Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Congressional research reportAug 6, 2015

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Overview of Management and Restoration

Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

name redacted

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

name redacted

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

August 6, 2015

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R43224

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Summary

The Lake Tahoe Basin (Tahoe Basin) straddles the California-Nevada border and includes Lake

Tahoe. The basin is regarded for its beauty, wildlife diversity, clear waters, and recreation.

Logging and mining stimulated development in the Tahoe Basin beginning in the 1850s.

Development, especially urban development, has affected the basin’s ecosystem, leading to a

decline in the water quality of Lake Tahoe, tree mortality, heightened wildfire risk, and population

declines in fish and wildlife species.

Restoration of the Tahoe Basin began in 1969 under the Bi-State Compact between California and

Nevada. The compact authorized the creation of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA).

TRPA oversees restoration efforts in the Tahoe Basin and monitors environmental progress,

among other things. TRPA also created the Regional Plan, which is a framework for restoring the

basin. The plan has specific goals for restoration and focuses on improving water quality,

decreasing the number of invasive species, maintaining populations and habitats of sensitive and

listed species, and reducing wildfire risk in the surrounding forests. In 2013, the compact was

amended by both states to specify that the Regional Plan should reflect changing economic

conditions and the economic effect of regulation on commerce. The plan is implemented and

funded by state, federal, local, and private stakeholders.

The federal government is involved in the restoration of the Tahoe Basin due to its land holdings

and funding for restoration. Federal restoration efforts are authorized under the Lake Tahoe

Restoration Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-506) and the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act

(SNPLMA; P.L. 105-263). Federal agencies coordinate state restoration efforts with other

stakeholders through the Lake Tahoe Federal Interagency Partnership. In total, various entities

have contributed more than $1.7 billion to fund 600 projects since 1997. This includes

approximately $576.3 million in federal funds. Stakeholders have requested an additional $2.5

billion to fund an additional 700 projects from 2008 to 2018. The federal government has been

asked to contribute $645 million of this newly planned spending.

Views on the progress of restoration in the basin have been mixed. Some local groups question

whether funds have been spent efficiently, whereas others contend that progress has been

significant in restoring the Tahoe Basin ecosystem. Some groups, such as the Sierra Club and the

Friends of the West Shore, have raised concerns that environmental standards in the recent update

to the Regional Plan are ineffective and that newly permitted development will degrade water

quality in the basin. Others, such as the TRPA, contend that the updated plan adequately

addresses issues of sustainable development and economic growth, and that the economic wellbeing of the region is necessary for long-term ecosystem restoration. Sufficient funding for

restoration efforts is another issue. This issue may be exacerbated as mandatory federal funding

provided under SNPLMA ended in 2012.

Legislation attempting to address some of these restoration issues has been introduced in the

current and previous Congresses. For example, S. 1724 would reauthorize $415 million for

restoration and invasive species and forest management programs for 10 fiscal years from the

year enacted. One issue for Congress is whether there needs to be oversight to monitor the

progress of restoration and to provide input on current controversies concerning the balance

between development and the environment in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Background on Lake Tahoe Basin ................................................................................................... 3

Environmental Concerns in Tahoe Basin .................................................................................. 4

Water Pollution in Lake Tahoe ............................................................................................ 4

Wildfires ............................................................................................................................. 6

Invasive Species .................................................................................................................. 6

Land Use ............................................................................................................................. 8

Restoration of Lake Tahoe ............................................................................................................... 8

Compact and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ..................................................................... 10

The Regional Plan .................................................................................................................... 11

Environmental Improvement Program .................................................................................... 12

Federal Involvement in the EIP ........................................................................................ 13

Funding the EIP ................................................................................................................ 14

Other Federal Involvement ..................................................................................................... 15

Measuring the Progress of Restoration ................................................................................... 16

Future Restoration Efforts ....................................................................................................... 18

Issues for Congress ................................................................................................................. 19

Funding ............................................................................................................................. 20

Views on Progress ............................................................................................................. 21

Balancing Restoration and the Economy .......................................................................... 23

Climate Change................................................................................................................. 24

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 25

Figures

Figure 1. Lake Tahoe Map............................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Clarity Levels Since 1968 ................................................................................................ 5

Figure 3. Organizational Scheme of Lake Tahoe Restoration ......................................................... 9

Figure 4. Regional Plan Process Flow Chart ................................................................................. 12

Tables

Table 1. Federal Funding of Restoration to Agencies in the Lake Tahoe Federal

Interagency Partnership, FY2010-2015 ..................................................................................... 15

Appendixes

Appendix. Chronology of Lake Tahoe Basin ................................................................................ 27

Contacts

Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 29

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 29

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Introduction

The Lake Tahoe Basin (Tahoe Basin) extends across California and Nevada, bordered by the

Sierra Nevada Mountains on the west and the Carson Range on the east (see Figure 1). Lake

Tahoe lies in the center of the basin and receives flows of melting water from snow caps of the

surrounding mountain peaks. The Tahoe Basin contains wetlands, swamps, deepwater habitats,

aspen stands, conifer forests, and meadows that harbor more than 1,300 species of plants and

animals.1 Tahoe Basin’s natural environment contributes to the development of the area’s $5

billion economy.2 Part of this contribution is through recreation: more than 3 million people visit

Tahoe annually to ski, hike, bike, fish, and gamble, among other activities.

Development in the Tahoe Basin has affected its ecosystem. In the late 1800s, more than 60% of

the basin’s forests were clear-cut.3 Continued logging and clear-cutting have led to forest stands

that are highly susceptible to drought, disease, insects, and fire.4 In addition, water clarity in Lake

Tahoe has declined by more than a third since 1967 due primarily to agricultural and urban

runoff.5 Lake Tahoe also is increasingly threatened by aquatic invasive species (AIS), which

outcompete many of the native species in the lake.

Environmental problems in the Tahoe Basin have led to federal, state, local, and private

investments in ecosystem restoration. The federal and state governments began to acquire land in

the Tahoe Basin in 1969 to protect, maintain, and restore the ecology of the area. Public

acquisition and protection of land in the Tahoe Basin continues today. Approximately 87% of the

Tahoe Basin is publicly owned. The largest shareholder is the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA), which owns 78% (154,000 acres and 508 miles of roads) of the area surrounding the

lake.6 U.S. Forest Service (FS), as part of USDA, maintains forests, roads, and trails on its federal

lands in the Tahoe Basin. In addition to land acquisition, resources also have been dedicated for

restoration efforts. Nearly 445 restoration projects have been completed in the Tahoe Basin, and

another 234 are ongoing since 1997. As of December 2013, total funding for restoration was

$1.74 billion, of which $576.3 million was from the federal government.7

North Lake Tahoe Visitors’ Bureau, “Environment: Tahoe Forest and Wildlife,” at http://www.gotahoenorth.com/

about-tahoe/environment/forest-and-wildlife.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), Environmental Improvement Program Highlights and Accomplishment,

August 2011, at http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/EIP_4PG_2011_FNL.pdf. (Hereinafter TRPA EIP

Highlights.)

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region and the Nevada Division of Environmental

Protection, Final Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load, Carson City, NV, August 2011. p. 2-2. (Hereinafter Water

Board and NDEP TMDL.)

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Trees in Transition, at

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ltbmu/learning/?cid=stelprdb5109573. (Hereinafter referred to as Trees in Transition.)

Water clarity is measured by lowering a Secchi disk into the water to the depth at which it is no longer visible. Water

Board and NDEP TMDL, p. 4-1.

Holdings overseen by USDA Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Website is at http://www.fs.usda.gov/ltbmu.

TRPA, Environmental Improvement Program, August 2014, August 7, 2014, at http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/

uploads/EIP_Summit2014_ALL_8-7-14_FINAL.pdf. (Hereinafter referred to as EIP 2014.)

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Figure 1. Lake Tahoe Map

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lake Tahoe Region Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan, CaliforniaNevada. September 2009, at http://anstaskforce.gov/State%20Plans/

Lake_Tahoe_Region_AIS_Management_Plan.pdf.

There have been multiple federal programs to improve environmental and economic health in the

Tahoe Basin. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2000 (LTRA; P.L. 106-506) states that there is a

federal responsibility to restore environmental health to the basin. In addition, under Executive

Order 13057 (“Federal Actions in the Lake Tahoe Region”), the Federal Interagency Partnership

(FIP)—which includes representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of the Interior

(DOI), and USDA—is directed to help states preserve and maintain the environmental and

economic viability of the area through funding, leadership, stewardship, and collaboration.8

Congress has played a role in providing funding for federal collaboration in the basin in the past.

In 2000, Congress passed the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (LTRA; P.L. 106-506), which

authorized $300 million for restoration in Lake Tahoe for 10 years. These funds were

appropriated in 2003 as part of a series of amendments to the Southern Nevada Public Lands

See Executive Order 13057, “Federal Actions in the Lake Tahoe Region,” 62 Federal Register 41249, August 1,

1997, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1997-08-01/pdf/97-20497.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Management Act (SNPLMA; P.L. 105-263).9 Other restoration funding has been provided

through agency base appropriations. S. 1724, a bill to reauthorize funding for restoration

activities, has been introduced in the 114th Congress.

Background on Lake Tahoe Basin

The Tahoe Basin covers 505 square miles, or 323,200 acres, across the California-Nevada border.

Around three-fourths of the Tahoe Basin is in California and one-fourth is in Nevada.10 The Tahoe

Basin is best known for the clear, blue waters of Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe is one of the oldest and

purest lakes in the world. It also is the second-deepest lake in the country.11 EPA has designated

Lake Tahoe an Outstanding National Resource Water (ONRW),12 a title reserved for waters with

exceptional recreational or ecological significance. All waters designated as an ONRW receive

special protection against degradation under both state water quality standards and the Clean

Water Act (CWA; P.L. 92-500).13 Lake Tahoe covers 191 square miles of the basin and holds

around 39 trillion gallons of fresh water. Around 212 billion gallons of fresh water enter the lake

each year from its 63 tributaries (65%) and direct precipitation (35%).14 Water exits either

through evaporation or through the Truckee River, the only tributary flowing out of the lake. The

flow of water from the lake into this river is regulated by the Lake Tahoe Dam. 15

The Tahoe Basin is made up of several ecological habitats, including wetlands, meadows, aspen

stands, conifer forests, deciduous riparian lands, shrub land, swamps, deepwater aquatic habitat,

marshes, and fens (peat-forming wetlands).16 The Tahoe Basin also serves as a stop along the

Pacific Flyway, which many endangered waterfowl use during migration. An estimated 55 animal

species and 43 plants and fungi are state (species of special interest or sensitive species) or

federally listed (endangered or threatened).17 Multiple protected areas and management plans

have been implemented around the Tahoe Basin to address federally listed species.18

Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA; P.L. 105-263) directs revenue from Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) land sales in Carson County (which includes Las Vegas) toward the general education fund (5%

of revenue), the Southern Nevada Water Authority (10%), and environmental programs chosen at the discretion of the

Secretary of the Interior (85%). This funding can be made available for Lake Tahoe Restoration Projects and for

Hazardous Fuels Reduction and Wildfire Prevention (which apply to the Tahoe Basin forests), among other programs.

