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 Comment 286-aq: Comment Summary - Cumulative recreation analysis is inadequate because it relies on the shuttle mitigation and fails to analyze the cumulative impact on area beaches because of shuttling. Cumulative impacts to Basin recreational resources are also addressed in the TRPA Threshold Evaluation Reports that are prepared every 5 years. The TRPA 2006 Threshold Evaluation report evaluated the status of the two R-1 Recreational threshold indicators (Quality Experience and Additional Access) and determined each to be in attainment. The Evaluation of “Quality Experience” states: “Previous survey efforts have indicated that the majority of recreation experience attributes either meet or exceed expectations. The quality of the region’s beaches and access to forest areas/trails are rated the most positive elements of the Tahoe Basin recreation experience. Beach activities are the most popular summer pursuits, followed closely by walking and hiking. Seasonal traffic and crowding detract from the experience during peak periods. These attributes that detract from the quality of the recreation experience are beyond the purview of the recreation providers.” Impact REC-1 in Chapter 4.6 of the Boulder Bay DEIS states “Although Alternatives C and D will include new onsite recreational opportunities for Boulder Bay guests, and park and open space areas open to the public that include views of Lake Tahoe, increased visitation to Boulder Bay under Alternatives C, D and E will have a potentially significant impact on nearby Lake Tahoe beaches.” Mitigation measures are included in the DEIS to help reduce the Boulder Bay impacts to seasonal traffic and crowding that are referenced in the Threshold Evaluation as a problem. Please see response to comment 171-d for proposed revisions to the Mitigation Measure REC-1 that are recommended based on other comments to the DEIS. While neither of the closest beaches to Boulder Bay are operated by the USFS, they also conduct evaluations of beach facilities to determine whether the recreational experience is meeting visitor expectations. According to USFS LTBMU recreational specialist Bob Becker (personal communication, August 27, 2010), the USFS has found that parking availability regulates beach conditions and that the USFS beaches can accommodate each of the visitor’s who can park or walk into the facility. Beach visitor complaints are generally directed at congested access and parking facilities. This information is consistent with information provided by Nevada State Parks and was the basis for the development of shuttle oriented mitigation measures to reduce the reliance on the individual auto for Boulder Bay residents access to beach facilities. Therefore, the impacts of the Boulder Bay project, along with increased visitation associated with other cumulative projects are not anticipated to degrade the high quality of the recreational experience as measured by TRPA. Comment 286-ar: Comment Summary - Complete the analysis of the Project's contribution to impacts on recreational facilities and discuss possible feasible mitigation measures to address these impacts. Please see response to comment 286-aq. Comment 286-as: Comment Summary - The DEIS lacks adequate disclosure of CEP Compliance. Appendix AG includes a TRPA staff prepared analysis of Boulder Bay’s compliance with the CEP resolution adopted by the Board. As documented in the resolution compliance matrix, the Boulder Bay Project (Alternative C) is in compliance with the Resolution’s requirements for Boulder Bay’s continued participation in the CEP. PAGE 8- 74 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 286-at: Comment Summary - The DEIS failed to include an analysis of how the Project meets the Resolution's criteria and demonstrates a net environmental gain and benefit to the community. Please see response to comment 286-as. Comment 286-au: Comment Summary - Release an analysis, such as a matrix, that measures the project against the CEP criteria for public review and comment. Please see response to comment 286-as. Comment 286-av: Comment Summary - Exhibit B from Susan Handy dated 29-Jan-10: Baseline traffic conditions are overestimated using the full capacity operation numbers, which underestimates the effect of the Proposed Project. Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline. Comment 286-aw: Comment Summary - Exhibit B from Susan Handy dated 29-Jan-10: The project cannot be classified as a "destination resort" because the amenities are not extensive enough to keep guests onsite for most of their stay. In addition, there is no access to the lake, skiing, golf, tennis, or other recreational activities beyond a pool. The Project includes a variety of amenities such as a spa/wellness center, pool, casino, fitness center, conference center, entertainment, restaurants, retail, park and hiking trails, and children's club. These amenities are typical of other destination resort hotels. While there are many desirable activities offsite, not every visitor to Lake Tahoe participates in the sports activities, as listed in the comment. Comment 286-ax: Comment Summary - Exhibit B from Susan Handy dated 29-Jan-10: It is not realistic to assume hotel patrons will regularly use local transit or shuttles, especially with sparse transit service. The Alternative mode reduction included in the trip generation calculations includes bicycling, walking, carpooling, etc. trips, as well as transit and shuttle trips. Master Response 3 provides additional clarification on internal/external Alternative mode trips. The Alternative Transportation Plan provides for the following specific measures intended to reduce private vehicle use: • Provide financial subsidy to increase North Lake Tahoe Express Service between Reno-Tahoe International Airport and Incline Village/Crystal Bay from 7 runs per day to 11 runs per day during peak travel seasons (summer and winter); • Reduce existing Crystal Bay to Tahoe Vista Trolley headways from 30 to 15 minutes during summer daytime hours by operating an additional Trolley at no cost to users; • Operate Year-Round Tahoe Connection Service using three Alternative-fueled vans (12-15 passenger) to provide free transit service throughout the Tahoe/Truckee region to Boulder Bay guests and residents; • Encourage Alternative transportation strategies for Boulder Bay employees by offering subsidized employee transit passes, preferred carpool parking, carpool matching service, showers/lockers, and bicycle amenities; • Provide two bays for Transit buses and shuttles along SR 28 and an Alternative Transportation Center for transit, bicycle and pedestrian travelers to be protected SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 75
Page 1 and 2:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 73: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
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?