FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B o u l d e r B a y C o m m u n i t y E n h a n c e m e n t P r o g r a m P r o j e c t E I S 8.5 RESPONSE TO UNIQUE WRITTEN COMMENTS Review of the comments made on the DEIS showed that a number of comments from commenting parties are similar in content. Master Responses have been prepared for those topics that were frequently raised. Where appropriate in the responses to comments of this final document, the reader is referred to the Master Responses. Responses to written comments not addressed in the Master Responses are provided following the Master Responses. The four Master Responses included in this FEIS are: 1. Response to Comments included in a Form Letter (Traffic analysis, Water Quality Benefits, and BMPs) 2. Traffic Baseline 3. Internal/External Alternative Mode Trips, Fehr & Peers Mixed Use Development Model 4. Accessory Uses in Relation to the Traffic Analysis Master Response 1 – Form Letter Response to Comments Comment Summary – The EIS needs to include an adequate traffic analysis, a quantification of water quality benefits, including fine sediment load reduction and complete and fully maintained BMPs for water quality. Traffic Analysis Comments regarding the traffic analysis baseline conditions and trip generation are discussed in Master Responses 2, 3, and 4 and referenced to Appendix AA of the FEIS, which includes the Boulder Bay Alternative Baseline Existing Conditions Traffic Volumes Technical Memorandum (Fehr & Peers, 2010). With regards to the questions regarding adequacy of the traffic analysis, TRPA has confirmed that for purposes of determining the level of environmental impact, the original study contained in the DEIS is consistent with and in compliance, procedurally and substantively with the TRPA Code of Ordinances as well all other traffic studies conducted by TRPA for recent Environmental Impact Studies. The DEIS traffic study is also consistent with the guidelines for completion of traffic impact studies published by the Community Development Departments for Washoe County, Placer County, Douglas County and El Dorado County. Given the number of questions raised during the comment period with regards to the traffic conditions, TRPA directed that Fehr & Peers prepare a Technical Memorandum (Appendix AA) to be used by the decision maker(s) and the public to improve decision-making. Water Quality Benefits and Fine Sediment Load Reduction The TRPA Code of Ordinances requires that a project capture the 20 yr-1hr storm on site and meet water quality discharge limits. There is currently no requirement for fine sediment, nitrogen or phosphorus load reduction. The proposed Storm Water Management Plan for Alternative C and D exceeds the current TRPA requirements and provides above and beyond benefits toward achieving the draft goals and objectives of the Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load Report (TMDL). See supplemental water quality analysis (titled Surface Water Quality - Quantification of Design Benefits for the Boulder Bay Community Enhancement (CEP) Project Stormwater PAGE 8- 12 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B o u l d e r B a y C o m m u n i t y E n h a n c e m e n t P r o g r a m P r o j e c t E I S Treatment System) added in Appendix AB of the FEIS. This supplemental analysis utilizes preproject monitoring data (DEIS Appendix P) in combination with Desert Research Institutes (DRI) data (Brockway Project Area Stormwater Runoff and Characterizations Study, Heyvaert et al. 2008) linked to daily climate data from wet and dry water years (including El Nino events) in the Load Simulation Prediction in C++ coefficients (LSPC) to provide more robust estimates of total sediment (TSS) and fine sediment (FSP) load reductions from the project area. The simulated scenarios include stormwater management programs (SWMPs) designed for the following four conditions: • Existing Conditions (EC); • Existing Conditions retrofitted to treat the TRPA 20yr/1hr design storm total runoff volume (E20); • Alternative C (Proposed Project) built to treat the TRPA 20yr/1hr design storm total runoff volume (C20); and • Alternative C (Proposed Project) built to treat the 100yr/1hr total runoff volume (C100). The supplemental analysis addresses the question: What is the benefit of implementation of SWMPs for C100 vs. C20? Boulder Bay does not claim CEP credit for reductions of C100 vs. EC. The “over and beyond” of the Project is only communicated for C100 vs. E20 and C100 vs. C20. Table 8.5-1 summarizes the predicted runoff results. For E20, C20 and C100, the SWMP contains all of the project area runoff in the event of a 20yr/1hr storm. The total runoff, including NDOT and Washoe County ROWs for the 20yr/1hr storm is 16,428 cubic feet (CF) for E20, 0 CF for C20, and 0 CF for C100. In the event of a 100yr/1hr storm event the total runoff for the project area, including ROWs, is 37,920 CF for E20, 21,488 CF for C20 and 0 CF for C100. Stormwater runoff that leaves a project area contains sediment, including fine sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus, the primary elements leading to the loss of Lake clarity in Lake Tahoe. In order to more clearly understand the potential for runoff from the project area and the conceptual design capacities of the SWMPs, a number of precipitation situations were modeled, including: multiple back-to-back storms; longer duration storms; fall, winter and spring timed storms; and the impact of periodic events such as El Nino years. The goal of the SMWP is to maximize containment and treatment of runoff volumes. SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 13
Page 1 and 2: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 11: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 63 and 64:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187:
Page 190 and 191:
REVISIONS TO THE DEIS B o u l d e r
Page 192:
REVISIONS TO THE DEIS B o u l d e r
show all

FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?