See U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM, “Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA),” at

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/content/nv/en/snplma.html.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), “Lake Tahoe Data Clearinghouse,” December 2012, at http://tahoe.usgs.gov/.

Lake Tahoe is 1 of the 20 oldest lakes in the world. See http://terc.ucdavis.edu/ed-outreach/documents/docenttraining/4science-research.pdf.

Lake Tahoe was given this designation in 1980. It is one of only three water bodies in the western United States to be

considered an Outstanding National Resource Water (ONRW). Water Board and NDEP TMDL, p.1-1.

ONRW is given the highest level of protection under tier 3 of the state’s anti-degradation policy. Water quality must

be “maintained and protected.” Proposed new point sources and expansion of existing point sources are prohibited (this

applies to any point sources upstream that will have adverse impacts on the ONRW). For more, see the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Water Quality Standards Handbook, Chapter 4, Section 7 (40 C.F.R.

131.12(a)(3), at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/chapter04.cfm#section5.

USGS, “Lake Tahoe Data Clearinghouse,” December 2012, at http://tahoe.usgs.gov/.

See Bureau of Reclamation, “Lake Tahoe Dam,” at http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Facility.jsp?fac_Name=

Lake+Tahoe+Dam&groupName=Overview.

TRPA, 2011 Threshold Evaluation Report, Final Draft, December 12, 2012, at http://www.trpa.org/regional-plan/

threshold-evaluation/. (Hereinafter known as TRPA Threshold Evaluation.)

Calculated from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) website (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/) and USDA Rare

Plant and Fungi Survey 2010. Federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543)

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Environmental Concerns in Tahoe Basin

There are four primary environmental concerns in the Tahoe Basin: water pollution, drought,

invasive species, and land use. These issues are interconnected and, in some cases, influence one

another. This section provides brief background on and discusses these environmental concerns.

Water Pollution in Lake Tahoe

Background

Lake Tahoe is classified as an ultra-oligotrophic lake, which is characterized by very low levels of

nutrients, specifically phosphorous and nitrogen.19 Ultra-oligotrophic lakes have low algal

production, which often results in clear water with high levels of oxygen and water quality

suitable for drinking.20 The high levels of oxygen in ultra-oligotrophic lakes can support many

fish species and create a complex underwater ecosystem. Although Lake Tahoe still meets the

criteria of ultra-oligotrophic, concerns exist about the future trophic status due to water pollution

and runoff.21

Over time, ultra-oligotrophic lakes generally are expected to become less oligotrophic.

Eutrophication (resulting from excessive amounts of nutrients) is a slow, natural part of lake

aging that occurs from natural buildup of dead and decaying organisms. 22 However,

eutrophication in Lake Tahoe has been accelerated, in part, by human activities, such as urban

runoff, fertilizer use, car exhaust, and introduced species.23 Eutrophication leads to increased algal

productivity and loss of water quality, which can lead to fish kills and odor issues.24

Concerns

Lake Tahoe is considered an impaired water body under CWA due to marked decline in the

quality and clarity of the water. The water quality of Lake Tahoe has been declining since the

1960s. Water clarity is used as a proxy of the lake’s water quality.25 Lake Tahoe has lost around

33% of its clarity since 1968 due to fine particles, phosphorous, and nitrogen entering the water.

As shown in Figure 2, the clarity was measured to be 102 feet in 1968; by 2013, the clarity had

decreased to 70.1 feet. It increased to 77.8 feet in 2014.26 The average water clarity from 2005 to

(...continued)

include the Lahontan cutthroat trout, mountain beaver, mountain yellow-legged frog, and red-legged frog.

For example, see FWS’s documents and plans concerning the Lahontan cutthroat trout at http://ecos.fws.gov/

speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E00Y.

Water Board and NDEP TMDL, p. 5-7.

Water on the Web, “Understanding: Lake Ecology Primer,” at http://www.waterontheweb.org/under/lakeecology/

lakeecology.pdf.

See Robert Coats, Joaquim Perez-Losada, and Geoffrey Schladow et al., “The Warming of Lake Tahoe,” Climate

Change, vol. 76 (2006), pp. 121-148.

EPA, National Lakes Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation’s Lakes, EPA 841-R-09-001, April 2010, at

http://www.epa.gov/owow/LAKES/lakessurvey/pdf/nla_chapter5.pdf.

UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center, Tahoe: State of the Lake Report 2014, Incline Village, NV, at

http://terc.ucdavis.edu/stateofthelake/. (Hereinafter known as TERC State of the Lake 2014.)

EPA, National Lakes Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation’s Lakes, EPA 841-R-09-001, April 2010.

Clarity readings in Lake Tahoe began in 1962.

TRPA, “Lake Tahoe water clarity in 2014 the best in more than a decade,” press release, April 9, 2015, at

http://www.trpa.org/lake-tahoe-water-clarity-in-2014-the-best-in-more-than-a-decade-2/.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

2014 was 70.4 feet. Fine particles and phosphorous enter the lake mainly through runoff from

urban and nonurban watersheds; nitrogen enters the lake mainly thorough atmospheric

deposition.27

Figure 2. Clarity Levels Since 1968

Source: Tahoe Environmental Research Center, 2014 Tahoe Clarity Record, released April 2015.

The designation of Lake Tahoe as an impaired water body requires that a total maximum daily

load (TMDL) be established as part of a management plan to bring Lake Tahoe back into

compliance with CWA.28 The EPA approved the final TMDL for Lake Tahoe in 2011. The TMDL

addresses three main water pollutants: fine particles, nitrogen, and phosphorus.29 Fine particles in

the lake are the main contributor to clarity decline, with 67% of all particles coming from urban

runoff.30 The compliance standard for the lake is set at measured clarity of 97.4 feet.31 This

standard has never been reached since the adoption of the TMDL, and the EPA estimates that it

will take 65 years after implementation of TMDLs to reach compliance.32

UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center, Tahoe: State of the Lake Report 2015, Section 9.1, at

http://terc.ucdavis.edu/stateofthelake/. (Hereinafter known as TERC State of the Lake 2015.)

For more on CWA and total maximum daily load (TMDL) designation, see CRS Report R42752, Clean Water Act

and Pollutant Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), by (name redacted) .

Estimated fine particle, phosphorous, and nitrogen loads must be reduced by 65%, 35%, and 10%, respectively,

under the TMDL.

TERC State of the Lake 2015, Section 9.1

This standard was the average annual secchi depth from 1967 to 1971; TRPA, Lake Tahoe (208) Water Quality

Management Plan, Stateline, NV, June 19, 2013, at http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Final-U.S.-EPA-AdoptedLake-Tahoe-208-WQMP_2013.06.19.pdf.

Water Board and NDEP TMDL, p. ES-3.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Wildfires

Background

The forests in the Tahoe Basin originally were sparse, pine-dominated areas.33 However, many of

the pine stands were clear-cut at the end of the 19th century to provide timber for nearby mining

towns. Due to these past logging activities, the forests now are considered overly dense and fir

dominated.34 The current nutrient and moisture levels in the soil can support only one healthy tree

for every three trees that now grow.35 This high density contributes to tree disease, insect

infestation, and tree mortality. In addition, fir trees are not well-suited for drought. It is estimated

that a third of the forest in the Tahoe Basin has been killed from insects or drought.36 The number

of dead trees, altered composition of the forest, and density of trees contribute to portions of the

Tahoe Basin being considered extreme or very high wildfire hazard areas.37 Regional drought

conditions also contribute to increased wildfire risk in the Tahoe Basin.

Concerns

The current fuel load (or availability of combustible organic material) in Tahoe Basin forests has

created concern among land managers that any forest fire could be devastating to both the

environment and the surrounding communities. Although fire and regeneration are part of the

normal ecosystem cycle for many forests, some estimate that fires under current conditions could

have severe negative economic effects as well as environmental impacts. For example, in 2007, a

fire in the Tahoe Basin cost $11.7 million to control and resulted in a total final loss of

approximately $160 million.38 In addition, ash from wildfires and runoff from burnt lands can

negatively impact the lake’s water quality and destroy critical habitat for endangered and native

species.39

Invasive Species

Background

There are at least 30 established nonnative species in the Tahoe region. While there are terrestrial

invasive species, such as cheatgrass and other weeds, a majority of concerns focus on aquatic

invasive species (AIS). Current documented AIS in the lake include the Asian clam, the zebra

USDA, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Trees in Transition, at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ltbmu/learning/?

cid=stelprdb5109573. (Hereinafter referred to as Trees in Transition.)

Ibid.

Autumn Bernstein and Joan Clayburgh, Dangerous Development: Wildfire and Rural Sprawl in the Sierra Nevada,

Sierra Nevada Alliance, September 18, 2007,at http://sierranevadaalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/dangerousdevelopment.pdf.

Chris Carlson, ”Angora Fire Vegetation Monitoring Annual Progress Report,” Prepared for the U.S. Forest Service

(FS), October 2009, at http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5114459.pdf; California

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Angora Fire General Information, July 3, 2007, at

http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents_details_info?incident_id=184. There have been four fires since this time,

but the monetary costs for these fires have not been calculated.

TERC State of the Lake 2012, Section 6.11.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

mussel, Eurasian watermilfoil, curlyleaf pondweed, the largemouth bass, and the bluegill.40 These

aquatic weeds, clams, snails, and warm-water fish have been introduced into Lake Tahoe both

purposefully and accidently. These AIS have contributed to large shifts in the ecology of the lake.

