SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY
INDICATOR FRAMEWORK FOR LAKE
TAHOE
Project Report
May, 2014
Prepared by Spatial Informatics Group, LLC & Environmental Incentives, LLC
Funded by a Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act research grant, Round 12 Funding
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 2
Acknowledgements
A working group was established to guide several key decisions regarding the development of the
spatially-explicit sustainability indicator framework. In addition to the working group, other individuals
were engaged to provide input on specific topics or to provide project-specific data for case studies. The
time commitment and insight that these individuals provided were instrumental to the success of the
project and their contributions are greatly appreciated.
Adam Lewandowski (Long Range Planning Manager, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency)
“B” Gorman (President/ CEO, Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce)
Brandon Hill (Real Estate Project Manager, Edgewood Companies)
David Tirman (Executive Vice President, JMA Ventures)
Forest Schafer (District Forester, North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District)
Jan Smidek (Associate, JMA Ventures)
Jesse Walker (Economic Consultant, Tahoe Prosperity Center)
Karin Edwards (EIP Coordinator, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency)
Kristi Boosman (Partnerships & Communications Officer, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency)
Mitchell Mize (Director of Real Estate, Edgewood Companies)
Nick Haven (Transportation Planning Manager, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency)
Shane Romsos (Science, Monitoring & Evaluation Coordinator, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency)
Wendy David (Lake Tahoe Unified School District Board of Education, President)
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REPORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 3
Non-Discrimination Statement
“In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of Agriculture policy, this institution is prohibited from
discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all
programs.)
To file a complaint of discrimination: write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten
Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD).
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.”
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 4
ABS T R A CT
The goal of this project was to develop a decision-support framework that would facilitate simple and
consistent communication of the sustainability impacts and benefits of projects and policies in Lake
Tahoe using spatially-explicit data. The framework was developed through substantial consultation with
a working group of local subject-area experts, and a rigorous indicator selection approach. The initial
iteration of the framework is designed with a pre-selected set of indicators for the evaluation of
redevelopment projects, specifically, but can be applied for custom evaluations of any individual project
or policy using the indicators selected for redevelopment projects as well as additional indicators
provided. The framework evaluation tool produces a sustainability score for each of the three pillars of
sustainability (i.e. economic, environmental, community), for the project or policy evaluated. These scores
are produced by manually selecting a project effect category for each indicator, which are automatically
linked to a numeric rating, and averaged across all of the indicators within a particular sustainability
pillar. The framework and tool was pilot tested with two real-work redevelopment projects in order to
demonstrate how they can be used, and to test the tool’s usefulness. Management considerations are
forwarded in regards to future management, use and improvements to the framework to improve its
capabilities and expand its applications over time.
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 5
Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 6
ENVIRONMENTAL, DEMOGRAPHIC AND CASE STUDY SETTING ............................................................... 7
FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT PROCESS...................................................................................................... 7
WORKING GROUP MEMBERSHIP & ENGAGEMENT PROCESS ................................................................ 7
INDICATOR SELECTION APPROACH ........................................................................................................... 8
FRAMEWORK DESIGN ................................................................................................................................ 10
STANDARD & CUSTOM EVALUATIONS ...................................................................................................... 10
INDICATORS .................................................................................................................................................. 10
REPORTING UNITS ......................................................................................................................................... 12
PROJECT EFFECT SCORING & AGGREGATION ....................................................................................... 17
CASE STUDIES ............................................................................................................................................. 18
EDGEWOOD ................................................................................................................................................. 19
HOMEWOOD ................................................................................................................................................ 22
DISCUSSION AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................ 25
APPENDIX A: KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR FRAMEWORK DESIGN .......................................................... 27
APPENDIX B: INDICATOR SELECTION DETAILS ......................................................................................... 28
APPENDIX C: FRAMEWORK USER INSTRUCTIONS ................................................................................... 31
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REPORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 6
INTRODUCTION
Sustainable development is defined as development that
meets the needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs.1 Millions of people value Lake Tahoe’s natural
beauty, including many residents and visitors from across
the globe. As a result, local, state and national interests
associated with Lake Tahoe desire to implement sustainable
development and restoration actions that enhance
environmental, economic, and community values for both
current and future generations. Over the past two decades
more than $1.6 billion have been invested on efforts to
restore the environment and responsibly manage the rate and extent of urban development at Lake
Tahoe. Despite this investment, there are no procedures or tools currently available to planners,
restoration practitioners and developers that can be used to better understand how proposed
development, redevelopment, restoration projects and broader policies affect indicators of sustainable
development at Lake Tahoe.
This project was designed to help address this need through the development of a decision-support
framework and tool for evaluating the sustainable
development value of projects and policies in the Tahoe
Basin using spatially-explicit data. The framework provides
a simple and consistent approach for evaluating and
communicating the potential sustainable development
impacts and benefits of projects and policies, which can
help inform project design, and overall understanding of
the sustainability value of proposed projects and policies at
Lake Tahoe.
The sustainable development evaluation framework
(framework) provides a list of evaluation steps that a user follows to enumerate the relative sustainable
development value of a proposed project or policy – helping to answer the question of whether a
proposed project or policy is moving the Lake Tahoe region towards sustainable development goals.
Although there is no singular document that highlights sustainability goals for the Tahoe Region, many
goals can be interpreted or inferred from TRPA’s Regional Plan (TRPA 2012), Environmental Threshold
Carrying Capacities (i.e., Threshold Standards) (TRPA 1982), and the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning
Organization’s (TMPO) - Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): Mobility 2035, while other goals have been
articulated by other grassroots efforts – such at the Lake Tahoe Sustainability Collaborative 2.
The indicators used by this framework will help to estimate the relative sustainable development impacts
and benefits, based on spatially-explicit data3 and unique project characteristics. By using spatial data,
the framework can be used to evaluate project effects onsite and the surrounding area; the framework is
not designed to measure cumulative effects or basin-wide changes in the sustainability of Lake Tahoe over
time. Other sustainability indicator efforts in Lake Tahoe, such as the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
(TRPA) Threshold Evaluation indicators and the Strategic Growth Council-funded sustainability
indicators attempt to measure basin-wide change.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 27. ISBN
019282080X.
2 http://sustainabilitycollaborative.org/
3 Spatially explicit data are linked to a specific location and can be mapped using Geographic Information Systems.
1
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 7
ENVIRONMENTAL, DEMOGRAPHIC AND CASE STUDY SETTING
The Tahoe Region is located on the border of the states of California and Nevada, between the
Sierra Crest and the Carson Range. Approximately two-thirds of the Region is located in California, with
one-third within the state of Nevada. The Tahoe Region contains an area of about 501 square miles, of
which approximately 191 square miles comprise the surface waters of Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe dominates
the features of the Region and is the primary focus of local environmental regulations to protect its
exceptional water clarity. Over 85% of the land area in the Lake Tahoe Basin is managed by public
agencies and offers a multitude of outdoor recreation opportunities and amenities. The public land
ownership pattern in combination with low impact development land use regulations significant limit the
potential for urban sprawl with the region.
