Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
Commenter
Federal Agencies
04–1
U.S. Forest Service, Lake
Tahoe Basin Management
Unity–Maribeth
Gustafson, Forest
Supervisor
Date
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Comment
October 28, 2004
4-63
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
04–1-1
04–1-2
04–1-3
04–1-4
04–1-5
04–1-6
04–1-7
04–1-8
04–1-9
04–1-10
04–1-11
04–1-12
04–1-13
04–1-14
04–1-15
04–1-16
04–1-17
04–1-18
04–1-19
04–1-20
04–1-21
04–1-22
04–1-23
04–1-24
04–1-25
04–1-26
04–1-27
Comment Topic(s)
Buildout assumptions
Inadequate allowance for public piers
Public access
Buoy mitigation
Mitigate private development on private land
Management of other lakes in the Tahoe Region
Editorial
Editorial
PAOTs
Economic effects of reduced scenic quality
Management of other lakes in the Tahoe Region
Buildout assumptions
Editorial
Editorial
Editorial
Parking and restroom facilities
Vegetation–editorial
Editorial
Distinguish between development and non-development areas
Littoral processes not TRPA thresholds
Editorial
Editorial
Probability of significant geologic events
Sediment movement between backshore and foreshore/ nearshore
Updated soil survey available
Editorial
Delineation of unstable backshore areas
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Letter
Commenter
4-64
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
04–2
U.S. Forest Service–Shana
Gross
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Date
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–1-28
Mitigation measure 11.1.1f
04–1-29
Mitigation measure 11.1.1d, e, and g
04–1-30
Update wildlife information
04–1-31
Editorial
04–1-32
Editorial
04–1-33
Editorial
04–1-34
Editorial
04–1-35
600-foot no-wake zone
04–1-36
Editorial
04–1-37
Mitigation Measure 12.1.3a
04–1-38
Editorial
04–1-39
Editorial
04–1-40
Editorial
04–1-41
Editorial
04–1-42
Editorial
04–1-43
P13-4: Add citation regarding advisory council
04–1-44
TRPA consultation with California SHIPO
04–1-45
Prehistoric and historic archaeological sites
04–1-46
Private development should pay for private mitigation
04–1-47
Editorial
04–1-48
Shorezone Partnership Committee
04–1-49
Editorial
October 13, 2004
04–2-1
Sensitive plants
04–2-2
Special interest plants
04–2-3
Sensitive species not found in Tahoe Basin
04–2-4
Editorial
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
04–3
04–4
Commenter
U.S. Forest Service, Lake
Tahoe Basin Management
Unity–Maribeth
Gustafson, Forest
Supervisor
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Sacramento
District, Central
California and Nevada
Section–Michael S.
Jewell, Chief
4-65
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
California State Agencies
04–5
Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research,
State Clearinghouse and
Planning Unit–Terry
Roberts Director
04–6
California Department of
Boating and Waterways,
Environmental Review
unit–Mike Sotelo
04 - 7
California Department of
Justice–Bill Lockyer,
Attorney General
04–8
California State Lands
Commission, Land
Management Division–
Robert L. Lynch, Chief
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Date
Comment
October 28, 2004
Copy of Letter 04–1
Comment Topic(s)
February 8, 2005
04–4-1
Transmittal
September 29, 2004
04–5-1
Transmittal of EIS to various State agencies
July 28, 2004
04–6-1
04–6-2
Sewage pumpout and bilge pumpout
Mitigation Measure 5.1.2c
October 28, 2004
04–7-1
04–7-2
04–7-3
04–8-1
04–8-2
04–8-3
04–8-4
04–8-5
04–8-6
04–8-7
04–8-8
Private development may limit public access
Fisheries impacts and mitigation
Water quality mitigation
Shorezone development standards apply not only in high-use areas
Need for public access
Buoy repair, replacement, exemption
Qualified exemptions and findings
PAOTS and public access
Pier design standards
Signage
Fences
September 14, 2004
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Letter
04 - 9
Commenter
California State Lands
Commission, Division of
Environmental Planning
and Management–Dwight
E. Sanders, Chief
4-66
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Date
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–8-9
Quit claims by public jurisdictions
04–8-10
Boating safety
04–8-11
Loss of riparian habitat
04–8-12
Invasive species
04–8-13
Development of mitigation
04–8-14
New structures in fish habitat
October 28, 2004
04–9-1
EIS is inadequate
04–9-2
Editorial
04–9-3
Editorial
04–9-4
Editorial
04–9-5
Editorial
04–9-6
Editorial
Project Description
04–9-7
Editorial
04–9-8
Editorial
04–9-9
Editorial
04–9-10
2002 IKONOS survey
04–9-11
Width of littoral parcels
04–9-12
Editorial
04–9-13
Design criteria and vessel requirements for boat lifts
Land Use
04–9-14
Fisheries
04–9-15
04–9-16
Water Quality
04–9-17
04–9-18
USFS prescriptions for management areas
Invasive aquatic species
Loss of riparian habitat
Editorial
Invasive aquatic species
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
Commenter
Date
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–9-19
Editorial
04–9-20
Mitigation Measure 5.1.2c and BMP retrofit for marinas
04–9-21
Mitigation Measure 5.1.2b funding mechanisms
04–9-22
Mitigation Measure 5.1.3a–automobile transportation impacts
04–9-23
Development of Mitigation Measure 5.1.4a
04–9-24
Contamination by human waste
04–9-25
Impacts at low lake levels
04–9-26
Status of elimination of MTBE
Scenic Resources
04–9-27
Development of Mitigation measure 6.1.6a
04–9-28
Enforcement of new ordinances
4-67
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Recreation
04–9-29
Editorial
04–9-30
Editorial
04–9-31
Editorial
04–9-32
Editorial
04–9-33
Editorial
04–9-34
Editorial
04–9-35
Editorial
04–9-36
Editorial
04–9-37
Editorial
04–9-38
Signage program
04–9-39
600-foot no-wake zone
04–9-40
New Structures in fish habitat