Historically, there was only one native predatory fish in Lake Tahoe, the Lahontan cutthroat trout

(Oncorhynchus clarkiihenshawi).41 However, this native trout is no longer found in the lake due

to AIS and has been replaced by nonnative mackinaw and other lake trout. Similar declines and

losses of native minnows and crustaceans have been recorded, and some have attributed these

declines to AIS.42

Concerns

AIS can lead to water quality degradation; loss of native species and habitat; destruction of water

conveyance systems; and economic losses.43 Once established, invasive species can have

significant economic and environmental costs. The economic impact of new AIS introductions or

expansions of current AIS in Lake Tahoe is estimated to have a present value of $417.5 million

over a 50-year period.44 In addition, the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) is replacing native pea

clams and comprises almost half of the sediment-dwelling organisms in some areas.45 Asian clam

beds are breeding grounds for the green alga Zygnema, which increases the phosphorous levels in

the lakes, contributing to water quality decline.46 According to the National Invasive Species

Council, the most cost-effective way to fight invasive species is by preventing them from entering

the ecosystem.47 This philosophy is being applied to temper the concern that Quagga mussels may

be introduced from Lake Mead and established in Lake Tahoe. Prevention has become a large

focus for many agencies in the Tahoe region after the invasive Quagga mussel was found in

neighboring Lake Mead in 2007.48 Since 2008, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, in

conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), has been requiring inspections and

decontamination of all boats entering Lake Tahoe as a preventative measure. If Quagga mussels

enter Lake Tahoe, they could alter the food web, promote the growth of algae, clog water intake

pipes, and affect boats. In addition, efforts to eliminate the mussels from the lake likely would

involve the use of rubber mats and other technology, which would be expensive and could lead to

residual harm of the lake’s ecosystem.

Lake Tahoe Aquatic Invasive Species Coordination Committee, Lake Tahoe Region Aquatic Invasive Species

Management Plan, California - Nevada, May 2014, at http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/

stelprd3812963.pdf.

Ibid.

Ibid. For example, predation by the introduced mysid shrimp has been attributed to the elimination or near

elimination of three small crustaceans.

Ibid.

Ibid. Economic impacts considered were losses to recreation value, tourism spending, property values, and increased

boat/pier maintenance.

TERC State of the Lake 2012. Section 6.5-6.7.

Ibid.

National Invasive Species Council, “Prevention,” at http://www.invasivespecies.gov/global/prevention/

prevention_index.html.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lake Tahoe Region Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan, California-Nevada.

September 2009, at http://anstaskforce.gov/State%20Plans/Lake_Tahoe_Region_AIS_Management_Plan.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Land Use

Background

There was substantial development in the Tahoe Basin as a result of the 1960 Winter Olympics in

Squaw Valley, and there was another period of substantial development in the 1970s.

Development has occurred throughout the Tahoe Basin, often on sensitive lands such as wetlands

or riparian areas. From 1981 to 1987, sequential long-term moratoriums were placed on

development due to degradation of the lake that had been associated with increased urban

development. The final moratorium was lifted with the passage of the Regional Plan for

restoration in 1987. The plan included a strict new approval process and oversight of new

development in the area (see section below on “The Regional Plan” for more details).

Development that occurred before the passage of the 1987 Regional Plan is termed legacy

construction.

Concerns

Many of the water quality, air quality, and habitat degradation issues facing the Tahoe Basin are

amplified by legacy construction. Due to restrictions on redevelopment and renovation after 1987,

a large portion of the development in the Tahoe Basin is aging and located in environmentally

sensitive areas. These older buildings often do not have best management practices (BMPs)

installed for controlling runoff, which can lead to increased urban runoff and watershed

deterioration. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency estimates that 90% of existing homes and

businesses in the Tahoe Basin were built prior to the 1987 Regional Plan and without

considerations for environmental design.49 In addition, the reliance on automobiles and road

development due to land-use patterns also may contribute to urban runoff, watershed

deterioration, and air quality issues, according to some.50

Restoration of Lake Tahoe

The restoration of Lake Tahoe is a complex issue due to the large number of stakeholder groups

involved. There are 50 federal, state, local, and private groups involved in current restoration

plans and projects (see Figure 3). Restoration in the Tahoe Basin is overseen by a regional entity,

the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), and guided by a comprehensive plan termed the

Regional Plan. The Regional Plan includes nine environmental thresholds; each threshold has

multiple specific, quantitative, outcome-based goals that the Tahoe Basin must attain to meet that

threshold. To help meet these standards, TRPA, in conjunction with the federal government,

created the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP). The EIP is a capital improvement

program and is updated every 10 years to reflect new environmental issues or concerns in the

Tahoe Basin. Within the EIP, there is a list of approved projects to be funded and implemented by

state, local, private, and federal partners over a five-year horizon. This five-year list serves as one

of the primary guiding documents for federal restoration efforts and collaboration in the basin.

Environmental design refers to planning and design features included in development to address environmental

surroundings. This includes reducing impervious land coverage (maintaining open space), installing water savings and

management technology, implementing energy efficiency measures, and using native plants and grasses for

landscaping. Email from the Tahoe Regional Planning Authority, July 6, 2015.

Although the air quality in the Tahoe Basin is no longer an issue, the basin was in non-attainment for carbon

monoxide (CO) in the 1990s from car exhaust. A CO maintenance plan was created in 1998 that required attainment to

be maintained for the next 20 years. Thus, Lake Tahoe will be monitored until 2018 for CO.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Federal agencies involved in restoration efforts in the Tahoe Basin include the Department of the

Interior’s (DOI’s) Bureau of Reclamation; the Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Federal

Highway Administration and Federal Transit Authority; USDA’s FS and Natural Resources

Conservation Service; the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) Army Corps of Engineers; and EPA.

Each state has one agency that leads collaboration efforts with federal and regional entities.

California state efforts are led by the California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC), housed in the

California Natural Resources Agency. Nevada state efforts are led by the Nevada Division of

State Lands, which is housed in the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

Local stakeholders include local governments, environmental organizations, tribes, and private

entities.51 In addition, state and federal entities, such as the University of California‒Davis

(through the Tahoe Environmental Research Center [TERC]), the University of Nevada‒Reno,

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Desert Research Institute (DRI), monitor

environmental indicators (e.g., air and water temperature, precipitation, snow melt, and clarity)

and provide scientific information that aims to inform restoration and management actions and

plans.

Figure 3. Organizational Scheme of Lake Tahoe Restoration

Source: Congressional Research Service, 2015.

These local stakeholders include county governments and their respective utility districts, the Washoe tribe, North

Lake Tahoe Resort Association, Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance, and the League to Save Lake Tahoe, among others. Full

list can be found on p. 29 of TRPA, Restoration in Progress: Environmental Improvement Program Update, 2010, at

http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/EIP_Report_Update.pdf. (Hereinafter known as TRPA EIP Update.)

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Compact and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

In 1969, Congress ratified a Bi-State Compact between California and Nevada.52 This Bi-State

Compact of 1969 marked the beginning of the current collaborative restoration process in the

Tahoe Basin. The main focus of this compact was to preserve and restore Lake Tahoe through

public acquisition of lands. Further, the compact authorized the creation of TRPA, which oversees

restoration efforts in the Tahoe Basin and manages the implementation of the Regional Plan.

TRPA also assesses overall environmental progress, among other things.

In December 1980, the 96th Congress amended the Bi-State Compact (P.L. 96-551) in response to

worsening environmental conditions in the Tahoe Basin. The amended compact called for TRPA

to develop environmental threshold carrying capacities (thresholds), which set environmental

goals and standards for the Tahoe Basin.53 The compact also required TRPA to develop a

Regional Plan to guide efforts to meet the thresholds. The plan was developed in 1987 based on

nine environmental thresholds:54

1. Water quality: Objectives include reducing fine sediment particles,

phosphorous, and nitrogen levels (as set by the TMDL) to achieve annual average

clarity of 97.4 feet or better; and reducing and preventing the introduction of AIS.

2. Soil conservation: Objectives include restoring 25% of disturbed stream zones

and reducing the total area of impervious surfaces (termed land coverage under

the Regional Plan).

3. Air quality: Objectives include achieving all air quality standards for carbon

monoxide (CO), ozone, and particulates under the Clean Air Act (CAA);

reducing traffic by 7% of the 1981 base levels; and reducing vehicle miles

traveled by 10% of the 1981 base year values.

4. Vegetation: Objectives include maintaining at least 4% meadow, wetland

vegetation, and riparian vegetation in the Tahoe Basin; maintaining 15%-25% of

the Yellow Pine Forest and Red Fir Forest; and maintaining a minimum number

of population sites for some sensitive plant species.

5. Wildlife: Objectives include maintaining a minimum number of population sites

for certain species and eliminating the degradation of significant wildlife habitat.

6. Fisheries: Objectives include maintaining 180 miles of pristine stream habitat;

restoring 6,000 acres of lake habitat; and reintroducing Lahontan cutthroat trout.

7. Scenic resources: Objectives include maintaining or improving scenic travel

route ratings, views of individual scenic resources, and quality of views from

public recreation areas.

8. Recreation: Objectives include preserving high quality recreational experiences

for the public.

9. Noise: Objectives include establishing maximum noise levels for aircraft,

watercraft, motor vehicles, motorcycles, and other off-road vehicles.

The original compact was P.L. 91-148. It has since been amended. The current form can be found at

http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Bistate_Compact.pdf.

The thresholds also indirectly define the amount of additional land development that can occur. TRPA must ensure

that any new development will not lead to non-attainment of the thresholds.

TRPA, Threshold Carrying Capacities, first released 1982 and last amended in 2012, at http://www.trpa.org/wpcontent/uploads/Resolution-82-11_12-2012.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

TRPA is directed by a 15-member Governing Board composed of 7 delegates from California, 7

delegates from Nevada, and 1 nonvoting presidential appointee.55 Six of these members represent

units of local government; the other eight voting members represent their respective states’

interests. The Governing Board holds monthly meetings to approve projects, amend any part of

the compact or plan, and conduct other routine business.56 In addition, the Governing Board

receives technical and scientific assistance from the Advisory Planning Commission. This 19member commission is made up of local planners, members of the community, and subject

experts.57 In addition to its leadership role in restoration, TRPA also serves as the Tahoe

Metropolitan Planning Organization, which is tasked with establishing a safe, efficient, and

integrated transportation system throughout the basin.58

The Regional Plan

The main guiding document for restoration is the Regional Plan. The plan is a regulatory

framework that includes multiple policies and plans, such as the environmental threshold carrying

capacities, the goals and policies created by TRPA to help achieve the thresholds, the code of

ordinances related to development in the Tahoe Basin, rules of procedure that govern the TRPA

Board and staff, area plans for development and conservation, the Regional Transportation Plan,

and the Threshold Evaluation Report.59 The Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) is also

part of the Regional Plan but serves as the implementation mechanism to achieve the

environmental goals under each threshold.

