South Lake Tahoe City Council
May 19, 2026

City Council
Cody Bass, Mayor
Keith Roberts, Mayor Pro Tem
Scott Robbins, Councilmember
David Jinkens, Councilmember
Heather Horgan, Councilmember
Mission of the City Council
We provide responsive and effective local
government by maintaining a safe, livable, and
well-managed city through smart investment,
reliable services, and thoughtful planning.

City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, May 19, 2026 at 5:30 pm
City Hall - Council Chambers - 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe Public Participation
City Council meetings are held in person at the time and location listed on this agenda. A public agenda packet is available for review at City Hall, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, on the City’s Website at www.cityofslt.us, or by contacting the City Clerk's Office, (530) 542-6005 or [email protected] Providing Public Comment:

Remote Public Participation: If you would like to participate remotely, please join the ZOOM meeting by using this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85793142129. If you would like to make a comment, wait for the agenda item to begin, then press the "raise hand" button. Meetings are also live-streamed (for viewing only) on Channel 21, the City website at www.cityofslt.us, and YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3LYne8Ih-kTPLnnuyJW9SQ/live Note: The Mayor reserves the right to conduct the meeting with in-person public participation only, if there is a technology malfunction that precludes the use of remote public participation.

In Person: Every agenda for regular meetings provides an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body (City Council), on any item of public interest which is within the jurisdiction of the City Council during Public Communications. For items on the agenda or in connection with any item which the City Council will consider, the public is given the opportunity to comment before or during the City Council's consideration of the item [Government Code Section 54954.3(a)].

In Writing: Written comments received by 3 p.m. the day before the meeting will be distributed to City Council prior to the meeting. Written public comment regarding any item on this agenda may be sent to [email protected]. When emailing comments, identify the agenda item number in the subject 1 1. City Council Meeting Minutes
line to which your comments relate. Any such comment that is a public record and is emailed to [email protected] or otherwise provided to a majority of the City Council before the meeting will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the City Clerk's Office located at City Hall, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe [Government Code Section 54957.5(b)]. Written comments will not be read out loud during the meeting.

The City Council Chambers meeting facility is accessible to people with disabilities. Every reasonable effort will be made to accommodate any person needing special assistance to attend this meeting.

Contact the City Clerk at (530) 542-6005 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting for assistance [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II and Brown Act Government Code Sections 54953.2, 54954.1, 54954.2, and 54957.5].

Spanish Interpretations: The public may access Spanish interpretation using the ZOOM link listed on the front of the Agenda from an internet device (smartphone, laptop, tablet, home computer) with audio capabilities and selecting the Spanish language option. Persons without an internet device may attend the meeting in-person and a device will be provided while supplies last. Requests for interpreter services to offer public comment may be made by contacting the City Clerk.

Land Acknowledgement
Land Acknowledgement - The City of South Lake Tahoe acknowledges the lands we occupy today are the lands and home of the Wašíšiw, the people from here known today as the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, a sovereign nation. Since the beginning of time and for thousands of years before the arrival of any other people, the Washoe lived here and cared for this place, with values and intention that we can all learn from. On behalf of the City Council, I would like to acknowledge, thank, and honor the Indigenous Washoe Tribal Communities that are the past, present, and future stewards of the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Closed Session Report
Public Communications
This is the public's opportunity to speak on any topic NOT LISTED on this agenda. Comments shall be limited to four (4) minutes. In accordance with the Brown Act, the City Council cannot deliberate or vote on any matter raised under public communications, but may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed. (Government Code Sections 54954.2)
City Commission Reports
Consent Agenda
Public Comment - This is the public's opportunity to speak on any topic listed on the Consent Agenda.

Comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes per item and six (6) minutes total per speaker.

The consent agenda consists of items of a repeating or routine nature considered under a single action.

Any Councilmember may have an item on the consent agenda removed and considered separately upon request.

Pass a Motion to adopt the Consent Agenda in one motion except as indicated at each item.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion approving the minutes from the May 6, 2026, City Council meeting.

Item 1- Executive Summary.pdf
05 05 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes.pdf
2 2. Investment Portfolio Report - March 31, 2026

3. Fiscal Year 2025-26 Quarterly Financial Status Report - Quarter Ending March 2026

4. Master Agreement with Environmental Science Associates (ESA) for Airport Environmental Compliance Support Services

5. Additional Grant Application to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Caltrans for Lake Tahoe Airport Runway Maintenance

6. Senate Bill 1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Project List for FY26/27 Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Receive and file.

Responsible Staff Member(s): Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Item 2- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report Investment Report as of March 2026 signed.pdf 02-Operations Cash March 2026.pdf
03-Fiscal Agent March 2026.pdf
04-Graph March 2026.pdf
05-Cash March 2026.pdf
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Receive and file.

Responsible Staff Member(s): Andrew Black, Financial Services Supervisor Item 3- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report - FY 2025-26 Quarterly Budget.docx
02-FY 2025-26 Qtrly Budget Report March 2026.pdf
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute a master professional services agreement with ESA for as-needed airport environmental consultant services for a five-year term beginning June 1, 2026.

Responsible Staff Member(s): John Dickinson, Airport Manager Item 4- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report-Airport Environmental Services Contract.docx 02-RFQ- Environmental Compliance Support.pdf
03-Contract with Environmental Science Associates
04- Environmental Services RFQ Ranking Sheet.docx
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution authorizing the Airport Manager to apply for additional FY 2025 -2026 Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grant in the amount of $200,000.00 for the combined amount of $500,000.00 and FY 2025-2026 Caltrans State Matching Grant for Lake Tahoe Airport in the amount of $23,750 or any additional funding the FAA or Caltrans will provide.

CEQA Determination: The project is exempt from review under CEQA Guidelines section 15301(d) (Existing Facilities - restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged facilities to meet current standards of public health and safety).

Responsible Staff Member(s): Milan Jevic, Airport Maintenance Supervisor Item 5- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report FAA Grant for Runway.docx
02-Resolution Airport Pavement .docx
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution approving the Senate Bill 1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account Project List for FY26/27 CEQA Determination: This project is categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15301(c) (Existing Facilities).

Responsible Staff Member(s): Stephen Anderjack, Project Manager Item 6- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report-RMRA Project List 2027.docx
02-Resolution - SB1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation 2027.docx 03_RMRA Estimate.pdf
3 7. Community Corrections Partnership

8. Amendment to Ordinance Regulating Shared Mobility Devices (Second Reading)

9. Tahoe Bluefins Swim Club City Sponsorship

10. Amendment to Parking Agreement with Heavenly Mountain Resort

11. Long-Term Rental Incentive Program Update and Request for Additional Funding Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution: 1) authorizing and directing the Chief of Police to execute the First Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding #7399 for the FY 2025- 26 Community Corrections Partnership Budget; 2) authorizing reimbursement up to $20,000.00 from the El Dorado County Probation Department into the Administration - Police Special Services account; and, 3) approving an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budget as follows:
10002110 - 34210.