04–9-41
Pier design standards, signage
Air Quality/Transportation
04–9-42
State support for ONRW boat sticker mitigation program
04–9-43
Implementation of Mitigation measure 8.1.1c
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Letter
Commenter
Date
4-68
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
Vegetation
04–9-44
Editorial
04–9-45
Editorial
04–9-46
Figure 10–2, locations of Eurasian milfoil
04–9-47
Editorial
04–9-48
Editorial
04–9-49
Editorial
04–9-50
Tahoe yellow cress conservation strategy
04–9-51
Editorial
04–9-52
Tahoe yellow cress habitat
04–9-53
Figure 10–3, Tahoe yellow cress habitat
04–9-54
Management of invasive species
04–9-55
Editorial
04–9-56
Editorial
04–9-57
Mitigation measure 10.1.2b, Tahoe yellow cress habitat information
program
04–9-58
Mitigation Measure 10.1.4a, boat inspections for invasive species
04–9-59
Editorial
04–9-60
Alternative 3 analysis of Tahoe yellow cress
04–9-61
Editorial
Soil Conservation
04–9-62
Editorial
04–9-63
Mitigation Measure 11.1.1f, Shorezone BMPs
04–9-64
Mitigation Measure 11.1.3a, reporting program for EIP funds
04–9-65
Alternative 3 impacts of floating docks on littoral processes
Wildlife
04–9-66
04–9-67
Editorial
Editorial
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
Commenter
Date
4-69
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–9-68
Editorial
04–9-69
Editorial
04–9-70
Editorial
04–9-71
Editorial
04–9-72
Editorial
04–9-73
EIS should include all potential invasive species
04–9-74
Editorial
04–9-75
Introduction of invasive aquatic species
04–9-76
Loss of riparian habitat
04–9-77
Editorial
Archaeology
04–9-78
Cultural resources mitigation fee
Economics
04–9-79
Pier value v. pier cost
04–9-80
Economic impacts of buoys
04–9-81
Pier value
04–9-82
Pier value
04–9-83
Property value
04–9-84
Pier value
04–9-85
Editorial
04–9-86
Pier value in Washoe County
04–9-87
Economic impact of commercial buoys
04–9-88
Editorial
04–9-89
Editorial
Public Health and Safety
04–9-90
600-foot no-wake zone
Other Environmental Impacts
04–9-91
Sanitation impacts
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Letter
04–10
04–11
Commenter
California State Lands
Commission Division of
Environmental Planning
and Management–Dwight
E. Sanders Chief
Department of
Transportation District 3
Office of Transportation
Planning–Jeff Pulverman,
Chief
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Date
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
Appendices
04–9-92
Include invasive species control/elimination in EIP projects
04–9-93
Refers to Letter 04–8
October 28, 2004
Copy of Letter 04–9
October 28, 2004
04–11-1
4-70
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Water Quality
04–11-2
04–11-3
04–11-4
04–11-5
04–11-6
04–11-7
04–11-8
04–11-9
04–11-10
04–11-11
04–11-12
04–11-13
04–11-14
04–11-15
04–11-16
04–11-17
04–11-18
04–11-19
Exclude public facilities from mitigation fees, identify regulated
structures
Funding sources
EIP Shorezone projects
Relation of Caltrans–TRPA MOU to Shorezone Ordinances
Assumptions in calculating annual hydrocarbon emissions
Editorial
Nutrient deposition and sediment
Assumptions of sediment per boat launch
Editorial
Editorial
Clarify assumption in Table 5–7
Table 5–8 data on exceedance of water quality standards
Residential fertilizer
Clarify how other structures impact water quality
Retrofitting of culverts
Baseline number of mooring structures
Assumptions used to claim reduction in boat launchings
Document 2:1 structure reduction with Alternative 5
Assumptions used to claim reduction in boat launchings
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
Commenter
California Regional Water
Quality Control Board,
Lahontan Region–Harold
J. Singer, Executive
Officer
04–13
State of California
Department of Health
Services Division of
Drinking Water and
Environmental
Management–David P.
Spath, Chief
California Department of
Fish and Game,
Sacramento ValleyCentral Sierra Region–
Banky E. Curtis, Regional
Manager
4-71
04–12
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
04–14
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Date
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
Other Comments
04–11-20
TRPA’s Design Review Guidelines
04–11-21
Transferred development
04–11-22
Document criteria used to identify top priority EIP projects
04–11-23
Clarify definition of impervious coverage
October 28, 2004
04–12-1
Water quality mitigation insufficient to reduce toxic concentrations of
pollutants
04–12-2
Mitigation measures need to be enforceable
04–12-3
Make DEIS CEQA-adequate by improving detail and funding
information for mitigation measures
04–12-4
Identify specific objectives of ONRW monitoring program and nexus
between monitoring results and implementation of contingent mitigation
04–12-5
Identify contingent mitigation in case significant impacts are seen during
monitoring
04–12-6
Distinguish between permitted and unpermitted buoys and analyze the
impact of allowing unpermitted buoys to remain
04–12-7
Include limitation on turbidity in dredging permits
04–12-8
Improve mitigation adequacy to avoid need for Lahontan to prepare
separate environmental document
August 20, 2004
04–13-1
Protection of public drinking water supply intakes
October 27, 2004
04–14-1
04–14-2
04–14-3
04–14-4
04–14-5
Fish Studies
Editorial
Setbacks form stream meanders
Fisheries BMPs
Loss of substrate from construction of Shorezone structures
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Letter
Commenter
4-72
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Nevada State Agencies
04–15
Nevada Department of
Conservation and Natural
Resources Division of
Environmental Protection,
Water Quality Planning–
Tom Porta, Bureau Chief
04–16
Nevada State
Clearinghouse,
Department of
Administration–Michael J.
