After years of false starts, the bi-state Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is inching toward a plan to mitigate the adverse impacts of adding more piers along the lake’s shoreline. The agency on Wednesday heard a presentation on a draft environmental analysis for the most recent plan, which is expected to increase boating activity with up to 138 new piers.

The agency’s governing board has long had to balance new development with environmental standards, known as “thresholds.” The rules, set for the lake in 1982, define the management priorities in nine areas, including water quality, fish habitat and air quality. The question of how much shoreline development — construction of piers and marinas — could be permitted under the thresholds is a question that has dogged the agency’s governing board since the 1980s.

In 30 years, the agency’s board, which is made up of seven California delegates, seven Nevada delegates and one non-voting presidential delegate, has struggled to come up with a shoreline plan. But it is hoping that will change with the plan presented on Wednesday. The plan is the product of a two-year negotiation between homeowners and environmentalists, and it would likely increase boating activity on the lake. It would allow landowners to build up to 128 private piers, 10 public piers, two public boat ramps and 2,116 new moorings. The analysis, released earlier this month, looks at the impacts of the plan and suggests ways to mitigate the impacts of an uptick in boating.

The shoreline plan comes as homeowners and the California attorney general’s office negotiate issues around public access on private Lake Tahoe beaches. California’s land agency has a public trust easement that allows the public to access beaches below the high water mark line. Homeowners are concerned that California policymakers could affect shoreline piers because they run over the easement, said Jan Brisco, who directs the lake’s homeowners association.

Brisco and the California attorney general’s office are set to meet next Friday about a possible memorandum of understanding regarding the issue, Brisco said. The attorney general’s office did not respond to a request for comment. But Brisco said it’s part of the shoreline planning.

“In order to move forward, it has to be part of the discussion,” she said after the meeting.

The new plan comes after the board approved an environmental analysis for a similar number of piers in 2008. That plan was challenged in court by the Sierra Club and the League to Save Lake Tahoe. The environmental groups prevailed in 2010 when a federal judge vacated the plans.

In the absence of a shoreline development plan, there have been regulations on shoreside piers and structures since the 80s. No new piers could be built in certain areas with fish habitat. After the litigation in 2010, more restrictions were placed on piers, bringing construction to a near halt except for certain extensions to existing structures. Joanne Marchetta, the agency’s executive director, said the agency needed the shoreline plan to lift some of these regulations.

“The need for this plan is driven by a longstanding prohibition on new structures,” she said.

In 2016, Marchetta began working with the groups, including the litigants, to try resolving the issue yet again. The draft environmental analysis is the result of their work and about 50 public comments that the group received last year. At the meeting on Wednesday, the environmental analysis was “an important milestone” in resolving an issue drawn out over 30 years.

“It’s been a continuous effort with starts and stops,” said Darcie Collins, who directs the League to Save Lake Tahoe, one of the groups that brought the lawsuit over the 2008 plan.

Collins, who worked on the draft environmental analysis through a steering committee, said the new plan addresses some of the group’s original concerns. She said her group is still reviewing the analysis but is satisfied with the collaborative process that led to the new report. Her main concerns focus on how to enforce the plan and whether there are enough mitigation measures.

“I’m optimistic this process will result in a plan we can support,” she said.

In addition to the caps on the piers, she noted that the plan includes incentives to encourage homeowners to build multiple-use piers and retire old piers. The shoreline plan also includes provisions to deal with low lake level, an issue brought into relief by the prolonged drought.

“We talked a lot about what lake level we wanted to manage for,” she said.

But some organizations pushed back on the plan Wednesday.

Jessica Tucker-Mohl, a lawyer in the California attorney general’s office, said she questions some of the assumptions in the analysis, including those for low lake levels and emissions. The plan assumes that air pollutants will decrease as newer boats use more efficient engines.

An organizer for the Sierra Club also raised some concerns. Laurel Ames said that she was concerned that the plan was all about growth and did not address public access to beaches.

"The plan is really ‘Boats, Boats, Boats. No Beaches.’ That’s the title,” she told the board.

In an interview after the meeting, Ames said the agency’s focus should be on creating more public beaches instead of allowing more development. She called the plan “all growth.”

“There’s nothing good about this plan,” she said.

Jim Lawrence, who chairs the agency’s governing board, said during the meeting that beach issue is a priority. He noted that the Tahoe planning agency’s federal partners and conservancy groups have worked to acquire private beaches that they can then open up to the public.

“That’s very important,” he said. “There are a lot of folks working on those programs.”

Brisco said the scope of the current plan is focused specifically on water recreation and how to build out the lake’s shoreline. But she added that the agency should work on a comprehensive recreation program that includes the beach issue. She argued that one issue has been finding the resources to manage and clean public beaches once they have been opened up.

The public will have an opportunity to formally comment on the draft environmental analysis until July 9. The agency will then consider those comments as it writes a final environmental review. Its goal is to complete the planning process by October. Although multiple groups applauded the collaborative process that led to the draft environmental analysis, it’s not a done deal.

“I’m cautiously optimistic,” Brisco said.