Responsible Staff Member(s): Lt. Russell Liles
Item 7- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report - Community Corrections Partnership.docx 02-Resolution - Community Corrections Patrnership.docx
03-2023 MOU between El Dorado Probation and SLTPD
04-Amendment No. I to MOU between El Dorado Probation and the Police Departments - unsigned.pdf
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass an Ordinance amending Chapter 4.185 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code (Shared Mobility Devices) to increase the City’s liability protections from shared mobility device accidents, add safety measures for shared mobility device operations, and revise operator insurance requirements.

Responsible Staff Member(s): Dan Bardzell, Assistant City Attorney; Jeff Roberson, Police Chief Item 8- Executive Summary.pdf
01 - Staff Report (Second Reading)
02 - SMD Ordinance (Redline)
03 - SMD Ordinance Amendments
04 - Proof of Publication-SMD Ordinance
Regular-New Business
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution authorizing the use of General Fund to sponsor facility rental fees and staff labor for the Tahoe Bluefins Swim Club totaling $8,343 for a six-month agreement.

CEQA Determination: This action is categorically exempt from review under CEQA Guidelines section 15323 (Normal Operations of Facilities for Public Gatherings).

Responsible Staff Member(s): John Stark, Director of Parks & Recreation Item 9- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report - Tahoe Bluefins Swim Club City Sponorship.docx 02-Resolution-Tahoe Bluefins Swim Club City Sponsorship.docx Requested Action / Suggested Motions: 1) Pass a Motion authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute the Amendment to the Parking Agreement with Heavenly Mountain Resort; and 2) Pass a Resolution amending the seasonal parking restrictions on certain streets in the Heavenly Valley Neighborhood (replaces Resolution 2025-099).

Responsible Staff Member(s): Lt. Doug Sentell
Item 10- Executive Summary.pdf
01-STAFF REPORT-Heavenly Parking Agreement Report
02-Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with Heavenly
03- Exhibit A to Amendment and Resolution.pdf
03-Resolution on Seasonal Parking Agreement
05-C-306-2025 Heavenly Parking Agreement.pdf
Requested Action / Suggested Motions:
4 12. Agenda Planning Calendar
Pass a Resolution to allocate $80,000 in additional funding for incentive grants and continue operation of the Long-Term Rental Incentive Program.

Responsible Staff Member(s): Lydia Zuniga, Associate Management Analyst Item 11- Executive Summary.pdf
01-Staff Report - LTRIP.docx
02-Resolution - Rental Incentive Program.docx
Agenda Planning Calendar
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Identify, with consent of at least two Council Members, any desired future agenda items, and/or modify the Agenda Planning Calendar as desired.

Responsible Staff Member(s): Susan Blankenship, City Clerk and Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager
Item 12- Executive Summary.pdf
APC 05 14 2026.pdf
Updates and Announcements (City Attorney, City Clerk, City Manager) Councilmember Reports and Comments - Assignments to Boards, Committees, and Commissions
Adjournment
I, Susan Blankenship, City Clerk for the City of South Lake Tahoe, declare that the foregoing agenda for the Tuesday May 19, 2026, City Council meeting was posted and available for review on Thursday, May 14, 2026, at City Hall, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. The agenda was also available on the City website at https://www.cityofslt.us.

Signed May 14, 2026
\\sb\\ Susan Blankenship, Elected City Clerk
5 City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: May 19, 2026
Agenda Item #:1
Agenda Item: City Council Meeting Minutes
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion approving the minutes from the May 6, 2026, City Council meeting.

Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Attachments:
05 05 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes.pdf
6 City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, May 5, 2026 at 9:00 am
City Hall - Council Chambers - 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe NOTE: The Meeting Minutes represent actions taken during the meeting of the City Council. Complete Council member discussions on Regular Session meeting items can be viewed in archived video recordings on the City’s website at http://www.cityofslt.us Public submittals on items are retained in the administrative record and can be viewed in the City Clerk’s repository at http://www.cityofslt.us Land Acknowledgement
Mayor Bass read the Land Acknowledgement.

Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Bass called the meeting to order at 9:06 a.m., and then read the pledge of allegiance.

Roll Call
Present were Mayor Bass, Mayor Pro Tem Roberts, and Councilmembers Robbins, Jinkens, and Horgan.

Also present were City Clerk Blankenship, City Attorney Stroud, and Interim City Manager Roverud.

Closed Session Report
None.

Proclamations

1. Proclamation Recognizing May 2026 as "Mental Health Awareness" Month Action: Issued a Proclamation to Angie Regan with Access Tahoe and Peace Love Tahoe, recognizing May 2026, as "Mental Health Awareness" month.

The following people addressed the Council:

1. Angie Reagan, Access Tahoe, Peace Love Tahoe, Petal Kindness, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, Forever 14

2. Shelby, Balance Life Tahoe

3. Cheyenne Lane, Tahoe Youth and Family Services

4. Kristy Tibbitts, Mountain High Recovery Center

5. Joannah Lily

6. Nathan Wheeler, Unity at the Lake

7. Miss Jodine, Jubilee Preschool, Boys and Girls Club

8. Peggy Cooly, Unity at the Lake

2. Proclamation Recognizing May 17-23, 2026, as "National Public Works Week" Action: Issued a Proclamation to Kelli Durocher, Branden Gardella, and John Hoffman in the City Public Works Department recognizing May 17-23, 2026, as "National Public Works Week". 7 Public Communications
General public comments were heard from the following people:

1. Scott Loberg- Cannabis tax funding for nonprofits.

2. John Messina- Request to rename “56 Acres” after the Dunlap family for a recognition of the community center

3. Angie Reagan- Mental Health Awareness Month Proclamation presentation by Mayor Bass

4. Melissa Soderston- Mental Health Awareness Month Proclamation, roundup use in forests City Commission Reports
None.

Consent Agenda
Action: Moved/Seconded: Jinkens/Horgan
Yes: Bass, Roberts, Robbins, Jinkens, Horgan
Action: Passed the consent agenda.

3. City Council Meeting Minutes
Action: Passed Motion 2026-064 approving the minutes from the April 18, 2026 and April 21, 2026, City Council meetings.

4. Resolution Declaring Intent to Reimburse Fire Station 3 Expenditures Action: Passed Resolution 2026-040 declaring the City's intent to reimburse certain expenditures related to the Fire Station 3 project from the proceeds of future tax-exempt bond financing.

5. Journey of Hope Recreation Center Showers Fee Sponsorship Action: Passed Resolution 2026-041 authorizing the Use of General Fund to cover 40 cyclists from the Journey of Hope to use the showers at the Recreation & Aquatics Center totaling $120.

Public comment was heard from the following people:

1. Scott Loberg

2. John Messina

6. Quarterly Update on the Affordable Housing
Action: Receive and file.

7. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance In-Lieu Fees Annual Report Action: Receive and file.