Stafford, Coordinator
Date
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–14-6
Loss of native vegetation
04–14-7
Effect of floating docks on littoral processes
04–14-8
Loss of riparian habitat
04–14-9
Increased emphasis on non-motorized watercraft
04–14-10
Boat and trailer washing
04–14-11
Editorial
04–14-12
Effects on Tahoe yellow cress from increased beach use
04–14-13
Support for transit methods that reduce air pollution
04–14-14
Editorial
04–14-15
Loss of Tahoe yellow cress habitat in Alternative 3 not fully mitigated
04–14-16
Introduction of invasive aquatic species
04–14-17
Loss of riparian habitat
September 28, 2004
04–15-1
04–15-2
04–15-3
September 14, 2004
Alternative 2: counterproductive to current development of total
maximum daily loads to reduce pollutant loads to reverse the decline in
lake clarity. No quantitative information regarding the potential impact
to water clarity; current information is that current BMPs are less
effective than anticipated
Impacts to drinking water
Mitigation measure for protection of fish habitat
Transmittal of comments from the Nevada Bureau Health Protection
Services
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
04–17
04–18
Commenter
State of Nevada
Department of Cultural
Affairs, Nevada State
Historic Preservation
Office–Alice M. Baldrica,
Deputy SHIPA
4-73
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
State of Nevada
Department of Human
Resources, Health
Division, Bureau of
Health Protection
Services–Amy Roukie,
Chief
04–19
State of Nevada
Department of Human
Resources, Health
Division, Bureau of
Health Protection
Services–Amy Roukie,
Chief
Regional and Local Agencies
04–20
Washoe County,
Department of
Community
Development–Bill
Whitney, Senior Planner
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Date
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
September 14, 2004 04–17-1
DEIS did not include all cultural resources along the shoreline;
evaluations of some sites needed
04–17-2
All alternatives will likely disturb, damage or destroy sites; all impacts
should be considered significant
04–17-3
Signage
04–17-4
Coordination effort between TRPA and USFS
04–17-5
Do not publish cultural resource site locations
04–17-6
P13 6: Editorial
04–17-7
P13 -9 3rd paragraph: Editorial
04–17-8
Mitigation Measure 13.1.1b: Editorial
04–17-9
P13-18 net to last paragraph: Editorial
September 7, 2004
04–18-1
Impacts on drinking water source, intakes and quality
September 7, 2004
October 7, 2004
Copy of Letter 04–18
04–20-1
04–20-2
04–20-3
04–20-4
04–20-5
Include funding mechanisms, timeline for development and
implementation of mitigation programs, and trigger points
Public use facilities vs. private Shorezone developments
Tie mitigation measures to mitigating the impact
Washing facilities
Boat Sticker Program
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Letter
04–21
Commenter
North Tahoe Public
Utility District–Leon C.
Schegg, Public Works
Director
4-74
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Date
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–20-6
Drinking water quality and zoological effect of night lighting
04–20-7
Analysis of boat numbers - Editorial
04–20-8
DEIS Appendices M & N–Editorial
04–20-9
Table 5-5–Editorial
04–20-10
P5-34: Alternative 2–Editorial
04–20-11
Offsite backshore mitigation
November 1, 2004
04–21-1
Drinking water source–Editorial
04–21-2
P24: Editorial
04–21-3
P2–7: Shorezone Committee
04–21-4
Table 5–1 Drinking water thresholds
04–21-5
P5–7 Section 5-2 paragraph 2: Drinking water supplies Editorial
04–21-6
P5–11 Marinas paragraph: Editorial
04–21-7
P5-20: Backshore activities Editorial
04–21-8
P5-25: Water clarity Editorial
04–21-9
P5-26 3rd bullet: Editorial
04–21-10
Table 5-8 need turbidity, Editorial
04–21-11
P5-28: Backshore development, Editorial
04–21-12
P5-33: Non-significant water quality impacts paragraph 1: Editorial
04 -21 -13
P5-33 paragraph 4: holding tanks Editorial
04–21-14
P5-33 paragraph 5: Editorial
04–21-15
P15-1 introduction paragraph 2: source water protection, Editorial
04–21-16
P15-1 Editorial
04–21-17
P15-2: Editorial
04–21-18
P15-5: Stats involving sinking or swamping of watercraft, Editorial
04–21-19
Section 15-2: backshore activity impact, public drinking water supplies,
Editorial
04–21-20
Section 15-4: Public health impacts to drinking water, Editorial
04–21-21
P15-13: Drinking water supply, Editorial
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
04–22
Commenter
Nevada Tahoe Water
Supplier Association–
Candi Rohr, Chair
4-75
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Date
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–21-22
P15-15: Source water, Editorial
04–21-23
P16-7: Recommended further studies–risk to public water supply studies
should be required of all significant new Shorezone activities and/or
structures
04–21-24
P29 section 5-5 water quality (Alternatives 1-4): Add impact/mitigation
measure. Editorial
04–21-25
P48 section 15-5 public health and safety (Alternatives 1-4): Editorial
04–21-26
Enforcement of ordinances, Editorial
September 21, 2004 04–22-1
Public drinking water impacts
04–22-2
Public drinking water impacts
04–22-3
Water intake protection
04–22-4
Shorezone Partnership Committee
04–22-5
Refer to Comment 21-24
04–22-6
Refer to Comment 21-25
04–22-7
Refer to Comment 21-1
04–22-8
Refer to Comment 21-1
04–22-9
Refer to Comment 21-1
04–22-10
Refer to Comment 21-2
04–22-11
Refer to Comment 21-3
04–22-12
Refer to Comment 21-4
04–22-13
Refer to Comment 21-5
04–22-14
Refer to Comment 21-6
04–22-15
Refer to Comment 21-7
04–22-16
Refer to Comment 21-8
04–22-17
Refer to Comment 21-9
04–22-18
Refer to Comment 21-10
04–22-19
Refer to Comment 21-11
04–22-20
Refer to Comment 21-12
04–22-21
Refer to Comment 21-13
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Letter
04–23
Commenter
4-76
Sierra Club, Tahoe Area
Sierra Club–Michael
Donahoe, Conservation
Co-chair
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Date
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–22-22
Refer to Comment 21-14
04–22-23
Refer to Comment 21-15
04–22-24
Refer to Comment 21-16
04–22-25
Refer to Comment 21-17
04–22-26
Refer to Comment 21-18
04–22-27
Refer to Comment 21-19
04–22-28
Refer to Comment 21-20
04–22-29
Refer to Comment 21-21
04–22-30
Refer to Comment 21-22
04–22-31
Refer to Comment 21-23
04–22-32
Refer to Comment 22-4
October 28, 2004
04–23-1
Table 5-5: Editorial
04–23-2
Table 5-7 boat launchings: Editorial
04–23-3
P5-34 2nd paragraph: Editorial
04–23-4
Further study: Artificial light affect on fish spawning and water clarity.
