Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency officials this week announced a preferred "Shorezone alternative" would not be released by the agency until March at the earliest.
The agency closed its 60-day public comment period on its latest Shorezone plan (Alternative 6, released July 2) at the end of September. TRPA board members had the month of October and November to review all six separate alternative plans submitted by staff as well as public feedback.
Alternative 6 proposes 220 new private piers, 10 public piers, a $150 per boat "sticker fee," 1,800 new buoys and - as a mitigation for increased boat traffic expected from these structures - a ban on motorboats in Emerald Bay for one day a weekend during summer; and a $100,000 fee for pier permits.
"Extensive public feedback" combined with a truncated December meeting schedule will effectively "push back an alternative's adoption," TRPA officials said.
"If you were to just do a random sample of documents around the lake you would see how big (feedback) was," TRPA spokeswoman Julie Regan said. "It wasn't just the number of comments but some of the comments were really extensive; perhaps (review) will be finished by the end January or February."
During the TRPA's October board meeting at the North Tahoe Conference Center, many members had questions ranging from clarification on some of the proposed alternative's language, to confusion over what science was used to determine the plan's course, as well as frustration over some of the plan's proposed mitigations.
Board member Jerry Waldie noted the overall ambiguity of the plan.
"I interpret it that we have permitted development in the past but it hasn't worked," Waldie said. "If this is so, how do we justify in this self-mitigation where we allow development but don't allow the mitigation to be disclosed?"
During summer 2004, the TRPA released five alternatives for the shorezone plan, which has not been updated for more than two decades.
The agency received a host of criticism from the public as well as basin groups and agencies that none of the alternatives sufficiently mitigated for boat and human waste pollution on the lake - thus Alternative 6 was born.
League to Save Lake Tahoe program director John Friedrich has spoken openly since Alternative 6 was released about banning any new construction on the lake until scientific evidence is available that the agency's other proposed mitigation measures are working.
"We should just not allow new piers and buoys period until we are able to study the effects of mitigation measures we do put in place," Friedrich said.
TRPA officials said comments, such as Friedrich's, are being taken under advisement.
"Those are valid opinions and valid concerns," TRPA's Regan said. "By law we have to look at what the league and others say. Alternative 6 is not a rash of new construction, it's a way of looking long-term and a way to go slow."
TRPA's studies performed by the Motorized Watercraft Technical Advisory Group in Emerald Bay between 2001 and 2002 showed a decrease in pollutants in the water following the two-stroke ban, from infinitesimal to non-detectable.
While some in the advisory group's scientific community said the studies should not be used to justify regulatory action, including University of Nevada Reno professor Glenn Miller, who performed the studies, agency officials said they stand behind the science they use.
"We have history," Regan said. "There have been piers approved on the lake, we've been monitoring it over time. We will use the data we have and look at other suggestions."
TRPA officials estimate a preferred Shorezone "alternative" will be brought to the board sometime in February. A 30-day review period will follow. Public comment will be taken, albeit it is not an official comment period TRPA representatives said.
"There will be a month to tweak things," Regan said. "At that point hopefully we can get a good consensus and any remaining questions answered."
The agency closed its 60-day public comment period on its latest Shorezone plan (Alternative 6, released July 2) at the end of September. TRPA board members had the month of October and November to review all six separate alternative plans submitted by staff as well as public feedback.
Alternative 6 proposes 220 new private piers, 10 public piers, a $150 per boat "sticker fee," 1,800 new buoys and - as a mitigation for increased boat traffic expected from these structures - a ban on motorboats in Emerald Bay for one day a weekend during summer; and a $100,000 fee for pier permits.
"Extensive public feedback" combined with a truncated December meeting schedule will effectively "push back an alternative's adoption," TRPA officials said.
"If you were to just do a random sample of documents around the lake you would see how big (feedback) was," TRPA spokeswoman Julie Regan said. "It wasn't just the number of comments but some of the comments were really extensive; perhaps (review) will be finished by the end January or February."
During the TRPA's October board meeting at the North Tahoe Conference Center, many members had questions ranging from clarification on some of the proposed alternative's language, to confusion over what science was used to determine the plan's course, as well as frustration over some of the plan's proposed mitigations.
Board member Jerry Waldie noted the overall ambiguity of the plan.
"I interpret it that we have permitted development in the past but it hasn't worked," Waldie said. "If this is so, how do we justify in this self-mitigation where we allow development but don't allow the mitigation to be disclosed?"
During summer 2004, the TRPA released five alternatives for the shorezone plan, which has not been updated for more than two decades.
The agency received a host of criticism from the public as well as basin groups and agencies that none of the alternatives sufficiently mitigated for boat and human waste pollution on the lake - thus Alternative 6 was born.
League to Save Lake Tahoe program director John Friedrich has spoken openly since Alternative 6 was released about banning any new construction on the lake until scientific evidence is available that the agency's other proposed mitigation measures are working.
"We should just not allow new piers and buoys period until we are able to study the effects of mitigation measures we do put in place," Friedrich said.
TRPA officials said comments, such as Friedrich's, are being taken under advisement.
"Those are valid opinions and valid concerns," TRPA's Regan said. "By law we have to look at what the league and others say. Alternative 6 is not a rash of new construction, it's a way of looking long-term and a way to go slow."
TRPA's studies performed by the Motorized Watercraft Technical Advisory Group in Emerald Bay between 2001 and 2002 showed a decrease in pollutants in the water following the two-stroke ban, from infinitesimal to non-detectable.
While some in the advisory group's scientific community said the studies should not be used to justify regulatory action, including University of Nevada Reno professor Glenn Miller, who performed the studies, agency officials said they stand behind the science they use.
"We have history," Regan said. "There have been piers approved on the lake, we've been monitoring it over time. We will use the data we have and look at other suggestions."
TRPA officials estimate a preferred Shorezone "alternative" will be brought to the board sometime in February. A 30-day review period will follow. Public comment will be taken, albeit it is not an official comment period TRPA representatives said.
"There will be a month to tweak things," Regan said. "At that point hopefully we can get a good consensus and any remaining questions answered."