8. Contract with Darren Taylor Construction, Inc. for 2026 Road Rehabilitation Project Action: Passed Motion 2026-065 authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute construction contract with Darren Taylor Construction, Inc. (C-126-2026) in the amount of $3,636,859.75, for the 2026 Road Rehabilitation Project.

9. Ratification of Amendment to Agreement with CDM Smith, Inc. to Extend Contract Term
Action: Passed Motion 2026-066 authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute Ratification of Amendment No. 7 to Agreement with CDM Smith, Inc. (C-127-2026) for engineering services for Pioneer Trail Pedestrian Improvement Project Ph II, to extend the term through December 31, 2026.

Public comment was heard from the following person:

1. Scott Loberg
8 10. Acceptance of Lake Tahoe Restoration Act Funds for Construction of Needle Peak Localized Treatment (Part of the Upper Bijou Park Creek Watershed Restoration Project)
Action: 1) Passed Motion 2026-067 authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute the Memorandum of Understanding with Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (C-128-2026) to accept up to $300,000 in Lake Tahoe Restoration Act grant funds for the construction of the Needle Peak Localized Treatment Project; and 2) Passed Resolution 2026-042 authorizing and directing the Director of Finance to accept and appropriate Lake Tahoe Restoration Act grant funds to the Upper Bijou Park Creek Watershed Restoration Project for the construction of the Needle Peak Localized Treatment Project.

Public comment was heard from the following person:

1. Scott Loberg

11. Sale of Surplus Vehicles and Miscellaneous Small Tools Action: Passed Motion 2026-068 designating 9 vehicles and miscellaneous small tools for surplus and subsequent disposal following the City's policy on disposition of surplus property.

Public Hearing

12. 2025-2026 Master Fee Schedule
Action: Moved/Seconded: Horgan/Robbins
Yes: Bass, Roberts, Robbins, Horgan
No: Jinkens
Action: Passed Resolution 2026-043 adopting the Annual Master Schedule of Fees and Charges for City Services as presented.

Regular-Unfinished Business

13. Amendment to Ordinance Regulating Shared Mobility Devices (First Reading) Action: Moved/Seconded: Robbins/Roberts
Yes: Bass, Roberts, Robbins, Jinkens, Horgan
Action: Passed Motion 2026-069 to hold a first reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter

4.185 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code (Shared Mobility Devices) to increase the City’s liability protections from shared mobility device accidents, add safety measures for shared mobility device operations, and revise operator insurance requirements.

Public comment was heard from the following people:

1. Scott Loberg

2. Ed Mosur

3. Melissa Soderston

4. Nick Speal

5. Kylee Floodman, Bird Scooters

6. Monica Dilullo, Lime Scooters

14. Grow and Diversify the Economy, Strategic Plan Priority Update #2 Action: Moved/Seconded: Robbins/Jinkens
Yes: Bass, Robbins, Jinkens, Horgan
No: Roberts
Action: Passed Motion 2026-070 providing direction to the Interim City Manager to establish an Economic Development Ad Hoc Subcommittee consisting of Mayor Bass and Councilmember Robbins.

Action: Moved/Seconded: Horgan/Robbins
Yes: Bass, Roberts, Robbins, Jinkens, Horgan
Action: Passed Motion 2026-071 to pursue a video & social media campaign with the National League of Cities and CGI.

Public comment was heard from the following people:

1. Scott Loberg

2. Ed Mosur

3. John Messina

4. Melissa Soderston

5. Erick Asbury 9

15. Resolution Reaffirming the City’s Commitment to the Rights, Dignity, and Safety of all Residents
Action: Moved/Seconded: Horgan/Robbins
Yes: Bass, Robbins, Horgan
No: Roberts, Jinkens
Action: Passed Resolution 2026-044 reaffirming the City’s commitment to the rights, dignity, and safety of all residents, regardless of immigration status, and opposing unconstitutional Federal enforcement actions and overreach.

Public comment was heard from the following people:

1. Scott Loberg

2. John Messina

3. Melissa Soderston

4. Erick Asbury

5. Erika Gonzalez
Regular-New Business

16. City Green Card Assistance Program
Action: Moved/Seconded: Jinkens/Robbins
Yes: Bass, Roberts, Robbins, Jinkens, Horgan
Action: Passed Motion 2026-072 directing staff to bring back program guidelines and potential budget allocation for a city green card assistance program.

Public comment was heard from the following people:

1. Scott Loberg

2. Ed Mosur

3. John Messina

4. Erika Gonzalez

5. Melissa Soderston

6. Kelly O’hare

7. Erick Asbury

17. Housing Terminology, 2025 Housing Element Annual Progress Report and 2027 - 2035 Housing Element Update
Action: Received and filed.

Public comment was heard from the following person:

1. Melissa Soderston

18. Resolution in Support of Measure G to Renew Funding for Recreation Facilities Maintenance Action: Moved/Seconded: Robbins/Roberts
Yes: Bass, Roberts, Robbins, Jinkens, Horgan
Action: Passed Resolution 2026-045 in Support of Measure G to Renew Funding for Recreation Facilities Maintenance.

Public comment was heard from the following people:

1. Scott Loberg

2. Melissa Soderston
Written public comment was received from the following person:

1. Cristi Creegan
10 19. Status of Efforts to Provide Electrical Service for Ski Run Farmer’s Market Action: Moved/Seconded: Robbins/Horgan
Yes: Bass, Roberts, Robbins, Jinkens, Horgan
Action: 1) Passed Motion 2026-073 directing staff to conduct further investigation into electrification of the Ski Run farmer’s market, including investigation of mobile battery storage power solutions that would be suitable for providing electricity to an event of this nature, and which could potentially provide similar power to similar events in other parts of town.

Public comment was heard from the following people:

1. Scott Loberg

2. Melissa Soderston
Public Hearing

20. Levy of Assessment for Ski Run Business Improvement District for Business License Year 2026/2027
Action: Moved/Seconded: Horgan/Jinkens
Yes: Bass, Roberts, Robbins,
Action: Passed Resolution 2026-046 confirming the Ski Run Business Improvement District annual report and levying the assessment for business license year 2026/2027.

Public comment was heard from the following person:

1. Devin Middlebrook- Friends of Ski Run, Ski Run BID
Agenda Planning Calendar

21. Agenda Planning Calendar
Action: Received and filed.

Updates and Announcements (City Attorney, City Clerk, City Manager) Interim City Manager Roverud

1. Special Meeting May 26, 2026, for Ethics and Protocols discussion Councilmember Reports and Comments - Assignments to Boards, Committees, and Commissions
Councilmember Jinkens

1. Request for an update on the response from CPUC regarding Liberty Utilities. Interim City Manager Roverud stated she would send an update to Council.

2. Requested information on renaming the “56 Acres” in recognition of the Dunlap family. Mayor Bass stated the City does not own all the property in the “56 Acres” and the renaming should start with a conversation with El Dorado County.