The Regional Plan sets levels on potential new development to achieve the thresholds. This

authority allows, in part, TRPA to control and limit development in Lake Tahoe. Mechanisms for

controlling development include a system of transferrable development rights, caps on land

coverage and building height, and public ownership and acquisition programs.60

The plan is updated periodically to reflect progress on achieving the thresholds; new

environmental concerns; any management plans required by federal laws such as CAA and CWA;

and any federal, state, or local laws and regulations. Specifically, the thresholds are evaluated

every four years; the next evaluation is expected in 2016.61 The evaluation serves as a monitoring

program and is used to adapt and adjust restoration efforts in the Regional Plan to better

accomplish the thresholds (see Figure 4). For example, thresholds with the lowest levels of

Contact information for members of TRPA’s Governing Board can be found at http://www.trpa.org/about-trpa/

governing-board/.

Routine business for TRPA’s Governing Board includes litigation and enforcement decisions; legal counsel; budget,

personnel, and contract matters; other administrative actions concerning meetings, committees, and staff. More

information is available in TRPA’s Rules of Procedure at http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/

TRPA_Rules_of_Procedure1.pdf.

The Advisory Planning Commission includes federal representatives from FS and the Natural Resources

Conservation Service, which is within USDA. Contact information for members is available at http://www.trpa.org/

about-trpa/advisory-planning-commission/.

TRPA is one of the few metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) with land-use power. TRPA has the authority

to regulate growth and development by setting standards for zoning, subdivisions, waste and sewage disposal, piers,

buildings, outdoor advertising, mobile-home parks, house relocation, air and water pollution, watershed protection, and

soil and sedimentation control, among others.

Documents available under the “What is the Regional Plan?” heading at http://www.trpa.org/regional-plan/.

Derek Kauneckis, Leslie Koziol, and Mark Imperial, “Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: The Evolution of

Collaboration,” Grant from the National Academy of Public Administration, Indiana University, School of Public and

Environmental Affairs, 2000, at http://people.uncw.edu/imperialm/Instructor/Papers/NAPA_TRPA_Case.pdf.

Until the Regional Plan update in 2012, thresholds were evaluated every five years.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

achievement may lead to prioritizing restoration projects to address those specific threshold goals.

In addition, threshold goals such as water quality have been amended to reflect new legislation

(i.e., TMDL requirements) and environmental concerns (i.e., AIS). The Regional Plan was fully

updated in December 2012 and included amended versions of TRPA’s goals and policies and its

code of ordinances following Governing Board approval. (For more detail, see “Future

Restoration Efforts.”)

Figure 4. Regional Plan Process Flow Chart

Source: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Regional Plan: Goals and Policies, December 2012, pp. 1-5.

Environmental Improvement Program

The EIP serves as the implementing mechanism for the Regional Plan. Through the EIP, TRPA

and its partners identify, fund, and implement specific restoration projects in the Tahoe Basin.

Within the EIP, TRPA develops and manages a separate list of capital projects designed to achieve

the environmental thresholds identified in the plan. Further, this list is managed adaptively to

allow for funding of new, unforeseen restoration projects that are necessary (e.g., environmental

rehabilitation after the 2007 fire).62 The projects on the list represent what TRPA believes can

Telephone communication between the Congressional Research Service and TRPA, August 7, 2013.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

reasonably be funded and implemented over a five-year planning horizon. Thus, this capital

project list is updated separately every five years.63 The funding target, broader restoration goals,

and focus areas of the EIP are updated only every 10 years by TRPA in response to the

environmental and economic conditions of the Tahoe Basin. Since 1997, 445 projects have been

completed and 234 projects are ongoing through the EIP.

The EIP was last updated in 2008, and it identified more than 700 new or ongoing projects that

should receive funding and support through the EIP.64 Planned EIP projects include efforts to

improve water quality and watersheds, decrease automobile use, improve and increase habitat

areas, and preserve species of interest. The updated EIP addresses new issues and focus areas

through 2018, including water quality, habitat, and watershed improvements; fuel reduction and

forest management; invasive species control; increased walkability and alternative transportation;

and applied science, including climate change adaption and invasive species.65 Nonfederal

stakeholders contend that a portion of these focus areas may require federal participation.66

Projects requiring federal collaboration may include efforts to treat an additional 33,603 acres of

forest lands for fuel reduction; restore and recover the threatened Lahontan cutthroat trout to selfsustaining levels; retrofit 300 additional miles of roadways with water quality and watershed

improvements; construct 33 miles of bike and pedestrian trails; rehabilitate and construct 29

recreational facilities; and improve stormwater management.67

Federal Involvement in the EIP

The most recent five-year capital projects list (from 2012) includes 530 projects. Of these, more

than half will receive federal funds or have a federal agency as an implementer.68 Federal

assistance with the EIP and its projects is administered mainly through the Lake Tahoe Federal

Interagency Partnership (LTFIP). Agencies in the LTFIP are USDA, DOI, DOT, DOD, and EPA.

Created through Executive Order 13057 in 1997, LTFIP is directed to provide federal assistance

and collaboration for EIP implementation. In addition, the executive order commits the federal

government, through the participating federal departments and agencies, to help California and

Nevada achieve the environmental standards for Lake Tahoe through collaboration and funding.69

The agencies help with restoration of the Tahoe Basin through “stewardship, service, and

science.” The federal agencies have many roles in Lake Tahoe, including conducting research and

studies; engaging in public outreach and education; regulation; funding; and implementing

projects. These agencies mainly focus on watershed and habitat improvement, air quality and

transportation, recreation and scenic improvements, and forest health.70

The current list applies for January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2016. In total, there are 530 projects recognized. The

list is available at http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/EIP_5-Year_List-2012_through_20162.pdf.

TRPA EIP Update.

See the TRPA EIP Update for descriptions, potential programs, and needs for each focus area.

Tahoe Fund, “Tahoe Fund Supports New Federal Lake Tahoe Restoration Act,” press release, August 1, 2013, at

http://www.tahoefund.org/media/tahoe-fund-supports-new-federal-lake-tahoe-restoration-act/.

Data from EIP 2011, EIP 2014, and TRPA EIP Update.

The federal government was involved with 305 separate projects as of 2013. Of these, 223 projects have a federal

agency assigned as an implementer of the project; 184 projects receive at least partial funding from the federal

government.

See Executive Order 13057, “Federal Actions in the Lake Tahoe Region,” 62 Federal Register 41249, August 1,

1997, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1997-08-01/pdf/97-20497.pdf.

Lake Tahoe Federal Interagency Partnership, A Federal Vision for the Environmental Improvement Program at Lake

Tahoe, June 6, 2006, at http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_046280.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

LTFIP is overseen by the regional administrators of the federal departments (known as the Tahoe

Regional Executives).71 However, most of the day-to-day activities involved in coordination and

implementation are the responsibility of senior local agency officials for each federal agency.

Funding the EIP

Funding for the EIP comes from federal, state, local, and private groups. The original EIP (19972007) called for an initial investment of $908 million in capital projects and $58 million for

research during its first 10 years. During this period, it received $1.1 billion in funds from federal,

state, local, and private stakeholders. Of this, the federal government has been asked to provide

$654 million. The unfunded need for the EIP for the next five years is approximately $884

million, with roughly one-third projected as the federal share.72

In total, through December 2013, the federal government contributed $576.3 million to EIP

restoration efforts. Total contributions from all EIP stakeholders (federal and nonfederal)

were$1.74 billion as of December 2013. For the second 10-year phase of the EIP (2008-2018), as

of 2013, approximately $288 million had been committed by the federal government through

agency appropriations and mandatory appropriations under the Southern Nevada Public Land

Management Act (SNPLMA; P.L. 105-263).73 In total, as of July 2013, approximately $600

million in funds had been committed by all parties for 2008-2018.

Federal funding for implementing the EIP comes from discretionary and mandatory funding

sources. In 2001, Congress passed the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2000 (LTRA; P.L. 106506), authorizing $300 million in federal funds for the federal share of the EIP over the next 10

years.74 These funds were appropriated under the 2003 amendments to SNPLMA, which provide

no more than $300 million to the Secretary of the Interior to implement EIP projects. This is

considered mandatory funding for restoration. SNPLMA receives funding from the selling of

surplus federal public lands around Las Vegas.75 In 2006, SNPLMA was amended to include a

hazardous fuel reduction program, which would provide funding to agencies in the Tahoe Basin

for hazardous fuel reduction activities.76 In FY2012, SNPLMA completed its $300 million

funding commitment to the EIP; no additional funding has been appropriated to the EIP through

SNPLMA since FY2013. Congress would need to authorize new appropriations under LTRA for

this to happen. Reauthorization of appropriations under LTRA has been proposed in the 114th

Congress: S. 1724 would authorize $415 million over 10 fiscal years after it was enacted.

Federal funding for restoration activities in Lake Tahoe also occurs outside of the EIP. The federal

government has appropriated more than $318 million for non-EIP federal agency actions in the

Tahoe Basin that are directly and indirectly related to restoration (see Table 1 for the last six

years of federal funding).77

Ibid.

Email from TRPA, July 7, 2015.

EIP 2014.

This funding included $10 million a year to be equally matched by the state and local governments through an

Erosion Control Grants Program.

Proceeds go toward environmental improvement, general education fund, and the Southern Nevada water authority.

Federal holdings are under BLM.

This amendment was known as the White Pine Amendment. Lake Tahoe is one of three areas that receive funds from

this category. Proposals are submitted directly through the Nevada SNPLMA process, not the Lake Tahoe process.

This refers to activities necessary to achieve an agency’s missions and goals. These activities may result in

environmental improvements but are not considered EIP projects as defined by TRPA.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Table 1. Federal Funding of Restoration to Agencies in the Lake Tahoe Federal

Interagency Partnership, FY2010-2015

(in millions of current dollars)

FY2010

FY2011

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

Total Funding

FY2010-FY2015

$33.5

$35.6

$28.7

$38.6

$31.8

$26.1

$194.3

NRCS

0.4

0.9

0.2

0.6

0.2

0.1

$2.4

Corps

3.4

0.1

0.2

2.0

0.9

$6.7

USGS

0.7

0.8

0.1

0.2

$2.0

USDOT

29.0

21.5

10.3

20.1

18.0

14.4

$113.3

EPA

2.6

1.3

2.2

1.8

1.2

0.4

$9.5

FWS

2.3

3.9

3.5

3.6

1.1

0.3

$14.7

BOR

3.0

1.3

1.0

1.8

0.1

$7.3

[Total Federal Funding

for EIP Only]

[40.4]

[46.5]

[43.7]

N/A

[130.6]

Total

$74.9

$65.4

$46.0

$66.8

$54.6

$42.5

$350.2

Sources: Emails from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, September 26, 2012, August 23, 2013, and June 29,

2015.

