Heavenly Trails Expansion

USDA
-=-- a
DRAFT
DECISION NOTICE
and
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

HEAVENLY MOUNTAIN RESORT 2017 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

U.S. FOREST SERVICE
LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT

EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ALPINE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA
CARSON CITY, NEVADA
DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEVADA
BACKGROUND

Heavenly Mountain Resort (Heavenly) is located in both California and Nevada, spanning
three counties: El Dorado and Alpine in California, and Douglas County in Nevada. The Lake
Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) administers the majority of Heavenly’s lift and
terrain network on National Forest System (NFS) lands. The remainder of resort land is
located on private lands owned by Heavenly. The NFS portions of Heavenly are
administered under a 40‐year ski‐area special use permit (SUP) issued by the LTBMU on
May 7, 2002. The SUP area encompasses approximately 7,020 acres of NFS lands. In total,
the resort offers approximately 4,800 skiable acres, 29 lifts and 94 trails (runs). Heavenly
has a base elevation of 6,540 feet and 7,200 feet in California and Nevada, respectively, and
a summit elevation of 10,067 feet, with a total vertical elevation change of over 3,500 feet.

HEAVENLY MOUNTAIN RESORT 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

— Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact —
1
USDA
-=-- a
Due to its unique location, activities at Heavenly are subject to extensive review and
approval by various entities, including the LTBMU, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
(TRPA) Douglas County, El Dorado County, Alpine County, and numerous federal, state, and
local agencies, laws, regulations, plans and policies.

Under the terms of the SUP, Heavenly is required to provide the Forest Service with a
Master Development Plan to outline future projects and operations on NFS lands. A 20‐year
Master Plan was established in 1996, followed by a Master Plan Amendment in 2007 to
address a change in ownership and general conditions at Heavenly Resort, updating the
projects in the original plan to reflect current operating and environmental conditions and
improved use balance. In 2015, Heavenly’s Epic Discovery Project continued to implement
the 1996 and 2007 Master Plan and addressed a 2011 amendment to the National Forest
Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 supporting summer uses and year‐round natural resource‐
based recreation at ski areas. Heavenly’s 2007 Master Development Plan Amendment
EIR/EIS/EIS and 2015 Epic Discovery Project EIR/EIS/EIS provide a framework and
background for this EA.

Heavenly Mountain Resort’s 2017 Capital Improvements Project includes ski trail widening
and run hazard reductions, as well as associated snow making line realignments in
accordance with Heavenly’s approved Master Development Plan. All projects included in
the Proposed Action are within Heavenly’s Special Use Permit area (and more specifically
within the LTBMU boundary), which is administered by LTBMU.
DECISION
I have reviewed the Heavenly Mountain Resort 2017 Capital Improvements Project
Environmental Assessment (EA), the Project Record, and the Response to Comments
(FONSI/DN, Appendix A).

I have decided to implement Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, as summarized below and
described in detail in the EA (Chapter 2).
ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION

Heavenly is proposing trail widening to address areas of existing skier congestion, the
removal of run hazards such as large boulders, downed trees, and other large natural
debris, and the associated realignment of snow making water and air pipelines. The
Proposed Action is depicted on the plan sheets in Appendix B of the EA.

Heavenly’s Master Development Plan envisions widening some of the approximately 719
acres of existing ski trails throughout the resort. The Proposed Action would selectively
widen the ski trails listed in Table 1 to achieve more consistent trail widths that respond to
its use levels, and eliminate bottlenecks along the trails that affect skier flow. Both ski trail
widening and run hazard reduction (in the areas where trail widening are proposed) would
2
USDA
-=-- a
occur on the following ski trails: Sam’s Dream, 49er, Cascade, Ridge Run, Powderbowl, and
Olympic Downhill.

Table 1. Ski Trail Widening Locations
Run Area (acres)
49er (IW‐1) 0.3
Sam’s Dream (IW‐2) 1.2
Cascade (IW‐3) 0.3
Ridge Run (IW‐4) 2.9
Upper Powderbowl (IW‐5) 1.0
Ridge Way (IW‐6) 0.3
Lower $100 Saddle (IW‐7) 0.5
Comet (OW‐1) 3.3
Orion’s (OW‐2) 10.9
Big Dipper (OW‐3) 1.2
Lower Olympic Downhill (OW‐4) 3.2
Bonanza 0.2
Total 25.3
Note: Comet, Orion’s, Big Dipper, Lower Olympic Downhill and Bonanza area located outside the Lake Tahoe Basin
Boundary and therefore not under the jurisdiction of the TRPA regulations.
The edges of certain trail widening areas will be feathered where possible in order to retain
large diameter trees (greater than 30” diameter‐at‐breast‐height), and provide visual and
experiential benefits to the user. The feathering will be laid out as part of the final field
review and tree marking with the Forest Service prior to removal. In trail widening areas
closest to the existing ski trail, all trees will be removed. In the areas where feathering is
proposed, tree removal would be laid out with the intent of retaining large diameter trees
and removal of trees greater than 30 inches dbh would be limited.

Due to the topography and geology throughout the resort, as well as previous ski run
construction methods, large boulders and downed trees are found within existing
developed ski runs. This presents a challenge to opening and maintaining terrain for skiing
and riding each season. The height of these natural features can require up to five feet or
more of snow coverage before runs can be opened. During low snow years, a great deal of
energy and water resources for snowmaking is required to provide enough snow on these
trails so that they can be safely opened. Two ski trails, Advanced Round‐a‐bout and Meteor,
do not have snowmaking infrastructure and are not able to be opened during low snow
years due to the existing hazards. The Run Hazard Reduction Prescription will remove or
3
USDA
-=-- a
reduce these hazards.