Councilmember Robbins

1. Request for a condensed Quarterly Housing Report for all housing items to be placed on New Business (Jinkens seconded).

2. Request for an agenda item on electrification of Live at Lakeview and similar events either brought with electrification at Ski Run or after (Bass seconded).

Councilmember Horgan

1. Requested an Urgency Ordinance placing a moratorium on the sale of tobacco near schools and for a review of ongoing enforcement (Robbins seconded).

2. Nurse Week May 6-12
Mayor Pro Tem Roberts

1. Attended Transit JPA
11 Mayor Bass

1. Missed Transit JPA Meeting

2. Attended LTVA Meeting

3. Upcoming El Dorado County Transit Meeting
Adjournment
Mayor Bass adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m.
12 City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: May 19, 2026
Agenda Item #:2
Agenda Item: Investment Portfolio Report - March 31, 2026 Executive Summary: In accordance with the City of South Lake Tahoe Financial Policies and State law, a quarterly investment report is hereby submitted to the members of the City Council. As of March 31, 2026, the City's total cash and investment balances across all funds is $120.3 million.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Receive and file.

Responsible Staff Member: Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Heather Stroud, City Attorney Attachments:
01-Staff Report Investment Report as of March 2026 signed.pdf 02-Operations Cash March 2026.pdf
03-Fiscal Agent March 2026.pdf
04-Graph March 2026.pdf
05-Cash March 2026.pdf
13 Council Agenda Report May 19, 2026 Page | 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 19, 2026
Title: Investment Portfolio Report as of March 31, 2026 Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Background: In accordance with the City of South Lake Tahoe Financial Policies and State law a quarterly investment report shall be submitted to the members of the City Council.

Issue and Discussion: The attached report for the period ending March 31, 2026, describes the type of investments, the issuers, the maturity dates, the par value and the market value. Total cash for operations and cash held by fiscal agents is $120,297,640.

Cash available for operations is $108,030,652. This includes Cash in Bank of $7,908,277 with the remaining amount in various investments diversified in accordance with the City’s adopted Investment Policy. The total portfolio yield is 3.66%. Based on this report the City of South Lake Tahoe will be able to meet projected operating expenditures for the next six months.

Cash held by fiscal agents for debt service is $12,266,988. These investments comprise the reserves and other accounts held in trust for debt service, lease financing, and capital projects financed with debt.

Fund Type Total Cash Balance Operations Balance Fiscal Agent Balance Trust and Agency $11,272,793 $3,839,160 $7,433,633
Special Revenue 29,479,611 29,479,611 -
General Fund 33,176,341 33,176,341 -
Internal Service 11,867,652 11,867,652 -
Debt Service 6,836,267 2,020,197 4,816,070
Enterprise 4,492,624 4,475,339 17,285
CIP 23,172,352 23,172,352 -
Grand Total $120,297,640 $108,030,652 $12,266,988
The attached documents include investment terms that are defined below:
• Current yield – The investments annual income (interest or dividends) divided by the current price of the security.
• Weighted par – Weighting the price of each bond by the total price of the entire portfolio. • Weighted yield – The current yield multiplied by the weighted par, provides the yield of the bonds in the portfolio.

Financial Implications: None.

Environmental Considerations: This is not a “project” subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) (continuing administrative or maintenance activities, such as purchases for supplies).

Policy Implications: Consistent with City’s Financial Policies. 14 Council Agenda Report May 19, 2026 Page | 2 of 2
City Treasurer’s Review Statement: I, David Olivo, Treasurer of the City of South Lake Tahoe, hereby acknowledge that I have reviewed the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending March 31, 2026, prepared by the Finance Director. Based on my review, the report accurately reflects the investment activities and holdings of the City in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy and applicable laws.

Reviewed and acknowledged on: May 5,_
2026
Signature: David W Olivo (May 5, 2026 18:37:22 PDT)
David Olivo
City Treasurer
(530)307-8972
[email protected]
15 Created:

By:

Status:
2026-05-04
Olga Tikhomirova ([email protected])
Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAMd8ZVVLuyIWakFFv5qp_ocYHKiQPnIli 01-Staff Report Investment Report as of March
2026
Final Audit Report 2026-05-06
"01-Staff Report Investment Report as of March 2026" History Document created by Olga Tikhomirova ([email protected]) 2026-05-04 - 10:36:01 PM GMT
Document emailed to [email protected] for signature
2026-05-04 - 10:36:18 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected]
2026-05-06 - 1:35:04 AM GMT
Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as David W Olivo 2026-05-06 - 1:37:20 AM GMT
Document e-signed by David W Olivo ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2026-05-06 - 1:37:22 AM GMT - Time Source: server - Signature Appearance Selected: MOBILE_DRAW Agreement completed.
2026-05-06 - 1:37:22 AM GMT
16 CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

OPERATIONS CASH INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO REPORT
AS OF MARCH 31, 2026

INVESTMENT TYPE ISSUER PAR VALUE
Local Agency Investment Fund State Treasurer 61,616,125$ 61,614,944$ 3.826% 57.0% 2.2% N/AFederal Farm Credit Banks US Government Agency 1,000,000$ 998,503$ 3.110% 0.9% 0.0% 4/13/2026 Federal Home Loan Bank US Government Agency 1,000,000 $ 995,497$ 1.000% 0.9% 0.0% 5/27/2026Federal Farm Credit Banks US Government Agency 1,000,000$ 983,962$ 1.500% 0.9% 0.0% 12/14/2026 Federal Home Loan Banks US Government Agency 1,000,000$ 991,942$ 3.000% 0.9% 0.0% 3/29/2027 Federal Home Loan Banks US Government Agency 1,000,000$ 997,393$ 4.550% 0.9% 0.0% 2/10/2028Federal Home Loan Banks US Government Agency 5,000,000$ 4,999,880$ 4.450% 4.6% 0.2% 7/16/2029Federal Home Loan Banks US Government Agency 5,000,000$ 4,967,467$ 4.500% 4.6% 0.2% 8/14/2030Federal Home Loan Banks US Government Agency 3,000,000$ 2,974,503$ 4.050% 2.8% 0.1% 9/30/2030Federal Farm Credit Banks US Government Agency 2,000,000$ 1,984,011$ 4.070% 1.9% 0.1% 9/30/2030 Fed. National Mtg Association US Government Agency 3,000,000$ 2,961,924$ 4.070% 2.8% 0.1% 12/4/2030Federal Home Loan Banks US Government Agency 3,000,000$ 2,968,844$ 4.050% 2.8% 0.1% 12/4/2030Fed. National Mtg Association US Government Agency 2,000,000$ 1,981,007$ 4.000% 1.9% 0.1% 12/16/2030Fed. National Mtg Association US Government Agency 3,000,000$ 2,952,912$ 4.050% 2.8% 0.1% 1/15/2031Fed. Home Loan Mtg Corp US Government Agency 4,000,000$ 3,956,520$ 4.150% 3.7% 0.2% 1/28/2031Fed. Home Loan Mtg Corp US Government Agency 3,000,000$ 2,996,772$ 4.550% 2.8% 0.1% 3/28/2031Certificate of Deposit Capital One Bank (USA) NA 250,000$ 249,623$ 3.150% 0.2% 0.0% 6/2/2026 Certificate of Deposit State Bank of India 250,000$ 248,309$ 3.300% 0.2% 0.0% 6/1/2027Cash in Bank General & Sweep 7,908,277$ 7,908,277$ 0% - 3.54% 7.32% 0.0% N/APetty Cash 6,250$ N/A 0.01% 0.0% N/A TOTAL 108,030,652$ 107,732,288$ 3.66% (Total Portfolio Yield) The Investment porfolio at March 31, 2026 is in compliance with the Investment Policy of the City of South Lake Tahoe. The City of South Lake Tahoe will be able to meetits projected expenditure requirements for the next six months. Valuation is based upon the State Treasurer's Office LAIF quarterly apportionment rates and US Bank Safekeeping.