According to the 2010 census, the resident population of the Tahoe Region was approximately 54,862.
This is a decline from the 62,894 population estimated by the 2000 Census. Of the 54,862 population
estimate, about 41,176 people reside within the California portion, while the Nevada side makes up the
remaining 13,686 in population. The visitor market at Lake Tahoe is primarily from northern California,
from the Sacramento and San Francisco Bay Area.
The case studies used in this project included a proposed redevelopment project at Homewood, CA and a
proposed project at Stateline, NV.
The Homewood Mountain Resort Project (Homewood) was a planned redevelopment project designed to
help revitalize and update an existing resort area at Homewood, California, located on Lake Tahoe’s West
Shore (see “Case Studies” section for additional details). The project has several components divided into
“North Base” and “South Base” areas. The North Base includes construction of a new lodge, associated
work force housing, condominiums, and additional retail space. In addition, a new facility for skier
services (food, rental, and site administration) and an underground parking lot would be constructed.
The South Base includes planned construction of both condominiums within a lodge as well as ski in/out
chalets. In addition, all skier access would be relocated from the South Base to the North Base and an
existing maintenance facility would be removed.
The Edgewood project is planned in Stateline, Nevada, on the south shore of Lake Tahoe (see “Case
Studies” section for additional details). Central to this project is the development of a new hotel adjacent
to an existing golf course club house and restaurant facilities. There are several other components of the
project, including renovation and modernization of existing facilities, construction of a new park where
an existing dilapidated hotel existed offsite, modification of an existing golf course, restoration of
wetlands, and construction of new tourist accommodations.
FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The two underpinning processes of framework development were frequent consultation with a project
working group and project advisors, and an indicator selection process, both of which are described in
greater detail below. In addition, the project team deliberated over a number of conceptual considerations
during framework development. A discussion of these key considerations and the rationale for framework
design decisions is included in Appendix A: Key Considerations for Framework Design.
WORKING GROUP MEMBERSHIP & ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REPORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 8
The project team assembled a working group of local subject-area experts to convene periodically and
guide the development of the framework. The working group membership was selected by the project
team, in consultation with project advisors from TRPA.
Working group members represented a variety of perspectives and expertise that was valuable to the
development of a comprehensive sustainability framework. The working group consisted of members of
social, economic and environmental professional networks, and the private sector, public agencies and
non-profits. Several members were also familiar with other indicator projects in Lake Tahoe and had a
deep understanding of local environmental, economic and community drivers and datasets.
The working group met three times and also provided feedback through post-meeting surveys to inform
several integral elements of the framework design including defining the types of projects to be evaluated
by the framework, selecting indicators and reporting units, choosing case study projects for example
evaluations, defining the aggregation methodology, and defining potential uses and management of the
framework. The project advisors also met with the project team at key junctures in the project to provide
guidance, particularly regarding potential framework use and management in the future.
INDICATOR SELECTION APPROACH
The framework and tool was designed to calculate relative sustainability scores for the three pillars of
sustainability: Environment, Economy, and Community. Within each pillar, indicators are organized by
aspect. An aspect is a specific category within a pillar that is described by indicators. For example, within
the Environment pillar, there is a Forest Health aspect that is characterized by a Tree Stand Density
indicator.
An extensive indicator evaluation and selection process narrowed an initial pool of more than 100
indicators to a set of 27 indicators. The original list was derived from other sustainability reporting
initiatives and programs in Lake Tahoe, and other communities across the country (See Appendix B:
Indicator Selection Details for more information on the sustainability reporting initiatives and programs
that were referenced for the indicator selection). The group of indicators was intentionally limited to a
maximum of approximately 30 total indicators to ensure that the most relevant aspects of sustainability in
Lake Tahoe would not be diluted relative to other aspects (i.e. the more aspects, the less weight each
carries in the sustainability score) and to create a set of indicators that would be feasible for users and to
manage over time. Furthermore, quality spatial data only existed for certain indicators in the Lake Tahoe
Region, which substantially reduced the number of potential indicators that could be used. Appendix A:
Key Considerations for Framework Design for additional information on indicator selection decisions,
particularly in regards to the number of framework indicators.
The four evaluation criteria defined below were used to evaluate indicators for selection into the
framework. The four criteria were derived from evaluation criteria used by other sustainability indicator
selection processes such as Whistler2020 and PlaNYC. Several rounds of input from the working group
were also incorporated into the evaluation to ensure local subject-area expertise was leveraged and local
priorities influenced the select the final set of indicators. The method for incorporating working group
input is explained in the Relevance criterion below.
Indicators were evaluated, using the following criteria, along a five increment rating scale, ranging from
+2 to -2. Additional detail on the rating scale and a depiction of the indicator evaluation table are
included in Appendix B: Indicator Selection Details.
Evaluation Criteria
Relevance
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 9
Relevance captures how important the indicator is to the Lake Tahoe community. The relevance
evaluation was primarily based on a 2013 basin-wide sustainability indicator project that evaluated
different aspects of sustainability based on their importance to Lake Tahoe. The evaluation consisted of a
review of local planning documents and indicator reporting initiatives, national sustainability indicator
reporting standards, and relevant regulatory and legal mandates.
Feedback received during working group meetings and through post-meeting worksheets was
incorporated into the relevance scoring for each indicator, by adding or subtracting a point from the
original rating for indicators that received significant positive or negative input from the working group.
Specifically, if indicators were highlighted as important during the feedback collection processes by three
or more working group members, an extra point was added to the score. If one or more working group
member recommended that an indicator be removed from the list or downgraded in priority, the
indicator relevance score was reduced by one point.
Validity
Validity assesses how important the indicator is in relation to the condition of the associated aspect of
sustainability, and how accurately the indicator represents the aspect. The evaluation is completed by
consulting planning and research documents, or other legitimate literature that documents indicatoraspect relationships. For example, Tree Stand Density would score high as a valid indicator of the aspect
Forest Health, because it is a clearly documented measure of forest health with respect to fire hazard,
disease and insect outbreaks.
Feasibility
Feasibility measures the geographic scope and resolution of the data set available for each indicator. A
high scoring data set would cover the entire geographic area of Lake Tahoe and would be sufficiently
detailed to quantify impacts at the project scale. An example of a high scoring dataset would be
impervious cover, which has been mapped at high resolution across the entire Lake Tahoe Basin. Other
datasets, such as GHG emissions, were aggregated and only available at the larger county scale.
