PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 6, 2015
This bill revises and reauthorizes the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act for 10 fiscal years after the bill's enactment.
The bill adds requirements for the management of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, including requiring the U.S. Forest Service to:
coordinate with the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local entities in managing the Basin;
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
conduct forest management activities in the Basin in a manner that attains multiple ecosystem benefits, unless such activities would excessively increase the cost of any project; and
establish and monitor post-program ground condition criteria for ground disturbance caused by forest management activities.
The Forest Service may enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with government and other public and private entities to provide for fuel reduction, erosion control, reforestation, restoration, and similar activities in the Basin.
The bill mandates priority programs in the Basin, including programs for fire risk reduction and forest management, invasive species management, and stormwater management.
The bill requires relevant federal and state agencies, including the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, and the states of California and Nevada, to develop and update an integrated multiagency assessment and monitoring plan to measure the effectiveness of the Agency's Environmental Improvement Program. The bill amends the Santini-Burton Act to authorize: (1) a donation from California to the Forest Service of lands administered by its agencies, and (2) a transfer from the Forest Service to Nevada of certain lands in the Basin.
People & committees
Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-3] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3692 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3692 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3692 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3692 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.