Disneyland in the Sierra: The survival of Independence Lake - Part 2
Judy DePuy

Independence Lake taken from the cave on west end of the Lake. Photo courtesy of Joe Idoni.

In Part I of this article (June 9, 2023), Disney planned to create a huge four-season resort at Independence Lake which included purchasing the old Fibreboard mill in Truckee for a transportation center, and building a railroad from Old Town’s train depot to the resort (located off Highway 89). The sheer scope of the proposed development to make it a Disney resort alarmed not only the small town of Sierraville but other neighboring communities. Yet Sierra County and the U.S. Forest Service gave Disney the green light to continue with their planning.

Late in 1975, with opposition growing, Sierra County’s Conservation Club appealed to the Sierra Club for assistance. Their concerns included environmental issues, fear of overwhelming the remote rural area’s limited resources due to the increased population, and impact on the small-town character.

In the Fall of 1976, Southern Pacific Land Company requested an exchange of 2,460 acres from the Forest Service to make the land for the resort all on private property. In return Southern Pacific Land Company offered 12,415 acres of land in the nearby Castle Peaks area which included portions of the Pacific Crest Trail.

Following protocol, the Forest Service informed Disney that they (Forest Service) had to complete a land use plan which would probably be completed by the end of May 1976. If a land exchange was decided then an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be required and finalized in early 1977. The Forest Service agency warned that the date of the land exchange could not be expected before late 1978 or early 1979.
Disney was obviously not happy. They wanted a definitive timetable so they could proceed with their plans. Disney recommended that the Forest Service work concurrently on all the requirements rather than consecutively on the land use study and EIS on the land exchange.
Following protocol, the Forest Service informed Disney that they (Forest Service) had to complete a land use plan which would probably be completed by the end of May 1976. If a land exchange was decided then an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be required and finalized in early 1977. The Forest Service agency warned that the date of the land exchange could not be expected before late 1978 or early 1979.

Disney was obviously not happy. They wanted a definitive timetable so they could proceed with their plans. Disney recommended that the Forest Service work concurrently on all the requirements rather than consecutively on the land use study and EIS on the land exchange.

The Forest Service deemed that studying only the site for the proposed resort was insufficient and the impacts to the surrounding areas had to be considered. They needed more information on the secondary, social, economic and environmental effects the resort would have on the entire area. Additional problems included additional traffic, air and water quality, water rights, public services, strain on Lahontan cutthroat trout and other wildlife. At this point Disney insisted that approval of the land exchange had to be done before they would submit a formal application. Disney and the Forest Service were at a stalemate.

Disney was not to be deterred. By mid 1977, Disney finished more than 3 years of environmental and engineering studies and master planning filing with Sierra County and the U.S. Forest Service which would start the EIS process with federal, state and local agencies. To expedite the process, Disney filed a special-use-permit application with the Forest Service for ski lifts, trails and other improvements on national forest land. In early October, Sierra County and the Forest Service accepted Disney’s applications as complete.

But the complaints kept coming. Disney’s applications for permits were criticized by many groups and deemed to not address alternative plans to building a mega resort.

Since the project fell on both private and public land, California required an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Forest Service required a detailed socio-economic, transportation, and wildlife and fisheries studies to be included with the EIR/EIS draft. And alternatives to the Disney plan had to be included. These comprised of 1) no project at all, 2) a project for winter use only, and 3) a project with the village facilities being located away from the proposed site at Independence Lake and put on private Forest Service land a few miles away near Highway 89 with a monorail providing transportation to the lake.
Disney stated that the alternative proposals were totally unacceptable. They wanted their resort at Independence Lake. Disney argued that the county had accepted its application as complete and must hold to a fixed time schedule.
Then the completion of the reports kept expanding. The joint EIS/EIR was to be completed by October 1978 but with the extra requirements the joint EIS/EIR completion date was moved to March 1979. At this point Disney thought the resort could open in the winter of 1982 and would hopefully be timed to coincide with the opening of the EPCOT Center in Florida (October 1982).

