Agenda packet — South Lake Tahoe City Council, May 19, 2026 (part 2 of 4)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.15 0.13 1.13 1.04 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.66 0.66 — 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.02 0.21 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.12 0.12 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
237
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
13 / 52
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.71 0.00 0.00 5.66 5.66 0.00 0.58 0.58 — 88.4 88.4 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 90.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.48 0.36 26.8 3.40 0.10 0.29 189 189 0.29 19.5 19.8 — 15,075 15,075 0.01 2.36 0.56 15,778 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 4.85 4.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.94 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 0.02 1.45 0.18 0.01 0.02 9.09 9.10 0.02 0.94 0.96 — 826 826 < 0.005 0.13 0.51 865 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 0.80 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.82 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.66 1.66 < 0.005 0.17 0.18 — 137 137 < 0.005 0.02 0.08 143

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.74 3.14 29.2 28.8 0.05 1.24 — 1.24 1.14 — 1.14 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 238
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
14 / 52
Dust — — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.10 0.09 0.80 0.79 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.15 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.83 0.00 0.00 6.60 6.60 0.00 0.67 0.67 — 103 103 0.01 0.01 0.01 105 239
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
15 / 52
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 2.83 2.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.88 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.47 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.48 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.74 3.14 29.2 28.8 0.05 1.24 — 1.24 1.14 — 1.14 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 240
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
16 / 52
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.83 0.00 0.00 6.60 6.60 0.00 0.67 0.67 — 103 103 0.01 0.01 0.01 105 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 2.83 2.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.88 241
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
17 / 52
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.47 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.48 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.96 1.65 15.0 17.4 0.03 0.65 — 0.65 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,960 2,960 0.12 0.02 — 2,970 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.12 7.12 — 3.43 3.43 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.11 0.09 0.82 0.96 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 242
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
18 / 52
Dust — — — — — — 0.39 0.39 — 0.19 0.19 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.15 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.71 0.00 0.00 5.66 5.66 0.00 0.58 0.58 — 88.4 88.4 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 90.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.20 0.15 11.2 1.41 0.04 0.12 78.5 78.7 0.12 8.12 8.24 — 6,280 6,280 < 0.005 0.98 0.23 6,572 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 4.85 4.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.94 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.01 0.61 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 3.78 3.79 0.01 0.39 0.40 — 344 344 < 0.005 0.05 0.21 360 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 0.80 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.82 243
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
19 / 52
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.69 0.69 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 — 57.0 57.0 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 59.7

3.6. Grading (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.11 0.09 0.82 0.96 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.39 0.39 — 0.19 0.19 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 244
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
20 / 52
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.71 0.00 0.00 5.66 5.66 0.00 0.58 0.58 — 88.4 88.4 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 90.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.20 0.15 11.2 1.41 0.04 0.12 78.5 78.7 0.12 8.12 8.24 — 6,280 6,280 < 0.005 0.98 0.23 6,572 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 4.85 4.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.94 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.01 0.61 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 3.78 3.79 0.01 0.39 0.40 — 344 344 < 0.005 0.05 0.21 360 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 0.80 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.82 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.69 0.69 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 — 57.0 57.0 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 59.7

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
245
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
21 / 52
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.73 0.61 5.63 7.41 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,370 1,370 0.06 0.01 — 1,375 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.13 0.11 1.03 1.35 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 227 227 0.01 < 0.005 — 228 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 246
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
22 / 52
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.17 0.12 1.46 0.00 0.00 13.8 13.8 0.00 1.41 1.41 — 215 215 0.02 0.01 1.00 220 Vendor 0.02 0.02 0.59 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.66 3.67 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 — 278 278 < 0.005 0.04 0.63 291 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.18 0.15 1.73 0.00 0.00 13.8 13.8 0.00 1.41 1.41 — 216 216 0.02 0.01 0.03 219 Vendor 0.02 0.02 0.61 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.66 3.67 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 — 278 278 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 290 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.93 0.00 0.00 6.93 6.93 0.00 0.71 0.71 — 123 123 0.01 0.01 0.25 126 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.34 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.84 1.84 < 0.005 0.19 0.19 — 159 159 < 0.005 0.02 0.15 166 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 1.27 1.27 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 20.4 20.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 20.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34 0.34 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 — 26.3 26.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 27.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
247
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
23 / 52
Off-Roa 1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 d
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.73 0.61 5.63 7.41 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,370 1,370 0.06 0.01 — 1,375 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.13 0.11 1.03 1.35 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 227 227 0.01 < 0.005 — 228 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.17 0.12 1.46 0.00 0.00 13.8 13.8 0.00 1.41 1.41 — 215 215 0.02 0.01 1.00 220 Vendor 0.02 0.02 0.59 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.66 3.67 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 — 278 278 < 0.005 0.04 0.63 291 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 248
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
24 / 52
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.18 0.15 1.73 0.00 0.00 13.8 13.8 0.00 1.41 1.41 — 216 216 0.02 0.01 0.03 219 Vendor 0.02 0.02 0.61 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.66 3.67 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 — 278 278 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 290 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.93 0.00 0.00 6.93 6.93 0.00 0.71 0.71 — 123 123 0.01 0.01 0.25 126 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.34 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.84 1.84 < 0.005 0.19 0.19 — 159 159 < 0.005 0.02 0.15 166 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 1.27 1.27 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 20.4 20.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 20.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34 0.34 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 — 26.3 26.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 27.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 249
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
25 / 52
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.06 0.57 0.78 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.1 24.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.2 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.17 0.14 1.61 0.00 0.00 13.8 13.8 0.00 1.41 1.41 — 212 212 0.01 0.01 0.02 216 Vendor 0.02 0.02 0.57 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.66 3.67 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 — 272 272 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 284 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 12.9 12.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 0.20 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 16.5 16.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 17.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 2.13 2.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.17 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.74 2.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.85 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00250 TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
26 / 52

3.10. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.06 0.57 0.78 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.1 24.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.2 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
251
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
27 / 52
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.17 0.14 1.61 0.00 0.00 13.8 13.8 0.00 1.41 1.41 — 212 212 0.01 0.01 0.02 216 Vendor 0.02 0.02 0.57 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.66 3.67 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 — 272 272 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 284 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 12.9 12.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 0.20 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 16.5 16.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 17.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 2.13 2.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.17 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.74 2.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.85 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.62 0.62 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
252
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
28 / 52
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.05 0.04 0.38 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.66 0.00 0.00 5.66 5.66 0.00 0.58 0.58 — 87.0 87.0 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 88.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 4.77 4.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.85 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 253
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
29 / 52
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 0.79 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.80 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.12. Paving (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.62 0.62 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.05 0.04 0.38 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
254
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
30 / 52
Off-Roa 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 d
Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.66 0.00 0.00 5.66 5.66 0.00 0.58 0.58 — 87.0 87.0 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 88.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 4.77 4.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.85 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 0.79 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.80 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
255
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
31 / 52
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

34.1 34.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.87 1.87 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.34 0.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
256
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
32 / 52
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.00 2.76 2.76 0.00 0.28 0.28 — 42.4 42.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 43.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 2.33 2.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.37 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
257
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
33 / 52
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

34.1 34.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.87 1.87 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.34 0.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
258
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
34 / 52
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.00 2.76 2.76 0.00 0.28 0.28 — 42.4 42.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 43.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 2.33 2.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.37 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
259
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
35 / 52
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
260
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
36 / 52
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 261
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
37 / 52
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
262
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
38 / 52
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
263
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
39 / 52

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2026 1/29/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/30/2026 2/13/2026 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 2/14/2026 3/14/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/15/2026 1/31/2027 5.00 230 — Paving Paving 2/1/2027 3/1/2027 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/2/2027 3/30/2027 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 264 TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
40 / 52
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 265
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
41 / 52
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 8.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 5.90 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 216 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 8.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 5.90 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 8.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 5.90 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 90.1 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 36.6 8.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 14.3 5.90 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
266
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
42 / 52
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 8.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 5.90 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 7.32 8.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 5.90 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 8.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 5.90 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 216 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 8.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 5.90 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 8.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 5.90 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 90.1 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
267
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
43 / 52
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 36.6 8.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 14.3 5.90 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 8.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 5.90 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 7.32 8.70 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 5.90 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 40,913 13,021 12,430

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
268
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
44 / 52
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 376,089 —
Site Preparation — — 15.0 0.00 —
Grading — 14,409 20.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.76

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
General Light Industry 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 0.87 100%
General Light Industry 0.00 0%
General Light Industry 0.00 0%
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1.42 100%
Parking Lot 0.04 100%
General Light Industry 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 2.42 100%
General Light Industry 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 453 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 453 0.03 < 0.005
269
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
45 / 52

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 270
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
46 / 52

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 31.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 9.05 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 6.63 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 2 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction 0 0 0 N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
271
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
47 / 52
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 2 1 1 3
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction 1 1 1 2
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 62.5
272
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
48 / 52
AQ-PM 0.58
AQ-DPM 31.5
Drinking Water 18.0
Lead Risk Housing 60.3
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 7.04
Traffic 33.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 87.6
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 78.8
Impaired Water Bodies 66.7
Solid Waste 75.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 30.2
Cardio-vascular 3.25
Low Birth Weights 97.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 45.2
Housing 60.9
Linguistic 22.2
Poverty 64.4
Unemployment 82.7

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
273
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
49 / 52
Above Poverty 38.5730784
Employed 15.56525087
Median HI 16.04003593
Education—
Bachelor's or higher 39.1505197
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 60.90080842
Transportation—
Auto Access 17.1435904
Active commuting 53.94584884
Social—
2-parent households 19.88964455
Voting 37.53368408
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 58.15475427
Park access 48.76170923
Retail density 35.51905556
Supermarket access 60.19504684
Tree canopy 96.80482484
Housing—
Homeownership 42.92313615
Housing habitability 44.47581163
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 17.57987938 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 29.94995509
Uncrowded housing 74.48992686
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 27.75567817
Arthritis 0.0
274
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
50 / 52
Asthma ER Admissions 92.2
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 5.5
Cognitively Disabled 8.5
Physically Disabled 5.0
Heart Attack ER Admissions 93.6
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 59.8
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 96.3
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 75.0
Elderly 26.8
English Speaking 82.5
Foreign-born 14.3
275
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
51 / 52
Outdoor Workers 51.4
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 85.0
Traffic Density 32.4
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 56.4
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 47.0

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 47.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 34.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
276
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
52 / 52
Screen Justification
Construction: Dust From Material Movement —
277
Appendix A. Air Quality Technical Work
A-2 Energy Calculations
278
AQ_GHG_Energy Calcs_TVL TRPA
HRA Screening - On-site Project Construction Fuel Use
Off-road Equipment 349 MT CO2T 2023 Diesel Sold in CA Off-road Equipment 348.9497 MT CO2T Vendor 15 MT CO2T 3,006,777,156 gallons
Hauling 203 MT CO2T
Total Disel Emissions 567 MT CO2T Total Disel Emissions 348.9497 MT CO2T 1000 kg/MT 1000 kg/MT
Total CO2 Emissions 566990.5533 kg Total CO2 Emissions 348949.7 kg 2023 Diesel Sold in El Dorado County
Diesel Fuel Combustion Rate 10.21 kg/gallon 67,000,000 gallons Diesel Fuel Combustion Rate 10.21 kg/gallon Total Diesel Fuel Consumption 55,533 gallons Total Diesel Fuel Consumption 34,177 gallons Project Percentage Usage County 0.08% HRA Threshold 37,000 gallons Average per Year 27,766 gallons
2023 Gasoline Sold in CA
Worker 26 MT CO2T 13,584,697,639 gallons
1000 kg/MT
Total CO2 Emisions 26291.07932 kg/MT
Gasoline Combustion Rate 8.78 kg/gallon 2023 Diesel Sold in El Dorado County Gasoline Consumption 2,994 gallons 11,000,000 gallons
Project Percentage Usage County 0.027%
Average per Year 1,497.21 gallons
Note: (The Climate Registry, 2022) Combustion rates taken from The Climate Registry 2022 default emission factors (Table 2.1)

3.1 CO₂e (MT/year)
Annual 0
Off-Road Equipment 31.19224933
Demolition
Onsite truck 0
Offsite 0
Annual 0
Worker 0.81822111
Vendor 0
Hauling 143.2078295

3.3 From CalEEMod Output - CO2e Construction Emissions
County fuel sales source: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.energy.ca.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2024-10%2F2010-2023_CECA15_Results_and_Analysis_ADA.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK Project Construction Fuel Use
Diesel Emissions
Gasoline Emissions
Diesel Emissions Off-road
Energy Calcs 1 of 3 279
AQ_GHG_Energy Calcs_TVL TRPA
Annual 0
Off-Road Equipment 24.11354895
Dust From Material Movement
Onsite truck 0
Offsite 0
Annual 0
Worker 0.477295647
Vendor 0
Hauling 0

3.5 Annual 0
Off-Road Equipment 26.94154961
Dust From Material Movement
Onsite truck 0
Offsite 0
Annual 0
Worker 0.81822111
Vendor 0
Hauling 59.65337698

3.7 Annual 0
Off-Road Equipment 227.5728604
Onsite truck 0
Offsite 0
Annual 0
Worker 20.81237034
Vendor 27.50497957
Hauling 0

3.9 Annual 0
Off-Road Equipment 24.15849485
Onsite truck 0
Offsite 0
Annual 0
Worker 2.169606331
Vendor 2.854398689
Hauling 0

3.11 21.11
Annual 0
Off-Road Equipment 13.75558933
Paving
Onsite truck 0
Offsite 0
Hauling 0
Energy Calcs 2 of 3 280
AQ_GHG_Energy Calcs_TVL TRPA
Annual 0
Worker 0.803435897
Vendor 0
Hauling 0

3.13 Annual 0
Off-Road Equipment 1.215365156
Architectural Coatings
Onsite truck 0
Offsite 0
Annual 0
Worker 0.391928886
Vendor 0
Hauling 0
Energy Calcs 3 of 3 281
282
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Appendix B
Biological Resources Technical
References
283
284
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Accipiter atricapillus
American goshawk
ABNKC12061 None None G5 S3 SSC
Accipiter striatus
sharp-shinned hawk
ABNKC12020 None None G5 S4 WL
Ambystoma macrodactylum sigillatum
southern long-toed salamander
AAAAA01085 None None G5T4 S2 SSC
Aplodontia rufa californica
Sierra Nevada mountain beaver
AMAFA01013 None None G5T3T4 S2S3 SSC
Arabis rigidissima var. demota
Galena Creek rockcress
PDBRA061R1 None None G3T3Q S1 1B.2
Asio otus
long-eared owl
ABNSB13010 None None G5 S3? SSC
Astragalus austiniae
Austin's astragalus
PDFAB0F120 None None G2G3 S2S3 1B.3
Boechera tularensis
Tulare rockcress
PDBRA40130 None None G3 S3 1B.3
Bombus morrisoni
Morrison bumble bee
IIHYM24460 None None G3 S1S2
Bombus occidentalis
western bumble bee
IIHYM24252 None Candidate
Endangered
G3 S1
Bombus pensylvanicus
American bumble bee
IIHYM24260 None None G3G4 S2
Botrychium ascendens
upswept moonwort
PPOPH010S0 None None G4 S3 2B.2
Botrychium crenulatum
scalloped moonwort
PPOPH010L0 None None G4 S3 2B.2
Botrychium minganense
Mingan moonwort
PPOPH010R0 None None G5 S4 4.2
Brasenia schreberi
watershield
PDCAB01010 None None G5 S3 2B.3
Bruchia bolanderi
Bolander's bruchia
NBMUS13010 None None G3 S3 4.2
Capnia lacustra
Lake Tahoe benthic stonefly
IIPLE03200 None None G1 S1
Carex davyi
Davy's sedge
PMCYP033H0 None None G3 S3 1B.3
Carex hystericina
porcupine sedge
PMCYP036D0 None None G5 S2 2B.1
Quad IS (Meeks Bay (3912011) OR Emerald Bay (3812081) OR Echo Lake (3812071) OR South Lake Tahoe (3811988) OR Freel Peak (3811978) OR Minden (3811987) OR Woodfords (3811977))
Query Criteria:

Report Printed on Monday, June 02, 2025
Commercial Version -- Dated May, 2 2025 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 4 Information Expires 11/2/2025
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
285
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Carex limosa
mud sedge
PMCYP037K0 None None G5 S3 2B.2
Catostomus lahontan
Lahontan mountain sucker
AFCJC02330 None None GNR S2 SSC
Chaenactis douglasii var. alpina
alpine dusty maidens
PDAST20065 None None G5T5 S2 2B.3
Claytonia megarhiza
fell-fields claytonia
PDPOR030A0 None None G5 S2 2B.3
Cypseloides niger
black swift
ABNUA01010 None None G4 S3 SSC
Desmona bethula
amphibious caddisfly
IITRI77010 None None G2G3 S2S3
Draba asterophora var. asterophora
Tahoe draba
PDBRA110D1 None None G2T2? S2? 1B.2
Draba asterophora var. macrocarpa
Cup Lake draba
PDBRA110D2 None None G2T1 S1 1B.1
Elodium blandowii
Blandow's bog moss
NBMUS3C011 None None G4 S2 2B.3
Empidonax traillii
willow flycatcher
ABPAE33040 None Endangered G5 S3
Epilobium howellii
subalpine fireweed
PDONA06180 None None G4 S4 4.3
Epilobium palustre
marsh willowherb
PDONA060R0 None None G5 S2 2B.3
Erethizon dorsatum
North American porcupine
AMAFJ01010 None None G5 S3
Erigeron miser
starved daisy
PDAST3M2K0 None None G3? S3? 1B.3
Eriogonum luteolum var. saltuarium
Jack's wild buckwheat
PDPGN083S4 None None G5T1 S1 1B.2
Erythranthe carsonensis
Carson Valley monkeyflower
PDPHR01020 None None G2 S1 1B.1
Fen
Fen
CTT51200CA None None G2 S1.2
Glyceria grandis
American manna grass
PMPOA2Y080 None None G5 S3 2B.3
Gulo gulo
wolverine
AMAJF03010 Threatened Threatened G4 S1 FP
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
bald eagle
ABNKC10010 Delisted Endangered G5 S3 FP
Helisoma newberryi
Great Basin rams-horn
IMGASM6020 None None G1 S1S2
Report Printed on Monday, June 02, 2025
Commercial Version -- Dated May, 2 2025 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 4 Information Expires 11/2/2025
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
286
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Lepus americanus tahoensis
Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare
AMAEB03012 None None G5T3T4Q S2 SSC
Lepus townsendii townsendii
western white-tailed jackrabbit
AMAEB03041 None None G5T5 S3? SSC
Lewisia longipetala
long-petaled lewisia
PDPOR040K0 None None G2 S2 1B.3
Lithobates pipiens
northern leopard frog
AAABH01170 None None G5 S2 SSC
Martes caurina sierrae
Sierra marten
AMAJF01014 None None G4G5T3 S3
Meesia triquetra
three-ranked hump moss
NBMUS4L020 None None G5 S4 4.2
Meesia uliginosa
broad-nerved hump moss
NBMUS4L030 None None G5 S3 2B.2
Myotis thysanodes
fringed myotis
AMACC01090 None None G4 S3
Myotis volans
long-legged myotis
AMACC01110 None None G4G5 S3
Ochotona princeps schisticeps
gray-headed pika
AMAEA0102L None None G5T4 S2S4
Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi
Lahontan cutthroat trout
AFCHA02081 Threatened None G5T3 S2 SSC
Oreocarya crymophila
subalpine oreocarya
PDBOR0A0R0 None None G3 S3 1B.3
Pandion haliaetus
osprey
ABNKC01010 None None G5 S4 WL
Pekania pennanti
Fisher
AMAJF01020 None None G5 S2S3 SSC
Peltigera gowardii
western waterfan lichen
NLVER00460 None None G3G4 S3 4.2
Phacelia stebbinsii
Stebbins' phacelia
PDHYD0C4D0 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Picoides arcticus
black-backed woodpecker
ABNYF07090 None None G5 S2
Potamogeton robbinsii
Robbins' pondweed
PMPOT030Z0 None None G5 S3 2B.3
Prosopium williamsoni
mountain whitefish
AFCHA03060 None None G5 S3 SSC
Rana sierrae
Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog
AAABH01340 Endangered Threatened G2 S2 WL
Riparia riparia
bank swallow
ABPAU08010 None Threatened G5 S3
Report Printed on Monday, June 02, 2025
Commercial Version -- Dated May, 2 2025 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 4 Information Expires 11/2/2025
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
287
Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Rorippa subumbellata
Tahoe yellow cress
PDBRA270M0 None Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Schoenoplectus subterminalis
water bulrush
PMCYP0Q1G0 None None G5 S3 2B.3
Scutellaria galericulata
marsh skullcap
PDLAM1U0J0 None None G5 S2 2B.2
Siphateles bicolor pectinifer
Lahontan Lake tui chub
AFCJB1303P None None G4T3 S1S2 SSC
Speyeria nokomis carsonensis
Carson Valley silverspot
IILEPJ6056 None None G3T1T2 S1
Sphagnum Bog
Sphagnum Bog
CTT51110CA None None G3 S1.2
Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina
northern slender pondweed
PMPOT03091 None None G5T5 S2S3 2B.2
Stygobromus lacicolus
Lake Tahoe amphipod
ICMAL05970 None None G1 S1
Stygobromus tahoensis
Lake Tahoe stygobromid
ICMAL05A70 None None G1 S1
Taxidea taxus
American badger
AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Viola purpurea ssp. aurea
golden violet
PDVIO04420 None None G5T2 S2S3 2B.2
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus
yellow-headed blackbird
ABPBXB3010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Record Count: 73
Report Printed on Monday, June 02, 2025
Commercial Version -- Dated May, 2 2025 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 4 Information Expires 11/2/2025
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
288

! "#

#
$%

%
#
&
!
'"!()!
#%$!&

'"#*()
%

(!&!&

'"#*()
%
(!&%$#%
+,-./012-3045647245819
289

290

291

292

293
06/02/2025 23:07:40 UTC
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Reno Fish And Wildlife Office
1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234
Reno, NV 89502-7147
Phone: (775) 861-6300 Fax: (775) 861-6301
In Reply Refer To:

Project Code: 2025-0104447
Project Name: Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through IPaC by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological 294
Project code: 2025-0104447 06/02/2025 23:07:40 UTC
2 of 9
▪
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ endangered-species-consultation-handbook.pdf
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see Migratory Bird Permit | What We Do | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (fws.gov).

The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds.

In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservationmigratory-birds.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Attachment(s):

Official Species List
295
Project code: 2025-0104447 06/02/2025 23:07:40 UTC
3 of 9
▪
▪
▪
▪
USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries
Bald & Golden Eagles
Migratory Birds
Wetlands

OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

Reno Fish And Wildlife Office
1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234
Reno, NV 89502-7147
(775) 861-6300
296
Project code: 2025-0104447 06/02/2025 23:07:40 UTC
4 of 9

PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2025-0104447
Project Name: Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan
Project Type: Airport - Maintenance/Modification
Project Description: The proposed Airport Master Plan update is a long-range plan for airport development that is intended to meet identified facility requirements and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design standards. As the owner and operator of Lake Tahoe Airport, the City of South Lake Tahoe is the lead agency responsible for CEQA compliance. The proposed update to Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan (proposed project) comprises a longrange plan for Airport development that includes both airside and landside improvements. Airside improvements would take place within aircraft movement areas that include the runway and taxiway system and the FAA-defined protected areas that encompass them. Landside improvements would take place outside of the main aircraft movement area and include facilities that are used for aircraft storage, aircraft parking, terminal facilities, automobile parking, and airport access.

Project Location:

The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@38.89843115,-119.99521634312376,14z Counties: El Dorado County, California
297
Project code: 2025-0104447 06/02/2025 23:07:40 UTC
5 of 9

1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 8 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Note that 1 of these species should be considered only under certain conditions.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
1 298
Project code: 2025-0104447 06/02/2025 23:07:40 UTC
6 of 9
▪

MAMMALS

NAME STATUS
Gray Wolf Canis lupus
Population: U.S.A.: All of AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, IN, IL, KS, KY, LA, MA,

MD, ME, MI, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, and WV; and portions of AZ, NM, OR, UT, and WA. Mexico.

There is final critical habitat for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4488
Endangered
North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions:

Species may be present based on transient occurrence as it moves through or too suitable habitat. Effects should be considered to species and projects should consult with the Service, however, depending on the project, consultation may not be necessary.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5123
Threatened
Sierra Nevada Red Fox Vulpes vulpes necator
Population:

No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4252
Endangered
BIRDS

NAME STATUS
California Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis
Population: Sierra Nevada
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7266
Proposed
Threatened

REPTILES

NAME STATUS
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed
Threatened

AMPHIBIANS

NAME STATUS
Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog Rana sierrae
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9529
Endangered
FISHES

NAME STATUS
Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi Threatened 299
Project code: 2025-0104447 06/02/2025 23:07:40 UTC
7 of 9

1. 2.

3. NAME STATUS
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3964

INSECTS

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Proposed
Threatened

CRITICAL HABITATS

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.

USFWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LANDS

AND FISH HATCHERIES
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA.

BALD & GOLDEN EAGLES
Bald and Golden Eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to Bald or Golden Eagles, or their habitats, should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, as described in the various links on this page.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)

BALD & GOLDEN EAGLES INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THIS SPECIES LIST WAS GENERATED. PLEASE CONTACT THE FIELD OFFICE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. 2 1
300
Project code: 2025-0104447 06/02/2025 23:07:40 UTC
8 of 9

1. 2.

3. ▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪

MIGRATORY BIRDS
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The incidental take of migratory birds is the injury or death of birds that results from, but is not the purpose, of an activity. The Service interprets the MBTA to prohibit incidental take.

The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
MIGRATORY BIRD INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THIS SPECIES LIST WAS GENERATED.

PLEASE CONTACT THE FIELD OFFICE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

WETLANDS
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site.

FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND
PEM1C
PEM1B

RIVERINE
R3UBF
R3UBH
R4SBA
R4SBC
R4SBCx

FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
PSS1C
PSS1B
1 301
Project code: 2025-0104447 06/02/2025 23:07:40 UTC
9 of 9

IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Private Entity
Name: Jessica Orsolini
Address: 2600 Capitol Avenue
Address Line 2: Suite 200
City: Sacramento
State: CA
Zip: 95816
Email [email protected]
Phone: 9167705035

LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION
Lead Agency: South Lake Tahoe city
302
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Appendix C
California Department of Parks and
Recreation Forms
303
304
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information

Page 1 of 17 ends

P1. Other Identifier: South Lake Tahoe City Hall
*P2. Location: ☐ Not for Publication ☒ Unrestricted
*a. County El Dorado
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad South Lake Tahoe Date 2021 T 12N ; R 18E ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec 9 and 16 ; B.M. MDM c. Address 1901 Lisa Maloff Way City South Lake Tahoe Zip 96150 d. UTM: Zone 11S , 239932.99 mE/ 4309128.89 mN; NAD 83
e. Other Locational Data: APNs 032-090-006, 032-100-004, 033-050-006, -011 and -020. *P3a. Description: The Lake Tahoe Airport (airport) is a small publicly owned, general aviation airport catering to privately-owned aircraft in South Lake Tahoe. It is located at an elevation of 6,260 feet and sits on approximately 350 acres immediately adjacent to the Upper Truckee River, approximately 3 miles south of Lake Tahoe. The airport is comprised of a single runway and taxiway; a large apron with plane tiedowns; three small, rectangular-plan, metal-frame aircraft maintenance hangars at the north end of the apron; a currently inoperative air traffic control tower; six rectangular-plan aircraft storage hangars at the south end of the apron, a rectangular plan maintenance building, a rectangular-plan, pre-fabricated building that serves as the helicopter tour office, a rectangular plan fixedbase operator (FBO) building, a central A-frame former terminal building, and a parking lot. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP6 (1-3 story commercial building) *P4. Resources Present: ☒ Building ☒ Structure ☐ Object ☐ Site ☐ District ☐ Element of District ☐ Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo:

East façade of the former terminal building, facing
west (ESA, 2025)
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
☒ Historic ☐ Prehistoric
☐ Both
Various:
1959 – Airfield, 1963 – Hangar 1, 1964 – Air Traffic
Control Tower, 1970 – terminal building, 1994 –
south hangars
*P7. Owner and Address:

City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
P8. Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1050
Oakland, CA 94610
*P9. Date Recorded: March 20, 2025
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: n/a
*Attachments: ☐ NONE ☐ Location Map ☐ Sketch Map ☒ Continuation Sheet ☒ Building, Structure, and Object Record ☐ Archaeological Record ☐ District Record ☐ Linear Feature Record ☐ Milling Station Record ☐ Rock Art Record ☐ Artifact Record ☐ Photograph Record ☐ Other (List):
nState of California — The Resources Agency Primary
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
305
DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
*Resource Name or # Lake Tahoe Airport *NRHP Status Code 6Z

Page 2 of 17 ends

B1. Historic Name: Lake Tahoe Airport
B2. Common Name: Lake Tahoe Airport and South Lake Tahoe City Hall B3. Original Use: Aviation B4. Present Use: Aviation and Local Government *B5. Architectural Style: Various – A-Frame (terminal), general utility – hangars and support buildings *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) See Table 1 for a development history of the airport
*B7. Moved? ☒ No ☐ Yes ☐ Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal Building (documented separately) B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: various
*B10. Significance: Theme Transportation - Aviation Area Lake Tahoe Region Period of Significance n/a Property Type Airport Applicable Criteria n/a (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
As a complex, the Lake Tahoe Airport is recommended ineligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or as a local historic resource as defined by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA local register). However, the Lake Tahoe Terminal Building (documented separately) is recommended eligible for listing on the California Register under Criterion 3 for its application of the regionally significant A-frame design to a commercial building. See the DPR 523 form set for the Lake Tahoe Terminal Building for more information.

Continued on page 3.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP4 (ancillary building); HP14 (government building); HP39 (otherairport) *B12. References:

See page 15
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Becky Urbano, ESA
*Date of Evaluation: May 2025
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
306
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 17 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
*P3a. Description: (Continued from page 1)
Runway
Runway 18-36 is 8,541 feet long and 100 feet wide. It is a paved asphalt runway with a northeast/southwest orientation. The Runway is served by two non-precision instrument approach procedures, a full-length parallel taxiway, and other connecting taxiways that provide aircraft access to the various ramp areas and other facilities on the airport.

Taxiways
Taxiways are paved areas over which airplanes move from one part of the airfield to another with their primary use being providing access between the terminal/hangar facilities and the runways. Since the airport has a single runway, the taxiway system is relatively simple and provides access from the runway to the parallel taxiway (Taxiway A), and on to the apron. The airport has two high-speed exit taxiways at each end of the runway that are intended to allow aircraft to quickly exit the runway following landing. A connector taxiway is located at the mid-point of the runway to connect Taxiway A to the apron near the former terminal building. A taxilane is also used to access hangars near the south end of the apron.

Aprons
An aircraft apron is used for aircraft movement and positioning, aircraft storage and tiedowns, aircraft fueling, and vehicle movement and parking. The complete apron area at the airport consists of over 700,000 square feet of pavement, which is divided into areas for staging transient aircraft and for use by the airport’s FBO.1 The apron is located between the runway/taxiway, the terminal, and north and south hangars.

Terminal Building
The 1970 terminal building is a rectangular plan, two-and three-story A-frame style, wood framed commercial building located at the western edge of the airport apron (Figure 1). It contains nearly 30,000 square feet of office, restaurant, and administrative space. The building is clad in stucco with wood trim. The building is divided into three sections: a steeply pitched central triangular mass and two flanking rectangular masses. The building wings are covered with a flat roof that is hidden by shingle-covered, faux-mansard parapets that make the wings appear particularly heavy and short. Additionally, the building is sited at the edge of a graded slope with the first floor at the same level as the runway while the main entry is on the second floor, at grade with the access road.

The primary (west) façade has a central two-story triangular mass that was originally glazed but the windows have been filled in. Plate glass storefront windows line the north and south wing façades. Some of the former windows have been replaced with stucco panels. The secondary (east) façade fronts the runway. This side of the building sits on a lower grade than the front and has the central triangular mass flanked by two-story wings. Nearly all the glazing remains on this façade, giving the building an open and expansive view of the runway and surrounding mountains. The north and south facades are two stories tall with multiple groupings of an aluminum frame sliding window over a solid inset panel and under a fixed glazed transom.

The City of South Lake Tahoe serves as the terminal building’s primary tenant. City Hall, as well as administrative offices, are all located in the Airport terminal building.

FBO Building
The ca 1973 FBO building is a one-story, wood frame, rectangular plan building located north of the terminal building on the west side of the apron (Figure 2). It is approximately 3,200 square feet in size, is clad in a mix of pressed brick veneer and stucco, and is capped by a shingle-covered, faux mansard parapet masking a flat roof. The primary (east) façade fronts the apron. There are two double-leaf, glazed pedestrian doors on the south end of the building. Fenestration includes tripartite sliding and fixed aluminum frame windows and two-lite sliding aluminum frame windows. A chimney is visible at the south end of the building. The northern end of the building is clad in stucco and features two roll-up vehicular doors and a single two-light sliding window. A wood sign board capped by a gable roof and featuring a “Mountain West” banner is located between the two pedestrian entrances at the south end of the building. The south façade is devoid of fenestration but has a central brick-veneer clad chimney and water table with horizontal wood lap siding.

Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)
The air traffic control tower (ATCT) was constructed in 1964. It is an irregular plan, steel-frame tower composed of a tall base topped by a glazed, upside down pyramidal shaped observation room (Figure 3). The whole structure is set on a concrete pad foundation. The base of the tower structure is clad in corrugated metal siding and is devoid of fenestration. The base is caped by a roughly pentagonal platform surrounded by a metal railing. In the center of this platform is the observational suite. This square-shaped mass has battered glazed walls that cantilever outward and are topped with a flat roof deck from which multiple antennae project upward. This roof deck is also surrounded by a metal railing.

Adjacent to the 1964 tower is a one-story, rectangular plan building with a flat roof. This building houses electrical equipment. 307
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 4 of 17 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Also adjacent to the ACTC is a second, taller, open metal frame tower. The top of this tower holds newer radar and communications antennae. The metal tower is fully surrounded by chain-link security fencing.

North Hangars
There are three hangars at the north end of the apron that vary in age but are roughly similar in construction (Figure 4). All three are rectangular plan, steel frame buildings with front-facing gable roofs that are set on concrete pad foundations. Hangar 1 is southernmost and oldest, constructed ca.1963. It is clad in corrugated metal siding and features two sets of telescoping doors that enclose the east façade. Hangar 2 is the central and newest hangar of the group, constructed sometime between 2007 and 2012. It is also the largest. This hangar is also clad in metal siding, has a shallow pitch front gable roof, and features a single telescoping door to enclose the east façade. Hangar 3 is the northernmost and smallest of the three hangars. It was constructed ca.1973. It is clad in both vertical and horizontal corrugated metal siding and appears to have a rollup door enclosing its east façade. Hangar 3 is also marked as “South Lake Tahoe Fire Station No. 4.” South Hangars
The south hangars were constructed in 1993. This grouping of six, rectangular plan, steel-frame, shed roof buildings are nearly identical (Figure 5). Four of the six measure approximately 230 x 55 feet, have low-slope shed roofs and are clad in standingseam metal siding. Each of the end buildings is slightly narrower, measuring approximately 230 x 43 feet. The southernmost building has one bay that is square in plan, creating an irregular floorplan. While all the hangars are devoid of fenestration, each building has six pedestrian doors on their south or north facades. Each door provides access to one of the six interior hangar spaces. The south façade is composed entirely of bi-fold garage doors that operate with a central, horizontal pivot, essentially folding the wall outward then upward to allow planes to enter and exit the space.

Maintenance Building
The ca 1973 maintenance building is a one-story, rectangular plan, steel-frame building clad in metal siding (Figure 6). It is capped by a shed roof with deep eaves and a faux-mansard frieze on the primary (east) façade. The primary façade features five bays, each with a glazed roll-up vehicular door. The rear (west) façade is clad in stone veneer that also wraps partially around to the north and south facades.

Helicopter Operator
The helicopter operator, Calstar, occupies a rectangular plan, side gable roofed modular building located south of the maintenance building. The primary (east) façade has a slightly off-set pedestrian entrance set beneath a diminutive gable roof feature (Figure 7). To the south of the entrance are three sets of two-lite, vinyl frame sliding windows. A fourth, two-lite vinyl frame sliding window is located north of the entrance. These same windows are found on all three other facades of the building

Figure 1. Primary (west) façade of the Terminal Building. Figure 2. FBO Building. (ESA, 2025) (ESA, 2025)
308
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 5 of 17 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)

Figure 3. ATCT and adjacent buildings. (ESA, 2025) Figure 4. North Hangars. Hangar 1 is to the far left, Hangar 2 is at center, and Hangar 3 is at the far right. (ESA, 2025)

Figure 5. South Hangars. (ESA, 2025) Figure 6. Maintenance Building. (ESA, 2025) 309
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 6 of 17 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Figure 7. Helicopter prefabricated building. (ESA, 2025) *B10. Significance: (Continued from page 2)
The Lake Tahoe Airport is located in the City of South Lake Tahoe. The earliest portions of the airport were constructed in 1959, partially in preparation for the 1960 Winter Olympic Games. The following presents a brief historical context regarding development of the region and the airport as well as sub-themes related to design and engineering to support the evaluation of significance.

Regional Development
Exploration and Access
The following general historical summary of the area is excerpted from the South Lake Tahoe General Plan:2 Euroamerican contact with Native American groups living in coastal areas and the Central Valley of California began during the last half of the 18th century. The Spanish period in California lasted from about 1769 to 1821. This was a time when the Spanish missions dominated lives of both the Spanish and the Native Americans in those areas in California. However, the effect of the Spanish on the Washoe has not been documented. The Mexican Period (ca. 1821–1848) in California is an outgrowth of the Mexican Revolution, and its accompanying social and political views affected the mission system. Spanish exploration of the Central Valley did not begin until the late 1700s, and the eastern edges of the Central Valley and the Sierra Nevada were not explored until the early 1800s. In 1808 Gabriel Moraga explored the Mokelumne, Cosumnes, and American rivers, passing near modern-day Folsom. Subsequent exploration of the general area is credited to mountain men such as Jedediah Smith, who crossed the Sierra Nevada into California in 1826. Smith traveled along the American, Sacramento, and Cosumnes rivers and also probably passed through current Pleasant Valley. Other explorers such as Ewing Young, Joseph Walker, John Fremont, and Christopher “Kit” Carson soon followed Smith. In 1844, Fremont crossed the Sierra Nevada near Lake Tahoe and descended the west slope in proximity to the American River, which he eventually followed to Sutter’s Fort. Many of the trails used by these early explorers and subsequent immigrants were not newly discovered routes, but rather Native American trails that were already in use.

Early explorations of the Sierra Nevada and its flanks were soon followed by groups of immigrants moving west. The first of these immigrant groups was the Bartleson-Bidwell party that crossed the Sierra Nevada in 1841 and followed the Stanislaus River into the Central Valley. The Joseph Chiles and Joseph Walker parties followed the crossing of the Sierra Nevada by the Bartleson-Bidwell party in 1843. Chiles crossed the Sierra Nevada following the Malheur and Pit rivers into the Central Valley and then traveled south along the Sacramento River. Walker, however, traveled south along the eastern front of the Sierra Nevada to Walker Lake where he crossed into Owens Valley and eventually the Central Valley using what is now known as Walker’s Pass. Subsequently, in 1844 the Stevens-Murphy party crossed the Sierra Nevada and probably is the first immigrant group to enter California via the Truckee and Bear rivers. Subsequently, the Gold Rush in 310
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 7 of 17 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
1849 dramatically increased the numbers of immigrants passing through the Lake Tahoe Basin to reach the gold fields in California.

At the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, there was a growing demand for roads that linked local communities and also California and Nevada. Initial road construction generally followed immigrant trails and other routes used by overland stage traffic and the Pony Express. One such road connecting Placerville and Nevada was constructed near the location of South Lake Tahoe. This road eventually became Placerville Road. The passage of the State Highways Act in 1909 authorized the creation of a highway network within states and linking adjoining states. The Placerville Road was incorporated into the developing highway system. Subsequently in 1913, the Placerville Road was incorporated into the intercontinental Lincoln Highway system. The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1925 created our current system of numbered interstate highways and the Lincoln Highway became US Highway 50. The City of South Lake Tahoe was incorporated in 1965 by combining the previously unincorporated communities of Al Tahoe, Bijou, Bijou Park, Stateline, Tahoe Valley, and Tallac Village.

Early Recreation
The majority of land within the Lake Tahoe Basin (upwards of 70%) is owned or managed by federal or state governments.3 These lands are part of the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) or are units of the California or Nevada State Parks systems.

This large proportion of public land ownership is the result of more than a century of active land acquisition and conservation efforts that began at the close of the 19th century as a response to clear-cutting and other destructive logging practices of the times.4 The Forest Service established its first ranger station in the Lake Tahoe basin in 1911. The first state park (no longer extant) in the area was opened in 1927 near Tahoe City, followed the next year by D. L Bliss State Park further south.5 At the same time, winter recreation areas began to open near Lake Tahoe. In 1910 a wooden ski jump, presumably the first in the United States, and toboggan lift was installed near Truckee. It was called “Winter Sports Hill” and eventually “Hilltop.”6 The winter carnival and sports exhibitions near Truckee drew people from all over the California and Nevada areas through the 1920s. A second ski jump was built near Tahoe City in 1928. It was called “Tahoe Tavern.” Soon thereafter, enthusiasts constructed an “Olympic-caliber hill” just a mile away from the Tahoe Tavern. This new ski hill hosted the 1932 Winter Olympic tryouts.7 By the 1930s, rope tows made accessing the tops of ski slopes much easier.8 The first in the basin were installed at what is now the Sugar Bowl Resort when it opened in 1939.9 Immediately after the war, a series of ski resorts opened all along the basin’s western half: Sierra-at-Tahoe (1946), Palisades Tahoe (formerly Squaw Valley, 1949), Heavenly (1955), plus many smaller resorts. When Palisades Tahoe won the bid to host the 1960s winter Olympics Games, the Lake Tahoe Basin’s reputation as a world-class recreation center was solidified. 1960 Winter Olympic Games
When Palisades Tahoe was chosen as the site for the 1960 winter Olympics, the area lacked major infrastructure to support such a large event. While the original ski resort opened in 1949, it did not yet have sufficient facilities to host an Olympic Games.10 To prepare, the Squaw Valley Development Corporation had to construct roads, bridges, administrative buildings, hotels, restaurants, not to mention lifts, ski runs, and facilities needed to actually host the events.11 This preparation involved numerous agencies and private entities and included completion of Highway 80 which was still under construction when the successful bid was announced.

These Olympic Games were the first to be televised and the first to use instant replay. They also introduced the world to Lake Tahoe, the Sierra Nevada mountains, and the history of the area. Following the games, the region experienced a 30-year period of sustained growth and development, primarily as a recreational and tourist destination.12 More importantly, it transformed the area from a summer designation to a year-round destination. Construction boomed for decades but often with little oversite.
“Placer County, however, was unprepared to deal with the period of rapid growth that followed the 1960 Olympics.

Page 8 of 17 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Lake Tahoe Airport Development
El Dorado County purchased the first tracts of land for the airport in 1957 from the Kyburz family who used the land for cattle and sheep ranching.15 The early surveys were conducted in 1957 and identified a floodplain around the Upper Truckee River located just two miles from the south shore of Lake Tahoe. Planning efforts were catalyzed after the area was awarded the 1960 Winter Olympic games. This included selection of Charles Luckman Associates to prepare a Master Plan to guide airport development.16 However, runway construction began concurrently with planning efforts. When the Tahoe Valley Airport opened on August 1, 1959,17 it opened with no master plan document. Indeed, reports from the September 1959 dedication note that “Luckman had been operating under quite a handicap in trying to plan an airport which was already under construction.18 That construction was facilitated with assistance from the Federal Aid to Airports Program and resulted in a 5,900-foot-long, 100-foot wide runway.19 In spite of the airport having no night lighting, no air traffic control tower, and no hangars, the plan was for it to sustain 24-hour operation in time for the Olympics in February 1960.20 Indeed, the airport recorded 1,170 flights in November 1959, justifying the need for an airfield to serve the area.21 From the beginning, El Dorado County, who operated the airport, sought support from local businesses (casinos) and the federal government to expand airport facilities.22 The process was often slow and piecemeal, proceeding through perpetual master planning efforts. Throughout the 1960s local newspapers discussed the need for an updated master plan, for creation of a new master plan, contracts for master plans, and overall construction of permanent facilities.23 Still, the early years were primarily guided by the Luckman master plan which included recommendations for development of permanent commercial and terminal facilities on the east side of the runway.24 This was never realized and through 2025, no construction beyond necessary security fencing and navigation aids have been placed east of the runway.

By 1960, the airport was serviced by a temporary terminal (at the site of the present terminal) and a permanent, rectangular hangar at the north end of the runway, near the present-day north hangars.25 The temporary terminal was long, and narrow, measuring 120-feet by 20-feet and consisted of prefabricated structures moved to the site (Figure 8).26,27 In 1962, the runway was extended to 8,540 feet and a fire and rescue building was constructed at the end of the runway.28 Shortly thereafter, a larger hangar was added to the north end of the runway (extant).29,30 With a longer runway, the airport could handle more and larger planes. This brought new urgency to the need for a permanent air traffic control tower. In 1964, the airport recorded more than the minimum 24,000 flights per year required to qualify for Federal Aviation Administration-supported (FAA) air traffic control.31 By the fall, the airport was awarded funding from the FAA to both construct and staff a control tower, located on the west side of the runway.32,33 With a proper tower and a longer runway in place, calls for construction of a proper, permanent terminal were renewed. By January 1965, designs for a terminal building were being presented to the public but no further action was taken.34 The delay in approval of a terminal seems to stem from issues around financing construction.35,36 From the beginning, development and construction of the airport was undertaken through grants or money generated by the airport. El Dorado County did not dedicate substantial tax dollars toward its operation or development. When the City of South Lake Tahoe incorporated in 1965, the County immediately began discussions with the City to take over the airport.37 Discussions over ownership and operation of the airport included conversations regarding the updates already needed to the six-year old facility: a permanent terminal and widening of the runway.38 In 1967, the airport master plan was revised to include updated facility requirements for a new terminal as well as recommendations to expand the runways to handle 727 jets.39 This master plan was prepared by engineer Reinhard Brandley of Sacramento.40 Meanwhile, talks between the County and the City continued and the County secured $1.1 million to fund these needed improvements through assistance by the State of California as well as with donations from local casinos.41 With a plan for funding for a runway expansion, the terminal project became the prime focus.

The County decided to finance the terminal through a lease-back program whereby a developer would pay for the construction and the Couty would lease the terminal over a set period of time. It was presumed that rental income from commercial spaces in the terminal would cover the lease payments, thus negating the requirement for tax-payer funding. Various bids for the terminal were submitted. In 1968, 19 proposals were submitted with International Aviation Facilities, Inc. (IAF) provided the preferred proposal.42 Shortly after, a rendering of an A-frame design was proposed.43 312
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 9 of 17 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Figure 8. Aerial view of the airport in 1962, only 3 years after it opened. North is to the right. (UC Santa Barbara Aerial Archive, 1962)
The runway expansion was dedicated in October 1968, but only a few months after announcing the winning proposal from IAF, progress on the terminal design was stymied. At the time, the issue was reported to be “trouble coming up with an architectural design acceptable to local agencies who want it to be compatible with the Tahoe Area.”44 At the same time, other reports noted that the County wanted to formalize a handoff to the City prior to undertaking the terminal project.45 This second justification for delay seems to be the more accurate, as shortly thereafter in June 1969,46 plans were drawn up for the current terminal showing a design that was remarkably similar to the rendering published in August 1968.47 Construction on the terminal began in early 1970 after removal of the temporary terminal building. It was constructed by Gil Construction of Pacheco48 at a cost of approximately $800,000, with structural engineering design by AV Colosi and Associates of Oakland.49 After years of waiting for a permanent terminal, the final completion and dedication of the building was further delayed as disputes over the funding and financing model for terminal construction festered between county supervisors.50 Regardless, the terminal finally opened to the public in July 1970.51 When the terminal opened in 1970, the airport facilities consisted of the terminal building at the half-way point of the runway, a grouping of three hangars at the north end of the runway (a roughly square hangar, a short and wide rectangular hangar, and a long, narrow rectangular hangar), and an air traffic control tower located between the terminal and the hangars.52 By 1973, there was also a small maintenance facility just south of the terminal (part of the current maintenance building) as well as the Fixed Base Operator building north of the terminal and another square-plan hangar at the north end of the runway (Figure 9). 313
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 10 of 17 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Figure 9. Aerial view of the airport in 1973. The terminal building is visible and notable by the shadow cast by the steeply pitched A-frame center section. Hangars 1 and 3 are part of the grouping to the top-right. The FBO building is between the hangars and the terminal. The maintenance building is south of the terminal. North is to the right. (UC Santa Barbara Aerial Archive, 1973)
Then, in 1982, the City assumed control of the airport and further expansion took place. By 1987, the parking lot was graded and paved and the maintenance building was expanded slightly to the west. After that the most substantial additions to the airport were construction of the south hangars in 1994.53,54 Other smaller modifications include installation of the helicopter operator’s building (between 1998 and 2004), removal of several hangars at the north end of the runway (between 2004 and 2007) and construction of a new hangar at the north end of the runway (between 2007 and 2012.) A timeline of airport development is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Lake Tahoe Airport Construction History
Date Alteration / Change Source
1957 Airfield is surveyed July 1957 Survey
Drawings, on file with Lake
Tahoe Airprot
1959 5,900-foot runway is constructed, airfield opens Lake Tahoe Airport Archive, promotional
brochure, August 1963
1960 Low, rectangular hangars are constructed at the north end of the runway, original temporary terminal building is constructed of prefabricated buildings at the west side of the runway
“The Lake Tahoe Airport,”
Tahoe Realty News, May
1, 1960.
314
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 11 of 17 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Date Alteration / Change Source
1962 Runway is expanded to 8,540 feet long and 100-feet wide “FAAP’s at Tahoe, Too,” promotional brochure,
August 1963.
1963 Hangar 1 constructed (assumed) “Airport Terminal Proposal Rejected by Supervisors,”
Tahoe Daily Tribune, June
11, 1963, 1.
1964 Air Traffic Control Tower is constructed by FAA “Nearing Completion,” Tahoe Daily Tribune,
October 5, 1964.
1969 An additional hangar is added to the north runway at this time, plans are drawn up by AV Colosi for the terminal building, the runway is further expanded and updated to accommodate 727 jets
“County Receives Money
for Tahoe Airport Runway
Project,” Placerville
Mountain Democrat, July
20, 1968, 1.
1970 Terminal building opens “Old and New,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, July
16, 1970, 36.
1973 By this time the original portion of the maintenance building is in place, as is the Fixed Base Operator building, the parking lot, and Hangar 3
UCSB Framefinder, “CAS3596, frame 134,” July 25,
1973
1994 South hangars are installed Architectural Plan on file with the Lake Tahoe
Airport
2004 Air traffic control tower is shuttered on October 1.