The Run Hazard Reduction Prescription will be implemented on sections of the ski trails
listed in Table 2. This prescription would reduce obstacles and allow improved surface
coverage under natural and manmade snow conditions. Boulders would be capped (blasted
with explosives) to a height of 12‐18 inches and moved by hand or equipment. Stumps
would be ground or cut to a height of less than 6 inches but would remain in place. Large
diameter logs would be moved from the ski trail, chipped, or used along steeper sections of
the trail for erosion control. Finally, all existing limbs would be chipped or lopped and
scattered to a height of between 12‐18 inches. Felled trees would be chipped and used as
mulch. Because of identified potential impacts to existing Tahoe draba populations as
outlined in EA Section 3.4, the areas proposed for Run Hazard Reduction treatment have
been reduced for Upper California Trail (IH‐1), Cascade (IH‐2) and Ridge Run (IW‐4).

Table 2. Run Hazard Reduction Locations
Run Proposed Mitigated

Area (acres) Area (acres)
Upper California Trail (IH‐1) 7.3 3.35
Cascade (IH‐2) 3.5 3.49
Sam’s Dream (IH‐3) 2 2
49er (IH‐4) 2.4 2.4
Advanced Round‐a‐bout (IH‐5) 3.3 3.3
Little Dipper (OH‐1) 4.9 4.9
Upper Stagecoach (OH‐2) 8.1 8.1
Meteor (OH‐3) 3.3 3.3
*Ridge Run (IW‐4) 2.9 2.89
*Upper Powderbowl (IW‐5) 1.0 1.0
*Lower Olympic Downhill “S Curves” (OW‐4) 3.2 3.2
Total 41.9 37.93
Note: Little Dipper, Upper Stagecoach and Meteor area located outside the Lake Tahoe Basin Boundary.
*Minor run hazard reduction activities (e.g., boulder removal or capping) would also occur on Ridge Run, Powderbowl,
and Olympic downhill within the proposed trail widening areas.

As a result of the trail widening, existing buried snow making water and air pipelines
would be extended to the new edge of the trail in the widened areas. The Project would
relocate or extend 5,800 linear feet of snowmaking infrastructure. Lines would be placed
approximately two feet below the ground surface and trenches would typically be 3 feet

4
USDA
-=-- a
wide and no more than five feet wide.

A more detailed description of the Proposed Action and project design features can be
found in Chapter 2 of the EA.
DECISION RATIONALE
The alternative I have selected meets the purpose and need by increasing the capacity of
specific sections of heavily used ski trails and reducing run hazards (e.g., downed logs,
boulders, stumps) that require the use of more snowmaking or natural snow to operate the
trails. Based on use levels and patterns, particularly in early‐season and low‐snowpack
conditions, trails with existing run hazards are not providing a high‐quality experience and
cannot be opened on a consistent basis due to the presence of these obstacles. The
identified actions (remove timber to widen ski trails, remove obstacles, and relocate
snowmaking infrastructure) are required to provide improved facilities for guest
enjoyment for the winter sports purposes of Heavenly’s ski area special use permit.

A key component of this decision is the Master Development Plan’s requirements to
maintain 70% total effective surface cover (as required by the Cumulative Watershed
Effects Analysis), provide a variety of surface cover for wildlife microhabitat, and conserve
known Tahoe draba (and other sensitive plant species) populations. I’m confident that
through these existing Master Development Plan protections, we will be able to meet our
resource protection objectives.

Public scoping and comment did not reveal any notable alternative approaches to the
proposed action. The proposed action includes a comprehensive suite of design features
and Best Management Practices (EA Sec. 2.3) that fully mitigate any effects to less than
significant (see FONSI below).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
In addition to the selected alternative (Alternative 2), I also considered the no‐action
alternative in detail (EA Chapter 2). Under the No Action Alternative, current conditions
and management would continue. This alternative would result in no trail widening, run
hazard reduction activities or realignment of snowmaking air and water pipelines, and as a
result, would not implement the prescriptions established in the Heavenly Ski Resort
Master Development Plan. Ski Trails would remain in their current condition.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The project was listed on the LTBMU’s List of Projects and publically noticed on April 7,
2017. The public scoping notice was mailed to stakeholders and interested parties,
requesting written and electronic comments on the Proposed Action by April 28, 2017. A
copy of the scoping letter and Proposed Action were posted on the LTBMU website on the
5
USDA
-=-- a
same day. Nine responses were received between April 7 and May 1, 2017, including
comments from the following agencies: California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Lahontan Region, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, and
Nevada Division of Water Resources.