Notes: Funds are for activities directly and indirectly related to restoration. Abbreviations: U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (Corps), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT),

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Forest Service (FS), U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Environmental Improvement

Program (EIP). N/A indicates that information was not available for the federal contribution to EIP funding.

Other Federal Involvement

Complementary to the EIP, there are additional thresholds, goals, and related projects required by

other federal legislation, such as the CWA Section 208 Water Management Plan and the Regional

Transportation and Air Quality Management Plan (Mobility 2035), among others.

Lake Tahoe is subject to EPA oversight due to the lake’s 303(d) designation and past CO nonattainment. Impaired waters are placed on the 303(d) list and require the state and EPA to develop

a TMDL and Water Management Plan. The Water Management Plan requires that basin-wide fine

sediment particles, phosphorous, and nitrogen loads be reduced by 32%, 14%, and 4%,

respectively, by 2028 and by 65%, 35%, and 10%, respectively, to reach EPA’s water quality

standards by 2076.78 To achieve these reductions, the Water Quality Management Plan has

identified the use of stream restoration projects as well as projects to reduce urban dust levels to

lower urban runoff, along with requirements that all homes and businesses complete certified

water quality best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion and filter storm water.79

Water Board and NDEP TMDL, p. ES-2.

Best management practices (BMPs) for homeowners may include planting native vegetation, reducing irrigation use,

installing parking barriers, replacing dirt driveways with paved driveways, or adding gravel under roof drip-lines. All

homes in the Tahoe Basin are required to have BMPs installed. TRPA, Appendix IE-3- Stormwater Management/BMP

Retrofit Program Overview, 2011, at http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/11_AppxIE3_TRPAStormwater_FINAL.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

The Tahoe Basin also has developed a regional transportation and air quality management plan

designed to maintain CAA standards.80 The new Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2035, is

required by state, regional, and federal laws, including California’s SB375, the Bi-State Compact,

and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141).81 Mobility

2035 provides funding for projects that encourage the development of walkable, mixed-use town

centers, improved transit options, and reduced dependency on automobiles to meet water and air

quality standards.82 This plan will include work and improvements on federal roads, in part to

meet both Bi-State Compact thresholds and TMDL measures.83

FWS plays a significant role in the management and recovery of federally listed species in the

basin, as well as the AIS Program. FWS has implemented recovery plans for the Lahontan

cutthroat trout under the ESA and monitors other federally listed species in the Tahoe Basin.84

FWS also is involved in the monitoring and protection of nesting bald eagles and golden eagles as

authorized by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C §668). In addition, FWS was

appropriated $5 million between FY2008 and FY2014 to implement an AIS program within the

Tahoe Basin.85 The AIS Program inspects and, if necessary, decontaminates all boats entering the

lake, in addition to funding pilot AIS eradication projects. FWS has developed an AIS

Management Plan for the lake, and it chairs the Lake Tahoe AIS Coordination Committee.

USGS has created an Internet-based clearinghouse of scientific information on the Lake Tahoe

Basin with geographic information system (GIS) capability.86 USGS is involved in scientific

research and monitoring activities in the basin, partnering with federal and state agencies, as well

as with research centers (e.g., TERC, University of Reno, DRI). USGS is part of the Tahoe

Science Consortium, a collaboration between research organizations and federal agencies whose

objective is to promote science and provide the best available scientific information to guide

restoration and support adaptive management strategies within the Tahoe Basin.87

Measuring the Progress of Restoration

The progress of restoration in the Lake Tahoe Basin is measured through environmental quality

indicators, such as water clarity, native fish populations, and number of bird nests. These

indicators are extrapolated to measure the attainment of threshold goals. Every four years, these

data are combined and used to measure restoration progress and the attainment of each threshold.

Findings then are published in an independently peer-reviewed threshold evaluation report.88 The

The Tahoe Basin was in non-attainment for CO until 1996. The maintenance plan for attainment will be in effect

until 2018.

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141) requires TRPA (as an MPO) to develop

a long-range transportation map. In addition, the Bi-State Compact requires that a regional transportation plan be

maintained. SB 375 passed by California requires the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization to develop a

sustainable community strategy that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions per person by 12% in 2020 and by 7% in

2035 (the figure is lower in 2035 due to population forecasts and economic recovery).

The actual transportation plan can be found at http://tahoempo.org/Mobility2035/.

Includes U.S. Hwy 50. Currently, the U.S. Hwy 50 traffic threshold has been reached. The threshold is set at 7%

below 1981 traffic. In 2011, traffic volume was 22% lower than in 1981.

For example, the mountain yellow-legged frog has a recovery plan that addresses all California populations.

For more information on the Aquatic Invasive Species Program, see FWS, “Lake Tahoe Aquatic Invasive Species

Program,” at http://www.fws.gov/nevada/nv_species/invasive_species/lt_index.htm.

See USGS, “Lake Tahoe Data Clearinghouse,” December 2012, at http://tahoe.usgs.gov/index.html.

For more on the Tahoe Science Consortium, see http://tahoescience.org/.

The independent review board includes seven members representing academia and environmental consulting firms

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

threshold evaluation was last completed in 2011; it found that a majority of the specific final

goals established as indicators for the nine thresholds had been attained. However, only

approximately two-thirds of all indicators could be quantifiably measured.89 The status of the

other one-third of the indicators is currently unknown. In addition, attainment for some indicators

may not indicate actual environmental improvement. There are several types of indicators:

numerical standards, management standards, and policy standards. Often management standards,

while considered quantifiable, can be evaluated only based on whether a program has been

implemented; attainment for these standards does not indicate that the program has led to actual

achievement of a goal.

Some of the indicators with the highest levels of attainment were air quality, soil conservation and

impervious cover, recreation facilities, and wildlife. In 2011, 361 days of the year were measured

at highest air quality. The other four were measured at moderate air quality.90 The threshold

evaluation also found that all special interest species—both state and federally listed—had stable

or improving populations. In particular, the projects for the Lahontan cutthroat trout, Tahoe

yellow cress, and golden eagle were recognized as successful. The winter water clarity of the lake

has improved the last few years, and modeling predicts that the winter clarity will continue to

improve. The annual water clarity and winter clarity both averaged 78.7 feet in 2014, the best in

more than 10 years and an improvement over the 2013 annual clarity measurement of 70.1 feet

and winter clarity of 77.9 feet.91

Major accomplishments and projects completed in the Tahoe Basin, through 2014, include the

following:92



Fuels reduction treatment of 55,690 acres of forests;

Wildlife habitat improvements of 15,945 acres (including 1,509 acres in sensitive

stream zones);

739 acres of wetlands restored;

3,103 acres of sensitive land acquired by public entities;

Watershed improvements on 674 miles of roads;

Renovation of 13,444 private homes to lower levels of urban runoff;

137 miles of new bike and pedestrian trails;

Upgrades of 20 transit stations and increased transit ridership to 1.5 million

people a year;

(...continued)

who are considered experts in any of the following fields: air quality, water quality, recreation/tourism, wilderness

management, forest health, fisheries, or wildlife.

There were 151 indicators, but only 92 indicators can be quantified. Numerical standards and management standards

are considered quantifiable; policy standards are not quantifiable. TRPA Threshold Evaluation.

TRPA Threshold Evaluation; the next threshold evaluation is expected in 2016.

However, water clarity is affected by precipitation amount; the current drought conditions in California and Nevada

have resulted in low levels of runoff (fine sediment particles, nitrogen phosphorus), which is beneficial to water clarity.

Conversely, 2013 had high amounts of precipitation, which resulted in more runoff and pollutants and in decreased

clarity. TRPA, “Lake Tahoe water clarity in 2014 the best in more than a decade,” press release, April 9, 2015, at

http://www.trpa.org/lake-tahoe-water-clarity-in-2014-the-best-in-more-than-a-decade-2/.

Data from TRPA, 2014 Annual Report, February 26, 2015, at http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014-AnnualReport.pdf; TRPA, 2014 Annual Report with Staff Summary, February 2015, at http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/

uploads/2014-Annual-Report-With-Staff-Summary-Regional-Plan-Measures-Area-Plan-Metrics-and-SustainabilityIndicators.pdf; and EIP Highlights.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin



Reintroduction and signs of recovery of the Tahoe yellow cress and Lahontan

cutthroat trout;

37,000 watercraft inspections and more than 18,000 watercraft decontaminations;

and

Treatment of 35.75 acres of weeds and Asian clam infestations in Lake Tahoe.

Some point to these accomplishments as signs of success, but others contend that much more

needs to be done. TRPA cites increasing algal productivity, declining summer clarity, increasing

wildfire threat, and the growing presence of invasive species as areas of concern.93 The reasons

for and solutions to these continued issues with summer and nearshore lake clarity, phytoplankton

and algal productivity, swamp habitats, and invasive species are contested. Some local

environmental groups argue that current restoration does not do enough to address the causes of

environmental degradation; others assert that the issues persist due to warming patterns in the

region that cannot be resolved exclusively through restoration.94 Notably, although there have

been improvements in annual lake clarity, clarity still needs to improve by more than 20 feet to

reach the clarity standard set by the EPA under the TMDL.

Future Restoration Efforts

After more than seven years of preparation, discussion, and development with stakeholders, the

Regional Plan was updated in December 2012 for the first time since its passage in 1987.95 The

updated Regional Plan was intended to reflect the changing economic and environmental

conditions in the Tahoe Basin, incorporating changes to regulatory ordinances and policies that

aim to promote sustainable development in the basin. Many environmental aspects of the

Regional Plan were not changed. However, TRPA added provisions and exemptions to encourage

environmentally based renovation of buildings and the establishment of city centers. The updated

Regional Plan includes provisions that provide additional development rights to property owners

who transfer their development in sensitive areas to town centers; eliminate existing barriers to

environmental redevelopment of older buildings; expand land coverage exemptions for previous

construction and alternative transportation roadways; simplify the permitting process for

homeowners into one process that meets local, state, regional, and federal requirements; and add

incentives for completing BMPs.96 In addition, the updated plan allows for the development of an

additional 3,200 residential units and 200,000 square feet for commercial use. The updated plan

also incorporates new standards and goals from the 2011 TMDL and the 2012 Regional

Transportation Plan (Mobility 2035).97

TRPA Threshold Evaluation.

An example of one such local group is the Tahoe Pipe Club. See Anne Knowles, “With 38 pipes draining into Lake

Tahoe, are lake clarity efforts worth a billion bucks?,” Lake Tahoe News, January 17, 2012, at

http://www.laketahoenews.net/2012/01/with-38-pipes-draining-into-lake-tahoe-are-lake-clarity-efforts-a-fraud/; and

David Bunker, “Tahoe Pipe Club | Pointing out Tahoe’s Polluting Pipes,” Moonshine Ink, May 11, 2012, at

http://www.moonshineink.com/news/tahoe-pipe-club-pointing-out-tahoe%3F%3F%3Fs-polluting-pipes.