By this time, the helicopter operator’s building has been constructed “Tour,” Placerville
Mountain Democrat,
August 12, 2005, 21.

Google Earth Aerial
Images (June 2004)
2007 Between 2004 and 2007, the original long, rectangular hangars at the north end of the runway have been demolished
Google Earth Aerial
Images (June 2007)
2012 North Hangar 2 is constructed between 2007 and 2012 Google Earth Aerial Images (July 2012)
Associated Design Professionals
Charles Luckman (1909-1999) and Charles Luckman Associates55 Charles Luckman Associates is credited with the first airport Master Plan in the early 1960s.

Charles Luckman was born in 1909 in Kansas City, Missouri. His early professional career began in Chicago when he accepted a job as a draftsman in an architect’s office. This inspired him to enroll in the architecture program at the University of Illinois in 1927. While there, he met his future business partner William Pereira.

Graduating from school in the early years of the Great Depression, Luckman put architecture aside in 1931 for a ready job at Colgate-Palmolive-Peet as a draftsman in their advertising department. He soon moved to sales, an area in which he excelled.

Propelled by strong results in soap sales at Colgate, he was hired by Pepsodent in 1935 where he made further professional gains settling a labor dispute with the National Association of Retail Druggists over pricing of Pepsodent toothpaste. By 1936, he was vice-president in charge of sales followed in 1941 with a promotion to executive vice-president. In 1943, at the age of 34, he was named president of the company.

When Lever Brothers acquired Pepsodent in 1944, Luckman became a vice-president at his new company. In 1946, he was named president of Lever Brothers’ (now Unilever) United States division. The next few years were a bit tumultuous as Unilever lost market dominance in key product areas to its rival Proctor and Gamble. By 1949 the company was losing money and in 1950, Luckman resigned.

It was then, at the age of 41, that Luckman returned to his first career in architecture. His first venture was joining former classmate William Pereira at his firm in Los Angeles. The Pereira & Luckman partnership was quite successful and resulted in a number of notable buildings including the Theme Building at Los Angeles International Airport. The partnership dissolved in 1958 and Luckman formed his own firm, Charles Luckman Associates (CLA). Within 10 years, CLA was one of the country’s five largest architecture firms. Their credits include Madison Square Gardens (New York City), the Prudential Center (Boston), NASA’s manned flight center (Houston), and the Forum (Los Angeles), among many others. 315
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 12 of 17 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
James Luckman, Charles’ second son, became president of CLA in 1968. That same year the firm merged with Ogden Corporation. It was a short-lived merger which was dissolved in 1973. When Charles Luckman retired in 1977, the firm was reorganized as the Luckman Partnership. This firm was led by James until his retirement in 1991.

Charles Luckman received many accolades throughout his professional architectural career, both for his designs and for his leadership within the field. He retired from CLA in 1977. Charles Luckman died in Los Angeles in 1999 at the age of 89.

Charles Luckman and CLA are considered masters of architectural design.

Reinhard W. Brandley (1923-2022), Engineer56
The 1967 airport master plan update is credited to engineer Reinhard W. Brandley.

Reinhard Brandley was born in Stirling, Alberta, Canada in 1923. In this small frontier town that was established by his grandfather in 1898, he grew up farming with his family. He left Stirling in 1941 to study Civil Engineering at the University of Alberta. After earning a Master’s degree he accepted a teaching fellowship at Harvard University. During his four years at Harvard, he earned a PhD in Civil Engineering, with a thesis focused on airfield pavement design and evaluation. It was during this course of study that he developed the Brandley Fatigue Analysis methodology for the evaluation and design of airfield pavements.

After Harvard, Brandley returned to Canada, assuming an Assistant Professorship at the University of Saskatchewan. This was a short-lived professional stint as he soon moved to Sacramento, California to join the O.J. Porter Company as Chief Engineer in charge of Geotechnical Engineering Design. He also ran their materials testing laboratory. In 1953, Brandley founded his own firm, Brandley Engineering.

Brandley’s professional career focused on airport design. His projects included many California, as well as in Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Utah, Florida, Hawaii, and even Iran. Many of the designs and specifications that he developed were adopted by the FAA as design standards. His work in the region includes as a consulting engineer for the City of Sacramento,57 Bryant Field in Bridgeport58, Mammoth-Yosemite Airport,59 and Truckee Tahoe Airport.60 Reinhard Brandley died in Loomis, California in 2022. Reinhard Brandley is considered a master of engineering design.

Regulatory Framework
National Register of Historic Places
A property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) if it meets the National Register listing criteria at 36 CFR 60.4, as stated below:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and that:

A) Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, or B) Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, or C) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, or
D) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history In addition to qualifying for listing under at least one of the National Register criteria, a property must be shown to have sufficient historic integrity. The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historic resources and in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of an historic resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.” The same seven variables or aspects that define integrity—location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association—are used to evaluate a resource’s eligibility for listing in the National Register. 316
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 13 of 17 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
California Register of Historical Resources
To be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) a historical resource must be significant under one or more of the following criteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

Local Designation - TRPA
South Lake Tahoe does not have its own set of local designation criteria. Rather, the municipal code refers to the Tahoe Regional Planning Authority (TRPA) Code of Ordinances.

The TRPA has adopted criteria similar to those including in the National and California registers related to association with events, people, and design. Specifically, Chapter 67.6 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances states:
“Sites, objects, structures, districts or other resources, eligible for designation as resources of historical, cultural, archeological, paleontological, or architectural significance locally, regionally, state-wide or nationally, shall meet at least one of the criteria provided below.”

1. Resources Associated with Historically Significant Events and Sites Resources shall exemplify the broad cultural, political, economic, social, civic, or military history of the region, the states, or the nation, or be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history, including regional history. Such resources shall meet one or more of the following criteria:

A. Association with an important community function in the past; B. Association with a memorable happening in the past; or C. Contain outstanding qualities reminiscent of an early stage of development in the region.

2. Resources Associated with Significant Persons
Resources that are associated with the lives of persons significant in history, including regional history, such as:

A. Buildings or structures associated with a locally, regionally, or nationally known person; B. Notable examples, or best surviving works, of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder; or C. Structures associated with the life or work of significant persons.

3. Resources Embodying Distinctive Characteristics
Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity but whose components may lack individual distinction. Works of a master builder, designer, or architect also are eligible. Resources may be classified as significant if they are a prototype of, or a representative example of, a period style, architectural movement, or method of construction unique in the region, the states, or the nation.

4. State and Federal Guidelines
Archeological or paleontological resources protected or eligible for protection under state or federal guidelines.

5. Prehistoric Sites
Sites where prehistoric archaeological or paleontological resources that may contribute to the basic understanding of early cultural or biological development in the region.

Significance Evaluation
The Lake Tahoe Airport is evaluated below for potential historical significance according to National Register Criteria A through D, California Register Criteria 1 through 4 and TRPA criteria 1-3 and 5. 317
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 14 of 17 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Criteria A/1/1 – Events
The Lake Tahoe Airport was constructed only five months before the 1960 Winter Olympic Games. While not built to exclusively serve the games, the airport was an immediate success and remained open during the games to provide transportation. After the games it remained popular with small commercial and private aircraft, providing close access to the casinos just across the state line as well as the recreational venues in the southern Lake Tahoe basin. As a regional transportation hub, it serves a relatively small market of private and commuter planes, most of which use the airport between June and August each year. The airport provides convenience but does not appear to have influenced development of the South Lake Tahoe area or of the region more broadly, which has been more profoundly influenced by the growth in tourism than any other factor. Aside from the association of its initial construction with the 1960 Olympic Games, there do not appear to be any other notable or lasting associations between the airport and events important in local or regional history. As such, the Lake Tahoe Airport is recommended ineligible as a historic resource at any level for associations with important events or trends.

Criteria B/2/2 – People
Research did not uncover any particular persons who have made a notable contribution to local, regional, or national history.

There have been a number of airport managers, under both El Dorado County and then City of South Lake Tahoe operation, however none appear to have made significant contributions to history or to aviation in the area. For these reasons, the Lake Tahoe Airport is recommended ineligible as a historic resource at any level for associations with the productive life of historically important individuals.

Criteria C/3/3 – Design
The Lake Tahoe Airport does have associations with two notable design professionals. The original master plan for the airport is attributed to Charles Luckman Associates, a master architecture and design firm. This firm is mentioned in several newspaper accounts of the day as having been hired for the job and as making recommendations for airport development.

However, this first master planning effort was happening contemporaneously with the airport’s opening and initial period of operation. Therefore, the plan was not reflected when the runways were laid out in 1959, nor was it reflected during the 1960 Winter Olympic Games, two important milestones in the airport’s early existence. Indeed, no images or direct references to any specific buildings or implemented recommendations were noted in any of these newspaper accounts. No copy of the final master plan was on file at the airport. It is unclear what, if any, of Luckman’s master plan was ever implemented nor if any portions of that plan remain today.

In 1967, less than a decade after the airport opened, the master plan was updated to address needed improvements to accommodate new 727 jets. The master plan update also reinforced the need for a proper terminal to replace the prefabricated buildings that had been relocated to the site in the early 1960s to serve as terminal facilities. The Airport hired Reinhard Brandley, who had contributed to airport planning for many regional airports throughout the state. Little is known about this master plan effort or what Brandley produced under his contract. Because he was known for his innovative runway engineering solutions61 it is assumed that his major contributions to the airport’s development are associated with the runway specifically as opposed to any overarching, cohesive master plan. Indeed, since 1967, there have been several buildings constructed, including a terminal building, but none are attributed to Brandley and none share any design characteristics that would unite them as part of a specific vision or development plan.

As it appears today, the airport represents a series of buildings and structures that were built or assembled over the span of the last 60+ years. None share a particular architectural design language, nor do they appear to have any relation other than they all support various components of airport operation. Each is reflective of its period of construction or its function. In terms of a master plan, there does not appear to be a comprehensive design that has guided development of the airport. The involvement of several notable design professionals – Charles Luckman Associates and Reinhard Brandley – is interesting but the airport does not appear to reflect any lasting contribution of these professionals in its current appearance. The layout of the airport is logical, common, and reflective of the particular needs of the site and the facility. For these reasons, the Lake Tahoe Airport is recommended ineligible as a historic resource at any level for its design or for its association with master design professionals.

Criteria D/4/5 – Information Potential
While most often applied to archaeological districts and sites, Criterion D/4/5 can also apply to buildings, structures, and objects that contain important information. For these types of properties to be eligible, they themselves must be, or must have been, the principal source of the important information, and the information must be considered important.

The Lake Tahoe Airport does not appear to have the potential to yield significant information that would expand our current knowledge or theories of design, methods of construction, operation, or other information that is not already known about the period in which the complex was constructed, particular method of construction, or design. The property reflects common building practices and uses typical materials that would be expected for a mid-20th century airport. These methods and 318
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 15 of 17 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
materials follow convention and are well documented. Therefore, the Lake Tahoe Airport does not appear to possess individual significance under Criterion D/4/5.

Integrity
In addition to being eligible for listing under at least one of the National, California, or TRPA register criteria, a property must also retain sufficient integrity to convey its historical significance. There are seven aspects to consider when evaluating the integrity of a property: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. As discussed above, the Lake Tahoe Airport does not appear to possess significance under any criteria. Therefore, no assessment of integrity is required.

Summary
As a complex, the Lake Tahoe Airport is recommended ineligible for listing on the National Register, California Register, or as a local historic resource as defined by the TRPA local register. It does not qualify as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA review.
*B12. References: (Continued from page 2)
1 Mountain West Aviation serves as the Airport’s FBO and offers full-service fueling; line services; overnight hangar rental; and other aircraft, pilot, and passenger support services. The FBO is also contracted to be a provider of aviation fuel for the U.S. federal government. This arrangement provides military aircraft and other government departments access to specific fuel prices established by the U.S. government. The lease agreement with Mountain West Aviation lasts through 2042.
2 City of South Lake Tahoe, General Plan Update, Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared by PMC, September 2010 (SCH: 2009092049), 4.10-6 – 4.10-7. https://cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/15125/General-Plan-Draft-EnvironmentalImpact-Report?bidId=. 3 Tahoe Fund, “Tahoe’s Environmental History,” accessed May 20, 2025. 4 “Tahoe’s Environmental History.”
5 “Tahoe’s Environmental History.”
6 Judy DePuy, “History: Truckee’s Hilltop and Its Future,” Sierra Sun, January 23, 2023. https://www.sierrasun.com/news/history-truckees-hilltop-and-its-future/ 7 “Sierra Heritage: History of California Skiing,” Tahoetopia.com, accessed May 20, 2025. https://tahoetopia.com/news/sierra-heritage-history-california-skiing. 8 Dino Vournas, “A Look at Lake Tahoe’s Ski History, as Sugar Bowl Turns 80,” San Jose Mercury News, November 7, 2019. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/06/a-look-back-at-lake-tahoes-sugar-bowl-as-it-turns-80/. 9 Sugarbowl, “Skiing Happy Since 1939,” accessed May 20, 2025. https://www.sugarbowl.com/history 10 Palisades Tahoe, “History Runs Deep,” accessed May 20, 2025. https://www.palisadestahoe.com/explore/our-history 11 Jenny Goldsmith, “2020 Hindsight: Looking Back on 100 Years of Historical Events at Lake Tahoe,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, February 27, 2020.
12 “45 Years Later – Lake Tahoe Feels Ripples of 1960 Games,” The Union, March 3, 2005. Accessed May 20, 2025. https://www.theunion.com/news/local-news/45-years-later-lake-tahoe-feels-ripples-of-1960-games/article_7747cd38- 34aa-5673-8d1d-03f99da21355.html.
13 “45 Years Later.”
14 Miranda Jacobson, “Taking Lake Tahoe to New Heights: Development History in the Basin,” Sierra Sun, December 27, 2022, accessed May 20, 2025. https://www.sierrasun.com/news/taking-lake-tahoe-to-new-heights-development-history-inthe-basin/. 15 Lake Tahoe Airport, “History of Lake Tahoe’s Airports,” October 18, 2018, 2. https://cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/12754/10182018_AIRPORT-HISTORY. 16 “History and Reason for Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Listed,” Tahoe Sierra Tribune, October 22, 1959, 4.

319
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 16 of 17 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)

17 “History of Lake Tahoe’s Airports,” 2.
18 “Airport Manager Operator Term Master Plan as Not Realistic,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, September 3, 1959. 19 Promotional brochure, August 1963.
20 “Airport Work Reprogramming Approved; Lights, Beacons scheduled for November 15,” Tahoe Mountain Tribune, August 27, 1959.
21 “1170 Operations Reported for Moth at Tahoe Airport,” Tahoe Mountain Tribune, December 1, 1959. 22 “History and Reason,” October 22, 1959.
23 The Lake Tahoe Airport has two scrapbooks of newspaper clippings that informed this statement. While most clippings are dated, many lack references to a specific publication. It is assumed that most are attributed to the Tahoe Sierra Tribune or the Tahoe Daily Tribune.
24 “History and Reason,” October 22, 1959.
25 “The Lake Tahoe Airport,” Tahoe Realty News, May 1, 1960. 26 “The Lake Tahoe Airport,” May 1, 1960.
27 “County Seeks Lease-Back Offers for Tahoe Airport Terminal,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, April 4, 1968, A3. 28 “FAAP’s at Tahoe, Too,” promotional brochure, August 1963. 29 The dating of this hangar is based on comparisons of a 1962 aerial photograph where no such hangar is shown and a 1964 newspaper photo depicting the hangar in operations prior to construction of the control tower. 30 In June 1963, Bridgeford Flying Services was under a lease agreement to construct a hangar at the airport. An article from that time noted that it had yet to comply. Based on the dimensions and construction described, this hangar may be Hangar 1. “Airport Terminal Proposal Rejected by Supervisors,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, June 11, 1963, 1. 31 “FAA Tower at Tahoe Easily Justifies its Construction, “Tahoe Daily Tribune, November 4, 1965, 12. 32 “FAA Tower,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, November 4, 1965.
33 “Nearing Completion,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, October 5, 1964. 34 “Proposed Terminal,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, January 26, 1965. 35 “Airport Terminal Proposal Rejected,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, June 11, 1963, 1. 36 “Supervisors See Big Future for Airport,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, July 1, 1965. 37 “City Asked to Take Over Tahoe Airport Operation,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, December 2, 1965. 38 “Should City Take Over Lake Tahoe’s Airport,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, January 6, 1966. 39 “County Orders Updated Master Plan for Tahoe Airport,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, October 12, 1967, 1. 40 “County Orders,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, October 12, 1967. 41 “County Receives Money for Tahoe Airport Runway Project,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, July 20, 1968, 1. 42 “County Considering Lease-Back for New Tahoe Airport Terminal,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, August 1, 1968, 1 & 3. 43 “A-Frame Plus,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, August 8, 1968, 41. 44 Ceremonies Friday Will Re-Open Tahoe Airport,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, October 24, 1968, 12. 45 “A-Frame Plus,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, August 8, 1968, 41. 46 “Architect for Tahoe Air Terminal,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, February 13, 1969, 3. 47 “Structural Plan,” prepared by AV Colosi and Associates, dated June 16, 1969, on file with the Lake Tahoe Airport. 48 “Contract Let for Tahoe Airport Terminal Building,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, August 7, 1969, 27. 49 “Architect for Tahoe,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, February 13, 1969.

320
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 17 of 17 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)

50 “No Water – But Tahoe Airport Terminal Opening on Weekend,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, May 21, 1970, 10. 51 “Old and New,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, July 16, 1970, 36. 52 All these buildings, minus the terminal, are shown on a 1969 aerial as viewed in Google Earth. 53 “Pilots Now Have Place to Store Planes,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, date unknown. 54 Architectural Plans, September 1993. On file with the Lake Tahoe Airport. 55 Unless otherwise note, this material is summarized from the biographical information about Charles Luckman that precedes the Charles Luckman Papers, 1908-2000 archive, as presented by the Online Archive of California. Accessed April 17, 2025. https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8057gjv/. 56 Unless otherwise noted, the biography for Reinard W. Brandley is summarized from the obituary provided by Heritage Oaks Memorial Chapel in Loomis, California. Accessed April 17, 2025. https://obits.heritageoaksmemorialchapel.com/reinard-brandley. 57 Arthur S. Schai, Jaquith Industries, Inc., “The Design, Installation and Maintenance of In-Pavement Airport Lighting,” 1986, 13.
58 Lara Kirkner, “Big Bucks for Bryant,” The Sheet, March 16, 2012. https://thesheetnews.com/2012/03/16/big-bucks-forbryant/. 59 Mammoth Lakes Town Council, “Agenda Action Sheet,” October 7, 2020. https://d2kbkoa27fdvtw.cloudfront.net/mammothlakes/e7b99ad847e8087307524bd915dd290d0.pdf. 60 Truckee Tahoe Airport District, Board of Directors, “Agenda Item Summary,” May 2014. https://truckeetahoeairport.com/board_meetings/14/view_file?file=tab+09+- +engineering+activities+staff+report+07.18.14.pdf.
61 Arthur S. Schai, “The Design, Installation and Maintenance of In-Pavement Airport Lighting,” (Jaquith Industries, Inc., 1986), 13. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/airports/engineering/airport_lighting/schai-airport-lighting.pdf. 321
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information

Page 1 of 18 ends

P1. Other Identifier: South Lake Tahoe City Hall
*P2. Location: ☐ Not for Publication ☒ Unrestricted
*a. County El Dorado
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad South Lake Tahoe Date 2021 T 12N ; R 18E ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec 9 and 16 ; B.M. MDM c. Address 1901 Lisa Maloff Way City South Lake Tahoe Zip 96150 d. UTM: Zone 11S , 239932.99 mE/ 4309128.89 mN; NAD 83
e. Other Locational Data: APNs 032-090-006, 032-100-004, 033-050-006, -011 and -020. *P3a. Description: The Lake Tahoe Airport (airport) is a small publicly owned, general aviation airport catering to privately-owned aircraft in South Lake Tahoe. It is located at an elevation of 6,260 feet and sits on approximately 350 acres immediately adjacent to the Upper Truckee River, approximately 3 miles south of Lake Tahoe. The terminal building is a rectangular plan, two-and threestory A-frame style, wood framed commercial building located at the western edge of the airport apron (Figure 1). It contains nearly 30,000 square feet of office, restaurant, and administrative space. The building is clad in stucco with wood trim. The building is divided into three sections: a steeply pitched central triangular mass and two flanking rectangular masses. The building wings are covered with a flat roof that is hidden by shingle-covered, faux-mansard parapets that make the wings appear particularly heavy and short. Additionally, the building is sited at the edge of a graded slope with the first floor at the same level as the runway while the main entry is on the second floor, at grade with the access road. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP6 (1-3 story commercial building) *P4. Resources Present: ☒ Building ☒ Structure ☐ Object ☐ Site ☐ District ☐ Element of District ☐ Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo:

East façade of the former terminal building, facing
west (ESA, 2025)
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
☒ Historic ☐ Prehistoric
☐ Both
Various:
1970 – terminal building
*P7. Owner and Address:

State of California — The Resources Agency Primary
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
322
DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
*Resource Name or # Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal Building *NRHP Status Code 3CS

Page 2 of 18 ends

B1. Historic Name: Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal Building B2. Common Name: South Lake Tahoe City Hall
B3. Original Use: Aviation B4. Present Use: Aviation and Local Government *B5. Architectural Style: A-Frame
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The building was constructed and opened to the public in 1970. See Table 1 for a development history of the building. *B7. Moved? ☒ No ☐ Yes ☐ Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Lake Tahoe Airport (documented separately) B9a. Architect: A.V. Colosi and Associates (structural engineer) b. Builder: Gil Construction *B10. Significance: Theme Architecture – Commercial Design Area Lake Tahoe Region Period of Significance 1970 Property Type Building Applicable Criteria 3 (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The Lake Tahoe Terminal Building is recommended individually eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) under Criterion 3 for its application of the regionally significant A-frame design to a commercial building. While the building has been modified, including interior reconfiguration and alterations to the fenestration pattern on the primary (west) façade, it retains sufficient integrity for listing in the California Register.

The building is not recommended eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) as the building has been modified from its original form through interior changes and alterations to window openings and fenestration patterns. As such it does not retain sufficient integrity for National Register listing.

Continued on page 3.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP4 (ancillary building); HP14 (government building); HP39 (otherairport) *B12. References:

See page 16
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Becky Urbano, ESA
*Date of Evaluation: May 2025
State of California — The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
323
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 18 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
*P3a. Description: (Continued from page 1)

Figure 1. Primary (west) façade of the Terminal Building. (ESA, 2025) The primary (west) façade has a central two-story triangular mass that was originally glazed but the windows have been filled in (Figure 2). Plate glass storefront windows line west facades of the one-story north and south wings. Some of the former windows have been replaced with stucco panels. The secondary (east) façade fronts the runway (Figure 3). This side of the building sites on a lower grade than the front and has the central triangular mass flanked by two-story wings. This façade is composed primarily of glazed openings, including fixed windows and numerous glazed pedestrian doors to access the fullwidth balcony at the second floor. As such, the east façade provides open and expansive views of the runway and surrounding mountains. The north and south facades are two-stories tall with multiple groupings of an aluminum frame sliding window over a solid inset panel and under a fixed glazed transom. The City of South Lake Tahoe serves as the terminal building’s primary tenant. City Hall, as well as administrative offices, are all located in the Airport terminal building. 324
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 4 of 18 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)

Figure 2. Terminal Building. (ESA, 2025)

Figure 3. Secondary (east) façade of the Terminal Building. Note the at-grade pedestrian entrance. (ESA, 2025) 325
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 5 of 18 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
The interior of the building has been modified several times to convert it from an airport terminal, with ticket desks, airline offices, concessions, and a waiting room, to its current use as airport offices and South Lake Tahoe City Hall. Overall, the interior is arranged with City Hall in the southern wing of the building on both floors, concessions such as flight tours and a restaurant (currently closed) on the second floor of the north wing, and airport offices on the first floor of the north wing. The central, A-frame mass serves as a circulation corridor and connector (Figure 4). As one moves from the main entrance toward the rear (east) of the building, the central volume opens up to provide expansive views of the runway and mountains (Figures 5 and 6). Remaining original features include exposed beams, glazed peak, and exposed wood paneling on the ceiling (Figure 7).

Figure 4. Central circulation corridor. (ESA, 2025) Figure 5. At-grade pedestrian entrance. (ESA, 2025)

Figure 6. The east gable retains its glazing for expansive views Figure 7. Exposed beams and wood paneling remain. (ESA, of the runway and mountains. (ESA, 2025) 2025)
326
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 6 of 18 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
The passenger waiting area was originally located on the first floor. There was direct access to the apron for loading and unloading. Today, the airport retains at-grade pedestrian access. *B10. Significance: (Continued from page 2)
The Lake Tahoe Airport is located in the City of South Lake Tahoe. The earliest portions of the airport were constructed in 1959, partially in preparation for the 1960 Winter Olympic Games. The terminal was constructed in 1970, in the aftermath of the Olympics and during a period of tremendous growth for the region. The following presents a brief historical context regarding development of the region and the airport as well as sub-themes related to design and engineering to support the evaluation of significance.

Regional Development
Exploration and Access
The following general historical summary of the area is excerpted from the South Lake Tahoe General Plan:1 Euroamerican contact with Native American groups living in coastal areas and the Central Valley of California began during the last half of the 18th century. The Spanish period in California lasted from about 1769 to 1821. This was a time when the Spanish missions dominated lives of both the Spanish and the Native Americans in those areas in California. However, the effect of the Spanish on the Washoe has not been documented. The Mexican Period (ca. 1821–1848) in California is an outgrowth of the Mexican Revolution, and its accompanying social and political views affected the mission system. Spanish exploration of the Central Valley did not begin until the late 1700s, and the eastern edges of the Central Valley and the Sierra Nevada were not explored until the early 1800s. In 1808 Gabriel Moraga explored the Mokelumne, Cosumnes, and American rivers, passing near modern-day Folsom. Subsequent exploration of the general area is credited to mountain men such as Jedediah Smith, who crossed the Sierra Nevada into California in 1826. Smith traveled along the American, Sacramento, and Cosumnes rivers and also probably passed through current Pleasant Valley. Other explorers such as Ewing Young, Joseph Walker, John Fremont, and Christopher “Kit” Carson soon followed Smith. In 1844, Fremont crossed the Sierra Nevada near Lake Tahoe and descended the west slope in proximity to the American River, which he eventually followed to Sutter’s Fort. Many of the trails used by these early explorers and subsequent immigrants were not newly discovered routes, but rather Native American trails that were already in use.

Early explorations of the Sierra Nevada and its flanks were soon followed by groups of immigrants moving west. The first of these immigrant groups was the Bartleson-Bidwell party that crossed the Sierra Nevada in 1841 and followed the Stanislaus River into the Central Valley. The Joseph Chiles and Joseph Walker parties followed the crossing of the Sierra Nevada by the Bartleson-Bidwell party in 1843. Chiles crossed the Sierra Nevada following the Malheur and Pit rivers into the Central Valley and then traveled south along the Sacramento River. Walker, however, traveled south along the eastern front of the Sierra Nevada to Walker Lake where he crossed into Owens Valley and eventually the Central Valley using what is now known as Walker’s Pass. Subsequently, in 1844 the Stevens-Murphy party crossed the Sierra Nevada and probably is the first immigrant group to enter California via the Truckee and Bear rivers. Subsequently, the Gold Rush in 1849 dramatically increased the numbers of immigrants passing through the Lake Tahoe Basin to reach the gold fields in California.

Page 7 of 18 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Early Recreation
The majority of land within the Lake Tahoe Basin (upwards of 70%) is owned or managed by federal or state governments.2 These lands are part of the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) or are units of the California or Nevada State Parks systems.

This large proportion of public land ownership is the result of more than a century of active land acquisition and conservation efforts that began at the close of the 19th century as a response to clear-cutting and other destructive logging practices of the times.3 The Forest Service established its first ranger station in the Lake Tahoe basin in 1911. The first state park (no longer extant) in the area was opened in 1927 near Tahoe City, followed the next year by D. L Bliss State Park further south.4 At the same time, winter recreation areas began to open near Lake Tahoe. In 1910 a wooden ski jump, presumably the first in the United States, and toboggan lift was installed near Truckee. It was called “Winter Sports Hill” and eventually “Hilltop.”5 The winter carnival and sports exhibitions near Truckee drew people from all over the California and Nevada areas through the 1920s. A second ski jump was built near Tahoe City in 1928. It was called “Tahoe Tavern.” Soon thereafter, enthusiasts constructed an “Olympic-caliber hill” just a mile away from the Tahoe Tavern. This new ski hill hosted the 1932 Winter Olympic tryouts.6 By the 1930s, rope tows made accessing the tops of ski slopes much easier.7 The first in the basin were installed at what is now the Sugar Bowl Resort when it opened in 1939.8 Immediately after the war, a series of ski resorts opened all along the basin’s western half: Sierra-at-Tahoe (1946), Palisades Tahoe (formerly Squaw Valley, 1949), Heavenly (1955), plus many smaller resorts. When Palisades Tahoe won the bid to host the 1960s winter Olympics Games, the Lake Tahoe Basin’s reputation as a world-class recreation center was solidified. 1960 Winter Olympic Games
When Palisades Tahoe was chosen as the site for the 1960 winter Olympics, the area lacked major infrastructure to support such a large event. While the original ski resort opened in 1949, it did not yet have sufficient facilities to host an Olympic Games.9 To prepare, the Squaw Valley Development Corporation had to construct roads, bridges, administrative buildings, hotels, restaurants, not to mention lifts, ski runs, and facilities needed to actually host the events.10 This preparation involved numerous agencies and private entities and included completion of Highway 80 which was still under construction when the successful bid was announced.

These Olympic Games were the first to be televised and the first to use instant replay. They also introduced the world to Lake Tahoe, the Sierra Nevada mountains, and the history of the area. Following the games, the region experienced a 30-year period of sustained growth and development, primarily as a recreational and tourist destination.11 More importantly, it transformed the area from a summer designation to a year-round destination. Construction boomed for decades but often with little oversite.
“Placer County, however, was unprepared to deal with the period of rapid growth that followed the 1960 Olympics.

Large projects like high-rise casinos and the Tahoe Keys, which was built on the biggest filtration meadow in the basin, went in without any environmental analysis. In the 45 years since the Winter Games, the number of homes in the basin has increased five-fold, from around 7,000 in 1960 to 35,500 in 2000, according to Antonucci and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The lakewide population has had even a bigger jump, growing from around 3,000 to 63,000 during the same period of time.”
12 One of the answers was creation of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), a bi-state agency authorized by Congress to manage growth and development in the watershed.13
Lake Tahoe Airport Development
El Dorado County purchased the first tracts of land for the airport in 1957 from the Kyburz family who used the land for cattle and sheep ranching.14 The early surveys were conducted in 1957 and identified a floodplain around the Upper Truckee River located just two miles from the south shore of Lake Tahoe. Planning efforts were catalyzed after the area was awarded the 1960 Winter Olympic games. This included selection of Charles Luckman Associates to prepare a Master Plan to guide airport development.15 However, runway construction began concurrently with planning efforts. When the Tahoe Valley Airport opened on August 1, 1959,16 it opened with no master plan document. Indeed, reports from the September 1959 dedication note that “Luckman had been operating under quite a handicap in trying to plan an airport which was already under construction.17 That construction was facilitated with assistance from the Federal Aid to Airports Program and resulted in a 5,900-foot-long, 100-foot wide runway.18 In spite of the airport having no night lighting, no air traffic control tower, and no hangars, the plan was for it to sustain 24-hour operation in time for the Olympics in February 1960.19 Indeed, the airport recorded 1,170 flights in November 1959, justifying the need for an airfield to serve the area.20 From the beginning, El Dorado County, who operated the airport, sought support from local businesses (casinos) and the 328
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 8 of 18 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
federal government to expand airport facilities.21 The process was often slow and piecemeal, proceeding through perpetual master planning efforts. Throughout the 1960s local newspapers discussed the need for an updated master plan, for creation of a new master plan, contracts for master plans, and overall construction of permanent facilities.22 Still, the early years were primarily guided by the Luckman master plan which included recommendations for development of permanent commercial and terminal facilities on the east side of the runway.23 This was never realized and through 2025, no construction beyond necessary security fencing and navigation aids have been placed east of the runway.

By 1960, the airport was serviced by a temporary terminal (at the site of the present terminal) and a permanent, rectangular hangar at the north end of the runway, near the present-day north hangars.24 The temporary terminal was long, and narrow, measuring 120-feet by 20-feet and consisted of prefabricated structures moved to the site (Figure 8).25,26 In 1962, the runway was extended to 8,540 feet and a fire and rescue building was constructed at the end of the runway.27 Shortly thereafter, a larger hangar was added to the north end of the runway (extant).28,29 With a longer runway, the airport could handle more and larger planes. This brought new urgency to the need for a permanent air traffic control tower. In 1964, the airport recorded more than the minimum 24,000 flights per year required to qualify for Federal Aviation Administration-supported (FAA) air traffic control.30 By the fall, the airport was awarded funding from the FAA to both construct and staff a control tower, located on the west side of the runway.31,32 With a proper tower and a longer runway in place, calls for construction of a proper, permanent terminal were renewed. By January 1965, designs for a terminal building were being presented to the public but no further action was taken.33 The delay in approval of a terminal seems to stem from issues around financing construction.34,35 From the beginning, development and construction of the airport was undertaken through grants or money generated by the airport. El Dorado County did not dedicate substantial tax dollars toward its operation or development. When the City of South Lake Tahoe incorporated in 1965, the County immediately began discussions with the City to take over the airport.36 Discussions over ownership and operation of the airport included conversations regarding the updates already needed to the six-year old facility: a permanent terminal and widening of the runway.37 Figure 8. Aerial view of the airport in 1962, only 3 years after it opened. North is to the right. (UC Santa Barbara Aerial Archive, 1962)
In 1967, the airport master plan was revised to include updated facility requirements for a new terminal as well as recommendations to expand the runways to handle 727 jets.38 This master plan was prepared by engineer Reinhard Brandley of Sacramento.39 Meanwhile, talks between the County and the City continued and the County secured $1.1 million to fund these needed improvements through assistance by the State of California as well as with donations from local casinos.40 With a plan for funding for a runway expansion, the terminal project became the prime focus.

The County decided to finance the terminal through a lease-back program whereby a developer would pay for the construction and the Couty would lease the terminal over a set period of time. It was presumed that rental income from commercial spaces in the terminal would cover the lease payments, thus negating the requirement for tax-payer funding. Various bids for the 329
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 9 of 18 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
terminal were submitted. In 1968, 19 proposals were submitted with International Aviation Facilities, Inc. (IAF) provided the preferred proposal.41 Shortly after, a rendering of an A-frame design was proposed.42 The runway expansion was dedicated in October 1968, but only a few months after announcing the winning proposal from IAF, progress on the terminal design was stymied. At the time, the issue was reported to be “trouble coming up with an architectural design acceptable to local agencies who want it to be compatible with the Tahoe Area.”43 At the same time, other reports noted that the County wanted to formalize a handoff to the City prior to undertaking the terminal project.44 This second justification for delay seems to be the more accurate, as shortly thereafter in June 1969,45 plans were drawn up for the current terminal showing a design that was remarkably similar to the rendering published in August 1968.46 Construction on the terminal began in early 1970 after removal of the temporary terminal building. It was constructed by Gil Construction of Pacheco47 at a cost of approximately $800,000, with structural engineering design by AV Colosi and Associates of Oakland.48 After years of waiting for a permanent terminal, the final completion and dedication of the building was further delayed as disputes over the funding and financing model for terminal construction festered between county supervisors.49 Regardless, the terminal finally opened to the public in July 1970.50 When the terminal opened in 1970, the airport facilities consisted of the terminal building at the half-way point of the runway, a grouping of three hangars at the north end of the runway (a roughly square hangar, a short and wide rectangular hangar, and a long, narrow rectangular hangar), and an air traffic control tower located between the terminal and the hangars.51 By 1973, there was also a small maintenance facility just south of the terminal (part of the current maintenance building) as well as the Fixed Base Operator building north of the terminal and another square-plan hangar at the north end of the runway (Figure 9).

Figure 10. Aerial view of the airport in 1973. The terminal building is visible and notable by the shadow cast by the steeply pitched A-frame center section. Hangars 1 and 3 are part of the grouping to the top-right. The FBO building is between the hangars and the terminal. The maintenance building is south of the terminal. North is to the right. (UC Santa Barbara Aerial Archive, 1973)
Then, in 1982, the City assumed control of the airport and further expansion took place. By 1987, the parking lot was graded and paved and the maintenance building was expanded slightly to the west. After that the most substantial additions to the airport were construction of the south hangars in 1994.52,53 Other smaller modifications include installation of the helicopter operator’s building (between 1998 and 2004), removal of several hangars at the north end of the runway (between 2004 and 330
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 10 of 18 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
2007) and construction of a new hangar at the north end of the runway (between 2007 and 2012.) Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal
Construction History
The Lake Tahoe Airport terminal was designed conceptually in 1968 with drawings created in 1969. While no original architectural designs are directly attributable to IAF, Inc., a rendering of the company’s 1968 design was published with the announcement of an award to the firm for the terminal (Figure 10).54 Structural designs were completed by A.V. Colosi and Associates of Oakland, California in 1969.55 Minimal alterations to the exterior of the building have occurred (Table 1).

Windows on the west façade have been filled in (date unknown). The interior retains its lofted central volume with exposed beams and ceiling. However, the interior layout was modified in 2006 when most of the building was remodeled to accommodate its current use as the South Lake Tahoe City Hall and Lake Tahoe Airport offices.

Table 1: Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal Construction History Date Alteration / Change Source
1968 IAF, Inc. is awarded the contract for terminal design. Tahoe ‘Port Expands,” Valley Times (North
Hollywood), August 1968,

9. 1969 Plans drawn for terminal building by AV Colosi and Associates Structural Plans on file with the Lake Tahoe Airport
1970 Airport terminal dedicated “Old and New,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, July
16, 1970, 36.
1988 As-Built drawings are drafted by Robert Mason, Architect. The reason for work is not specified. As-builts show airline offices, concessions, and passenger services
Architectural Plans on file
with the Lake Tahoe
Airport
2005 Airport interior remodeled for use as South Lake Tahoe City Hall Architectural Plan on file with the Lake Tahoe
Airport
ca. 2006 South Lake Tahoe City Hall reopens in former terminal building Lake Tahoe Airport, “History of Lake Tahoe’s
Airports,” October 18,
2018, 8.
331
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 11 of 18 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Figure 9. 1968 rendering of the proposed terminal design proposed by IAF, Inc. (“Tahoe ‘Port Expands,” Valley Times, August 7, 1968.)
A-Frame Architecture
A-frame buildings are easily identified by their steeply sloping roofs and prominent triangular form. It is a building type that developed in the early 1950s as an economical design for the rapidly expanding vacation home market.56 Triangular roof forms have been found in traditional buildings throughout the world from Japan to Africa to the South Pacific islands and beyond. It is a strong, practical shape for simple construction that is adaptable to a wide set of geographic conditions.

However, it is generally argued that the modern A-frame does not trace its roots to these designs but rather follows naturally from the idea of a simple, cost-effective type of building that can be adapted for a range of uses and conditions.57 In the United States, the modern A-frame can be traced to Rudolph Schindler’s 1934 design for a triangular cabin for Gisela Bennati at Lake Arrowhead, California.58 The style gained popular appeal after World War II when Interiors magazine selected an A-frame style design by John Campbell (Campbell and Wong) as part of its 1951 “Interiors to Come” collection.59 Campbell called his design the “Leisure House” and it immediately spawned other articles in popular publications celebrating its ease of construction and suitability for do-it-yourself assembly.60 The design was so popular that Campbell soon began offering a pre332 State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 12 of 18 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
packaged kit that was offered through the 1970s.61
Other architect-designed examples proliferated popular design magazines in the 1950s, establishing the A-frame as a respectable design choice for vacation homes across the country. This corresponded to a period when the rapidly growing, post-World War II middle-class had both money and time to devote to recreational activities. At the same time, there were greatly expanded areas for recreation being developed on state and federal lands throughout the country along with new highways to get you there quickly and easily.62
The “A” shaped roof makes the design inherently strong and suitable to mountainous conditions where structural loads from heavy snowfall are a concern.63 In the Lake Tahoe basin as in other mountain regions across the country, the design became ubiquitous, being used for houses, churches, commercial buildings, and even the 1960 Winter Olympics itself.64 It came to symbolize the mountain recreation home of the 1960s. References to A-frames were employed in advertisements as a shorthand reference to demonstrate the modern-nature of the product being advertised or to indicate its ease of use. “No other vacation home design was so instantly recognizable and unambiguous in its connection to the leisure lifestyle.”65 The variations of the A-frame have been classified into eight sub-types (Figure 10). The Lake Tahoe Airport terminal is the “Aframe with wings,” subtype.

Figure 10. There are eight sub-types of A-frames. The Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal is the “A-frame with wings,” subtype. (Mead and Hunt, Historic Context of A-frame Architecture in Boulder County, 106.) Character-defining features of A-frame architecture include:66  A-shaped roof/wall truss system;
 Deep, overhanding eaves/gable ends;
 Large glazing configurations extending across entire façade of one or more walls;  Expansive porches/decks on front and rear walls;
 Skylights and modest dormer windows on side walls to add interior light;  Foundations of stone, concrete, or presence of wooden or concrete piers;  Concrete knee walls no more than two-thirds the height of the first story; and  Rustic elements such as stone chimneys and rough-hewn elements including porches and decks 333
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 13 of 18 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Associated Design Professionals
A.V. Colosi and Associates
A.V. Colosi and Associates is credited as the structural engineer for the construction of the Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal building.

A.V. Colosi and Associates was an engineering firm located in the San Francisco Bay Area in California.67 Little is known about the firm. They are recredited with a number of apartment complexes in the Adams Point neighborhood of Oakland in the 1960s and early 1970s. A review of local newspapers directly attributes the following apartment complexes to the firm: 250 Montecito Avenue (1962), 695 Mariposa Avenue (1963), 499 Chetwood Street (1964), 22 Moss Avenue (1964), 240 Athol Avenue (1964), 420 Burk Street (1965), 320 Park View Terrace (1970), and a 264-unit development in Santa Clara (1970). For some projects they are credited with design and engineering, while for others the credit is for engineering only.68 The firm is named for Albert Vincent Colosi. Archival research did not uncover any further information about the professional career of Colosi or the firm.

International Aviation Facilities, Inc.

International Aviation Facilities, Inc. was a Los Angeles-based transportation corporation “formed and owned by a number of major corporations including Goodyear Tire and Rubber, Co., Lockheed Aircraft International Inc., Glore Forgan, William R.

Staats Inc., Bunke-Ramo Corp., Rucker Co., Haas and Haynie Corp., Arrowsmith Tool and Manufacturing Corp., EG and G Inc., Reynolds Electric Co., Farr Co., Brooks, Harvey and Co., Edwin W. Pauley Associates, Johnson and Turner Co., Acme Delivery Service Inc., Asbury Systems, Barton Truck Lines, Bonanza Trucking Co., Robert S. Carter Associates, and Hill-Elliott Inc.”69 Limited information on the firm could be located.

California Register of Historical Resources
To be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) a historical resource must be significant under one or more of the following criteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

Local Designation - TRPA
334
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 14 of 18 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
South Lake Tahoe does not have its own set of local designation criteria. Rather, the municipal code refers to the Tahoe Regional Planning Authority (TRPA) Code of Ordinances.

2. Resources Associated with Significant Persons
Resources that are associated with the lives of persons significant in history, including regional history, such as:

4. State and Federal Guidelines
Archeological or paleontological resources protected or eligible for protection under state or federal guidelines.

5. Prehistoric Sites
Sites where prehistoric archaeological or paleontological resources that may contribute to the basic understanding of early cultural or biological development in the region.

Significance Evaluation
The Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal is evaluated below for potential historic significance according to National Register Criteria A through D, California Register Criteria 1 through 4 and TRPA criteria 1-3 and 5.

Criteria A/1/1 – Events
The Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal was constructed in 1970, 11 years after the airport first opened. It is not associated with the initial phase of development at the airport, its support of the 1960 Winter Olympic games, or with first decade of growth that followed the development of the Lake Tahoe basin as a recreation destination following the games. It shares no historically significant associations with development of the region in the early 1970s nor is the terminal associated with any period of significant expansion at the airport after its construction. Because the terminal lacks associations with these regional themes, it is recommended ineligible as a historic resource at any level for associations with important events or trends.

Criteria B/2/2 – People
Construction of a permanent terminal at the Lake Tahoe Airport was a constant thread of discussion in newspaper accounts for the first decade the airport operated. Numerous individuals championed the cause in public media but none are directly accredited with the actual construction of the terminal. Research did not uncover any historically significant people whose 335
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 15 of 18 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
productive life is best represented by the terminal building. Because there is a lack of association between the productive lives of historically significant individuals and the Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal, the building is recommended ineligible as a historic resource at any level.

Criteria C/3/3 – Design
Attribution of the architectural design of the Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal to IAF, Inc. is assumed but could not be confirmed.

The structural drawings are associated with A.V. Colosi and Associates, a structural engineering firm based in Oakland. Based on comparisons between promotional renderings released prior to Colosi’s involvement with the project, the design is not attributable to that firm and no other information about designers employed by IAF, Inc. could be located. Therefore, the building does not appear attributable to a master architect, engineer, or designer.

However, as a representative of A-frame architecture, the building is unique. There are other examples of commercial applications of the form both in South Lake Tahoe and in the broader mountain west, but ESA could find no other instance where it was used for an airport terminal. The choice is unusual but also highly specific to the Lake Tahoe region where the Aframe has come to symbolize recreation and leisure. Like many commercial applications, the A-frame served as both a shorthand for fun and vacation time as well as a recognizable differentiator from the standard roadside architecture.70 Use of the Aframe form as an airport terminal serves as a form of advertising to signal to passengers that they had arrived at a recreation destination. It provided a first impression of being in a place of fun and leisure by adapting the language of mountain vacation homes in the area to serve the affluent visitors who could afford to arrive via commercial airline. On top of that, the expanses of glass that characterize the east façade allow for those visitors to enjoy expansive mountain views while they waited for their flights. The A-frame form, as adapted for the airport terminal celebrated the region’s ethos and its natural beauty.

As a unique adaptation of the regional design language of A-frame architecture to an aviation terminal, the Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal is recommended eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C, in the California Register under Criterion 3, and the TRPA register under Criterion 3 for its design. The period of significance is 1970, corresponding to the completion of construction.

The character-defining features of the Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal as those features that exemplify its A-frame architecture:
 A-shaped roof/wall truss system;
 Deep, overhanding eaves on the central A-frame mass and faux-mansard parapet on the wings;  Symmetrical wings that vary in height according to the terrain of the site;  Large glazing configurations extending across entire façades (east and west);  Expansive decks on east walls;
 Siting parallel to both the east mountains and runway;  Modest gabled dormer windows on the north and south roof planes;  Concrete knee walls no more than two-thirds the height of the first story;  Open framing of the A-frame peak, visible from the interior; and  Views through the building to the mountain and wooded setting to the east.

An assessment of integrity is presented below.

The Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal does not appear to have the potential to yield significant information that would expand our current knowledge or theories of design, methods of construction, operation, or other information that is not already known about the period in which the building was constructed, particular method of construction, or design. The building reflects common building practices and uses typical materials that would be expected for its late-20th century construction date. These methods and materials follow convention and are well documented. Therefore, the Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal does not appear to possess individual significance under Criterion D/4/5. 336
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 16 of 18 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Integrity
In addition to being eligible for listing under at least one of the National, California, or TRPA register criteria, a property must also retain sufficient integrity to convey its historical significance. There are seven aspects to consider when evaluating the integrity of a property: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

The Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal has not been relocated, nor has its setting within a wooded space, at the edge of a clearing for the runway and facing the surrounding mountains been altered since the period of significance in 1970. It retains a sense of being in the woods, surrounded by mature trees with views of open space and nature. Therefore, it retains integrity of location, setting, feeling, and also association with the Lake Tahoe Airport.

The building has been altered through infill of many windows on the west façade. This has reduced the original openness of the central A-frame. Infill of windows on portions of the west facades of the north and south wings has also reduced the original transparency of the design. These windows, and the expansive views they afford, are still present on the east façade.