An EA was prepared and circulated for public comment from November 22, 2017 to
December 22, 2017. A notice in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on November 22, 2017 started the
30 day legal comment period. Interested parties, including those that commented during
the scoping period, were notified that the comment period was open and the documents
were available on the LTBMU website. In addition the LTBMU sent out a press release on
November 22, 2017 announcing the comment period. Twenty five comment letters were
received (see Response to Comments DN Appendix A).
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that
these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment
considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27). Thus, an
environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following:
1. Beneficial and adverse impacts – My finding of no significant environmental impact is
not biased by the beneficial effects of the action (EA, Chapter 3). The project design
which includes the design features and Best Management Practices described in the EA
Section 2.3, reduce any impacts resulting from implementation of this project to a level
that will be less than significant.
2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety – There
will be no significant effects on public health and safety. The project provides a benefit
to public safety by reducing ski trail crowding and improving the flow of guests during
periods of peak usage.
3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area – The Proposed Action is compliant
with the direction provided in the Heavenly Master Development Plan and its
Management Areas as prescribed in the 2016 LTBMU Forest Plan. Consequently there
will be no impact to any specially designated areas.
4. The degree of controversy over environmental effects – Public involvement with
interested and affected individuals and agencies was conducted throughout the
environmental analysis. Based on the comments received during scoping and the
comment period no substantive issues were identified that led to the development of
additional alternatives. All comments were addressed through development of
additional or revised project criteria, design features or clarification to the Proposed
Action (e.g., the addition of feathering to the edges of proposed trail widening to
preserve trees larger than 30 inches diameter‐at‐breast height). Accordingly, the
environmental consequences were revised to take into account any changes in the
6
USDA
-=-- a
Proposed Action or to reflect public comments. The Response to Comments (DN,
Appendix A) documents how the EA addresses each comment.
Based on the comments, the degree of controversy is relatively low. Many commenters
were very supportive of the Proposed Action and only one offered concerns regarding
the EA’s conclusions (see letter S from Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources regarding the EA’s determination of whitebark pine impacts).
5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly
uncertain or involves unique or unknown risks – The LTBMU and its special use
permit holder (Heavenly) has considerable experience and success with the types of
activities to be implemented. The effects analysis in the EA shows that overall effects
are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk (EA, Chapter 3).
6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with
significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future
consideration. The action will not establish a precedent for future actions with
significant effects. No significant effects are identified (EA, Chapter 3), nor does this
action influence a decision in principle about any future considerations. As described in
#5 above the outcome of the actions proposed are well known. The activities that will
be authorized under this decision are common with the operation of a ski resort and
have been studied carefully since early Master Plan approvals dating back to the early
1990s.
7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but
cumulatively significant impacts – There are no known significant cumulative effects
considering the effects this Proposed Action when added to other ongoing or planned
projects in or adjacent to the project area. The effects of other foreseeable future
actions (e.g., future Master Development Plan implementation) as well as past actions
and ongoing actions were included in each resource section in the analysis (EA, Chapter
3).
8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways,
structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places, or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural,
or historical resources – The Proposed Action may be implemented without further
consultation in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement among the USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation
Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation. The Proposed Action takes place on lands that have been previously
surveyed for historic properties and no historic properties are located within the Area
of Potential Effect.

7
USDA
-=-- a
9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened
species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 – The information provided for this project specific
analysis on California wolverine, Pacific fisher, Sierra Nevada yellow legged frog,
Yosemite toad, Lahontan cutthroat trout and whitebark pine are discussed in detail in
the project’s BA/BE (Project Record) and summarized in Chapter 3 of the EA. Design
Features (EA Sec. 2.3) protect these species and their habitat.
10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or other
requirements imposed for the protection of the environment – The action will not
violate Federal, State, and local laws or requirements for the protection of the
environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered in the EA. The action is
consistent with the Heavenly Master Development Plan and 2016 LTBMU Land
Management Plan.
FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

National Forest Management Act
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the development of long‐range
land and resource management plans. The LTBMU Forest Plan was approved in 2016 as
required by this act. The Forest Plan provides guidance for all natural resource
management activities. The NFMA requires that all projects and activities be consistent
with the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan has been reviewed in consideration of this project.
A Forest Plan consistency matrix for this project was completed (Project Record Section
G – Management Direction).
Endangered Species Act
In accordance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of endangered and threatened species that may be
affected by projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Area was reviewed (August
20, 2017 and verified January 12, 2018) and effects on those species are analyzed in the
BA/BE (Project Record). Informal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) was conducted for this project. Forest Service biologist, Stephanie Coppeto,
had a telephone conversation with Chad Mellison with the USFWS regarding the
determination of no effect for the Sierra Nevada yellow‐legged frog and critical
habitat. The USFWS agreed that because the Proposed Action does not overlap with
suitable habitat (or critical habitat) and past protocol‐level surveys conducted in the
project area did not find frogs, a no effect determination was prudent and no further
consultation was necessary.

8
USDA
-=-- a
National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies
to take into account the effect of a project on any district, site, building, structure, or
object that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic
Places. Section 106 of the NHPA (Public Law 89.665, as amended) also requires federal
agencies to afford the State Historic Preservation Officer a reasonable opportunity to
comment.
Clean Water Act (Public Law 92–500)
All federal agencies must comply with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA),
which regulates forest management activities near federal waters and riparian areas.
The resource protection measures associated with the Proposed Action ensure that the
terms of the CWA are met, primarily prevention of pollution caused by erosion and
sedimentation.
Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344) regulates activities that result in the discharge
of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The Proposed
Action will not require any disturbance to waters of the U.S.
Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898)
Executive Order 12898 requires that all federal actions consider potentially
disproportionate effects on minority and low‐income communities, especially if adverse
effects on environmental or human health conditions are identified. None of the
alternatives considered have significant adverse effects on the environment or human
health.
The activities proposed were based solely a response to the purpose and need. In no
case were the project activities identified based on the demographic makeup,
occupancy, property value, income level, or any other criteria reflecting the status of
adjacent non‐federal land. Reviewing the location, scope, and nature of the proposed
action in relationship to non‐federal land, there is no evidence to suggest that any
minority or low‐income neighborhood would be affected disproportionately.
Conversely, there is no evidence that any individual, group, or portion of the community
would benefit unequally from any of the actions in the proposed alternatives.
Invasive Species Management, FSM 2900
This EA covers botanical resources and invasive plants. An Invasive Plant Risk
Assessment has been prepared (Project Record, Section B‐1 Specialist Reports and
Supporting Documentation). The IPRA’s resource protection measures are designed to
minimize risk of new invasive plant introductions.