Cost
“Cost” measures how costly data are to obtain and incorporate into the framework. When spatial data is
not known to exist for an indicator, the data is considered to be prohibitively costly and the indicator is
automatically eliminated from the framework, with the understanding that the spatial data stack could be
developed for that indicator in the future and incorporated into a future iteration of the framework.
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 10
FRAMEWORK DESIGN
The framework was designed with the option of conducting a redevelopment project-specific evaluation
or a custom evaluation for any individual project or policy, as described below. The indicators that were
selected into the framework, for both the redevelopment and custom evaluation options, are listed in
Table 1 with the corresponding reporting unit (i.e., scale of evaluation or response) recommended for
each indicator when evaluating a larger-scaled redevelopment project. Finally, the project effect scoring
and aggregation methods embedded in the framework evaluation tool are also described below.
STANDARD & CUSTOM EVALUATIONS
The framework was initially envisioned to be designed with the ability to evaluate a variety of project
types (i.e. restoration, redevelopment, new development, recreation, and transportation projects).
However, given time and resource constraints, the project team focused on illustrating the framework
concept and capabilities for one project type: large redevelopment projects. The redevelopment project
type was selected based on working group input on the greatest need for sustainable development
evaluation at Lake Tahoe. Additional explanation of why it was necessary to focus the research project on
one project type is included in Appendix A: Key Considerations for Framework Design.
Given the work group’s direction to focus on the redevelopment project type, the project team built a
redevelopment project-specific standard evaluation within the framework evaluation tool. This standard
evaluation contains a select set of indicators that are pertinent to redevelopment projects, with
recommended reporting units for each indicator. The advantage of using a standard evaluation is that the
indicator set is tailored to the project type and projects evaluated under the same standard can be
compared to one another by sustainability scores. Additional standard sets of indicators and associated
reporting units per indicator could be created for other project types in the future. The current set of
indicators provided may need to be augmented depending on the project type, which would require
additional indicator evaluation and selection, and the compilation of additional spatial data (i.e.,
sustainability indicator data layers) for the new or different project type.
The framework evaluation tool was designed with the option to conduct custom evaluations as well.
Custom evaluations can be used to evaluate a wide-range of projects and policies. For example, indicators
associated with an ecosystem restoration project type are likely different than those associated with a
redevelopment project type. Consequently, a custom evaluation, as opposed to the redevelopment
standard evaluation, would be warranted. The custom evaluation requires that indicators be selected by
the framework user from a list of available indicators. All of the indicators that were selected for the
redevelopment standard evaluation are also available for the custom evaluation. The framework user also
must select a reporting unit for evaluation of each indicator as discussed in the Reporting Units section
below. The custom evaluation provides the flexibility for any project or policy to be evaluated with the
framework; however, because the set of indicators and reporting units are specific to each unique
evaluation, based on the selection of the user, the scores produced by this evaluation should not be
compared across projects.
INDICATORS
Table 1 lists the set of indicators that were incorporated into the framework for this project, organized by
pillar and aspect. The list of available framework indicators is subject to change over time. Few data were
available online; much of the data were purchased by the project team, or otherwise obtained by the
project team. Further, the reporting frequency for many of the data sources is listed as “unknown” (Table
1), because it was unclear whether agencies would invest in collection of new data in the future.
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REPORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 11
Table 1: Framework Sustainability Indicators and Data Sources. (Green highlighted indicators are redevelopment standard
indicators, while white cells are additional indicators available for custom evaluations.)
ASPECT
GHG
Emissions
INDICATOR DATA SOURCE
GHG
Emissions
Pollutant
Loading
Environment
Water
Quality
Untreated
Impervious
Coverage
Riparian
Deciduous
Hardwood
Abundance
Vegetation
Distribution
Forest
Health
Fire
Hazard
Economic
FREQUENCY
WEBSITE
2013
One-time GHG
Inventory
Not Available Online
5 years per TMDL
Not Available Online
requirements
One-time evaluation
from 2010 LiDAR data.
Unknown if analysis
will be replicated in
the future. An
LiDAR Derived 2010
http://www.sig-gis.com/about/projects
assessment of
impervious cover is
required by TRPA
every 4 years per the
Regional Plan
USFS updates
vegetation layer for
USFS
1987
Not Available Online
Tahoe Basin
approximately 5 years
NTCD 2013
2013
LANDFIRE
2010
Varies
Tree Stand
One-time evaluation
LiDAR Derived 2010
Density
from 2010 LiDAR data.
One-time evaluation
conducted from 2010
data. USFS updates
Canopy cover LiDAR Derived 2010 vegetation data layer
every 5 years and
includes canopy cover
estimates
Parcels with
Forest Fuels
Treated
Estimated
Flame Length
Meadow
(SEZ)
Wildlife & Abundance
Habitat
Projected
Wildlife
Occupancy
Income
California
Tahoe
Conservancy
DATA
YEAR
http://www.landfire.gov/
Not Available Online
Not Available Online
Fire District
Data
2010
Unknown
Not Available Online
Flame map
Derived
2010
Unknown
http://www.sig-gis.com/about/projects
USFS
2013
Unknown
http://meadows.ucdavis.edu/
Unknown
Not Available Online
USFS - PSW
Personal
(taxable)
income
US Census
Data
2010
Every 5-10 years
Household
(taxable)
income
US Census
Data
2010
Every 5-10 years
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
http://www.esri.com/data/esri_dat
a/demographic-overview/censusoverview
http://www.esri.com/data/esri_dat
a/demographic-overview/censusoverview
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
Employme Employment
nt
Rate
Business
Environme
nt
Housing
Community
Housing
US Census
Data
2010
Every 5-10 years
http://www.esri.com/data/esri_dat
a/demographic-overview/censusoverview
Custom dataset
Not Available Online-custom built by
the Center for Economic
Development, California State
University, Chico
Transient
Occupancy
Tax (TOT)
Cal State
University,
Chico
Sales Tax
Revenue
Cal State
University,
Chico
2013
Custom dataset
Not Available Online custom built
custom built by the Center for
Economic Development, California
State University, Chico
Property
Value
US Census
Data
2010
Every 5-10 Years
http://www.census.gov/
2nd Homes
US Census
Data
2010
Every 5-10 Years
Units of
Affordable
Housing
US Census
Data
2010
Every 5-10 Years
Home
Vacancy
US Census
Data
2010
Every 5-10 Years
Student
Enrollment
US Census
Data
2010
Every 5-10 Years
Educational
Attainment
US Census
Data
2010
Every 5-10 Years
Average Trip
Length
US Census
Data
2010
Every 5-10 Years
http://www.esri.com/data/esri_data/de
mographic-overview/census-overview
N/A
N/a
Unknown
Not Available Online
N/A
N/a
Unknown
Not Available Online
N/A
N/a
Unknown
Not Available Online
USGS
2012
Unknown
Not Available Online
2013
Education
Transit
Parks/ Public
Space
Recreation
Recreational
Access
Public
Crime rate
Safety
Health
PAGE 12
Healthy food
access
http://www.esri.com/data/esri_dat
a/demographic-overview/censusoverview
http://www.esri.com/data/esri_dat
a/demographic-overview/censusoverview
http://www.esri.com/data/esri_data/de
mographic-overview/census-overview
http://www.esri.com/data/esri_dat
a/demographic-overview/censusoverview
http://www.esri.com/data/esri_dat
a/demographic-overview/censusoverview
REPORTING UNITS
Reporting units are the spatial scales or geographic extent at which project effects are calculated and
expressed on the landscape relative to the project area and different sustainable development indicators.
