [Show full text]
  • NORTHEAST FIRE EDGE Eek NORTHEAST FIRE EDGE Burton Creek State Park !( Oak Flat
    !( r i v e T N R r o u A m n c r a k t h k e r i c e !( r e !( F o !( Wildcat Canyon R Painted Rock New York Canyon iv W e N kAm Rive aben ek r orth For erican r !( a Cre Sailor Canyon !( Squaw Valley D o eek lla t Cr r C bo r al SQ e T UA ek W Y RD V ALLE n o !( y Lyon Peak ek n Cre a ief C W Ch k il r dc Sq k o a uaw Cree Y t C a w KING FIRE n e KING FIREy o N n Antone Meadows !( Walker Mine !( Lost Emigrant Mine !( !( Bear Trap Cabin !( Needle Peak !( Trinidad Mine Granite Chief !( Bu !( rton Cr NORTHEAST FIRE EDGE eek NORTHEAST FIRE EDGE Burton Creek State Park !( Oak Flat W i l dc at C re !( Squaw Valley State Reservation Area ek 2014-09-22 14:40:29 !( Squaw Valley Ski Area 2014-09-22 14:40:29 !( Watson Monument Emigrant Pass Marker D ek Fork of the Cre R Middle American River Bea r S ·|}þ G !( 28 IN R Deer Park Ski Area P S Deadman Flat !( !( A Talbot Campground D !( O !( Sailor Canyon Mine Sailor Meadow S !( Deer Park !( Bear Creek Campground KT-22 !( X-Ray Mine !( !( D !( R Powder Bowl Ski Area Placer Queen Mine S W !( Squaw Peak O D A ·|}þ E 89 !( M E Alpine Meadows N !( PI AL Fir Crags !( Tahoe State Park !( Thunder Cliff !( !( Tahoe City Post Office Tahoe Lake Elementary School !( Tahoe City Branch Auburn-Placer County Library Five Lakes Creek Handy Camp !( !( Alpine Meadows !( Tahoe City Tahoe City Golf Course Whi !( sky C ree k n !( Tahoe City Public Beach Sailor Flat yo !( an n C nca D Du Fanny Bridge R !( L !( !( L !( Twin Crags I !( Lake Tahoe Dam H Sunflower Hill T S FO R E Whisky Creek Camp !( Rampart !( Truckee River
    [Show full text]
  • Rationale and Supporting Information Lake Tahoe West Landscape Restoration Strategy
    Rationale and Supporting Information Lake Tahoe West Landscape Restoration Strategy Lake Tahoe West Restoration Partnership Interagency Design Team V1.0 August 28, 2020 Lake Tahoe West – Landscape Restoration Strategy August 2020 Rationale and Supporting Information Lake Tahoe West Landscape Restoration Strategy The Lake Tahoe West Landscape Restoration Strategy (Strategy) provides a collaborative framework to restore 59,000 acres of federal, state, local, and private lands on the west shore of Lake Tahoe. The Strategy was developed by the Lake Tahoe West Restoration Partnership, a collaborative effort to increase the resilience of the forests, watersheds, recreational opportunities, and communities across the landscape. The Strategy comprises six overarching Goals, 27 Objectives, and a set of Strategy and Prioritization Guidelines intended to move the Lake Tahoe West landscape toward a resilient condition over a 20-year implementation period. This supplemental document provides supporting information to explain how the Objectives and some of the Strategy and Prioritization Guidelines in the Landscape Restoration Strategy were derived. These elements were primarily based on the findings of the Lake Tahoe West Landscape Resilience Assessment (LRA), professional expertise of Lake Tahoe West team members, landscape and fine-scale modeling conducted as part of the effort to develop the Strategy, and analysis of key indicators of landscape resilience using an Ecosystem Management Decision Support tool. Managers will also use future research and literature as it becomes available to inform ongoing implementation of the Strategy. Members of the Lake Tahoe West Interagency Design Team, representing partner agencies in Lake Tahoe West, developed this document. Contents Goal 1 – Forests recover from fire, drought, and insect and disease outbreaks .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Environment Study
    Dollar Creek Shared-Use Trail Natural Environment Study Placer County, CA June 2012 Natural Environment Study Dollar Creek Shared Use Trail Placer County, CA June, 2012 Placer County, CA North Tahoe Public Utility District California Tahoe Conservancy Prepared By: Hauge Brueck Associates 310 Dorla Court, Ste. 209 Zephyr Cove, NV 89448 ESA 2600 Capitol Ave., Ste. 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 916.564.4500 www.esassoc.com Recommended for Approval By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________ Approved By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________ Table of Contents Table of Contents Cover Sheet i Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... iii! List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... vii! List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... viii! List of Abbreviated Terms ........................................................................................................ ix! Chapter 1.! Introduction .................................................................................................... 1! 1.1.! Project History ............................................................................................................ 1! 1.2.! Project Description ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • American River Ranger District
    Camping & Picnicking American River Ranger District Tahoe National Forest Welcome Campground Time Limitations Camping is limited to fourteen days per year within Welcome to the American River Ranger District of each campground, per individual or family group. Tahoe National Forest. These public lands are dedi- cated to the wise use and production of timber, water, Camping outside developed campgrounds is limited grazing areas, wildlife, and recreational opportuni- to fourteen days per Ranger District per year. ties. The Forest name, taken from the famed Lake Tahoe, is probably from a Washoe Indian word Seasons meaning “Big Water”. Generally, the main camping season in the Tahoe Na- The Tahoe National Forest extends from Lake Tahoe tional Forest is from Memorial Day through Labor to north of the prominent Sierra Buttes. Several high- Day. Although some campgrounds open earlier and ways, including Interstate 80; State Highways 20, 49, remain open after the regular season, water systems 89, and 267; and Forest roads, provide excellent ac- may be shut down and garbage collection discontin- cess to most of the Forest. ued. Snow may inhibit vehicle access to campgrounds during the winter, and care must be tak- Elevations within the Forest vary from about 1500 en to park off roadways where snow removal equip- feet in the foothills to over 9000 feet at the Sierra ment operates. Contact your local Forest Service of- Crest. fice for snow and parking conditions. Fishermen and hunters use the campgrounds in sea- son. Fishermen frequent the many rivers, streams, Trailers lakes, and reservoirs on the Forest in the quest for Many campgrounds will accommodate travel trailers rainbow, German brown, and eastern brook trout.
    [Show full text]