9
USDA
-=-- a
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as amended (16 USC 703‐712)
The original 1918 statute implemented the 1916 Convention between the United States
and Great Britain (for Canada) for the protection of migratory birds. Later amendments
implemented treaties between the United States and Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet
Union (now Russia). Specific provisions in the statute include the establishment of a
federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill,
attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase,
deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport,
cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive
for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any
migratory bird, included in the terms of this Convention . . . for the protection of
migratory birds . . . or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird." Because forest lands
provide a substantial portion of breeding habitat, land management activities within
the LTBMU can have an impact on local populations.
A Migratory Bird Report (Project Record, Section B‐1 Specialist Reports and Supporting
Documentation) has been prepared for this project which fulfills the requirements of
this act and Executive Order 13186.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
TRPA reviewed an application for the Proposed Action and issued a permit on February
17, 2017.
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION DATE

This proposed decision is subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and B.
Objections will only be accepted from those who submitted project‐specific written
comments during scoping or other designated comment period. Issues raised in objections
must be based on previously submitted comments unless based on new information arising
after the designated comment period(s).
Objections must be submitted within 45 days following the publication of a legal notice in
the Tahoe Daily Tribune. The date of the legal notice is the exclusive means for calculating
the time to file an objection. Those wishing to object should not rely upon dates or
timeframes provided by any other source. It is the objector’s responsibility to ensure
evidence of timely receipt (36 CFR 218.9).

Objections must be submitted to the reviewing officer: Randy Moore, Regional Forester,
USDA Forest Service; Attn: Heavenly Mountain Resort 2017 Capital Improvements Project ‐
LTBMU; 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592. Phone (707) 562‐8737. Objections may be
submitted via mail, FAX (707‐562‐9229), or delivered during business hours (M‐F 8:00am
to 4:00pm). Electronic objections, in common (.doc, .pdf, .rtf, .txt) formats, may be
10
USDA
-=-- a
submitted to: objections‐pacificsouthwest‐regional‐office@fs.fed.us with Subject: Heavenly
Mountain Resort 2017 Capital Improvements Project ‐ LTBMU. In cases where no
identifiable name is attached to an electronic message, a verification of identity will be
required. A scanned signature is one way to provide verification.
Objections must include (36 CFR 218.8(d)): 1) name, address and telephone; 2) signature
or other verification of authorship; 3) identify a single lead objector when applicable; 4)
project name, Responsible Official name and title, and name of affected National Forest(s)
and/or Ranger District(s); 5) reasons for, and suggested remedies to resolve, your
objections; and, 6) description of the connection between your objections and your prior
comments. Incorporate documents by reference only as provided for at 36 CFR 218.8(b).
CONTACT
For additional information concerning this project, contact:
Ashley Sibr, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
35 College Drive
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Phone (530)543‐2600
______________________________ ____________________
JEFF MARSOLAIS Date
Forest Supervisor
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

Appendices:
Appendix A – Response to Comments


11
USDA
-=-- a
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of
race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status,
religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s
income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons
with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720‐2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of
discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20250‐9410, or call (800) 795‐3272 (voice) or (202) 720‐6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.

12
USDA
-=-- a

Appendix A
Response to Comments

From 30 Day Comment Period (Nov. 22 to Dec. 22, 2017)

Note: References to EA page numbers or sections in comment summaries are based on the draft Environmental
Assessment circulated for public comment. In some cases the section references have changed in the final EA due to
editing. Section references in the responses refer to the final EA (cross reference between the draft and final are
noted in some cases where useful to the reader). Responses use section references exclusively and not page
numbers, which change due to formatting and editing of the EA.
The following comment summaries and responses are organized by commenter by date. The key
concerns for each commenter are summarized, including quotes where deemed appropriate for
clarity, followed by the Forest Service response.
Overall Response: Scope of the proposed action
The majority of comments expressed support for the Heavenly Mountain Resort 2017 Capital
Improvements Project and the EA. A few comment letters addressed upcoming permitting
requirements for the states of California and Nevada. Other comments suggested other areas in
need of trail widening improvements or additional references that could be included in the EA.
The comments received from the Nevada Division of State Lands focused on impacts to
whitebark pine. The EA text has been revised to indicate the Whitebark Pine Action Plan has not
yet been finalized for implementation, among other text changes regarding whitebark pine. The
Whitebark Pine Action Plan is expected for finalization in Spring of 2018. No text changes have
been made that substantially alter the analysis or findings.
Individual Response to Comments
A. NDEP, Bureau of Water Pollution Control (11/28/17)

1. The project may be subject to the following permits, required for discharges to surface
and groundwaters of the State: Stormwater Industrial General Permit, De Minimis
Discharge General Permit, Pesticide General Permit, Drainage Wall General Permit,
Temporary Permit for Discharges to Groundwater’s of the State, Working in Waters
Permit, Wastewater Discharge Permit, Underground Injection Control Permits, Onsite
Sewage Disposal System Permits, and Holding Tank Permits. Discharge permits must be
issued prior to construction.
Integrated Management and Use of Trails, Roads, and Facilities

13
USDA
-=-- a
Response: Permits and agency coordination associated with the project are listed
in Section 1.10, on page 9 of the EA. LTBMU and Heavenly will ensure
compliance with regulations and permitting prior to construction.
2. Other permits may also be required such as dam safety permits, well permits, 404/401
permits, air permits, health permits, and local permits.
Response: Permits and agency coordination associated with the project are listed
in Section 1.10, on page 9 of the EA. LTBMU and Heavenly will ensure
B. Tim Tretton, MontBleu Resort Casino and Spa (11/29/17)

1. MontBleu supports the Project because trail improvements would benefit the tourist
economy, reduce trail congestion and injuries, and allow for earlier season openings. The
improvements would also reduce snowmaking energy and water consumption and
maintain consistency with the Heavenly Master Plan. These improvements benefit guests
visiting the area.
Response: Thank you for your comment.
C. Sue Gilbert, NDEP Division of Water Resources (12/1/17)

1. Supports the Project as written. Water used by the project should be provided by an
established utility or under permit issued by the State Engineer’s Office
Response: Comment noted. LTBMU and Heavenly will ensure compliance with
regulations prior to construction.
D. Michael Bradford (12/1/17)

1. I would like to express my support of the ski trail widening and smoothing
improvements, which is beneficial for visitors, residents, and the local economy. Hazard
reduction reduces the depth of snow needed on the trails, which simplifies operational
costs and improves safety. The improvements increase user enjoyment and increase
visitor returns, reduce skier congestion, allows earlier season openings, reduces water and
energy consumption, is consistent with the Heavenly Master Plan, and can be
implemented with minimal environmental effects.