As a result, the building does have reduced integrity of design, materials, and workmanship.

Overall, the building retains the majority of its character-defining features and it is clearly a representation of A-frame architecture. The building retains sufficient integrity for eligibility for listing in the California and local registers. However, it does not retain sufficient integrity for listing in the National Register.

Summary
The Lake Tahoe Terminal Building is recommended individually eligible for listing on the California Register under Criterion 3 for its application of the regionally significant A-frame design to a commercial building. While the building has been modified, including interior reconfiguration and alterations to the fenestration pattern on the primary (west) façade, it retains sufficient integrity for listing in the California Register. As such, it is also recommended eligible for local listing under Criterion 3.

The building is not recommended eligible for the National Register as the building has been modified from its original form through interior changes and alterations to window openings and fenestration patterns. As such it does not retain sufficient integrity for National Register listing.

The Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal qualifies as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. It would not qualify as a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 should such compliance be required in the future. *B12. References: (Continued from page 2)
1 City of South Lake Tahoe, General Plan Update, Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared by PMC, September 2010 (SCH: 2009092049), 4.10-6 – 4.10-7. https://cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/15125/General-Plan-Draft-EnvironmentalImpact-Report?bidId=. 2 Tahoe Fund, “Tahoe’s Environmental History,” accessed May 20, 2025. 3 “Tahoe’s Environmental History.”
4 “Tahoe’s Environmental History.”
5 Judy DePuy, “History: Truckee’s Hilltop and Its Future,” Sierra Sun, January 23, 2023. https://www.sierrasun.com/news/history-truckees-hilltop-and-its-future/ 6 “Sierra Heritage: History of California Skiing,” Tahoetopia.com, accessed May 20, 2025. https://tahoetopia.com/news/sierra-heritage-history-california-skiing. 7 Dino Vournas, “A Look at Lake Tahoe’s Ski History, as Sugar Bowl Turns 80,” San Jose Mercury News, November 7, 2019. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/06/a-look-back-at-lake-tahoes-sugar-bowl-as-it-turns-80/. 8 Sugarbowl, “Skiing Happy Since 1939,” accessed May 20, 2025. https://www.sugarbowl.com/history 9 Palisades Tahoe, “History Runs Deep,” accessed May 20, 2025. https://www.palisadestahoe.com/explore/our-history 10 Jenny Goldsmith, “2020 Hindsight: Looking Back on 100 Years of Historical Events at Lake Tahoe,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, February 27, 2020.
11 “45 Years Later – Lake Tahoe Feels Ripples of 1960 Games,” The Union, March 3, 2005. Accessed May 20, 2025. https://www.theunion.com/news/local-news/45-years-later-lake-tahoe-feels-ripples-of-1960-games/article_7747cd38- 34aa-5673-8d1d-03f99da21355.html.

337
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 17 of 18 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)

12 “45 Years Later.”
13 Miranda Jacobson, “Taking Lake Tahoe to New Heights: Development History in the Basin,” Sierra Sun, December 27, 2022, accessed May 20, 2025. https://www.sierrasun.com/news/taking-lake-tahoe-to-new-heights-development-history-inthe-basin/. 14 Lake Tahoe Airport, “History of Lake Tahoe’s Airports,” October 18, 2018, 2. https://cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/12754/10182018_AIRPORT-HISTORY. 15 “History and Reason for Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Listed,” Tahoe Sierra Tribune, October 22, 1959, 4. 16 “History of Lake Tahoe’s Airports,” 2.
17 “Airport Manager Operator Term Master Plan as Not Realistic,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, September 3, 1959. 18 Promotional brochure, August 1963.
19 “Airport Work Reprogramming Approved; Lights, Beacons scheduled for November 15,” Tahoe Mountain Tribune, August 27, 1959.
20 “1170 Operations Reported for Moth at Tahoe Airport,” Tahoe Mountain Tribune, December 1, 1959. 21 “History and Reason,” October 22, 1959.
22 The Lake Tahoe Airport has two scrapbooks of newspaper clippings that informed this statement. While most clippings are dated, many lack references to a specific publication. It is assumed that most are attributed to the Tahoe Sierra Tribune or the Tahoe Daily Tribune.
23 “History and Reason,” October 22, 1959.
24 “The Lake Tahoe Airport,” Tahoe Realty News, May 1, 1960. 25 “The Lake Tahoe Airport,” May 1, 1960.
26 “County Seeks Lease-Back Offers for Tahoe Airport Terminal,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, April 4, 1968, A3. 27 “FAAP’s at Tahoe, Too,” promotional brochure, August 1963. 28 The dating of this hangar is based on comparisons of a 1962 aerial photograph where no such hangar is shown and a 1964 newspaper photo depicting the hangar in operations prior to construction of the control tower. 29 In June 1963, Bridgeford Flying Services was under a lease agreement to construct a hangar at the airport. An article from that time noted that it had yet to comply. Based on the dimensions and construction described, this hangar may be Hangar 1. “Airport Terminal Proposal Rejected by Supervisors,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, June 11, 1963, 1. 30 “FAA Tower at Tahoe Easily Justifies its Construction, “Tahoe Daily Tribune, November 4, 1965, 12. 31 “FAA Tower,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, November 4, 1965.
32 “Nearing Completion,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, October 5, 1964. 33 “Proposed Terminal,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, January 26, 1965. 34 “Airport Terminal Proposal Rejected,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, June 11, 1963, 1. 35 “Supervisors See Big Future for Airport,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, July 1, 1965. 36 “City Asked to Take Over Tahoe Airport Operation,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, December 2, 1965. 37 “Should City Take Over Lake Tahoe’s Airport,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, January 6, 1966. 38 “County Orders Updated Master Plan for Tahoe Airport,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, October 12, 1967, 1. 39 “County Orders,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, October 12, 1967. 40 “County Receives Money for Tahoe Airport Runway Project,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, July 20, 1968, 1. 41 “County Considering Lease-Back for New Tahoe Airport Terminal,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, August 1, 1968, 1 & 3. 42 “A-Frame Plus,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, August 8, 1968, 41.

338
State of California — Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 18 of 18 ends

*Recorded by: Becky Urbano, ESA *Date: May 2025  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)

43 Ceremonies Friday Will Re-Open Tahoe Airport,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, October 24, 1968, 12. 44 “A-Frame Plus,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, August 8, 1968, 41. 45 “Architect for Tahoe Air Terminal,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, February 13, 1969, 3. 46 “Structural Plan,” prepared by AV Colosi and Associates, dated June 16, 1969, on file with the Lake Tahoe Airport. 47 “Contract Let for Tahoe Airport Terminal Building,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, August 7, 1969, 27. 48 “Architect for Tahoe,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, February 13, 1969. 49 “No Water – But Tahoe Airport Terminal Opening on Weekend,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, May 21, 1970, 10. 50 “Old and New,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, July 16, 1970, 36. 51 All these buildings, minus the terminal, are shown on a 1969 aerial as viewed in Google Earth. 52 “Pilots Now Have Place to Store Planes,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, date unknown. 53 Architectural Plans, September 1993. On file with the Lake Tahoe Airport. 54 “Tahoe ‘Port Expands,” Valley Times (North Hollywood), August 1968, 9. 55 Structural plans on file with the Lake Tahoe Airport. 56 Washington State Department of Archaeology + Historic Preservation (DAHP), “A-Frame, 1950-1990,” Historic Buildings Architectural Style Guide, accessed March 26, 2025. https://dahp.wa.gov/historic-preservation/historicbuildings/architectural-style-guide/a-frame. 57 Chad Randl, A-Frame, (Princeton Architectural Press, 2020), 15, 23. 58 Randl, A-Frame, 24 & 26-27.
59 Randl, A-Frame, 51-52.
60 Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses,” (Alfred A. Knopf, 2021), 660. 61 Randl, A-Frame, 56-59.
62 Mead & Hunt, Historic Context of A-frame Architecture in Boulder County, prepared for Boulder County Land Use Department, April 2018, 20.
63 DAHP, “A-Frame: 1950-1990.”
64 Randl, A-Frame, 115. The visitor center for the 1960 Winter Olympic games was designed as a double A-frame subtype.

The building currently serves as the Members Locker Room at Palisades Tahoe. 65 Randl, A-Frame, 154.
66 Mead & Hunt, 97. While Mead and Hunt focused primarily on residential representations of A-frame architecture, the list of character-defining features presented here is universal to all adaptations of the style. 67 In 1967, the firm is listed under both structural and civil engineering with an address of 3261 Grand Avenue in Oakland.

Polk’s Oakland City Directory, 1967, 190-191.
68 Most of these listings are from the Oakland Tribune. 69 “Port Project Revived,” Oakland Tribune, August 7, 1969, 17. 70 Randl, A-Frame, 127-128.
339
340
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Appendix D
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Determination
341
342
September 3, 2025
Milan Jevic, C. M.

Interim Airport Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
[email protected]
Re: 2025 Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Draft Environmental Analysis Mr. Jevic:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan and environmental analysis. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) appreciates the ongoing coordination with the City and other stakeholders throughout this planning process.

According to the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed plan is an update to the “long-range plan for airport development that is intended to meet identified facility requirements and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design standards.” In short, we understand that the 20-year Master Plan was prompted by FAA funding requirements, and the scope was developed to ensure the existing airport’s operational infrastructure (e.g. taxiways) meet FAA guidelines. This is an update to the 2017 Airport Master Plan, with the City of South Lake Tahoe serving as the CEQA lead agency.

To summarize, the proposed improvements within the draft Airport Master Plan include the following:
• Reconstruction of an existing ground service equipment maintenance facility; • Demolition of an existing air traffic control tower;
• Incorporation of proposed bike paths consistent with the regional Active Transportation Plan (ATP);
• Removal of four aircraft tie-downs and construction of four new aircraft box hangars; • Installation of electrical vault and electric aircraft charging stations; • Removal and relocation of coverage associated with taxiways and runway; • Relocation of mechanical equipment and other improvements; and, • Construction of a parking garage structure.

Through our participation in the planning process, TRPA understands the proposed parking garage is contemplated in other planning documents as a potential mobility hub with shuttle service to Emerald Bay and surrounding locations. Importantly, the garage is not intended to increase airport operational capacity, nor would it be funded in whole or in part with FAA resources. Its inclusion in the Master Plan is for the limited purpose of analyzing potential airspace impacts. 343

TRPA APPROVAL PROCESS FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT Under TRPA Code of Ordinances section 14.2.2.A and Chapter 13, a TRPA-approved Master Plan or Area Plan is required for projects that expand airport facilities or commercial passenger air service. Expansion is defined as any project that increases development rights (e.g., commercial floor area, tourist accommodation units, residential units), land coverage, vehicle trips for airport operations, or airport operational capacity.1
Projects that do not increase development rights, land coverage, vehicle trips for airport operations, or airport operational capacity do not trigger the requirement for a TRPA-approved Master Plan. Such projects may, however, still require project-level TRPA review and approval. For example, the proposed removal or relocation of land coverage associated with the runways, taxiways, or the parking garage would require project-specific TRPA review and approval consistent with the Code of Ordinances.

Additionally, prior to or concurrent with future development, the City should reconcile land capability and coverage information to determine specific coverages and development potential, as well as existing easements, for each parcel. The Lake Tahoe Airport property consists of 17 parcels. The existing land capability and coverage verifications (TRPA File #s LCAP2010-0100 and VBOC2010-0326) summarize this information for the Lake Tahoe Airport property as a whole and do not differentiate what land capability or coverage amounts are associated with each parcel.

TRPA REVIEW OF DRAFT MASTER PLAN
Based on our review of the draft Master Plan, and coordination with the City’s consulting team and Airport Manager at the time of the planning process (John Dickinson), TRPA understands that the proposed improvements outlined within the draft plan are narrowly focused on compliance with FAA standards. The plan does not appear to propose any increase in operational capacity (i.e.it proposes to continue operations as-is, no expansion), development rights, land coverage, or airport-related vehicle trips. The existing airport does not have any commercial passenger air service, nor is any proposed as part of this master plan.

Therefore, TRPA has determined that the Draft Master Plan does not require TRPA approval or action at this time. No further applications or documentation, including an IEC, are required. Please contact TRPA staff with any questions regarding project-level review and approval as individual projects move forward.

Kind regards,
Wendy Jepson,
Permitting & Compliance Department Manager
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
1 The attached letter dated June 10, 2020 from TRPA staff to former Airport Manager Mark Gibbs summarizes historical background on the airport master plan and TRPA approvals. 344
Cc:

Julie Regan, Executive Director, TRPA
Graham St.Michel, General Counsel, TRPA
Michelle Glickert, Transportation Planning Program Manager, TRPA Jennifer Self, Principal Planner, TRPA
John Dickinson, Acting Public Works Director, City of South lake Tahoe Patrick Hickman, Managing Planner, Environmental Science Associates Attachment:

Email to former Airport Manager, Mark Gibbs, from TRPA staff, June 10, 2020. 345
1 Jennifer Self
From: Jennifer Self
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 11:52 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Mark Johnson; John Hester; John Marshall; Wendy Jepson Subject: FW: South Lake Tahoe Airport Development
Hi Mark,
I received an email from Mark Johnson on May 20 regarding a future redevelopment proposal at the airport. Mark forwarded your email that outlines considerations and the approval process as it pertains to the FAA, CalTrans, and the City. He asked that I speak to the TRPA approval process.

Given that the City is exploring alternatives for the property, we wanted to make sure that there was clear direction on our end to avoid any surprises down the road. I have worked with our staff and legal counsel to outline what the TRPA process entails.

There are ample studies, analyses, and reports completed in the last few years that outline the environmental and financial considerations, so I will not go into those aspects. Again, this is intended to speak directly to the TRPA approval process.

The information and process steps you outlined for Mark are incredibly helpful. Please see the information below to supplement that.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions regarding this email.

Best,
Jennifer
TRPA APPROVAL PROCESS FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT A TRPA adopted master plan or area plan (in accordance to Chapters 13 and 14 of the TRPA Code) is required prior to any future project that would increase development rights (i.e. commercial floor area, tourist accommodation units, residential units), land coverage, or vehicle trips for the airport property. For more information on these, see below.

Projects that do not increase development rights, land coverage, or vehicle trips (e.g. coverage restoration or relocation, reconfiguration of existing facilities with similar use, etc.) would not be required to complete a master plan or area plan.

Any development project that does not fall under the MOU between the City and TRPA, would need to come to TRPA for review and approval prior to review by the City’s Development Services Division. Any project exceeding the size limitations in Policy LU‐4.12 of the Regional Plan must be reviewed by TRPA.

Additionally, prior to future development or concurrent with a project, the City would also need to reconcile the land capability and coverage information to determine specific coverages and development potential, as well as existing easements, for each parcel. There are 17 parcels that comprise the Lake Tahoe Airport property. The existing land capability and coverage verifications (TRPA File #s LCAP2010‐0100 and VBOC2010‐0326) summarize this information for the Lake Tahoe Airport property as a whole and do not differentiate what land capability or coverage amounts are associated with each parcel.

Background on Airport Master Plan
346
2 As part of the 1992 settlement agreement between the City, TRPA, the League to Save Lake Tahoe, and the California Attorney General; the City prepared the Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan and environmental analysis. TRPA adopted the Plan and certified the final EIR/EIS, per the agreement. Pursuant to TRPA’s Rules of Procedure, the Governing Board was charged with reviewing the final EIS and making a determination (or certification) on its compliance, substantively and procedurally, with Article VII of the Compact, Chapter 3 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, and Article VI of the Rules of Procedure.

The settlement agreement and subsequent plan put into place the single event noise environmental threshold standards for aircraft arrivals and departures as well as a maximum community noise equivalent level for the Lake Tahoe Airport Corridor. The settlement agreement also upheld TRPA’s authority to implement and enforce noise thresholds and flight limits without challenge by the City or FAA. The intent behind the standards was to limit commercial flights and control noise within the Region.

The City initiated the Airport Master Plan Update in 2013, with funding from the FAA, in order to determine the current and future potential of the airport. The plan was primarily focused on maintaining general aviation versus allowing for commercial service.

During the Master Plan update, the City consulted with TRPA staff. Per direction from TRPA’s legal counsel, as long as airport projects do not increase development rights (CFA, TAUs, residential units, PAOTs, land coverage) or vehicle trips, TRPA adoption of the updated Master Plan was not required. (TRPA Code 14.2.2.A) According to the City staff, the thinking at the time was that the City would be able to implement airfield Alternative 2 and landside Alternative C that were recommended in the Phase 2 report within these parameters and thus did not seek adoption and certification from TRPA. If there is a desire to increase development rights, then adoption of an updated master plan or an area plan is required.

Master plans and area plans adopted by TRPA and in compliance with the Regional Plan provide detailed planning goals, policies, and standards for a specified area. These refine and supersede land use strategies and environmental protection mechanisms called for in the plan area statements. (The airport property is located within four plan area statements ‐ Airport, Country Club, Trout/Cold Creek, and Truckee Marsh PASs.) The alternative to a master plan is an area plan, or to expand the Tahoe Valley Area Plan and possibly the town center boundaries. A citywide area plan was being considered by Frank Rush and Hilary Roverud as recently as last year. The area plan serves a similar purpose to a master plan – localized planning strategies for a given area. A few advantages of an area plan over a master plan are the ability to develop an alternative coverage management system and alternative transfer ratios for development rights for the area. If the town center boundary is expanded, this affords a wide range of incentives from increased density allowances, transfer bonuses, etc. To determine if this is a viable option, we need to look into specific findings to see if these can be met for the property.

Both the master plan or an area plan would be initiated by the City and is required to be developed in compliance with the Regional Plan, including threshold standards. An area plan would be adopted by TRPA Governing Board and the City.

As always, TRPA staff are available to discuss these options or the TRPA approval process further.

Jennifer Self
Acting Principal Planner
& Long Range Planning Program Manager
775.589.5261
347
3 Connecting people with information to improve decision making and sustain investments in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
https://laketahoeinfo.org/
The information contained in or attached to this email may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), any review, use, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited; please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original and all copies of this message and any attachment(s). Thank you.

From: Mark Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 2:43 PM
To: Jennifer Self <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: South Lake Tahoe Airport Development
Thanks....your awesome for doing that! I have had some good meetings and learning alot over the last couple weeks.

Mark
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 4:38 PM Jennifer Self <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Mark,
I reached out to a few other staff members who were more familiar with the airport site than I am. We are working on gathering some information and will send it over as soon as it is ready.

Best,
Jennifer

Jennifer Self
Acting Principal Planner
& Long Range Planning Program Manager
775.589.5261
348
4 Connecting people with information to improve decision making and sustain investments in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
https://laketahoeinfo.org/
The information contained in or attached to this email may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), any review, use, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited; please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original and all copies of this message and any attachment(s). Thank you.

From: Mark Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:48 AM
To: Jennifer Self <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: South Lake Tahoe Airport Development

Good morning. I received this email from Mark Gibbs yesterday. It was loaded with awesome information. Would you mind addressing paragraph 3 & 4 for me please?

I will be in town next Wed and Thurs. If further discussions are needed while Im there please let me know.

I will be using the City to facilitate the ARP review and make sure TRPA is involved.

Have a great day!
349
5 Mark Johnsonn
530‐417‐5811
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Mark Gibbs <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM
Subject: RE: South Lake Tahoe Airport Development
To: Mark Johnson <[email protected]>
Cc: Joseph Irvin <[email protected]>, Ray Jarvis <[email protected]>, Kevin Fabino <[email protected]>, Kyle Jenkins <[email protected]>

Mark:

Thank you for reaching out to me last week. Sorry for the delay getting back to you. This email broadly establishes the planning framework required to undertake a major airport development project. These are things to think about when exploring a possible development of a hotel/conference/retail complex at this Airport. Just as any development in Lake Tahoe, environmental review and compliance are significant areas of redress and drivers of the planning process (and ultimately what is achievable in development).

I have attached a few documents that can aid you understand the airport’s current financial picture in addition to many development concepts that were vetted with the express purpose of meeting a City Council priority that the airport seek all means to realize financial self‐sufficiency from the City’s General Fund. The airport concluded that based on the current financial arrangement and strict limits on land coverage that the highest and best use was a public boat/rv storage facility at the basin and additional aircraft hangars to meet demand. City Council at the time did not wish to take on the capital risk and finance the project. Hence, the airport is open to discussions on these development proposals in addition to yours if there is interest. Many of the proposals show the same sort of development conditions present for a hotel/retail/conference center. A hotel is consistent with City Plan Area Statement 116‐ Airport which allows for this as a permitted use under “tourist accommodation” under the currently approved plan. Furthermore, the FAA and Caltrans typically finds hotel development a compatible land use if such proposed development does not adversely impact existing aeronautical uses.

As initially discussed over the telephone what you are envisioning requires changes to the Airport Master Plan Update that was last approved by City Council in 2017. Unfortunately, the 2017 Airport Master Plan Update, we both inherited, did not envision hotel/retail/conference center proposed by you. Also important, the 2017 Airport Master Plan Update was never approved by the TRPA so any individual project proposal would need to be vetted by the TRPA on a project specific basis. Any major update to the development of the airport as proposed would require an Airport Layout Plan Update with Narrative Report which is a “mini” airport master plan specific to a major development change at an obligated airport that was not addressed through the last airport master plan update. Any Airport Layout Plan Update would need approval by the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure any development does not adversely effect the safety, efficiency or operation of the airport. Caltrans Division of Aeronautics will also review and approve the Airport Layout Plan Update Narrative Report to ensure compatible development within the airport’s safety 350
6 zones. Safety Zones are a component of the Lake Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Finally our City Development Services Division must review and approve any new development through a major design review process to meet City land use compatibility and development impacts to the community as a whole.

Since the City never received TPRA approval of the Airport Master Plan; the airport is trying to seek approvals for development on an individual project basis with limited success under my term. The TRPA is unwilling at this time to approve a comprehensive plan for development at the airport. In 2020, TRPA asked for the airport to submit a new Land Capability Map for verification prior to reviewing any development proposals. The 2010 Land Capability Map was apparently approved by the TRPA with omissions. TRPA input is very important as there are planning costs associated with making any changes to proposed development at the airport. What the City does not want is to get three approvals but the TRPA finds a fatal flaw in a development site or concept. I would recommend TRPA involvement at the very earliest opportunity based on past history.

Overall the airport planning process involves tackling these major elements. I tried to distill hundreds of pages of regulatory guidance into major elements of large scale airport development projects.

• Establishing an Airport Master Plan, Airport Layout Plan Update Narrative Report or other visioning tool; • Aligning airport and community goals; community consideration/consultation; • Setting a leasing policy;
• Ensure contracting mechanisms comply with Federal Aviation Administration Airport Sponsor Grant Assurances (#5,6,7,8,20,21,,24,29,31)
• Providing flexibility throughout the development process; • Coordinating with local, state, and federal agencies, when appropriate.

Airport Manager’s Recommended Steps to Develop Airport Property for New Development Not Previously Approved in 2017 Airport Master Plan Update.

Please note that depending on the nature of environmental review it may take 3 years to obtain all approvals.

351
7 1. Contract document to establish P3 relationship in Airport Planning Process (resource allocation, who pays for what, etc.)

2. Provide for initial environmental scoping meeting with FAA San Francisco Airport District Office of Environmental Compliance for project proposal. This is a MUST DO per FAA Order 5050.4B, Airport Environmental Compliance Handbook. Tiering of environmental review is encouraged and airport sector environmental review is very complex. Hence, the need for early involvement of FAA in outlining the environmental review process for a development project. FAA also will determine schedule for NEPA compliance (timeline).

3. Consult with TRPA on how to handle airport development as the TRPA is not using TRPA Code of Ordinances

14.2.2A Airports approval process and has not provided City on their “preferred” approval process so new development remains a grey area that needs early coordination. Any proposed changes to land coverage should be voiced early on in the process.

4. Establish FMV on non‐aeronautical use of property (appraisal) required for FAA formal Land Release (see step 5). 352
8 5. Obtain Land Release (Federal Action) to convert portions designated aeronautical/terminal to non‐aeronautical (NEPA Environmental Review Triggered FAA Order 5050.4B Section 207.) Maybe an Categorical Exclusion or EA/EIS based on use or extraordinary circumstances of the released land (future use) that are probable due to location of airport in Lake Tahoe.

6. Airport Layout Plan Update Narrative Report . ALP approval by FAA is either Mixed, Unconditional or Conditional Approval See Environmental Appendix B.Page B‐1 a. City Council formally adopts new Airport Layout Plan Update b. Airport Layout Plan Update also must be provided to Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. c. FAA must approve ALP with proposed development depicted. If it is not on the approved ALP the development cannot proceed until it is shown on the approved ALP.

7. Project Specific Environmental Review on Proposed Development *Tiering encouraged from Neg mitigated declaration 2017 Airport Master Plan Update* (Adopting ALP triggers CEQA and NEPA review). Costs for preparation of environmental review at project proponent expense §21089. Costs for preparing an ALP Update for airport development is at the cost of the project proponent and is not eligible for Federal funding. ALP Update approval is considered a “Federal Action” triggering environmental review under NEPA. Cost for NEPA compliance with ALP Approval is at the expense of the project proponent (City or Developer; TBD) a. Project Specific TRPA / CEQA Initial Study PRC§21083.5 which may likely result in a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR. May also require CEQA scoping meetings depending on nature of environmental impact level
b. NEPA EA or EIS completed either during ALP approval process “Mixed ALP Approval” or “Unconditionally ALP Approval” or at time project is “ripe” for environmental review as a “Conditionally Approved ALP” which only requires a Categorical Exclusion but does require future environmental review under NEPA as designated by FAA official.
c. Robust coordination with local tribal agencies as well as federal, state and local resource agencies.

8. City of South Lake Tahoe General Development Application for the proposed development project required

9. Development Agreement and Airport Land Lease Agreement(s) once planning approvals obtained.

Great source for reference is Guidebook for Developing & Leasing Airport Property, published by the Airport Cooperative Research Board, an arm of the National Academies of Sciences, Medicine and Engineering.

Supporting documents for other airport development plans, airport land capability map, and current approved Airport Layout Plan are available here as resources https://cityofsouthlaketahoe‐ my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/mgibbs_cityofslt_us/Ei3pmI3RX9pFqfa85e5qTpoBrnNlIeQReBNjQRMQTYRlLQ?e=aGi R3Z

Mark, I am sorry to provide you with so much but you did ask me a lot of very good questions. I believe this email actually provides you with 80% of the information you desired. The other 20% left my mind during our telephone conversation so I apologize. You really did have some thoughtful questions/comments; so thank you for those. I believe I will be meeting you in person next Thursday at the Joe Irvin’s Office. I look forward to seeing you in person.

353
9 Sincerely,

Mark Gibbs, A.A.E.

Airport Manager
Lake Tahoe Airport (TVL)
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Suite 100
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Tel: (530) 542-6182
Cell: (530) 208-8074
Fax: (530) 544-6366
Email: [email protected]

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use, or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, or authorized to receive for the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. Thank you for your consideration.

From: Mark Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 11:35 AM
To: Mark Gibbs <[email protected]>
Subject: Airport

354
10 Great talk today. This is my email.

Mark Johnson
530‐417‐5811
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected] 355
356
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Appendix E
Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
357
358
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan E-1 ESA/D202100181.08
Final IS/MND

APPENDIX E
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Introduction
The purpose of this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is to describe the roles and responsibilities in the mitigation monitoring process for the proposed project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. A reporting and monitoring program ensures that measures adopted to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts are implemented. It is a working guide to facilitate not only the implementation of mitigation measures, but also the monitoring, compliance, and reporting activities.

The measures identified in this MMRP were developed as part of the IS/MND prepared for the proposed project and is defined by CEQA as a measure which minimizes impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.

Monitoring and documenting the implementation of mitigation measures will be coordinated by the City (CEQA Lead Agency). Table E-1 identifies the mitigation measure, the monitoring action for the mitigation measure, the responsible party for the monitoring action, and timing of the monitoring action.

The City will monitor and report on all mitigation activities. As such, the responsibilities for implementation shall be assigned to the City of South Lake Tahoe. 359
E. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan E-2 ESA/D202100181.08
Final IS/MND
TABLE E-1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact Topic Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Timing
Biological
Resources
BIO-1: Conduct Nesting Bird Surveys. For construction activities that occur between March 1 and August 31, preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with bird behavior and knowledge of nest types prior to and within 14 days of any initial ground-disturbance activities. Surveys shall be conducted on foot within all suitable nesting habitat within 250 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors, to the extent feasible. If active nests are identified at the time of the survey, a minimum 50-foot radius exclusion zone for passerines shall be established and flagged.

Active raptor or special-status species nests shall be protected by a buffer with a minimum radius of 250 feet. These distances may be adjusted depending on the level of surrounding ambient activity (i.e., if the project site is adjacent to a road or community development) and if an obstruction is within line-of-sight between the nest and construction. For bird species that are federally and/or State-listed special-status species (i.e., fully protected, endangered, threatened, species of special concern), the City of South Lake Tahoe shall consult with the USFWS and/or CDFW regarding modifying nest buffers, prohibiting construction within the buffer, modifying construction, and removing or relocating active nests that are found on the site. Each exclusion zone will remain in place until the nest has successfully fledged or is otherwise inactive as determined by a qualified biologist. The following are conditions of this measure:
• Survey results are valid for 14 days from the survey date. Should ground disturbance commence later than 14 days from the survey date, surveys will be repeated. If no nesting birds are encountered, then work may proceed as planned. • After commencement of work if there is a period of no work activity of 14 days or longer during the bird breeding season (March 1 to August 31), surveys will be repeated to ensure birds have not established nests during inactivity. If new nests are encountered buffers shall be established.
• Any birds that begin nesting within the project site and survey buffers amid construction activities shall be assumed to be habituated to construction-related or similar noise and disturbance levels and minimum work exclusion zones of 25 feet shall be established around active nests in these cases.

City of South Lake
Tahoe Department
of Public Works
City of South Lake
Tahoe Director of
Public Works or the
Director’s designee
Prior to ground or
vegetation
disturbing activities
Biological
Resources
BIO-2: Protect Water Quality of Upper Truckee River. The following BMPs will be implemented to protect water quality and special-status fish species in the Upper Truckee River.
• No construction equipment will be allowed to enter or drive through the creek, except where the existing in-water road crossing occurs in the northeastern portion of the Airport property.
• All equipment and tools will be inspected for the presence of undesirable species and cleaned prior to entering the work area at each location to reduce the risk of introducing nonnative plant or animal species.

City of South Lake
Tahoe Department
of Public Works
City of South Lake
Tahoe Director of
Public Works or the
Director’s designee
Prior to ground or
vegetation
disturbing activities
360
E. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan E-3 ESA/D202100181.08
Final IS/MND
Impact Topic Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Timing
• Staging and storage areas for equipment, materials, fuels, lubricants, and solvents will not be located within 150 feet of the stream. Stationary equipment such as cranes, motors, pumps, generators, compressors, and welders will be positioned over drippans. Non-stationary vehicles and equipment will be moved at least 150 feet from the stream prior to refueling and lubrication.
• Raw cement, concrete, or washings thereof, asphalt, equipment fluids or lubricants, paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other substances that could be hazardous to fish or wildlife resulting from or disturbed by project-related activities, will be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering waterways. • All personnel involved in the use of hazardous materials should be trained in emergency response and spill control.
• No litter or debris will be allowed to enter any waterway or placed in a location where it could be washed into a waterway. All such debris will be picked up daily and properly disposed of at an offsite location.

Biological
Resources
BIO-3: Perform Preconstruction Surveys for Special-Status Plant Species. For construction activities outside of currently developed hardscape areas and that would include ground disturbance or vegetation removal, a qualified botanist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for all special-status species, including all CNPS-listed species with the potential to occur within the area of disturbance. The survey shall be floristic in nature and shall follow the procedures outlined in CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. If special-status plant species are found, the City of South Lake Tahoe shall consult with CDFW to provide further measures to avoid/minimize impacts to identified special-status plants.

City of South Lake
Tahoe Department
of Public Works
City of South Lake
Tahoe Director of
Public Works or the
Director’s designee
Prior to ground or
vegetation
disturbing activities
Biological
Resources
BIO-4: Avoid Impacts to Waters of the United States and State, either through Avoidance, Restoration, or Compensation. Prior to construction activities outside of currently developed hardscape areas that would include ground disturbance or vegetation removal, a wetland delineation shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if there are any wetland or waters subject to federal or state jurisdiction or subject to any permits or approvals by federal, state or local resource agencies. The wetland delineation shall be submitted to the USACE for verification. The City of South Lake Tahoe shall use the results of the wetland delineation to refine site plans in order avoid impacts to any jurisdictional features to the extent possible. If total avoidance is not possible, the City of South Lake Tahoe shall obtain the required permits prior to the implementation of construction activities. The anticipated required permits include a Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit from the USACE; a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board; and a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) from the CDFW. All permit requirements such as restoration for temporary impacts or compensation for permanent impacts shall be implemented to mitigate for loss of waters of the United States or state and reduce impacts to water quality during construction. In addition to federal or state requirements, setbacks and or mitigation as required by TRPA Section 61.1 (Tree Removal) of the TRPA Code of City of South Lake
Tahoe Department
of Public Works
City of South Lake
Tahoe Director of
Public Works or the
Director’s designee
Prior to ground or
vegetation
disturbing activities
361
E. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan E-4 ESA/D202100181.08
Final IS/MND
Impact Topic Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Timing
Ordinances, Section 33.6, Vegetation Protection During Construction and Chapter 61, Vegetation and Forest Health shall be integrated into project design plans.

Cultural
Resources
CUL-1: Cultural Resources Awareness Training. Before any ground-disturbing and/or construction activities, an archaeologist meeting or under the supervision of an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (SOI PQS) for Archeology shall conduct a training program for all construction and field personnel involved in project-related ground disturbance prior to such personnel conducting any on-site activities. If a Native American tribe has expressed interest in the project via AB 52 or Section 106-related tribal consultation, they shall be invited to participate in the training program. The training shall outline the general archaeological sensitivity of the area and the procedures to follow if an archaeological resource and/or human remains are inadvertently discovered during project-related activities.

City of South Lake
Tahoe Department
of Public Works
City of South Lake
Tahoe Director of
Public Works or the
Director’s designee
Prior to ground or
vegetation
disturbing activities
Cultural
Resources
CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. If pre-contact or historic-era archaeological resources are encountered during project implementation, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt, and a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (SOI PQS) for Archeology, shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery and notify the City of Lake Tahoe of their initial assessment. Pre-contact archaeological materials might include: obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (midden) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools (e.g., hammerstones, pitted stones). Historic-era materials might include building or structure footings and walls, and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.

If the City of Lake Tahoe determines, based on recommendations from the archaeologist and, if the resource is indigenous and a Native American tribe has expressed interest, a Native American tribe, that the resource may qualify as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource (as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5) or a tribal cultural resource (as defined in PRC Section 21080.3) the resource shall be avoided, if feasible. Consistent with Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.

If avoidance is not feasible, the City of Lake Tahoe shall consult with appropriate Native American tribes (if the resource is pre-contact), and other appropriate interested parties to determine treatment measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any potential impacts to the resource pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. This shall include documentation of the resource and may include data recovery (according to PRC Section 21083.2), if deemed appropriate, or other actions such as treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity and protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource (according to PRC Section 21084.3).

City of South Lake
Tahoe Department
of Public Works
Construction Inspector/
Archaeologist
During project
construction
362
E. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan E-5 ESA/D202100181.08
Final IS/MND
Impact Topic Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Timing
Cultural
Resources
CUL-3: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during construction activities, all such activities within 100 feet of the find shall cease until the El Dorado County Coroner has been contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted within 24 hours if the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American. The NAHC shall then identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American, who in turn would make recommendations to USACE for the appropriate means of treating the human remains and any grave goods.

City of South Lake
Tahoe Department
of Public Works
Construction Inspector/
Archaeologist
During project
construction
Geology and
Soils
GEO-1: Unanticipated Discovery Protocol for Paleontological Resources. If suspected paleontological resources, such as fossil materials, bones, teeth, shells, plant impressions, are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all activity in the vicinity of the discovery shall cease until the discovery is evaluated by a qualified paleontologist. If the paleontologist determines that the resources may be significant, no further work in the vicinity of the resources shall take place until appropriate treatment is determined and implemented.

City of South Lake
Tahoe Department
of Public Works
Construction Inspector/
Paleontologist
During project
construction
Noise NOI-1: Implement Construction Noise Mitigation Plan. Construction contractors shall be required to implement a Construction Noise Mitigation Plan to ensure that noise levels at sensitive receptors within the City of South Lake Tahoe will not experience noise levels more than 55 dBA Leq during project construction to comply with the established City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan requirements. Noise reduction measures implemented may include but not be limited to the following measures.

Designated
Construction
Contractor
Construction Inspector During project
construction
Noise NOI-2: Construction Vibration Minimization Plan. Before the issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permit (whichever comes first) for work within 200 feet of an existing structure, the project sponsor shall submit a Construction Vibration Minimization Plan prepared by an acoustical and/or structural engineer or other appropriate qualified professional to the City for review and approval. • The Construction Vibration Minimization Plan shall establish pre-construction baseline conditions and threshold levels of vibration that could damage structures located within 200 feet of construction. The plan shall also include measures to limit vibration from construction equipment when operating within 200 feet of structures to achieve a performance standard of 0.02 in/sec as required by the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan Policy HS-6.3. Measures may include but not be limited to:
• Prohibit impact, sonic, or vibratory pile driving methods where feasible. Drilled piles cause lower vibration levels where geological conditions permit their use. • Limit other vibration-inducing equipment to the extent feasible. • Submit a list of all heavy construction equipment to be used for this project known to produce high vibration levels (e.g., tracked vehicles, vibratory compaction, jackhammers, hoe rams) to the City. This list shall be used to identify equipment and activities that would potentially generate substantial vibration and to define the level of effort required for continuous vibration monitoring.

City of South Lake
Tahoe Department
of Public Works
Construction Inspector During project
construction
363
E. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan E-6 ESA/D202100181.08
Final IS/MND
Impact Topic Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Timing
• Where vibration-inducing equipment is deemed necessary for construction work within 200 feet of a structure, include details outlining implementation of continued vibration monitoring.

All construction contracts and approved plans shall include notes with reviewer-identified limitations and diagrams to avoid impacts on historic resources. 364
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Appendix F
Comments and Responses
365
366
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan F-1 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND

APPENDIX F
Comments and Responses
This appendix includes comment letters received during the public review period for the Draft IS/MND (from October 6, 2025 to November 5, 2025) and written responses that address each substantive environmental issue that was raised by commenters. In accordance with CEQA, the responses to comments focus on addressing physical environmental effects that could result with implementation of the proposed project. None of the comments provide substantial new information or issues that necessitated corrections or revisions to the analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft IS/MND.

Summaries of the comment letters received are provided in Table F-1. The comment letters and the City of South Lake Tahoe’s responses are provided on subsequent pages.

TABLE F-1

DRAFT IS/MND COMMENTS
Letter
Commenter/
Agency Dated
Received by City of
South Lake Tahoe Comment Summary
1 Nick Speal October 8, 2025 October 8, 2025 Comments and suggestions regarding transportation infrastructure that serves the Lake
Tahoe Airport.
2 Nick Speal October 8, 2025 October 8, 2025 Comments assert that the Draft IS/MND did not address environmental effects related to
increased aircraft operations the commenter
asserts would be facilitated by the Airport Master
Plan.
3 Mark Johnson October 16, 2025 October 16, 2025 Comments state that the Airport Master Plan and related environmental documents should consider
and study removal of the Airport and restoration of
the Airport property.
4 Kristin Gunn October 22, 2025 October 22, 2025 Comments express support for incorporation of a proposed bike path onto Airport property and
concerns regarding aircraft noise and close
proximity of aircraft overflights to the commenter’s
residence.
5 California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
October 27, 2025 October 27, 2025 Comments state that a transportation impact study should be conducted to analyze potential
intersection safety impacts related to the Airport
parking garage proposed under the Airport Master
Plan. The comments also state that any project or
work that takes place along or within the State’s
right of way (ROW) requires an encroachment
permit issued by Caltrans.
6 The League to Save
Lake Tahoe
November 3, 2025 November 3, 2025 Comments and suggestions regarding several topics, including greenhouse gas emissions, water
quality, transportation and circulation, biological
resources, noise, air quality, and alternatives.
367
LETTER 1
1A
368
Appendix F. Comments and Responses
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan F-3 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND
Letter 1 Nick Speal
Response 1A
The commenter expresses appreciation for the inclusion of a bicycle path, electric vehicle charging, and a transit mobility hub in the Airport Master Plan and provides suggested additions and actions related to these elements. With regard to bicycle access, the commenter suggests studying whether the vehicular traffic needs of the Airport still warrant a two lane exit road, and if not, the commenter suggests closure of one of these lanes to vehicular traffic and dedication of the lane for bi-directional bicycle traffic to improve safety. With regard to transit access related to the Airport parking garage with transit stop proposed under the Airport Master Plan, the commenter suggests the inclusion of intersection improvements at the Airport entrance and exit on Emerald Bay Road (U.S. Route 50) to facilitate large vehicle (e.g., bus) access and related operational safety. The comments are noted and will be provided to decision makers for consideration in their deliberations on approval of the proposed project. The comments do not pertain to the adequacy, accuracy, or completeness of the Draft IS/MND’s analysis of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and thus do not require further response. See Response 5A for further discussion regarding comments related to Airport access in connection with the proposed project.
369
LETTER 2
2A
370
2A
2B
371
Appendix F. Comments and Responses
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan F-6 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND
Letter 2 Nick Speal
Response 2A
The comment asserts that the Draft IS/MND is flawed because it explicitly dismisses the environmental impacts of expanded aircraft operations, including impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, that the commenter asserts would result with implementation of the proposed project. The comment includes several excerpts from the project description and environmental impact analyses in the Draft IS/MND that the commenter asserts are demonstrative of the Draft IS/MND’s purported dismissal of the aforementioned environmental impacts.

In response to the comment, the commenter inaccurately conflates accommodation of existing and forecasted aviation demand with facilitation or inducement of expanded aircraft operations. As discussed on pages 93 through 94 of the Draft IS/MND, and as referenced in the comment, the proposed project includes a series of improvements to the Airport that would occur over approximately a 20-year period.

These improvements are intended to improve the safety of existing Airport operations, meet compliance with current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) design standards, and accommodate existing and forecasted aviation demand. The number of aircraft operations (i.e., aircraft arrivals and departures) at the Airport is expected to increase in the future; however, the number of future aircraft operations would be the same with or without the proposed project because the project does not include any components that would induce aircraft operations. That is, the forecast growth in future aircraft operations would be anticipated to occur with or without the proposed project. Similarly, future-year operations by ground support equipment and other vehicles at the Airport are expected to be the same regardless of implementation of the proposed project. Operation of the proposed project would not introduce new sources of GHG emissions at the Airport and the proposed improvements would not, by themselves, lead to increases in GHG emissions in the future. GHG emissions from aircraft and ground-support equipment would increase in the future from projected increases in aircraft activity levels, which would occur with or without the proposed project.

The environmental impacts of the proposed project are identified and comprehensively evaluated in the Draft IS/MND in accordance with CEQA requirements. The comment does not provide evidence to support claims that the Draft IS/MND does not adequately address the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and no further response is required.

Response 2B
The comment asserts that the Draft IS/MND failed to consider cumulative impacts, including cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions associated with construction of the Airport and subsequent modifications to the Airport to accommodate growing flight volume.

In response to this comment, CEQA requires an evaluation of a project’s potential contributions to cumulative impacts, in addition to proposed project-specific impacts. Cumulative impacts, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, refer to two or more individual effects that, when taken together, are “considerable” or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. A cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that would result from the incremental impact of the project when added to the impact of other closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future 372
Appendix F. Comments and Responses
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan F-7 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND
projects. As discussed on page 148 of the Draft/IS/MND, and as referenced in the comment, the impacts of the proposed project are mitigated to a less-than-significant level, limited to the construction phase of the proposed project, and generally site specific. Any ongoing impacts of the Airport that could combine with the impacts of the proposed project are reflected in the resource-specific descriptions of the environmental setting. No other projects are proposed that would cause impacts that could combine with those of the proposed project to cause or contribute to a significant cumulative impact. The environmental impacts of the proposed project are identified and comprehensively evaluated in the Draft IS/MND in accordance with CEQA requirements. The comment does not provide evidence to support claims that the Draft IS/MND does not adequately address cumulative impacts related to implementation of the proposed project, and no further response is required.
373
LETTER 3
3A
374
Appendix F. Comments and Responses
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan F-9 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND
Letter 3 Mark Johnson
Response 3A
The comment states that the draft Airport Master Plan and related environmental documents should consider and study removal of the Airport and restoration of the Airport property. The comment asserts that maintaining a highly subsidized and limited value airport in an environmentally sensitive location is unacceptable, and removal of the Airport and restoration of the Airport property could benefit the Upper Truckee River, Lake Tahoe, fish and wildlife, and residents and visitors who live in or visit the community for its unique natural assets.

The comment is noted and will be provided to decision makers for consideration in their deliberations on approval of the proposed project. There is no requirement under planning law or CEQA to consider or analyze removal of the Airport and restoration of the Airport property. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy, accuracy, or completeness of the Draft IS/MND’s analysis of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and thus does not require further response. 375
1 Patrick Hickman
From: Fletcher, Hilary <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 6:44 AM
To: Davis, Tony; John Dickinson
Subject: FW: Your form "Lake Tahoe Airport (TVL) - StoryMap" got a response Tony & John,
FYI - let me know if you want me to respond with something specific...

Thanks,
Hilary
-----Original Message-----
From: Response Report <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 1:14 PM
To: Sanders, Greg <[email protected]>; Fletcher, Hilary <[email protected]> Subject: Your form "Lake Tahoe Airport (TVL) - StoryMap" got a response CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - If suspicious, verify with Phish Alert button.

Your form "Lake Tahoe Airport (TVL) - StoryMap" has received the following response:

Submitted on: 10/22/2025 01:13:31 PM
Completion time: 2 min. 18 sec.

Q. Name
R. Kristin Gunn
Q. Affiliation
R. Full-Time Unincorporated El Dorado County Resident
Q. Email
R. [email protected]
Q. Phone Number
R. 916-850-5227
Q. Gender:

Q. Which race or ethnicity do you most identify with?
R.

Q. Age Range:

LETTER 4
376
2 Q. Annual Household Income Range:

Q. Leave us a comment!
R. regarding airport improvements, hurray for the proposed bike paths! Also, we are never informed when very loud & fast aircraft fly close to our home, it is nerve-wracking! We live on Skyline Drive above the airport and have had several "flyovers" that seemed dangerously close.
4A
377
Appendix F. Comments and Responses
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan F-12 ESA / D202100181.08 Final IS/MND
Letter 4 Kristin Gunn
Response 4A
The comment expresses support for proposed future bicycle paths and expresses concerns regarding a purported absence of notifications to the commenter regarding aircraft operations, which the commenter asserts can produce noise and safety concerns due to the close proximity of aircraft overflights to the commenter’s residence.

The proposed project includes a series of improvements to the Airport that are intended to improve the safety of existing Airport operations, meet compliance with current FAA design standards, and accommodate existing and forecasted aviation demand. The number of aircraft operations (i.e., aircraft arrivals and departures) at the Airport is expected to increase in the future; however, the number of future aircraft operations would be the same with or without the proposed project because the project does not include any components that would induce aircraft operations. Notifications related to aircraft operations are not a component of the proposed project and are not within the scope of the Draft IS/MND’s analysis of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project. However, the comment is noted and will be provided to decision makers for consideration in their deliberations on approval of the proposed project. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy, accuracy, or completeness of the Draft IS/MND’s analysis of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and thus does not require further response.
378
LETTER 5
379
5A
5B
380
381
Appendix F. Comments and Responses
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan F-16 ESA / D202100181.08 Final IS/MND
Letter 5 California Department of Transportation
Response 5A
The comment states that a transportation impact study should be conducted to analyze potential intersection safety impacts at the two uncontrolled Airport road intersections on Emerald Bay Road (U.S.

Route 50). The comment asserts that the potential intersection safety impacts could result from operation of the Airport parking garage proposed under the Airport Master Plan. The comment states that if the study determines that improvements are needed to maintain intersection safety due to increased conflicting traffic volumes, an Intersection and Signal Operations Analysis (ISOAP) study will need to be completed to identify the appropriate improvements to be constructed at each location. The comment does not question the adequacy, accuracy, or completeness of the Draft IS/MND’s analysis of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project; nonetheless, the City has considered whether an ISOAP study would improve the informational value of the analysis and has concluded that, at this time, it would not.

The transportation analysis in the Draft IS/MND (pages 137 through 138) considered potential intersection safety impacts in the context of topic c), concluding that the proposed project would cause no impact as a result of causing or contributing to a substantial increase in transportation hazards due to a geometric design feature (such as dangerous intersections) relative to the baseline condition because the proposed project would not alter any existing facilities or infrastructure. The comment correctly observes that the Airport Master Plan anticipates future development of a parking garage. However, as stated in Table 7-2, TVL Combined Capital Improvement Plan, on page 7-9 of the Draft Airport Master Plan,1 the design and construction of the proposed Airport parking garage is not proposed for development until the Phase III (Long Term, 2034-2043) planning period.