The concept of reporting units was integrated into the framework because often times the effects of
proposed project design features are not confined to the project area. For example, a proposed project
may include a public transportation terminal directly within on the project area which will influence the
transportation network and use patterns beyond the project boundaries.
Reporting units provide consistent scaling to measure changes to indicators, but are not necessarily a
reflection of the spatial resolution of the indicator data. The project size, objectives and design elements
will influence the extent to which a spatial indicator will respond and thus provides the spatial context
that should be used when selecting a reporting unit for an indicator. In some cases the proximity of the
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 13
project to different land uses will also influence which reporting unit is selected for an indicator. As a
general rule, a large project designed to fulfill multiple sustainable development objectives will have a
greater geographic effect than a smaller project designed to meet similar objectives and thus the user will
most likely select larger reporting units. However, this is not always the case. As a result, the selection of
reporting units to help characterize a projects effect should be based on the anticipated effect size of the
project’s sustainable development objectives and design elements.
Reporting units were selected for the ‘standard project evaluation’ (and Homewood Mountain Resort and
Edgewood Resort projects) for each indicator using the considerations noted above and working group
input. Recommendations for reporting units were also provided for the indicators that are available for
the custom evaluation, but the user has the discretion to select the most appropriate reporting unit based
on the unique project characteristics.
Table 3 provides definitions for the different reporting units that can be used in this evaluation
framework. Figure 1 provide examples of the spatial arrangement of different reporting units identified
for this project that can be used to evaluate and communicate effect size of proposed projects or policies.
Table 4 identifies the reporting units identified for different indicators by the project team and
workgroup to evaluate the relative sustainable development value for the Edgewood and Homewood
Mountain Resort projects.
Table 3. Definitions of reporting units that can be used in the sustainable development evaluation framework.
Reporting Unit
Project Area
Urban Stormwater
Catchment
Definition
The boundary that delimits the extent of actual proposed project activities.
The size of the project boundaries varies based on the scope of the project.
Is a boundary defined by local jurisdiction responsible for implementing the
Lake Tahoe TMDL. Boundaries for urban stormwater catchments do not
necessarily follow logical hydrologic boundaries, but are instead based on a
local jurisdiction’s delineation of a manageable area for stormwater treatment
purposes.
Subwatershed
A geographic management unit within a watershed, typically with a drainage
area of two to fifteen square miles.
Traffic Analysis Zone
(TAZ)
Geographic units used for travel demand and forecasting models ranging
from 6.4 to 14,550 acres in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
Plan Area Statement
(PAS)
Zones defined by TRPA for land use planning purposes. TRPA identifies 175
Plan Area Statement zones
Hydrologically
Related Area (HRA)
Also referred as hydrologic transfer areas. The 1987 TRPA Regional Plan
divided the Tahoe Region into nine designated geographical areas that
incorporate one or more watersheds.
Fire District (Fire)
Jurisdiction boundaries defined for the purposes of fire protection in the Lake
Tahoe Basin.
County
The largest jurisdictional boundary define by the states of California and
Nevada clipped to the Basin boundaries. Portions of 6 counties (Placer, El
Dorado, Washoe, Alpine, Douglas and Carson City) occur within the Lake
Tahoe watershed boundaries.
Parcel Buffer (Parcel
Buffer 500m)
Are parcels that intersect with a 500m project area buffer and includes the
project area.
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
Reporting Unit
Census Block Group
PAGE 14
Definition
The smallest geographical unit for which the US Census Bureau publishes
sample data. Census Block Groups contain, on average, about 40 blocks.
Census Tract
A geographic area defined for the purpose of conducting the census. Usually
these coincide with the limits of cities, towns or other administrative areas
and several Census Tracts commonly exist within a county
Zone Improvement
Plan (ZIP) Code
(CENSUS Zip)
Postal delivery districts
Census Designated
Place (CDP)
Concentration of population identified by the Census Bureau for statistical
purposes. They are delineated for each decennial census as the statistical
counterparts of incorporated places, such as cities, towns, and villages. CDPs
are populated areas that lack separate municipal government, but which
otherwise physically resemble incorporated places.
Census Urban Areas
Comprise a densely settled core of census tracts and/or census blocks that
meet minimum population density requirements, along with adjacent
territory containing non-residential urban land uses as well as territory with
low population density included to link outlying densely settled territory
with the densely settled core. To qualify as an urban area, the territory
identified according to criteria must encompass at least 2,500 people, at least
1,500 of which reside outside institutional group quarters. The area define by
TRPA in which urban development is an allowed use and include lands
designated as tourist, residential, and mixed use.
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
PAGE 15
 Continuous
 Environmental
 Data
 i.e. LiDAR
Governance
Socioeconomic
Environment
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
Figure 1. An example depicting the spatial arrangement and scale of different reporting units that can be assigned to indicators in
the sustainable development evaluation framework. The Edgewood Resort primary project area boundary is used as reference in
this figure. Table 3 provides definition for each reporting unit.
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
Table 4. Reporting units that were assigned to indicators and associated aspects and sustainable development pillars for the
Homewood Mountain Resort and Edgewood Resort Projects (green = indicators for the ‘standard project evaluations’) and
additional indicators available for custom evaluations (white).