The update to the Regional Plan originally had been scheduled to be passed in 2007 (20 years after the original

Regional Plan was passed). The update was enacted, in part, beginning February 2013. Some provisions are still

waiting to be enacted. Kathryn Reed, “TRPA Board Approves Regional Plan Update,” Lake Tahoe News, December

12, 2012, at http://www.laketahoenews.net/2012/12/trpa-governing-board-approves-regional-plan-update/.

TRPA, Regional Plan Update Fact Sheet, January 2013, at http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/

RPU_FactSheet_1-15-13.pdf.

For all changes, see http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Summary_of_2012_TRPA_Code_Changes.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Some environmental groups have criticized these updates, stating that TRPA is placing

development and business interests over the environment. Sierra Club and a local advocacy

group, Friends of the West Shore, filed suit against TRPA, claiming that their members will suffer

irreparable injury as a result of the update and that TRPA has failed to comply with the Bi-State

Compact of 1969.98 All claims in the suit were rejected by a federal district court, but the case has

been appealed and is still ongoing.99 Others—including the environmental nonprofit League to

Save Lake Tahoe—believe the revisions to the Regional Plan will allow the plan to adapt to and

address stakeholder interests, concerns, and conditions that have surfaced in the basin since

1987.100 For example, reportedly, resort associations in the Tahoe Basin stated that TRPA’s old

policies were unnecessarily strict and inconsistent, which stifled investment in the area.101 In

addition, TRPA argues that the update will lead to the transfer of development into city centers

and out of sensitive lands, reducing automobile use and urban runoff.102

Complementary to the Regional Plan update, TRPA created seven new priority programs for the

Tahoe Basin based on the 2011 Threshold Evaluation Report: Stormwater Management Program;

Watershed Management Program; Invasive Species Program; Forest Ecosystem and Hazardous

Fuels Reduction Program; Scenic Program; Air Quality and Transportation Program; and

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Program. The federal government may have a

role in each of these programs. Improving water clarity through watershed and stormwater

management may be used to meet the Clarity Challenge included in the CWA Section 208 Water

Management Plan.103 Further, FWS might broaden its AIS Program to address invasive species

issues in the basin and coordinate with nonfederal entities to conserve threatened and endangered

species listed under ESA. In addition, USGS may have an increased role in the Tahoe Basin,

working with participating universities to provide the best available science to guide restoration

efforts and adapt for possible climate variability.104

Issues for Congress

The federal role in restoring the Tahoe Basin is significant. Congress has supported this role

through legislation that authorizes funding for federal participation in restoration activities in the

basin. Congress might consider retaining the existing federal role in restoration or expanding this

role. Some have suggested that Congress could authorize and appropriate additional funds for

implementing the EIP and other restoration efforts, conduct oversight of the development of

Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (California Eastern District Court

2013), at http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/FINALTahoeRPUComplaint.pdf.

Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary

Judgment, Sierra Club v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, No. 13-cv-00267 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2014). See

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00267/pdf/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00267-2.pdf; Martin

Griffith, “Environmental groups appeal Lake Tahoe plan ruling,” Las Vegas Review Journal, May 10, 2014. at

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/water-environment/environmental-groups-appeal-lake-tahoe-plan-ruling.

100

Editorial by Darcie Goodman Collins, Executive Director of the League to Save Lake Tahoe. “Excited to Move

Forward with Nevada on Board,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, June 13, 2013.

101

Adam Jensen, “TRPA approves Lake Tahoe Regional Plan Update, 12-1,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, December 12,

2012, at http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20121212/NEWS/121219952.

102

TRPA estimates vehicle miles traveled will be reduced by 10,000 miles and projects that 24 acres of land coverage

will be removed from sensitive lands. See http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/RPU_2pager_Numbers_3-251.pdf.

103

This Clarity Challenge is set at 80 feet. The goal is to achieve this clarity by 2023 and maintain attainment for five

years. Water Board and NDEP TMDL, p. 10-1.

104

The updated EIP noted that one of the priorities was documenting and predicting effects of climate change on the

Tahoe Basin and management activities.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

federal projects in the Tahoe Basin, or assist in the creation and implementation of an adaptive

management plan for restoration.105 Some in Congress have defined the next step for federal

involvement in restoring the basin by introducing legislation in past Congresses.106 As introduced

in the 114th Congress, S. 1724 would reauthorize funding to support state and local governments’

restoration efforts in the Tahoe Basin.

Congress also might consider addressing other prevalent issues in the basin such as changing

weather patterns and their effect on the ecosystem and the economy, the status and source of

federal funding for restoration, what constitutes sustainable development in the Tahoe Basin and

how that affects the restoration of the ecosystem, oversight and analysis of progress in restoration,

and whether restoration efforts are having an impact.

Funding

Federal funding for restoration in the Tahoe Basin has come largely from mandatory funds

provided under SNPLMA. As of the end of FY2012, this funding was exhausted. Based on costshare estimates, some might contend that the federal government still is responsible for providing

an additional $480 million for restoration activities under the 2008-2018 EIP. Some question

whether the federal government will be able to continue to fund restoration in the Tahoe Basin at

historical levels in the current fiscal climate.107 If the federal government reduces funding, it is

unclear if other parties will increase funding to meet restoration needs or decrease their funding to

meet cost-share requirements under LTRA of 2000. If funding is decreased by all parties, some

stakeholders are concerned that restoration efforts may decline or restoration gains may be

reversed.108

Currently, federal funding for EIP projects is provided separately for each of the federal

departments involved (DOD, DOI, USDA, EPA, DOT). Funding for hazardous fuel reduction and

wildfire prevention activities and projects authorized under LTRA is authorized through

SNPLMA. The Secretary of the Interior has discretion on how to manage these funds and is

authorized to transfer funds to the Secretary of Agriculture or another Secretary if a funding

agreement is signed. SNPLMA authorizes the Secretary to direct funding for the EIP “in an

amount equal to the cumulative amounts authorized to be appropriated for such projects under

such acts [referring to Lake Tahoe Restoration Act].”109 Therefore, if the authorization for

appropriations is expired under LTRA, it is uncertain if SNPLMA funds can be used for the EIP.

Funding restoration projects under SNPLMA might require an amendment to SNPLMA to

authorize funding directly (i.e., without having to reauthorize LTRA) or reauthorizing

appropriations under LTRA. In addition, some question whether revenue from land sales would

105

For example, see League to Save Lake Tahoe, “Tahoe Leaders Applaud Restoration Bill,” August 2, 2013, at

http://keeptahoeblue.org/news/news-main/?id=614.

106

For example, a draft bill of Lake Tahoe restoration mainly focusing on forest management and wildfire prevention

was discussed recently in the House and may be introduced in the 114th Congress, with a tentative authorization of $60

million over a 10-year period. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Federal

Lands, Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2270, Discussion Draft H.R. __, 114th Cong., 1st sess., July 14, 2015, at

http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=398943.

107

For example, see TRPA, Strategic Plan, February 2013, at http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/

Strategic_Plan_2-4-13_web.pdf, pp. 13-14. (Hereinafter TRPA Strategic Plan.)

108

League to Save Lake Tahoe, “Tahoe Leaders Applaud Restoration Bill,” August 2, 2013, at

http://keeptahoeblue.org/news/news-main/?id=614.

109

See Section 4(e)(3)(a)(vi) of P.L. 105-263. Note that the Fuels Reduction Program still can allocate funds above

$300 million for restoration efforts related to fuels reduction in Tahoe Basin forests.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

cover the authorized amount in the proposed legislation. SNPLMA authorized the disposal of up

to 74,000 acres of federal land; only 27,071 acres remained to be sold as of September 9, 2014.110

With approximately one-quarter of land remaining to be sold and a declining average price per

acre, it is unclear whether $415 million could be appropriated from SNPLMA to be used toward

Lake Tahoe restoration. Nevertheless, if funds for restoration activities cannot be procured under

SNPLMA, restoration activities could receive discretionary funding from Congress.

Legislation proposed in the 114th Congress would address this funding dilemma by reauthorizing

funding for restoration activities in the Tahoe Basin. S. 1724 would authorize $415 million in

appropriations for restoration projects in the Tahoe Basin for a period of 10 years. These projects

would address water clarity, forest health, and invasive species, among other issues.

Nonfederal stakeholders are contemplating alternative sources of funding for restoration. For

example, TRPA is contemplating using public-private partnerships111 for generating funds and

using proceeds from the Tahoe Fund for restoration.112

Views on Progress

Whether or not restoration in the Tahoe Basin has been implemented to receive the “biggest bang

for the buck” remains controversial. Some local groups argue that little progress has been made

despite the $1.7 billion provided for restoration.113 Local groups have cited several reasons for

lack of progress, including the use of ineffective technologies and management practices, a

disproportionate amount of monitoring and planning activities, and the weakening of

environmental protection and standards over time.114 Despite these criticisms, these stakeholders

still support funding restoration and advocate changes in how restoration is managed. However,

according to TRPA, current efforts represent the best management practices given the science

information available.115 TRPA states that restoration efforts and monitoring have contributed to

significant environmental improvements despite variations in weather and unforeseen

circumstances that could have damaged the ecosystem.116 Scientific uncertainty about the impacts

of changing precipitation patterns and warming temperatures on the environment makes it

challenging to quantify the benefits or progress stemming from particular restoration activities.117

110

BLM, SNPLMA Training Modules, September 10, 2014, at http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/

las_vegas_field_office/snplma/pdf/training.Par.39955.File.dat/

SNPLMA%20Training_ALL%20MODULES_09SEP14.pdf.

111

Public-private partnerships involve contract arrangements in which a nonfederal or private entity partners with the

government to contribute funds, knowledge, or labor toward a project. In return, the private or nonfederal entity is

guaranteed a portion of the project’s revenue as repayment.

112

The Tahoe Fund receives proceeds from specialty California and Nevada license plates, as well as donations from

individuals, corporations, and foundations, which are used to help fund EIP efforts.

113

For example, see the Tahoe Pipe Club. Anne Knowles, “With 38 Pipes Draining into Lake Tahoe Are Lake Clarity

Efforts Worth a Billion Bucks?” Lake Tahoe News, January 17, 2012, at http://www.laketahoenews.net/2012/01/with38-pipes-draining-into-lake-tahoe-are-lake-clarity-efforts-a-fraud/.