Caltrans conducts Intersection and Signal Operations Analysis (ISOAP) studies to inform evaluations of intersection alternatives to identify the most effective and safe solution, considering such factors as traffic operations, safety, and all users, including motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, and transit. 2 Page 4 of the
guide explains that “ISOAP applies to new intersections or the major modification of existing intersections and local street interchanges…on the State Highway System.” The guide provides four examples of conditions under which ISOAP applies:
• Connecting a new public road, private road, or high-volume (average daily traffic volumes of 1,000 or greater) driveway to a state highway or a new interchange to a freeway. • Changing the type of traffic control, such as from stop-control to signal-control or from a two-way stop to all-way stop.
• Installing a pedestrian hybrid beacon at an intersection. • Making major physical changes to intersection approaches, including at ramp terminals, such as adding a leg to an intersection or widening to provide an additional through or turn lane. 1 Woolpert, 2024, Draft Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan, Prepared for the City of South Lake Tahoe. Available at http://tvlmasterplan.com/. 2 Caltrans, 2024. Intersection Safety and Operational Assessment Guide. September 2024. Available at https://dot.ca.gov/-/ media/dot-media/programs/traffic-operations/documents/isoap/20240910-isoap-process-info-guide--a11y.pdf. 382
Appendix F. Comments and Responses
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan F-17 ESA / D202100181.08 Final IS/MND
Because the proposed project includes none of these conditions, the ISOAP process does not apply to the project. Further, page 1 of the guide explains that the ISOAP “presents a data-driven, performance-based framework.” Specific details about what development of a parking garage could entail a decade or more into the future are not precisely clear at this time and determining how its construction and operation might affect roadway conditions on U.S. Route 50 could more effectively be assessed during project design and implementation. It would be entirely speculative to guess what traffic operations, safety, and user needs should be factored into a study now for it to reasonably inform decision-makers or members of the public about the potential environmental consequences of the proposed parking garage between 2034 and 2043.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15145 is clear: “If, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact.” When responding to comments, a lead agency is not required to conduct every test or perform all studies that may be sought by commenters (Public Resources Code Section 21091[d][2][B]; 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15204[a]). Accordingly, the City declines to prepare the requested ISOAP study now because the analysis as a whole better reflects a reasonable good faith effort at full disclosure without the speculation that completing a study would require.

Response 5B
The comment states that any project or work, including access modification and drainage work, that takes place along or within the State’s right of way (ROW) requires an encroachment permit issued by Caltrans.

The City acknowledges this information and is committed to complying with all relevant legal requirements related to work within Caltrans’ ROW.
383
November 3, 2025
John Dickinson, Airport Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Suite 100
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Submitted via email to [email protected]
Re: Comments on Draft Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Update (2025–2045) Dear Mr. Dickinson,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed update to the Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan. The League to Save Lake Tahoe (“League”), also known as Keep Tahoe Blue, is Tahoe’s oldest and largest nonprofit environmental advocacy organization. Our mission is to protect and restore the environmental health, sustainability, and scenic beauty of Lake Tahoe through advocacy, education, and collaboration.

We appreciate the City’s commitment to environmental stewardship and the preparation of a CEQA Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Master Plan.

Below are our comments and recommendations based on review of the IS/MND and comparison to prior planning concepts.

Areas of Concern
Climate & Greenhouse Gas Emissions
While we commend inclusion of electric aircraft charging infrastructure and EV stations, we remain concerned about the cumulative climate implications of additional hangars and expanded landside facilities. Even without scheduled commercial service, increased hangar capacity could incentivize more private jet activity—the most emissions-intensive mode of travel.

This conflicts with the City’s Strategic Priority for carbon neutrality and TRPA’s transportation policies. We urge the City to:
x Condition any new hangar development on demonstrated demand that does not increase annual operations beyond the current level.
x Require adoption of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) and electrification strategies as prerequisites for expansion.

Water Quality & SEZ Protection
The Airport remains a major impediment to full restoration of the Upper Truckee River and associated SEZs. While the proposed plan avoids direct river work, any expansion must not compromise ongoing and future restoration projects. We request:
x Coordination with Tahoe Resource Conservation District and TRPA to ensure compatibility with Johnson Meadow restoration and the planned multi-use path. x Full wetland delineation and avoidance of SEZ disturbance beyond existing paved areas.

LETTER 6
6A
6B
384

Page 2 of 2 ends

Transportation and Circulation
The inclusion of a multi-use path is a long overdue and much-needed aspect of the project and we fully support this regardless of the outcome of the larger Master Plan update. We understand that the proposed parking garage is being considered as a potential mobility hub with associated transit service. We request:
x Making the IS/MND clear that the parking garage is only for non-airport related uses. x If a parking garage is separately proposed for development, a decrease in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) must be demonstrated.

Wildlife & Habitat
We support mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 but emphasize the need for rigorous implementation and monitoring. Sensitive habitats and special-status species occur on-site; any failure in BMPs could result in irreversible impacts.

Noise & Community Impacts
The IS/MND concludes noise impacts are less than significant; however, community concerns about helicopter tours and event-related surges persist. We recommend:
x A comprehensive noise monitoring and reporting program tied to Master Plan implementation.
x Evaluation of cumulative noise impacts if hangar development leads to increased operations.

Further Recommendations
x Analyze a true “No Action” alternative at the same level of detail as other alternatives. x Include enforceable conditions for GHG reduction (SAF, electrification) in all development phases.
x Require TRPA consultation prior to approval of any alternative that increases land coverage or vehicle trips.
x Establish a transparent public reporting system for noise, air quality, and water quality monitoring.

Thank you for considering these comments. The League looks forward to continued engagement to ensure that the Airport Master Plan aligns with the community’s environmental priorities and the long-term protection of Lake Tahoe.

Sincerely,
Gavin Feiger
Policy Director
6C
6D
6E
6F
385
Appendix F. Comments and Responses
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan F-20 ESA / D202100181.08 Final IS/MND
Letter 6 The League to Save Lake Tahoe
Response 6A
The comment expresses concerns regarding potential cumulative climate effects related to hangars and landside facilities proposed under the Airport Master Plan. The comment asserts that increased hangar capacity could incentivize more private jet activity, which the commenter states in the most emissionsintensive mode of travel. The comment asserts that this purported increase in private jet activity and related GHG effects conflicts with the City’s Strategic Priority for carbon neutrality and TRPA’s transportation policies. The comment requests the City to condition any new hangar development on demonstrated demand that does not increase annual operations beyond the current level and require adoption of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) and electrification strategies as prerequisites for expansion.

In response to this comment, as discussed on pages 92 through 94 of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed project includes a series of improvements to the Airport that are intended to improve the safety of existing Airport operations, meet compliance with current FAA design standards, and accommodate existing and forecasted aviation demand. The number of aircraft operations (i.e., aircraft arrivals and departures) at the Airport is expected to increase in the future; however, the number of future aircraft operations would be the same with or without the proposed project because the project does not include any components that would induce aircraft operations. The comment does not provide factual evidence to support the claim that additional hangars or landside facilities proposed under the Airport Master Plan could incentivize increased private jet activity and result in increased GHG emissions. The environmental impacts of the proposed project, including impacts related to GHG emissions, are identified and comprehensively evaluated in the Draft IS/MND in accordance with CEQA requirements and in accordance with applicable City and TRPA policies. No further response is required.

Response 6B
The comment states that the Airport remains a major impediment to full restoration of the Upper Truckee River and associated stream environment zones (SEZs). The comment states that, while the proposed project avoids direct river work, any expansion must not compromise ongoing and future restoration projects. The commenter requests coordination with Tahoe Resource Conservation District and TRPA to ensure compatibility with Johnson Meadow restoration and the planned multi-use path and completion of a full wetland delineation and avoidance of SEZ disturbance beyond existing paved areas.

In response to this comment, as discussed on page 56 of the Draft IS/MND, any projects implemented under the Airport Master Plan would be required to comply with existing TRPA, federal, and state regulations; permitting requirements; and environmental review procedures that protect SEZs, wetlands, and other sensitive habitats. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-4, described on pages 57 through 58 of the Draft IS/MND would protect the water quality in the Upper Truckee River and would ensure that any potential temporary or permanent impacts to riparian habitats and waters of the United States or state would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The environmental impacts of the proposed project, including impacts related to aquatic and/or biological resources, are identified and comprehensively evaluated in the Draft IS/MND in accordance with CEQA requirements, and no further response is required.
386
Appendix F. Comments and Responses
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan F-21 ESA / D202100181.08 Final IS/MND
Response 6C
The comment requests that the IS/MND clearly state that the proposed Airport parking garage is only for non-airport related uses, and if a parking garage is separately proposed for development, a decrease in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) must be demonstrated.

The proposed Airport parking garage and inclusive transit stop is included as an element of the Airport Master Plan and is anticipated to serve airport users and non-airport users. Thus, it would not be accurate to state that the parking garage would be exclusively operated for non-Airport use. With regard to VMT, as discussed on page 138 of the Draft IS/MND, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) states that transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in aircraft operations or an increase in the number of Airport employees.

Consequently, the proposed project would not result in an increase in VMT, and the impact would be less than significant. The environmental impacts of the proposed project, including impacts related to VMT, are identified and comprehensively evaluated in the Draft IS/MND in accordance with CEQA requirements, and no further response is required.

Response 6D
The comment expresses support for mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 included in the Draft IS/MND (pages 56 through 58) and emphasizes the need for rigorous implementation and monitoring of the measures. The comment is noted.

Response 6E
The comment states that there are ongoing community concerns about helicopter tours and event-related surges -- presumably related to the Airport. The comment requests establishment of a comprehensive noise monitoring and reporting program tied to Airport Master Plan implementation and evaluation of cumulative noise impacts if hangar development leads to increased operations.

In response to this comment, as discussed in Response 6A above, the proposed project does not include any components that would induce aircraft operations. No helicopter tours or events are proposed by the project. Consequently, a noise monitoring and reporting program tied to Airport Master Plan implementation is neither necessary nor required. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy, accuracy, or completeness of the Draft IS/MND’s analysis of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and thus does not require further response.

Response 6F
The comment includes additional recommendations, including evaluation of a “No Action” alternative; inclusion of enforceable conditions for GHG reduction in all development phases; required TRPA consultation prior to approval of any alternative that increases land coverage or vehicle trips; and establishment of a public reporting system for noise, air quality, and water quality monitoring.

With regard to the recommended evaluation of a “No Action” alternative, as discussed on page 2 of the Draft IS/MND, the Airport Master Plan process included consideration of various development options for meeting facility requirements at the Airport over the next 20 years. The objective of this analysis was 387
Appendix F. Comments and Responses
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan F-22 ESA / D202100181.08 Final IS/MND
to identify a set of feasible development alternatives that enable the Airport to meet projected levels of aviation demand as well as enhance the safety and level of service for tenants, customers, employees, and visitors. Each alternative was evaluated to provide recommended improvements that meet demand and provide for future flexibility. These alternatives ranged from a “no project” alternative to alternatives that varied substantially in the number of additions, removals, and/or modifications to existing Airport facilities, including airside, landside, and support facilities. After receiving public input and evaluating each alternative based on economic, operational, environmental, and social benefits and drawbacks, the South Lake Tahoe City Council endorsed a preferred alternative. The preferred alternative, which comprises the “proposed project” was evaluated in the Draft IS/MND. Thus, a no project alternative was appropriately considered in the planning process for the Airport Master Plan.

With regard to environmental review of alternatives, CEQA requires that when a preliminary analysis of a proposed project (e.g., an initial study) determines the proposed project could result in significant environmental effects that will be analyzed in an EIR, the EIR shall include identification and evaluation of a range of alternatives to the project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, as well as a no project alternative to allow decision-makers to compare the environmental effects of approving the project with the effects of not approving the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). With regard to the lead agency’s decision on whether to prepare an EIR or a mitigated negative declaration, CEQA provides that when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). As documented in the Draft IS/MND prepared for the proposed project, the potential significant impacts of the proposed project would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft IS/MND and required as a condition of project approval. Consequently, the proposed project does not require preparation of an EIR and the EIR-specific requirement to identify and evaluate alternatives to the project, including evaluation of a no project alternative.

With regard to the recommended inclusion of enforceable conditions for GHG reduction in all development phases (presumably in reference to implementation of the Airport Master Plan), as discussed in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft IS/MND (pages 90 through 94), neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions in exceedance of applicable thresholds, and impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant with no mitigation required.

Moreover, implementation of the proposed project would be conducted in adherence with all applicable regulations and policies related to reduction of GHG emissions. Consequently, additional conditions for GHG reduction are neither warranted nor required.

With regard to the recommendation to require TRPA consultation prior to approval of any alternative that increases land coverage or vehicle trips, no such alternative is proposed. TRPA has reviewed the Draft 388
Appendix F. Comments and Responses
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan F-23 ESA / D202100181.08 Final IS/MND
Airport Master Plan and related environmental documents prepared for the proposed project3 and would be consulted for any future Airport plans or projects within the purview of TRPA’s land use and environmental regulatory authority.

Finally, with regard to the recommended establishment of a public reporting system for noise, air quality, and water quality monitoring, the comment provides no basis for the establishment and implementation of this system. The Airport operates in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations related to noise, air quality, and water quality. Establishment and implementation of the suggested reporting system is therefore neither warranted nor required. The comment does not pertain to the adequacy, accuracy, or completeness of the Draft IS/MND’s analysis of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and thus does not require further response.
3 The City of South Lake Tahoe submitted an Initial Environmental Checklist to TRPA, upon review of which TRPA determined the Master Plan “does not require TRPA approval or action at this time.” TRPA’s determination is documented in correspondence dated September 3, 2025 and included in Appendix D of this Final IS/MND. 389
Appendix F. Comments and Responses
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan F-24 ESA / D202100181.08 Final IS/MND
This page intentionally left blank
390
19 ATTACHMENT 3

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
391
Woolpert.com

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE -

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FAA AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022
Lake Tahoe Airport
South Lake Tahoe, California
Sponsored By:

City of South Lake Tahoe, California
Federal Aviation Administration
California Department of Transportation Aviation Division Issued for Review
October 31, 2024
392
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program i Woolpert Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Pavement Condition Index ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 Maintenance and Repair (M&R) Planning...................................................................................................................................... 3 Pavement Classification Rating......................................................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 General Information........................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Pavement History................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 PAVEMENT INVENTORY ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 Runway 18/36...................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Taxiways................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Aprons................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Hangar Taxilanes and Taxilane D.................................................................................................................................................... 8 PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX................................................................................................................................................ 8 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 PCI Section Map ...............................................................................................................................................................................11 PCI Inspection...................................................................................................................................................................................11 PAVEMENT CLASSIFICATION RATING (PCR).....................................................................................................................14 Aircraft Fleet Mix and Traffic.........................................................................................................................................................14 PCR Calculations and Inspection...................................................................................................................................................14 MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION (M&R) PLANS AND BUDGET REQUIREMENTS ...........................17 Maintenance and Rehabilitation Options .....................................................................................................................................17 Required Inspections and Record Keeping..................................................................................................................................18 Appendix A: Pavement Evaluation Study Pavement Maintenance/Management Plan.............................................................A Appendix B: Aircraft Classification Rating / Pavement Classification Rating ............................................................................ B Appendix C: Summary of Pavement History and Pavement Sections.......................................................................................... C Appendix D: Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Sample Location Exhibit ..................................................................................D Appendix E: PCI Ratings Maps 2023-2033........................................................................................................................................E Appendix F: CIP (with BIL projects)...................................................................................................................................................F Appendix G: FAA PaveAir Results.....................................................................................................................................................G Appendix H: Pavement Inspection Photos........................................................................................................................................H 393
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program 2 Woolpert Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Pavement Management Program (PMP) was completed by Woolpert Inc. (Woolpert) for the Lake Tahoe Airport (TVL or the Airport) to update the “Pavement Evaluation Study Pavement Maintenance/Management Plan” prepared August 2017 by Renard W. Brandley.

This pavement condition report presents the findings of a comprehensive inspection conducted at TVL in South Lake Tahoe, California for the purpose of assessing the condition of its runway, taxiways, and aprons and is funded under Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grant No. 3-06-0249-047-2022 with a city match. The inspection utilized American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D5340 Standard Test Method for Airport Pavement Condition Index Surveys guidelines to assign Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ratings based on observed distresses. The PMP provides recommendations on maintenance needs for each airport pavement surface over a ten-year planning period.

The elements scoped for this PMP include:
• PCI reporting
• Aircraft Classification Rating - Pavement Classification Rating (ACR-PCR) to assess the load bearing capacity (pavement strength) of the airfield pavements
• Maintenance and rehabilitation plan scheduling
This report is intended to be used to make informed decisions about maintenance and rehabilitation needs at TVL.

Pavement Condition Index
A visual pavement inspection was completed September 2023 by Woolpert and followed ASTM D5340 guidelines. This standard provides guidelines for conducting PCI surveys, including procedures for performing a detailed visual survey of the pavement to identify various types of surface distresses.

The types, severities, and extents of the identified distresses were then recorded using standardized forms and software designed and approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for pavement management systems. The recorded data was used to calculate a PCI value of each pavement section. Each type of distress has a different impact on the overall pavement condition, and the PCI was computed using a standardized formula that accounts for these factors.

The results of the PCI inspection in this survey provide a comprehensive overview of the pavement's condition. The PCI values are then put into a range of condition levels to categorize the condition of the pavements and to guide maintenance and rehabilitation decisions.

Maintenance responses to different levels of pavement deterioration defined by a PCI value vary based on the specific distress types and extent of damage observed. Below are recommended maintenance responses based on PCI ranges in accordance with the guidelines in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5380-7B Airport Pavement Management Program (PMP) • PCI 75-100 (Very Good): Routine maintenance: Crack sealing, joint resealing, and minor patching to preserve the pavement and prevent water infiltration.
• PCI 65-74 (Good): Preventive maintenance: Surface treatments (e.g., fog seal and slurry seal, to extend pavement life and improve surface condition).
• PCI 55-64 (Fair): Selective rehabilitation: Patching, localized repairs, and thin overlays to address surface distresses and maintain ride quality.
• PCI 45-54 (Poor): Rehabilitation: Consider more extensive rehabilitation, such as mill and overlay or partial depth repairs, to restore pavement structural capacity.
• PCI Below 45 (Very Poor): Reconstruction: Full-depth reconstruction or major rehabilitation to address severe distresses and safety concerns.
394
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program 3 Woolpert Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022
Maintenance and Repair (M&R) Planning
M&R planning is a very important part of maintaining airport pavements, as airport pavements require ongoing maintenance and upgrades to ensure they remain safe and operational. A well-planned M&R plan helps identify and prioritize these needs and it allows time to allocate specific funds for M&R projects.

The PCI data collected for TVL indicate taxiway conditions require more immediate attention than other airport pavements (except for Taxiway D which was recently rehabilitated). Runway 18/36 is in better condition than most of the taxiways but needs future attention to extend its life. Aprons overall are in good to very good condition. The area South of the terminal ramp is the exception and is in poor condition.

A 2024 crack seal, seal coat, and remarking of Taxiways A, E, F, and G will address some immediate M&R needs.

Additionally, a major runway rehabilitation is planned for in 2028 followed by the rehabilitation of Taxiway A and associated connectors in 2030. These projects are contained in the Airport’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in Appendix F.

This M&R plan will help manage airport assets effectively within available budget. The PMP will facilitate prioritization of funds based on the condition and lifespan of existing infrastructure, ensuring that resources are used efficiently. It contains the recommendations for improvements each year spanning from 2024 to 2033 for TVL pavements.

Pavement Classification Rating
The evaluation of the existing pavement sections throughout the airport were based on previous construction drawings, reconstruction and maintenance drawings, evaluation study reports, and FAA files that were collected. Subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, nondestructive testing, and geotechnical engineering analyses were completed in August 2017 by Renard W. Brandley as well as for the apron and hangar taxilane reconstruction projects in 2017 and 2021 respectively. This information was utilized in conjunction with the existing fleet mix to determine the strength of each of the pavement sections at TVL and their ability to support the existing fleet mix. This analysis is completed through the ACR-PCR determination utilizing the FAA Rigid and Flexible Iterative Elastic Layered Design (FAARFIELD) 2.1.1 (build 12/21/2023) computer program based on analysis of traffic data. The existing pavement sections and characteristics of the subgrade soils were inserted into the program to determine the design aircraft that can be safely permitted on the existing pavements at TVL. The PCR value for Runway 18/36 was calculated to be 330/F/C/X/T and is further described in later sections.
395
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program 4 Woolpert Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study and report is to update a PMP produced for TVL located in the City of South Lake Tahoe, California by Reinard W. Brandley in August 2017. Public Law 103-305 requires airports included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) have a PMP to qualify for federal grant funding. Airports receiving federal funds for pavement projects are required to implement a Pavement Maintenance-Management Program (PMMP) designed to preserve the pavement's structural integrity and prolong its useful life, minimizing the need for extensive repairs or reconstruction.

Performing a pavement condition assessment and analysis coupled with the development of a Capital Investment Plan (CIP) provide major elements needed to meet the requisites to participate in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) AIP. This report includes an inventory of pavement assets including the runway, taxiways, aprons, roads, and parking lots.

Woolpert Inc. followed the recommendations of FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5380-7B, Airport Pavement Management Program, to produce this report.

Woolpert Inc. performed an evaluation of the condition of pavement assets through a visual inspection to identify distresses and their severity. This collected data was entered into a database created by Woolpert Inc. using FAA PAVEAIR software. This software uses pavement performance models to determine the PCI and the Structural Condition Index (SCI) for each pavement section.

As a result of the record review, pavement inspection, and asset analysis, recommended maintenance and rehabilitation treatments were developed for the CIP, including timing and cost estimates. The CIP outlines the schedule and sequence for implementing the recommended treatments based on priority rankings, funding availability, and operational constraints.

The FAA has detailed specifications for pavement management in the following documents:
• AC 150/5380-7B, Airport Pavement Management Program
• AC 150/5380-6C, Guidelines and Procedures for Maintenance of Airports Pavements • AC 150/5335-5D, Standardized Method of Reporting Airport Pavement Strength (PCR) According to FAA AC 150-5380-7B, an airport PMP has several benefits, including:
• Increased pavement useful life.
• An objective and consistent evaluation of the condition of a network of pavements. • A systematic and documentable engineering bases for determining pavement M&R needs including consideration of future operational needs and/or planned airport expansion projects. • Identification of budget requirements necessary to maintain pavement functionality. • Documentation on the present and future condition of the pavements. • A life cycle cost analysis for various pavement M&R alternatives. • Identification of the impact on the pavement if no major repairs are conducted.

An effective PMP calculates when pavements will likely reach response triggering conditions. Furthermore, the PMP will help identify the most appropriate approach—between rehabilitation or reconstruction—by assessing available resources and funds. The PMP utilizes data from a pavement condition rating system (PCI and ACR-PCR) that helps predict future conditions and indicate whether the distress is load or environmentally related. This PMMP will help avoid unnecessary or ineffective maintenance applications and promote the best use of available funds.

General Information
By systematically evaluating the condition of pavements and scheduling M&R based on need rather than a reactive approach, PMPs can help reduce long-term costs. These plans can also help prioritize projects, based on available funding.

PMPs help airport operators manage their pavement assets more effectively by tracking pavement conditions, maintenance history, and performance over time. This information can inform decisions about rehabilitation, reconstruction, or other improvements. PMPs are critical to an airport’s compliance with regulatory requirements and industry standards. By 396
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program 5 Woolpert Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022
maintaining pavement conditions, airports can ensure smoother operations, reduce aircraft wear and tear, and enhance the overall user experience. Properly implemented PMPs extend the lifespan of pavements, reducing the frequency of major repairs or replacements. Overall, a well-developed PMP help airports manage their pavements effectively, leading to improved safety, reduced costs, and better overall performance.

As demonstrated in Figure 1 investing in preventative pavement maintenance results in significant cost savings over the long term. It helps to preserve the pavement in good condition and avoid more costly repairs or replacements. While preventative maintenance requires regular investments, these costs are typically lower than the costs associated with reactive repairs, which involve more extensive work and higher material and labor expenses. Furthermore, preventative maintenance projects can be planned and scheduled during off-peak times, minimizing disruption to airport operations and reducing the impact to airport users. This proactive approach drives cost savings by avoiding the need for emergency repairs that may require closures or restrictions.

FIGURE 1: TYPICAL PAVEMENT CONDITION LIFE CYCLE
Source: FAA AC 150/5380-7B
Figure 2 illustrates the concept of active pavement preservation—a proactive approach to maintaining airport pavement infrastructure. The concept focuses on applying the right treatment to the right pavement at the right time to extend pavement life, enhance performance, and save money over the long term. Pavement preservation conserves a surface’s performance and serviceability rather than simply extending its life. Preservation involves monitoring the pavement's condition and performance over time to determine the most appropriate maintenance strategies. 397
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program 6 Woolpert Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022
FIGURE 2: PAVEMENT PRESERVATION CONCEPT
Source: FAA AC 150/5380-7B
Pavement History
The historical pavement data discussed below refers to previous projects constructed at TVL. The data was compiled from past construction documents, record drawings, and any other airport records made obtainable by airport staff. TVL was constructed in 1958 by El Dorado County, California in preparation for the 1960 Winter Olympics; this event spurred sudden and widespread commercial and residential development throughout the county. TVL started operating in the summer of 1959 with a 5,900-foot runway which was extended to 8,541 feet in 1962. In 1983, TVL was sold to the City of South Lake Tahoe by El Dorado County. Summers at TVL are warm with maximum temperatures reaching from 62°F to 80°F; the winters are long, cold, and snowy with maximum temperatures from 43°F to 53°F and minimum temperatures averaging 22°F between December and February. The airport averages 50 days per year below freezing.

The existing airport pavements include Runway 18/36, parallel Taxiway A, adjoining taxiway connectors, and general aviation aprons. Each of these airfield pavements were initially constructed in the 1950s. Runway 18/36 was last reconstructed in 2008. The parallel Taxiway A was constructed in 1958 and last rehabilitated (via overlay) in 1990. The taxiway connectors were initially constructed in 1958 through 1963 and connectors B, E, H, J, and K were last reconstructed and overlayed from 1968 through 1990. Taxiway F was last reconstructed in 1970, and Taxiway G was last reconstructed in 2016. Taxiway D, Taxilane D, and South Hangar Taxilanes were initially constructed in 1994 and were last rehabilitated in 2022 through 2023. The general aviation aprons were initially constructed in 1950 through 1974 and were reconstructed by phases in 2009 through 2020. Previous maintenance records for each of the airfield pavements are not available. See Appendix C for the summary of pavement sections and pavement history. 398
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program 7 Woolpert Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022

PAVEMENT INVENTORY
The Airport’s pavements are divided into sections with common properties according to function (runway, taxiway, aprons, and taxilanes) and pavement construction material (asphalt and concrete).

Runway 18/36
As listed in Table 1, Runway 18/36 has a length of 8,541 feet, a width of 100 feet, and a north-south orientation. Both ends of the runway have displaced thresholds; Runway 18 is displaced 800 feet, while Runway 36 is displaced 2,033 feet.

The asphalt surface on the runway is grooved to increase friction in adverse weather.

TABLE 1: RUNWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristics Runway 18/36
Use Primary
Length (feet) 8,541’
Runway 18 – Displaced Threshold 800’
Runway 36 – Displaced Threshold 2,033’
Width (feet) 100’ (12.5’ shoulders, each side)
Composition Asphalt/Grooved
Gradient 2% Maximum
Markings Non-precision/Visual
*Source: FAA Airport Master Record Form 5010 (April 3, 2024) Taxiways
The TVL taxiway system, detailed in Table 2, consists of a full-length parallel taxiway, Taxiway A, and eight connecting taxiway segments, two of which are high speed exits.

TABLE 2: TAXIWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Taxiway Dimensions Length x Width (Feet) Description
Taxiway A 8400 x 60-75 Full parallel taxiway
Taxiway B 192.5 x 75 Taxiway connector to Runway 18/36
Taxiway D 102 x 40 Taxiway from hangars to Taxiway A
Taxiway E 362.5 x 75 High speed taxiway exit
Taxiway F West 135 x 90 Taxiway from Terminal Apron to Taxiway A Taxiway F East 372.5 x 75 High speed taxiway exit
Taxiway G 95 x 52 Taxiway from tie-down area to Taxiway A Taxiway H 192.5 x 75 Taxiway connector to Runway 18/36
Taxiway J 192.5 x 75.5 Taxiway connector to Runway 18/36 Taxiway K 192.5 x 75.5 Taxiway connector to Runway 18/36 *Source Caltrans Airport Pavement Management System, 2011 399
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program 8 Woolpert Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022
Aprons
TVL has approximately 80,790 square yards of apron space that is divided by use. The southern portion of the apron area is approximately 11,770 square yards and has an asphalt concrete surface course. This area is adjacent to the Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) and California Shock Trauma Air Rescue (CalSTAR) facilities. Although there are no aircraft tie-downs located in this area, it is available for temporary aircraft storage and provides terminal apron access for aircraft in the T-hangars.

The center portion of the apron (or terminal apron) is positioned directly in front of the terminal building and is approximately 9,130 square yards. This area is constructed of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) and is used primarily for temporary aircraft storage by transient (visiting) pilots.

The northern apron is the largest apron area and is approximately 59,890 square yards, constructed of asphalt concrete.

This area is adjacent to the Fixed Based Operator (FBO) and used primarily for its services (aircraft storage, fueling, maintenance, etc.). There are currently 127 aircraft tie-down anchors located on this apron.

Hangar Taxilanes and Taxilane D
TVL has five hangar taxilanes that provide access to the six hangar structures south of the main terminal. These taxilanes tie into a perpendicular taxilane that provides access to the parallel taxiway via Taxiway D.

Each of the hangar taxilanes has approximately 1,800 square yards of asphalt concrete and Taxilane D has approximately 4,700 square yards of asphalt concrete.

PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX
PCI is the most common method used to visually, consistently, and repeatably assess the current pavement surface condition of different airfield pavements. PCI is a rating of the existing surface condition of a pavement section and determines current pavement capacity and condition. Periodic PCI determinations on the same pavement will exhibit the change in surface condition and distress severity over time. Frequent data collection and recording helps determine the current condition of the pavement; these data inform the planning and selection of the most appropriate pavement M&R response with the given resources. A pavement that has a high PCI rating is an indicator the pavement is in good condition and a pavement with low PCI rating is an indicator the pavement is in poor condition.

Methodology
PCI surveys were performed September 2023 for all TVL pavement sections. The surveys were performed using the PCI methodology developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and outlined in the current edition of ASTM D5340, Standard Test Method for Airport Condition Index Surveys. This document defines distress types, severity levels, and methods for measuring and recording distresses.

The Airport’s pavements were separated into sections based on the type of pavement (asphalt, concrete) and function (runway, taxiway, apron, and so forth). They were further divided by construction date and maintenance history. Woolpert segmented pavement areas based on how an individual pavement section will be managed. For example, if an apron was constructed in two different years, but both portions are characterized by similar distress types, quantities, and resulting comparable PCI values, the sections were combined into one.

Sections are then further divided into sample units which are more manageable for the inspection procedure. To achieve a statistically reliable PCI value, it is not required to inspect 100 percent of the sample units in a section. A set number of randomly chosen sample units are selected based on established criteria outlined in ASTM D5340. The sampling rates used during this study are shown in Table 3.
400
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program 9 Woolpert Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022
TABLE 3: NUMBER OF SAMPLE UNITS TO INSPECT PER SECTION
*Source: ASTM D5340.

Table 4 lists the distress types recognized in ASTM D5340. The list separates asphalt and concrete pavement distresses and identifies the related cause (load, climate/durability, other) as designated by the software. Load-related distresses are caused by over-stressed traffic loads applied to the surface. Climate/durability-related distresses are a result of exposure to the environment. Other related distresses are caused by actions not related to load or climate such damage from oil and fuel spills or material related distress such as alkali–silica and alkali–carbonate reactivity. 401
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program 10 Woolpert Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022
TABLE 4: PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX DISTRESS TYPES AND RELATED CAUSES *Source: ASTMD 5340.

The industry-established PCI method was used to rate the existing surface condition of the pavement sections indicating their functional performance. Based on these conventional PCI values, ranges that relate to appropriate maintenance responses are recommended to allow time to plan project development and funding. This information will enable TVL management to take a proactive approach to pavement management, ultimately enhancing the overall performance and sustainability of the airport infrastructure. Figure 3 below shows the recommended PCI rating scale and the maintenance response threshold by PCI value.
402
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program 11 Woolpert Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022
PCI Range Rating Maintenance Response
75-100 Very Good
Routine maintenance: Crack sealing, joint resealing,
and minor patching to preserve the pavement and
prevent water infiltration.
65-74 Good
Preventative maintenance: Surface treatments (e.g.,
fog seal and slurry seal, to extend pavement life and
improve surface condition.
55-64 Fair
Selective rehabilitation: Patching, localized repairs,
and thin overlays to address surface distress and
maintain ride quality.
45-54 Poor
Rehabilitation: Consider more extensive
rehabilitation, such as mill and overlay or partial
depth repairs, to restore pavement structural
capacity.

Below 45 Very Poor
Reconstruction: Full-depth reconstruction or major
rehabilitation to address distress and safety
concerns.

FIGURE 3: PCI RATING SCALE FOR AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS
Source: Woolpert, Inc.

Figure 4 on page 13 displays an airport map that depicts the location of the different pavement sections.

PCI Section Map
Appendix E contains a color-coded maps of the PCI results that correspond to the rating scale shown in Figure 3. There is a map of the current PCI values and maps that depict 5 years and 10 years without maintenance being performed on the pavements.

PCI Inspection
The PCI data were collected and uploaded in the FAA’s PAVEAIR website for TVL. See Appendix D for the exhibit titled “Pavement Maintenance Management Plan Project Section Map,” showing the precise sample units surveyed to conduct the PCI inspection at TVL.

Table 5 shows the summary of PCI for each pavement section at TVL.

Over the last few decades, the FAA, USACE, and the U.S. Air Force have cooperated to define the distresses common in pavements that can be classified and quantified to determine the condition of pavements that has comparative value on a national basis.

During a PCI survey, the inspectors identify the distresses and determine the severity and volume. These data are entered into a program that establishes a deduct value. Historical pavement section data helps compute a more accurate deterioration rate. Keeping a comprehensive history of pavement sections over many years improves PMP calculations.

PCI values are important in prioritizing, funding, and executing maintenance and rehabilitation on a pavement section. A summary of pavement history at TVL can be found in Appendix C. 403
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program 12 Woolpert Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022
TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF PCI AND SCI
Pavement Code Pavement Section PCI (2017) PCI (2023) SCI Total Inspected Samples
Total
Area (SF)
R18TV-01 Runway 18/36 81 72 100 14 854,007
TATV-01 Taxiway A 55 54 96 11 447,458
TBTV-01 Taxiway B 55 55 100 3 13,500
TDTV-01 Taxiway D 23 100 100 1 5,610
TETV-01 Taxiway E 68 48 92 4 27,000
TF2TV-01 Taxiway F (East) 55 49 69 4 27,000
TF1TV-01 Taxiway F (West) 73 46 100 3 11,305
TGTV-01 Taxiway G 35 85 100 2 6,975
THTV-01 Taxiway H 50 29 73 3 13,860
TJTV-01 Taxiway J 47 44 72 3 13,500
TKTV-01 Taxiway K 55 58 80 4 22,050
A01TV-01 Apron 1 (Taxilane D
and Hangar Taxilanes) 23 100 100 7 111,000
A02TV-01 Apron 2 52-63 54 100 7 90,480
A03TV-01 Apron 3 100 100 100 7 81,000
A04TV-01 Apron 4 45 85 100 6 41,600
A05TV-01 Apron 5 10-90 67 100 8 198,801
A06TV-01 Apron 6 25-20 76 100 7 125,281
A07TV-01 Apron 7 20-25 100 100 6 52,640
A08TV-01 Apron 8 14 100 100 8 144,376
AR01TV-01 Airport Road 1 45 80 94 6 69,196
AR01TV02 Airport Road 2 - 78 87 1 5,751
AR01TV-03 Airport Road 3 - 74 100 1 5,350
AR01TV-04 Airport Road 4 - 47 54 5 47,075
TP01TV-01 Terminal Parking 1 25-70 61 97 6 71,175
SCI is a measure of the damage to a pavement caused by traffic and loading. Similar to PCI, it is a numerical index between 0 and 100, where 100 is the best possible condition. It is calculated using the PCI procedures defined in ASTM D5340 using a subset of the PCI distresses:

ASPHALT CONCRETE: PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE:
•Alligator Cracking •Shattered Slab
•Rutting •Shrinkage Cracking
•Corner Break •Joint Spalling
•Linear Cracking •Corner Spalling
404
Pavement Maintenance Management Program 13 Woolpert Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022
FIGURE 4: PCI SECTION MAP
405
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program 14 Woolpert, Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022

PAVEMENT CLASSIFICATION RATING (PCR)
The FAA has developed AC 150/5335-5D to determine the PCR on airport pavements. With this method of evaluation, the airfield pavements are assigned a PCR, which is dependent on the pavement section and soil strength and represents the strength and bearing capacity of the pavement section. PCR is a number that expresses the load-carrying capacity of a pavement for a specified aircraft operation. ACR has been developed by aircraft manufacturers to represent the relative effect of an aircraft at a given configuration on a pavement structure. The ACR-PCR system ensures both aircraft and pavement will be able to utilize their maximum extent without detrimental effect to the airfield pavements. Aircraft with ACR less than or equal to the PCR will be able to operate without any weight restrictions See Appendix B for the ACRPCR values for the different pavement sections at TVL.

Aircraft Fleet Mix and Traffic
Forecasts of annual departures by airplane type are needed for design and evaluation of airfield pavements. The Airport fleet mix presented in Table 6 contains annual departures and growth rates that are based on projections included in the FAA Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF). The TAF is the official forecast of aviation activity at all airports in the NPIAS. The aircraft fleet mix was determined using data provided by the FAA Traffic Flow Management System Counts (TFMSC) database, records from Virtower, and the fleet mix developed for the apron reconstruction project completed in AIP Grant No. 3-08-0249-041-2018. Data was collected from 2017 to 2023 and an average annual operation was determined for each aircraft type. Aircraft of similar maximum takeoff weight and gear configuration were grouped together into representative aircraft groups, and all aircraft greater than 47,000 pounds were grouped together to reach the annual departures needed to be considered as regular use. Only regular use aircraft, defined as having annual operations greater than or equal to 500, were included in the fleet mix, except for the CRJ 100/200 aircraft since the growth rate for aircraft over 47,000 pounds is projected to exceed 250 annual departures within the next five years. Aircraft growth rates, based on the values provided in TVL’s Airport Pavement Evaluation Study PMMP (dated August 2017 by Reinard W. Brandley) and the TFMSC database, were applied to the aircraft fleet mix. Based on this historical information, a 2% annual growth rate was utilized for aircraft weighing less than 25,000 pounds, and a 3% annual growth rate was used for aircraft weighing more than 25,000 pounds but less than 50,000 pounds.

TABLE 6: AIRPORT FLEET MIX INFORMATION
Aircraft Name Gross Wt. (lbs.) Annual
Departures
% Annual
Growth
CRJ100/200 47,700 400 3
Cessna Citation X 36,000 1,000 3
Hawker 800 28,000 330 3
Beechcraft King Air 350 15,100 1,500 2
Cessna Citation II/Bravo C550/551 15,000 2,500 2
PA-31-325 Navajo C/R 6,500 600 2
Cessna 206 Stationair 3,600 3,500 2
PCR Calculations and Inspection
In accordance with FAA AC 150/5320-6G Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation, all existing pavements were assessed using industry-standard methods for evaluating pavement strength. The FAARFIELD software, version 2.1.1, was employed for this analysis to inspect pavement conditions and calculate the Pavement Condition Rating (PCR). This technical approach provided a thorough evaluation of pavement strength, considering factors such as pavement layer thickness, material quality, and subgrade strength.

PCR values were computed for each pavement section using FAARFIELD, with a design life of 20 years. The primary goals were to identify which aircraft types impose significant stress on the airfield pavements and to determine the 406
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program 15 Woolpert, Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022
maximum allowable aircraft load for each section. The analysis was based on subgrade California Bearing Ratio (CBR), pavement Elastic Modulus (E), and the underlying layers, as reported in the August 2017 geotechnical investigation and supplemented by historical reports from apron reconstruction projects conducted over the past decade. Pavement thicknesses were also derived from the 2017 geotechnical data and historical as-built records. For pavement layers with elastic moduli or thicknesses below FAARFIELD's programmed values, user-defined layers were incorporated to accurately model the conditions. Pavement section thicknesses were capped at 20 inches, as historical data for TVL indicate pavement sections thicker than 20 inches serve frost protection purposes rather than structural strength.

A pass-to-traffic-cycle ratio of 1.00 was used, reflecting the assumption that one coverage is achieved for each aircraft pass, consistent with the standard gear configurations of the aircraft in the fleet mix.

Table 8 presents the PCR values for each pavement section at TVL, with supporting documentation provided in Appendix B.

It is noted that all pavement sections have experienced some degree of wear and deterioration since the 2017 investigation.

A re-evaluation of the ACR-PCR for each section is recommended following a new geotechnical investigation. A summary of the existing pavement conditions at TVL is provided in Appendix C, and the PCR reporting codes are listed in Table

7. TABLE 7: PCR CODES
Pavement Type
Pavement Type Code
Flexible F
Rigid R
Standard Subgrade Conditions for ACR Calculation
Subgrade Strength
Category
Subgrade Support E
(Elastic Modulus) psi
Represents E
(Elastic Modulus) psi
Code
High 29008 E≥21,756 A
Medium 17405 E≥14,504<21,756 B
Low 11603 E≥8,702<14,504 C
Ultra Low 7252 E<8,702 D
Tire Pressure
Category Tire Pressure Range Code
Unlimited No pressure limit W
High Pressure limited to 254 psi X
Medium Pressure limited to 181 psi Y
Low Pressure limited to 73 psi Z
Method of Analysis
Method Code
Technical T
Using Aircraft U
Source: FAA AC 150/5335-5D
407
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program 16 Woolpert, Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022
TABLE 8: PCR RESULTS
Pavement Section Total Thickness
(in.) PCR
Runway 18/36 20 330/F/C/X/T
Taxiway B, A, F, & E 20 250/F/D/X/T
Taxiway K, H, & J 20 120/F/D/X/T
Taxiway D and South Hangars 18 150/F/C/X/T
GA Apron 2 15 110/F/C/X/T
GA Apron 3 20 560/R/B/W/T
GA Apron 4 18 250/F/C/X/T
Taxiway G & GA Apron 5 11 100/F/B/X/T
GA Apron 6 18 240/F/B/X/T
GA Apron 7 18 350/F/B/X/T
GA Apron 8 18 390/F/B/X/T
The PCR for Runway 18/36 was determined based on the latest PCR calculation methodology, considering pavement type, subgrade strength category, and allowable tire pressure. The resulting PCR for Runway 18/36 is 290/F/C/X/T.

The ACR of the fleet mix was found to be lower than the PCR for each pavement section, confirming all aircraft in the current fleet can be accommodated by the existing pavements at TVL. Runway 18/36 pavement gross weight limits for single-, double-, and dual-double-gear aircraft are provided in Table 9.

TABLE 9: RUNWAY 18/36 AIRCRAFT WEIGHT LIMITS
Gear Type Gross Weight (lb.)
S 82,000
D 120,000
2D 189,000
408
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program 17 Woolpert, Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022

MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION (M&R) PLANS AND BUDGET

REQUIREMENTS
M&R is a subset of CIP planning and should be reviewed and adjusted each year. PCI is the result of an airfield pavement surface evaluation and is required to be updated every three years. M&R and CIP planning is a dynamic process that requires periodic fine-tuning.

Table 10 shows the projected PCI value for each section of pavement if no M&R is completed. The PCI values are color coded to correspond to the rating scale in Figure 3.

TABLE 10: TEN YEAR PROJECTED DETERIORATION WITHOUT MAINTENANCE Source: Woolpert Inc.

An updated CIP was prepared for TVL that includes the scheduled pavement M&R for 2024 to 2033 and submitted to the FAA in February 2024 and was approved. See Appendix F for the current CIP.

Maintenance and Rehabilitation Options
The ideal M&R approach maintains pavements by identifying and rectifying defects early in the cycle of deterioration. This is the most efficient way to extend the life of pavement with the least required funding. Consequently, maintenance responses to different levels of pavement deterioration defined by PCI value vary based on the specific distress types and extent of damage observed. Maintenance required to restore pavement to good condition and extend the life costs less at higher PCI values than the cost at lower PCI values.

Routine maintenance, such as crack sealing, joint resealing, and minor patching to preserve the pavement and prevent water infiltration of the subsurface, should be accomplished earlier in pavement life cycles to lower overall cost of maintaining the life of the pavement.

If pavement has deteriorated to a level beyond routine maintenance but is still in good condition, it will require more extensive maintenance. This consists of maintenance applications such as surface treatments (e.g., fog seal and slurry seal) to extend pavement life and improve surface condition.
409
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program 18 Woolpert, Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022
When pavements deteriorate beyond the level where routine maintenance is the correct response, selective rehabilitation will be required. This involves rehabilitation of specific areas of distress in a section, including patching, localized repairs, and thin overlays to address surface distresses and maintain pavement useability and safety. Maintenance response for pavement conditions worse than what can be restored by selective rehabilitation is more extensive, requiring a maintenance application to the entire section. This consists of projects such as mill and overlay or partial depth repairs to restore pavement structural capacity. Eventually, all pavements will reach a level of decline that will require full-depth reconstruction or major rehabilitation to address severe distresses and safety concerns.

The timing for each of these treatments will be based on cost-benefit analysis, safety, rideability, and aesthetic conditions.

The rehabilitation type and schedule to correct problems caused by surface distress is determined by engineering judgment, taking into consideration the cost-benefit, operational problems, and visual perception. For the current CIP scheduled for TVL’s different pavements to maintain the Airport’s full operation, see Appendix E.

Required Inspections and Record Keeping
The airport must record and retain complete information about all detailed inspections and maintenance performed until the pavement system is replaced. The types of distress, their locations, and remedial action, scheduled or performed, must be documented. The minimum information recorded includes:
• Inspection date
• Location
• Distress types
• Maintenance scheduled or performed
Other duties required to keep this report current include:
• Continue to update inspection dates with routine inspections. • Update inventory with any changes in the inventory.
• Conduct detailed review of construction history and provide updates. • Document any work performed on the airport since recent inspection. • Provide a method of tracking all maintenance activities that occur as a result of inspections. • Formulate a periodic crack and joint sealing program to extend the life of the pavement system by keeping water and debris from entering the cracks, which can lead to further damage and deterioration of the pavement.

The pavements at TVL have been maintained at a level ensuring them to be safe and functional for serving the flying public. Overall, the apron areas have a higher PCI rating than the runway and taxiways. The CIP reflects the needs and priority of the airport pavements and places the priority of the runway and taxiways higher than aprons.

When TVL pavements were constructed, particularly the parallel taxiway, the design engineer included saw cutting joints into the newly constructed pavement with the theory it would control cracking. However, saw cut joints introduced cracks into new pavement, lowering the overall PCI value of the pavement. Ultimately, this design choice has triggered the need for the airport to regularly apply crack fill earlier in the pavement life cycle. The CIP includes maintenance of Taxiway A including crack fill and a seal coat in 2024 followed by a major rehabilitation in 2030.

Although most of the aprons are in excellent condition, they are showing signs of oxidation. The loss of volatile compounds in the asphalt mixture will make the asphalt more brittle. New asphalt is flexible and withstands the stresses of traffic and temperature changes, while brittle asphalt is prone to cracking under the stresses of traffic and temperature changes. These differences result in cracks that allow water to penetrate and further damage the pavement. Apron deterioration can be mitigated with proper surface treatments including periodic crack filling and seal coats.

The FAA requires NPIAS airports to conduct PCI inspections every three years; it is recommended TVL’s PCI be updated in 2026. As the 2017 PMP was not entered into a standard pavement management database, this report cannot be compared to a previous study. The data collected in this study was entered into FAA’s PAVEAIR; similarly, the next update should follow FAA requirements (as outlined in AC 150/5380-7B) and be entered into TVL’s PAVEAIR’s database to improve future standard deterioration rate determinations. 410
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program 19 Woolpert, Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022
Table 11 recommends specific maintenance projects by year and pavement section.

TABLE 11: RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE AND ESTIMATED COST *The unit cost is based on recently bid projects and include mobility costs.

