Browse > Home / Archive: 23. February 2007

Promise to make Tahoe better

February 23, 2007

Oscar and Omar Reyes recycle cans near their home in Kings Beach, CaliforniaImagine a better Tahoe … Now make it real with your community! A tool called Promise Tahoe, right here on ourTahoe.org, is a way to recruit your neighbors to help you improve the environment at Lake Tahoe. Say you'll take action to improve the environment, but only if others will help.

Even the smallest individual contribution has the ability to make a big difference.  For example, one person who uses public transportation rather than driving their own car to work won't make a noticeable difference in car emissions.  But if that person makes a promise and asks 25 people to join him or her in taking public transportation, that's a big contribution to a better ecosystem. 

The creator of Promise Tahoe is Melissa Voigtmann.  She is a producer for KRNV News 4 in Reno.

"When I'm watching the news I often feel powerless," Voigtmann said. "I have no way of changing things that I'm unhappy with in my own community.  It's my hope that Promise Tahoe will help residents of and visitors to Lake Tahoe join together to make real change in Tahoe."

Promises can be about just about anything. Some of the promises already on the site include:

  • A promise to Ride TART at least five times a year if three other people will do the same
  • A promise to obey the speed limit to reduce gas consumption if 15 other people will do the same
  • A promise to recycle biodegradable waste if five people will do the same

We imagine all kinds of promises possible on this site, from the individual and mundane, to promises that could fix a major neighborhood run-off problem or clean up unsightly mess on a roadside.

To get started, click on "Act"; and make a promise.  Small promises can make a big difference to you and the Tahoe community.

Related posts: [ It’s all about you ] [ I Get Why I Don’t Get It ] [ BMP community conversation to begin soon ] [ Global moves to reduce incandescents ] [ Public may soon own “Duke of Nevada’s” summer retreat ] 

Written by Keith Anderson · Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment 

Weighing in on the Piers

February 23, 2007

A family walks along the North Shore - one of the areas that may experience an increase in piers.

Confronted with the possibility of 230 more piers around Lake Tahoe in the next 22 years, the Our Tahoe staff interviewed a handful of people to find out the community's opinions – Rochelle Nason, executive director of the League to Save Lake Tahoe; Roger Rosenberger, president of the Tahoe Area Sierra Club; April Ruggiero, North Shore homeowner; and Mindy Cooper-Smith, West Shore homeowner.


Q: Do you think shoreline homeowners have a right to a pier?

  • Nason, Keep Tahoe Blue: The League to Save Lake Tahoe, which is also known by its motto "Keep Tahoe Blue", believes that shoreline homeowners (and other users of Lake Tahoe) should have convenient and safe access to boating facilities (including piers, buoys, slips, and ramps) to the maximum extent that such facilities can be reconciled with environmental protection. We do not believe anyone has a legal right to any particular type of facility except ones that they already own, have legal permission to use, or have acquired a permit to construct.

  • Rosenberger, Tahoe Area Sierra Club: The shoreline owners do not own the lake; the public does. So, (shoreline owners) have no right to build a pier.

  • Ruggiero, North Shore homeowner: Yeah.

  • Cooper-Smith, West Shore homeowner: That's tricky. I guess since you pay so much more for being on the water, but I'd rather see shared piers. I think that would be a fairer way to go. I think shoreline people should have a right to have it, but I don't think it's right that others should be excluded. There has to be some compromise so that everybody can get access. But it would be fine with me if they never built another pier up here at all. So my answer is, no piers. … I don't think homeowners should have an exclusive right.


Q: Should there be a limit to how many piers will be allowed? If so, how
many do you think there should be?

  • Nason, Keep Tahoe Blue: The League puts a higher priority on the appropriate location of structures, so as to protect scenic quality, drinking water intakes and water recreation (such as kayaking and fishing) than it does on the ultimate number of piers or other facilities. Nevertheless we believe that keeping the total numbers of piers within reason will be necessary for environmental protection and will ultimately benefit all users of Lake Tahoe, as well as the Lake itself. The total number of buoys presents an even more pressing problem as illegal buoys have proliferated to an alarming extent with little effective regulation, and because the total number of buoys is scheduled immediately to increase dramatically under TRPA's proposed shorezone ordinances.

  • Rosenberger, Tahoe Area Sierra Club: The Sierra Club believes that Lake Tahoe is a unique place of natural beauty, and others agree. It has been designated an "Outstanding National Water Resource." No more piers should be allowed.