04–23-5
Further study: Man-made structures removing forage areas for predatory
birds
04–23-6
Drinking water intakes, Shorezone water quality mitigation project–
Editorial
04–23-7
Water quality mitigation fees
Recreation
04–23-8
Not enough emphasis on non-polluting recreation
04–23-9
PAOTS
Fisheries/Wildlife
04–23-10
Identify areas where more piers/buoys could have a negative impact on
wildlife
04–23-11
Mitigation fees–Fisheries support
04–23-12
Impacts on prime fish habitat
04–23-13
Mitigation techniques: restoration
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
04–24
Commenter
League to Save Lake
Tahoe–Jon-Paul Harries,
Program Director
4-77
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Date
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–23-14
Mitigation: non-native vegetation and non-native fish species
04–23-15
Impact of artificial lights on eco system.
04–23-16
Mitigation project lists: fisheries, wildlife, vegetation and sod reduction
Scenic
04–23-17
Impacts of artificial light
Mitigation/Monitoring
04–23-18
Mitigation Fees
October 27, 2004
04–24-1
Protected shoreline
04–24-2
Mitigation Implementation
04–24-3
Mitigation Schedules: Editorial
04–24-4
Build-Out numbers: Editorial
04–24-5
Environmentally preferred alternative: Editorial
04–24-6
Boater education
04–24-7
Water quality impacts, Number of boat ramps and marine railways:
Editorial
04–24-8
Appendices M & N: Mitigation: Editorial
04–24-9
P4-15: PAH Levels: Editorial
04–24-10
Artificial night lighting impacts
04–24-11
Alternative 2: Prohibit construction on private littoral parcels?
04–24-12
Mitigation Funds: Editorial
04–24-13
Designate non-motorized watercraft areas: Editorial
04–24-14
Streamline review of QW projects
04–24-15
Boat sticker program
04–24-16
Funding of mitigations
04–24-17
Public and private water intake lines
04–24-18
Need to include adaptive management component, or indicate what
corrective actions would occur if water quality falls below the 2002
baseline.
04–24-19
Project lot lines–Methodology
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Letter
Commenter
Date
4-78
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–24-20
Maximum pier density
04–24-21
Sewer line impacts and mitigation
04–24-22
PAHs
04–24-23
Water quality/PAHs
04–24-24
Mooring/Marker buoys should have separate definitions
04–24-25
Modify dredging definition to include fish habitat improvement projects
and mitigation.
04–24-26
Definition of Boat Ramps
04–24-27
Definition of Pier
04–24-28
Definition of quasi-public multiple-use facilities
04–24-29
Definition of Tour Boat Use
04–24-30
Editorial
04–24-31
Water–Oriented Outdoor Recreational Concessions
04–24-32
Ch4. Appendix A–Editorial
04–24-33
Pier Allocation System
04–24-34
50.1A(3) Editorial
04–24-35
50.1.A(4)
04–24-36
50.2.G Lake-bottom disturbance
04–24-37
50.3.C in conflict with 50.4
04–24-38
50.3.C (1)(f)(iii): Scenic BMP
04–24-39
50.3.C(1)(f)(iii): Editorial–wrong section referenced
04–24-40
Refer to Comment 04-24-37
04–24-41
50.5.A(3) Accessory facilities–Editorial
04–24-42
50.5.A: define compatibility–Editorial
04–24-43
50.5.D expand to include “by its very nature”–Editorial
04–24-44
50.5.C(4) Define Reasonable and feasible: - Editorial
04–24-45
Editorial
04–24-46
51.2.A(2) conflicts with Ch4. Appendix A and section 18.1.B
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
Commenter
Date
4-79
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–24-47
51.2.A(3) Editorial
04–24-48
Editorial
04–24-49
Editorial
04–24-50
52.3.B(3) Editorial
04–24-51
52.3.C(2) Editorial
04–24-52
52.3.C(5)–TRPA’s ability to set forth special conditions of approval.
04–24-53
52.3.C(5)(c)–Confusing–Editorial
04–24-54
52.3.C(6)–allowable coverage
04–24-55
52.3.C–impact on public access, experience, or safety
04–24-56
52.3.E(6)
04–24-57
52.4–2-stroke motors
04–24-58
Ch. 52–boatlifts
04–24-59
Ch. 52 Tables I–IV use “floating dock” and “swim platform”
interchangeable–Editorial
04–24-60
Ch. 52–Framed Canopy shades for boats
04–24-61
53.2.B–Scenic points, incorrect reference
04–24-62
53.2.C incorrect reference
04–24-63
53.2.C(1) incorrect reference
04–24-64
53.2.C(1) maximum development level
04–24-65
53.2.C(2)(a)(ii) and 53.2.C(2)(a)(iv) scenic BMPs mitigation fees
04–24-66
53.2.C(3) Editorial
04–24-67
53.2.C(6)(a)–maintenance and repair activities
04–24-68
53.2.C(6)(b)(ii)–Editorial
04–24-69
53.2.C(6)(b)(iii)(A-C)–Scenic BMPs
04–24-70
53.2.C(6)(b)(iv)–refers to proposed code sections that do not exist
04–24-71
53.2.C(6)(g)–refers to proposed code sections that do not exist
04–24-72
53.2.D–refers to appendices that do not exist
04–24-73
53.2.E(1)(b)–ends with the word “and” but nothing follows
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Letter
Commenter
4-80
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
04–25
Tahoe Sierra Board of
Realtors–John R. Falk &
Associated: A Public
Relations Firm–John R.