Aspect
GHG Emissions
Indicator
GHG Emissions
Reporting Units
County
Fine Sediment and Nutrient Pollutant Loading Urban Catchment
Water Quality
Untreated Impervious Coverage
Sub watershed
Riparian Deciduous Hardwood Abundance
Sub watershed
Vegetation Distribution
Sub watershed
Tree Stand Density
Sub watershed
Canopy cover
Sub watershed
Parcels with Forest Fuels Treated
Sub watershed
Estimated Flame Length
Sub watershed
Meadow (SEZ) Abundance
Sub watershed
Projected Wildlife Occupancy
Sub watershed
Personal (taxable) income
Block Group
Household (taxable) income
Block Group
Employment Rate
Block Group
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
Tract
Sales Tax Revenue
Tract
Property Value
Block Group
% 2nd Homes
Block Group
Units of Affordable Housing
Block Group
Home Vacancy
Block Group
Student Enrollment
Block Group
Educational Attainment
Block Group
Transit
Average Trip Length
TAZ
Recreation
Parks/ Public Space
Tract
Recreational Access
Tract
Public Safety
Crime rate
Tract
Health
Healthy food access
Tract
Environment
Forest Health
Fire Hazard
Wildlife & Habitat
Income
Economic
Employment
Business Environment
Housing
Housing
Community
Education
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
PAGE 16
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 17
PROJECT EFFECT SCORING & AGGREGATION
The framework evaluation tool produces sustainability scores for each of the three pillars of sustainability
(i.e., environmental, economic, community) for the project being evaluated. Figure 2, below, depicts the
indicator scoring process that is completed using the framework evaluation tool. Scoring is conducted for
each individual indicator. First, the framework user manually selects a project effect category for the
indicator from a drop down menu. The project effect categories are automatically linked to a numerical
rating scale. The weight of each indicator can then be adjusted by the user to reflect relative significance
of the indicators; however, the default for the redevelopment standard evaluation is an equal weighting
of 1 across all indicators. The project effect rating per indicator is then multiplied by the weighting for an
indicator score. Each of these steps is described in greater detail below.
Figure 2: Indicator Effect Scoring Process
Project Effect Scoring Categories:
There are five project effect scoring categories to describe the effect a project has on the sustainability
indicators. The categories are described below, listed from most beneficial to most adverse effect. While
category selection is based on the judgment of the tool user(s), the categories are defined to the level of
specificity that no two individuals would be expected to make selections that differ by more than one
level of the scoring categories. When assessing project effect, each indicator should be considered relative
to the surrounding context at the scale of the selected reporting unit for that indicator.
Definitions:


“Impact” refers to an adverse change, while “Improvement” refers to a beneficial change. It
depends on the indicator whether a positive or negative numerical change to the indicator is
adverse or beneficial.
“Substantial” refers to a major change that would be considered significant by the majority of
stakeholders and would be apparent to the majority of community members living or working
within the vicinity of the project. “Substantial” effects can be environmental, economic, or social,
depending on the indicator.
Effect Categories:
Significant improvement: The beneficial change from pre-project conditions that the project is
expected to have on the indicator is substantial.
Minimum improvement: The beneficial change from pre-project conditions that the project is
expected to have on the indicator is clear and defined, but not substantial.
No effect: The project is unlikely to have any effect on the indicator, relative to pre-project
conditions.
Minimum impact: The adverse change from pre-project conditions that the project is expected to
have on the indicator is clear and defined, but not substantial.
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 18
Significant impact: The adverse change from pre-project conditions that the project is expected
to have on the indicator is substantial.
As the user selects a project effect category for each indicator, the evaluation tool automatically assigns a
project effect score, based on the rating scale below.
Project Effect Rating Scale
Significant improvement: + 2
Minimum improvement: + 1
No effect: 0
Minimum impact: -1
Significant impact: -2
Indicator Weighting
The user has the option to select a categorical weight for each indicator, to increase or decrease the
significance of that indicator relative to the other indicators being incorporated into that evaluation.
However, weighting should be used sparingly and only when an indicator is either very significant or
irrelevant to the project. The evaluation tool is designed such that the default is a weight of “1” for each
indicator, to create an equal weighting distribution. If an indicator is not relevant to the project
evaluation, the weight can be adjusted to “0”, which will remove the indicator from the scoring
calculation. Depending on the
relative importance or
unimportance of an indicator the
user can adjust the weight, but it is
recommended that the weight not
exceed “2”.
Justification for selecting the
project effect category and
adjusting the indicator weight are
documented in the rationale
columns of the tool to make the
rationale available to others and
reduce the biases or inaccuracies
from subjectivity of the individual
user.
Figure 3, above, depicts the
Figure 3: Indicator and Pillar Score Aggregation
aggregation process from the
indicator score, to the pillar score, and finally the overall project score. The indicator scores are averaged
within each pillar to produce an overall pillar score. A total project score is calculated by averaging each
of the three pillar scores together. Positive overall scores are indicative of net sustainability benefit, while
negative scores are indicative of net sustainability impact. Appendix C provides guideline for using the
evaluation tool.
CASE STUDIES
This project included pilot testing the framework and tool, the redevelopment standard specifically, with
two case study analyses of redevelopment projects. The case study projects were chosen based on the
working group’s prioritization of the redevelopment project type and the availability of data for current
redevelopment projects. The two redevelopment projects selected conveyed the range of results that
could be calculated by the framework and tool because of the contrasting nature of the two projects; the
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 19
two projects differed in terms of urban and rural locations, visitors per day and a luxury versus localoriented cliental.
The project proponents of the two redevelopment project case studies provided quantitative information
on the estimated impacts and benefits of the project for the different sustainability indicators. Further, the
project proponents participated in a number of meetings with the project team, in addition to the working
group meetings, to gain a deep understanding of the framework and evaluation tool, and to provide
input on the individual project evaluations and the overall usefulness of the framework from a
developer’s perspective. The feedback provided by the project proponents through these case studies is
documented in order to inform the future iterations and application of the framework evaluation tool. It
is important to note the results of this analysis are for testing the tool only and should not be interpreted
as real findings or extrapolated to actual conditions on the ground until further testing and verification
can be completed. Further testing could include re-assessment of project level indicators after the projects
have been completed, with comparison to projected (modeled) indicator changes in the tool.
EDGEWOOD
The Edgewood project is planned in Stateline, Nevada. There are several components of the project,
including renovation and modernization of existing facilities, construction of a new park where an
existing dilapidated hotel existed, modification of an existing golf course, restoration of wetlands, and
construction of new tourist accommodations.
S U R RO U ND IN G C ON TEX T
The Edgewood Project is located in Stateline, Nevada. There are several existing uses on the project site,
including a golf course, restaurant, and associated roads, paths, and infrastructure (Figures 4 and 5). In
addition, the site is immediately adjacent to previously developed hotel and casino facilities to its
southeast and other commercial and residential infrastructure to its northeast.