  • Ruggiero, North Shore homeowner: That's hard because there are a lot of shoreline homes. If they're allowed to have them, then you have the condo associations. Yes, because we don't want the whole lake to be dotted with piers, but no because if people own lakefront property they have a right to it. The lake's so huge, I wouldn't be able to come up with a number. 750 is very unobtrusive; it's not like we're bothered by piers around the lake right now. … I like the idea of more public piers. In the Tahoe area, on North Shore, I can only think of one or two: the one on the other side of the Boatworks and the one off of Sugar Pine Park. That's it for public piers.

  • Cooper-Smith, West Shore homeowner: Oh yeah - a lot less than what TRPA has proposed.


Q: What should the public's role be in determining the locations of public
piers?

  • Nason, Keep Tahoe Blue: Selecting appropriate locations for public facilities at Lake Tahoe is a shared responsibility of land managers (which may include the U.S. Forest Service, state and local government, and private parties who wish to operate public facilities), and planning and regulatory bodies such as TRPA, California's Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection and the EPA. Both public land managers and regulatory agencies are subject to laws that provide opportunities for public participation, and one of the roles of Keep Tahoe Blue: The League to Save Lake Tahoe is to keep its members and the public informed of opportunities to have a voice in these decisions.

  • Rosenberger, Tahoe Area Sierra Club: The Sierra Club has done a comprehensive poll (over 2,000 participants), which indicates overwhelming public opposition to piers. The politicians should listen.

  • Ruggiero, North Shore homeowner: It is our view and our lake, and where we would want people to park and go. It's important that the public has a voice in it.

  • Cooper-Smith, West Shore homeowner: Everybody should have a say. But that's not how it's been here.

Q: How do you think more piers will affect the environment and quality of life at Lake Tahoe?

  • Nason, Keep Tahoe Blue: Piers can enhance the quality and safety of the boating experience, and they can also offer an enriching experience of the lake for residents and visitors who simply wish to enjoy views and the ambience of the lake from the pier. Private piers can also have substantial economic benefits to shoreline homeowners, enhancing the value of a property by as much as $2 million. Nevertheless, piers and other shorezone structures (such as buoys, slips, ramps, etc.) that are placed in the wrong locations, that are built in excessive numbers, or that are not properly built and maintained can degrade the natural and human environment, including scenery, water quality, aquatic life, natural water movement and low impact recreation opportunities.

  • Rosenberger, Tahoe Area Sierra Club: There is little question that human activity increases stress on the natural environment. More piers, and the resulting boat activity, will adversely affect the lake. The various regulatory agencies around Lake Tahoe have been active for almost 40 years. During that time, the lake has lost 30 feet of clarity. Until the clarity numbers begin to improve, we should be doing nothing to further stress the environment.

  • Ruggiero, North Shore homeowner: I don't think (the piers) really affect the environment as long as they're used for picnicking and diving off of and hanging out on. It's not going to affect the environment. Quality of life would improve because it would give people more places to go.

  • Cooper-Smith, West Shore homeowner: That's hard for me to say, because I've seen lots of crawdads and fish around the piers, so I'm not convinced that they're really hurting (the environment). … If you had (piers) coming out all over the place, it would certainly be ugly. I would rather get rid of all the jet skis and make the water skiers go further out because they try to drown me in my kayak. So the piers, if there were just a few, wouldn't bother me. My feeling is that they really do have to control development, but it just has to be more democratic…

Related posts: [ TRPA postpones pier review ] [ Are slash mats worth the cost? ] [ Impact of the Angora fire on water clarity ] [ Incline Lake: Public may soon own “Duke of Nevada’s” summer retreat ] [ Best Management Practices in Tahoe Gardening ] 

Written by Keith Anderson · Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment 

TRPA postpones pier review

February 23, 2007

==Start Related Links==

Weighing in on the piers

==End Related Links==
A proposal to allow construction of new piers at Lake Tahoe remains beached after two years of deliberations.

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency favors a plan to add 230 new piers over 22 years as the best middle ground. Environmental groups want the moratorium that has banned piers on two-thirds of the shore continued until lake clarity improves. But property owners along the shoreline say they have a right to build wharfs to secure "reasonable boating access" to the lake.

The agency was expected to vote on the pier plan - called Alternative 6A - last month but delayed action until the end of March at the earliest.

Environmental groups and California state agencies argue that no piers should be built until all the environmental consequences are known. Scientists say more piers probably wouldn't be detrimental to deep water clarity, the main environmental indicator at the lake, but critics now question the effect new piers, and presumably more boats, would have on near-shore water clarity.

The plan would generate more than $51 million in fees if all the structures were approved over the next 20 years.