Falk
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Date
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–24-74
53.2.F–pier allocation system conflicts with Ch. 56
04–24-75
53.2.G(2)–Scenic points–editorial
04–24-76
53.2.H and 53.2.I–Scenic points–editorial
04–24-77
53.2.J–Scenic point transfer system
04–24-78
53.2.J(5)b2)–Scenic points–Transfer limitations
04–24-79
53.2.K–scenic points - confusing
04–24-80
53.2.K(3)–Scenic Points–Editorial
04–24-81
53.2.K(4) conflicts with 53.2.H(3)(vii)
04–24-82
Scenic points banking
04–24-83
Subsections within 53.3.A–incorrectly numbered or missing–Editorial
04–24-84
53.3.C(2)–refers to a non–existing subparagraph (53.2.(4))
04–24-85
Ch. 53–boat ramps and marine railways
04–24-86
Ch. 53 scenic impacts to roadway evaluation/mitigation
04–24-87
54.2.A(6)–Shorezone tolerance standards
04–24-88
55.4–is blank–Editorial
04–24-89
55.5–is blank–Editorial
04–24-90
TRPA performance review criteria–Editorial
04–24-91
56.2.A(3)–Table inconsistent with numbers in 53.2.F(2)
04–24-92
Limitation on pier allocation–Editorial
04–24-93
Buoy amnesty program
04–24-94
56.4.C(4) inconsistent with 56.4.A(3)
October 28, 2004
04–25-1
TRPA conflict of interest
04–25-2
Circulation dates of DEIS and SDEIS
04–25-3
Table 3–10 overestimates build-out numbers
04–25-4
Land Use standards of significance–Editorial
04–25-5
Ch. 4 need to explain the temporary moratorium, limits, and goals
04–25-6
Interpretation of fish studies
04–25-7
Limiting construction from May to October is unreasonable
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
Commenter
4-81
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
04–26
Homewood Homeowners
Association–Jack F.
McKenna Ph.D., President
04–27
Cedar Flat Improvement
Association–Doug Maner,
V.P. CFIA Board of
Directors
Lake Tahoe Secret Harbor
Corporation–Tina Greene,
on behalf of the Board of
Directors of LTSH
04–28
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Date
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–25-8
No comparative analysis of pollution from moored boats vs. day-use
increased launches. Overstated impacts to fisheries
04–25-9
Unnecessary project delays
04–25-10
Mitigation Measure 4.1.4a–Editorial
04–25-11
ONRW conflict with proposed alternatives
04–25-12
Boat sticker program
04–25-13
Mitigation measure 5.2.1b–confusing–Editorial
04–25-14
Mitigation Measure 5.2.1f–missing
04–25-15
Impact 5.2.3–Editorial
04–25-16
Ch. 6 Introduction 2nd paragraph–Assumes scenic quality is a limiting
factor on Shorezone development
04–25-17
Alternative 2–Scenic provisions–Editorial
04–25-18
Scenic compatibility measures
04–25-19
Need list of mitigations–Editorial
04–25-20
Protection of public land
04–25-21
Land acquisition/public access–Editorial
04–25-22
Too many mitigation measures focused on private sector
September 27, 2004 04–26-1
Grandfathering in pre–TRPA buoys
04–26-2
Rights of littoral parcel owners
04–26-3
Need for streamlined grandfathering process
04–26-4
Rights of littoral parcel owners
04–26-5
Rights of littoral parcel owners
n.d.
04–27-1
Support Alternatives 2 and 3
04–27-2
Oppose increase in boat fees
October 28, 2004
04–28-1
Grandfathering in pre–TRPA buoys
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
4-82
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
04–29
Commenter
Law Office of Gregg R.
Lien, representing
Homewood High and Dry
Marina, the Harborside
project and related
properties–Gregg R. Lien
04–30
Law Office of Gregg R.
Lien, representing
Obexer’s Marina–Gregg
R. Lien
04–31
Beachcomber Inn Resort–
David R. Steele, Vice
President
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Date
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
October 28, 2004
04–29-1
Grandfathering in pre–TRPA buoys
04–29-2
Loss of recreational opportunities
04–29-3
Cause and effect relationship between the number of buoys and noise
levels
04–29-4
Grandfathering in pre–TRPA buoys
04–29-5
Grandfathering in pre–TRPA buoys
04–29-6
Coverage and disturbance in the backshore
04–29-7
Public access
04–29-8
Increasing setback reduces allowable coverage rights
04–29-9
Landowners rights–public access
04–29-10
Scenic program issues–Editorial
04–29-11
Dredging Mitigation impractical
October 28, 2004
04–30-1
Refer to Comment 29-1
04–30-2
Refer to Comment 29-2
04–30-3
Refer to Comment 29-3
04–30-4
Refer to Comment 29-2
04–30-5
Refer to Comments 29-4–29-5
04–30-6
Refer to Comment 29-6
04–30-7
Refer to Comment 29-7
04–30-8
Refer to Comment 29-8
04–30 -9
Refer to Comment 29-9
04–30-10
Refer to Comment 29-10
04–30-11
Refer to Comment 29-11
04–30-12
Refer to Comment 29-1
04–30-13
Buoys removal–Grandfathering in pre–TRPA buoys
04–30-14
Buoy recognition
September 29, 2004 04–31-1
Editorial
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
04–32
04–33
04–34
Commenter
Black & Veatch
Corporation–Perri
Standish-Lee, Director of
Watershed Planning
Carrara Nevada
Government Affairs, for
Incline Village Board of
Realtors/Sierra Nevada
Association of Realtors–
Sara J. Ellis
Tahoe Lakefront Owners’
Association
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Date
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
October 15, 2004
04–32-1
Source Water Protection
4-83
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
October 28, 2004
04–33-1
04–33-2
04–33-3
04–33-4
Shorezone Ordinances proposed amendments
Complexity of Mitigation structure
Applicability of proposed mitigation measures
Public Access
October 28, 2004
04–34-1
TRPA EIS process
04–34-2
04–34-3
04–34-4
04–34-5
04–34-6
04–34-7
04–34-8
04–34-9
04–34-10
04–34-11
04–34-12
04–34-13
04–34-14
04–34-15
04–34-16
04–34-17
04–34-18
04–34-19
04–34-20
CEQA compliance
Scenic requirements
Consensus-based approach
Project description and ordinances
Analysis of public projects
Range of alternatives
Mitigation analysis
Mitigation analysis
Analysis of significant impacts of mitigation
Analysis of public and private projects
DEIS inadequate
DEIS must be recirculated
Ch2 and proposed amendments
Analysis of public projects
Baseline level of Shorezone development
Shorezone mitigation funds
Shorezone Policy Committee and Partnership Group
Scale of maps
Baseline information