WEIGHTED
PAR

WEIGHTED

MARKET VALUE CURRENT YIELD YIELD MATURITY DATE
171 of 1

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE INVESTMENT REPORT

CASH AND INVESTMENTS HELD WITH FISCAL AGENTS
AS OF MARCH 31, 2026

BOND ISSUE CURRENT MATURITY

ACCOUNT INVESTMENT TYPE ISSUER COST VALUE MARKET VALUE YIELD DATE So Tahoe JPFA Lease Rev Bonds 2023 A Project Fund Dreyfus Gov Sec CM Inst 227 / U.S. Treasury Bill Dreyfus 3,128,521 3,128,521 4.89% N/A Principal Dreyfud Gov Sec MC Inst 227 Dreyfus - - 0.00% N/A Lease Revenue Fund Dreyfus Gov Sec CM Inst 227 Dreyfus 1,278,926 1,278,926 3.49% N/A Interest Dreyfud Gov Sec MC Inst 227 Dreyfus - - 0.00% N/A Cost of Issuance Account Dreyfus Gov Sec CM Inst 227 Dreyfus 31 31 3.49% N/A So Tahoe JPFA Ref Lease Rev Bonds 2016 A Lease Revenue Fund Blackrock Treasury Trust Bank of New York Mellon 4,781 4,781 0.00% N/A Interest Blackrock Treasury Trust Bank of New York Mellon - - 0.00% N/A Principal Blackrock Treasury Trust Bank of New York Mellon - - 0.00% N/A Reserve Assured Guaranty Municipal Bank of New York Mellon - 2 0.00% N/A So Tahoe JPFA Parking Rev Bonds 2013 Debt Service Account Blackrock Treasury Trust Bank of New York Mellon 17,285 17,285 0.00% N/ASo Tahoe JPFA Ref Rev Bonds 2014 A, 2015 A, 2017 A Revenue Fund Blackrock Treasury Trust Bank of New York Mellon 2 3 1.96% N/A Interest Blackrock Treasury Trust Bank of New York Mellon 976,245 976,245 3.56% N/A Principal Blackrock Treasury Trust Bank of New York Mellon 7,271 7,271 3.56% N/A Surplus Blackrock Treasury Trust Bank of New York Mellon 11,328 11,328 3.56% N/A So Tahoe JPFA (RPA 1) Reserve Blackrock Treasury Trust Bank of New York Mellon 5,732,407 5,732,407 3.56% N/ASuccessor Agency to the So Tahoe RDA, CFD 2001-1, Refdg Series 2015 Special Tax Blackrock Treasury Trust Bank of New York Mellon 51,638 51,638 3.56% N/A Interest Blackrock Treasury Trust Bank of New York Mellon 14,198 14,198 3.56% N/A Principal Blackrock Treasury Trust Bank of New York Mellon 918 918 3.56% N/A Reserve Blackrock Treasury Trust Bank of New York Mellon 637,998 637,998 3.56% N/A Surplus Blackrock Treasury Trust Bank of New York Mellon 1,626 1,626 3.56% N/A City of South Lake Tahoe 2014 Pension Obligation Bonds Interest Blackrock Treasury Trust Bank of New York Mellon 200 200 3.55% N/A Principal Blackrock Treasury Trust Bank of New York Mellon 8 8 3.51% N/ACity of So Lake Tahoe 2012 COPS, Road Improvmt. Lease Payment Fund First American Govt Obligation Fund/Money Mkt US Bank 16,702 16,702 3.12% N/A Reserve Account First American Govt Obligation Fund/Money Mkt US Bank 396,899 386,899 3.12% N/A TOTAL 12,276,985 12,266,988
Valuation is based upon the valuations contained in the monthly statements provided by the trust departments of the fiscal agents. 18 LAIF
62%
Medium Term
Certificate of Dep
0%
Government Agency
38%
City of South Lake Tahoe
Operations Cash Investment Portfolio
Market Value as March 31, 2026
19 CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