In conclusion, the comprehensive assessment of the airport pavement has identified key areas where maintenance and rehabilitation are essential to preserving the structural integrity and safety of the airfield. By implementing the recommended maintenance strategies and prioritizing the necessary repairs, the airport will be able to extend the life of its pavement assets, reduce long-term costs, and ensure a safe operating environment for all users. Continuous monitoring and timely maintenance will be critical in sustaining optimal pavement conditions and supporting future growth and operational demands of the airport.
411
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program A Woolpert, Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022
APPENDIX A: PAVEMENT EVALUATION STUDY PAVEMENT

MAINTENANCE/MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Prepared by Reinard W. Brandley, August 2017)
412

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

PREPARED FOR

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

PREPARED BY
REINARD W. BRANDLEY

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
AUGUST 2017
413

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

PAVEMENT EVALUATION STUDY

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE/MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared for
City of South Lake Tahoe, California
Prepared by:

Reinard W. Brandley
Consulting Airport Engineer
August 2017
414

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
-iLAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

PAVEMENT EVALUATION STUDY AND

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE/MANAGEMENT PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 1-1 1-1 History ..................................................................................... 1-1 1-2 Airport Layout .......................................................................... 1-1 1-3 Role of the Airport .................................................................... 1-1 1-4 Pavement Composition ............................................................ 1-2 1-5 Need for Study and Purpose of Test Program ......................... 1-2 Chapter 2. Data Collection ......................................................................................... 2-1 2-1 Geotechnical Studies ............................................................... 2-1 2-2 Existing Pavement Sections .................................................... 2-2 2-3 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) Tests .............................. 2-3 2-4 Pavement Condition Survey .................................................... 2-4 2-5 Forecast Traffic ........................................................................ 2-5 2-6 Frost Action .............................................................................. 2-8 Chapter 3. Pavement Condition Number (PCN) ....................................................... 3-1 3-1 Method of Calculating PCN ...................................................... 3-1 3-2 Evaluation ................................................................................ 3-2 3-3 Calculated PCN Values ........................................................... 3-3 Chapter 4. Analysis and Evaluation ..................................................................... 4-1 4-1 Distress Mode .......................................................................... 4-1 4-2 Deep-Seated Distress .............................................................. 4-1 4-2.1 Back Calculated Modulus of Elasticity ......................... 4-1 4-2.2 Forecast Traffic ............................................................ 4-2 4-2.3 Existing Pavement Sections ........................................ 4-2 4-2.4 Considered Rehabilitation Sections ............................. 4-3 4-2.5 Fatigue Analysis – Deep-Seated Distress ................... 4-3 4-2.5.1 Brandley Fatigue Analysis – Remaining
Life Analysis ............................................. 4-3 4-2.5.2 FAARFIELD Airport Pavement Design –
Remaining Life Analysis ........................... 4-4 4-3 Surface Distress ...................................................................... 4-6 4-3.1 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ................................. 4-6 4-3.2 Thermal Stresses ......................................................... 4-7 4-4 Frost Action .............................................................................. 4-9 415

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
-iiChapter 5. Conclusions and Rehabilitation Plan & Schedule ............................... 5-1 5-1 General .................................................................................... 5-1 5-2 Special Rehabilitation Recommendations ............................... 5-2 5-2.1 Flexible Pavements (Bituminous Surface Course) ....... 5-2 5-2.2 Porous Concrete .......................................................... 5-3 5-2.3 AC Surface Rehabilitation vs. AC Mill & Fill ................. 5-5 5-2.4 Apron A5c and A5d – 2016 Reconstruction ................. 5-6 5-2.5 Apron Taxiway H Connector – 2018 Reconstruction ... 5-7 5-3 Recommended Rehabilitation Schedule .................................. 5-7

LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 2. Data Collection
2-1 Traffic Index Summary ............................................................. 2-9 Chapter 3. Pavement Condition Number (PCN)
3-1 Pavement Sections and Pavement Condition Number (PCN) . 3-5

Chapter 4. Analysis and Evaluation
4-1 Pavement Rehabilitation Procedures – Deep-Seated
Distress .................................................................................. 4-10 4-2 Rehabilitation Plan – Deep-Seated Distress .......................... 4-12 4-3 Pavement Rehabilitation Procedures – Surface Distress ....... 4-13 Chapter 5. Rehabilitation Plan and Schedule
5-1 Rehabilitation Plan (2017-2036) .............................................. 5-11 5-2 Maintenance and Rehabilitation Schedule (2017-2036) .......... 5-17 5-3 Summary of Existing Conditions and Rehabilitation
Requirements .......................................................................... 5-20 416

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
-iiiLIST OF PLATES
Chapter 2. Data Collection
2-1 Surface Distress – Pavement Condition Index (PCI) - 2016 .. 2-10 2-2 Traffic Distribution – Traffic Index .......................................... 2-11 Chapter 3. Pavement Condition Number (PCN)
3-1 Airport Diagram ........................................................................ 3-7 Chapter 4. Analysis and Evaluation
4-1 Deep-Seated Distress – BRANDLEY Fatigue Analysis ......... 4-14 4-2 PCI vs. Time .......................................................................... 4-15 4-3 Typical Crack Seal Rehabilitation .......................................... 4-16 Chapter 5. Rehabilitation Plan and Schedule
5-1 Pavement Segment Identification .......................................... 5-21 5-2 Stationing Control Plan .......................................................... 5-22 5-3 Rehabilitation Schedule – 2017-2020 .................................... 5-23 5-4 Rehabilitation Schedule – 2021-2024 .................................... 5-24 5-5 Rehabilitation Schedule – 2025-2028 .................................... 5-25 5-6 Rehabilitation Schedule – 2029-2032 .................................... 5-26 5-7 Rehabilitation Schedule – 2033-2036 .................................... 5-27

APPENDICES
Appendix A Geotechnical Data
Appendix B Falling Weight Deflectometer Test Data
Appendix C Pavement Condition Survey
Appendix D Traffic Summary
417
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
1-1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1-1 History
Construction of the Lake Tahoe airport began in 1958 by the County of El Dorado, CA as part of the larger development of the community in preparation for the 1960 Winter Olympics. A building boom preceding the Olympics resulted in a flurry of commercial and residential development. El Dorado County began operation of the Airport in the summer of 1959. Originally, the runway was only 5,900 feet long, but was extended to 8,541 feet in length in 1962. In 1983, the City of South Lake Tahoe purchased the airport from El Dorado County.

The airport maintained commercial airline service operations until they were discontinued in 2001. Commercial airline operations peaked in 1978 with nearly 300,000 annual passenger enplanements. However, with airline deregulation later in that same year (1978) and restrictions adopted on the use of jet aircraft at the Airport, these operations began to decrease. In 1992, the Airport’s Master Plan Settlement Agreement (MPSA) was adopted and outlined additional limitations on aircraft noise, operations, and development on the airport property. The MPSA expired in October 2012, but certain provisions that addressed aircraft noise still apply to current operations.
1-2 Airport Layout
Lake Tahoe Airport consists of one runway and a parallel taxiway with several cross taxiways. Runway 18-36 is 100 feet wide by 8,541 feet long. The thresholds on both Runways 18 and 36 have been displaced due to obstructions in the northern and southern approach to the airport and keeping the Upper Truckee River out of the extended runway safety area on the north end of the airport, decreasing the effective length of each runway. Taxiways have been constructed to serve the runway and aprons. A large aircraft parking apron is in existence on the west side of the runway. The terminal apron and southern portion of the general aviation apron serves the larger business jets, and the northern portion of the general aviation apron serves the smaller general aviation aircraft. Tee hangars are located at the south end of the apron area. Access roads are available to serve the terminal building, tee hangar buildings, and the fixed base operator at the airport. Automobile parking lots have been developed on the west side of the airport. Portions of the airline terminal building have been converted to City offices. 1-3 Role of the Airport
Lake Tahoe Airport serves the general aviation and corporate aviation needs of the area. Noise requirements limit the type of turbojet aircraft that can use the airport to those which operate with the quieter engines. There is no commercial airline service into Lake Tahoe Airport at this time.

Emergency service flights are also based out of the Lake Tahoe Airport, providing helicopter EMS services for the surrounding community. The airport also serves 418
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
1-2
as a temporary staging area for firefighting helicopters during the summer months. 1-4 Pavement Composition
Runway 18-36, the associated taxiways serving the runway, and portions of the aircraft parking apron were constructed by El Dorado County in the late 1950’s.

Most of the pavements on the airport are flexible pavement consisting of asphaltic concrete pavement surfacing. Portland cement concrete pavement was used on the apron located directly in front of the terminal building. These Portland cement concrete pavements are 14 inches thick. The existing pavement sections are included in Chapter 2, Section 2-2.
1-5 Need for Study and Purpose of Test Program
Normally a pavement at an airport does not suddenly collapse and allow an aircraft to sink into the pavement unless the pavement is grossly underdesigned or some major defect occurs in the pavement section. The normal type of failure is a progressive failure which takes place over a period of time and gradually causes the pavement to deteriorate to a point where normal maintenance is no longer feasible. When a pavement reaches this condition of deterioration or failure it is normally strengthened or reconstructed in order that its life can be extended.

If the deterioration of a pavement section is allowed to progress to a point where actual failure of the subgrade or base materials occurs, then a strengthening overlay is not feasible until the failed areas are removed and reconstructed.

If rehabilitation of a pavement section is undertaken before subsection failures occur, then a strengthening overlay can be used effectively to extend the life of the pavement section.

It is almost always cost effective to anticipate pavement failures and overlay the sections or add to the existing pavement section before the failure actually occurs.

There are two major distress or failure types that occur on a pavement. One is surface distress and the other deep-seated distress. With asphalt pavements, surface distress displays itself as cracking, shoving, raveling, and rutting. With rigid pavements surface distress displays itself as spalling, corner cracking, and map cracking. When surface distress reaches a certain point, it is not feasible to overlay the pavement structure with new asphalt or new Portland cement concrete since the cracks and other defects will tend to reflect through the new overlay. It is necessary to repair the distressed sections and/or remove or replace the distressed sections prior to placing the overlay or new development. With flexible pavement sections a mill and fill operation produces a good underlying surface by removing the damaged flexible pavement and replacing it with new sections. With rigid pavements spall repairs, corner crack repairs, and reestablishment of load transfer at the joints is often necessary to provide an adequate foundation for an 419
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
1-3
overlay or new section.

Deep-seated failure results in failure under load of the subgrade soils, subsoils, and/or aggregate base course materials resulting from repeated aircraft operations. When a deep-seated failure occurs in a pavement section, it is necessary to reconstruct the total section. Fatigue Analysis methodologies have been developed where the timing of deep-seated failure of a pavement system under specified traffic conditions can be determined. Strengthening or rehabilitation of the pavement section should be undertaken 2 to 5 years prior to the forecast time of failure.

Fatigue analysis methodologies have been developed that can be used to predict remaining pavement life of a given pavement section under specified traffic.

Fatigue analysis is also used to develop pavement section requirements to support specified traffic for a specified life. Required input data for the fatigue analysis program are:
 Thickness and type of each layer of the pavement section, including subgrade and subsoils
 Existing and Forecast Traffic - type and operations
 Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio of each layer of pavement section and underlying subsoils and of potential materials to be considered for overlay or for reconstructed pavement sections.
 Accurate pavement failure criteria
This type analysis can also forecast extended pavement life of a section with the placement of various types and thicknesses of overlay and/or various reconstructed sections.

In order to maintain efficient operation of this airport, it is necessary that all pavements being used by aircraft - runways, taxiways, and aprons - be maintained in good condition. In order to establish maintenance, strengthening, and/or rehabilitation programs for the airport and to allow for the orderly budgeting of maintenance and redevelopment funds, it is necessary that the Airport Owner be able to anticipate the remaining life of existing and new pavements under given operational conditions and to know when it will be necessary to apply strengthening overlays to or reconstruct existing pavements.

In order to provide this information on expected pavement life of existing pavements and the extended life for different overlay or reconstruction conditions, a detailed pavement evaluation study has been conducted. This study includes a study and evaluation of surface and deep-seated distresses. This report presents the results of this study.
420
CHAPTER 2 – DATA COLLECTION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
2-1
CHAPTER 2. DATA COLLECTION
Significant data were collected for the development of this Pavement Maintenance Management Plan (PMMP). All previous pavement management study reports were reviewed and data that were applicable to this study were abstracted from these reports and used in this program. All previous test information, including geotechnical data, were gathered and reviewed. A testing and inspection program was developed and new data from the new test program were accumulated. A summarization of the data collected is provided in this chapter. A detailed reporting of the test program and data collected are included in Appendices A, B, C, and D.
2-1 Geotechnical Studies
Detailed geotechnical studies are required before an airport or a portion thereof is designed. These studies are necessary to determine the type of soil on which the pavement sections are to be constructed, including the character and strength of these soils. Uniformity of stratification and location and fluctuation of groundwater table are also important information required to provide guidance during design.

With the current operation of business jet aircraft at the Lake Tahoe Airport, the collection of detailed soil test data is necessary to a depth of 10 to 15 feet. Soils data developed include uniformity of the stratification, soil classification, soil density, soil moisture content, soil strength, consolidation characteristics, and the location of groundwater table.

Test borings have been drilled at various times from the late 1950s to the present time to provide necessary geotechnical data to be used in the design of the various features at the airport. These test boring data have been gathered and are included in Appendix A to this report in the form of soil profiles.

The airport is located in the valley that is occupied by the Upper Truckee River.

Historically, this river has wandered somewhat through the valley carrying water from the mountains into Lake Tahoe. When the airport was originally designed in the late 1950s, a portion of the river was relocated to the east to provide a straight section on which to construct the runway and taxiway for the airport.

Geological studies indicate that the soils deposited under and around the Upper Truckee River are alluvial deposits consisting of decomposed granite, which classifies as fine to medium and fine to coarse sands with some gravel and cobbles embedded. The low mountainous ground to the immediate west of the airport eroded and caused the deposition of various layers of sand, silt, and clay on the western section of the airport.

Soil studies and observations show that the soils under the runway and taxiway at the airport generally consist of the fine to medium sands and the fine to coarse sands of decomposed granite, which were in a very loose, saturated condition. In some areas, particularly north of Taxiway G, some of the silt soils from the west extended into the sand soils of the runway and taxiway. The aprons and tee 421
CHAPTER 2 – DATA COLLECTION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
2-2
hangar development exist on the west side of the airport and the soils in this area consist of various layers of sands, silts, and silty clays.

The groundwater table in the area of the airport varies significantly with the season and with the climatic conditions, including drought and high levels of precipitation.

In the drought years, the groundwater table in the apron area was located at a depth of 8 to 10 feet; whereas, in 2017 after record rainfall and snow accumulations, the groundwater table was at or near ground surface in these apron areas.

At the time the airport was originally constructed in the late 1950s, the runway construction contractor found that the sand soils in the runway and taxiway sections were so loose and saturated they became “quick” under the vibration caused by a heavy-track vehicle clearing the area. Construction was stopped to determine method of correcting and stabilizing these soils. At that time, under the direction of Reinard W. Brandley, Consulting Airport Engineer, these sands were compacted and stabilized in all paved areas of the runway and taxiway by alternate vibrating of the soils with construction equipment, which liquefied the mass. There was then a waiting period until the excess pore pressure in the voids created by the vibration had been dissipated and then the process was repeated until a stable mass had been obtained. Within two weeks the entire section of runway and taxiway had been stabilized. The same technique was attempted in the apron area, but the sandy silt and clay layers were so fine that it required unreasonably long periods of time to dissipate the excess pore pressure. In these areas, the soft soils were removed to a reasonable depth and replaced with sand soils compacted as necessary.

Extensive soil borings have been conducted at this airport under the direction of our office for previous pavement evaluation studies and for soil studies leading to the design of specific construction projects. The logs of these tests holes are included in previous reports filed with the Airport and are included in this report as Appendix A.

Detailed laboratory testing has been conducted on soil samples obtained from the various test programs. These tests indicate that the surface soils are generally loose and soft. They show that these materials generally have a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) in place of 4 for the silty clays and 8 for the sands and decomposed granites. When compacted, sand soil CBR increases to 12 to 15. 2-2 Existing Pavement Sections
The existing pavement sections throughout the airport were evaluated based on the study of original construction drawings, reconstruction and maintenance drawings, test pits excavated, previous reports, and F.A.A. files.

In general, all existing flexible pavements are F.A.A. standard Marshall mix design materials. A portion of the terminal apron pavement is composed of 14” Portland 422
CHAPTER 2 – DATA COLLECTION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
2-3
cement concrete. Many of the pavements are a good quality product but some show signs of distress and failure. The existing aggregate base course consists mainly of a well-graded crushed aggregate base course with a maximum size of ¾ inch to 1½ inch depending on location.

Existing pavement sections at the location of each test hole included in Appendix A are the sections that existed at the time the test holes were drilled and do not necessarily represent existing conditions. Existing pavement sections shown in this section of the report represent current condition.

The current thickness of each layer of Portland cement concrete, asphalt pavement, aggregate base, cement treated base, aggregate subbase, pit run or select sand material, is shown, wherever it is known, in Appendix C, Tables C1 through C36. In general, the existing pavement sections are as shown in the table below:

Lake Tahoe Airport - Existing Pavement Sections
Item
Section Thickness - inches

PCC* AC* AB* OR CTB** ASB* Total*
Runway 18-36 - 3 7 20 30
Taxiways A, B, E, F, H, J, K - 4-8.5 8 0-24 15-39
Aprons A1, A2, & A4 - 3-4 6 6-13 18-27
Aprons A3 14 2 6 0 22
Apron A5 - 2-5 5-14 0-18 12-29
Apron A6 - 2-5 5-6 4-9 8-18
Apron Taxiway H - 2 5 4 11
Taxiway D and South Hangars - 3 6 9 18
Terminal Access Road - 2 3 5 10
Parking Lots - 2-3 4-5 0-22 7-29
* See Table 5-3 for Section Thickness of Individual Segments of Each Pavement Item ** CTB = Cement Treated Base
2-3 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) Tests
The heavy-duty falling weight deflectometer (FWD) as manufactured by Dynatest Corporation is capable of applying dynamic loads to the pavement of up to 50,000 pounds on a 12 or 18-inch diameter plate. This FWD measures the deflections of the surface of the pavement not only under the center of the plate, but at various locations out to 7 feet from the center of the plate. The shape and magnitude of the deflection bowl caused at the surface of the pavement under the applied loads can thus be determined. These FWD tests can be conducted fairly quickly, generally 20 to 30 tests per hour. Therefore, enough tests can be conducted to determine the uniformity of the load-carrying characteristics of the pavement in each element of the airport, together with the size and shape of the deflection bowl at the surface of the pavement under load.
423
CHAPTER 2 – DATA COLLECTION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
2-4
At the Lake Tahoe Airport, FWD tests were conducted using an 18-inch diameter plate, on each side of the runway centerline in the wheel path at a spacing of 200 feet. The locations of the tests were staggered so that test results are available at 100-foot intervals. One row of tests at 200-foot spacing was conducted on all taxiways, approximately 10 feet off centerline. On all aprons tests were conducted on a grid of approximately 100-foot by 100-foot. On all other areas such as hangar areas, FWD tests were conducted in the wheel path of the taxilane at a spacing of approximately 100 feet.

The FWD tests not only measure the deflection obtained under each test, but also measure the load that was applied to the pavement. Even though the height of fall of the weights remains the same for each test, the actual load applied to the pavement varies somewhat depending on the resistance to load. In order to compare the test results, all deflections obtained were normalized to the deflections under loads of 12, 20, 25, and/or 45 kips (1 kip = 1,000 lbs). The results of the falling weight deflectometer tests showing center plate deflections and joint efficiency tests are included in Appendix B, Plates B1 through B3. The center deflections for each element of the airport were also plotted as profiles and these data are included in Appendix B, Plates B4 through B24.

The measured surface deflections under the FWD tests varied somewhat from one location to another on the airport. These test results indicate that the pavement section materials, subgrade and subsoils have variable strengths throughout the airport.

The basic soil parameters that are utilized in the Fatigue Analysis to determine pavement life are Modulus of Elasticity, Poisson’s Ratio, and element thickness.

The magnitude of deflection and shape of the deflection bowl on the surface of the pavement under load can be used with the computer program for calculations of stresses, strains, and deflections on multi-layer systems to back calculate the soil parameter of Modulus of Elasticity. The data developed from all of the falling weight deflectometer tests were utilized to back calculate Modulus of Elasticity of each layer of the pavement section, and the subsoils located below the pavement section. The results of these back calculated values of Modulus of Elasticity of each layer analyzed are included in Appendix C, Tables C1 through C36. 2-4 Pavement Condition Survey
Pavement condition surveys were conducted on all pavements at Lake Tahoe Airport to determine the type of distress and degree of distress that has occurred on each pavement element and the general character of the pavement.

A standard test method for pavement condition surveys is included in ASTM D 5340-11, Standard Test Method for Airport Pavement Condition Index Surveys. In the pavement condition survey, a detailed assessment of the pavement is conducted, which evaluates the following surface distresses:
424
CHAPTER 2 – DATA COLLECTION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
2-5
Distresses in Asphalt Pavement Distresses in Jointed Concrete Pavements Alligator Cracking Blowup
Bleeding Corner Break
Block Cracking Cracks (Longitudinal, Transverse, Diagonal) Corrugation Durability Cracking
Depression Joint Seal Damage
Jet Blast Erosion Patching, small
Joint Reflection Cracking (from PCC) Patching, Large & Utility Cuts Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking Popouts
Oil Spillage Pumping
Patching and Utility Cut Patching Scaling, Map Cracking, Crazing Polished Aggregate Settlement or Faulting
Raveling and Weathering Shattered Slab / Intersecting Cracks Rutting Shrinkage Cracks
Shoving Spalling (Longitudinal and Transverse)
Slippage Cracking Spalling (Corner)
Swell
The standard ASTM evaluation procedure is to divide the test element into sample units. The sample units generally represent approximately 10 percent of the total pavement section. The type and severity of each airport pavement distress is assessed by visual inspection of the pavement sample units. The quantity of distress is measured and the distress data are used to calculate the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of each sample unit. The process involves detailed inspection of sample units throughout the section, which covers approximately 10 percent of the total area of the pavement.

The office of Reinard W. Brandley deviates from this process in that 100 percent of the pavement surface is surveyed to determine the severity and magnitude of distress for each type of distress that is occurring on that section of pavement.

During these detailed surveys all the distress modes are observed and recorded so that all distresses can be evaluated. By this procedure the coverage of the survey is increased from the 10 percent included in the standard ASTM method to 100 percent. It is considered important to expand the survey in this manner so as to identify the worst-case conditions as well as the average and best case conditions. Any unusual distress types are also recorded for the total unit.

The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and pavement condition description were determined for each section of pavement. This information is included in Appendix C of this report. The data for each segment are included in Tables C1 through C36. Additional information is also included on these tables. Pavement condition determinations are based on visual observations and can vary significantly based on the experience and judgment of the Engineer.

The ASTM Standard provides a relationship between Pavement Condition Index 425
CHAPTER 2 – DATA COLLECTION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
2-6
(PCI) and pavement rating. On Plate No. 2-1 the rating system is indicated as a color legend and the rating of each segment of pavement is indicated by color.

The PCI of each segment is also indicated adjacent to each segment of the pavement. It will be noted that most pavements show a “fair” to “very good” condition, yet some only show “very poor” to “poor” conditions. These “poor” pavements are showing considerable distresses on the surface including weathering and block cracking. As a result of the surface conditions on some of the pavements, some rehabilitation is recommended earlier than the forecast remaining life of the pavement. The Pavement Condition Index is based solely on the surface condition and surface distresses and does not necessarily reflect the condition or life of the pavement from a deep-seated failure basis. 2-5 Forecast Traffic
Traffic forecasts for the airport were obtained from the 2016 Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Report and used to evaluate the pavements at this airport. The Master Plan only included data on total operations forecast at the airport. It did not include any data on the fleet mix of aircraft that were anticipated to utilize the airport. The consultant that prepared the Master Plan Report provided typical fleet mix data that was utilized for the noise contour analysis in the Master Plan. This typical fleet mix data along with the forecast operations data from the Master Plan was used to generate the forecast traffic utilized in this pavement evaluation study to determine the remaining pavement life of each section of pavement. This data included the typical type of aircraft currently operating at the airport, along with the annual number of operations of each aircraft type. The data furnished did not include the forecast growth rates of these aircraft, so a reasonable growth rate of 2% for aircraft weighing less than 25,000 lbs. was used in this analysis. Typically, a growth rate of 3% could be expected for aircraft weighing more than 25,000 lbs., Table No. 2-1 provides the traffic data utilized for the runway and taxiway complex as well as other hangar and apron areas.

Table No. 2-1 lists the 2016 annual operations for aircraft utilizing the airport and includes their maximum takeoff weight and gear configuration. These aircraft have been grouped into 8 aircraft groups and 2 groups of automobiles and delivery trucks for the access roads and parking lots. Each group represents the average aircraft characteristics of maximum takeoff weight and gear type for the different classifications of aircraft that utilize the airport pavements.

In evaluating airfield pavements for deep-seated distress, it is the number of coverages of each wheel on each aircraft over a given point of pavement that contributes to the deep-seated distress on or near that section of pavement. The distribution of aircraft traffic on the airport is a function of:
426
CHAPTER 2 – DATA COLLECTION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
2-7
 Wind direction, which dictates which runway is used
 Landing length requirement of each aircraft and takeoff length requirement of each aircraft
 Destination on the airport of each aircraft type.
 Distribution of traffic on a given pavement section.

For this evaluation, data was estimated showing how many operations utilized each of the 2 runway ends at the airport. The runway utilized by each aircraft is a function of the size and weight of using aircraft, wind direction, destination of the aircraft on the airfield, and pilot in command preference.

When an aircraft lands on a runway, only the heavier aircraft generally use the full length of runway. Intermediate and smaller size aircraft exit the runway at the appropriate cross taxiway. The taxiways that are used by aircraft are dependent upon the location at which the aircraft take off and land as well as the destination of the arriving aircraft on the airport.

Based on the aircraft characteristics, the runway use dictated by wind direction, and the destination of aircraft on the airport, the current annual operations of each aircraft have been evaluated to best represent the actual traffic that occurs on each segment of pavement. The traffic forecast to occur on each segment is defined as “Traffic Index.” A total of 14 traffic indexes were evaluated and used for this study.

On several pavement sections, such as the cross taxiways, hangar areas and aprons, the entire amount of traffic from a pavement complex was initially utilized even though the actual traffic experienced on these pavements will likely be much lower. This higher level of traffic was not further reduced in some areas since the pavement life on these pavements exceeded 20 years even with the higher than expected traffic levels. Pavements that showed less than 20 years of remaining life were further analyzed with the traffic index that represented their actual forecast traffic. The number of annual operations and estimated average annual growth rates for each aircraft group and each traffic index are indicated in Table No. 2-1. These traffic indexes were utilized in the evaluation of all pavements for deep-seated distress.

Using the traffic index and the total annual operations, the number of operations on a given segment of the airport can be estimated. Each operation does not travel over the same spot on a pavement and, therefore, the number of coverages on the pavement section will be less than the total operations for each traffic index. The distribution of traffic on each section is a function of the aircraft type, the gear type, the wind conditions, and the skill of the pilot. There is generally a fairly wide distribution of traffic on a runway; whereas, on a taxiway the traffic is more concentrated. On the aprons the traffic generally follows specified taxilane markings, but only a fraction of the total aircraft operate on each section of apron.

Different factors are applied to the operations estimated for a given section of the airport to convert operations to coverages. Coverages are used in the Fatigue Analysis for remaining pavement life calculations.
427
CHAPTER 2 – DATA COLLECTION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
2-8
The traffic index used for various segments of each pavement is indicated on Plate No. 2-2.
2-6 Frost Action
The natural soils at the Lake Tahoe Airport are highly susceptible to frost action because of the gradation of these materials and the access to ground moisture.

When soils freeze, if the level of frost penetration remains stable for a significant period of time, water is drawn to the freezing layer and this water accumulates and freezes in the form of ice lenses, which cause the soils above that level to heave.

When the frost penetrates deeper, the process is repeated and additional ice lenses are formed. In a frost-susceptible soil with deep penetration of frost, numerous ice lenses will form and significant heave will occur.

At the Lake Tahoe Airport (approximately 30 years ago) the depth of frost penetration under a 10-foot wide solid white reflective painted surface extended to 49 inches. Exploration at Lake Tahoe Airport showed that the frost had penetrated to a depth of 49 inches under the white painted stripe and only 14 inches under the adjacent dark pavement. As an experiment a series of 6-inch wide black stripes were painted on this pavement to form a “zebra” pattern of 6-inch white and 6-inch black. Even in the middle of the winter the painting of these black stripes caused the frozen soil to melt and the surface of the runway, which had heaved 12 inches, to settle back to original grade. This research led to F.A.A. adoption of “zebra” striping as a standard for cold climate areas.

When these soils thaw in the spring, they thaw from the top and from the bottom.

Generally, about two-thirds of the thawing occurs from the surface and one-third from the bottom. Until the total section thaws, that portion above the remaining frozen layer is super-saturated because of the melting of the ice lenses. The remaining frozen soil creates an impervious layer so the excess pore water cannot dissipate. This produces a much weaker pavement section during this period. It is important to determine the depth of frost penetration at the Lake Tahoe Airport and to develop methods to accommodate the decreased strength of subsoils during spring thaw if necessary.

Experience at other airports in the Sierra Nevada Mountains indicates that frost penetration under a dark colored pavement is significantly less than that indicated by the freezing index; whereas, the frost penetration under a white reflective painted surface can be greater than that indicated by the freezing index.

Observations and thermocouple data at the Lake Tahoe Airport indicates that the depth of frost penetration under wide white painted pavement can be as much as 60 inches, whereas the depth of frost penetration under black pavement surfaces ranges from 12 to 16 inches. It is recommended at the Lake Tahoe Airport that all pavement markings be “zebra” striping using 6” maximum width painted sections and 6” minimum black unpainted sections. Frost free materials should be used for all pavement sections to a depth of 20 inches.
428

CHAPTER
2–DATA COLLECTION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
2-9

1 Cessna 172 / Cirrus SR-22 5,000 Single 9,700 2% 9,700 4,850 4,850 4,850 970 3,880 5,820 5,820 2,910 1,940 2,910 970 - - 2 Piper PA-31T Cheyenne 9,000 Single 1,600 2% 1,600 800 800 800 160 640 960 960 480 320 480 160 - - 3 Beech Super King Air 16,000 Dual 8,100 2% 8,100 4,050 4,050 3,240 810 5,670 8,100 2,430 1,620 405 2,430 - - - 4 BAe-125 Hawker 28,000 Dual 900 3% 900 810 225 90 630 720 900 180 270 - - - - - 5 Cessna Citation X 36,000 Dual 2,650 3% 2,650 2,385 663 265 1,855 2,120 2,650 530 795 - - - - - 6 Dassault Falcon 2000 41,000 Dual 2,900 3% 2,900 2,610 725 290 2,030 2,320 2,900 580 870 - - - - - 7 Gulfstream IV 74,000 Dual 900 3% 900 855 180 45 630 810 900 90 90 - - - - - 8 Gulfstream V 90,000 Dual 650 3% 650 618 130 33 455 585 650 65 65 - - - - - 9 Automobile 4,000 Single 75,000 1% - - - - - - - - - - - - 75,000 65,000 10 H20 Truck 20,000 Truck 1,500 1% - - - - - 700 700 - 350 1,000 - - 1,500 200 T8
(Aprons)
TABLE No. 2-1 - Traffic Index Summary - Lake Tahoe Airport Traffic Index (Forecast Aircraft Operations in 2016)
Aircraft
Group Typical Aircraft Type
Aircraft
MTOW (lbs)
Gear
Configuration
2016 Annual
Operations
Annual
Growth Rate
T1
(Runw ay)
T2
(Taxiw ays)
T3
(Taxiw ays)
T4
(Taxiw ays)
T5
(Aprons)
T6
(Aprons)
T7
(Aprons)
T9
(Aprons)
T12
(Hangars)
T13
(Roads)
T14
(Roads)
T10
(Aprons)
T11
(Hangars)
429
8155 68 55 73 95 45 23 55 35 75 9010 25 14 20 25 70 45 68 55 73 95 45 23 55 75 9010 25 14 20 25 70 45 8155 35 81 55 33 50 47 14 81 55 33

PAVEMENT EVALUATION
SURFACE DISTRESS - PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX (PCI) - 2016

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A
B
E
F
H
J
K
F
D
G
HIGHWAY 50
UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER AIRPORT RD RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A

MATCHLINE - SEE BELOW
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. 2-1 FILE TVL.2-1.PCI 1"=400' KDC RWB 7/21/1704 430
T1 T1 T3 T4 T4 T4 T4 T6 T6 T6 T11 T12 T11 T2 T8 T6 T5 T7 T9 T7 T6 T9 T9 T9 T7 T14 T14 T14 T13 T1 T3 T3 T4 T4 T10

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION - TRAFFIC INDEX

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A BEF HJK FDG HIGHWAY 50 UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER AIRPORT RD RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A

MATCHLINE - SEE BELOW
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE LEGEND T3 DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. 2-2 FILE TVL.2-2.Traffic 1"=400' KDC RWB 7/21/1704 H 431
CHAPTER 3 – PAVEMENT CONDITION NUMBER (PCN)
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
3-1
CHAPTER 3. PAVEMENT CONDITION NUMBER (PCN)
3-1 Method of Calculating PCN
More than 50 years ago the European Airport Systems, particularly the United Kingdom, developed a standard method known as Aircraft Classification Number/Pavement Classification Number (ACN/PCN) method of pavement strength rating information. FAA has long resisted using this standard, but has now adopted it as an international standard to facilitate the exchange of pavement strength rating information.

With this method of evaluation, the airfield pavements are assigned a Pavement Classification Number (PCN), which is dependent on the pavement section and soil strength and represents the strength and bearing capacity of the pavement section. PCN is a number that expresses the load-carrying capacity of a pavement for specified operations. The aircraft manufacturers have developed an Aircraft Classification Number (ACN), which represents the relative effect of an aircraft at a given configuration on a pavement structure. This system has been developed such that aircraft with a given ACN value can safely operate on pavements that have PCN values equal to or greater than the ACN value of the aircraft. It has, therefore, become necessary to develop and report PCN values for all pavements, particularly on commercial airports.

The Federal Aviation Administration has developed Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5335-5C, Standardized Method of Reporting Airport Pavement Strength - PCN. In AC 150/5335-5C FAA sets forth various methods for determining PCN on airport pavements. This Advisory Circular has been used to develop PCN values for the various pavement sections at Lake Tahoe Airport.

There are several methods for determining PCN Values for a pavement section that are suggested, including the following:

1. COMFAA Computer Program

2. Use the ACN of the most critical aircraft that is successfully using the airport and assume the PCN is the same as that critical ACN value.

3. Knowing the existing pavement sections and characteristics of the subgrade soils and each pavement section layer, determine the design aircraft weight allowed on the pavement section with each landing gear configuration. The bearing capacity of the pavement sections with flexible pavements is determined by the California Bearing Ratio Method and for pavement sections with rigid pavements the Westergaard Design Method is used. Once the load bearing capacity of the section is determined, FAA has developed a series of tables that are included in AC 150/5335-5C, Appendix F as Tables F-1, F-2, F-3, and F-4, which provide the relationship 432
CHAPTER 3 – PAVEMENT CONDITION NUMBER (PCN)
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
3-2
between PCN and aircraft gross weight. A different set of tables is used for flexible pavement sections and for rigid pavement sections. Once the maximum allowable aircraft gross weight for each gear type is determined, then the representative PCN can be taken from these tables.

At the Lake Tahoe Airport the COMFAA program was tested. It was found that the results obtained were very erratic and did not represent the aircraft load carrying capacity of the pavements and no further effort was made to utilize the computer program.

The use of the ACN value of the critical aircraft successfully using the airport as the PCN value of the pavement is somewhat arbitrary and is not considered to accurately depict the strength of the pavement sections. This method was not utilized in this study.

The technical method for determining the PCN determines the strength of the pavement sections based on thickness and quality of the various pavement layers used and the subgrade strength. For flexible pavements the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of subgrade method was utilized and for rigid pavements the Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (K) was utilized. The K factor utilized was the K factor at the top of the base course, which is larger than the K factor of the subgrade materials. With this method of design and evaluation the maximum aircraft load that can be utilized on each pavement section can be calculated for single gear aircraft, dual gear aircraft, dual tandem gear aircraft, and double dual tandem gear aircraft. Dual tandem gear and double dual tandem gear aircraft were not evaluated for this study as they do not operate at the Lake Tahoe Airport. 3-2 Evaluation
The PCN values are determined separately for each pavement section on the airport and indicated in the report based on pavement type, subgrade strength category, allowable tire pressure, and method used for determining the PCN. The pavement codes for reporting the PCN are as follows:

Pavement Type
Pavement Type Code
Flexible F
Rigid R
Subgrade Strength (Flexible Pavement)
Subgrade CBR Code
> 13 A
8 to 13 B
4 to 8 C
< 4 D

433
CHAPTER 3 – PAVEMENT CONDITION NUMBER (PCN)
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
3-3
Rigid Pavements - K
K Code
> 442 A
221 to 442 B
92 to 221 C
< 92 D
Tire Pressure
Psi Code
> 254 (No Limit) W
181 to 254 X
73 to 180 Y
< 73 Z
Method of Analysis
Method Code
Technical T
Using Aircraft U
A typical listing of a PCN value will, therefore, be PCN = 28/F/C/Y/T, where F = Flexible Pavement
C = Subgrade CBR 4 to 8
Y = Tire pressure 73 to 180 psi
T = Technical method of calculation.
3-3 Calculated PCN Values
There are numerous pavement sections at the Lake Tahoe Airport - some rigid pavements and some flexible pavements. Some are original design and others are reconstructed or overlaid sections. A detailed study has been conducted to determine the pavement sections existing at this time at Lake Tahoe Airport. These data are summarized in Table No. 3-1 for all pavements at the airport. Using these pavement sections and either the CBR or Westergaard method of design, the airplane gross weight allowed on these pavements for single gear aircraft and dual gear aircraft has been determined and is included on Table No. 3-1 for each of the pavement sections.

An Airport Diagram showing the major features and PCN values of the airfield pavements is shown on Plate No. 3-1.
434
CHAPTER 3 – PAVEMENT CONDITION NUMBER (PCN)
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
3-4
Utilizing these data the PCN for each pavement section, both flexible and rigid, has been determined using Tables F-1 through F-4 of AC 150/5335-5C, Appendix F.

Summary of PCN Values
Section PCN
Runway 18-36 & Associated Taxiways 15 F/C/Y/T
Terminal Apron (PCC) 40 R/B/Y/T
Terminal Area Aprons and Taxiways (Flexible) 22 F/C/Y/T General Aviation Taxiways and Aprons 7 F/D/Y/T
General Aviation Hangar Areas 7 F/D/Y/T
The PCN for Runway 18-36 is 28 F/C/Y/T, but the lower PCN Values for the supporting Taxiways A, B, E, F, H, J, & K control the PCN value listed for the runway and taxiway complex.

Several pavement sections are designed to only support light aircraft. These sections are not supported by the calculation of a PCN value and should be restricted to light aircraft only. A light aircraft weighs less than 12,000 lbs.

Apron A6 and Hangar Areas should be restricted to light aircraft only. See Plate 5-1 for locations of these Apron and Hangar areas.

This PCN information should be added to the Airport Master Record, FAA Form 5100, for the Lake Tahoe Airport.

435
CHAPTER 3 – PAVEMENT CONDITION NUMBER (PCN)
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
3-5
Table 3-1 Pavement Sections and Pavement Condition Number (PCN) Lake Tahoe Airport Pavement Segment Pavement ID Condition (See Plate Station Number 5-1) Element (See Plate 5-2) PCN Element C1 Runway 18-36 0+00 - 36+00 - 3.0 7 - 20 - - 30 8 C 75+ 175 30 28 28 28 F/C/Y/T Runway 18-36 C2 Runway 18-36 36+00 - 59+75 - 3.0 7 - 20 - - 30 8 C 75+ 175 30 28 28 28 F/C/Y/T Runway 18-36 C3 Runway 18-36 59+75 - 85+40 - 3.0 7 - 20 - - 30 8 C 75+ 175 30 28 28 28 F/C/Y/T Runway 18-36 C4 Taxiways B, A, & K 0+00 - 40+60 - 8.5 8 - 8 - - 25 5 C 55 75 22 22 22 22 F/C/Y/T Taxiways B, A, & K C5 Taxiways B, A, & K 40+60 - 59+15 - 4.0 8 - 8 - - 20 5 C 35 60 13 15 15 15 F/C/Y/T Taxiways B, A, & KC6 Taxiways B, A, & K 59+15 - 82+60 - 7.5 8 - 24 - - 39 5 C 75+ 200 30 33 30 30 F/C/Y/T Taxiways B, A, & KC7 Taxiways B, A, & K 82+60 - 88+00 - 7.5 8 - 24 - - 39 3 D 75+ 110 30 35 30 30 F/D/Y/T Taxiways B, A, & KC8 Taxiway E 0+00 - 1+75 - 7 8 - - - - 15 5 C 20 35 8 9 8 8 F/C/Y/T Taxiway EC9 Taxiway E 1+75 - 3+60 - 9 8 - 8 - - 25 5 C 55 75 22 22 22 22 F/C/Y/T Taxiway E C10 Taxiway F 0-00 - 1+75 - 7 8 - - - - 15 5 C 20 35 8 9 8 8 F/C/Y/T Taxiway F C11 Taxiway F 1+75 - 3+50 - 9 8 - 8 - - 25 5 C 55 75 22 22 22 22 F/C/Y/T Taxiway FC12 Taxiway F 3+50 - 5+60 - 9 8 - 8 - - 25 5 C 55 75 22 22 22 22 F/C/Y/T Taxiway FC13 Taxiway H 0+00 - 1+80 - 8 8 - 24 - - 39 3 D 75+ 125 30 40 30 30 F/D/Y/T Taxiway HC14 Taxiway J 0+00 - 1+80 - 8 8 - 24 - - 39 3 D 75+ 125 30 40 30 30 F/D/Y/T Taxiway JC15 Taxiway G 0+00 - 1+00 - 6 8 - 8 - - 22 4 D 30 50 12 15 15 15 F/D/Y/T Taxiway GC16 Apron A1 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 - 3 6 - 6 - 12 27 8 C 75+ 160 30 46 30 30 F/C/Y/T Apron A1C17 Apron A2 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 - 4 6 - 13 - - 23 8 C 75 110 30 33 30 30 F/C/Y/T Apron A2C18 Apron A3 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 14 2 - - 6 - - 22 10 B 75+ 175 40 49 40 40 R/B/Y/T Apron A3C19 Apron A4a See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 - 4 6 - 8 - - 18 8 C 50 75 19 22 22 22 F/C/Y/T Apron A4aC20 Apron A4b See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 - 4 6 - 8 - - 18 8 C 50 75 19 22 22 22 F/C/Y/T Apron A4bC21 Apron A5a See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 - 3 6 - 20 18 - 29 13 B 75+ 200+ 30 48 30 30 F/B/Y/T Apron A5aC22 Apron A5b See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 - 3 14 - - - - 17 4 D 20 25 8 8 8 8 F/D/Y/T Apron A5bC23 Apron A5c See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 - 2 5 - 5 - - 12 3 D 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Apron A5cC24 Apron A5d See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 - 5 - 5 4 - - 14 5 C 21 25 7 7 7 7 F/C/Y/T Apron A5d DW SW DW Use
Select
Sand Total Pit Run
Subgrade Strength Bearing Capacity - Kips (1 Kip = 1,000 lbs.) PCN - Flexible or Rigid Section - (F or R) / _ / Y / T Estimated
CBR
Subgrade
Category SW
Existing Pavement Section - inches

PCC AC AB CTB ASB
436
CHAPTER 3 – PAVEMENT CONDITION NUMBER (PCN)
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
3-6
Table 3-1 (continued) Pavement Sections and Pavement Condition Number (PCN) Lake Tahoe Airport C25 Apron A6a See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 - 3 6 - 9 - - 18 4 D 20 25 7 7 7 7 F/D/Y/T Apron A6a C26 Apron A6b See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 - 5 - 5 4 - - 14 5 C 21 25 7 7 7 7 F/C/Y/T Apron A6b C27 Apron A6c See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 - 2 6 - - 5 - 8 3 D 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Apron A6c C28 Apron T/W H See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 - 2 5 - 4 - - 11 3 D 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Apron T/W H C29 Taxiway D 0+00 - 1+00 - 3 6 - 9 - - 18 7 C 45 60 17 15 15 15 F/C/Y/T Taxiway D C30 Tee Hangar Taxiway (H6) 0+00 - 6+70 - 3 6 - 9 - - 18 7 C 45 60 17 15 15 15 F/C/Y/T Tee Hangar Taxiway (H6) C31 Tee Hangar Taxilanes (H1-H5) See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 - 3 6 - 9 - - 18 3 D 20 25 7 7 7 7 F/D/Y/T Tee Hangar Taxilanes (H1-H5) C32 Terminal Access Road 0+00 - 20+00 - 2 3 - 5 - - 10 5 C N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Terminal Access Road C33 Parking Lot Entrance See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 - 2 3 - 5 - - 10 8 C N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Parking Lot EntranceC34 Parking Lot A - W/ Over Ex See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 - 3 4 - 22 - - 29 5 C N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Parking Lot A - W/ Over Ex C35 Parking Lot A - W/O Over Ex See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 - 3 4 - 4 - - 11 5 C N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Parking Lot A - W/O Over Ex C36 Parking Lot B See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 - 2 5 - - - - 7 3 D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Parking Lot B 437
36 AIRPORT ROAD
18 A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H
H
J
K
F
E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER AIRPORT DIAGRAM
PLATE No. 3-1
· · LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT PAVEMENT EVALUATION

NOT TO SCALE
438
CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
4-1
CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
4-1 Distress Mode
There are two major distress types that lead to failure and/or deterioration of an airfield pavement. These are deep-seated distress and surface distress.

Deep-seated distress is distress in the lower sections of the pavement section and the subgrade and subsoil beneath the pavement section and is caused by repeated stresses induced by aircraft movement on the surface of the pavement. Deep-seated distress can lead to complete failure of the pavement section, foundation soils, or both.

Surface distress is caused by traffic, age, and environmental factors including temperature, temperature changes, and moisture. Surface distress causes deterioration of the surface pavement layer including cracking, spalling, raveling, bleeding, and shoving. These distresses can be caused by deep-seated distress or surface distress caused by load, environmental factors, and quality of pavement, or both.
4-2 Deep-Seated Distress
A pavement does not suddenly fail under load unless it is grossly overloaded. Load limits for infrequent use need to be applied to the pavements to avoid collapse of the aircraft through the pavement section. The failures that generally occur are fatigue-type failures where distresses develop to a point that rutting and accompanying failure of the pavement section occurs. It is important in developing a Pavement Maintenance/Management Plan (PMMP) to determine the time at which failure of the section caused by deep-seated distress will begin to occur under forecast loadings. Several methods have been developed over the past 70 years for utilizing a Fatigue Analysis methodology to forecast remaining life of pavements under forecast loads. The degree of success has been varied depending on the method used. The BRANDLEY Fatigue Analysis methodology has a successful 60-year performance record, showing a 90 to 95 percent accuracy in predicting remaining pavement life. FAA’s FAARFIELD methodology, as detailed in this chapter, has not proven to provide accurate forecasts of remaining pavement section life. The BRANDLEY Fatigue Analysis methodology is utilized in this study.
4-2.1 Back Calculated Modulus of Elasticity
Prior to the development of the computer, it was not possible to calculate stresses, strains, and deflections under loaded pavement sections at various depths in a section using a multi-layered system. As a result, the early methods of fatigue analysis utilized deflections of pavement surface, subgrade surface, or other locations measured under full-scale load tests 439
CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
4-2
as the failure criteria. With the development of the computer, it was possible to calculate stresses, strains and deflections at the surface and all depths below in a multi-layer system. The basic soils and pavement parameters that were necessary for this computation are Modulus of Elasticity, Poisson’s Ratio, and thickness of each layer in the system.

With the development of the heavy-duty falling weight deflectometer equipment and the heavy-duty vibratory load test equipment, it became possible to measure deflections of the pavement surface and to establish the size and shape of the deflection bowl caused by the applied loads.

Using the deflection bowl data and the computer program for multi-layer systems, it is possible to back calculate values of Modulus of Elasticity for each layer of the system. Poisson’s Ratio is not a critical parameter and values of Poisson’s Ratio can be adequately estimated for each type material in each layer. As a result of this development, full-scale load tests are no longer required and the basic soil parameters can be developed from the results of heavy-duty falling weight deflectometer tests or vibratory load tests.

Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of each layer and the thickness of each layer of the pavement section, the subgrade materials, and various layers of subsoil were obtained in this study and utilized with the Fatigue Analysis.
4-2.2 Forecast Traffic
Forecast traffic, including type aircraft, type gear, operating load, annual operations, and distribution on the pavement, is a parameter that must be utilized in any fatigue analysis. This data must be converted to coverages, which is the number of wheels per year crossing a given point on the pavement. The forecast traffic at Lake Tahoe Airport for each pavement section is included as the Traffic Index in Table No. 2-1. These traffic indexes represent the total operations of each category of aircraft on each section of pavement. For input into the Fatigue Analysis methodology, these operations are converted to coverages to represent the distribution of aircraft tires on the pavement section in each segment. 4-2.3 Existing Pavement Sections
Thickness and type of material of each pavement section and each layer of subgrade and subsoil under the pavement section are important factors to input into any fatigue analysis. The pavement section data for each pavement section are included in Appendix C.
440
CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
4-3
4-2.4 Considered Rehabilitation Sections
Fatigue Analysis methodology not only provides a forecast remaining pavement life under forecast traffic for a given pavement section, but can also forecast extended pavement life after different rehabilitation or reconstruction processes have taken place. It is, therefore, important to not only evaluate the existing pavement sections for forecast remaining life, but to apply feasible rehabilitation methods to the existing pavement sections and calculate forecast extended life due to the rehabilitation process. It is important to prepare this evaluation for different rehabilitation processes that would be feasible at this airport in order to prepare a cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the most acceptable rehabilitation program for the pavement section. A series of rehabilitation processes that are considered feasible for this airport have been prepared and are included in Table No. 4-1. Where applicable, each of these rehabilitation procedures was evaluated using the Fatigue Analysis Methodology.
4-2.5 Fatigue Analysis – Deep-Seated Distress
4-2.5.1 BRANDLEY Fatigue Analysis – Remaining Life Analysis In 1948, as research for a doctoral thesis at Harvard University Graduate School of Engineering, Reinard W. Brandley developed the BRANDLEY Fatigue Analysis method of evaluating airfield pavements. This Fatigue Analysis was developed using full-scale load tests conducted by the Corps of Engineers near the end of World War II on various airports for the purpose of developing design criteria for pavements to serve the larger military aircraft that were being developed. The failure criterion that was used in this analysis was limiting subgrade deflection under design traffic.