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Letter
Commenter
Date
4-84
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–34-21
Buildout projections
04–34-22
Analysis of parcels served by multiple-use facilities
04–34-23
Community or public piers on private property
04–34-24
Parcel deed restrictions
04–34-25
Assumption that all piers extend to 6219
04–34-26
Repair, retrofit, or removal of structures
04–34-27
Buoy fields, boundaries, and setbacks
04–34-28
Topography and design
04–34-29
Figure 2-4 scale
04–34-30
Development potential, buoy program and enforcement
04–34-31
Private boat ramps
04–34-32
Floating docks and swim platforms
04–34-33
Boat slips at marinas
04–34-34
Sources of data
04–34-35
Boat lifts
04–34-36
Range of alternatives
04–34-37
Alternatives analysis
04–34-38
Alternative 1 assumptions
04–34-39
Alternative 2 and stakeholder consensus
04–34-40
TRPA staff “professional opinion”
04–34-41
Landscape character types and shoreline character types
04–34-42
Eligibility and siting criteria
04–34-43
Repair
04–34-44
Buildout projections
04–34-45
Alternative 3
04–34-46
Alternative 4
04–34-47
Alternative 5
04–34-48
Analysis of public projects
04–34-49
Ramp expansion
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
Commenter
Date
4-85
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–34-50
Marina expansion
04–34-51
PAOTs and transfer of public development rights
04–34-52
Analysis of public projects
04–34-53
Boating use assumptions
04–34-54
Development assumptions
04–34-55
Visual simulations
04–34-56
Non-conforming structures
04–34-57
Public ownership of the shoreline
04–34-58
Public access and public trust
04–34-59
HOA standards
04–34-60
Public easement allowing all forms of dispersed recreation
04–34-61
Littoral owners’ access to P/HOA facilities
04–34-62
Littoral parcels and development rights
04–34-63
Figure 3-2
04–34-64
Limits on new facilities
04–34-65
Check tables for consistency
04–34-66
Removal of rock crib piers
04–34-67
Piers
04–34-68
Shorezone Mitigation Fund
04–34-69
Boat ramps in spawning habitat
04–34-70
Construction season limitations
04–34-71
Shoreline protective structures
04–34-72
Unproven habitat restoration
04–34-73
Beaching of boats and accompanying mitigation
04 -34-74
Substrate restoration
04–34-75
Scenic quality analysis should not be based on 300-foot measurement
04–34-76
Scenic quality in nonattainment areas
04–34-77
Clarity of mitigation measures
04–34-78
Mitigation measures discourage visual and safety improvements
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Letter
Commenter
Date
4-86
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–34-79
Scenic quality impact analysis
04–34-80
Scenic BMPs
04–34-81
Shoreline character types
04–34-82
Travel route ratings
04–34-83
Scenic mitigation
04–34-84
Goals of scenic improvement
04–34-85
Shorezone scenic quality
04–34-86
Public vs. private development
04–34-87
Scenic BMPs
04–34-88
Scenic quality analysis and proposed ordinances
04–34-89
Scenic quality chapter and ordinances
04–34-90
Shorezone scenic assessment
04–34-91
Suggested modifications to scenic element of proposed ordinances
04–34-92
Scenic BMPs
04–34-93
Scenic credit banking
04–34-94
Scenic evaluation for public and private projects
04–34-95
Shoreline character types
04–34-96
Specific questions on scenic assessment and mitigation
04–34-97
EIP funding
04–34-98
Visual simulations
04–34-99
Off-site scenic mitigation program
04–34-100
Beneficial recreation impacts
04–34-101
Public trust
04–34-102
Public recreational access
04–34-103
Recreation impacts
04–34-104
Unclear
04–34-105
Public trust doctrine
04–34-106
Mitigation fund for property acquisition
04–34-107
Public access to private property and trespassing
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
Commenter
Date
4-87
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–34-108
Quit-claiming
04–34-109
Existing structures
04–34-110
Boundaries are for publicly owned property
04–34-111
Reservoir levels
04–34-112
Public access to private property
04–34-113
Lateral shorezone pedestrian access
04–34-114
Sign program
04–34-115
Design standards
04–34-116
Storing recreation equipment under piers
04–34-117
Air quality impact of public and quasi-public structures
04–34-118
Structures and boats
04–34-119
Feasibility of mitigation measures
04–34-120
Increase in public facilities and cumulative impacts
04–34-121
Structures and boats
04–34-122
Water milfoil and Tahoe yellow cress
04–34-123
Tahoe yellow cress
04–34-124
Reasonable use of pier and beach areas
04–34-125
Tahoe yellow cress mitigation
04–34-126
Lateral public access and Tahoe yellow cress
04–34-127
Soil conservation between low and high water
04–34-128
Rock revetments
04–34-129
Soil loss resulting from access
04–34-130
Dead trees and snags
04–34-131
Archaeological, historical and cultural resources
04–34-132
Economic analysis
04–34-133
Public health and safety
04–34-134
Persons with special needs
04–34-135
Long-term vs. short-term considerations
04–34-136
Monitoring and mitigation programs
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Letter
Commenter
Date
4-88
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–34-137
Cumulative impacts
04–34-138
Growth inducing impacts
04–34-139
Public trust easement.
04–34-140
Public trust easement
04–34-141
Public trust easement
04–34-142
Mitigation measures and takings
04–34-143
Public access easements
04–34-144
Appendix E
04–34-145
Definitions
04–34-146
Chapter 30
04–34-147
Exempt and qualified exempt projects
04–34-148
Construction season
04–34-149
Scenic BMPs
04–34-150
Public access
04–34-151
Obstructions of public access on private property
04–34-152
Backshore definition
04–34-153
Historic designations and signage
04–34-154
Editorial
04–34-155
Repair, replacement, removal, and modification of structures
04–34-156
Tables I–IV
04–34-157
Shoreline protective structures and retaining walls
04–34-158
Quasi-public and Public tables
04–34-159
Marinas
04–34-160
Appendix K
04–34-161
Appendix M and Appendix N
04–34-162
Appendix M
04–34-163
Appendix N
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
Individuals
04–35
Commenter
Midkiff & Associates
Consultants–Gary D.
