FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

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
ROWs through onsite in stormwater treatment galleries, and basins and offsite on the
California parcel (infiltration gallery 9). The Project will minimize stormwater
contributions from the project area and effectively removing this volume of runoff
from "pass through discharge". Impact HYDRO-3 details the proposed stormwater
treatment systems and provides See responses to comments 337a though 337n.
Please see response to comment 93-e regarding CEQA review of the Lower
Brockway water quality project.
Comment Letter 339 - Kientz, Richard, 02/04/10
Comment 339-a: Comment Summary - Requests an adequate traffic analysis to describe impact of
atmospheric deposition of particulates on Lake Tahoe. Requests a quantification of
water quality benefits and fine sediment load reduction, and a description of why
expansion of coverage is a benefit.
Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and
Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline.
Please refer to Master Response 1 regarding fine sediment load reductions and water
quality benefits.
Comment Letter 352 - Roane, William, 02/04/10
Comment 352-a: Comment Summary - Concerned about room rates with the project.
Room rates are generated by the property owner in response to market demand and
value and are subject to fluctuation. This is not a comment on the content or
adequacy of the DEIS. This information is passed on to the Project proponent and
decision maker(s) for consideration. No further response to this comment in relation
to the DEIS is warranted.
Comment Letter 357 - Sell, John, 02/04/10
Comment 357: Comment Summary - Opposes project as too big, inconsistent with TRPA compact. A
Regional Plan and public transportation system should come first.
Please see response to comment 40-a.
Comment Letter 363 - Kuchnicki, Jason, 02/05/10
Comment 363-a: Comment Summary - Would be beneficial for EIS to provide quantitative comparison
of the Alternatives so that the relative benefits of each Alternative could be discerned.
Keep in mind that the no project Alternative would still be required to be retrofitted
for BMPs as required by TRPA code. Would recommend using either the Load
Reduction Planning Tool or Pollutant Load Reduction Model.
The comment is noted that the No Project Alternatives are required to retrofit the
project area to comply with TRPA codified regulations. The stormwater treatment
systems and permanent BMPs proposed for Alternatives A, B and E are described on
pages 4.3-36 and 4.3-37. The design plans were submitted to TRPA in December
2009 and are provided as supplemental information for DEIS Appendix P in
Appendix AB. These design plans illustrate the narrative approach detailed on pages
4.3-36 and 4.3-37. See Appendix AB for LSPC model predicted sediment and
nutrient load reductions. Alternatives A, B and C are quantified under Existing
Conditions (no BMPs) and E20 (existing project area retrofitted with water quality
PAGE 8- 160 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010