14
USDA
-=-- a
E. Carl Fair (12/4/17)
1. This past weekend I enjoyed skiing on “Little Dipper” and not having to compete with
the crowds on “Orion” and “Big Dipper.” I support the trail expansion and run clearance
of boulders and logs. I have been wishing for “Little Dipper” to be free of debris since
1973 so we can use and enjoy the best run early in the season. The expansion of the runs
to allow room for all skiers is a safe decision.
F. Sam Slack, Resorts West (12/4/17)

1. I am in support of the Project. The improvements are clearly defined and logical and will
benefit guests and the environment. The improvements address previously defined issues
and are consistent with the Heavenly Master Plan. The Project will cause minimal impact
on the environment. Skier experience is a critical driver to the winter economy and the
improvements will have a positive economic impact. Extending the ski season and
congestion reduction should be high priorities. Water and electricity use reductions are
also beneficial.
Response: Thank you for the comment.
G. Kathleen Shoda, Resorts West (12/6/17)

1. I support the Heavenly 2017 Capital Improvements Project Draft EA. The project
relieves trail congestion and improves guest safety who comprise the majority of winter
resort visitors in the area. More easily navigated trails will foster better guest experiences
and will encourage visitors to return. Reductions in water and energy use and Project
implementation with minimal environmental impact is also beneficial.
H. Austin Sass (12/10/17)

1. I am a long time local, avid skier and after reviewing the project, I believe the trail
widening and smoothing improvements will greatly enhance the guest experience at
Heavenly. Widening will alleviate dangerous congestion points and hazard reduction
will remove obstacles on the trails while making trail snow making easier. The Project
will increase guest enjoyment, address congestion and improve skier circulation, increase
the likelihood that guests will return, allow for earlier trail opening, reduce water and
energy consumption, and can be implemented with minimal environmental effects. This
is good for local skiers, the local environment, and will improve visitor experiences.

15
USDA
-=-- a

I. Bob Novasel (12/11/17)
1. I support the proposed run widening and run hazard reductions. I am a regular Heavenly
skier and see the benefits to the public. The proposal has been thoughtfully planned and
can be implemented with minimal environmental effects. The proposal is consistent with
the Heavenly Master Plan and supports the Forest Service’s designation of Heavenly as a
world-class developed winter sports facility. Widening the particular trails will improve
flow and circulation, which increases the enjoyment of our public lands. Although the
widening is selective, it will have a meaningful positive impact. Hazard reduction
provides more trail options during the early season and periods of low snow, which also
increases the enjoyment of our public lands. Heavenly is recognized as a responsible
environmental steward and the opportunity to reduce snowmaking water and energy
consumption is a thoughtful action that should be supported.

J. Clinton Purvance, Barton Health (12/12/17)
1. Barton Healthcare System supports a ski run widening proposal of existing trail at
Heavenly Ski Resort. The trail widening project would reduce congestion and improve
skier circulation in key locations. Hazard reduction improvements will increase safety,
reduce snowmaking energy and water consumption, and allow earlier season opening of
trails in low snow years. The project is consistent with the Heavenly Master Plan and is
expected to be implemented with minimal environmental effects. I encourage Forest
Service approval of the project as it enhances the guest experience, making it a more
inviting and safer place to explore the mountain.
K. Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority (12/14/17)

1. The LTVA Board of Directors supports Heavenly Mountain Resort’s 2017 Project EA.
As the destination marketing organization for the South Shore region, our marketing
campaigns inspire travelers from around the world to visit Tahoe South. We rely on the
local business community to fulfill the destination vision that we promote by providing
high-quality recreation opportunities. This project presents a great opportunity to
embellish the skier/snowboarded experience at the resort, which increases the likelihood
that they will return or recommend the destination to friends and family. The project
allows early season opening in low snow years, reduces congestion, and improves skier
circulation with little to no environmental effects. It is in the best interest of our
community to approve the widening and smoothing of trails at Heavenly.

16
USDA
-=-- a
L. Lewis Feldman, Feldman McLaughlin Thiel, LLP (12/14/17)
1. As a passholder at Heavenly Mountain Resort, I have seen the effects of climate change
on winter conditions and the quality of the guest experience over the last 40 years. I
support the Proposed Action because: removal of obstacles on the ski runs will reduce
snowmaking water and energy consumption; expansion and relocation of snowmaking
infrastructure will improve the quality and duration of winter recreation activities leading
to high quality recreational opportunities for visitors and residents; widening congested
trails will enhance skier/rider safety and improve the recreational experience; and
contemporary prescriptions for best management practices employed in the removal of
obstacles from ski runs will reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant.
M. Michael Reitzell, California Ski Industry Association (12/14/17)

1. The California Ski Industry supports Heavenly Mountain Resort’s ski resort improvement
projects. We represent 32 ski resorts in California and Nevada, including Heavenly, with
core objectives related to sustainability, safety, and advocacy of mountain sports. We
support the project because it will significantly enhance the gust experience while
reducing environmental impacts. Heavenly has carefully identified specific locations that
would most benefit from trail widening to relieve congestion, improve traffic flow,
remove blind spots, and allow for uniform grooming, all of which improves the guest
experience, increases the potential for return visits and helps to create lifelong skiers and
riders. Obstacle removal creates smoother surfaces, reduces reliance on snowmaking in
the early season, and conserves snowmaking energy and water. Heavenly has considered
the environmental impacts and has made a strong commitment to the environment, which
fits with our vision for the ski industry. Mountains are meant to be enjoyed and
experienced and if the California ski industry does not continue to improve and enhance
the guest experience, visitors will seek out other resorts in other states, hurting our
economy. The project is environmentally sound and consistent with Heavenly’s efforts
to improve the mountain experience.
N. Ralph and Terri Thomas (12/14/17)

