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