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 20
Figure 4: Outline of the property (yellow) for the planned Edgewood Project. Not shown in this image is the off-site mitigation
location in South Lake Tahoe, CA – where a dilapidated hotel was demolished and replaced with a small community park.
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 21
Legend
EXISTING COVERAGE TO BE REMOVED AND BANKED
EXISTING COVERAGE TO BE RELOCATED
EXISTING COVERAGE TO REMAIN
PROPOSED RELOCATED COVERAGE
PROPOSED NEW COVERAGE
Figure 5: Detailed example of planned changes to impervious coverage for the Edgewood Project.
RE S UL TS
For the test analysis of the Edgewood Development Project, project effects ranged from minimal impact
to significant improvement from existing conditions. For example, within the Environmental pillar,
canopy cover will be slightly reduced from baseline conditions after project implementation. In addition,
the area of wetland/meadow will be increased. Within the Economic pillar, the employment rate, TOT,
sales tax, and property values are improved from baseline conditions. Within the community pillar, all
indicators are predicted to improve. Given the relatively high and positive overall project score, the
project is considered to have a material net sustainability benefit.
P RO J E CT P R OP O NE N T FE E DBA C K
According to the project proponent, the framework tool could be a valuable mechanism for
communicating the “sustainability” story of a project. It could be a useful tool for internal assessment of
project design by project proponents and for describing potential benefits and impacts to the public.
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 22
However, the project proponent also expressed concern that existing required project analyses are
substantial in the Tahoe Basin (e.g., require analysis under CEQA, NEPA, TRPA) and that an additional
requirement, such as the use of this framework and tool, without reducing other required analyses would
add unnecessary burden and cost to the project approval process. Furthermore, the project proponents
expressed concern that the tool could weigh negatively on project proponents if they are not given the
opportunity to complete the evaluations themselves during the project approval process. According to
participating developers, a third party that has a less intimate knowledge of the project elements may
underestimate the sustainability value of the proposed action.
In addition to the concerns expressed over how the framework would be used in project approval
processes in the future, the project proponent also indicated that some of the redevelopment indicators in
the framework were difficult to assign an effect score to because of limited information regarding project
effects on those indicators. Further, the Edgewood Project will affect many other sustainability-associated
indicators that were not included in the framework evaluation. Finally, the project proponent
recommended that the clear and detailed directions are needed to efficiently and accurately use the tool.
HOMEWOOD
The Homewood Project is planned for the existing resort area of Homewood, located on Lake Tahoe’s
West Shore. The project has several components divided into “North Base” and “South Base” areas. The
North Base includes construction of a new lodge, associated work force housing, condominiums, and
additional retail space. In addition, a new facility for skier services (food, rental, and site administration)
and an underground parking lot would be constructed. The South Base includes planned construction of
both condominiums within a lodge as well as ski in/out chalets. In addition, all skier access would be
relocated from the South Base to the North Base and an existing maintenance facility would be removed.
S U R RO U ND IN G C ON TEX T
The Homewood Project has frontage along State Highway 89, with existing residential and commercial
development and use on its eastern, northern, and southern sides. The western side of the unit is adjacent
to existing public (USFS) land (Figure 6).
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
Figure 6: General location and layout of the Homewood Redevelopment Project
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
PAGE 23
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 24
RE S UL TS
For the test analysis of the Homewood Development Project, project impacts ranged from minimal
impact to significant improvement for existing conditions. Within the Environmental pillar, there were
improvements in impervious coverage (i.e., a reduction in impervious cover), estimated flame length
(reduces), and meadow abundance (increase) from baseline conditions after project implementation.
Within the economic indicators, all were improved from baseline conditions. Within community, all
indicators are improved. Based on project effects submitted by the project proponent and resulting
positive project score, Homewood is predicted to have a material net sustainability benefit.
P RO J E CT P R OP O NE N T FE E DBA C K
Initial review of the framework evaluation tool by the project proponent resulted in useful comments and
information that can be incorporated into the next iteration of the tool. In general, the issues identified
included: a) making the evaluation tool more user friendly, including clarifying definitions of all terms,
inputs, and other content within the tool itself, b) clarification of the meaning and scale of reporting unit
values on the “Indicator Dashboard” worksheet, and c) reworking of the “Project Effect” worksheet,
including better explanations of what the different indicators are, what the project baseline and basin
baseline mean, and an alternate scoring scale. These and other comments have been compiled and
incorporated into a future version of the tool, if developed.
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT
REPORT
PAGE 25
DISCUSSION AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
With the guidance of an informed work group, this project developed a proof the concept version of a
decision-support framework and tool to aid in understanding the sustainable development value of
larger-scaled projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The framework and tool were designed to evaluate the
spatial context of projects planned to contribute to the region’s sustainability. However, the evaluation
framework and tool produced should undergo additional iterations to improve usability and usefulness
for agency staff, project developers, and the public, moving forward. In addition, supplementary
programmatic efforts by agencies would help to further focus future refinements of the evaluation
framework and tool.
There are several ways the framework and tool could be improved through future iterations. The
evaluation framework and tool should be translated into a more user-friendly interface, in order to
increase the accessibility and usability of the framework to those who do not have GIS expertise. In
addition and within the context of project effect scoring and aggregation methods outlined in this report,
explicit criteria and associated rank scores are needed to more objectively determine a project’s predicted
sustainability value. By design per project developer input, the evaluation framework currently relies
heavily on the user to define the benefit or impact resulting from the project. Likewise, the current system
relies on the user to identify the spatial extent of project effect through the selection of reporting units. As
a consequence, the system will likely be perceived as subjective and results in an unsupported
sustainability score determination. Alternatively, a different more objective project effect scoring system
could be developed. For example, for beneficial project effects, a scoring system that assigns a lower score
if the projects effects are limited to the project area and assigns higher scores as more area is influenced,
and a converse ranking if the project will negatively affect the surrounding context. This and other efforts
to clarify the rationale for how one objectively arrives at a project effect score would improve the rigor
and acceptance of the framework and resulting sustainability scores.
To comprehensively evaluate the sustainable development value of a project, both spatial and non-spatial
data are needed. This project only included an evaluation of available spatially explicit indicators and as a
result is partially characterizing the project’s full sustainability value (or lack thereof). Additionally, a
clear list of regional sustainability goals and objectives is needed. Currently, regional goals and objectives
associated with sustainability are expressed in various plans or documents. There is no singular
document or plan that has been formally or informally adopted by Basin agencies that can be pointed to
that clearly defines regional goals and objectives for sustainability (i.e., for the environment, community
and economy). Along with goals and objectives, related indicators need to be identified that can be
regularly measured to gage whether regional sustainability targets are being achieved and thus indirectly
help to guide project design and assess a project’s potential contribution to meeting sustainability goals.