Measured deflections were used at that time since the computer had not been developed and the stresses, strains, and deflections in multi-layered systems could not be calculated. This Fatigue Analysis methodology and failure criteria has been utilized on many airports. However, the method of determining deflections of the surface of the subgrade has changed from direct measurement to calculating these deflections using layer thicknesses and the Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of each layer, which have been back calculated from the data obtained from the falling weight deflectometer tests. From the Fatigue Analysis, forecasts of remaining pavement life, so far as deep-seated distress is concerned, were calculated for each pavement section.

Since the original research was conducted on flexible pavements, it was anticipated that a separate failure criteria would be required for rigid pavement sections. Experience and comparison with 441
CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
4-4
actual performance show that the failure criteria used for flexible pavements is the same for rigid pavements and there was no change required in the failure criteria.

A comparison of forecast pavement life and time for failure under the forecast traffic over the past 60 years has shown excellent correlation between forecast life and actual time to failure. The forecast life has always been within 90 to 110 percent of the actual life of the section when actual traffic on the section was the same as that used in the analysis.

Plate 4-1 shows the remaining life of the pavements expected to fail under deep-seated distress in the subgrade layer using the forecast traffic. The remaining life analysis for the subgrade layer is the critical item for the areas of pavement that have less than 20 years of remaining life.

The remaining life data shown is for forecast traffic on the section.

If traffic varies from forecast, then remaining life of the section subjected to the new traffic can be re-calculated using existing data obtained in this study for Modulus of Elasticity and thickness of each layer of the pavement section.

Any analysis that showed a remaining pavement life of a section of more than 20 years has been indicated as 20+ years. Other factors such as weathering, maintenance, etc., over a 20-year period can have a significant influence on the performance of a pavement. It is recommended that a complete reevaluation of pavement performance, including falling weight deflectometer testing and Fatigue Analysis, be conducted every 10 years to evaluate unforeseen changes and to update the recommended
maintenance and rehabilitation schedules.
4-2.5.2 FAARFIELD Airport Pavement Design – Remaining Life Analysis The FAA has recently developed a program called “FAARFIELD” to design and evaluate airfield pavements, including a remaining life analysis. A comparative study of the BRANDLEY Fatigue Analysis and the FAARFIELD systems was made on some airport pavements that have actually failed after they had been tested. In this analysis the same traffic, pavement section, Modulus of Elasticity values, and Poisson’s Ratio values for each layer were used in both the BRANDLEY Fatigue Analysis and the FAARFIELD analysis. At each location Air Traffic Control Tower records indicated that the forecast traffic for aircraft type and operation 442
CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
4-5
matched the actual traffic experienced. The results of this study are tabulated below:

Airport Facility
Forecast Remaining Life (Years)
(Deep-Seated Distress Only) Actual
Life* BRANDLEY FAARFIELD
Sacramento
International Airport Runway 16L-34R 5 0.25 5.1
Stockton
Metropolitan Airport Runway 11-29 6 to 8 22 7
Nashville
International Airport
Existing Apron
Taxiway 3 0.1 3
Truckee-Tahoe
Airport Runway 11-29 16 1 10+**
*Number of years to actual failure.
**This section of the runway performed under forecast loading for 8 to 10 years with no sign of deep-seated distress. There was surface cracking of the asphalt pavement due to thermal stresses, which was the reason for reconstruction in 2012, not deep-seated distresses. According to FAARFIELD it should have had structural failure 7 to 9 years earlier.

A few select areas of pavement at Lake Tahoe Airport were selected and analyzed with both the BRANDLEY Fatigue Analysis and with FAARFIELD for this study. The summary of the results are tabulated below for comparison purposes:

Pavement
Element Station
Forecast Remaining Life (Years)
(Deep-Seated Distress Only)

BRANDLEY FAARFIELD
Subgrade Subgrade
Runway 18-36 0+00 to 36+00 50+ 4,500
Taxiway A 40+60 to 59+15 25 2
Taxiway F 3+50 to 5+60 11 42
Apron A4b See Plate 5-1 & 5-2 15 1
Apron A6c See Plate 5-1 & 5-2 2 0
Tee Hangars See Plate 5-1 & 5-2 50+ 43,000
Terminal Access
Road See Plate 5-1 & 5-2 8 11
Due to the long, accurate performance record of the BRANDLEY Fatigue Analysis methodology and the large discrepancies with the FAARFIELD method and short performance record of FAARFIELD, all maintenance and rehabilitation recommendations in this report are based on data obtained from the BRANDLEY analysis.
443
CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
4-6
A detailed fatigue analysis was conducted using each type of rehabilitation and overlay considered appropriate and the extended pavement life was calculated. Taking this extended life for each section into account, the recommended pavement maintenance program was prepared. The recommended pavement rehabilitation method used was based on a cost-benefit analysis, construction timing and difficulties, and availability of funding.

Several recommended rehabilitation procedures for deep-seated distress with estimated unit costs for each procedure are presented in Table 4-1. The rehabilitation plan for the next 20-year period to protect against deep-seated distress only is included in Table No. 4-

2. 4-3 Surface Distress
4-3.1 Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
Surface distress in the pavements is not necessarily caused by deep-seated distress, nor does it forecast when the pavement section will fail. Surface distress generally is caused by inadequate quality of the pavement materials, traffic, and/or environmental factors such as temperature, moisture, and temperature changes between day and night and summer and winter. These defects show up as cracking, patching, raveling, weathering, swelling, rutting, and PCC slab shattering. Rutting can be caused by deep-seated distress and failure of the section or associated with flushing or shoving of an asphalt mix.

The pavement condition is determined by visual inspection of the surface of the pavement as described previously. A Pavement Condition Index (PCI) can be determined for each segment to indicate the degree of distress. A typical plot of PCI vs. Time is included as Plate No. 4-2. On this plate a typical pavement index plot for asphalt concrete pavement and for Portland cement concrete pavement is shown. In both diagrams the PCI gradually decreases with time and when it reaches a certain point, it decreases at a much faster rate. The gradual decreasing portion of the curve indicates surface distress only. The sharp break off is generally caused by deepseated distress. There is no way to predict when the deep-seated distress or failure of the section is going to occur using only the PCI and, therefore, it is not possible to predict with only the PCI when major rehabilitation or reconstruction will be required. If one waits until the PCI vs. Time curve shows deep-seated distress by the sharp break off, then failure has already occurred and it is not possible to extend the life of the section by overlays or adding to the surface of the existing pavement section. As a result, the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) cannot be successfully used to predict deep-seated distresses and failures but is effective in determining when 444
CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
4-7
surface rehabilitation and repairs are necessary.

Surface distress results in deterioration of the surface course. This distress shows up as cracks in the pavement, including transverse cracking, longitudinal cracking, block cracking, map cracking, secondary cracking, raveling, weathering, patching, or damage to the surface caused by jet blast or oil and chemical spillage. Each of these deficiencies can be treated so as to provide safe operation of the airport, but with time it will become more cost effective to completely rehabilitate or reconstruct the section. The timing of repair of cracks or other defects will be a function of cost benefit and availability of funds.

The typical rehabilitation procedures for surface distress for Lake Tahoe Airport are shown in Table No. 4-3.
4-3.2 Thermal Stresses
Surface cracking can be caused by thermal stresses in the pavement.

These stresses are created by large changes in temperature of the pavement from day to night and summer to winter. Over time these temperature variations combined with the oil in the asphalt becoming old and brittle can cause cracking of an asphalt pavement.

With airports in the higher altitudes of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, large temperature changes occur between night and day and summer and winter. These large temperature changes cause thermal stresses to build up in the asphalt pavement section, which generally results in cracking of the pavements, both longitudinal and transverse. Early cracking will be transverse cracks at 500 to 800 foot centers. Additional cracks will then form in between and ultimately it will end up with a block cracking at 15 to 20 foot centers. If not sealed, these cracks will become wider each year and, in some instances, have been observed to be 3 to 5 inches wide.

Recently a polymer-modified asphalt has been developed that provides an asphalt pavement that will withstand or delay thermal cracking. Experience has been limited and has shown no thermal cracking in the pavement after 10 to 12 years from the time that it was placed. All new flexible pavements at Lake Tahoe Airport should be constructed using the polymer-modified asphalt.

In the 1980s the office of Reinard W. Brandley developed a method of sawing and sealing a joint pattern on airfield pavements in the Sierra Nevada Mountain regions to control the cracking caused by thermal stresses. This joint pattern started out at 25-foot centers, but intermediate cracks developed so the spacing was decreased to 12 to 15-foot centers depending on the location. This has proven to be successful. The main 445
CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
4-8
problem with the sawing and sealing of the joint pattern has been that it requires maintenance in the form of resealing the joints every 4 to 6 years.

All joints need to be formed with a depth-to-width ratio of 0.5 to 1.0 for the joint sealant and have a “band-aid” section on top of the pavement extending 1 inch each side of the joint in order to avoid bond failure of the joint seal.

Many of the pavements at Lake Tahoe Airport have a joint pattern installed on a 15’ grid.

When new pavements are placed at the airport, polymer-modified asphalt should be used in the mix. Based on experience, this should at least delay the start of any cracking due to thermal stresses, and may eliminate it.

Installation of a jointing system is not recommended until cracking of the pavement begins. Careful inspection should be made of the new pavements each year and when transverse cracks form at regular intervals of 500 feet or less, a 15 x 15 foot joint pattern should be installed using the existing transverse crack as one of the joints. This will eliminate or delay further cracking due to thermal stresses.

Performance of new pavements using polymer-modified asphalt has been limited to 12 to 14 years. It is not known whether or not thermal cracking will occur in these pavements after that time, so in the PMMP an item to install a joint system after 11 to 13 years has been included but will only be used if needed.

In some areas, particularly in the apron tie down area, the surface of the pavement has weathered, some raveling has occurred, and there is extensive fine cracking. In these areas surface rehabilitation should consist of milling at least 2 inches, but no less than 75 percent of the thickness of the existing pavement, and replacing it with new polymer-modified asphalt.

A sealant on the surface of the asphalt pavement should be considered when the weathering and development of fine cracks has developed to a point that it has a detrimental effect on the life of the pavement and the surface condition. This sealant can consist of Reclamite, slurry seal, an SS1h fog seal or other suitable materials.

Sealing of the cracks in flexible pavement sections is an important maintenance procedure since it resists spalling or raveling of the pavement immediately adjacent to the cracks and inhibits the entry of storm water into the underlying aggregate base course. It is recommended that all cracks to be sealed be prepared for sealing by routing a section to provide a depth to width ratio of the sealant of no more than 1 to 1. This will also require the installation of a backer rod or tape below the sealant to keep the sealant from filling the bottom section of the crack. The sealant should include a 446
CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
4-9
“Band Aid” on the top of the pavement over the seal extending 1-inch minimum beyond the edge of the prepared repair on each side of the crack.

The thickness of the “Band Aid” should be 1/8”. A typical section of a crack seal repair is shown on Plate 4-3.
4-4 Frost Action
If the frost line penetrates and remains for a significant period of time in a frostsusceptible soil, frostheave will occur, which is caused by the formation of ice lenses at the bottom edge of the frozen layer. This heave can have a serious effect on rideability of the pavement until it melts and the surface returns to approximately the same elevation as before the frost. During the spring thaw the frozen soil and ice lenses will thaw and the soil above the remaining frozen layer will become super-saturated, which will decrease the strength of this material.

Based on past experience it is expected that frost may penetrate up to depths of 15 to 20 inches provided zebra striping is used for all marking. With a 15-inch depth of frost penetration there would be little effect on the strength of the pavement section during the spring thaw. However, if frost penetrates deeper, there would be a weakened condition during the spring thaw. If that weakened condition occurs due to depth of frost penetration, then the effect can be mitigated during the spring thaw period by:
 Placing a thicker pavement section, which will support the heavier aircraft, or
 Restricting the size aircraft that can use the airport to those having a maximum gross weight less than 40,000 pounds on dual gear.

The spring thaw would normally be a fairly short period of time.

It may be advantageous to install a series of thermocouple gauges in the existing pavement sections and monitor the depth of frost penetration and rate of thawing in the spring, if thicker pavement sections are not constructed, so the timing of limiting operations of the heavier aircraft can be accurately established.

If the depth of frost penetration never exceeds 16”, then no load restrictions would be required on the pavements at any time. If the depth of frost penetration extends below 16”, load restrictions should be applied whenever the depth of thawing as measured from the surface of the pavement exceeds 12” and should remain in place until seven days after the proposed thermocouples indicate that all of the frozen sections of pavement and subsoil have completely thawed. 447
CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
4-10

TABLE NO. 4-1

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROCEDURES

DEEP-SEATED DISTRESS

Code Rehabilitation Method
A1 Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section
Grind and Remove 6" Existing AC
Pulverize and Recompact 10" Existing AC & AB as ASB
New Section - Existing AB, ASB 18"
AB - Crushed Aggregate Base (8" New) 8"
AC - Asphalt Pavement (New) 3"
Total Thickness 29"
Cost per square foot $8.00
A2 Reconstruct and Strengthen Section
Pulverize and Remove 15" Existing AC & AB, Excavate 14" to Subgrade Scarify and Recompact Subgrade, Place 14" Pulverized AC & AB as ASB New Section - 14" Pulverized ASB 14"
AB - Crushed Aggregate Base (12" New) 12"
AC - Asphalt Pavement (New) 3"
Total Thickness 29"
Cost per square foot $12.00
B Remove 8" of Existing AC & AB, Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section Pulverize and Remove 8" Existing AC & AB
Recompact AB, Add 5" New Porous Concrete, Add 3" New AC New Section - Existing AB, ASB, Select Fill 6"-10"
Porous Concrete Base Course (5" New) 5"
AC - Asphalt Pavement (3" New) 3"
Total Thickness 14"-18"
Cost per square foot $15.50
Notes: 1. Costs indicated are based on 2017 prices and do not include any costs other than the pavement section itself.

448
CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
4-11
TABLE NO. 4-1 (continued)

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROCEDURES

DEEP-SEATED DISTRESS

Code Rehabilitation Method
C Remove 13" of Existing AC & AB, Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section Pulverize and Remove 13" Existing AC & AB
Recompact Subgrade, Add 13" New Porous Concrete, Add 3" New AC New Section - Existing AB, ASB 0"-2"
Porous Concrete Base Course (13" New) 13"
AC - Asphalt Pavement (3" New) 3"
Total Thickness 16"-18”
Cost per square foot $17.00
D Remove and Reconstruct Existing Section
Pulverize, remove, stockpile AC & AB - 10"
Excavate to new Subgrade level - 9"
Scarify and Recompact Subgrade
New Section - ASB - Pulverized Existing AC & AB 10"
AB - Crushed Aggregate Base (New) 6"
AC - Asphalt Pavement (New) 3"
Total Thickness 19"
Cost per square foot $6.50
E Remove and Reconstruct Existing Section
Pulverize, remove, stockpile AC & AB - 7"-10"
Excavate to new Subgrade level - 5"-8"
Scarify and Recompact Subgrade
New Section - ASB - Pulverized Existing AC & AB 6"
AB - Crushed Aggregate Base (New) 6"
AC - Asphalt Pavement (New) 3"
Total Thickness 15"
Cost per square foot $8.00
Notes: 1. Costs indicated are based on 2017 prices and do not include any costs other than the pavement section itself.
449
CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
4-12
2016 Estimated Remaining Year of Life (Years) Failure Subgrade Subgrade Code* Description * - See Table 4-1 or 4-3 for Rehabilitation Code.** - This section of apron was reconstructed after data was collected for this report. See report Section 5-2.4. *** - Apron reconstruction is funded through an AIP grant and will occur in the spring of 2018. Surface Distress dictates early reconstruction. **** - Taxiway H connection from the GA Apron to Taxiway A is shown to be removed and replaced with a new connector to Taxiway A. It should be reconstructed if the new connector is not constructed otherwise it should be reconstructed.NOTE: Rehabilitation of pavement sections should be scheduled 2 to 3 years before estimated date of failure.

A1 Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section 2022 Taxiway F 3+50 - 5+60 11 2037 Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section
See Plates 5-1 &
5-2 17

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

REHABILITATION PLAN - DEEP-SEATED DISTRESS
2030
2033 B Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section Apron A5b 2032 Aprons A4a & A4b See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 15-19 2031-35 B
TABLE NO. 4-2
Estimated
Date of
Rehabilitation Element Station
Recommended Rehabilitation
2016** Aprons A5c & A5d** See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 1-5 2017-2021 Remove and Reconstruct Section
-
Reconstruction Completed**
(See Report Section 5-2.4)
2018 Parking Lot B See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 2 2018 E
2035 B Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section*** 2018*** Apron A6a*** See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 19 C Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section 2018 Apron A6c See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 2 2018 C Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section or Abandon****
2023 Terminal Access Road See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 8 2024 D Remove and Reconstruct Section 2018 Apron Taxiway H**** See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 6 2022
450
CHAPTER 4 – ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
4-13

TABLE NO. 4-3

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROCEDURES

SURFACE DISTRESS

Code Rehabilitation Method Estimated
Unit Costs
F2 Mill and Fill (2" AC) - Remove and Replace AC Surface $2.50/sq. ft.

F3 Mill and Fill (3" AC) - Remove and Replace AC Surface $3.75/sq. ft.

F2/3 Mill (2” AC) and Fill (3" AC) - Remove and Replace AC Surface $3.25/sq. ft.

G3 Remove and Replace 3” Existing AC and Recompact Existing AB $4.50/sq. ft.

H Crack Repair, Seal Existing Cracks and Joints $2.50/ln. ft.

J New Seal Coat – Slurry Seal, Reclamite, Fog Seal, etc. $1.25/sq. yd.

K Rehabilitate PCC Joints (Joint Seal and Spall Repair) $5.00/ln. ft.

Joint Seal
$10/ln. ft.

Spall Repair
L Remark Pavements $1.50/sq. ft.
451

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

DEEP-SEATED DISTRESS - BRANDLEY FATIGUE ANALYSIS

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A
B
E
F
H
J
K
F
D
G
HIGHWAY 50 AIRPORT RD RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A

MATCHLINE - SEE BELOW
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. 4-1 FILE TVL.4-1.Deep 1"=400' KDC RWB 7/21/1704 LEGEND 4 *
*
8 11 1915 17 1* (20+) 5* (20+) 19 2
2 6 5* (20+)
452

ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTION
PCI VS. TIME - RELATIONSHIP

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTION
PCI VS. TIME - RELATIONSHIP
Reinard W. Brandley
CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER PCI vs TIME
PLATE No. 4-2
· · LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT PAVEMENT EVALUATION
453

EXISTING CRACK IN PAVEMENT

TYPICAL SEALED CRACK
Reinard W. Brandley TYPICAL CRACK SEAL CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER

REHABILITATION
PLATE No. 4-3
· · LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT PAVEMENT EVALUATION
454
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-1
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE

5-1 General
Even with the success of the BRANDLEY Fatigue Analysis methodology in predicting remaining pavement life, pavement performance beyond 20 years cannot be accurately forecast due to unknown factors including weather, traffic, maintenance, and surface defects. Even beyond 10 years the forecast performance is somewhat questionable due to the same variables. It is, therefore, recommended that the rehabilitation plan be developed for a 20-year period but it should be updated periodically based on ongoing surveys and analyses. It is recommended that pavement condition surveys, which visually identify surface defects, be conducted annually by a general visual observation of all pavements and every 5 years using a detailed survey and determination of Pavement Condition Index (PCI). It is also recommended that detailed falling weight deflectometer testing and new fatigue analyses be conducted on a 10-year interval and the remaining life of the pavement based on deep-seated distress be evaluated and the rehabilitation program adjusted as necessary.

Rehabilitation of pavements to correct deep-seated distress problems should be performed 2 to 3 years before the forecast failure of the pavement has occurred.

If one waits until the pavement section has failed due to deep-seated distress, then the strength of the subgrade and subsoils and the strength and quality of the existing base and pavement materials will have decreased. It will not be feasible to strengthen the section and extend the life of the section by the placement of reasonable overlays or additional thicknesses of the pavement section. Once a deep-seated failure has occurred, it will be necessary to reconstruct the entire section.

The modulus of elasticity of the existing aggregate base course materials in some pavement sections is lower than would normally be anticipated. This is likely an indicator that the quality of these materials has deteriorated somewhat over time.

They have likely become saturated and loose from traffic, water infiltration, and/or frost action in the pavement sections. These aggregate base course materials will need to be scarified and recompacted during any rehabilitation work in the future once the surface course has been removed, which is why a remove and replace AC surface is proposed for some projects instead of a mil and fill of the existing AC surface.

If the surface distress becomes severe, before the forecast remaining life due to deep-seated distress occurs, in many cases it will be more feasible from a costbenefit, performance, and aesthetic standpoint to rehabilitate or reconstruct the section earlier than forecast due to deep-seated distresses. 455
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-2
Rehabilitation of the pavement section to correct surface distress problems can consist of patching, sealing of the cracks, application of a seal coat, or milling and replacing the asphalt surface. The timing for each of these treatments will be based on cost-benefit analysis, safety, rideability, and aesthetic conditions. The rehabilitation type and schedule to correct problems caused by surface distress is determined by engineering judgment, taking into consideration the cost-benefit, operational problems, and visual perception. The schedule for rehabilitation to correct surface distress issues is flexible, but timing of rehabilitation to correct deep-seated distress must be scheduled to occur no later than 2 to 3 years before the forecast time of failure.

If a pavement section is grossly overloaded, there is a risk that the pavement will be overstressed to a point that the landing gear will punch through the pavement.

To protect against this happening, a load limit should be established, even for infrequent use. A different load limit is required for single wheel and dual wheel geared aircraft. The PCN values presented in Chapter 3 of this report represent adequate load limit values for each gear type.
5-2 Special Rehabilitation Recommendations
As a result of this PMMP, there are several special design recommendations that have been suggested and it is highly recommended that they be adopted for new pavements and rehabilitated pavements at Lake Tahoe Airport. These design recommendations, together with background information, are presented herewith. 5-2.1 Flexible Pavements (Bituminous Surface Course)
In recent years, research conducted by the Highway Research Board produced a SuperPave mix design methodology. With this methodology they established that a 0.45 power curve on grading analysis plots would be a satisfactory curve to use to establish idealized gradation for aggregates used in the asphalt mix design. The 0.45 power curve represents the gradation that will produce the highest density finished product possible with the aggregate being used, but the air voids are near zero and the mix is subject to flushing if the gradation of the aggregate lies on the 0.45 power curve. The further the combined gradation of the mix deviates from the 0.45 power curve, either on the fine side or the coarse side, the higher the air voids become. Research has shown that if the combined gradation of the aggregate is on the fine side of the 0.45 power curve, Marshall stabilities will generally range from 2,000 to 2,400 pounds, which still meet the F.A.A.

Marshall mix design requirements. However, if the combined gradation is held on the coarse side of the 0.45 power curve, the Marshall stability rises to 3,000 to 5,000 pounds and the mix is much more stable.

The coarser mix has enough fines in it that the air voids meet specification requirements and the surface is smooth and filled with fines, but after rolling the surface a few of the upper portions of the stones in the aggregate are 456
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-3
visible at the surface. The coarser mix is also sufficiently stable that breakdown rolling can be started right behind the paving machine without allowing the mix to cool, which makes it easier and less expensive to obtain specified compaction. Both gradations on the coarse side and the fine side of the 0.45 power curve fall within the FAA limits for Marshall mix design.

With the coarser mix the asphalt content is decreased by approximately 0.5 percent and the required compaction effort is decreased significantly. As a result, the unit cost of both the coarse and fine mixes is approximately the same and a far superior product is obtained by using the coarse mix. The surface is smooth and filled with fines and grooving is easier and more permanent because of the higher stability of the mix. This coarse mix will deter the shoving of the asphalt materials and subsequent decrease in Modulus of Elasticity of the asphalt and underlying materials and will minimize the risk of rutting. It is highly recommended that the SuperPave mix design procedures be used and that the gradation be on the coarse side of the 0.45 power curve on all flexible pavements placed on this airport. 5-2.2 Porous Concrete
It is proposed to utilize a porous concrete as the base course and drainage layer for the reconstruction of the General Aviation Apron Phase 5. The water table has been found to be high in this area (within 0 to 6 inches of the surface at times) and the test holes have shown that the subgrade is potentially soft and yielding.

A porous concrete base should be used and will perform better than the standard cement treated base course (CTB). Experience has shown that the cost is less for the porous concrete than for the CTB. The porous concrete will have a minimum compressive strength of 1,500 psi and will have a minimum coefficient of permeability of 5 feet per minute. This will allow early drainage of storm water that penetrates the surfacing, thus protecting the underlying subbase courses. A perforated pipe subdrain should be installed at the edges of the porous concrete in order to take the water out of the pavement section and put it into the drainage system. In addition, the porous concrete does not crack during curing.

The pavement section recommended will include a 5 to 10-inch stabilized base course constructed of porous concrete immediately below the 3-inch asphalt surfacing. This upper section of porous concrete will pick up any water that penetrates through the pavement section and carry it to the West Drainage Ditch and will bridge any weak areas. The timing required for removal of any water that penetrates is fairly short since the coefficient of permeability of the porous concrete is specified to be no less than 5 feet per minute.
457
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-4
The porous concrete should have a coefficient of permeability greater than five feet (5’) per minute, a compressive strength in excess of 1,500 psi, and a Modulus of Elasticity of 1,200,00 psi. Experience has shown that this product is very effective in bridging any soft soils and that it provides 100 percent subdrainage under any pavement section. The porous concrete will be placed on a sloping surface (1% minimum) the slope of which is parallel to the finished grade of the pavement, and a perforated pipe will be installed in the lower portion of the porous concrete along all low areas which will drain into the existing drainage facilities. The porous concrete will provide good subdrainage, will bridge any soft soils, and will provide the rigid support necessary to decrease the risk of differential support throughout the site.

A filter fabric will be placed immediately under and around the sides of the porous concrete section to protect the porous concrete from infiltration of fines from the subgrade.

The porous concrete materials proposed will meet or exceed the recommendation of FAA as set forth in Advisory Circular 150/5380-6C, Section 2.3b, “Subsurface Drainage,” and Advisory Circular 150/5320-5D, Appendix G, “Design of Subsurface Pavement Drainage Systems.” Experience on other projects showed the following properties for the porous concrete were easily obtainable:

Coefficient of Permeability 5 ft./minute
28 Day Compressive Strength 1,500 psi
Modulus of Elasticity “E” 1,200,000 psi
It is, therefore, proposed and recommended in any new or reconstructed pavement sections in areas with a high water table and soft unstable subgrades at Lake Tahoe Airport that porous concrete be used as the stabilized base course and sub-drainage layer under either flexible or rigid pavement surfaces.

In normal or dry conditions, the groundwater table in the area of the aircraft parking apron has been found to be located at depths ranging from 8 to 10 feet below pavement surface. In 2017 there were heavy rains and heavy deposits of snow in the Sierra. The groundwater table in the apron area raised to a point where it was generally 1 to 2 feet below the pavement surface and, in some cases at particularly wet periods, the groundwater emerged to the surface through cracks in the pavement.

This high groundwater has stayed in place throughout most of the summer due to high snow melts. There are also some springs that feed into the groundwater in certain areas on the west side of the airport.

It will be necessary to depress the groundwater table in the apron area to 458
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-5
be constructed in 2017-18 to improve the stability of the underlying soils to support construction equipment and maintain the integrity of the pavement section. In order to provide this lowering of the water table, it is proposed to construct an interceptor drain along the west side of the apron and to carry the water from this drain into a main cross drainage pipe and deposit it in the West Drainage Ditch. This drain will be a minimum of 4 feet deep and will consist of a perforated pipe located in the bottom of an excavated trench, which will be backfilled with porous concrete. The outside of the porous concrete will be wrapped with a filter fabric to keep fines from penetrating the porous concrete. In addition, a 5-inch layer of porous concrete will be placed as stabilized aggregate base course and drainage layer immediately below the new pavement section. After the interceptor trench is installed, flow-net studies indicate that the groundwater table in the apron area will decrease to a point at least 2 to 3 feet below finished pavement section.

It will be necessary to install the interceptor drain this fall and then wait a minimum of a month to allow the drain to effectively lower the water table.

This will require that the main reconstruction of Apron 6a be postponed to the spring of 2018.
5-2.3 AC Surface Rehabilitation vs. AC Mill & Fill
Typically, a surface rehabilitation will consist of only a mill and fill of the existing asphalt surface, but with underlying aggregate base courses that have lower than anticipated modulus of elasticities, a different type of surface rehabilitation has been recommended for many of these pavements. It is recommended that when these pavements are rehabilitated for surface distress that a surface reconstruction be completed, consisting of breaking up and removing the existing AC surface course, scarifying and recompacting the underlying aggregate base course to 100% relative compaction, and then placing 3 inches of a new bituminous surface course.

This type of pavement rehabilitation is recommended in areas where existing finished grades must be maintained as they currently exist. In rehabilitation areas where finished grades can be raised, then the AC and upper 3 inches of AB can be pulverized and recompacted in place to a relative compaction of 100% and the new aggregate base and bituminous surface course placed as needed.

An alternate rehabilitation would consist of a 2 to 3-inch asphalt mill and fill which could be an alternative to the full surface reconstruction. This type of rehabilitation would consist of milling off the top 2 to 3-inches of the existing asphalt section and placing 2 to 3-inches of new bituminous surface course.

This type of rehabilitation is not the preferred rehabilitation for pavements 459
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-6
with weaker base course layer for several reasons. The underlying base course materials would not be recompacted in this type of rehabilitation, which would still lead to future deterioration of the asphalt surface course.

The up-front cost is slightly less than the recommended surface reconstruction but the life-cycle cost of this will be significantly higher, since this type of rehabilitation is likely to only provide 5 to 10 years of additional pavement life at which time a surface reconstruction would still need to occur. For these reasons, all surface rehabilitation recommendations for pavements with weak existing aggregate base courses are to perform the surface reconstruction at the appropriate times and the recommended maintenance projects shown are based on the surface reconstruction being completed. If the airport chooses to perform the AC mill and fill alternative rehabilitation on these pavements, the estimated maintenance schedule after that project will need to be modified significantly from what is shown in this report.

On pavement sections where the underlying pavement section is still strong and has adequate remaining life, the mill and fill rehabilitation option is an appropriate rehabilitation to be performed.

If traffic forecast to use a given pavement section changes from that estimated in this study, then the pavement sections affected by the change should be reevaluated using existing data and the recommended pavement maintenance program for the pavement sections modified to meet the new requirements. Existing data obtained from this PMMP study can be used for the revised pavement use analysis.
5-2.4 Apron A5c and A5d - 2016 Reconstruction
The portion of the general aviation apron that is denoted as Apron A5c and A5d on Plates 5-1 and 5-2 was reconstructed during the summer of 2016.

The data collection and testing for this pavement maintenance management program was collected during the spring of 2016 prior to the reconstruction of this portion of the apron. Thus, the existing pavement section, modulus of elasticity values, pavement condition index, pavement condition number, remaining pavement life, and other associated values are shown in the tables and calculations of report in the condition that they were in during the spring of 2016 before the reconstruction.

This portion of the apron was reconstructed with a new pavement section of 3” of Bituminous Surface Course, 8” of Aggregate Base Course, and 12” of Aggregate Subbase Course. Significant areas of the project had a soft, unstable subgrade which required overexcavation of the subgrade by 2 to 3 feet and placing an imported pit run material beneath the pavement section.
460
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-7
It is expected that the pavement section on Aprons 5c and 5d will have the following characteristics following the reconstruction:

Aprons 5c & 5d Pavement Data Before and After 2016 Reconstruction Pavement Layer
Pre-Reconstruction
(Data Included in Report)
Post-Reconstruction
(Estimated Properties)
Section
Thickness
Modulus of
Elasticity
Section
Thickness
Modulus of
Elasticity
(estimated)
(inches) E (ksi) (inches) E (ksi)
Bituminous Surface Course (AC) 2-5 85-150 3 350
Aggregate Base Course (AB) 5 15 8 75
Aggregate Subbase Course (ASB) 4-5 10 12 40
Pit Run n/a n/a 0-36 10
Subgrade SemiInfinite 5-7
SemiInfinite 5-7
Pavement Section Properties
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) 10 95-100
Pavement Condition Number (PCN) 7 F/C/Y/T 22 F/C/Y/T
Remaining Pavement Life (years) 1-5 20+
5-2.5 Apron Taxiway H Connector - 2018 Reconstruction
The portion of Taxiway H that connects the northern portion of the general aviation apron to Taxiway A is shown to be removed in the future on the Airport Layout Plan and will be replaced with a new connector taxiway from the apron to Taxiway A. The new Taxiway H should be constructed with Apron.
5-3 Recommended Rehabilitation Schedule
The BRANDLEY Fatigue Analysis was used to determine the remaining life of the existing pavements and the recommended maintenance and rehabilitation schedules based on the forecast aircraft operations at the airport.

Taking into consideration the timing required for rehabilitation of sections that have a forecast remaining life less than 20 years and requirements to correct surface defects caused by surface distress, a rehabilitation schedule has been prepared for each pavement item. The timing of complete rehabilitation of the section on those areas that are not forecast to fail within the 20-year period due to deepseated distress was based on engineering judgment. Consideration was given to the requirements to maintain a good operational surface, to be cost effective, and to spread out the work in such a manner as to maintain a reasonably uniform annual cost of rehabilitation. The anticipation of receiving Federal grant funding to do major projects was also taken into consideration.
461
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-8
Based on this method of timing of rehabilitation or repair, the recommended rehabilitation schedule has been included in detail in Appendix C, Tables C1 through C36 and has been summarized in Table No. 5-1. Using this information, a maintenance and rehabilitation schedule has been prepared showing the recommended projects for each year that maintenance or rehabilitation work is scheduled within the next 20 years and is summarized in Table No. 5-2. These maintenance schedules have also been shown on the Rehabilitation Schedule maps, Plates No. 5-3 through 5-7. With each of these schedules, assumptions have been made as to when Federal funding would be available, and the maintenance schedule has been adjusted to include these major projects during those periods provided any delayed maintenance or reconstruction would not have a significant effect on the remaining life and performance of the pavement section.

The maintenance work recommended to correct surface distress is based on engineering judgment. The timing should be adjusted each year based on availability of funds and the results of the annual surface inspection. The schedule for rehabilitation and reconstruction required to correct deep-seated distresses must be adhered to since the timing established is 2 to 3 years before failure of the section is anticipated. Rehabilitation at earlier dates is acceptable.

The majority of the pavement sections show a pavement life, based on deepseated distress, in excess of 20 years with forecast traffic. While most of these pavements show a long life, the life of the pavement surface is likely significantly lower. Many of the pavements are old, brittle, and weathered from environmental and other surface distresses. In order to maintain a good surface and protect the underlying portion of the pavement section from damage, a surface rehabilitation should be considered for each of the pavements that do not require a full structural rehabilitation. As a result, the majority of the airfield pavements have a recommendation for surface rehabilitation in the future. The timing of this rehabilitation can vary based on the operations, needs, and budget.

Several of the existing asphaltic concrete pavements at this airport are old and the surface is weathered. In areas that are not specified to be reconstructed good maintenance practice consists of providing a seal coat to the surface of the pavement every five to ten years. The oil seal recommended is Reclamite, SS1h, or a Type I Slurry Seal, or approved equal. With the old pavements the Reclamite would be more effective since it tends to restore the plastic characteristics of the asphalt better than the other seals. A representative for a Reclamite or rejuvinating seal should be consulted for determining the proper type of application to be used prior to designing a project that uses this material. This type of rehabilitation is not an option for pavements that are already heavily cracked and deteriorating.

Rehabilitation schedules based on deep-seated distress could change in the future if the traffic experienced at the airport is significantly different than the forecast traffic utilized in this report. If the actual traffic varies, particularly with the heavier jet aircraft, the same FWD data and pavement section characteristics can be 462
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-9
utilized with the actual traffic realized at the airport. An updated remaining life can be recalculated based on actual traffic realized at a future date if necessary.

All costs shown in this analysis are construction costs only and are based on 2017 prices. These costs are for construction only and do not include engineering design, quality assurance testing, resident engineering, or administrative costs.

Engineering and administrative costs ranging from 20% to 30% of construction costs need to be added and adjustments made for inflation for each year.

As an aid in preparing this report, Table No. 5-3 entitled, “Summary of Existing Conditions and Rehabilitation Requirements” was prepared. This table should be useful to Operations and Maintenance staff as it summarizes all of the information that was compiled, analyzed, and/or recommended in this report for each pavement section on the airfield.
463
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-10
Disclaimer
The recommendations presented in this report are based on the results of tests conducted. Soil borings were spaced to represent typical subsurface conditions and falling weight deflectometer (FWD) tests were spaced at approximately 200 feet. While it is unlikely, it is possible that significantly different conditions exist between the location of the test holes and FWD test locations that could lead to pavement distress occurring later or earlier than forecast.

Delays in maintenance, changes in traffic, and changes in environmental conditions from those assumed in this study can also have a significant effect on the recommended schedule for maintenance and rehabilitation. It is recommended that visual inspections be conducted annually, detailed pavement condition surveys be conducted every five years, and FWD tests and Fatigue Analysis studies be conducted every 10 years. As a result of these inspections, tests and evaluations, the maintenance and rehabilitation schedule should be adjusted as necessary.
__________________________________
Reinard W. Brandley, P.E.
__________________________________
R. Damon Brandley, P.E.
464
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-11
Estimated Estimated 2016 Construction Construction Year Element (Segment ID) Station PCI Code Description Code Cost Code Cost 2023 Runway 18-36 (C1-C3) 0+00 to 85+40 81 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 188,000 $ 2027 0+00 to 85+40 81 F2/3 Mill (2" AC) and Fill (3" AC) F2/3 2,777,000 $ 2022 Taxiways B, A, & K (C4-C7) 0+00 to 88+00 33-55 A1 Rehabilitate and Reconstruct Section A1 4,713,000 $ 2030 0+00 to 88+00 33-55 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 118,000 $ 2035 0+00 to 88+00 33-55 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 129,000 $ 2022 Taxiway E (C8) 0+00 to 1+75 68 A2 Reconstruct and Strengthen Section A2 210,000 $ 2030 0+00 to 1+75 68 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 3,000 $ 2035 0+00 to 1+75 68 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 4,000 $ 2022 Taxiway E (C9) 1+75 to 3+60 68 A1 Rehabilitate and Reconstruct Section A1 122,000 $ 2030 1+75 to 3+60 68 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 3,000 $ 2035 1+75 to 3+60 68 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 3,000 $ 2022 Taxiway F (C10) 0+00 to 1+75 55 A2 Reconstruct and Strengthen Section A2 210,000 $ 2030 0+00 to 1+75 55 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 3,000 $ 2035 0+00 to 1+75 55 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 4,000 $ Notes: 1. For Rehabilitation Code See Tables 4-1 and 4-3

2. See Plates 5-1 and 5-2 for Stationing Controls and Pavement Segment Identification3. See Plates 5-3 through 5-7 for Rehabilitation Schedule Maps4. All crack repair and joint seal projects include re-marking of all pavements in the project.

TABLE NO. 5-1 (page 1 of 6)

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
REHABILITATION PLAN (2017-2036) - (BASED ON INDIVIDUAL PAVEMENT ITEM SCHEDULE) Recommended Rehabilitation
RUNWAY 18-36 COMPLEX
Required for Deep Seated Distress
Estimated - Surface Distress
Individual Element
Rehabilitation Schedules
465
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-12
Estimated Estimated 2016 Construction Construction Year Element (Segment ID) Station PCI Code Description Code Cost Code Cost 2022 Taxiway F (C11) 1+75 to 3+50 55 A1 Rehabilitate and Reconstruct Section A1 148,000 $ 2030 1+75 to 3+50 55 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 4,000 $ 2035 1+75 to 3+50 55 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 4,000 $ 2022 Taxiway F (C12) 3+50 to 5+60 73 A1 Rehabilitate and Reconstruct Section A1 128,000 $ 2030 3+50 to 5+60 73 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 3,000 $ 2035 3+50 to 5+60 73 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 4,000 $ 2022 Taxiway H (C13) 0+00 to 1+80 50 A1 Rehabilitate and Reconstruct Section A1 167,000 $ 2030 0+00 to 1+80 50 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 4,000 $ 2035 0+00 to 1+80 50 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 5,000 $ 2022 Taxiway J (C14) 0+00 to 1+80 47 A1 Rehabilitate and Reconstruct Section A1 185,000 $ 2030 0+00 to 1+80 47 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 5,000 $ 2035 0+00 to 1+80 47 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 5,000 $ 2024 Taxiway G (C15) 0+00 to 1+00 35 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 1,000 $ 2029 0+00 to 1+00 35 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 2,000 $ 2034 0+00 to 1+00 35 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 2,000 $ Notes: 1. For Rehabilitation Code See Tables 4-1 and 4-3

Required for Deep Seated Distress
Estimated - Surface Distress
Recommended Rehabilitation
TABLE NO. 5-1 (continued) (page 2 of 6)

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
REHABILITATION PLAN (2017-2036) - (BASED ON INDIVIDUAL PAVEMENT ITEM SCHEDULE) RUNWAY 18-36 COMPLEX (continued)
Individual Element
Rehabilitation Schedules
466
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-13
Estimated Estimated 2016 Construction Construction Year Element (Segment ID) Station PCI Code Description Code Cost Code Cost 2018 Apron A1 (C16) See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 75 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 17,000 $ 2022 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 75 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 12,000 $ 2027 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 75 F2 2" AC Mill & Fill F2 129,000 $ 2035 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 75 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 10,000 $ 2018 Apron A2 (C17) See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 75 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 18,000 $ 2022 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 75 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 13,000 $ 2027 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 75 F3 3" AC Mill & Fill F3 202,000 $ 2035 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 75 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 11,000 $ 2024 Apron A3 (C18) See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 95 K Rehabilitate PCC Joints K 74,000 $ 2034 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 95 K Rehabilitate PCC Joints K 74,000 $ 2018 Apron A4a (C19) See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 45 F2 2" AC Mill & Fill F2 50,000 $ 2024 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 45 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 4,000 $ 2030 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 45 B Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section B 309,000 $ 2018 Apron A4b (C20) See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 45 F2 2" AC Mill & Fill F2 50,000 $ 2024 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 45 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 4,000 $ 2030 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 45 B Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section B 309,000 $ Notes: 1. For Rehabilitation Code See Tables 4-1 and 4-3

Estimated - Surface Distress
Recommended RehabilitationAprons
TABLE NO. 5-1 (continued) (page 3 of 6)

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
REHABILITATION PLAN (2017-2036) - (BASED ON INDIVIDUAL PAVEMENT ITEM SCHEDULE) Required for Deep Seated Distress
Individual Element
Rehabilitation Schedules
467
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-14 Estimated Estimated 2016 Construction Construction Year Element (Segment ID) Station PCI Code Description Code Cost Code Cost 2022 Apron A5a (C21) See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 90 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 14,000 $ 2027 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 90 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 24,000 $ 2032 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 90 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 17,000 $ 2022 Apron A5b (C22) See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 90 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 13,000 $ 2027 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 90 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 23,000 $ 2032 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 90 B Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section B 1,039,000 $ 2024 Apron A5c (C23) See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 10 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 10,000 $ 2029 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 10 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 11,000 $ 2034 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 10 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 17,000 $ 2024 Apron A5d (C24) See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 10 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 6,000 $ 2029 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 10 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 7,000 $ 2034 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 10 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 10,000 $ Notes: 1. For Rehabilitation Code See Tables 4-1 and 4-3

TABLE NO. 5-1 (continued) (page 4 of 6)

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
REHABILITATION PLAN (2017-2036) - (BASED ON INDIVIDUAL PAVEMENT ITEM SCHEDULE) Required for Deep Seated Distress
Estimated - Surface Distress
Recommended Rehabilitation
Aprons (continued)
Individual Element
Rehabilitation Schedules
468
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-15 Estimated Estimated 2016 Construction Construction Year Element (Segment ID) Station PCI Code Description Code Cost Code Cost 2018 Apron A6a (C25) See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 20 B Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section B 1,453,000 $ 2026 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 20 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 19,000 $ 2031 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 20 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 21,000 $ 2036 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 20 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 33,000 $ 2018 Apron A6b (C26) See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 25 B Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section B 409,000 $ 2026 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 25 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 5,000 $ 2031 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 25 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 6,000 $ 2036 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 25 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 9,000 $ 2018 Apron A6c (C27) See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 14 C Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section C 2,766,000 $ 2026 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 14 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 33,000 $ 2031 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 14 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 36,000 $ 2036 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 14 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 55,000 $ 2018 Apron Taxiway H (C28) See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 14 C Rehabilitate and Strengthen or Abandon C 236,000 $ or Abandon 2026 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 14 H Crack Repair or Abandon H 3,000 $ or Abandon2031 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 14 H Crack Repair or Abandon H 3,000 $ or Abandon2036 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 14 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair or Abandon H, J 5,000 $ or Abandon Notes: 1. For Rehabilitation Code See Tables 4-1 and 4-3

TABLE NO. 5-1 (continued) (page 5 of 6)

Estimated Estimated 2016 Construction Construction Year Element (Segment ID) Station PCI Code Description Code Cost Code Cost 2019 Taxiway D and South Hangars See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 23 G3 Remove/Replace 3" AC, Recompact AB G3 302,000 $ (C29-C31) 2027 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 23 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 13,000 $ 2032 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 23 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 15,000 $ 2018 Terminal Access Road (C32) 0+00 to 20+00 45 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 13,000 $ 2023 0+00 to 20+00 45 D Remove and Reconstruct Section D 409,000 $ 2031 0+00 to 20+00 45 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 13,000 $ 2036 0+00 to 20+00 45 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 14,000 $ 2018 Parking Lot A (C33-C35) See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 70 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 4,000 $ 2023 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 70 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 8,000 $ 2029 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 70 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 5,000 $ 2033 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 70 E Remove and Reconstruct Section E 168,000 $ 2018 Parking Lot B (C36) See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 25 E Remove and Reconstruct Section E 444,000 $ 2026 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 25 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 11,000 $ 2031 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 25 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 12,000 $ 2036 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 25 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 13,000 $ Notes: 1. For Rehabilitation Code See Tables 4-1 and 4-3

TABLE NO. 5-1 (continued) (page 6 of 6)

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
REHABILITATION PLAN (2017-2036) - (BASED ON INDIVIDUAL PAVEMENT ITEM SCHEDULE) Required for Deep Seated Distress
Estimated - Surface Distress
Recommended Rehabilitation
Terminal Access Road and Parkin
g Lots
South Han
gar Area
Individual Element
Rehabilitation Schedules
470
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-17
Estimated Estimated 2016 Construction Construction Year Element Station PCI Code Description Code Cost Code Cost No Scheduled Projects - $ 2017 Total Cost - $ Apron A1 Entire Apron 75 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 17,000 $ Apron A2 Entire Apron 75 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 18,000 $ Apron A4a & A4b Entire Apron 45 F2 2" AC Mill & Fill F2 100,000 $ Apron A6a & A6b Entire Apron 20-25 B Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section B 1,862,000 $ Apron A6c Entire Apron 14 C Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section C 2,766,000 $ Apron Taxiway H Entire Taxiway 14 C Rehabilitate and Strengthen or Abandon C 236,000 $ or Abandon Terminal Acess Road 0+00 to 20+00 45 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 13,000 $ Parking Lot A Entire Parking Lot 70 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 4,000 $ Parking Lot B Entire Parking Lot 25 E Remove and Reconstruct Section E 444,000 $ 2018 Total Cost 5,460,000 $
Taxiway D and South Tee Hangars All Taxilanes 23 G3 Remove/Replace 3" AC, Recompact AB G3 302,000 $ 2019 Total Cost 302,000 $
No Scheduled Projects
2020 Total Cost - $
No Scheduled Projects
2021 Total Cost - $
Taxiways B, A, & K 0+00 to 88+00 33-55 A1 Rehabilitate and Reconstruct Section A1 4,713,000 $ Taxiway E 0+00 to 1+75 68 A2 Reconstruct and Strengthen Section A2 210,000 $ Taxiway E 1+75 to 3+60 68 A1 Rehabilitate and Reconstruct Section A1 122,000 $ Taxiway F 0+00 to 1+75 55 A2 Reconstruct and Strengthen Section A2 210,000 $ Taxiway F 1+75 to 3+50 55 A1 Rehabilitate and Reconstruct Section A1 148,000 $ Taxiway F 3+50 to 5+60 73 A1 Rehabilitate and Reconstruct Section A1 128,000 $ Taxiway H 0+00 to 1+80 50 A1 Rehabilitate and Reconstruct Section A1 167,000 $ Taxiway J 0+00 to 1+80 47 A1 Rehabilitate and Reconstruct Section A1 185,000 $ Apron A1 Entire Apron 75 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 12,000 $ Apron A2 Entire Apron 75 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 13,000 $ Apron A5a & A5b Entire Apron 90 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 27,000 $ 2022 Total Cost 5,935,000 $
Notes: 1. See Plates 5-1 and 5-2 for Stationing Controls and Pavement Segment Identification

2. See Plates 5-3 through 5-7 for Rehabilitation Schedule Maps3. All crack repair and joint seal projects include re-marking of all pavements included in the project. 20172018201920202022
TABLE NO. 5-2 (page 1 of 3)
Recommended Rehabilitation

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE (2017-2036)
Required for Deep Seated Distress
Estimated - Surface Distress
(BASED ON ANNUAL TOTAL PROJECT SCHEDULES)
2021
Annual Rehabilitation Schedule
471
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-18