114

Ibid.

115

TRPA Strategic Plan, p. 10.

116

Ibid.

117

For example, the gains in winter, summer, and annual water clarity in 2012 may be due to stormwater management

efforts or to decreased precipitation in the previous year, which led to decreased total levels of runoff, or some

combination of both. This effect also can be seen in the 2013 decrease and the recent 2014 increase in clarity, given the

increased precipitation and exacerbated drought conditions, respectively. TERC State of the Lake Report 2015.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Some local groups contend that current restoration approaches in the Tahoe Basin are ineffective

in restoring the ecosystem.118 For example, in the past, the Tahoe Pipe Club contended that the

watershed management practices used by TRPA did not adequately address runoff that enters the

lake. They noted that ineffective management practices could have contributed significantly to the

decline in water quality during summer months. This issue may be exacerbated by the fact that

half of EIP funding goes toward water quality and stormwater management projects. Other

stakeholders, however, cite improving annual and winter water clarity as signs that water

management strategies are leading to progress.119 They state that there are multiple factors

affecting water quality that are outside the scope of restoration, such as changes in precipitation

patterns and water temperatures. Stakeholders contend that the measures in place have prevented

greater environmental decline from these outside factors.120

In addition, in public comment documents, individual citizens contended that restoration funds

are distributed inefficiently, which has hampered progress.121 Some residents claim that too much

of the funding goes toward monitoring and assessment plans and activities that do not contribute

to actual restoration.122 Further, they contend that TRPA and other agencies involved in

restoration should require proof that a project will have tangible environmental benefits before

providing funding. However, other stakeholders argue that monitoring and assessment activities

contribute by informing future decisionmaking.123 Scientists have been continuously monitoring

Lake Tahoe continuously since 1968, and they state these long-term data provide insight into

management practices that work in the Tahoe Basin by allowing stakeholders to measure the

progress of restoration over time. TRPA also contends that monitoring may become more

important as agencies and stakeholders consider new measures to address the changing climate.124

Congress may consider conducting oversight on restoration and progress in the Tahoe Basin.

Several policies used by other large-scale ecosystem restoration initiatives could be applied to the

Tahoe Basin and EIP. For example, crosscut budgets could be used to organize and identify

restoration projects and track their funding and status on an annual basis. These types of budgets

are used in restoration initiatives in the Everglades and the Great Lakes. Further, Congress could

authorize an independent entity to review progress and issues associated with restoration in the

Tahoe Basin. For example, restoration in the Everglades and in some selected cases in the

California Bay-Delta is analyzed and reviewed by the National Research Council (NRC). NRC

conducts independent reviews of the scientific and some policy factors in these restoration

initiatives. S. 1724 would address this issue by requiring federal agencies to present Congress

with an annual report that contains a crosscut budget and detailed accounting of received and

obligated funding to achieve EIP goals.

118

For example, see Anne Knowles, “With 38 pipes Draining into Lake Tahoe Are Lake Clarity Efforts Worth a

Billion Bucks?” Lake Tahoe News, January 17, 2012.

119

Examples include TRPA and the Tahoe Environmental Research Center. See TRPA Strategic Plan, p. 9.

120

Ibid.

121

For example, see public comments recorded in TRPA, Advisory Planning Commision Meeting, August 3, 2011, at

http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/aug_2011_apc_packet.pdf.

122

Richard Frank, “Environmentalists Sue Over New Lake Tahoe Plan: Is the Perfect the Enemy of the Good,” Legal

Planet, February 20, 2013.

123

TERC State of the Lake 2013.

124

TRPA EIP Update.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Balancing Restoration and the Economy

There has been controversy between environmental and development interests in the Tahoe

Basin.125 Some local business associations reportedly have contended that limits on development

derived from the Regional Plan inhibited economic growth in the basin.126 The Tahoe Basin

economy relies in part on the preservation of the environment; growth of the economy may

require both additional development and improved environmental health of the basin, according

to TRPA.127 Due to the connection between recreation, tourism, development, and the

environment, some contend that sustainable development in the region is warranted. Some

environmental groups, however, contend that limits on development have led to significant

environmental gains in the Tahoe Basin and are necessary for maintaining progress in

restoration.128 This controversy was addressed at the state level through negotiations between

Nevada and California. Specifically, Nevada contended that permitting processes and limits on

development had led to the decline of economic growth in the basin, in particular the gaming

industry.129 To address this issue, the Nevada legislature passed a law (SB 271) in 2011 that

required the state to leave the Bi-State Compact in 2015 unless the compact was amended to

consider economic conditions and the effect of environmental regulations on the economy when

making decisions on development. This law was repealed in 2013 as a result of negotiations

between California and Nevada.130 Changes to the Regional Plan in 2012 were made, in part, in

response to Nevada’s concerns about development.131 Negotiations between California and

Nevada resulted in certain agreements that addressed amending the compact. The agreement

included two potential amendments to the compact. Generally, the agreement included that



The Regional Plan should reflect changing economic conditions in the Tahoe

Basin and the economic effects of regulations on commerce; and

Any party that brings litigation against the Regional Plan or TRPA has to have a

higher burden of proof that the Regional Plan is not in conformance with the

compact.

Both states have signed the amendments to the compact into state law, and the amendments now

require congressional approval. S. 1724, in addition to reauthorizing federal funding for

restoration activities in the Tahoe Basin, would approve these amendments.

Updates to the Regional Plan in 2012 allowing for additional development and increased local

control of development have led to litigation.132 If the Regional Plan is struck down, some

contend that Nevada will leave the Bi-State Compact. This outcome could result in TRPA being

125

TRPA Strategic Plan, p. 5.

Adam Jensen, “TRPA Approves Lake Tahoe Regional Plan Update, 12-1,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, December 12,

2012, at http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20121212/NEWS/121219952.

127

TRPA Strategic Plan, p. 8.

128

For example, see Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (California Eastern

District Court 2013).

129

Darcie Goodman-Collins, Executive Director of the League to Save Lake Tahoe, “Excited to Move Forward with

Nevada on Board,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, June 13, 2013.

130

Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., “Nevada and California Renew Partnership to Preserve, Enhance Lake

Tahoe Region,” press release, May 14, 2013, at http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18041.

131

Shelly Aldean and Casey Beyer, Moving Forward for Lake Tahoe, TRPA, April 2013, at http://www.trpa.org/wpcontent/uploads/COLUMN_GB_Compact_April_2013.pdf.

132

Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (California Eastern District Court

2013).

126

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

dissolved and two regional planning agencies being created, one for managing development on

the California side of the basin and one for managing development on the Nevada side. If this

happens, the federal role in restoration and collaboration with TRPA and EIP would be unclear.

The current controversy could be addressed by Congress through oversight or legislation.

Climate Change

Changing weather patterns in the Tahoe Basin may have adverse impacts on the Tahoe Basin

ecosystem and ongoing restoration and management efforts. Scientists have noted significant

trends of warming temperatures in the past century, especially in the past two decades. For

example, since 1910, average air temperatures have increased by approximately four degrees

Fahrenheit; since 1970, the average lake water temperature has increased by around one degree

Fahrenheit.133 Changes in weather and increased weather variability have raised concerns about

the future environmental and economic health of the Tahoe Basin. In response to these concerns,

stakeholders have begun to formulate basin-wide strategies to address climate change. Further,

the state of California has done surveys to estimate the economic effects of climate change in the

Tahoe Basin. In addition to these efforts, some contend that more resources should be directed

toward scientific research and adaptive management of restoration in the Tahoe Basin.

Scientists have predicted that changes in weather and increased weather variability in the Tahoe

Basin may have negative impacts on the ecosystem.134 For example, an increase in winter

flooding (e.g., caused by earlier snowmelt and increased winter rains) may lead to a decline in

water quality due to higher levels of urban runoff and debris entering the lake.135 At the same

time, scientists have expressed concern that hotter summers may lead to higher levels of drought,

thereby increasing the risk of wildfires.136 Recent drought conditions have affected water clarity,

as reduced precipitation has resulted in less contaminant runoff into the basin, increasing

clarity.137 Although water clarity has improved, either due to restoration efforts or current drought

conditions (or both), other areas of the basin ecosystem have been affected negatively by warmer

conditions. Many of the Tahoe Basin’s invasive species originate in warmer waters than Lake

Tahoe.138 Therefore, increased water temperatures may help nonnative species outcompete native

species. Water quality also may decrease due to physical changes in water circulation brought on

by climate variability. Lake Tahoe, like many lakes, stratifies into distinct thermal layers of water.

Seasonal changes promote the mixing of these distinct layers, which allows for oxygen and other

nutrients to spread throughout the lake’s water column. Warmer temperatures in the Tahoe Basin

have, in part, extended the lake’s period of stratification, which may reduce the depth to which

water mixes.139 For example, in 2014, the maximum mixing depth was 440 feet, as compared

133

Observations recorded by Tahoe Environmental Research Center at UC Davis. Found in TERC State of the Lake

2013.

134

TERC State of the Lake Report 2013, Executive Summary.

135

For example, 2011 was one of the wettest and coldest winters on record.

136

Robert Coats and Kelly Redmond, Climate Change in the Tahoe Basin, Tahoe Science Consortium, 2011, at

http://www.tahoescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/LTFedEvent-2008-Climate-Change-WQ-Poster.pdf.

137

TERC, “Lake Tahoe water clarity in 2014 the best in more than a decade,” press release, April 2015, at

http://terc.ucdavis.edu/research/monitoring/water-clarity.html.

138

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lake Tahoe Region Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan, California-Nevada,

September 2009, at http://anstaskforce.gov/State%20Plans/Lake_Tahoe_Region_AIS_Management_Plan.pdf.

139

Since 1969, the stratification season has been extended by an average of 25 days. TERC State of the Lake Report

2013.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

with 590 feet in 2013 and 820 feet in 2012.140 Some researchers are concerned that the reduced

mixing time may lead to complete anoxia of bottom waters later in the century.141 The impacts

from these changes could have long-lasting effects on the trophic structure and ecosystem of the

basin.

Changing weather patterns in the Tahoe Basin may lead to changes in restoration strategies. For

example, increased wildfire risk may require FS to modify its forest management plan142 to

include a stronger emphasis on hazardous fuel reduction and tree thinning activities. Changes in

water quality might require changes in regulatory actions under the CWA (e.g., changes in

strategies for achieving TMDLs).

Congress could address this issue by authorizing additional funds for scientific and adaptive

management efforts within the Tahoe Basin. Congress also could authorize increased federal

participation in efforts to create new or adaptive strategies to address climate change in the basin.