This list would also help to focus agencies on where to invest in associated spatial (and non-spatial) data.
The comments provided by project developers should be taken to heart. Under existing federal, state and
regional requirements, project proponents are already required to evaluate and predict the environmental
consequences of proposed project or action through CEQA, NEPA, and TRPA documentation
requirements. Existing laws and codes also require the evaluation of socioeconomic impacts. Adding a
requirement to conduct a separate sustainability evaluation would add additional cost and burden to the
project proponent and may not result in additional information that would influence a decision to
approve or not approve a project. Ultimately, it becomes a question of how one wants to frame the effects
analysis of a project – traditionally following established project evaluation requirement (i.e., NEPA,
CEQA, TRPA) or evaluating and disclosing project effects following a sustainability framework.
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT
REPORT
PAGE 26
However, if additional investment into to developing the sustainability evaluation framework is desired,
refinements should follow the identification of regional sustainability goals, objectives and indicators.
Once data are acquired, other evaluations could be conducted, including:



Change detection – compare existing conditions of indicators to future conditions when new data
become available.
Project validation – Evaluate whether project effects are occurring as predicted via the evaluation
framework outlined in this report.
Retrospective assessment – Compare current project area condition to past indicator conditions
(if past indicator data are available) to help quantify baseline conditions.
While the various uses and potential expanded uses will need to be determined by those interested in
using the framework, Table 5 below proposes some use options for each project deliverable, based on
consultation with project advisors. Generally, the deliverables are proposed to be governed by TRPA and
live within TRPA Research and Analysis Department. Ultimately, the desire is to make the framework
accessible to the public through TRPA’s LT Info, a TRPA web-based reporting platform that is currently
under development, in the near-term, the framework will be made available on Spatial Informatics
Group’s website.
Table 5: Potential management and use of project deliverables
DELIVERABLE
PROPOSED MANAGEMENT
Research
Report
The report will be provided to the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the
Sustainability Collaborative and will be posted
to Tahoe Science Consortium (TSC) and the
Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW)
websites. Ultimately, the report can be made
available to a broader set of users through the
LT Info web-based reporting platform.
GIS Indicator
Data Stack
Evaluation
Tool
Initially the GIS indicator data stacks are
expected to be made available through SIG’s
website, and then integrated into TRPA’s
Geodatabase, and ultimately made accessible
through the LT Info web-based reporting
platform.
Initially, the tool is expected to be managed and
maintained by TRPA’s Sustainability Program
Manager, with assistance from the Research
and Analysis Department. Ultimately, the tool
is expected to be made publicly available
through LT Info.
PROPOSED USE
Appropriate TRPA managers and program
staff, and other potential users of the tool will
refer to the report for an understanding of the
how the tool was developed and for step-bystep instructions and examples of how to use
the tool.
The data will need to be updated regularly as
new information becomes available, or new
indicators are being added to the tool to keep
the framework relevant. This function is
expected to be performed by TRPA’s Research
and Analysis Department, informed by the
Sustainability Program lead. Once the data
stacks are posted to LT Info they are expected
to be made accessible to the public to view, but
not to manipulate or update.
Personnel of the TRPA Sustainability Program
and the Research and Analysis Department are
expected to be proficient in using the tool and
capable of training other TRPA staff in its use.
Once the tool is accessible through LT Info
members of the general public, including
project developers are expected to be able to
use the tool.
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT
REPORT
PAGE 27
APPENDIX A: KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR FRAMEWORK DESIGN
Throughout the project, the project team debated a variety of considerations related to the development
and operation of the framework. These considerations are documented here to demonstrate why certain
decisions were made in framework development, and to guide future iterations and uses of the
framework.
IN DI C ATO R DE VEL O P ME N T & F RA M E WO RK MA NAG E ME NT C ONS ID E RAT I ONS
Different Types of Projects Require Unique Sets of Indicators
Initially, the project team intended to create one set of indicators that would be used to evaluate many
different projects, including redevelopment, new development, transportation, restoration, and recreation
project types. However, the project team determined that different types of projects should not be
evaluated by a single set of indicators because of the different kinds of impacts and benefits generated by
different project types. For example, a framework evaluation of a restoration project that improves tree
stand density should include a tree stand density indicator in order to reflect the sustainability benefits to
forest health in the environmental pillar score. However, a redevelopment project is unlikely to have a
significant effect on short and long term forest health and therefore the incorporation of a tree stand
density indicator may inappropriately dilute or lower the environmental pillar score of that project.
The working group chose the redevelopment project type as the first priority for framework evaluation,
and therefore the project team focused on creating a standard evaluation for the redevelopment project
type, with redevelopment-related indicators. Standard evaluations for additional types of vegetation
management, restoration, transportation, or other projects could be added to the framework in the future.
The Number of Indicators Must Be Balanced Across Pillars
The indicator selection process was designed to select approximately the same number of indicators for
each pillar of sustainability so that each indicator holds similar weight in the pillar score. The project
team aimed to select approximately 7 indicators per pillar for the redevelopment standard evaluation;
however, there were limitations in data availability that inhibited the number of indicators that could be
developed for the Community pillar. This range of indicators per pillar was set to prevent unique
indicators to be diluted by many other indicators and to ensure that important impacts or benefits were
not excluded from the evaluation.
Data Availability and Age
The framework utilized basin-wide datasets to determine the baseline and estimated changes to the
baseline for each indicator. The framework may updated with new or additional baseline data over time;.
It should be noted that some datasets will not be updated regularly due to significant costs and
availability of data owned by different sources.
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
APPENDIX B: INDICATOR SELECTION DETAILS
This appendix provides additional details on the indicator
selection process to supplement the Indicator Selection
Approach section of the report. Figure 9 is a screenshot of a
table that documented the list of documents, programs, and
plans from Lake Tahoe and other communities, which were
used to develop the initial list of aspects and indicators that
were then evaluated for selection into the framework, as
described below.
Figure 10 below depicts the rating scale that was defined for
evaluating indicators by the pre-defined criteria. The first row
includes questions that help to define each criterion, which
were used in addition to the definitions provided for each
criterion in the Indicator Selection Approach section above.
Subsequently, three levels of the rating scale are specifically
defined for each criterion to guide the assignment of a rating
for each indicator. A rating of +1 and -1 can also be assigned
if the indicator fits between what is defined as a +2, 0, or -2.
Figure 9: Sustainability Indicator References
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
PAGE 28
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 29
Indicator Selection & Prioritization Criteria
Criterion Title
Relevance
Validity
Defining
Question
Is the aspect of sustainability a high priority in the Tahoe
Basin?