Is there public involvement in the debate over piers?

The public is generally absent from the latest debate over piers. A proposal to prohibit boating at Emerald Bay for one day a week, part of an earlier pier and buoy plan, was withdrawn after citizens complained. Instead, the plan now calls for a lower speed limit on Emerald Bay and blue-boating requirements.

But the debate over Alternative 6A hasn't drawn much public comment and is mainly between the environmental groups and shoreline property owners. TRPA says extending the moratorium can't be justified legally and scientific studies show that piers don't damage fish habitat, which was a theory used to justify the ban. The agency says the favored plan would satisfy some of the pent-up demand for piers while at the same time help protect the lake through its "blue boating" provision.

Will "blue boating" balance pier concerns?

The program would require all boats entering the lake to be free of invasive weeds, have lake-friendly engines and contain other water quality protection measures. Inspections would be voluntary at first and then mandatory by 2009. Alternative 6A also would allow up to 1,800 new buoys on the lake, which floats 1,400 buoys.

But environmental groups favor no new piers and no new buoys until current pollution concerns - including the piers' effects on near-shore water quality - are resolved. That frustrates property owners, who say they've been playing a game whose rules keep changing.

Do shoreline owners have a right to build piers?

Jan Brisco, spokeswoman for the Tahoe Lakefront Property Owners, said Alternative 6A is an incentive approach to building new piers and TRPA can't hold property owners hostage to the demands of environmental groups. She said shoreline owners have an established right to access the water and to "wharf out."

"The moratorium was caused by concerns over fish habitat, but that was resolved 12 years ago," she said. "Then it was scenic concerns, then boating… It's a moving target. Whatever can be used to fight piers is being used."

How many new piers are enough?

TRPA says the 230 number - which includes 10 new public piers in 22 years - is a worst case scenario and the plan provides incentives for property owners to share common piers. In addition, sandy shores would be restricted to piers 200 feet apart while rocky shores would be under a 100-foot density limit. 

But Roger Rosenberger, president of the Tahoe Area Sierra Club, said the decrease in lake clarity directly relates to the increase in human activity at the lake. He said the burden of proof that water clarity will not further degrade should be on the people who want to construct new piers.

"The shoreline property owners don't own the lake, the public does," he said. "So there is no right to build a pier." He said a Sierra Club sponsored poll of more than 2,000 people showed "overwhelming public opposition to piers."

Who owns the Tahoe shoreline?

The Tahoe shoreline is 47 percent public as compared to 17 percent in 1971, and 53 percent of the shoreline is private property. Private property owners currently hold about 1,400 parcels on Lake Tahoe, which has 768 piers (public and private).

TRPA spokeswoman Julie Regan said the agency is responsible for coming up with a shore zone plan that can pass legal muster and is based on science. She said the agency aims to find a middle ground and "balance" among the stakeholders on either side of the controversy and is currently meeting with California agencies to discuss their concerns.

Alternative 6A at a glance

  • Density standards: Alternative 6A calls for a density-based approach to piers around Lake Tahoe. Under Alternative 6A, a maximum of 220 new private piers and 10 new public piers would be added over the next 22 years. TRPA would accept up to 10 private pier permit applications each year. Total pier densities would not exceed an average of one per 200 feet of sandy shoreline or an average of one per 100 feet of rocky shoreline. All piers would be required to meet minimum scenic and environmental standards.
  • Buoys: Currently, about 4,500 buoys exist on the lake. Alternative 6A would allow lakefront property owners to add two buoys per parcel for a total of up to 1,862 new buoys around the lake. A streamlined application process would reduce the permitting paperwork for buoys, along with an aggressive buoy enforcement program. The program will recognize nearly all pre-existing buoys. The plan calls for buoy owners to "demonstrate maintenance" on their buoys every other year.
  • Boat sticker program: TRPA proposes a boat pollution reduction program to make sure all boats entering the lake are free of invasive weeds, have lake-friendly engines and contain other water quality protection measures. TRPA plans to use additional public input to fine-tune the program.
  • Emerald Bay protections: Alternative 6A calls for a lower speed limit of 5 miles per hour in Emerald Bay for all watercraft. Boat emissions significantly decrease at lower speeds and TRPA says this approach can help reduce pollution while providing added benefits to safety.

Related posts: [ Weighing in on the Piers ] [ What happened? ] [ Is there missing information? ] [ Second BMP Talks meeting adds to solutions ] [ What would you do if you were TRPA? ] 

Written by Keith Anderson · Filed Under Uncategorized | 1 Comment