For example, under S. 1451, introduced in the 113th Congress, $30 million would have been

authorized for FS to develop and implement, in coordination with the Tahoe Science Consortium,

the Lake Tahoe Basin Science Program.143 The science program would have developed and

regularly updated integrated multiagency programmatic monitoring and assessment plans to

measure and evaluate progress and assess the risks and impacts of changing weather patterns. In

addition, the Lake Tahoe Basin Science Program would have provided scientific and technical

support for the development of appropriate management strategies that would accommodate

changing weather and precipitation in the Tahoe Basin.144

Conclusion

The Lake Tahoe Basin is considered by some to be an area of national significance and is

recognized by the EPA as an Outstanding National Resource Water under CWA. The basin

provides both recreational and environmental services and is tied to the regional economy. Over

the years, development in the Tahoe Basin has led to alterations in its ecosystem. These changes

have prompted federal, state, local, and private efforts to conduct restoration. Since 1997,

restoration efforts among stakeholders have been organized largely under the EIP. Many use this

date to evaluate progress in restoration.

Some contend that significant restoration progress has been made in the Tahoe Basin since

1997.145 They cite the recent threshold evaluations, which indicate that more than half of the

studied environmental indicators established in the 1980s have been reached. They note that more

140

Data from TERC State of the Lake 2013 and TERC State of the Lake 2014.

Anoxia refers to the total depletion of oxygen in the water, in this case the bottom waters of Lake Tahoe. Due to the

lack of mixing in the bottom waters, TERC currently is monitoring oxygen levels in the deepest part of the lake to

determine the rate at which oxygen is being lost when mixing does not occur. TERC State of the Lake 2013, Section 2;

Lisa Borre, “Warming Lakes: Effects of Climate Change Seen on Lake Tahoe,” National Geographic Water Currents,

October 17, 2012, at http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/17/warming-lakes-effects-of-climate-changeseen-on-lake-tahoe/.

142

Forest management plans are comprehensive plans, created with input from the public and scientific communities.

They detail the objectives FS has for a specific national forest (in this case Tahoe National Forest) and include

management plans (i.e., timber management, hazardous fuel management, and climate change adaptation) to achieve

the objectives.

143

See Section 8 and Section 12 of S. 1451 (113th Congress).

144

See Section 12 of S. 1451.

145

TRPA Threshold Evaluation.

141

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

than 500 restoration projects have been completed or are ongoing, contributing to more than

50,000 acres of treated or restored lands, 600 miles of treated roads, and 15,000 acres of restored

wildlife habitat. Although progress in restoration has been reported, some environmental concerns

remain. Lake Tahoe faces continued water pollution that has contributed to a loss of a third of its

water clarity in the past 40 years. Annual clarity is stabilizing and winter clarity is showing

improvement, but it is expected to take until 2077 for the lake to return to its historical clarity,

according to TMDL. Further, although efforts to reduce fuel loads have been implemented, some

suggest it will take decades before forests return to a healthy state.146 Additionally, while there

have been improvements in the air quality of the Tahoe Basin, efforts to curb automobile use in

the area continue. Sensitive and listed species’ populations show signs of stability or

improvement, but invasive species continue to threaten native species populations. Future

restoration activities in the basin may address water quality, invasive species, climate change

adaptation, land use, and forest management.

The federal government has played a significant role in restoring the Tahoe Basin ecosystem. It is

unclear how this role might evolve due to changes in federal funding and state actions centering

on potential changes to the compact. Recently, the compact was amended by both California and

Nevada to reflect changing economic conditions in the basin and its treatment as an urban area.

Congressional approval of these amendments has been proposed in S. 1724. At the same time,

there is ongoing litigation regarding the updated conditions made to the compact, the outcome of

which may alter the involvement of California and Nevada in the restoration of Lake Tahoe.

Federal involvement will continue through efforts under laws such as the LTRA 2000, CWA,

CAA, and ESA. Further, federal funding for various restoration activities through SNPLMA has

ended, and legislation such as S. 1724 could expand federal collaboration and participation with

nonfederal stakeholders in restoration efforts and reauthorize federal funding for implementing

restoration projects and activities.

146

Trees in Transition.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Appendix. Chronology of Lake Tahoe Basin

2 Million-3 Million

Years Ago

Lake Tahoe Basin and Lake Tahoe are formed.

10,000 Years Ago

First appearance of nomadic groups in the Tahoe Basin. These nomads were the ancestors of the

current Washoe, Maidu, and Paiute Indian Tribes.

1844

John C. Fremont is the first American to sight Lake Tahoe. He was leading expedition parties on

the Oregon Trail and into the Sierra Nevadas.

1852

The first permanent American settlement is established in the Tahoe Basin.

1859

The Comstock Lode is discovered in nearby Virginia City. More than 20,000 prospectors move to

Virginia City to mine for silver and gold.

1860s-1890s

To accommodate the growing number of settlers in the area, Tahoe Basin forests are cut for

timber and fuel. This becomes known as the Comstock Era.

1864

Tahoe City founded as a resort community for Virginia City residents.

1880

4,000-foot tramway completed for carrying lumber. By 1896, when the lumber flume was shut

down, more than 60% of the mature trees in the forest had been cut down since operation began

in 1880.

1887

The Mackinaw (lake) trout is introduced in Lake Tahoe for sport-fishing purposes.

1889

The California legislature passes an anti-sawdust statue preventing mills from dumping sawdust into

Truckee River. The Nevada Legislature had passed resolutions calling for California to prevent

dumping as early as 1869.

1899

The Lake Tahoe Forest Reserve is created by the federal government. It covers 136,000 acres of

forest in the Tahoe Basin.

First attempt in Congress to make Lake Tahoe a national park. There were subsequent efforts in

1913, 1930, and 1935. All efforts failed, reportedly due to the environmental degradation from

development in the area.

1911

The U.S. Forest Service (FS) builds its first station in the Tahoe Basin.

1920

By 1920, FS owns 25% of all Tahoe Basin land.

1927

First state park created in the Tahoe Basin by the state of California. The state of California now

manages three parks and a recreation area in the Tahoe Basin.

1931

Nevada legalizes gaming; 5,000 tourists from California visit Nevada in the first week.

1938-1944

The Pyramid Lake cutthroat trout, once the largest and most plentiful fish in the Tahoe Basin,

officially becomes extinct due to overfishing and water diversions. Its cousin, the native Lahontan

cutthroat trout, is purposefully reintroduced into the area for fishing.

1949

Both the California and Nevada legislatures pass laws prohibiting disposal of waste into Lake Tahoe

or within 100 feet of tributaries. Nevada also begins to require permits for new construction that

will involve discharge of waste in those areas.

1955

California and Nevada form the California-Nevada Interstate Compact Commission to respond to

interstate issues concerning Lake Tahoe and Truckee River. This commission is active until the

creation of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) by the Bi-State Compact in 1969.

1958

Sand Harbor State Park becomes the first Nevada state park in the Tahoe Basin. It is incorporated

into the larger Lake Tahoe Nevada State Park in 1967.

1959

The University of California, Davis, begins scientific research on Lake Tahoe. This becomes the

Tahoe Environmental Research Center.

1960

Neighboring Squaw Valley holds the 1960 Winter Olympics.

1962

The first secchi disc reading is done in Lake Tahoe. Clarity is measured at 136 feet.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

1965-1980

FS begins a policy to acquire all available parcels of land in the Tahoe Basin and purchases more

than 36,000 acres over the next 15 years.

1965

The state of California and the state of Nevada create a joint study commission to investigate

worsening environmental problems in the Tahoe Basin.

1969

The Bi-State Compact is ratified by Congress. TRPA is formed.

1970

The Lahontan cutthroat trout is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation

Act of 1969 (replaced by the Endangered Species Act, or ESA, in 1972).

1975

The Lahontan cutthroat trout is downgraded to threatened under the ESA due to hatchery success.

1976

More than 70% of the Tahoe Basin is publicly owned.

1980

On December 19, 1980, the Bi-State Compact is amended to include the development of a regional

plan and environmental thresholds, among other things.

1980

The Santini-Burton Act (P.L. 96-586) is passed. The act authorized FS to acquire environmentally

sensitive lands, restore watershed on federal forest lands, and administer erosion control grants to

local government. To date more than 13,000 acres have been purchased under this act.

1981

The first moratorium on development in the Tahoe Basin goes into effect on August 24, 1981, until

August 26, 1983.

1982

The environmental thresholds are adopted by TRPA in August.

1983

The second moratorium on development in the Tahoe Basin goes into effect until April 25, 1984. It

is considered more restrictive than the earlier version.

1984

The first (1984) Regional Plan is adopted. However, that same day the state of California placed an

injunction on the plan on the grounds that it is not stringent enough to protect the Tahoe Basin.

1987

After litigation and negotiations, the completely revised 1987 Regional Plan is successfully adopted.

1996

The Bureau of Land Management finalizes a land exchange of 1,400 acres of Las Vegas land for 35

acres of Lake Tahoe property. The 35 acres are given to FS.

Nevada and California voters approve $30 million for erosion control and stream restoration in

Tahoe Basin.

1997

President Clinton holds the Lake Tahoe Presidential Forum. Under Executive Order 13507, the

Lake Tahoe Federal Interagency Partnership and the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) are

created to assist with meeting the Regional Plan.

2000

The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-506) is signed, authorizing $300 million for EIP

restoration projects.

2003

The Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA; P.L. 105-263) is amended,

appropriating $300 million toward EIP restoration projects.

2006

SNPLMA is amended to include funding for a Hazardous Fuels Reduction and Treatment Program.

2007

The Angora Wildfire burns 3,100 acres in the Tahoe Basin, destroying 254 residences and 75

commercial structures, damaging another 35 residences, and injuring 3 people.

2008

The Aquatic Invasive Species Program is created.

2008

The EIP is updated by TRPA to guide the second decade of the capital improvement program.

2009

Lahontan cutthroat trout recovery begins.

2011

The final total maximum daily load (TMDL) is approved by the EPA for Lake Tahoe. The TMDL sets

the clarity standard for the lake at 97 feet.

2012

The Regional Plan is updated for the first time since 1987. The update becomes effective in 2013.

2012

SNPLMA finishes its $300 million dollar funding commitment toward Lake Tahoe restoration.

2013

Tahoe Regional Planning Compact is amended and Regional Plan is updated by California and

Nevada to allow new development in the Tahoe Basin area.

Congressional Research Service

Overview of Management and Restoration Activities in the Lake Tahoe Basin

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

, 7-....

Acknowledgments

Samuel Kim contributed to this report.

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.