Estimated Estimated
2016 Construction Construction
Year Element Station PCI Code Description Code Cost Code Cost Runway 18-36 0+00 to 85+40 81 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 188,000 $ Terminal Acess Road 0+00 to 20+00 45 D Remove and Reconstruct Section D 409,000 $ Parking Lot A Entire Parking Lot 70 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 8,000 $ 2023 Total Cost 605,000 $
Taxiway G 0+00 to 1+00 35 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 1,000 $ Apron A3 Entire Apron 95 K Rehabilitate PCC Joints K 74,000 $ Apron A4a & A4b Entire Apron 45 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 8,000 $ Apron A5c & A5d Entire Apron 10 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 16,000 $ 2024 Total Cost 99,000 $
No Scheduled Projects
2025 Total Cost - $
Apron A6a, A6b, & A6c Entire Apron 14-25 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 57,000 $ Apron Taxiway H Entire Taxiway 14 H Crack Repair or Abandon H 3,000 $ or AbandonParking Lot B Entire Parking Lot 25 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 11,000 $ 2026 Total Cost 71,000 $
Runway 18-36 0+00 to 85+40 81 F2/3 Mill (2" AC) and Fill (3" AC) F2/3 2,777,000 $ Apron A1 Entire Apron 75 F2 2" AC Mill & Fill F2 129,000 $ Apron A2 Entire Apron 75 F3 3" AC Mill & Fill F3 202,000 $ Apron A5a & A5b Entire Apron 90 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 47,000 $ Taxiway D and South Tee Hangars All Taxilanes 23 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 13,000 $ 2027 Total Cost 3,168,000 $
No Scheduled Projects
2028 Total Cost - $
Taxiway G 0+00 to 1+00 35 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 2,000 $ Apron A5c & A5d Entire Apron 10 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 18,000 $ Parking Lot A Entire Parking Lot 70 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 5,000 $ 2029 Total Cost 25,000 $
Notes: 1. See Plates 5-1 and 5-2 for Stationing Controls and Pavement Segment Identification

2. See Plates 5-3 through 5-7 for Rehabilitation Schedule Maps3. All crack repair and joint seal projects include re-marking of all pavements included in the project. 202320242025
Recommended Rehabilitation
2026202720282029
TABLE NO. 5-2 (continued) (page 2 of 3)

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE (2017-2036)
Required for Deep Seated Distress
Estimated - Surface Distress
(BASED ON ANNUAL TOTAL PROJECT SCHEDULES)
Annual Rehabilitation Schedule
472
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS AND REHABILITATION PLAN & SCHEDULE Lake Tahoe Airport PMMP August 2017
5-19

Estimated Estimated
2016 Construction Construction
Year Element Station PCI Code Description Code Cost Code Cost Taxiways B, A, & K 0+00 to 88+00 33-55 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 118,000 $ Taxiway E 0+00 to 3+60 68 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 6,000 $ Taxiway F 0+00 to 5+60 55-73 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 10,000 $ Taxiway H 0+00 to 1+80 50 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 4,000 $ Taxiway J 0+00 to 1+80 47 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 5,000 $ Apron A4a & A4b Entire Apron 45 B Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section B 618,000 $ 2030 Total Cost 761,000 $
Apron A6a, A6b, & A6c Entire Apron 14-25 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 63,000 $ Apron Taxiway H Entire Taxiway 14 H Crack Repair or Abandon H 3,000 $ or AbandonTerminal Acess Road 0+00 to 20+00 45 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 13,000 $ Parking Lot B Entire Parking Lot 25 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 12,000 $ 2031 Total Cost 91,000 $
Apron A5a Entire Apron 90 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 17,000 $ Apron A5b Entire Apron 90 B Rehabilitate and Strengthen Section B 1,039,000 $ Taxiway D and South Tee Hangars All Taxilanes 23 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 15,000 $ 2032 Total Cost 1,071,000 $
Parking Lot A Entire Parking Lot 70 E Remove and Reconstruct Section E 168,000 $ 2033 Total Cost 168,000 $
Taxiway G 0+00 to 1+00 35 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 2,000 $ Apron A3 Entire Apron 95 K Rehabilitate PCC Joints K 74,000 $ Apron A5c & A5d Entire Apron 10 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 27,000 $ 2034 Total Cost 103,000 $
Taxiways B, A, & K 0+00 to 88+00 33-55 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 129,000 $ Taxiway E 0+00 to 3+60 68 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 7,000 $ Taxiway F 0+00 to 5+60 55-73 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 12,000 $ Taxiway H 0+00 to 1+80 50 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 5,000 $ Taxiway J 0+00 to 1+80 47 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 5,000 $ Apron A1 Entire Apron 75 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 10,000 $ Apron A2 Entire Apron 75 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 11,000 $ 2035 Total Cost 179,000 $
Apron A6a, A6b, & A6c Entire Apron 14-25 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair H, J 97,000 $ Apron Taxiway H Entire Taxiway 14 H, J Slurry Seal and Crack Repair or Abandon H, J 5,000 $ or AbandonTerminal Acess Road 0+00 to 20+00 45 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 14,000 $ Parking Lot B Entire Parking Lot 25 H Crack Repair, Seal Cracks H 13,000 $ 2036 Total Cost 129,000 $
Notes: 1. See Plates 5-1 and 5-2 for Stationing Controls and Pavement Segment Identification

2. See Plates 5-3 through 5-7 for Rehabilitation Schedule Maps3. All crack repair and joint seal projects include re-marking of all pavements included in the project. 20342035

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE (2017-2036)
Required for Deep Seated Distress
Estimated - Surface Distress
Recommended Rehabilitation
(BASED ON ANNUAL TOTAL PROJECT SCHEDULES)
2030
2036
TABLE NO. 5-2 (continued) (page 3 of 3)
203120322033
Annual Rehabilitation Schedule
473
G:\FWD\Tahoe\2016\_Report\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsxTable 5-3 8/7/2017 Table 5-3
Summary of Existing Conditions and Rehabilitation Requirements Lake Tahoe Airport
Pavement
Segment Pavement
ID Condition Fatigue Analysis (Brandley)
(See Plate Station Latest Load Deflection Deflection Pavement 2016 Number Traffic 5-1) Element (See Plate 5-2) Original Reconstruct Overlay (kips) Range (mils) Used (mils) Rating PCI PCN Index 2017-2021 2022-2026 2027-2031 2032-2036 Element C1 Runway 18-36 0+00 - 36+00 1958 1968, 2008 25 39-57 57 Very Good 81 28 F/C/Y/T - 3.0 7 - 20 - 24 S.I. - 200 40 20 - - 12 20 T1 20+ 2023 - Crack Repair 2027 - Mill 2" AC, Fill 3" AC Runway 18-36 C2 Runway 18-36 36+00 - 59+75 1958 1968, 2008 25 42-57 57 Very Good 81 28 F/C/Y/T - 3.0 7 - 20 - 24 S.I. - 200 40 20 - - 12 20 T1 20+ 2023 - Crack Repair 2027 - Mill 2" AC, Fill 3" AC Runway 18-36 C3 Runway 18-36 59+75 - 85+40 1962 1968, 2008 25 33-54 54 Very Good 81 28 F/C/Y/T - 3.0 7 - 20 - 24 S.I. - 200 40 20 - - 12 20 T1 20+ 2023 - Crack Repair 2027 - Mill 2" AC, Fill 3" AC Runway 18-36 C4 Taxiways B, A, & K 0+00 - 40+60 1958 1968, 1970 1990 25 28-53 42 Good 55 22 F/C/Y/T - 8.5 8 - 8 - - 24 S.I. - 250 30 - 20 - - 8 20 T2 20+ 2022 - Reconstruction 2030 - Crack Repair 2035 - Crack Repair Taxiways B, A, & K C5 Taxiways B, A, & K 40+60 - 59+15 1958 1975 25 48-68 68 Good 55 15 F/C/Y/T - 4.0 8 - 8 - - 24 S.I. - 150 30 - 20 - - 8 20 T3 20+ 2022 - Reconstruction 2030 - Crack Repair 2035 - Crack Repair Taxiways B, A, & K C6 Taxiways B, A, & K 59+15 - 82+60 1963 1990 25 35-56 47 Good 55 30 F/C/Y/T - 7.5 7.5 - 24 - - 24 S.I. - 200 20 - 15 - - 8 20 T3 20+ 2022 - Reconstruction 2030 - Crack Repair 2035 - Crack Repair Taxiways B, A, & K C7 Taxiways B, A, & K 82+60 - 88+00 1962 1990 25 48-75 75 Poor 33 30 F/D/Y/T - 7.5 7.5 - 24 - - 24 S.I. - 150 20 - 15 - - 5 20 T3 20+ 2022 - Reconstruction 2030 - Crack Repair 2035 - Crack Repair Taxiways B, A, & K C8 Taxiway E 0+00 - 1+75 1958 1968 25 49-54 54 Good 68 8 F/C/Y/T - 7 8 - - - - 24 S.I. - 200 30 - - - - 8 20 T4 20+ 2022 - Reconstruction 2030 - Crack Repair 2035 - Crack Repair Taxiway E C9 Taxiway E 1+75 - 3+60 1958 1968, 1970 1990 25 27-32 32 Good 68 22 F/C/Y/T - 8.5 8 - 8 - - 24 S.I. - 250 30 - 20 - - 8 20 T4 20+ 2022 - Reconstruction 2030 - Crack Repair 2035 - Crack Repair Taxiway E C10 Taxiway F 0-00 - 1+75 1958 1968 25 45-68 68 Good 55 8 F/C/Y/T - 7 8 - - - - 24 S.I. - 200 30 - - - - 8 20 T4 20+ 2022 - Reconstruction 2030 - Crack Repair 2035 - Crack Repair Taxiway F C11 Taxiway F 1+75 - 3+50 1958 1968, 1970 1990 25 30 30 Good 55 22 F/C/Y/T - 8.5 8 - 8 - - 24 S.I. - 250 30 - 20 - - 8 20 T4 20+ 2022 - Reconstruction 2030 - Crack Repair 2035 - Crack Repair Taxiway F C12 Taxiway F 3+50 - 5+60 1958 1968, 1970 2009 25 30-39 39 Very Good 73 22 F/C/Y/T - 8.5 8 - 8 - - 24 S.I. - 250 30 - 20 - - 8 20 T6 11 2022 - Reconstruction 2030 - Crack Repair 2035 - Crack Repair Taxiway F C13 Taxiway H 0+00 - 1+80 1963 1990 25 49-62 62 Fair 50 30 F/D/Y/T - 7.5 7.5 - 24 - - 24 S.I. - 150 20 - 15 - - 5 20 T4 20+ 2022 - Reconstruction 2030 - Crack Repair 2035 - Crack Repair Taxiway H C14 Taxiway J 0+00 - 1+80 1962 1990 25 43-70 70 Fair 47 30 F/D/Y/T - 7.5 7.5 - 24 - - 24 S.I. - 150 20 - 15 - - 5 20 T4 20+ 2022 - Reconstruction 2030 - Crack Repair 2035 - Crack Repair Taxiway J C15 Taxiway G 0+00 - 1+00 1958 1975, 2016 1989 12 43 43 Poor 35 15 F/D/Y/T - 6 8 - 8 - - 24 S.I. - 85 20 - 15 - - 6 17 T8 20+ 2016 - Reconstruction (Completed) (See Section 5-2.4) 2024 - Crack Repair 2029 - Crack Repair 2034 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal Taxiway G C16 Apron A1 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 1969 2010 12 43-52 52 Very Good 75 30 F/C/Y/T - 3 6 - 6 - 12 24 S.I. - 150 20 - 15 - 10 12 20 T5 20+ 2018 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal 2022 - Crack Repair 2027 - 2" AC Mill & Fill 2035 - Crack Repair Apron A1 C17 Apron A2 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 1950 2010 1970 25 48-63 63 Very Good 75 30 F/C/Y/T - 4 6 - 13 - - 24 S.I. - 200 60 - 20 - - 12 20 T6 20+ 2018 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal 2022 - Crack Repair 2027 - 3" AC Mill & Fill 2035 - Crack Repair Apron A2 C18 Apron A3 See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 Pre
1963 2009 1970 25 4-7 7 Excellent 95 40 R/B/Y/T 14 2 - - 6 - - 24 S.I. 5,000 300 - - 40 - - 15 30 T6 20+ 2024 - PCC Repair 2034 - PCC Repair Apron A3 C19 Apron A4a See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 Pre
1963 2009 1970 25 37-60 60 Fair 45 22 F/C/Y/T - 4 6 - 8 - - 24 S.I. - 200 50 - 20 - - 12 20 T6 19 2018 - 2" AC Mill & Fill 2024 - Crack Repair 2030 - Reconstruction Apron A4a C20 Apron A4b See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 Pre
1963 2009 1970 25 79-99 99 Fair 45 22 F/C/Y/T - 4 6 - 8 - - 24 S.I. - 150 25 - 15 - - 12 20 T6 15 2018 - 2" AC Mill & Fill 2024 - Crack Repair 2030 - Reconstruction Apron A4b C21 Apron A5a See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 Pre
1963 1974, 2014 25 48-60 60 Excellent 90 30 F/B/Y/T - 3 6 - 20 18 - - S.I. - 200 40 - 30 25 - - 20 T7 20+ 2022 - Crack Repair 2027 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal 2032 - Crack Repair Apron A5a C22 Apron A5b See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 Pre
1963 1974, 2014 12 38-70 49 Excellent 90 8 F/D/Y/T - 3 14 - - - - 24 S.I. - 150 30 - - - - 6 12 T9 17 2022 - Crack Repair 2027 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal 2032 - Reconstruction Apron A5b C23 Apron A5c See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 1968 1987, 2016 12 67-88 88 Very Poor 10 N/A - 2 5 - 5 - - 24 S.I. - 85 15 - 10 - - 5 7 T7 1 2016 - Reconstruction (Completed) (See Section 5-2.4) 2024 - Crack Repair 2029 - Crack Repair 2034 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal Apron A5c C24 Apron A5d See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 Pre
1969 2016 1989 12 18-22 22 Very Poor 10 7 F/C/Y/T - 5 - 5 4 - - 24 S.I. - 150 - 800 20 - - 7 15 T7 5 2016 - Reconstruction (Completed) (See Section 5-2.4) 2024 - Crack Repair 2029 - Crack Repair 2034 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal Apron A5d C25 Apron A6a See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 1974 1989 12 32-54 54 Very Poor 20 7 F/D/Y/T - 3 6 - 9 - - 24 S.I. - 85 20 - 15 - - 6 17 T9 19 2018 - Reconstruction 2026 - Crack Repair 2031 - Crack Repair 2036 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal Apron A6a C26 Apron A6b See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 1974 1989 12 17 17 Poor 25 7 F/C/Y/T - 5 - 5 4 - - 24 S.I. - 150 - 800 20 - - 7 15 T9 20+ 2018 - Reconstruction 2026 - Crack Repair 2031 - Crack Repair 2036 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal Apron A6b C27 Apron A6c See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 1974 1989 12 54-104 104 Very Poor 14 N/A - 2 6 - - 5 - 24 S.I. - 70 15 - 10 - - 5 8 T9 2 2018 - Reconstruction 2026 - Crack Repair 2031 - Crack Repair 2036 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal Apron A6c C28 Apron T/W H See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 Pre 1969 12 64-110 110 Very Poor 14 N/A - 2 5 - 4 - - 24 S.I. - 70 15 - 10 - - 5 10 T10 6 2018 - Reconstruction or Abandon (See Section 5-2.5)
2026 - Crack Repair or Abandon
(See Section 5-2.5)
2031 - Crack Repair or Abandon
(See Section 5-2.5)
2036 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal or
Abandon (See Section 5-2.5) Apron T/W H
C29 Taxiway D 0+00 - 1+00 1994 12 40-43 43 Very Poor 23 15 F/C/Y/T - 3 6 - 9 - - 24 S.I. - 150 20 - 15 - - 10 20 T11 20+ 2019 - Replace AC / Recompact AB 2027 - Crack Repair 2032 - Crack Repair Taxiway D C30 Tee Hangar Taxiway
(H6) 0+00 - 6+70 1994 12 32-43 43 Very Poor 23 15 F/C/Y/T - 3 6 - 9 - - 24 S.I. - 150 20 - 15 - - 10 20 T11 20+ 2019 - Replace AC / Recompact AB 2027 - Crack Repair 2032 - Crack Repair Tee Hangar Taxiway (H6) C31 Tee Hangar Taxilanes
(H1-H5) See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 1994 12 48-85 85 Very Poor 23 7 F/D/Y/T - 3 6 - 9 - - 24 - - 70 15 10 - - 5 15 T12 20+ 2019 - Replace AC / Recompact AB 2027 - Crack Repair 2032 - Crack Repair Tee Hangar Taxilanes (H1-H5) C32 Terminal Access Road 0+00 - 20+00 1969 2009 12 42-65 65 Fair 45 N/A - 2 3 - 5 - - 24 S.I. - 200 20 - 15 - - 8 15 T13 8 2018 - Crack Repair 2023 - Reconstruction 2031 - Crack Repair 2036 - Crack Repair Terminal Access Road C33 Parking Lot Entrance See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 1969 2009 12 42-44 44 Fair 45 N/A - 2 3 - 5 - - 24 S.I. - 200 40 - 30 - - 12 15 T14 20+ 2018 - Crack Repair 2023 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal 2029 - Crack Repair 2033 - Reconstruction Parking Lot Entrance C34 Parking Lot A - W/ Over
Ex See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 1969 2010 12 37-54 54 Very Good 70 N/A - 3 4 - 22 - - 24 S.I. - 150 30 - 20 - - 7 15 T14 20+ 2018 - Crack Repair 2023 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal 2029 - Crack Repair 2033 - Reconstruction Parking Lot A - W/ Over Ex C35 Parking Lot A - W/O
Over Ex See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 1969 2010 12 37-54 54 Very Good 70 N/A - 3 4 - 4 - - 24 S.I. - 150 30 - 20 - - 7 15 T14 20+ 2018 - Crack Repair 2023 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal 2029 - Crack Repair 2033 - Reconstruction Parking Lot A - W/O Over Ex C36 Parking Lot B See Plates 5-1 & 5-2 1998 12 35-104 104 Poor 25 N/A - 2 5 - - - - 24 S.I. - 85 20 - - - - 5 15 T14 2 2018 - Reconstruction 2026 - Crack Repair 2031 - Crack Repair 2036 - Crack Repair Parking Lot B Recommended Rehabilitation and Maintenance
PCC AC CTB ASB Pit Run
Select
AB Sand PCC AC CTB ASB Subgrade Subsoil
Construction Dates FWD Data Surface Data
Subgrade Subsoil
Existing Pavement Section - inches
Remaining Life - Pavement
Subgrade
Existing Modulus of Elasticity (E) - ksi
Pit Run
Select
Sand
Remaining Pavement Life -
Years from 2016
AB
474
T1 C2 T1 C1 T3 C5 C9 C8 C10 C11 T6 C12 T6 C18 T6 C20 C29 C31 T11 C30 T2 C4 C15 T6 C17 T5 C16 C21 C22 T7 C23 T6 C19 C26 T9 T9 C27 C25 T7 C24 T14 C36 T14 C33 C34 T13 C32 C35 T14 T7 T9 T8T9 T11 T4 T4 T4 T4 T1 C3 C7 T3 C6 T4 C13 C14 T10 C28 T4 T3

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

PAVEMENT SEGMENT IDENTIFICATION

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A
B
E
F
H
J
K
F
D
G
HIGHWAY 50
UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER AIRPORT RD RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A

MATCHLINE - SEE BELOW
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE LEGEND C6T1 DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. 5-1 FILE TVL.5-1.AreaIDs 1"=400' KDC RWB 7/21/1704 ID ELEMENT C16 Apron A1 C17 Apron A2 C18 Apron A3 C19 Apron A4a C20 Apron A4b C21 Apron A5a C22 Apron A5b C23 Apron A5c ID ELEMENT C24 Apron A5d C25 Apron A6a C26 Apron A6b C27 Apron A6c C30 Tee Hangar Taxiway C31 Tee Hangar Taxilanes C33-C35 Parking Lot A C36 Parking Lot B APRON & HANGAR AREA LEGEND 475
RW 36 0+00
TW A
0+00
H1
0+00 H2
0+00 H3
0+00 H4
0+00 H5
0+00
RD 1
0+00 RD 2 0+00
TW F
TW E
0+00
0+00
TW G
0+00 AP 3 0+00 AP 2 0+00 AP 1 0+00
PK 2
0+00
PK 1
50+00 PCC 0+00
TW H
0+00
TWJ 0+00

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

STATIONING CONTROL PLAN

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A
B
E
F
H
J
K F
D
G
HIGHWAY 50
UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER AIRPORT RD RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A

MATCHLINE - SEE BELOW
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. 5-2 FILE TVL.5-2.FWD 1"=400' KDC RWB 7/21/1704 LEGEND 0+00 TW A 476

AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36 C35 C20 C17 C16 C19 C26 C27 C25 C28 C36 C33 C32 C34

AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36

AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36 C31 C29 C30

AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36

PAVEMENT EVALUATION
REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2017-2020

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. 5-3 FILE TVL.5-3.REHAB 1"=1000' KDC RWB 7/21/1704 2017 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2018 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2019 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2020 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE HATCH PAVEMENT SEGMENT ID AREA PROJECT COST ALTERNATE COST C16 APRON A1 SLURRY SEAL & CRACK REPAIR $17,000 C17 APRON A2 SLURRY SEAL & CRACK REPAIR $18,000 C19-C20 APRON A4a-A4b 2" AC MILL & FILL $100,000 C25-C26 APRON A6a-A6b REHABILITATE & STRENGTHEN $1,862,000 C27 APRON A6c REHABILITATE & STRENGTHEN $2,766,000 C28 APRON TAXIWAY H REHABILITATE & STRENGTHEN OR ABANDON $236,000 ABANDON C32 TERMINAL ACCESS RD CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $13,000 C33-C35 PARKING LOT A CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $4,000 C36 PARKING LOT B REMOVE & RECONSTRUCT $444,000 TOTAL 2018 PROJECTS $5,460,000 $5,224,000 HATCH PAVEMENT SEGMENT ID AREA PROJECT COST C29-C31 TAXIWAY D, SOUTH HANGARS REMOVE/REPLACE 3" AC RECOMPACT AB $302,000 TOTAL 2019 PROJECTS $302,000 OR 477

AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36 C4 C8 C9 C7 C6 C5 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C17 C16 C21 C22

AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36 C18 C20 C15 C19 C23 AIRPORT RD C24
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36 C35 C1 C3 C2 C33 C32 C34

AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36

PAVEMENT EVALUATION
REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2021-2024

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. 5-4 FILE TVL.5-3.REHAB 1"=1000' KDC RWB 7/21/1704 20121 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2022 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2023 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2024 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE HATCH PAVEMENT SEGMENT ID AREA PROJECT COST C4-C7 TAXIWAYS B, A, K REHABILITATE & RECONSTRUCT $4,713,000 C8 T/W E STA 0+00 - 1+75 RECONSTRUCT & STRENGTHEN $210,000 C9 T/W E STA 1+75 - 3+60 REHABILITATE & RECONSTRUCT $122,000 C10 T/W F STA 0+00 - 1+75 RECONSTRUCT & STRENGTHEN $210,000 C11 T/W F STA 1+75 - 3+50 RECONSTRUCT & STRENGTHEN $148,000 C12 T/W F STA 3+50 - 5+60 RECONSTRUCT & STRENGTHEN $128,000 C13 TAXIWAY H RECONSTRUCT & STRENGTHEN $167,000 C14 TAXIWAY J RECONSTRUCT & STRENGTHEN $185,000 C16 APRON A1 CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $12,000 C17 APRON A2 CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $13,000 C21-C22 APRON A5a-A5b CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $27,000 TOTAL 2022 PROJECTS $5,935,000 HATCH PAVEMENT SEGMENT ID AREA PROJECT COST C1-C3 RUNWAY 18-36 CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $188,000 C32 TERMINAL ACCESS RD REMOVE & RECONSTRUCT $409,000 C33-C35 PARKING LOT A SLURRY SEAL & CRACK REPAIR $8,000 TOTAL 2023 PROJECTS $605,000 HATCH PAVEMENT SEGMENT ID AREA PROJECT COST C15 TAXIWAY G CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $1,000 C18 APRON A3 REHABILITATE PCC JOINTS $74,000 C19-C20 APRON A4a-A4b CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $8,000 C23-C24 APRON A5c-A5d CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $16,000 TOTAL 2024 PROJECTS $99,000 478

AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36 C26 C27 C25 C28 C36

AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36

AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36 C1 C31 C3 C2 C17 C16 C21 C22 C29 C30

AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36

PAVEMENT EVALUATION
REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2025-2028

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. 5-5 FILE TVL.5-3.REHAB 1"=1000' KDC RWB 7/21/1704 2025 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2026 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2027 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2028 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE HATCH PAVEMENT SEGMENT ID AREA PROJECT COST ALTERNATE COST C25-C27 APRON A6a, A6b, A6c CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $57,000 C28 APRON TAXIWAY H CRACK REPAIR OR ABANDON $3,000 ABANDON C36 PARKING LOT B CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $11,000 TOTAL 2026 PROJECTS $71,000 $68,000 HATCH PAVEMENT SEGMENT ID AREA PROJECT COST C1-C3 RUNWAY 18-36 MILL 2" AC & FILL 3" AC $2,777,000 C16 APRON A1 2" AC MILL & FILL $129,000 C17 APRON A2 3" AC MILL & FILL $202,000 C21-C22 APRON A5a-A5b SLURRY SEAL & CRACK REPAIR $47,000 C29-C31 TAXIWAY D & SOUTH HANGARS CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $13,000 TOTAL 2027 PROJECTS $3,168,000 OR 479
C35 C15 C23 C24 C33 C34

AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36 C4 C8 C9 C7 C6 C5 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C21 C22

AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36 C31 C21 C22 C29 C30

AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36 C26 C27 C25 C28 C36 C32AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36

PAVEMENT EVALUATION
REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2029-2032

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. 5-6 FILE TVL.5-3.REHAB 1"=1000' KDC RWB 7/21/1704 2029 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2030 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2031 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2032 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE HATCH PAVEMENT SEGMENT ID AREA PROJECT COST C15 TAXIWAY G CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $2,000 C23-C24 APRON A5c-A5d CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $18,000 C33-C35 PARKING LOT A CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $5,000 TOTAL 2029 PROJECTS $25,000 HATCH PAVEMENT SEGMENT ID AREA PROJECT COST C4-C7 TAXIWAYS B, A, K CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $118,000 C8-C9 TAXIWAY E CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $6,000 C10-C12 TAXIWAY F CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $10,000 C13 TAXIWAY H CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $4,000 C14 TAXIWAY J CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $5,000 C21-C22 APRON A4a-A4b REHABILITATE & STRENGTHEN $618,000 TOTAL 2030 PROJECTS $761,000 HATCH PAVEMENT SEGMENT ID AREA PROJECT COST ALTERNATE COST C25-C27 APRON A6a, A6b, A6c CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $63,000 C28 APRON TAXIWAY H CRACK REPAIR OR ABANDON $3,000 ABANDON C32 TERMINAL ACCESS RD CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $13,000 C36 PARKING LOT B CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $12,000 TOTAL 2031 PROJECTS $91,000 $88,000 OR HATCH PAVEMENT SEGMENT ID AREA PROJECT COST C21 APRON 5a CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $17,000 C22 APRON 5b REHABILITATE & STRENGTHEN $1,039,000 C29-C31 TAXIWAY D & SOUTH HANGARS CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $15,000 TOTAL 2032 PROJECTS $1,071,000 480
C35 C33 C34

AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36 C18 C15 C23 AIRPORT RD C24
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36 C26 C27 C25 C28 C36 C32AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36 C4 C8 C9 C7 C6 C5 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C17 C16

AIRPORT RD
A
A
A
B
D
F
G
H H
J
K
F E
EMERALD BAY ROAD / HWY 50
RUNWAY 18-36

PAVEMENT EVALUATION
REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2033-2036

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. 5-7 FILE TVL.5-3.REHAB 1"=1000' KDC RWB 7/21/1704 2033 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2034 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2035 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE 2036 MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION SCHEDULE HATCH PAVEMENT SEGMENT ID AREA PROJECT COST C33-C35 PARKING LOT A REMOVE & RECONSTRUCT $168,000 TOTAL 2033 PROJECTS $168,000 HATCH PAVEMENT SEGMENT ID AREA PROJECT COST C15 TAXIWAY G SLURRY SEAL & CRACK REPAIR $2,000 C18 APRON A3 REHABILITATE PCC JOINTS $74,000 C23-C24 APRON A5c-A5d SLURRY SEAL & CRACK REPAIR $27,000 TOTAL 2034 PROJECTS $103,000 HATCH PAVEMENT SEGMENT ID AREA PROJECT COST C4-C7 TAXIWAYS B, A, K CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $129,000 C8-C9 TAXIWAY E CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $7,000 C10-C12 TAXIWAY F CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $12,000 C13 TAXIWAY H CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $5,000 C14 TAXIWAY J CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $5,000 C16 APRON A1 CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $10,000 C17 APRON A2 CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $11,000 TOTAL 2035 PROJECTS $179,000 HATCH PAVEMENT SEGMENT ID AREA PROJECT COST ALTERNATE COST C25-C27 APRON A6a-A6c SLURRY SEAL & CRACK REPAIR $97,000 C28 APRON TAXIWAY H SLURRY SEAL & CRACK REPAIR OR ABANDON $5,000 ABANDON C32 TERMINAL ACCESS RD CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $14,000 C36 PARKING LOT B CRACK REPAIR, SEAL CRACKS $13,000 TOTAL 2036 PROJECTS $129,000 $124,000 OR 481
1 LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

PAVEMENT EVALUATION STUDY

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE/MANAGEMENT PLAN
Appendix A
Geotechnical Data
A series of soil (geotechnical) studies have been conducted by the office of Reinard W.

Brandley, Consulting Airport Engineer (RWB), for pavement evaluation studies at Lake Tahoe Airport. The results of these studies have been collected and included in Appendix A to this report.

Our office conducted test borings at this airport in 1962, 1968, 2012, and 2017. The location map included as Plate A1 identifies the location of each of the test holes drilled at this site. The logs of the borings for each of these test holes are shown on Plates A2 through A7. On these logs, the stratification of the soil is shown under the existing surface as it existed at the time the test hole was drilled, whether the surface was soil or pavement. Where pavement existed, the logs showed the thickness of each layer of the pavement section and the soils below the pavement to depths of 5 to 15 feet.

The soil stratification obtained from these borings was basically as expected based on geological studies. The soils under the runway and parallel taxiway generally consisted of fine to medium or fine to coarse loose sands. Some of the sands were somewhat silty in the area immediately north of Taxiway G. In the apron area the soils consisted of varying layers of sands, sandy clays, and sandy silts. The silty clays and clayey silt layers were generally fairly soft.

The elevation of the groundwater table was measured in each test hole at the time it was drilled and the location and date at which the measurement was made are shown on most of the test boring logs. It will be noted that the groundwater table in the dry years was 8 to 10 feet below surface in the apron area. During the wet year of 2016/17 the groundwater table in the same areas was located within 1 foot of the surface and in some areas was at ground surface.

The location and log of the test holes drilled in the various geotechnical studies on the airport have been assembled and included in this Appendix as:

Plate No. A1 Test Hole Location Map
Plate No. A2 Soil Profile A-A’
Plate No. A3 Soil Profiles B-B’ thru C-C’
Plate No. A4 Soil Profiles D-D’ thru G-G’
Plate No. A5 Soil Profiles H-H’ thru K-K’
Plate No. A6 Soil Profiles L-L’ thru N-N’
482

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

TEST HOLE LOCATION MAP

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A
B
E
F
H
J
K
F
D
G
HIGHWAY 50
UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER AIRPORT RD RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A

MATCHLINE - SEE BELOW
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE LEGEND DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. A1 FILE TVL.Plate A1 1"=400' DMB RWB 7/21/1704 H
483

AA (CONT'D) A (CONT'D) A'

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

SOIL PROFILE A-A'

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. A2 FILE TVL.Plate A1 1"=20' DMB RWB 7/21/1704 PROFILE A-A' PROFILE A-A' PROFILE A-A' 484

BB (CONT'D) B'
C C'

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

SOIL PROFILES B-B' THRU C-C'

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. A3 FILE TVL.Plate A1 1"=20' DMB RWB 7/21/1704 PROFILE B-B' PROFILE B-B' PROFILE C-C' 485
D D'

E E'F F'
G G'

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

SOIL PROFILES D-D' THRU G-G'

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. A4 FILE TVL.Plate A1 1"=20' DMB RWB 7/21/1704 PROFILE D-D' PROFILE E-E' PROFILE F-F' PROFILE G-G' 486
H H'

J J'K K'

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

SOIL PROFILES H-H' THRU K-K'

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. A5 FILE TVL.Plate A1 1"=20' DMB RWB 7/21/1704 PROFILE H-H' PROFILE J-J' PROFILE K-K' 487
L L'

M M'N N'

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

SOIL PROFILES L-L' THRU N-N'

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. A6 FILE TVL.Plate A1 1"=20' DMB RWB 7/21/1704 PROFILE L-L' PROFILE M-M' PROFILE N-N' 488
1 LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

PAVEMENT EVALUATION STUDY

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE/MANAGEMENT PLAN
Appendix B
Falling Weight Deflectometer Test Data

Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) tests were conducted on all pavements on the airport.

On the runway two rows of FWD tests were conducted, one on each side of the runway centerline, at a distance of approximately 10 feet from the centerline. These tests were located at a spacing of approximately 200 feet staggered on each side of centerline, which provided general longitudinal spacing of 100 feet between tests. FWD tests were also conducted on all taxiways and taxilanes at a distance of 10 feet from centerline and at longitudinal spacing of approximately 200 feet. On all aprons FWD tests were conducted on an approximate 100 by 100 foot grid. On all hangar taxilanes FWD tests were conducted in the wheel path of the taxilane at a spacing of approximately 100 feet.

The Falling Weight Deflectometer tests are generally conducted at three different loadings and the applied load is measured by load cells. As a result of variations in resistance, the applied load varies somewhat from the anticipated load. In order to provide comparable test results, all data were normalized to standard loads of 12, 20, 25, and/or 45 kips (1 kip = 1,000 lbs).

The location of the test, starting point of the row of tests, and location of Station 0+00 for each row of tests are shown on Plates B1 through B3. The FWD data for the center deflections under applied load are indicated on these drawings for each test location. The location of Station 0+00 at the start of each row of tests and the direction of test are reflected in the plots as Station 0+00 in Plates No. B4 through B24.

For each row of FWD tests on each segment of pavement a graph showing the center plate deflection at each test location has been prepared and is shown on Plates B4 through B24.

These data show the uniformity of strength as reflected by deflection of the pavement sections and identify the hard spots and the soft spots. For calculation purposes in order to back calculate Modulus of Elasticity, critical values of deflection for each fairly uniform section has been indicated by horizontal lines.

A camera was mounted on the FWD equipment and a photograph of the surface of the pavement was taken at the location of each FWD test. These photographs are useful historical documents since they show the condition of the existing pavement at the time and location of each FWD test. An electronic copy of these photographs are enclosed with this report.

The results of these studies have been included in this Appendix, as follows:
489
2 LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

PAVEMENT EVALUATION STUDY

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE/MANAGEMENT PLAN
Appendix B
Falling Weight Deflectometer Test Data
Plates
Plates No. B1-B3 Falling Weight Deflectometer Test Data Summary Plate B1 – FWD Test Data Summary No. 1
Plate B2 – FWD Test Data Summary No. 2
Plate B3 – FWD Test Data Summary No. 3
Plates B4 through B24 – FWD Deflection Data Profiles

Plate No. B4 Runway 18-36
Plates No. B5 through B10 Taxiways A, B, E, F, G, H, J, and K Plates No. B11 through B14 Terminal Apron and General Aviation Apron Plates No. B15 through B20 Tee Hangar Taxilanes
Plate No. B21 Terminal Access Road
Plate No. B22 North Apron Access Road
Plates No. B23 through B24 Terminal Parking Lot

490
20<42>(74)
20<41>(82)
21<40>(64)
25<44>(67)
26<48>(74)
25<47>(72)
24<45>(74)
24<46>(68)
24<46>(75)
21<41>(70)
25<52>(88)
24<45>(73)
24<49>(87)
25<47>(77)
23<44>(79)
30<56>(92)
23<45>(72)
23<43>(67)
21<43>(73)
23<44>(71)
23<46>(75)
22<42>(68)
21<42>(71)
27<48>(76)
21<40>(66)
26<47>(76)
27<55>(91)
25<48>(80)
27<52>(89)
24<46>(75) 19<39>(70) 29<53>(84) 23<42>(67)
22<40>(62)
17<33>(53)
14<29>(50)
18<35>(56)
22<42>(68)
19<36>(57)
17<34>(56)
14<28>(48)
17<32>(51)
16<31>(52)
17<33>(57)
22<40>(65)
17<32>(52)
16<31>(51)
16<32>(55) 52*87*<105> 46*78*<96> 48*79*<98> 86 75*119* 35*55*<66>
39*62*<76>
37*59*<73> 54*94*<116> 82*125* 78*125* 44*79*<100> 40*69*<86> 43*74*<96> 58*98* 53*88*<110> 62*105* 53*86*<104> RW 36 0+00 TW A
0+00
H1
0+00 H2
0+00 H3
0+00 PAVEMENT EVALUATION
FWD TEST DATA SUMMARY No. 1

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET B2
HIGHWAY 50 LEGEND DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. B1 FILE TVL.B1.FWD 1"=200' KDC RWB 7/21/1704 25<40>(50) 0+00 TW A 491
29<54>(88)
31<57>(89)
26<48>(79)
29<53>(83)
24<46>(73)
31<55>(90)
26<50>(79)
29<54>(91)
25<47>(73)
31<57>(87)
25<48>(79)
28<52>(80)
26<50>(80)
24<46>(76)
26<50>(81)
28<51>(85)
23<44>(73)
31<57>(94)
25<47>(75)
26<46>(76)
22<42>(68)
25<46>(73)
23<43>(71)
26<48>(77)
27<53>(86)
27<50>(87)
25<48>(78)
28<52>(80)
23<45>(73)
15<30>(51)
16<32>(57)
19<37>(60)
15<31>(52)
20<38>(60)
23<48>(83)
29<53>(85)
32<64>(99)
30<58>(96)
28<57>(96)
27<54>(92)
30<61>(102)
36<69>(112)
30<63>(106)
26<53>(92)
25<54>(96) 23<50>(87) 12<27>(49)
15<33>(59) 15<32>(61)
22<46>(82)
33<68>(119)
14<30>(52)
15<30>(52) 8<18>(33) 20<39>(63) 43*68*<83> 10*17*<22> 10*18*<22> 17*28*<33> 39*64*<81> 47*79*<97> 49*80*<95>
24*40*<50> 41*67*<83>
31*51*<64>
3*5*<6> C
2*4*<4> C
2*4*<5> C
19*32*<39>
29*47*<57>
29*48*<59>
26*42*<51>
26*42*<55>
28*46*<57>
45*76*<95>
45*73*<89>
32*56*<71>
43*74*<95>
90 58*99*
94 52*81*<99>
43*69*<84>
23*39*<48>
27*44*<53>
3*6*<7> C
3*5*<6> C
22*36*<45>
19*31*<38>
27*43*<52>
24*39*<49>
30*49*<60>
70*118*
49*84*<106>
41*69*<85>
52*87*<107>
54*90*<110>
76*119*
81*121*
101
45*71*<87>
30*50*<60>
25*42*<51>
3*6*<7> C
3*5*<6> C
48*79*<99>
40*66*<80>
89*127* 75*121*
68*114*
19*32*<40>
21*35*<43>
22*38*<47>
55*88*<107>
96 104
110 59*108* 56*98*<121> 46*76*<91> 55*94*<118> 43*72*<91> 64*107* 39*64*<94> 45*77*<98> 33*56*<75> 34*53*<65>
32*51*<60>
32*52*<63>
<7>[91.9%] L1
<12>[97.2%] L1
<18>[96.2%] L1 <8>[100.4%] T <7>[99.2%] T
<9>[98.5%] L1
<9>[101.5%] L1
<8>[101.5%] L1 <7>[98.8%] T <5>[96.1%] T
43*77*<98>
72*124* 90
58*97*<123>
66*112* 49*86*<110>
42*69*<88>
44*77*<96>
41*75*<97>
37*67*<86>
54*93*<119>
81*120* 36*57*<70>
93 85*124* 96 104
56*98*<119>
57*97*<118>
61*102*
25*42*<53>
43*67*<79>
65*106*
54*84*<101>
54*86*<99>
48*78*<95>
47*82*<102>
42*72*<89> 54*92*<113> 45*79*<100> 49*83*<102>
27*47*<60>
56*89*<108>
41*68*<84>
66*105*
32*54*<68>
38*63*<79>
43*70*<89>
44*72*<91>
50*78*<95>
H4
77*118*
0+00 H5
0+00
RD 1
0+00 RD 2 0+00
TW F
TW E
0+00
0+00
TW G
0+00 AP 3 0+00 AP 2 0+00 AP 1 0+00
PK 2
0+00
50+00
PK 1
PCC
0+00

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

PAVEMENT EVALUATION
FWD TEST DATA SUMMARY No. 2
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE RUNWAY 18-36

T/W G T/W H
T/W F

T/W E TAXIWAY A APRON
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET B2
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET B3

T/W F AIRPORT RD
HIGHWAY 50 LEGEND 25<40>(50) DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. B2 FILE TVL.B1.FWD 1"=200' KDC RWB 7/21/1704 0+00 TW A [100%]C TL1
492
26<48>(76)
24<46>(74)
23<44>(68)
25<50>(85)
26<51>(82)
29<53>(82)
26<48>(77)
23<44>(76)
25<46>(75)
21<41>(67)
28<53>(83)
21<40>(67)
25<46>(74)
17<33>(54)
22<45>(81)
21<41>(69)
22<41>(70)
24<49>(81)
23<44>(72)
22<46>(78)
27<52>(86)
26<53>(87)
26<51>(84)
25<51>(83)
24<47>(81)
23<47>(79)
27<55>(90)
24<50>(81)
20<41>(68)
27<57>(99)
11<23>(40)
21<44>(77)
19<40>(73)
17<36>(64)
20<43>(77)
17<36>(68)
18<37>(66)
18<38>(67)
19<40>(70)
17<37>(66)
22<48>(84)
22<47>(82)
23<48>(83) 31<60>(96) 29<62>(108) 42<76>(121) 25<53>(94) 30<62>(105) 20<44>(77) 23<50>(91) 20<44>(81) 36<71>(117) 24<50>(87) 26<53>(92)
84*125*
65*106* 44*71*<86> TW H 0+00 TWJ 0+00

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

PAVEMENT EVALUATION
FWD TEST DATA SUMMARY No. 3
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE RUNWAY 18-36
T/W J

T/W K TAXIWAY A
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET B3
T/W H
T/W H LEGEND DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. B3 FILE TVL.B1.FWD 1"=200' KDC RWB 7/21/1704 25<40>(50) 0+00 TW A 493
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
0+00 10+00 20+00 30+00 40+00 50+00 60+00 70+00 80+00
Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
Runway 18-36
(Station 0+00 at R/W 36 End)
Runway 18-36 - 12 kips
Runway 18-36 - 25 kips
Runway 18-36 - 45 kips
Plate No. B4
494
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
0+00 10+00 20+00 30+00 40+00 50+00 60+00 70+00 80+00 90+00 Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
Taxiways B, A, & K
(Station 0+00 at R/W 36 End)
Taxiway BAK - 12 kips
Taxiway BAK - 25 kips
Taxiway BAK - 45 kips
Plate No. B5
495
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50
Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
Taxiway E
(Station 0+00 at R/W)
Taxiway E - 12 kips
Taxiway E - 25 kips
Taxiway E - 45 kips
Plate No. B6
496
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
Taxiway F
(Station 0+00 at R/W)
Taxiway F - 12 kips
Taxiway F - 25 kips
Taxiway F - 45 kips
Plate No. B7
497
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00
Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
Taxiway H
(Station 0+00 at R/W)
Taxiway H - 12 kips
Taxiway H - 25 kips
Taxiway H - 45 kips
Plate No. B8
498
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
Taxiway J
(Station 0+00 at R/W)
Taxiway J - 12 kips
Taxiway J - 25 kips
Taxiway J - 45 kips
Plate No. B9
499
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50
Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
Taxiway G
(Station 0+00 at T/W A)
Taxiway G - 12 kips
Taxiway J - 20 kips
Taxiway J - 25 kips
Plate No. B10
Apron A5D Apron A5B
500
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
0+00 2+00 4+00 6+00 8+00 10+00 12+00 14+00 16+00 18+00 20+00 22+00 24+00 Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
Apron 1
(Station 0+00 at South End)
Apron 1 - 12 kips
Apron 1 - 20 kips
Apron 1 - 25 kips
Plate No. B11
Data Out of Range Apron A1 Apron
A2
Apron A3 Apron
A4
Apron A5A Apron A5B
Apron A6A
Apron A6C
501
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
0+00 2+00 4+00 6+00 8+00 10+00 12+00 14+00 16+00 18+00 20+00 22+00 24+00 Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
Apron 2
(Station 0+00 at South End)
Apron 2 - 12 kips
Apron 2 - 20 kips
Apron 2 - 25 kips
Plate No. B12
Data Out of Range
Data Out of Range
Apron Apron A5A Apron A5B
A4
Apron Apron A3
A2 Apron A1 Apron A6A Apron A6C
502
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
0+00 2+00 4+00 6+00 8+00 10+00 12+00 14+00 16+00 18+00 20+00 22+00 24+00 Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
Apron 3
(Station 0+00 at South End)
Apron 3 - 12 kips
Apron 3 - 20 kips
Apron 3 - 25 kips
Plate No. B13
Data Out of Range
Data Out of Range
Apron A1 Apron
A2 Apron A3 Apron A4
Apron A5C
Apron
A5D,A6B
Apron A6C
Apron A6A
503
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00
Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
Apron T/W H
(Station 0+00 at Apron)
Apron T/W H - 12 kips
Apron T/W H - 20 kips
Apron T/W H - 25 kips
Plate No. B14
Data Out of Range
504
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00
Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
H1 - Tee Hangar Taxilanes
(Station 0+00 at West End)
H1 - 12 kips H1 - 20 kips
H1 - 25 kips
Plate No. B15
Data Out of Range
505
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00
Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
H2 - Tee Hangar Taxilanes
(Station 0+00 at West End)
H2 - 12 kips
H2 - 20 kips
H2 - 25 kips
Plate No. B16
Data Out of Range Data Out of Range
506
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00
Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
H3 - Tee Hangar Taxilanes
(Station 0+00 at West End)
H3 - 12 kips
H3 - 20 kips
H3 - 25 kips
Plate No. B17
Data Out of Range
507
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00
Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
H4 - Tee Hangar Taxilanes
(Station 0+00 at West End)
H4 - 12 kips
H4 - 20 kips
H4 - 25 kips
Plate No. B18
Data Out of Range
508
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00
Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
H5 - Tee Hangar Taxilanes
(Station 0+00 at West End)
H5 - 12 kips
H5 - 20 kips
H5 - 25 kips
Plate No. B19
Data Out of Range
509
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00
Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
H6 - Tee Hangar Taxilanes
(Station 0+00 at Apron)
H6 - 12 kips
H6 - 20 kips
H6 - 25 kips
Plate No. B20
510
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
0+00 5+00 10+00 15+00 20+00
Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
Road 1 - Terminal Access Road
(Station 0+00 at South End)
Road 1 - 12 kips
Road 1 - 20 kips
Road 1 - 25 kips
Plate No. B21
Data Out of Range Data Out of Range
511
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
0+00 5+00 10+00
Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
Road 2 - FBO Office to North Gate V2
(Station 0+00 at Gate V1)
Road 2 - 12 kips
Road 2 - 20 kips
Road 2 - 25 kips
Plate No. B22
Data Out of Range
Data Out of Range
512
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00
Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
Parking Lot 1
(Station 0+00 at South End)
Parking Lot 1 - 12 kips
Parking Lot 1 - 20 kips
Parking Lot 1 - 25 kips
Plate No. B23
Data Out of Range
Data Out of Range Parking Lot A Parking Lot B
513
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00
Deflection (mils)
Station (feet)
Lake Tahoe Airport - 2016 FWD Deflection Data
Parking Lot 2
(Station 0+00 at South End)
Parking Lot 2 - 12 kips
Parking Lot 2 - 20 kips
Parking Lot 2 - 25 kips
Plate No. B24
Data Out of Range
Data Out of Range Data Out of Range Parking Lot A
Parking Lot B
514
1 LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

PAVEMENT EVALUATION STUDY

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE/MANAGEMENT PLAN
Appendix C
Pavement Condition Survey
Pavement Maintenance Management Plan

As an aid in determining the performance to date of the existing pavements and to provide a guide for the test program conducted in this study a detailed condition survey of all existing pavements was made. This survey consisted of visually observing all pavements and noting deficiencies in areas of distress. A drawing identifying the pavements surveyed is included in this appendix as Plate No. C1. Plate No. C2 gives the stationing control for all segments of pavement included in this report. A drawing indicating the PCI (Pavement Condition Index) rating of each segment of pavement in 2016 by color is included as Plate No. C3.

The Pavement Condition Survey and Rehabilitation Schedules shown in Tables C1 through C36 include the following information for each pavement segment evaluated:
 F.A.A. Pavement Strength Survey
 F.A.A. Existing Pavement Section, FAA Form 5335
 Date constructed
 Rehabilitation record
 Pavement condition including Pavement Condition Index (PCI)  Pavement Condition Number (PCN)
 Pavement evaluation
 Traffic Index
 Pavement remaining life analysis
 Recommended rehabilitation.

Routine remarking of the pavements is necessary every 8 to 10 years. The scheduled remarking is not shown in Appendix C or Table 5-3, but it is included in each of the rehabilitation and maintenance project cost estimates.