1. I have skied all over the U.S. and Europe and have been employed in the ski industry off
and on, including working for Vail resorts in Colorado. Vail Resorts are good stewards of
the land. Most of the mountain guests only experience the outdoors in the winter on
Forest Service land. I support the proposal. Heavenly is the draw for South lake Tahoe
and City and surrounding communities depend on its success for their livelihood. Let
Heavenly improve and expand the terrain and experience for our local residents and
guests by removing hazards, adding facilities, cutting runs, improving lift capacity,

17
USDA
-=-- a
upgrading snowmaking, and other improvements. The amount of Forest Service land
affected by ski area operations is miniscule compared to the national forest visitor who
only experiences the forest at a ski area/resort in the winter.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Please note the Proposed Action does
not include expansion of facilities, new runs, or lift capacity improvements.
O. Scott Fair (12/15/17)

1. I am for widening of trails for Heavenly. I was born and raised here and grew up racing
for Heavenly, and I take the natural beauty seriously. I know the trails they are proposing
to widen and agree that widening them will improve the flow and circulation for all,
which will increase the enjoyment of our public lands. Even though the proposed
widening is selective in nature, it will have a meaningful positive impact.

P. Allen Biaggi (12/16/17)
1. I am a native Nevada resident and long-time skier at Heavenly, was the Director of
NDEP and a member of TRPA’s Governing Board, and after review of the EA, I strongly
support the Preferred Alternative. Heavenly Mountain Resort has a good track record of
environmental stewardship and the Preferred Action can be completed in a way that
improves the recreational experience with minimal environmental impact.
2. The actions will reduce overall water use and energy consumption and will use Best
Management Practices to ensure water quality protection.
3. While some impacts to sensitive plant species may occur, protections are included to
ensure impacts are minimized and not significant to the overall success of the species.
Tree thinning will be conducted in a way that reduces impacts to soils and plants. Since
the Preferred Alternative will require the use of proven revegetation techniques to restore
disturbed areas with native seed mixes, the EA could have made reference in Section
2.3.4 to the timing of seed application to ensure the highest probability of success.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The Forest Service follows all
standard construction practices for seed application, which includes specific
actions based on timing of implementation. The Construction Erosion Reduction
Program document within the Heavenly MDP, Appendix 7, also outlines best
practices for seed application, including timing.

18
USDA
-=-- a
4. While not noted or evaluated in the EA, the Preferred Alternative will have additional
recreational and aesthetic benefits. Selective run widening will eliminate bottlenecks and
congestion that can cause collisions and injury, making a safer recreational experience.
Removal of unsightly, haphazardly placed limbed trees will result in a pleasing aesthetic
improvement for summer visitors. Undergrounding and relocation of snowmaking
pipelines will also result in a visual improvement from the current condition where
unnatural linear features on the slope is distracting and not in keeping with the
environment. Hiding the water lines will provide an enhanced user experience in summer
and winter.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The EA Section 3.1 Recreation and
Section 3.2 Scenic Resources were updated to reflect improvements in recreation
experience and scenic resources during summer months.
5. In Chapter 4, Section 4.2, Coordination and Consultation, the correct citation of the
Nevada agency is the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The reference has been corrected to
indicate “Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources”.
6. I strongly support the Preferred Alternative. As noted in the EA, these actions are
consistent with the resort’s Master Development Plan and contained within Heavenly’s
Special Use Permit area.
Q. Jack Sjolin (12/16/17)

1. This project is fantastic and will be beneficial to everyone.
2. I have a suggestion about the widening on Orion’s, which will be widened uphill from
my area of concern. One critical and dangerous “pinch zone” that is not being considered
in this proposal is the natural flat area used as a stopping area right as Orion’s turns left
before Dipper Chair. This is one of the more dangerous “pinches” on the mountain. There
is approximately a 60 degree curve to the left and there is slowing, stopping, resting, slow
speed restarting with downhill skiers/boarders trying to avoid the congestion. There are
also many learning skiers/boarders on Orion’s. This area of congestion could be made
less problematic with trail widening or straightening the curve on the inside left.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The area referenced in the comment is
19
USDA
-=-- a
included in the Proposed Action and is shown as yellow highlighting under the
Dipper Express lift on Plan Sheet 2 (EA Appendix B).
R. Tahoe Douglas Visitors Authority (12/18/17)