Is the indicator representative of one of the most significant
impacts to the condition of the aspect, and is the causal
relationship between the indicator and the impact proven and
accepted?
Feasibility
Cost
Is the dataset sufficiently complete and sensitive
How costly is it to initially obtain and
to capture basin-wide changes in sustainability and manipulate the dataset to incorporate
to convey project-specific impacts?
the indicator into the framework?
Rating Scale
+2
The indicator a) represents one of the top 2 drivers of the
The aspect was selected for regional sustainability
condition of the aspect, and b) the relationships between the
reporting in the Tahoe Basin Sustainability Indicator
driver and indicator is widely accepted, as demonstrated by
Reporting Plan, which aims to report on the most material
existing indicator use in the basin, or documentation in legitmate
aspects of sustainability in the Tahoe Basin
literature
A) Data is available for the indicator that can
reflect/ quantify impacts of projects at the project
scale and B) the data covers 90% of the geographic
scope of the Basin.
0
The aspect is identified in 3 or more local regional
plannning documents and 4 or more national
standards/community sustainability reports reviewed as
part of the development of the Tahoe Basin Sustainability
Indicator Reporting Plan
A) The data will only capture large scale changes
from large projects that occur infrequently in the
Basin or B) the dataset covers about 75% of the
geographic scope of the Basin.
-2
The aspect is identified in 1 or no local regional plannning
The indicator a) does not represent one of the 3 drivers that
documents and 1 national standards/community
most influence the condition of the aspect, and b) indirectly
sustainability reports reviewed as part of the development
represents the driver
of the Tahoe Basin Sustainability Indicator Reporting Plan
The indicator a) represents one of top 3 drivers of the condition
of the aspect, or represents a proxy for the condition of the
aspect, and b) the indicator adequately represents the driver
based on rationale.
Figure 10: Indicator Evaluation Rating Scale
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
It will require less than 10 hours and
less than $1,000 to obtain and
manipulate the dataset so that it can be
incorporated into the framework
It will require approximately 24 hours
and $2,400 to obtain and manipulate
the dataset so that it can be
incorporated into in the framework
It will require more than 60 hours and
Resolution of the data is not fine enough to capture
more than $6,000 to obtain and
project impacts, or b) the data can only be obtained
manipulate the dataset so that it can be
for select areas of the Basin.
incorporated into in the framework
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 30
The table in Figure 11 below depicts a portion of the indicator evaluation table that was used, in order to give a sense of the evaluation process. The
sustainability pillar is the left-most column, followed by the aspect of sustainability and then the associated indicators for each aspect. The following
four columns contain the evaluation criteria, and finally a column is included for notes on working group feedback. For each indicator, there is a place to
fill out a rating score, which is assigned using the scale above, and a rationale for why the rating was assigned. This indicator evaluation approach and
spreadsheet should be used when considering the modification of indicators selected for the redevelopment project type and development of additional
project type standards.
Figure 11: Indicator Evaluation Table Screenshot
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEW ORK FOR LAKE TAHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 31
APPENDIX C: FRAMEWORK USER INSTRUCTIONS
The process for using the framework is
described below, step-by-step, to assist
in efficient and consistent use of the
framework. Figure 7 to the right
illustrates the high-level steps for using
the framework. Within each step the
software (i.e. Arc-GIS or Excel) that is to
be used is identified. The framework
requires Arc-GIS (Version 10 or newer)
and Excel (Version 2010 or newer)
software and intermediate skills for
both programs. However, once the
Indicator Dashboard Excel Tool is
populated, it is designed to be used by
individuals without knowledge of ArcGIS and minimal Excel skills.
Getting Started



1. Identify project boundary
2. Identify appropriate reporting units
3. Run indicator extraction & summarization tools
4. Export spreadsheet of indicator summary values
5. Input project characteristics (assumptions)
6. Produce project sustainability scores
Within Arc-GIS, select the
Figure 7: Framework Use Steps
project geodatabase.
Within this geodatabase, there is an analysis toolbox. In the analysis toolbox, double click the
tool “01_ADA” and follow steps 1-3.
Steps 4-6 are for the Dashboard Excel tool, which utilizes outputs from the Arc-GIS “01_ADA”
tool.
Step 1: Identify project boundary
The first step is to identify the project boundary which will be used for the evaluation, using GIS. The
project boundary is determined by the user but should reflect the area, parcels, or aggregation of parcels
that will be directly affected by the proposed project.
Step 2: Identify appropriate reporting units
The second step in the process is to develop the reporting units for each indicator in the project
evaluation. The individual elements that dictate which reporting unit will be used are selected based on
context and then standardized so that the reporting units can be compared against each other. To identify
the reporting units, follow the steps below which are referenced to Figure 8.
2.1: The user enters a shape file representing the study area parcels (e.g., Figure 8, “EW_SDA_Parcels”
enters the Edgewood Project boundary).
2.2: The user enters a buffer distance consistent with the accuracy of the boundary (Figure 8, “Distance”)
and the user selects units in either feet or meters.
2.3: The user enters a name for the study area (Figure 8, under “SDA_Name” is labeled “EW” for the
Edgewood Project).
2.4: The user chooses an output location to store the output files on their computer (Figure 8,
“EW_SDA_Buffer”).
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REPORT
SPATIALLY-EXPLICIT SUSTAINABILITY INDICATOR FRAMEWORK FOR LAKE T AHOE –RESEARCH PROJECT REP ORT
PAGE 32
Figure 8: Screenshot of user input screen used for identifying appropriate reporting units
Step 3: Run indicator extraction and summarization tools
3.1: Once the Baseline Indicators are developed, both the reporting units and the project boundaries are
integrated. With that information, the baseline assessment of sustainability indicators is implemented.
3.2: The user then identifies file location of indicators and project area.
3.3: The model is run and it automatically generates the appropriate summary files
Step 4: Export spreadsheet of indicator summary values
In this step, each indicator is attributed with the study area in ArcGIS. Once the summary values are
exported, the results from each of the individual analyses are then integrated and summarized into one
excel file that becomes the basis for the excel tool (Step 5).
Step 5: Input project effects (and the assumptions that support the project effect determination for each
indicator)
* Use accompanying Indicator Dashboard Excel Tool
5.1: Input Project Effects along with assumptions and references on the worksheet “Indicator
Dashboard”.
5.2: Fill in information for each indicator as examples are provided for columns H-N on the worksheet
“Project Effect”.
Step 6: Produce output values (project sustainability scores)
6.1: The Dashboard Excel tool is then used to produce project sustainability scores for each pillar of
sustainability. These sustainability scores are displayed in the worksheet “Score Card”.
RES EARCH PROJ ECT REP ORT