CASH REPORT
MARCH 31, 2026

FUND FUND NAME OPERATIONS CASH FISCAL AGENT TOTAL CASH TOTAL # BALANCE CASH BALANCE BALANCE OPERATIONS FISCAL AGENT CASH BALANCE 100 General Fund 31,067,150.56 $31,067,150.56
102 Measure S - Sales Tax 2,109,190.20 $2,109,190.20 $33,176,341 $0 $33,176,341 201 Gas Tax 2105 1,054,106.21 $1,054,106.21
207 Snow Removal 1,458,220.47 $1,458,220.47
208 Snow Removal - Equipment Replac 728,650.02 $728,650.02 210 Vehicle Replacement 577,310.09 $577,310.09
211 Police Vehicle Replacement 254,860.87 $254,860.87
213 Fire Vehicle Replacement (762,177.41) ($762,177.41) 215 Disaster Relief/Prep (243,758.28) ($243,758.28)
216 Transit Center 47,008.11 $47,008.11
217 Arts Program 42,659.70 $42,659.70
218 VHR Program 303,855.93 $303,855.93
220 Parks and Recreation 10,742,433.79 $10,742,433.79
221 Ice Arena 18,257.97 $18,257.97
222 Fire Safety Sales Tax 885,518.37 $885,518.37
223 Cannabis Program 1,129,162.04 $1,129,162.04
224 PEG Programming 366,418.08 $366,418.08
229 DUI/Traffic Safety Grant (2,643.14) ($2,643.14)
231 AB3229 COPS 547,138.30 $547,138.30
232 Safety Sales Tax 185,957.38 $185,957.38
233 Forfeiture - State Fund 42,643.73 $42,643.73
235 Forfeiture - Justice Fund 68,228.35 $68,228.35
236 EMS - JPA 88,521.01 $88,521.01
237 Boat Patrol - Grant 216,460.50 $216,460.50
238 Domestic Violence (DVRT) Grant 42,022.53 $42,022.53 240 Solid Waste AB939 (19,081.19) ($19,081.19)
241 Clean Community 58,662.71 $58,662.71
242 Vehicle Abatement 165,123.37 $165,123.37
243 Nuisance Abatement 231,244.19 $231,244.19
244 Solid Waste JPA 1,095,177.69 $1,095,177.69
245 Storm Water Mgmt/Sweeping 262,986.70 $262,986.70
250 Hsng&ED - Work Force Housing 1,232,741.10 $1,232,741.10 251 Hsng & Ed - Home 1,568,180.74 $1,568,180.74
252 Hsng & Ed - CDBG 130,141.12 $130,141.12
253 Hsng & Ed - Administration 335,959.05 $335,959.05
255 CDBG Program Income Loans 163,998.45 $163,998.45
256 CDBG Economic Development (263,732.87) ($263,732.87) 258 Calhome Loan Repayments 146,657.39 $146,657.39
262 RDA Low Income Housing Fund 448,758.42 $448,758.42
263 TOT Revenue Fund 2,003,993.54 $2,003,993.54
270 General Plan/Community Plan 538,009.38 $538,009.38
271 Building Permit Fees 2,065,030.25 $2,065,030.25
280 Ski Run Business Improvement 910.87 $910.87
281 Measure S Maintenance Fund 71,261.82 $71,261.82
284 Measure S City Maintenance 426,259.20 $426,259.20
285 Tourism Improvement District (TID) 270,930.05 $270,930.05 290 Settlement Proceeds Sfty Programs 755,544.15 $755,544.15 291 Fofeitures- Local 0.00 $0.00 $29,479,611 $0 $29,479,611 301 City CIP 21,392,941.58 $21,392,941.58
303 City CIP - Reg.Surf.Transp.Progr 220,630.03 $220,630.03 306 Rehab Water Quality Projects 2,836.85 $2,836.85
310 Long term Capital Replacement 861,960.02 $861,960.02 311 Campground Capital Outlay 493,253.69 $493,253.69
320 Housing - CIP Projects 200,729.82 $200,729.82 $23,172,352 $0 $23,172,352 401 City Debt Service 2,020,197.25 4,816,069.95 $6,836,267.20 $2,020,197 $4,816,070 $6,836,267 501 Airport 1,371,008.13 $1,371,008.13
510 Parking Management Bellamy 397,796.38 $397,796.38
515 Parking Management Plan 16,711.85 $16,711.85
520 Parking Garage 2,025,057.47 17,285.32 $2,042,342.79 550 Transit - Stage 613,014.67 $613,014.67
560 South Tahoe Transit JPA 51,750.16 $51,750.16 $4,475,339 $17,285 $4,492,624 601 Self Insurance - Health, Vision, Den 578,360.68 $578,360.68 602 Self Insurance - Workers Comp 9,528,176.27 $9,528,176.27 604 Payroll 1,726,574.28 $1,726,574.28
605 Health Insurance Savings 34,540.78 $34,540.78 $11,867,652 $0 $11,867,652 701 Trust 917.00 $917.00
704 Athletic Facilities - Parks & Rec 0.00 $0.00
707 Park Avenue CFD Fund 1,112,861.20 706,378.89 $1,819,240.09 711 Bijou ECP CFD 167,236.95 $167,236.95
712 Harrison Avenue CFD 288,190.03 $288,190.03
725 RD Obligation Retirement Fund 2,261,967.02 6,727,253.78 $8,989,220.80 751 Special Assessment District 4,572.00 $4,572.00
762 Tahoe Transportation Authority 3,416.00 $3,416.00 $3,839,160 $7,433,633 $11,272,793 Total Cash and Investments $108,030,651.62 $12,266,987.94 $120,297,639.56 $108,030,652 $12,266,988 $120,297,640

SUBTOTAL BY CATEGORY
20 City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: May 19, 2026
Agenda Item #:3
Agenda Item: Fiscal Year 2025-26 Quarterly Financial Status Report - Quarter Ending March 2026 Executive Summary: In accordance with the City's Financial Policies, the Finance Department submits reports to City Council on a periodic basis to provide assurance of budget compliance and for informational and comparative purposes. Attachment 2, “FY 2025/26 Quarterly Budget and Financial Status Report for Period Ending March 31, 2026†summarizes operating revenues and operating expenditures (unaudited figures) for the General Fund and Measure S Sales Tax Fund for the year-todate providing an analysis of any significant budget variances.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Receive and file.

Responsible Staff Member: Andrew Black, Financial Services Supervisor Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - FY 2025-26 Quarterly Budget.docx
02-FY 2025-26 Qtrly Budget Report March 2026.pdf
21 Council Agenda Report- May 19, 2026 Page 1 of 1
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 19, 2026
Title: Fiscal Year 2025/26 Quarter End Financial Status Report as of March 2026 Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance and Andrew Black, Financial Services Supervisor
Background: The Finance Department submits quarterly reports to City Council to provide assurance of budget compliance and for informational and comparative purposes throughout the year. Attachment 2, “FY 2025/26 Quarterly Budget and Financial Status Report for Period Ending March 31, 2026” is an unaudited snapshot of year-to-date actual revenues and expenditures for the General Fund for that period.

Issue and Discussion: At the end of March 2026 with 50% of the year complete, primary General Fund revenues were at 37.7% of the amended budget, while expenditures were at

36.2% of appropriations. All departmental expenditures were below the 50.0% threshold allocated to the first two quarters of the fiscal year. Measure S Sales Tax revenue, accounted for in a separate general fund, amounted to approximately 35.9% of the amended budget. See Attachment 2 for further analysis.

Financial Implications: FY 2025/26 General Fund budgeted revenues and expenditures through March 2026, as presented in the attached report, reflect mid-year budget adjustments for supplemental appropriations adopted by City Council on March 24, 2026. As of March 31, 2026, following the first six months of the fiscal year, actual General Fund expenditures exceeded revenues by $804K.

Compared with the same period in the prior fiscal year, overall revenues increased by approximately 10.1%, or $2.4 million, primarily due to strong performance in Property Tax, Recreation revenue, and increased transfers in from other funds. Over the same period, total expenditures increased by 14.0%, or $3.3 million. Of that amount, Miscellaneous General Fund expenditures rose by approximately $2.8 million, largely due to higher transfers out to other funds, while departmental expenditures increased by approximately $512K.

Environmental Considerations: This is not a “project” subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) (organizational or administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment).

Policy Implications: Consistent with City’s Financial Policies. 22 2025-26 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT Page 1 of 2 2nd QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2026

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
2025-26 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT
2 ND QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2026
This report provides an overview of the City’s financial position for the primary General Fund and the Measure S Sales Tax general fund for Fiscal Year 2025-26. It summarizes revenues by type and expenditures by department or program, comparing actual revenues received and expenditures incurred through March 2026 to the total budget.

