Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group's letter to:

Dear Ms. Cody and Ms. Kelly:

I am writing in response to your agency’s request for scoping comments on the Proposed Action for Burke Creek Rabe Meadow Riparian Restoration Project, released on February 21, 2023, by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) of the US Forest Service. 

I represent the Tahoe Area Group of the Sierra Club.  Management of National Forest lands in the Tahoe Basin under the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) is a high priority for our Group, particularly when it comes to preserving the clarity and purity of Lake Tahoe and the natural environment of the lands surrounding it. Tahoe Area Group members in Nevada are members of the Toiyabe Chapter (more than 6,200 members); Group members in California are members of the Mother Lode Chapter (more than 17,400 members).  We have over 6,400 members in Nevada and Eastern California.  Of those, nearly one-half reside in the western Nevada corridor from Reno/Sparks through Carson City and Minden/Gardnerville, including the Nevada communities that border Lake Tahoe.  Many members both in and outside the Lake Tahoe Basin engage in recreational activities on LTBMU lands.  

General Comment – Environmental Assessment

The Tahoe Area Group is supportive, in general, of creek/meadow restoration projects that reconnect creeks to their floodplain such as this project, which was developed by Nevada Tahoe Conservation District (NTCD) in conjunction with LTBMU.  However, this project, involving (a) over 600 cubic yards of cut and fill to recreate Burke Creek at its outlet to Lake Tahoe and (b) plans to transplant state endangered Tahoe Yellow Cress, should not be approved with a categorical exclusion (CE) under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Both of these planned activities, as well as others, could have potentially significant impacts, which would require, at a minimum, an Environmental Assessment (EA). We also believe that a checklist of potentially significant impacts should have been provided with the scoping document.

Since there is very little information on the LTBMU website regarding this project, this scoping comment primarily requests that an EA be completed for the project so that the public has a full understanding of the project and capable of providing meaningful comments on the project.  After meeting with NTCD’s Meghan Kelly on March 2, 2023, Meghan provided me with 11 supporting documents, but these and a thorough EA are needed so the general public can have the opportunity to review these documents as well.  

In addition, according to the US Forest Service document on Categorical Exclusions, for a CE to be used for a project there needs to be a collaborative process involved in the development of the project, which we are not aware has occurred for this project, specifically: “Projects shall be developed or refined through a collaborative process that includes multiple interested persons representing diverse interests.”  The Sierra Club was not informed and there is no indication that a collaborative process was done from the documents provided.

Lack of Documentation and Maps

Although the seven-page scoping document is succinct, there are no supportive documents provided for the public to examine for additional information. Also, the map provided in the Proposed Action on the LTBMU website is not of an adequate scale to closely examine the seven sub-project areas.  Each sub-project area should have its own map at a scale that details can be easily seen and understood. In addition, the maps provided by Meghan indicate they are “Draft Drawings, Not for Construction” though they are dated 11/2022. Please provide maps that are construction ready in the EA.

Cut and Fill volumes

Page 4 of the Proposed Action document currently available to the public states that “Overall grading cut of approximately 6,300 cubic yards and fill of approximately 6000 cubic yards resulting in a net cut of approximately 300 cubic yards.”  However, in pages 2 through 4 for the individual sub-project areas, the total cut (after adding up each cut volume in the 7 sub-project areas) is 8,700 cubic yards and total fill volume is 4,600 cubic yards leading to remaining fill volume of 4,100 cubic yards. 

Also, the project entails a “partial filling of the existing Burke Creek channel that will be rerouted” and “Filling of the Kahle Ditch from the access road to 0.5 feet above the highwater line of Lake Tahoe.” Considering the proximity (essentially adjacent) to Lake Tahoe, much more information is needed on what is planned for preventing discharges of this fill material from Kahle ditch to the lake. 

The Proposed Action states “New channel and floodplain will provide flood conveyance of the predicted 100-year flood.” However, there is no information available on how the new channel will be prevented from discharging sediment to Lake Tahoe for the first several years, particularly during spring runoff events, but also during summer thunderstorms. Also, please explain the reasoning behind leaving most downstream culvert in place.

Tahoe Yellow Cress

Tahoe yellow cress (Rorippa subumbellata Roll.) (TYC) is a rare plant that only occurs on the shores of Lake Tahoe in California and Nevada. It is listed as endangered by the State of California and as critically endangered in Nevada. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified Tahoe yellow cress as a candidate species for listing in 1999, but in 2015, removed TYC as a candidate for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This project proposes to transplant TYC plants as stated on page 2: “Plants that may be present would be transplanted to the new outlet of Burke Creek or temporarily to a greenhouse prior to backfilling of the ditch.” 

• More specificity as to how this transplanting process will occur should be provided. 
• Transplanting the plants to an area where a new channel is being formed, thus an area of instability and potentially future disturbance, does not sound like a successful strategy. Please explain in greater detail.
• As mitigation for potential loss, we would also suggest a 2:1 replanting ratio from the outset of the project and barrier fences to protect the relocated TYC.

Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog

No information is provided on the federally listed endangered Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog (SNYLF).  Although some information was provided to me by Meghan, there needs to be a commitment to survey the area for SNYLF prior to project implementation, what specific measures would be taken if they are found, and what measure will be taken to avoid any impacts even if they are not found. As stated in the Biological Evaluation provided to me, “157 acres of Suitable habitat for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (SNYLF) has been identified in the project area.”

Paved Bike Path

It is unclear where the bike path is proposed on the map as the legend indicating the Paved Bike Path only appears for a short distance along Kahle Drive next to the construction staging area.  Please provide maps that indicate all the project features in detail.

In conclusion, we respect the efforts of NTCD and LTBMU to reconnect Burke Creek to its floodplain and increase channel length and sinuosity to the new channel to improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat. However, we request that an EA be developed for the project and the other issues raised above be provided in greater detail, clarified and/or addressed.

Respectfully yours,

Tobi Tyler, Vice Chair
Tahoe Area Group, Sierra Club