1. The TDVA Board of Directors supports the EA. The TDVA was created to increase
tourism revenues, which we aim to accomplish through enhancing the area’s natural
attractions to overnight visitors. The proposed project aligns with our goal to increase
tourism revenues. The project will benefit the skier/snowboarders and local mountain
experience, positively affecting our local economy through the addition of early season
trail opening in low snow years, reduced user congestion, improved skier circulation, and
enhancing the visitor experience. These implementations can be made efficiently with
little or no environmental effects associated with the use of snowmaking energy and
water. These improvements are a great opportunity to embellish the user experience at the
resort increasing the likelihood that they will return or recommend the destination to
others.
S. Elizabeth Kingsland, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Division of State Lands (12/19/17)
1. The Nevada Tahoe Resource Team finds that the proposed trail widening will result in
the loss of 6.41 acres of whitebark pine. The EA includes a determination that there will
be no impact to whitebark pine health at Lake Tahoe as a result of this project since the
acreage being cut makes up a small percentage of total whitebark pine acreage.
Response: The EA references the direct and indirect effects to the species in
Section 3.4.3. Additionally, the EA discusses the potential for the project to have
indirect impacts to the species through the contribution to the threats of fire,
disease and climate change as outlined in the federal listing as a candidate
species. The final determination is that, although there are some direct and
indirect effects from project activities, the project would not result in a significant
negative effect to whitebark pine. The EA was updated to further clarify the
population-level effect on whitebark pine (see response to question 2, below).
2. However, the EA also states, “In the absence of comprehensive stand condition data, it is
difficult to quantify what effect the removal of 6.41 acres of whitebark dominant stands
will have on the LTBMU’s whitebark population at unit scale.” It appears that the
impacts cannot be fully stated without properly evaluating the long-term effects of
removing thousands of healthy whitebark pine trees from the part of the Tahoe Basin
with the healthiest whitebark pine population.
Response: Due to the collection methods of the current whitebark pine data on the
20
USDA
-=-- a
LTBMU, the data cannot be considered “comprehensive stand data” for the
entire LTBMU based tree stand data collection standards. However, the
population of whitebark pine has been quantified and the existing data is
sufficient to allow for an effect determination from the proposed removal of 6.4
acres of whitebark pine. The determination was made that the project would not
result in a trend or acceleration of the species toward federal listing. In order to
clarify the statement in the EA, the referenced text on page 59 of the EA has been
revised as follows:
“… It is unclear how the removal of healthy trees may hinder or enhance stands
exhibiting low WPBR incidence. In the absence of comprehensive stand condition
data on a unit level, it is difficult to quantify what effect the removal of 6.41 acres
of whitebark dominant stands (23.8 acres of forested area containing whitebark
pine will have on the LTBMU’s whitebark population at the unit scale the
Project’s effect to whitebark dominant stands within the LTBMU’s whitebark
population cannot be quantified. Inclusion of resource protection measures
Chapter 2 Design Features in the project description will allow for protection and
conservation of high quality stands within the Special Use Permit Boundary
through the collection of seeds and cones from any “Plus Trees” to be removed.
Collection of seeds and cones from “Plus Trees” and regeneration efforts
combined with long-term monitoring is included in the upcoming Partnership
Action Plan and will allow for the continued study and protection of whitebark
pine within Heavenly Mountain Resort. On a population level, the very minor
removal of whitebark pine stems and acreage associated with this Project in
relation to the existing species numbers and occupancy in the Sierra Nevada will
not trend or accelerate the species toward federal listing. Any plus trees shall be
identified and seeds collected prior to removal of whitebark pine for the Project.”
The subsequent conclusions under Section 3.4.5 on page 61 of the EA indicate the
following:
“The Proposed Action may affect individuals, but is not likely to accelerate the
trend toward Federal listing or result in loss of viability for whitebark pine (Pinus
albicaulis). This determination is based on the fact that individual whitebark pine
trees will be permanently removed, but the acreage of removal constitutes a very
small portion of the estimated LTBMU whitebark pine population; and the threats
to whitebark pine that contributed to its consideration for federal listing are
adequately addressed through resource protection measures Chapter 2 Design
Features and the Recommended Management Actions that are identified in the
upcoming Partnership Action Plan.”
3. The EA also stated the LTBMU has accepted and approved a Whitebark Pine Partnership
Action Plan to manage and protect the whitebark pine stands located within the Heavenly
Special Use Permit Boundary. The details of the Whitebark Pine Partnership Action Plan
should be made available for review before it is presented as a benefit of this project.

21
USDA
-=-- a
Response: The EA incorrectly indicated that the Whitebark Pine Partnership
Action Plan has been accepted and approved. The text of the EA has been
updated to document that the Whitebark Pine Partnership Action Plan is expected
to be finalized by the LTBMU and Heavenly in the spring of 2018, with
implementation to begin shortly thereafter.
4. We suggest that if the project does move forward with implementation, that some kind of
interpretive display on the mountain be designed that details the long term prognosis for
whitebark pine.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Heavenly currently has a

comprehensive interpretive sign program and this suggestion will be included for
consideration of additional interpretive signs. The installation of interpretive
signs does not require analysis under an Environmental Assessment, and may
proceed without inclusion in this proposed action and environmental document.
T. Jim Carolan, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (12/19/17)

1. This letter provides the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board’s support for
Heavenly’s 2017 Capital Improvement Project. The LTBMU has addressed most of the
scoping comments presented in our April 201 letter. The EA acknowledged the need for a
Lahontan Water Board’s 2014 Timber Waiver for Project tasks involving timber harvest
and vegetation management activities in California, the need for a NPDES Tahoe
Construction General Permit, and the potential need for a CEQA document if project
tasks located in California change and the Lahontan Water Board must make a
discretionary decision related to a 401 Water Quality Certification or Basin Plan
Prohibition Exemption.
Response: Comment noted.
2. Please identify the State location for each Project task and ski widening and run hazard
reduction acreage estimates. Identification of State location and estimated acreage for
Project tasks in California will be required when seeking regulatory coverage under the
2014 Timber Waiver and NPDES Tahoe GCP in the state of California.
Response: LTBMU and Heavenly will provide the requested data during the 2014
Timber Waiver and NPDES Tahoe GCP application process to ensure
3. The Project’s Timber waiver application should include the following information: 1)
USGS 7.5 minute topographic (or equivalent or greater scale) Project maps that clearly
show the extent of Project activities in the State of California, and 2) maps that clearly
show areas of floodplains, wetlands, and the ordinary high water mark of any
waterbodies where work will occur in the State of California, if any.

