Tahoe National Forest

The Tahoe National Forest released its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Draft Record of Decision on February 6, 2019, as a result of a long, legally-mandated process, including public input, to determine where Over-Snow Vehicles (OSVs) will be allowed on public lands and which areas will be protected for non-motorized activity. As part of the first cohort of five Northern California forests to undergo winter travel planning under the 2015 OSV Rule, the Tahoe expects to release its final plan and Record of Decision in summer 2021. We are anxious to see specific solutions to some or all of our objections below (eg. Castle Peak) in the final plan.

For draft maps, GIS files and documents click links below:

GIS Files
FEIS Volume I (PDF 18858kb)
FEIS Volume II (PDF 3911kb)
FEIS Volume III (PDF 2518kb)
FEIS Map Package 1 (PDF 13779kb)
FEIS Map Package 2 (PDF 9060kb)

Background: Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The agency published its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on April 13, 2018 (see details below), initiating a public comment period that closed on May 29, 2018.

See below for full joint comment letter (and map attachments) from Snowlands/Winter Wildlands Alliance.

OUR QUICK TAKE ON THE APRIL DRAFT PLAN: In general, we’re pleased with the depth of analysis the forest service has undertaken to arrive at these alternatives. The agency’s “preferred” alternative (Alternative 2) is a significant improvement over existing management and generally takes into consideration legal requirements to minimize user conflict and impacts to wildlife and resources, while still allowing for quality motorized experiences in discrete zones across the forest.

HOWEVER, as backcountry skiers and riders, Nordic skiers, snowshoers, climbers and winter mountaineers, we do have three major areas of concern and one recommendation:

Castle Peak/Coon Canyon: The preferred alternative leaves the popular and iconic backcountry ski and snowboard zones on the northeast face of Castle Peak open to snowmobiles. To minimize user conflict, we would like to see this high-value area protected for non-motorized use as described in Alternative 3 (or by a specific compromise between Alternatives 2 and 3).
Sardine Lakes/Sierra Buttes: The preferred alternative leaves backcountry ski and snowboard zones on the north side of Sierra Buttes open to snowmobiles, and fails to protect the popular Nordic touring area in the Sardine Lakes basin off of the Gold Lake Highway. To minimize conflict, we believe this high-value area should be protected for non-motorized use by modifying the preferred alternative so that it does not designate the Sardine Lakes basin (including Sierra Buttes) and the Saxonia Lake basin for OSV use.
Loch Leven Lakes: The preferred alternative protects most of this popular ski touring zone, but we would like to see the non-motorized boundary moved approximately ¼ mile further south to include Fisher Lake.
Pacific Crest Trail: The preferred alternative allows for OSV use right up to the tread of the Pacific Crest Trail, which fails to protect the Congressionally-mandated non-motorized character of the Pacific Crest Trail, does not comply with the PCT’s comprehensive plan, and fails to minimize conflict between snowmobilers and the growing number of non-motorized winter trail users. We suggest that the forest service incorporate a buffered PCT management scenario (with designated crossings) as described in Alternative 5 (“OSV use would not be designated in areas within the USFS Scenery Management System definition of Foreground for the Pacific Crest Trail”).
Collaborative Working Group: We recommend that a collaborative working group of stakeholders be convened during the final review period before publication of a Final Environmental Impact Statement to assist the forest service in finding workable compromises in these specific areas while still complying with all relevant federal rules, court orders and forest plan documents. To be successful, this working group must have professional, independent facilitation with clear sideboards, adequate representation from all relevant local and national stakeholder organizations, motorized and non-motorized, as well as forest service participation.

See below for Snowlands/Winter Wildlands Alliance joint comment letter, summaries of alternatives and links to the full DEIS and pdf maps. You can also explore the various alternatives and zones online using our interactive Outdoor Alliance Sierra Nevada Webmaps.

Snowmobiling Every Other Day in Lake Tahoe?

Since the Forest Service published a Proposed Action in late September that outlines a preliminary management plan for all types of backcountry winter recreation on public lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin, we’ve been hearing from all sides that their proposal is far from perfect.

Now, the Forest Service is asking for your input on how to make it better for everyone. Submit your comment directly to the Forest Service. The deadline for public comment on the Proposed Action for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit is December 9th.

At an open house for over-snow vehicle planning in Tahoe last week, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Forest Supervisor Jeff Marsolais said this is just the start of the process. Right now, we are consulting with our local partners in Tahoe—Snowlands Network and the Tahoe Backcountry Alliance. And as we write our comments in response to the Forest Service’s proposed action, we encourage you to do the same.

November 18, 2019/by Winter Wildlands

Action, Tahoe, Winter Travel Planning

How You Can Help Shape the Future of Winter Recreation in Lake Tahoe

In late September, the Forest Service published a Proposed Action for Over-Snow Vehicle Planning that outlines a preliminary vision for all types of winter recreation in the Lake Tahoe Basin. This document represents one step in a much larger process, and the public can comment until November 19.

October 24, 2019/by Dpage

Tahoe OSV DEIS, Volume I (PDF 4854kb)
Tahoe OSV DEIS, Volume II (PDF 2103kb)
Map Package 1 of 2 (PDF 21246kb)
- Alternative 1: Existing Condition (No Action)
  - 636,002 acres open to OSV use
  - 265 miles of OSV trails
  - No designated crossings on PCT
  - No minimum snow depth for cross-country OSV travel
- Alternative 2: Modified Proposed Action
  - 406,895 acres open to OSV use
  - 325 miles of OSV trails
  - 12″ minimum snow depth for cross-country OSV travel
  - 22 designated crossings on PCT
- Alternative 3: “Non-motorized” Alternative
  - 275,972 acres open to OSV use
  - 280 miles of OSV trails
  - 3 designated crossings on PCT
  - 18″ minimum snow depth for cross-country OSV travel
Map Package 2 of 2 (PDF 15476kb)
- Alternative 4: “Motorized” Alternative
  - 641,105 acres open to OSV use
  - 287 miles of OSV trails
  - 21 designated crossings on PCT
  - 12″ minimum snow depth for cross-country OSV travel
- Alternative 5: “Wildlife, Natural Resources and Non-Motorized” Alternative
  - 300,146 acres open to OSV use
  - 257 miles of OSV trails
  - OSV use limited to designated trails within 1 mile of trailheads
  - 10 designated crossings on PCT
  - 24″ minimum snow depth for cross-country OSV travel

Tahoe NF proposed over-snow vehicle maps, Alternatives 1-3

Tahoe NF purposed over-snow vehicle maps, Alternatives 4-5

Explore Our Sierra Nevada OSV Map Tool

Visit the Forest Service Tahoe Project Webpage

Photo by Ming Poon.

Background

Winter travel planning is the legal process by which each national forest in the country is required, with public input, to designate specific areas where snowmobiles and other motorized over-snow vehicles (OSVs) are and are not allowed to travel. This process is currently underway on six national forests in California — the first forests in the nation to undergo this kind of planning.

Based on a public scoping process that ended in April 2015, the Tahoe National Forest has been working on developing and analyzing its winter travel management alternatives. During the scoping period, Winter Wildlands Alliance and Snowlands Network submitted a “Skiers Alternative” that the Tahoe will analyze alongside other Alternatives. Click here for our proposed map as submitted.