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 starting the paragraph on p. 4-7-2. The Washoe Tribe is federally recognized and a sovereign government, with 1,600 members. Add Stewart to the list of communities and note that many members live away from tribal lands. Washoe are not "Indian Groups" but native people of Washoe ancestry. The following change will be made to page 4.7-2 of the DEIS. Ethnography The project area lies entirely within the territory of the Hokan-speaking Washoe people. While they were an informal and flexible political collectivity, Washoe ethnography hints at a level of technological specialization and social complexity for Washoe groups, non-characteristic of their surrounding neighbors in the Great Basin. Semisedentism and higher population densities, concepts of private property, and communal labor and ownership were reported and may have developed in conjunction with their residential and subsistence resource stability (d’Azevedo 1986:473-476). Lake <strong>Tahoe</strong> was and remains both the spiritual and physical center of the Washoe world. The Washoe lived along its shores, and the locations of several Washoe encampments in the Lake <strong>Tahoe</strong> Basin have been reported. The project vicinity is near two important Washoe fishing campsites, ImgiwO'tha and MathOcahuwo'tha (d’Azevedo 1986:473-476). Currently, The Washoe Tribe is are a federally recognized tribe by the U.S. Government, is a sovereign government and has have maintained an established land base. Its approximately 1,200 1,600 tribal members are governed by a tribal council that consists of members of the Carson, Dresslerville, Woodfords, Stewart and Reno-Sparks communities, Indian groups, as well as a significant number of tribal members from non-reservation areas (Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada 1995 and Darrel Cruz, Personal Communication, December 16, 2009). Comment 102-b: Comment Summary - On p. 4.7-11, note that inadvertent discoveries will be taken in consultation with the Washoe Tribe. Mitigation measure CUL-2: Identify and Protect Undiscovered Archaeological Resources requires consultation with the Washoe Tribe in the event that human remains or ethnographic resources are discovered during Project construction. Comment 102-c: Cultural Resources Study, page 7, last paragraph - Describe what is meant by "residual population", and clarify the Washoe are Hokan speakers, not surrounded by Numic speakers but between California and Great Basin tribes. The following change will be made to Cultural Resources Study, Page 7, paragraph 3, line 7: Delete: “The Washoe are part of an ancient Hokan-speaking residual population, which has been subsequently surrounded by Numic-speaking intruders such as the Northern Paiute (Jacobsen 1966).” Insert: “The Washoe are descendants of an ancient Hokan-speaking population that was subsequently surrounded in prehistoric times by Numic-speaking incomers such as the Northern Paiute (Jacobsen 1966).” PAGE 8- 42 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 Comment Letter 103 – Dahlgren Ph.D., Joy, 12/16/2009 Comment 103-a: Comment Summary - Alt. C would increase trips and VMT because of additional workers and visitors to the site. Trip generation for Alternative C includes employees, guests, and non-guest visitors to the site. Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline. Comment 103-b: Comment Summary - Alt. C trip generation estimates fail to consider external trips by guests to regional recreation, retail, and services beyond the Project Area. External project traffic estimates (vehicle trips in/out of the project area) include trips to the Project that are attracted to the onsite project amenities (non-guests) and trips to/from the proposed hotel/residential/interval ownership uses on the project area to other destinations (such as recreation, shopping, etc.). Master Response 3 provides additional clarification on internal/external Alternative mode trips. Master Response 4 provides additional detail on project trip generation associated with accessory uses. Comment 103-c: Comment Summary - The EIS should disclose the base "Interacting Uses" numbers on which the "Internal Capture" numbers are based, and the interacting uses for the all "Raw Trips." Information on the interacting uses is provided in Appendix W of the DEIS. Master Response 3 provides additional clarification on internal/external Alternative mode trips including interacting uses. Comment 103-d: Comment Summary - The EIS should explain why Alt. C and A have different internal trip capture rates. Internal alternate mode rates, including on-site internal capture and off-site alternate modes, were developed specific to the type, size, and mix of the uses proposed for each Alternative. The number of internally captured walking trips between the project land uses was calculated by balancing the trips to correspond with the capacity of the lower trip generating use. Further explanation of the methodology used to calculate internal capture trips, as well as a visually representative figure, are provided in Master Response 3. Comment 103-e: Comment Summary - The trip generation numbers are incorrect. Trips were double counted when “Alternative Mode Split” factors were applied to the total number of “raw” trips, rather than only to external trips. The Alternative mode split and internal capture calculation were applied simultaneously to the raw project trips for each land use separately. There was not one percentage applied to the overall raw trip generation rate. The calculations were performed so that the internal/external alternate modes were analyzed based on specific land use type, size, and potential to interact with other on-site uses, off-site uses in close proximity, and transit opportunities. The Fehr & Peers Mixed Use Model and research looks at internally captured trips and off-site alternate mode trips as overall alternate modes because internal trips for mixed use sites are made via walking, bicycling, or transit depending on the size of the mixed use site. The model provides the overall “alternate modes” percentage for each use, which includes internal and external alternate modes, and a summary for the uses. The Fehr & Peers Mixed Use Model and research has been submitted to ITE, and will likely be included in future versions of the Trip Generation Handbook. The Fehr & Peers SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 43
Page 1 and 2: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 41: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 93 and 94:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?