Midkiff
Date
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Comment
October 28, 2004
Michael Fry, President
October 28, 2004
04–37
Donald and Katherine
Edwards
04–38
Donald and Katherine
Edwards
October 28, 2004
04–39
Paul and June
Hendrickson
October 28, 2004
04–40
Leah Kaufman
October 28, 2004
4-89
04–36
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
n.d.
04–35-1
04–35-2
04–35-3
04–35-4
04–35-5
04–35-6
04–35-7
04–36-1
04–36-2
04–36-3
04–36-4
04–36-5
04–36-6
04–36-7
04–36-8
04–36-9
04–37-1
04–37-2
04–38-1
04–38-2
04–40-3
04–39-1
04–39-2
04–40-1
04–40-2
04–40-3
Comment Topic(s)
Shoreland Scenic program
Definition of ‘littoral’ parcels
Private and Private Multiple Use Facilities in Quasi-Public Multiple Use
Access Areas
Public Access to Private Property
Recognition of Existing Lake Access
Grandfathering in pre–TRPA buoys
Design Standards
Not all Marina’s are included, need to include–Editorial
Alternative 2 Mitigation is unrealistic
Alternative 3 Mitigation is unrealistic
Alternative 4 poor analysis
Appendix M–Monitoring costs are excessive
Permit costs not included
Revenue structure unrealistic
Appendix N–EIP projects cost–Editorial
Visiting public user fees
Buoy inspection program
BMPs should be completed before buoy application
How many littoral owners are there?
Would help if NV would make the same ownership to ‘high water mark’
as CA
Lighting
Private ownership rights vs. public access rights
Buoys may not be detrimental to fish habitat
Boat Lift and Structure allocations
Clarify pier setback
Buoy amnesty program
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Letter
Commenter
Date
4-90
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–40-4
Revetment Structures
04–40-5
Owner incentives
04–40-6
Non-conforming structures
04–40-7
Multiple Use Facility requirements
04–40-8
Multi owner pier site requirements
04–40-9
Qualified Exempt projects
04–40-10
What is involved in the site assessment
04–40-11
50.4 QE loss of exemption
04–40-12
52.3 C (2)–Structures obstruction the public access
04–40-13
52.3 C(4)–Needs more detail
04–40-14
52.2 D 2 (d)–Shorezone structure removal circumstances
04–40-15
52.3E–Dredging criteria
04–40-16
Pier deck surface
04–40-17
Clarify pier length
04–40-18
Quasi–public restrictions
04–40-19
53.2 f (6) - do subdivision qualify for the 25 allocations
04–40-20
53.2 G (2)–Clarify differences between Scenic points and Scenic Credits
04–40-21
53.2 H (3) (a) (ii)–Need better owner incentives for multi use piers
04–40-22
53.2.I & J–Point transfers
04–40-23
56.2a (2)–Editorial
04–40-24
56.2a (3)–Five year window start date–Editorial
04–40-25
56.3 A (2) (e)–Buoy Amnesty program criteria
04–40-26
Buoy permits
04–40-27
56.4 B I–Allocation eligibility
04–40-28
Allocation Transfers
04–40-29
Ch. 2–definition of pier–Editorial
04–40-30
Appendix N–Mitigation Fees–Editorial
04–40-31
Appendix K–Scenic Review System–pg.8–eligibility criteria–Editorial
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
Commenter
4-91
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
04–41
Law Office of Gregg R.
Lien for Mr. and Mrs. Ed
Wright–Gregg R. Lien
04–42
Alling & Jillson, Ltd for
the Avery Families
04–43
Roger C. Steele
04–44
Steven L. Merrill
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Date
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–40-32
Appendix K–Challenging or correcting RPA determination of point
scores
04–40-33
Lake elevation used for score pier points
04–40-34
Pg. 9–Five year allocation start date
04–40-35
Pg. 9–buoy five year allocation selection
04–40-36
Pg. 10–planning considerations associated with scenic credits
04–40-37
Yearly boatlift selection
04–40-38
Multi use incentives
04–40-39
Pg. 11–Scenic mitigation, retirement of points
04–40-40
Pg. 15–Scenic BMPs–screening
04–40-41
Pg. 17–Allocations
04–40-42
Scenic credit banking
04–40-43
Retirement of Shorezone structures requirements
October 28, 2004
04–41-1
TRPA’s interpretation of Section 54.8A of the Code is incorrect & TRPA
is discriminating against littoral owners of single-use facilities
04–41-2
DEIS inadequate - Editorial
October 28, 2004
04–42-1
Degradation of Scenic thresholds due to unsubstantiated exemptions,
SSMP is based on improbable suppositions
04–42-2
NV does not require creation of public access across private property
04–42-3
Cannot assume that no pier denotes no boat and no impacts from boats
04–42-4
Historic pilings
October 28, 2004
04–43-1
DEIS assumes that view of Shorezone structures from 300’ offshore is
negative
October 27, 2004
04–44-1
Bias against single-family lakefront owners
04–44-2
Mitigation measure based on the assumption that single-family piers
generate boat traffic is arbitrary
04–44-3
Arbitrary assumption that Shorezone structures have doubled the visual
impact of shoreland structures.
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
4-92
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
04–45
Commenter
Law Office of Gregg R.