The table of contents of this appendix is shown below:

Plates
Plate No. C1 Pavement Segment Identification
Plate No. C2 Stationing Control Plan
Plate No. C3 Surface Distress – Pavement Condition Index (PCI) - 2016

515
2 LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

PAVEMENT EVALUATION STUDY

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE/MANAGEMENT PLAN
Appendix C
Pavement Condition Survey
Pavement Maintenance Management Plan
Tables C1 through C36 – Pavement Condition Survey and Rehabilitation Schedule Tables No. C1 through C3 Runway 18-36
Tables No. C4 through C7 Taxiways B, A, and K
Tables No. C8 through C9 Taxiway E
Tables No. C10 through C12 Taxiway F
Table No. C13 Taxiway H
Table No. C14 Taxiway J
Table No. C15 Taxiway G
Table No. C16 Apron A1 (South of Terminal Apron)
Table No. C17 Apron A2 (South of Terminal Apron)
Table No. C18 Apron A3 (Terminal Apron)
Tables No. C19 through C20 Apron A4 (General Aviation Apron) Tables No. C21 through C24 Apron A5 (General Aviation Apron) Tables No. C25 through C27 Apron A6 (General Aviation Apron) Table No. C28 Apron Taxiway H
Table No. C29 Taxiway D
Tables No. C30 through C31 Tee Hangar Taxilanes
Table No. C32 Terminal Access Road
Tables No. C33 through C36 Terminal Parking Lot
516
T1 C2 T1 C1 T3 C5 C9 C8 C10 C11 T6 C12 T6 C18 T6 C20 C29 C31 T11 C30 T2 C4 C15 T6 C17 T5 C16 C21 C22 T7 C23 T6 C19 C26 T9 T9 C27 C25 T7 C24 T14 C36 T14 C33 C34 T13 C32 C35 T14 T7 T9 T8T9 T11 T4 T4 T4 T4 T1 C3 C7 T3 C6 T4 C13 C14 T10 C28 T4 T3

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

PAVEMENT SEGMENT IDENTIFICATION

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A
B
E
F
H
J
K
F
D
G
HIGHWAY 50
UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER AIRPORT RD RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A

MATCHLINE - SEE BELOW
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE LEGEND C6T1 DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. C1 FILE TVL.5-1.AreaIDs 1"=400' KDC RWB 7/21/1704 ID ELEMENT C16 Apron A1 C17 Apron A2 C18 Apron A3 C19 Apron A4a C20 Apron A4b C21 Apron A5a C22 Apron A5b C23 Apron A5c ID ELEMENT C24 Apron A5d C25 Apron A6a C26 Apron A6b C27 Apron A6c C30 Tee Hangar Taxiway C31 Tee Hangar Taxilanes C33-C35 Parking Lot A C36 Parking Lot B APRON & HANGAR AREA LEGEND 517
RW 36 0+00 TW A 0+00
H1
0+00 H2
0+00 H3
0+00 H4
0+00 H5
0+00
RD 1 0+00 RD 2 0+00 TW F TW E 0+00 0+00
TW G
0+00 AP 3 0+00 AP 2 0+00 AP 1 0+00 PK 2 0+00 PK 1 50+00 PCC 0+00 TW H 0+00 TWJ 0+00

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

STATIONING CONTROL PLAN

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A BEF HJK FDG HIGHWAY 50 UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER AIRPORT RD RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A

MATCHLINE - SEE BELOW
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. C2 FILE TVL.5-2.FWD 1"=400' KDC RWB 7/21/1704 LEGEND 0+00 TW A 518
8155 68 55 73 95 45 23 55 35 75 9010 25 14 20 25 70 45 68 55 73 95 45 23 55 75 9010 25 14 20 25 70 45 8155 35 81 55 33 50 47 14 81 55 33

PAVEMENT EVALUATION
SURFACE DISTRESS - PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX (PCI) - 2016

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A
B
E
F
H
J
K
F
D
G
HIGHWAY 50
UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER AIRPORT RD RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A

MATCHLINE - SEE BELOW
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE PLATE No. C3 FILE TVL.2-1.PCI 1"=400' KDC RWB 7/21/1704 519
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Runway 18-36
Station: 0+00 - 36+00
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 200 0.35
Section: 40 0.35
- -
20 0.35
- -
- -
12 0.35
20 0.35
1958
Date
1968, 2008
Weathering - Light Raveling - None Rutting - None
2017-2021
2022-2026 H
2027-2031 F2/3
2032-2036
Remarks: Station 0+00 located at south end of Runway 18-36 proceeding north.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.

None Scheduled
2023 - Crack Repair
2027 - Mill 2" AC, Fill 3" AC
None Scheduled
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 57 (39-57)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
20+
Traffic Index Used - T1
Pavement Condition:

Grooved Pavement, Longitudinal Paving Joints Cracked and Sealed, Few Transverse Cracks Several Profile Grinds on Surface.

Pavement Rating = Very Good PCI = 81 PCN = 28 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
Aggregate Subbase 20
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Asphalt (Surface) 3
Aggregate Base 7
Cement Treated Base -
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
3,600' X 100'
TABLE No. C1 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
520
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Runway 18-36
Station: 36+00 - 59+75
Dimensions:

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.

PCI = 81 PCN = 28 F/C/Y/T
T1
57 (42-57)
-
3 7
-
20 Pit-Run -
Reconstruction
Date Constructed:

PCC (surface)
Asphalt (Surface)
Aggregate Base
Cement Treated Base
Select Sand -
Aggregate Subbase
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
20+
24 Semi-Infinite
Traffic Index Used -
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load
Subgrade
Sub-soil
Type
Grooved Pavement, Longitudinal Paving Joints Cracked and Sealed, Few Transverse Cracks Several Profile Grinds on Surface.

Pavement Rating = Very Good
Brandley - Fatigue Analysis
Rehabilitation Record:

Pavement Condition:

Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
None Scheduled
None Scheduled
2023 - Crack Repair
2027 - Mill 2" AC, Fill 3" AC
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

TABLE No. C2 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
2,375' X 100'
Not Available
521
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Runway 18-36
Station: 59+75 - 85+40
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 200 0.35
Section: 40 0.35
- -
20 0.35
- -
- -
12 0.35
20 0.35
1962
Date
1968, 2008
Weathering - Light Raveling - None Rutting - None
2017-2021
2022-2026 H
2027-2031 F2/3
2032-2036
Remarks: Station 0+00 located at south end of Runway 18-36 proceeding north.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.

None Scheduled
2023 - Crack Repair
2027 - Mill 2" AC, Fill 3" AC
None Scheduled
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 54 (33-54)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
20+
Traffic Index Used - T1
Pavement Condition:

Grooved Pavement, Longitudinal Paving Joints Cracked and Sealed, Few Transverse Cracks Several Profile Grinds on Surface.

Pavement Rating = Very Good PCI = 81 PCN = 28 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
2,565' X 100'
TABLE No. C3 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
522
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Taxiways B, A, & K
Station: 0+00 - 40+60
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 250 0.35
Section: 30 0.35
- -
20 0.35
- -
- -
8 0.35
20 0.35
1958
Date
1968, 1970
1990
Weathering - Moderate Raveling - None Rutting - None
2017-2021
2022-2026 A1
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H
Remarks: Station 0+00 located at south edge of Runway 36 proceeding north.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.

None Scheduled
2022 - Reconstruction
2030 - Crack Repair
2035 - Crack Repair
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 42 (28-53)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
20+
Traffic Index Used - T2
Pavement Condition:

Taxiway B is slurry sealed, rest of this portion of Taxiway A is not slurry Sealed Sawed and Sealed joints - good condition. Several other cracks developint along joints and between joints Some corner cracks, few areas of alligator cracking developing (isolated small areas) Pavement Rating = Good PCI = 55 PCN = 22 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
AC Overlay
Aggregate Subbase 8
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Asphalt (Surface) 8.5
Aggregate Base 8
Cement Treated Base -
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
4,060' X 60'
TABLE No. C4 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
523
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Taxiways B, A, & K
Station: 40+60 - 59+15
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 150 0.35
Section: 30 0.35
- -
20 0.35
- -
- -
8 0.35
20 0.35
1958
Date
1975
Weathering - Moderate Raveling - None Rutting - None
2017-2021
2022-2026 A1
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H
Remarks: Station 0+00 located at south edge of Runway 36 proceeding north.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.

None Scheduled
2022 - Reconstruction
2030 - Crack Repair
2035 - Crack Repair
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 68 (48-68)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
20+
Traffic Index Used - T3
Pavement Condition:

Taxiway A is slurry sealed at Taxiway F, the rest of this portion of Taxiway A is not slurry Sealed Sawed and Sealed joints - good condition. Several other cracks developint along joints and between joints Some corner cracks, few areas of alligator cracking developing (isolated small areas) Pavement Rating = Good PCI = 55 PCN = 15 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
Aggregate Subbase 8
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Asphalt (Surface) 4
Aggregate Base 8
Cement Treated Base -
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
1,855' X 60'
TABLE No. C5 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
524
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Taxiways B, A, & K
Station: 59+15 - 82+60
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 200 0.35
Section: 20 0.35
- -
15 0.35
- -
- -
8 0.35
20 0.35
1963
Date
1990
Weathering - Moderate Raveling - None Rutting - None
2017-2021
2022-2026 A1
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H
Remarks: Station 0+00 located at south edge of Runway 36 proceeding north.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.

None Scheduled
2022 - Reconstruction
2030 - Crack Repair
2035 - Crack Repair
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 47 (35-56)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
20+
Traffic Index Used - T3
Pavement Condition:

Taxiway A is slurry sealed at Taxiway J, the rest of this portion of Taxiway A is not slurry Sealed Sawed and Sealed joints - good condition. Several other cracks developint along joints and between joints Some corner cracks, few areas of alligator cracking developing (isolated small areas) Pavement Rating = Good PCI = 55 PCN = 30 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
AC Overlay
Aggregate Subbase 24
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Asphalt (Surface) 7.5
Aggregate Base 7.5
Cement Treated Base -
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
2,345' X 75'
TABLE No. C6 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
525
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Taxiways B, A, & K
Station: 82+60 - 88+00
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 150 0.35
Section: 20 0.35
- -
15 0.35
- -
- -
5 0.35
20 0.35
1962
Date
1990
Weathering - Moderate Raveling - None Rutting - None
2017-2021
2022-2026 A1
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H
Remarks: Station 0+00 located at south edge of Runway 36 proceeding north.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.

None Scheduled
2022 - Reconstruction
2030 - Crack Repair
2035 - Crack Repair
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 75 (48-75)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
20+
Traffic Index Used - T3
Pavement Condition:

Taxiways A and K in this segment are both slurry sealed, with some slurry worn by the snowplows.

Sawed and Sealed joints - good condition. Several other cracks developint along joints and between joints Some corner cracks, significant portion of Taxiway K has low severity alligator cracking.

Pavement Rating = Poor PCI = 33 PCN = 30 F/D/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
540' X 75'
TABLE No. C7 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
526
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Taxiway E
Station: 0+00 - 1+75
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 200 0.35
Section: 30 0.35
- -
- -
- -
- -
8 0.35
20 0.35
1958
Date
1968
Weathering - Light-Moderate Raveling - None Rutting - None 2017-2021
2022-2026 A2
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H
Remarks: Station 0+00 located at edge of Runwy 18-36 proceeding west.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.

None Scheduled
2022 - Reconstruction
2030 - Crack Repair
2035 - Crack Repair
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 54 (49-54)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
20+
Traffic Index Used - T4
Pavement Condition:

Pavement is slurry sealed. Moderate cracking at the edges of the joints. 1 small area of alligator cracking.

Sawed and Sealed joints - good condition. Some other cracks developint along joints and between joints Pavement Rating = Good PCI = 68 PCN = 8 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
AC Overlay
Aggregate Subbase -
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Asphalt (Surface) 6.5
Aggregate Base 8
Cement Treated Base -
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
175' X 75'
TABLE No. C8 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
527
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Taxiway E
Station: 1+75 - 3+60
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 250 0.35
Section: 30 0.35
- -
20 0.35
- -
- -
8 0.35
20 0.35
1958
Date
1968, 1970
1990
Weathering - Light-Moderate Raveling - None Rutting - None 2017-2021
2022-2026 A1
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H
Remarks: Station 0+00 located at edge of Runwy 18-36 proceeding west.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.

None Scheduled
2022 - Reconstruction
2030 - Crack Repair
2035 - Crack Repair
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 32 (27-32)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
20+
Traffic Index Used - T4
Pavement Condition:

Pavement is slurry sealed. Moderate cracking at the edges of the joints. 1 small area of alligator cracking.

Sawed and Sealed joints - good condition. Some other cracks developint along joints and between joints Pavement Rating = Good PCI = 68 PCN = 22 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
185' X 75'
TABLE No. C9 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
528
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Taxiway F
Station: 0-00 - 1+75
Dimensions:

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.

None Scheduled
2022 - Reconstruction
2030 - Crack Repair
2035 - Crack Repair
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 68 (45-68)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
20+
Traffic Index Used - T4
Pavement Condition:

Pavement is slurry sealed. Moderate cracking at the edges of the joints.

Some moderate alligator cracking.

Sawed and Sealed joints - good condition. Some other cracks developint along joints and between joints Pavement Rating = Good PCI = 55 PCN = 8 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
175' X 75'
TABLE No. C10 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
529
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Taxiway F
Station: 1+75 - 3+50
Dimensions:

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.

None Scheduled
2022 - Reconstruction
2030 - Crack Repair
2035 - Crack Repair
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 30 (30)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
20+
Traffic Index Used - T4
Pavement Condition:

Pavement is slurry sealed. Moderate cracking at the edges of the joints.

Some moderate alligator cracking.

Sawed and Sealed joints - good condition. Some other cracks developint along joints and between joints Pavement Rating = Good PCI = 55 PCN = 22 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
175' X 75'
TABLE No. C11 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
530
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Taxiway F
Station: 3+50 - 5+60
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 250 0.35
Section: 30 0.35
- -
20 0.35
- -
- -
8 0.35
20 0.35
1958
Date
1968, 1970
2009
Weathering - Light-Moderate Raveling - None Rutting - None 2017-2021
2022-2026 A1
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H
Remarks: Station 0+00 located at edge of Runwy 18-36 proceeding west.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.

None Scheduled
2022 - Reconstruction
2030 - Crack Repair
2035 - Crack Repair
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 39 (30-39)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
11 Traffic Index Used - T6
Pavement Condition:

Pavement is slurry sealed. Moderate cracking at the edges of the joints.

Sawed and Sealed joints - good condition. Some other cracks developint along joints and between joints Pavement Rating = Very Good PCI = 73 PCN = 22 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
210' X 75'
TABLE No. C12 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
531
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Taxiway H
Station: 0+00 - 1+80
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 150 0.35
Section: 20 0.35
- -
15 0.35
- -
- -
5 0.35
20 0.35
1963
Date
1990
Weathering - Moderate Raveling - None Rutting - None
2017-2021
2022-2026 A1
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H
Remarks: Station 0+00 located at edge of Runwy 18-36 proceeding west.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
180' X 75'
TABLE No. C13 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Asphalt (Surface) 7.5
Aggregate Base 7.5
Cement Treated Base -
Aggregate Subbase 24
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
AC Overlay
Pavement Condition:

No Slurry Seal
Sawed and Sealed joints - good condition. Several other cracks developint along joints and between joints Some corner cracks
Traffic Index Used - T4
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 62 (49-62)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Fair PCI = 50 PCN = 30 F/D/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 20+
2030 - Crack Repair
2035 - Crack Repair
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
None Scheduled
2022 - Reconstruction
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
532
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Taxiway J
Station: 0+00 - 1+80
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 150 0.35
Section: 20 0.35
- -
15 0.35
- -
- -
5 0.35
20 0.35
1962
Date
1990
Weathering - Low-Moderate Raveling - None Rutting - None 2017-2021
2022-2026 A1
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H
Remarks: Station 0+00 located at edge of Runwy 18-36 proceeding west.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
180' X 75'
TABLE No. C14 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Asphalt (Surface) 7.5
Aggregate Base 7.5
Cement Treated Base -
Aggregate Subbase 24
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
AC Overlay
Pavement Condition:

Slurry Sealed, some slurry worn by the snowplows.

Sawed and Sealed joints - good condition. Several other cracks developint along joints and between joints Some corner cracks, significant portion of Taxiway J has low severity alligator cracking.

Traffic Index Used - T4
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 70 (43-70)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Fair PCI = 47 PCN = 30 F/D/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 20+
2030 - Crack Repair
2035 - Crack Repair
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
None Scheduled
2022 - Reconstruction
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
533
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Taxiway G
Station: 0+00 - 1+00
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 85 0.35
Section: 20 0.35
- -
15 0.35
- -
- -
6 0.35
17 0.35
1958
Date
1975, 2016
1989
Weathering - Moderate Raveling - Some Rutting - None
2017-2021
2022-2026 H
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H, J
Remarks: Station 0+00 located at edge of Taxiway A proceeding west.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
100' X 55'
TABLE No. C15 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Data was
collected
prior to 2016
rehabilitation.

See section 5-

2.4 in the
report.

Asphalt (Surface) 6
Aggregate Base 8
Cement Treated Base -
Aggregate Subbase 8
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
AC Overlay
Pavement Condition:

Sawed and Sealed joints - fair condition. Several other cracks developint along joints and between joints Areas of alligator cracking, some ravelling of surface.

Reconstructed in 2016, PCI is approximately 95-100 after reconstruction Traffic Index Used - T8
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 12 K Load 43 (43)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Poor PCI = 35 PCN = 15 F/D/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 20+
2029 - Crack Repair
2034 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
2016 - Reconstruction (Completed) (See Section 5-2.4)
2024 - Crack Repair
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
534
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Apron A1
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 150 0.35
Section: 20 0.35
- -
15 0.35
- -
10 0.35
12 0.35
20 0.35
1969
Date
2010
Weathering - Light-Moderate Raveling - None Rutting - None 2017-2021 H, J
2022-2026 H
2027-2031 F2
2032-2036 H
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
200' X 250'
TABLE No. C16 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Asphalt (Surface) 3
Aggregate Base 6
Cement Treated Base -
Aggregate Subbase 6
Pit-Run -
Select Sand 12
Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
Pavement Condition:

No Joints, Polymer Modified Asphalt. Several cracks mid paving lane, longitudinal, low severity, sealed.

Traffic Index Used - T5
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 12 K Load 52 (43-52)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Very Good PCI = 75 PCN = 30 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 20+
2027 - 2" AC Mill & Fill
2035 - Crack Repair
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
2018 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal
2022 - Crack Repair
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
535
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Apron A2
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 200 0.35
Section: 60 0.35
- -
20 0.35
- -
- -
12 0.35
20 0.35
1950
Date
2010
1970
Weathering - Light-Moderate Raveling - None Rutting - None 2017-2021 H, J
2022-2026 H
2027-2031 F3
2032-2036 H
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
160' X 280'
TABLE No. C17 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Asphalt (Surface) 4
Aggregate Base 6
Cement Treated Base -
Aggregate Subbase 13
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
AC Overlay
Pavement Condition:

No Joints, Polymer Modified Asphalt. Some cracks, longitudinal, low severity, sealed.

Few cracks adjacent to PCC pavement, these are reflective cracks from buried concrete slab.

Traffic Index Used - T6
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 63 (48-63)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Very Good PCI = 75 PCN = 30 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 20+
2027 - 3" AC Mill & Fill
2035 - Crack Repair
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
2018 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal
2022 - Crack Repair
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
536
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Apron A3
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing 5000 0.35
Pavement 300 0.35
Section: - -
- -
40 0.35
- -
- -
15 0.35
30 0.35
Pre 1963
Date
2009
1970
Weathering - Light Spalling - None Joint Seal - Good
2017-2021
2022-2026 K
2027-2031
2032-2036 K
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
300' X 275'
TABLE No. C18 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) 14
Not Available
Asphalt (Surface) 1.5
Aggregate Base -
Cement Treated Base -
Aggregate Subbase 6
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
AC Overlay
Pavement Condition:

PCC Sealant is in good condition. Surface has very few defects.

Few patches due to joint spalling during construction. Excellent Condition.

Scrapes from snow plows, but no significant damage.

Traffic Index Used - T6
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 7 ( 4-7)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Excellent PCI = 95 PCN = 40 R/B/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 20+
None Scheduled
2034 - PCC Repair
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
None Scheduled
2024 - PCC Repair
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
537
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Apron A4a
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 200 0.35
Section: 50 0.35
- -
20 0.35
- -
- -
12 0.35
20 0.35
Pre 1963
Date
2009
1970
Weathering - Moderate Raveling - Light - Moderate Rutting - None 2017-2021 F2
2022-2026 H
2027-2031 B
2032-2036
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
150' X 135'
TABLE No. C19 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Asphalt (Surface) 4
Aggregate Base 6
Cement Treated Base -
Aggregate Subbase 8
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
AC Overlay
Pavement Condition:

No Joints, Polymer Modified Asphalt. Some Cracks on paving joints.

Significant surface raveling and aggregates popping out. Raveling worse due to snow plows.

Surface is wearing off.

Traffic Index Used - T6
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 60 (37-60)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Fair PCI = 45 PCN = 22 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 19 2030 - Reconstruction
None Scheduled
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
2018 - 2" AC Mill & Fill
2024 - Crack Repair
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
538
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Apron A4b
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 150 0.35
Section: 25 0.35
- -
15 0.35
- -
- -
12 0.35
20 0.35
Pre 1963
Date
2009
1970
Weathering - Moderate Raveling - Light - Moderate Rutting - None 2017-2021 F2
2022-2026 H
2027-2031 B
2032-2036
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
150' X 135'
TABLE No. C20 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Asphalt (Surface) 4
Aggregate Base 6
Cement Treated Base -
Aggregate Subbase 8
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
AC Overlay
Pavement Condition:

No Joints, Polymer Modified Asphalt. Some Cracks on paving joints.

Significant surface raveling and aggregates popping out. Raveling worse due to snow plows.

Surface is wearing off.

Traffic Index Used - T6
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 99 (79-99)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Fair PCI = 45 PCN = 22 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 15 2030 - Reconstruction
None Scheduled
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
2018 - 2" AC Mill & Fill
2024 - Crack Repair
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
539
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Apron A5a
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 200 0.35
Section: 40 0.35
- -
30 0.35
25 0.35
- -
- -
20 0.35
Pre 1963
Date
1974, 2014
Weathering - Light Raveling - None Rutting - None
2017-2021
2022-2026 H
2027-2031 H, J
2032-2036 H
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
390' X 180'
TABLE No. C21 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Asphalt (Surface) 3
Aggregate Base 6
Cement Treated Base -
Aggregate Subbase 20
Pit-Run 18
Select Sand -
Subgrade -
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
Pavement Condition:

No Joints, Polymer Modified Asphalt. No cracking
Light surface wear from snow removal
Traffic Index Used - T7
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 25 K Load 60 (48-60)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Excellent PCI = 90 PCN = 30 F/B/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 20+
2027 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal
2032 - Crack Repair
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
None Scheduled
2022 - Crack Repair
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
540
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Apron A5b
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 150 0.35
Section: 30 0.35
- -
- -
- -
- -
6 0.35
12 0.35
Pre 1963
Date
1974, 2014
Weathering - Light Raveling - None Rutting - None
2017-2021
2022-2026 H
2027-2031 H, J
2032-2036 B
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
360' X 180'
TABLE No. C22 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Asphalt (Surface) 3
Aggregate Base 14
Cement Treated Base -
Aggregate Subbase -
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
Pavement Condition:

No Joints, Polymer Modified Asphalt. No cracking
Light surface wear from snow removal
Traffic Index Used - T9
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 12 K Load 49 (38-70)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Excellent PCI = 90 PCN = 8 F/D/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 17 2027 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal
2032 - Reconstruction
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
None Scheduled
2022 - Crack Repair
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
541
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Apron A5c
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 85 0.35
Section: 15 0.35
- -
10 0.35
- -
- -
5 0.35
7 0.35
1968
Date
1987, 2016
Weathering - Moderate-Severe Raveling - Some Rutting - None 2017-2021
2022-2026 H
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H, J
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
500' X 100'
TABLE No. C23 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Data was
collected
prior to 2016
rehabilitation.

See section 5-

2.4 in the
report.

Asphalt (Surface) 2
Aggregate Base 5
Cement Treated Base -
Aggregate Subbase 5
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
Pavement Condition:

Sawed and Sealed joints - poor condition. Several Moderate Cracks Severely Aligator cracked, failed.

Reconstructed in 2016, PCI is approximately 95-100 after reconstruction Traffic Index Used - T7
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 12 K Load 88 (67-88)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Very Poor PCI = 10 PCN = N/A
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 1 2029 - Crack Repair
2034 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
2016 - Reconstruction (Completed) (See Section 5-2.4)
2024 - Crack Repair
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
542
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Apron A5d
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 150 0.35
Section: - -
800 0.35
20 0.35
- -
- -
7 0.35
15 0.35
Pre 1969
Date
2016
1989
Weathering - Moderate-Severe Raveling - Some Rutting - None 2017-2021
2022-2026 H
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H, J
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
270' X 100'
TABLE No. C24 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Data was
collected
prior to 2016
rehabilitation.

See section 5-

2.4 in the
report.

Asphalt (Surface) 5
Aggregate Base -
Cement Treated Base 5
Aggregate Subbase 4
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
AC Overlay
Pavement Condition:

Sawed and Sealed joints - poor condition. Several Moderate Cracks Severely Aligator cracked, failed.

Reconstructed in 2016, PCI is approximately 95-100 after reconstruction Traffic Index Used - T7
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 12 K Load 22 (18-22)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Very Poor PCI = 10 PCN = 7 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 5 2029 - Crack Repair
2034 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
2016 - Reconstruction (Completed) (See Section 5-2.4)
2024 - Crack Repair
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
543
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Apron A6a
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 85 0.35
Section: 20 0.35
- -
15 0.35
- -
- -
6 0.35
17 0.35
1974
Date
1989
Weathering - Moderate-Severe Raveling - Some Rutting - None 2017-2021 B
2022-2026 H
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H, J
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
430' X 280'
TABLE No. C25 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Asphalt (Surface) 3
Aggregate Base 6
Cement Treated Base -
Aggregate Subbase 9
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
Pavement Condition:

Sawed and Sealed joints - poor condition. Several Moderate Cracks Severely Aligator cracked, failed.

Traffic Index Used - T9
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 12 K Load 54 (32-54)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Very Poor PCI = 20 PCN = 7 F/D/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 19 2031 - Crack Repair
2036 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
2018 - Reconstruction
2026 - Crack Repair
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
544
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Apron A6b
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 150 0.35
Section: - -
800 0.35
20 0.35
- -
- -
7 0.35
15 0.35
1974
Date
1989
Weathering - Moderate-Severe Raveling - Some Rutting - None 2017-2021 B
2022-2026 H
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H, J
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
240' X 100'
TABLE No. C26 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Asphalt (Surface) 5
Aggregate Base -
Cement Treated Base 5
Aggregate Subbase 4
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
AC Overlay
Pavement Condition:

Sawed and Sealed joints - poor condition. Several Moderate Cracks Severely Aligator cracked, failed.

Traffic Index Used - T9
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 12 K Load 17 (17)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Poor PCI = 25 PCN = 7 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 20+
2031 - Crack Repair
2036 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
2018 - Reconstruction
2026 - Crack Repair
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
545
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Apron A6c
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 70 0.35
Section: 15 0.35
- -
10 0.35
- -
- -
5 0.35
8 0.35
1974
Date
1989
Weathering - Moderate-Severe Raveling - Some Rutting - None 2017-2021 C
2022-2026 H
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H, J
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
560' X 290'
TABLE No. C27 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Asphalt (Surface) 2
Aggregate Base 6
Cement Treated Base -
Aggregate Subbase -
Pit-Run 5
Select Sand -
Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
Pavement Condition:

Sawed and Sealed joints - poor condition. Several Moderate Cracks Severely Aligator cracked, failed.

Traffic Index Used - T9
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 12 K Load 104 (54-104)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Very Poor PCI = 14 PCN = N/A
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 2 2031 - Crack Repair
2036 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
2018 - Reconstruction
2026 - Crack Repair
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
546
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Apron T/W H
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 70 0.35
Section: 15 0.35
- -
10 0.35
- -
- -
5 0.35
10 0.35
Pre 1969
Date
Weathering - Moderate-Severe Raveling - Some Rutting - None 2017-2021 C or None
2022-2026 H or None
2027-2031 H or None
2032-2036 H, J or None
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
500' X 30'
TABLE No. C28 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Asphalt (Surface) 2
Aggregate Base 5
Cement Treated Base -
Aggregate Subbase 4
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Pavement Condition:

Sawed and Sealed joints - poor condition. Several Moderate Cracks Severely Aligator cracked, failed.

Traffic Index Used - T10
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 12 K Load 110 (64-110)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Very Poor PCI = 14 PCN = N/A
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 6 2031 - Crack Repair or Abandon (See Section 5-2.5)
2036 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal or Abandon (See Section 5-2.5) Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
2018 - Reconstruction or Abandon (See Section 5-2.5)
2026 - Crack Repair or Abandon (See Section 5-2.5)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
547
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Taxiway D
Station: 0+00 - 1+00
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 150 0.35
Section: 20 0.35
- -
15 0.35
- -
- -
10 0.35
20 0.35
1994
Date
Weathering - Moderate Raveling - Some Rutting - None
2017-2021 G3
2022-2026
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
100' X 40'
TABLE No. C29 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Asphalt (Surface) 3
Aggregate Base 6
Cement Treated Base -
Aggregate Subbase 9
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Pavement Condition:

Sawed and Sealed joints - fair condition. Several Moderate Cracks Several areas of aligator cracking, surface is failing
Traffic Index Used - T11
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 12 K Load 43 (40-43)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Very Poor PCI = 23 PCN = 15 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 20+
2027 - Crack Repair
2032 - Crack Repair
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
2019 - Replace AC / Recompact AB
None Scheduled
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
548
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Tee Hangar Taxiway (H6)
Station: 0+00 - 6+70
Dimensions:

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
670' X 65'
TABLE No. C30 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Asphalt (Surface) 3
Aggregate Base 6
Cement Treated Base -
Aggregate Subbase 9
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Pavement Condition:

Sawed and Sealed joints - fair condition. Several Moderate Cracks Several areas of aligator cracking, surface is failing
Traffic Index Used - T11
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 12 K Load 43 (32-43)
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
Pavement Rating = Very Poor PCI = 23 PCN = 15 F/C/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis 20+
2027 - Crack Repair
2032 - Crack Repair
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
2019 - Replace AC / Recompact AB
None Scheduled
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
549
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Tee Hangar Taxilanes (H1-H5)
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 70 0.35
Section: 15 0.35
- -
10 0.35
- -
- -
5 0.35
15 0.35
1994
Date
Weathering - Moderate Raveling - Some Rutting - None
2017-2021 G3
2022-2026
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
2019 - Replace AC / Recompact AB
None Scheduled
2027 - Crack Repair
2032 - Crack Repair
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 12 K Load 85 (48-85)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
20+
Traffic Index Used - T12
Pavement Condition:

Sawed and Sealed joints - fair condition. Several Moderate Cracks Several areas of aligator cracking, surface is failing
Pavement Rating = Very Poor PCI = 23 PCN = 7 F/D/Y/T
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis Subgrade 24
Sub-soil -
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Aggregate Subbase 9
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Asphalt (Surface) 3
Aggregate Base 6
Cement Treated Base -
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
Varies
TABLE No. C31 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
550
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Terminal Access Road
Station: 0+00 - 20+00
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 200 0.35
Section: 20 0.35
- -
15 0.35
- -
- -
8 0.35
15 0.35
1969
Date
2009
Weathering - Moderate Raveling - Light - Moderate Rutting - None 2017-2021 H
2022-2026 D
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
2018 - Crack Repair
2023 - Reconstruction
2031 - Crack Repair
2036 - Crack Repair
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 12 K Load 65 (42-65)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
8 Traffic Index Used - T13
Pavement Condition:

No Joints, Polymer Modified Asphalt. Few Cracks on paving joints.

Surface raveling and aggregates popping out. Raveling worse due to snow plows.

Surface is wearing off.

Pavement Rating = Fair PCI = 45 PCN = N/A
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
Aggregate Subbase 5
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Asphalt (Surface) 2
Aggregate Base 3
Cement Treated Base -
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
2,000' X 30' to 50' wide
TABLE No. C32 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
551
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Parking Lot Entrance
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 200 0.35
Section: 40 0.35
- -
30 0.35
- -
- -
12 0.35
15 0.35
1969
Date
2009
Weathering - Moderate Raveling - Light - Moderate Rutting - None 2017-2021 H
2022-2026 H, J
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 E
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
2018 - Crack Repair
2023 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal
2029 - Crack Repair
2033 - Reconstruction
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 12 K Load 44 (42-44)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
20+
Traffic Index Used - T14
Pavement Condition:

No Joints, Polymer Modified Asphalt. Few Cracks on paving joints.

Surface raveling and aggregates popping out. Raveling worse due to snow plows.

Pavement Rating = Fair PCI = 45 PCN = N/A
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
100' X 30'
TABLE No. C33 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
552
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Parking Lot A - W/ Over Ex
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 150 0.35
Section: 30 0.35
- -
20 0.35
- -
- -
7 0.35
15 0.35
1969
Date
2010
Weathering - Light Raveling - None Rutting - None
2017-2021 H
2022-2026 H, J
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 E
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
2018 - Crack Repair
2023 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal
2029 - Crack Repair
2033 - Reconstruction
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 12 K Load 54 (37-54)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
20+
Traffic Index Used - T14
Pavement Condition:

No Joints, Polymer Modified Asphalt. Some block cracking, mostly just random cracks Pavement Rating = Very Good PCI = 70 PCN = N/A
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
Aggregate Subbase 22
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Asphalt (Surface) 3
Aggregate Base 4
Cement Treated Base -
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
200' X 100'
TABLE No. C34 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
553
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Parking Lot A - W/O Over Ex
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
2018 - Crack Repair
2023 - Crack Repair / Slurry Seal
2029 - Crack Repair
2033 - Reconstruction
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 12 K Load 54 (37-54)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
20+
Traffic Index Used - T14
Pavement Condition:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Reconstruction
Aggregate Subbase 4
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Asphalt (Surface) 3
Aggregate Base 4
Cement Treated Base -
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
200' X 100'
TABLE No. C35 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
554
G:\FWD\Mammoth\2013\Report 2014\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Element: Parking Lot B
Station: See Plates 5-1 & 5-2
Dimensions:

Thickness (inches) E (ksi) µ K (pci) Remarks
Existing - -
Pavement 85 0.35
Section: 20 0.35
- -
- -
- -
- -
5 0.35
15 0.35
1998
Date
Weathering - Moderate-Severe Raveling - Some Rutting - None 2017-2021 E
2022-2026 H
2027-2031 H
2032-2036 H
Remarks: See Plates B1 thru B3 for test locations.

FWD used was mean value for section - See FWD Graphs, Plates B4 thru B24 For Traffic Index see Table D1.
2018 - Reconstruction
2026 - Crack Repair
2031 - Crack Repair
2036 - Crack Repair
FWD Center Plate Deflection - 12 K Load 104 (35-104)
Pavement Structure Layer Remaining Life - Years
Recommended Rehabilitation:

Time Period
Rehab.

Code Date and Description
Pavement Layer Analyzed Subgrade
2 Traffic Index Used - T14
Pavement Condition:

Sawed and Sealed joints - poor condition. Several Moderate Cracks Severely Aligator cracked, failed.

Pavement Rating = Poor PCI = 25 PCN = N/A
Pavement Remaining Life Analysis Brandley - Fatigue Analysis Subgrade 24
Sub-soil Semi-Infinite
Date Constructed:

Rehabilitation Record: Type
Aggregate Subbase -
Pit-Run -
Select Sand -
Asphalt (Surface) 2
Aggregate Base 5
Cement Treated Base -
FAA Pavement Strength Survey -
Element Identification (Form 5335-1):

PCC (surface) -
Not Available
350' X 150'
TABLE No. C36 - PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE Airport: Lake Tahoe Airport Date of
Survey: May 27, 2016
555
1 LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

PAVEMENT EVALUATION STUDY

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE/MANAGEMENT PLAN
Appendix D
Traffic Summary
This Appendix summarizes the design characteristics of all the aircraft that are currently utilizing the airport. It also provides existing aircraft operations by type, as well as the number of annual operations currently operating at the airport.

The total annual operations of each aircraft group for each area have been calculated as “Traffic Indexes” and are included in Table No. D1. The traffic for each Traffic Index is the traffic that was used to calculate deep-seated distresses in the pavement sections and to calculate the predicted remaining life of each pavement section.

Traffic forecasts for the airport were obtained from the 2016 Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Report and used to evaluate the pavements at this airport. The Master Plan only included data on total operations forecast at the airport. It did not include any data on the fleet mix of aircraft that were anticipated to utilize the airport. The consultant that prepared the Master Plan Report provided typical fleet mix data that was utilized for the noise contour analysis in the Master Plan. This typical fleet mix data along with the forecast operations data from the Master Plan was used to generate the forecast traffic utilized in this pavement evaluation study to determine the remaining pavement life of each section of pavement. This data included the typical type of aircraft currently operating at the airport, along with the annual number of operations of each aircraft type. The data furnished did not include the forecast growth rates of these aircraft, so a reasonable growth rate of 2% for aircraft weighing less than 25,000 lbs. was used in this analysis.

Typically, a growth rate of 3% could be expected for aircraft weighing more than 25,000 lbs., Table No. D1 provides the traffic data utilized for the runway and taxiway complex as well as other hangar and apron areas.

Table No. D1 lists the 2016 annual operations for aircraft utilizing the airport and includes their maximum takeoff weight and gear configuration. These aircraft have been grouped into 8 aircraft groups and 2 groups of automobiles and delivery trucks for the access roads and parking lots. Each group represents the average aircraft characteristics of maximum takeoff weight and gear type for the different classifications of aircraft that utilize the airport pavements.

In evaluating airfield pavements for deep-seated distress, it is the number of coverages of each wheel on each aircraft over a given point of pavement that contributes to the deep-seated distress on or near that section of pavement. The distribution of aircraft traffic on the airport is a function of:
 Wind direction, which dictates which runway is used
 Landing length requirement of each aircraft and takeoff length requirement of each aircraft
 Destination on the airport of each aircraft type.
 Distribution of traffic on a given pavement section.
556
2 LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

PAVEMENT EVALUATION STUDY

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE/MANAGEMENT PLAN
Appendix D
Traffic Summary
For this evaluation, data was estimated showing how many operations utilized each of the 2 runway ends at the airport. The runway utilized by each aircraft is a function of the size and weight of using aircraft, wind direction, destination of the aircraft on the airfield, and pilot in command preference.

On several pavement sections, such as the cross taxiways, hangar areas and aprons, the entire amount of traffic from a pavement complex was initially utilized even though the actual traffic experienced on these pavements will likely be much lower. This higher level of traffic was not further reduced in some areas since the pavement life on these pavements exceeded 20 years even with the higher than expected traffic levels. Pavements that showed less than 20 years of remaining life were further analyzed with the traffic index that represented their actual forecast traffic. The number of annual operations and estimated average annual growth rates for each aircraft group and each traffic index are indicated in Table No. D1. These traffic indexes were utilized in the evaluation of all pavements for deep-seated distress.

PAVEMENT EVALUATION STUDY

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE/MANAGEMENT PLAN
Appendix D
Traffic Summary
The traffic index used for various segments of each pavement is indicated on Plate No.

D1.

A table of contents of this appendix is shown below:

Plates:

Plate No. D1 Traffic Distribution – Traffic Index
Tables
Table No. D1 Traffic Index Summary
558
T1 T1 T3 T4 T4 T4 T4 T6 T6 T6 T11 T12 T11 T2 T8 T6 T5 T7 T9 T7 T6 T9 T9 T9 T7 T14 T14 T14 T13 T1 T3 T3 T4 T4 T10 DATE DRAWN CHECKED PROJECT No. SCALE

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION - TRAFFIC INDEX
LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT PLATE No. D1 FILE
Reinard W. Brandley

CONSULTING AIRPORT ENGINEER
· ·
No. REVISIONS DATE RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A BEF JK FDG HIGHWAY 50 UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER AIRPORT RD RUNWAY 18-36 TAXIWAY A

MATCHLINE - SEE BELOW
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE LEGEND T3 TVL.2-2.Traffic 1"=400' KDC RWB 7/21/1704 H H 559
G:\FWD\Tahoe\2016\_Report\05 TVL PMMP Fatigue Analysis - Tables 5-3, C1-C36, D1.xlsx Appendix D - Traffic Index 1 Cessna 172 / Cirrus SR-22 5,000 Single 9,700 2% 9,700 4,850 4,850 4,850 970 3,880 5,820 5,820 2,910 1,940 2,910 970 - - 2 Piper PA-31T Cheyenne 9,000 Single 1,600 2% 1,600 800 800 800 160 640 960 960 480 320 480 160 - - 3 Beech Super King Air 16,000 Dual 8,100 2% 8,100 4,050 4,050 3,240 810 5,670 8,100 2,430 1,620 405 2,430 - - - 4 BAe-125 Hawker 28,000 Dual 900 3% 900 810 225 90 630 720 900 180 270 - - - - - 5 Cessna Citation X 36,000 Dual 2,650 3% 2,650 2,385 663 265 1,855 2,120 2,650 530 795 - - - - - 6 Dassault Falcon 2000 41,000 Dual 2,900 3% 2,900 2,610 725 290 2,030 2,320 2,900 580 870 - - - - - 7 Gulfstream IV 74,000 Dual 900 3% 900 855 180 45 630 810 900 90 90 - - - - - 8 Gulfstream V 90,000 Dual 650 3% 650 618 130 33 455 585 650 65 65 - - - - - 9 Automobile 4,000 Single 75,000 1% - - - - - - - - - - - - 75,000 65,000 10 H20 Truck 20,000 Truck 1,500 1% - - - - - 700 700 - 350 1,000 - - 1,500 200 T13
(Roads)
T8
(Aprons)
T9
(Aprons)
T10
(Aprons)
T11
(Hangars)
T12
(Hangars)
Table No. D1 - Traffic Index Summary - Lake Tahoe Airport Traffic Index (Forecast Aircraft Operations in 2016)
Aircraft
Group Typical Aircraft Type
Aircraft
MTOW (lbs)
Gear
Configuration
2016 Annual
Operations
Annual
Growth Rate
T1
(Runway)
T2
(Taxiways)
T14
(Roads)
T3
(Taxiways)
T4
(Taxiways)
T5
(Aprons)
T6
(Aprons)
T7
(Aprons)
560
Pavement Maintenance-Management Program B Woolpert, Inc.

October 31, 2024 AIP Project No. 3-06-0249-047-2022
APPENDIX B: AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATION RATING / PAVEMENT

CLASSIFICATION RATING
(ACR-PCR)
561
Federal Aviation Administration FAARFIELD 2.1 Airport Master Record FAARFIELD 2.1.1 (Build 12/21/2023)

RUNWAY DATA
Job Name: TVL‐047
Structure: Runway 18‐36
Gross Weight (In THSDS)
35 S 82
36 D 120
37 2D 189
38 2D/2D2 0
39 PCR 330/F/C/X/T
562
Federal Aviation Administration FAARFIELD CDF Graph
FAARFIELD 2.1.1 (Build 12/21/2023)
Job Name: TVL‐047
Structure: Runway 18‐36
Analysis Type: New Flexible
Analysis Run Time: 2024‐06‐25 10:33:29
Last Run: PCR
Design Life = 20.0 Years
Total thickness to the top of the subgrade = 20.0in.
563
564
Federal Aviation Administration FAARFIELD 2.1 PCR Report FAARFIELD 2.1.1 (Build 12/21/2023)
Job Name: TVL‐047
Structure: Runway 18‐36
This file name = PCR Results for New Flexible 2024‐06‐25 10:33:29 Evaluation pavement type is flexible and design program is FAARFIELD.

Structure name: Runway 18‐36 in job file: TVL‐047.JOB.xml Units = US Customary
Analysis Type: New Flexible
Subgrade Modulus =12,000psi (Subgrade Category is C)
Evaluation Pavement Thickness = 20.0 in.

Pass to Traffic Cycle (PtoTC) Ratio = 1.00
Maximum number of wheels per gear = 2
CDF = 0.000
No aircraft have 4 or more wheels per gear.

Results Table 1. Input Traffic Data
No. Aircraft Name
Gross
Weight
(lbs)
Percent Gross
Weight
Tire
Pressure
(psi)
Annual
Departure
20 Years
Coverage
1 Cessna 206 Stationair 3,600 47.50 52 3,500 26,886
2 PA‐31‐325 Navajo C/R 6,500 47.50 66 600 4,768
3 Cessna Citation II/Bravo
C550/551 15,000 47.50 130 2,500 20,255
4 Beechcraft King Air 350 15,100 47.50 92 1,500 16,431
5 Hawker‐800/800XP 28,000 47.50 134 330 4,108
6 Cessna Citation X 36,000 47.50 189 1,000 12,156
7 CRJ100/200 47,700 46.50 160 400 5,555
Results Table 2. PCR Value
No. Aircraft
Name
Critical aircraft Total equiv.
departures
Max allowable Gross Weight of critical
aircraft (lbs)
ACR Thick at max.

MGW (in.) PCR/F/C
1 CRJ100/200 400 84,120 20.4 267.9
Results Table 3. New Flexible ACR at Indicated Gross Weight and Strength 565
Namedeparturesaircraft (lbs)MGW (in.)
1 CRJ100/200 400 84,120 20.4 267.9
Results Table 3. New Flexible ACR at Indicated Gross Weight and Strength No. Aircraft Name
Gross
Weight
(lbs)
Percent Gross Weight on Main
Gear
Tire
Pressure
(psi)
ACR Thick (in.)
(C) ACR/F/C
1 Cessna 206 Stationair 3,600 47.5 52 4.6 12.3
2 PA‐31‐325 Navajo C/R 6,500 47.5 66 5.0 21.7
3 Cessna Citation II/Bravo
C550/551 15,000 47.5 130 9.8 60.7
4 Beechcraft King Air 350 15,100 47.5 92 6.8 33.1
5 Hawker‐800/800XP 28,000 47.5 134 10.8 72.8
6 Cessna Citation X 36,000 47.5 189 13.8 115.6
7 CRJ100/200 47,700 46.5 160 14.0 118.9
566
Federal Aviation Administration FAARFIELD 2.1 PCR Graph FAARFIELD 2.1.1 (Build 12/21/2023)
Job Name: TVL‐047
Structure: Runway 18‐36
Analysis Type: New Flexible
No. Aircraft Name Aircraft ACR Calculated PCR Annual Departure 1 CRJ100/200 118.9 267.9 400
2 Cessna Citation X 115.6 ‐ 1,000
3 Hawker‐800/800XP 72.8 ‐ 330
4 Cessna Citation II/Bravo C550/551 60.7 ‐ 2,500
5 Beechcraft King Air 350 33.1 ‐ 1,500
6 PA‐31‐325 Navajo C/R 21.7 ‐ 600
7 Cessna 206 Stationair 12.3 ‐ 3,500
567
Federal Aviation Administration FAARFIELD 2.1 Structure Report FAARFIELD 2.1.1 (Build 12/21/2023)
Job Name: TVL‐047
Structure: Runway 18‐36
Analysis Type: New Flexible
No run has been done on this structure.

Pavement Structure Information by Layer
No. Type Thickness
(in.)
Modulus
(psi) CBR Poisson'sRatio
Strength R
(psi)
1 P‐401/P‐403 HMA Surface 3.0 200,000 0 0.35 0
2 User Defined 7.0 40,000 0 0.35 0
3 User Defined 10.0 20,000 0 0.35 0
4 Subgrade 0 12,000 8 0.35 0
Airplane Information
No. Name Gross Wt.
(lbs)
Annual
Departures
% Annual
Growth
1 Cessna 206 Stationair 3,600 3,500 2
2 PA‐31‐325 Navajo C/R 6,500 600 2
3 Cessna Citation II/Bravo C550/551 15,000 2,500 2
4 Beechcraft King Air 350 15,100 1,500 2
5 Hawker‐800/800XP 28,000 330 3
6 Cessna Citation X 36,000 1,000 3
7 CRJ100/200 47,700 400 3
Additional Airplane Information
Subgrade CDF
No. Name CDF
Contribution
CDF Max
for Airplane
P/C
Ratio
1 Cessna 206 Stationair 0.00 0.00 3.12
2 PA‐31‐325 Navajo C/R 0.00 0.00 3.02
3 Cessna Citation II/Bravo C550/551 0.00 0.00 2.96
4 Beechcraft King Air 350 0.00 0.00 2.19
5 Hawker‐800/800XP 0.00 0.00 2.09
6 Cessna Citation X 0.00 0.00 2.14
7 CRJ100/200 0.00 0.00 1.87
568
5 Hawker‐800/800XP 28,000 330 3
6 Cessna Citation X 36,000 1,000 3
7 CRJ100/200 47,700 400 3
Additional Airplane Information
Subgrade CDF
No. Name CDF
Contribution
CDF Max
for Airplane
P/C
Ratio
1 Cessna 206 Stationair 0.00 0.00 3.12
2 PA‐31‐325 Navajo C/R 0.00 0.00 3.02
3 Cessna Citation II/Bravo C550/551 0.00 0.00 2.96
4 Beechcraft King Air 350 0.00 0.00 2.19
5 Hawker‐800/800XP 0.00 0.00 2.09
6 Cessna Citation X 0.00 0.00 2.14
7 CRJ100/200 0.00 0.00 1.87
NOTE:

South Lake Tahoe City CouncilMay 19, 2026

South Lake Tahoe City Council
May 19, 2026