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
Comment Letter 124 – Crooke, Steve M., State of Nevada, Department of Transportation,
01/05/2010
Comment 124-a: Comment Summary - A permit from NDOT is required to widen SR 28, and permit
conditions may affect final project design.
The Project proponent will obtain appropriate NDOT encroachment permits.
Comment 124-b: Comment Summary - The current drainage system does not have capacity to handle
additional runoff. The EIS needs to describe where and how the runoff would be
conveyed and treated.
The statement that existing infrastructure does not have the reserve capacity to treat
and/or infiltrate the additional runoff is correct. Site deficiencies concerning
stormwater treatment have been directly addressed by the Project design and the
stormwater treatment systems proposed for each Alternative, including the No
Project Alternatives A and B. Impact HYDRO-3 (page 4.3-36 through 4.2-47)
details the proposed stormwater treatment systems for Alternatives A, B, C, D and E.
Alternatives A, B and E will capture, convey and infiltrate the 20yr/1hr storm total
runoff volume, while Alternatives C and D will capture, convey and infiltrate up to
the 100yr/1hr storm total runoff volume. For Alternatives C and D, the stormwater
treatment system schematic is illustrated in Figures 4.3-1, 4.3-2 and 4.3-3. For
Alternatives A, B and E, the stormwater treatment system is described on pages 4.3-
36 and 4.2-37. Design Plans for the BMP Retrofit for Existing Conditions
(Alternatives A, B and E) was first submitted to TRPA in August 2007. These design
plans were updated and resubmitted in December of 2009, are available for review in
the public project file and are provided as supplemental information for DEIS
Appendix P in Appendix AB. Under all Alternatives runoff from the TRPA 20yr/1hr
design storm (e.g. the current regulatory requirement) will not leave the project area
untreated or enter into NDOT ROWs.
The Project addresses as much of the historic interstate runoff issues as possible.
Any persisting runoff from NDOT ROWs will need to be coordinated directly with
Caltrans since the project area will no longer be contributing to "pass through
discharge" from SR 28. Furthermore, Alternatives C and D propose to capture,
convey and infiltrate a significant portion of runoff from NDOT ROWs. As
discussed in Impact GEO-1, land coverage within Washoe county and SR 28 ROWs
will be assumed into the project area, a portion of the land coverage will be removed,
and the remaining excess coverage will be mitigated by the Project. Please see
responses to comments 337-a through 337-n.
Comment 124-c: Comment Summary - The EIS needs to address additional pedestrian traffic crossing
SR 28 generated by the project.
Pedestrians were analyzed at the SR 28/Pedestrian Crossing intersection for the
Alternatives. When a pedestrian (or group of pedestrians) pushes the button to
actuate the signal, it sends a “call” to the signal to activate the pedestrian phase. As
an exercise to further confirm the analysis results in the DEIS, the signal was
analyzed assuming 60 pedestrian calls per hour (3 times the number of calls
originally analyzed for existing plus project conditions). Table 8.5-6 shows the delay
and queue lengths for existing plus Alternative C conditions (as presented in the
DEIS), and existing plus Alternative C conditions (with an increase in pedestrian
calls).
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 49