Lien for Mr. Marc
Desautels–Gregg R. Lien
04–46
Jack and Donna Macey
04–47
04–48
Joseph Yarnell
Sue Quinn
04–49
04–50
Cindi Lambert
Alice Jones
04–51
04–52
Caroline Silva
Carolyn Collins
04–53
04–54
John N. Henderson
Jack and Donna Macey
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Date
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
October 28, 2004
04–45-1
Coleen Shade stated that pre-1968 fences that extend lakeward of the
high water mark should be maintained and repaired (Mitigation Measure
7.1.1c says otherwise)
04–45-2
Private pier rights vs. public access
04–45-3
DEIS deficient in analyzing impacts to private land due to public access
04–45-4
Concerned about mitigation measure that restrict access by a landowner
to the beach portion of their land
October 23, 2004
04–46-1
“uplanders” unable to get buoy
04–46-2
DEIS will increase boat launch traffic
04–46-3
Erosion caused by removing the cement blocks holding the buoys needs
to be analyzed
04–46-4
“uplanders” property values may be lowered by not having access to the
lake or buoy–needs to be analyzed
04–46-5
TRPA is stopping landowner and public use of the lake
October 5, 2004
04–47-1
Piers are bad
August 26, 2004
04–48-1
Additional facilities on the lake will have an adverse effect
04–48-2
Noise and air pollution
04–48-3
Public meetings should be during the evening so the public can attend
July 15, 2004
04–49-1
Inaccurate analysis on all levels
July 15, 2004
04–50-1
Opposed to additional piers and buoys that would be created if the DEIS
passes
August 27, 2004
04–51-1
More piers = more pollution
September 8, 2004
04–52-1
Opposed to additional piers and buoys that would be created if the DEIS
passes
September 26, 2004 04–53-1
Unclear how new boating limits are set
September 27, 2004 04–54-1
Need more buoys to limit daily boat launches and protect fish habitat
04–54-2
DEIS appears to be opposed to pedestrian traffic
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
04–55
Commenter
TRPA Shorezone
Workshop–Summary
Notes of Issue Discussion
4-93
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Date
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
September 15, 2004 04–55-1
John Falk, Board of Realtors–Financial impact of mitigation measures
making public use of lake cost prohibitive. Deference to property rights
of individual property owners, related to potential requirement for
multiple-use piers
04–55-2
Jan Briscoe–Mitigation and enforcement program development: how
will it occur, who will do it, when will they occur (scenic, recreation,
buoy programs as mitigation in the EIS) Expansion of existing piers and
structures: when are scenic requirements encountered
04–55-3
Michael, Sierra Club - More opportunities for non-mechanized
recreation Balance right of lakeside property owners with community
rights regarding the number of piers or buoys allowed per parcel
04–55-4
Dan St. John, IVGID–Public property owner considered the same as
quasi-public? IVGID serves a large public. Unfair to define quasi-public
to include public agencies like IVGID
04–55-5
Gregg Lien, Attorney (representing property owners)–Potential
punitive aspects of mitigation.
Schedule of implementation and performance criteria; will programs and
criteria achieve the goals.
What is evidence that indicated the proposed mitigation is needed in the
first place, and how can it be indicated that they would be effective?
What should the standard/criteria be to impose mitigation; what is
scientific basis for mitigation?
What is a zone of exclusion? (for structures or uses)
04–55-6
Mary Fiore-Wagner, RWQCB–Where TRPA to develop a program,
without a schedule and process for development of them, cannot assess
effectiveness. What are restrictions in the mean time?
04–55-7
Michael, Sierra Club–Impact are definite, but mitigation effectiveness is
not able to be clear
04–55-8
Jim Phelan, Tahoe City Marina–PAOTS: how address fair share of
PAOT allocation, related to public facilities and marinas, who serve
larger publics?
04–55-9
Board of Realtors–Are the mitigation measures without basis in reality?
Are these fair to impose?
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Letter
Commenter
Date
4-94
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–55-10
Gregg Lien - Public Access
Private property rights vs. public access to lake
Do not try to increase public access on private property (by requiring
mitigation when private piers interfere with public access)
Limit public access improvement to public property
Increase of public access in front of private property not needed
Large areas of public shoreline not developed for public access
There’s no public restroom, parking for private shoreline
Liability issues for private property owners, if public use
Solution is increased access on public lands
Public trust protection should not be TRPA responsibility, should be
State of California instead (law does not exist in Nevada)
04–55-11
Barbara, SLC–Public trust is between high and low water. TRPA is
responsible for protecting public trust area between low water and high
water. SLC leases from low water out to lake
04–55-12
Jan Briscoe–Examine areas more or less conducive to access. Some
areas don’t have perpendicular access to the shore, no public use.
Public trust values are broadly defined. There will be unintended
consequences, so need to be careful with policies.
Piers do not necessarily conflict with public trust, so should not be
treated with one approach.
Need to consider TYC in deciding where access is conducive
Trespass and public abuses need to be considered along with public use
Where legally feasible, should acquire lands for public access.
04–55-13
John Falk–Should not consider recreation threshold in vacuum fro m
other thresholds, such as endangered species. Conflict occurs when just
focus on protecting lateral access across piers, ignoring.
04–55-14
Michael–Number of piers is a concern in terms of interference with
public access, including kayakers.
04–55-15
JP–Compact is clear that TRPA has authority to regulate Shorezone, so
cannot ignore public access to lake.
What is the issue in EIS that raises concern about forcing public access to
private property?
04–55-16
Jim Phelan–Some private properties provide public access
Lake Tahoe Shorezone Ordinance Amendments Final EIS
November 2006
Letter
Commenter
Date
4-95
DEIS and SDEIS Comments and Responses
Table 4-3
2004 Comments on the DEIS
Comment
Comment Topic(s)
04–55-17
JP–Multiple use piers are offered as a mitigation to reduce the number of
structures, so buying a single existing pier right to build a new pier
circumvents the mitigation
04–55-18
Gregg Lien–Multiple use pier mitigation does not have factual basis for
imposition.
Every lakeshore parcel should have a pier right. No real harm has been
shown.
Establish incentives for converting from single to multiple use, rather
than imposition of a regulatory restriction
04–55-19
Jan Briscoe–TRPA should establish a way to buy out a pier right if there
should not be a pier.
The pier right approach included a go-slow approval schedule, a few
piers in a given time, with monitoring and follow-up decisions about how
many more to approve.
Mitigation programs that require substantial financial commitment of
private owner, it excludes the non-rich.
04–55-20
John Falk–A previous consensus was that every lakefront parcel had a
pier right.
This multiple use pier mitigation may be subject to taking litigation.
04–55-21
Michael–Do not restrict discussion because of perceptions of past
consensus. There is another viewpoint, but not prepared to articulate the
issue.
04–55-22
Dept. of Fish and Game–Look at issue of loss of lake habitat and how to
compensate it
Does vertical (e.g., rock crib) habitat replace lost bottom habitat?
04–55-23
Gregg Lien–Don’t stop all projects till things are figured out.