22
USDA
-=-- a
Response: LTBMU and Heavenly will provide the requested data during the 2014
Timber Waiver application process to ensure compliance prior to construction.
U. Jason Drew and Steve Teshara, Tahoe Chamber (12/19/17)

1. The Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce supports the planned Heavenly
Mountain Resort Capital Improvements identified in the EA. The improvements are
supported because they are consistent with Vision and Goals. The improvements are
consistent with the project Purpose and Need and the approved Heavenly Mountain
Resort Master Plan, and they reduce hazards and congestion to improve skier circulation
and the overall quality of the visitor experience. These improvements facilitate earlier
season opening in low snow years with minimal environmental effect and they reduce
energy and water consumption associated with snowmaking.
V. Jerry Bindel, South Lake Tahoe Tourism Improvement District (12/20/17)

1. The South Lake Tahoe Tourism Improvement District strongly supports Heavenly
Mountain Resort’s 2017 Project EA. There are many positive outcomes from a visitor,
local, and environmental standpoint. The project will increase enjoyment of the resort by
visitors and locals through user circulation improvement and congestion reduction, and
better snow coverage and early season opening in low snow years which increase the
potential for visitor returns. The project identifies significant reduction in the use of
snowmaking energy and water. The project improvements can be implemented with
minimal environmental impact with efficient implementation strategies consistent with
the Heavenly Master Plan. Our purpose is to provide for tourism opportunities that
improve tourism on the South Shore and promote the area as a major destination and this
project presents a great opportunity to please visitors, and increase the likelihood they
will return and recommend the area to others.
W. Richard Schwarte (12/21/17)

2. I am a resident of the area since 1972, have skied at Heavenly annually since 1969, and
am in favor of the proposals in the EA. Run widening improves user enjoyment and
safety and reduces congestion on the mountain. I have been hit by out of control skiers.
While I don’t favor removing trees without valid reason, the run widening will be for the
betterment of the skier, community, the resort, the environment, and the economy and
this proposal is valid. Hazard removal is an environmental benefit because Heavenly can
reduce snowmaking and conserve energy and water. Hazard removal also improves
safety. Skiers have been injured when they fall and hit a rock or tree hidden just beneath
the snow line, so removal of hazards will reduce such risks. Hazard removal can be
23
USDA
-=-- a
accomplished in way that improves soil stability and reduces erosion and I believe
Heavenly intends to use these methods. The proposals would be an economic
improvement for Heavenly and the Lake Tahoe area. The more money generated in
Tahoe results in higher potential the money will be spent in Tahoe to correct
environmental problems made in the past.
X. Greg Campbell, Marriott Grand Residence Club (12/22/17)

1. I support Vail Resorts plans to continue their master plan work and improve their ski run
effectiveness, which improves the safety and enjoyment of the skiers using the runs. We
are a complimentary business to Heavenly Mountain and their willingness to reinvest in
the mountain shows their long-term commitment to keeping Heavenly at the forefront of
ski destinations in the west. Their plans allow for earlier season opening and will build
guest loyalty for return business. The project should help with the effectiveness of
snowmaking efforts to support earlier opening with less energy consumption.
Y. Bryan Davis, Edgewood Companies (12/22/17)

1. Edgewood Companies supports the EA. Heavenly Mountain is an asset to the region and
great steward of the land and we support their efforts to improve the guest experience
while reducing energy and water consumption and creating minimal environmental
impact. Trail widening and smoothing improvements will benefit our future guests and
will improve the on-mountain experience for all users. Opportunities to extend the ski
season and bring in more visitors is positive for everyone.
***

24

Heavenly Trails Expansion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heavenly Trails Expansion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USDA

HEAVENLY MOUNTAIN RESORT 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION

Run Proposed Mitigated

HEAVENLY MOUNTAIN RESORT 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

HEAVENLY MOUNTAIN RESORT 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

HEAVENLY MOUNTAIN RESORT 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

HEAVENLY MOUNTAIN RESORT 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION DATE

HEAVENLY MOUNTAIN RESORT 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

HEAVENLY MOUNTAIN RESORT 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

Overall Response: Scope of the proposed action

Individual Response to Comments

A. NDEP, Bureau of Water Pollution Control (11/28/17)

Integrated Management and Use of Trails, Roads, and Facilities

B. Tim Tretton, MontBleu Resort Casino and Spa (11/29/17)

Response: Thank you for your comment.

C. Sue Gilbert, NDEP Division of Water Resources (12/1/17)

D. Michael Bradford (12/1/17)

Response: Thank you for your comment.

Integrated Management and Use of Trails, Roads, and Facilities

Response: Thank you for your comment.

F. Sam Slack, Resorts West (12/4/17)

Response: Thank you for the comment.

G. Kathleen Shoda, Resorts West (12/6/17)

Response: Thank you for the comment.

H. Austin Sass (12/10/17)

Response: Thank you for the comment.

Response: Thank you for your comment.

Response: Thank you for your comment.

K. Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority (12/14/17)

Response: Thank you for your comment.

Integrated Management and Use of Trails, Roads, and Facilities

Response: Thank you for your comment.

M. Michael Reitzell, California Ski Industry Association (12/14/17)

Response: Thank you for your comment.

N. Ralph and Terri Thomas (12/14/17)

Integrated Management and Use of Trails, Roads, and Facilities

O. Scott Fair (12/15/17)

Response: Thank you for your comment.

Response: Thank you for your comment.

Response: Thank you for your comment.

Integrated Management and Use of Trails, Roads, and Facilities

Response: Thank you for your comment.

Q. Jack Sjolin (12/16/17)

Response: Thank you for your comment.

R. Tahoe Douglas Visitors Authority (12/18/17)

Response: Thank you for your comment.

S. Elizabeth Kingsland, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Integrated Management and Use of Trails, Roads, and Facilities

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Heavenly currently has a

T. Jim Carolan, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (12/19/17)

Response: Comment noted.

Integrated Management and Use of Trails, Roads, and Facilities

U. Jason Drew and Steve Teshara, Tahoe Chamber (12/19/17)

Response: Thank you for your comment.

V. Jerry Bindel, South Lake Tahoe Tourism Improvement District (12/20/17)

W. Richard Schwarte (12/21/17)

Response: Thank you for your comment.

X. Greg Campbell, Marriott Grand Residence Club (12/22/17)

Response: Thank you for your comment.

Y. Bryan Davis, Edgewood Companies (12/22/17)