In 1978, the citizens of the three affected counties, Nevada, Placer and Sierra, formed a joint environmental organization to monitor the project. They believed that Disney was trying to circumvent or shorten the environmental review process and pressing Governor Jerry Brown for preferential treatment. Numerous environmental organizations accused Disney of attempting to get special treatment, similar to what it had received in Florida.
Finally in 1978, Disney withdrew its applications and abandoned the project. The Independence Lake investigation cost Disney $2 million dollars and took 5 years to develop.

What Happened?

The issues with the planned project were numerous. In summary:
– The size of the Disney resort would have irrevocably altered life in Sierra County, a county with less than 3000 residents and not a single stop light.
– Placer County and Truckee, in Nevada County, complained of increased needs for transportation, education, public services, and utilities.
– Concerns of water flow into Nevada, water to Pyramid Lake, waste disposal, encroachment to the Castle Peak area, social aid and public security all had to be carefully examined.
The difference between Disney World and Independence Lake is that Walt Disney World in Florida had the complete support and cooperation of Florida’s government. In California, the Disney Corporation had to contend with nine different state and federal agencies and a very strong minded, environmentally concerned community.

Interim Actions After Disney
Following Disney’s decision to back out of the Independence Lake project there were still dreams of building a resort in the area. As early as 1979, Southern Pacific Land Company stated that even with Disney pulling out that they were still interested in developing the area with an all-year resort. They sought other destination resort developers but had no firm commitment with anybody.
Finally on February 5, 1990, Mount Lola and two other parcels came into the public domain and were added to the Tahoe National Forest primarily through the efforts of the Trust for Public Land, a San
Francisco based non-profit. Initial money came from the Congressional Land and Water Conservation Fund and took two years of work. Siera Pacific Industries sold 1,840 acres for $750,000.
Then in 2008 the United States Congress passed a bill for the Secretary of the Interior to allocate $9 million for “acquisition of the land surrounding Independence Lake” and “protection of the native fishery and water quality of Independence Lake as determined by a nonprofit Conservation organization.”

The Future of Independence Lake and the Region
In April 2010 the Nature Conservancy, in partnership with the Truckee Donner Land Trust, the Northern Sierra Partnership and several other conservation partners, purchased 2,325 acres from Sierra Pacific to establish the Independence Lake Preserve. This acquisition supplements the 2,000 acres acquisition the Land Trust made in 2006 and protects the entire Independence Lake watershed.
“Independence Lake is a top conservation priority for the Land Trust because of its natural beauty and ecological importance, and also for its long history as a place for people to enjoy the outdoors,” said John Svahn, Executive Director of the Land Trust. “Preserving Independence Lake took the combined efforts of the Truckee Donner Land Trust, the Nature Conservancy, Northern Sierra Partnership, multiple state funding agencies, and countless donors who stepped up to save this special place. Today we partner with the aforementioned groups along with the U.S. Forest Service, Trout Unlimited, and the Truckee River Watershed Council to ensure Independence Lake remains pristine and available for people to enjoy, for generations to come.”

Today the purpose is for conservation of our limited natural resources and low-impact recreation. The new arrangement allows year-round, walk-in day access to the lake and surrounding preserve. The only road to the lake is not plowed and is impassable to car and truck traffic for much of the winter and spring. To protect the lake from invasive species, all outside boats and watercraft are prohibited. During the summer free kayaks, pontoon float tubes and small motorboats are available to the public. Motorboats are only available on alternate weeks.
Truckee Meadows Water Authority still holds the rights to the lake’s surface water, managing the uppermost 28 feet (controlled by a dam as part of the Truckee River Project) and supplies municipal water to the Reno-Sparks area. NV Energy has committed $1.4 million for investments into the Lahontan cutthroat trout recovery program at the lake.

Conclusion
In the end it was local sentiment to maintain the Mount Lola-Independence Lake as undeveloped forest land rather than construction of a privately owned and operated resort. Disney’s attempts to speed up the established review process (EIS/EIR) through political pressure proved to be the project’s undoing. The Disney project was a learning lesson in that we now have a process that assures that decisions on projects with significant environmental impact are made after public officials and the general public review.

The “Jewel of the Sierra” is protected for future generations to enjoy. Visit it, learn from it but most importantly, keep it close to your heart because the story of this jewel could have had a different ending.

HCS posted 7/1/2023