Primary General Fund Financial Condition
As of March 31st, with 50% of the year complete, General Fund revenues were at 37.7% of projections, and expenditures were at 36.2% of appropriations.

Revenues. The top three revenues, Property Tax, City Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), and Sales Tax including Measure Q, generated 54.9% of the total $25.9 million General Fund revenues collected through March 31st. Overall revenues, including transfers, were $2.4 million higher than the same period in fiscal year 2024-25.

Property Tax revenue remained unchanged
from the previous quarter. Year-to-date
receipts represent 56.3% of the total
budget, an increase of 8.6% ($565K)
compared to the same period last year. The
next semi-annual installment payment, due
in May, will be reflected in the next
quarterly report.

Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), including
TOT from the Project area, increased by

3.3% ($212K) year over year. Sales Tax and
Measure Q revenue combined were
substantially flat to the prior year’s first two
quarters’ actuals, increasing by less than
one percent.

The largest year-over-year variance
occurred in the Transfers In category, which
increased by $940K, primarily due to the
return of funding previously allocated for the Recreation Center Phase 2 construction. Transfers from other funds included in departmental categories also contributed to favorable revenue variances, including a $380K increase in Fire revenues for the SCBA purchase and a $266K increase in Development Services revenues related to long-term building permits. Parks and Recreation revenues increased by $450K, reflecting higher revenue collection associated with the opening of the new Recreation and Aquatics Center, while interest revenue decreased by approximately $324K.

Increases in revenue were more than offset by expenditure growth, including transfers out, resulting in actual primary General Fund expenditures exceeding revenues by approximately $804K through the end of the first two quarters of the fiscal year.

Expenditures. Total actual expenditures through March 31st were $26.7 million. Of this amount, approximately $17.5 million, or 65.5%, was allocated to personnel expenses, covering 13 payroll periods, which represents 50.0% of the total payroll periods for the year. Of the remaining 34.5%, or approximately $9.2 million, $4.3 million was attributed to transfers-out, $2.1 million to professional, technical, and other contract services, $0.8 million to miscellaneous general expense including taxes and fees, travel and training, communications etc., $0.7 million to purchases of tools, Revenues by Type
Total Budget
as of
March 31
Actuals
through
March 31
As % of
Budget
Property Tax 12,680,000$ 7,136,268$ 56.3%
Transient Occupancy Tax - City 11,847,563 3,654,023 30.8% Transient Occupancy Tax - Project Area 8,000,000 3,036,698 38.0% Sales Tax 7,737,140 2,262,656 29.2%
Measure Q 4,191,000 1,185,812 28.3%
Motor Vehicle License Fees (MVLF) 3,271,000 1,605,820 49.1% Franchise Fees 2,300,000 337,072 14.7%
Business License Tax 2,278,930 150,899 6.6%
Finance - Other Revenues 3,025,405 1,132,250 37.4%
General Government 281,953 4,221 1.5%
Police 2,913,914 1,055,550 36.2%
Fire 3,434,298 603,405 17.6%
Public Works 720,935 345,966 48.0%
Development Services 2,229,456 1,630,803 73.1%
Parks and Recreation 2,385,417 748,735 31.4%
Transfers In 1,430,085 1,017,141 71.1%
Miscellaneous General Fund 44,820 24,896 55.5%
REVENUES TOTAL 68,771,916$ 25,932,215$ 37.7%
23 2025-26 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT Page 2 of 2 2nd QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 2026 parts, software, machinery and equipment, and the remaining $1.3 million to utilities, general supplies, and other miscellaneous expense.

Overall expenditures increased by 14.0%, or
$3.3 million, compared to the same period in
the prior fiscal year. Of that amount,
Transfers Out increased by $2.7 million,
primarily due to $760K in additional transfers
to the Housing Fund to support the City’s
housing initiatives, $1.1 million in additional
transfers to the Health Insurance Fund to pay
for a medical insurance special assessment,
$300K for long term capital replacement, and
$205K for the Boat Patrol program.

Personnel costs increased by approximately $585K, driven by Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) and Year 3 equity increases for eligible classifications, as outlined in the Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) for the City’s six bargaining units and the Compensation and Benefits package for unrepresented employees. The remaining increase in expenditures is attributable to higher Parks and Recreation staffing to support expanded programs at the new Recreation Center which opened in April 2026, as well as city-wide increases in technical/professional services, utilities, and software costs.

All departments have maintained expenditures below the 50% threshold allocated to the first two quarters of the fiscal year. As the year progresses, recognition of remaining budgeted expenditures such as additional Transfers-out, insurance premiums, and annual payment of CalPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability will impact the percentage of actual expenditures to the total budget.

Measure S Sales Tax General Fund
Measure S, a 1% city-wide sales and use tax, went into effect on April 1, 2021 and is projected to generate $8.4 million for fiscal year 2025/26.

Revenues. As of March 31, 2026, the City has
received approximately $2.4 million in Measure
S sales tax revenue. In addition, $1.0 million in
Recreation Center project funds were returned
to the Measure S Sales Tax Fund as part of the
mid-year budget adjustments.

Expenditures. In the FY 2025-26 budget, City
Council allocated $8.0 million in Measure S
funds to various projects and programs,
including $4.5 million for road rehabilitation,
maintenance, and in-house street repair.

Several Safety positions remain budgeted to be
fully or partially funded by Measure S, including
seven firefighter positions previously funded by
the SAFER grant, one Police Lieutenant
position, and 50% of the Fire Battalion Chief
position. Other uses include transfers out for
debt service on snow removal equipment
purchases, sidewalk snow removal, and expanded snow removal operations on public streets.

As of March 31st, a total of $1.7 million has been transferred out to support these Measure S designated projects and programs.

Expenditures by Department
Total Budget
as of
March 31
Actuals
through
March 31
As % of
Budget
General Government 7,373,878$ 2,051,390$ 27.8%
Finance 3,844,350 1,860,184 48.4%
Miscellaneous General Fund 17,518,392 5,233,819 29.9%
Police 16,825,025 6,578,892 39.1%
Fire 13,236,560 4,715,920 35.6%
Public Works 6,283,033 2,879,614 45.8%
Development Services 2,100,261 898,008 42.8%
Parks and Recreation 6,756,160 2,518,365 37.3%
EXPENDITURES TOTAL 73,937,659$ 26,736,192$ 36.2%
Measure S Sales Tax
Total Budget
as of
March 31
Actuals
through
March 31
As % of
Budget

REVENUES
Measure S Sales Tax 8,382,000$ 2,364,692 $ 28.2%
Interest/Dividends Revenue 46,000 17,050 37.1%
Transfer in from CIP 1,000,000 1,000,000 100.0%
REVENUES TOTAL 9,428,000$ 3,381,742$ 35.9%
EXPENDITURES and FINANCING USES
Technical Services 10,000 - 0.0%
Transfer out to/for:

Cape Seal (Road Maintenance) 1,000,000 - 0.0%
Fire Battalion Chief position (50%) 198,500 - 0.0%
Police Lieutenant position 326,050 - 0.0%
Road Reconstruction 2,500,000 - 0.0%
Seven (7) Firefighters 1,315,720 127,720 9.7%
Sidewalk Snow Removal 132,635 132,635 100.0%
Snow Removal Equip - Debt Service 778,934 778,934 100.0% Snow Removal Operations 700,000 700,000 100.0%
Streets - In house repair 1,023,798 - 0.0%
EXPENDITURES TOTAL 7,985,637$ 1,739,289$ 21.8%
24 City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: May 19, 2026
Agenda Item #:4
Agenda Item: Master Agreement with Environmental Science Associates (ESA) for Airport Environmental Compliance Support Services
Executive Summary: The City issued a Request for Qualifications on March 26, 2026, for on-call Airport Environmental Services to support technical environmental planning, permitting, and compliance activities necessary to maintain eligibility for future FAA Airport Improvement Program grants. A threemember Selection Committee reviewed the submitted qualifications and determined that Environmental Science Associates is the most qualified firm. Because the contemplated services include airport planning and environmental services eligible for FAA participation, the City utilized a qualifications-based selection process consistent with 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(17), 2 CFR § 200.320, and FAA Advisory Circular 150/5100-14E Change 1. Compensation for individual assignments will be negotiated at the time services are required and on the basis of fair and reasonable fees for the approved scope.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute a master professional services agreement with ESA for as-needed airport environmental consultant services for a five-year term beginning June 1, 2026.

Responsible Staff Member: John Dickinson, Airport Manager Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report-Airport Environmental Services Contract.docx 02-RFQ- Environmental Compliance Support.pdf
03-Contract with Environmental Science Associates
04- Environmental Services RFQ Ranking Sheet.docx
25 Council Agenda Report May 19, 2026 Page 1 of 3
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 19, 2026
Title: Award 5-Year Master Professional Service Contract for Airport Environmental Compliance Support Services (NEPA, CEQA & TRPA)
Location: 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Suite 100, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Responsible Staff Member: John Dickinson, Airport Manager Background: A multi-year contract, commonly known as a Master Professional Services Agreement (PSA) is a contract between an airport sponsor and a consulting firm for specific services referred to by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as “A/E” contracts. Such agreements serve as the ‘master contract” for future negotiated project specific services, commonly referred to as “contract amendments.” Services and/or projects performed under a contract amendment must be identified in the “Scope of Services” section of the master professional services agreement. Services performed under the agreement may be related to projects that involve federal, state, or local funding sources, or any combination thereof. The Airport Sponsor may have multiple PSAs in place for specific area of expertise or to accommodate project timing needs.

In April 2017, City Council formally adopted the Airport Master Plan Update. The Master Plan Update provides a roadmap for capital improvement projects for a defined 20-year period. The Airport is currently in the process of completing the new Airport Master Plan for 2026-2046 which will go to City Council for adoption.

Federal Requirements
All contracts must be negotiated in accordance with applicable federal law governing qualificationsbased selection and negotiation of architectural, engineering, planning, and environmental professional services for airport grant projects.

The guidelines contained in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5100-14E, Architectural, Engineering, and Planning Consultant Services for Airport Grant Projects, are recommended by the FAA to support compliance with applicable federal procurement requirements in 2 CFR Part 200, including 2 CFR §§ 200.317 through 200.326, when selecting consultants for airport projects funded under federal grant programs. The Airport Sponsor shall clearly identify the desired services, projects, and the role of the consultant in both the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and the Agreement. Each contract amendment for project-specific services should be reviewed by the Sponsor and the FAA, as applicable, to ensure that the project scope and fee are appropriate and that contracting complies with applicable Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circulars. 26 Council Agenda Report May 19, 2026 Page 2 of 3
City Process
As required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), City staff issued a RFQ on February 9, 2026 to seek the most qualified Airport Environmental Consultant for the period 2026-2031. The RFQ advertisement ended on March 26, 2026. The City received five proposals from the solicitation: Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Avalex, Dudek, Langan, and Soar. The City Selection Committee unanimously selected Environmental Science Associates (ESA) as the most qualified respondent. A ranking summary is provided in Attachment 4 of the Agenda.

Issue and Discussion: A formal bid was issued through PlanetBids.com in conformance with the City’s formal procurement process.

The recommendation for possible award was made in conformance with both Federal and State requirements to maintain eligibility for future possible airport grant funding.

The Lake Tahoe Airport sought to streamline City contract procurement and administration through a 5-year Master Professional Services Contract that encompasses airport specific environmental work for multiple projects and operational environmental compliance. This is a departure from the previous practice of procuring environmental and planning services on a project specific basis following City, FAA and Caltrans requirements.

A Master Professional Services contract will cut down City Staff time in soliciting and administering multiple contracts with several consultants at the same time. A review of the bids was performed with the following responses.

Staff recommend the following action(s) for City Council:

1. Award a master professional services contract to ESA of Sacramento, California for on-demand airport environmental consultant services for a fiveyear contract period beginning June 1, 2026 and ending May 31, 2031.

Financial Implications: There is no financial implication to this 5-Year Master PSA at this time.

Specific projects completed under this PSA that exceed $60,000 will be brought before the City Council for consideration per the City’s Procurement Policies & Procedure or dictated by any year budgeting policy which result in funding requirements that leave inadequate funding opportunities to carry projects forward.

Contract Amendment fees are established through a negotiation process to determine a fair and reasonable price on a project specific basis following FAA Advisory Circular 150/5100-14E, the airport sponsor is obligated by the Advisory Circular and 2 CFR § 200.323 to prepare an Independent Fee Estimate (IFE) for every contract amendment using Federal funding sources.

The FAA also must concur that the scope of work contemplated for each contract amendment is eligible for possible federal funding under the FAA AIP Grant program.

The Airport sponsor must compare the consultant’s fee proposal with the Independent Fee Estimate and coordinate with FAA on the results of the process through a Record of Negotiation report. The sponsor is required to either retain staff that are experienced in the preparation of an IFE, engage the services of an independent and objective consultant, or the sponsor may work with Caltrans personnel for the development of the IFE. The sponsor must submit the IFE along with the A/E consultant’s cost proposal to the Airports District Office to allow FAA staff to review 27 Council Agenda Report May 19, 2026 Page 3 of 3
the reasonable nature of the fees and issue a determination to ensure against uncompetitive pricing (2 CFR §200.323).

For any contract amendment involving Federal AIP funding, the Airport Sponsor must prepare an Independent Fee Estimate (IFE) and compare the consultant’s fee proposal to the IFE as part of the required price analysis and negotiation process. FAA guidance recognizes that a proposal within 10% of the IFE is a common review benchmark; however, the City must ultimately document that the final negotiated fee is fair and reasonable based on the scope of work, level of effort, and applicable federal requirements. The IFE must be prepared by personnel or a third party with professional experience relevant to the project scope to ensure an objective assessment.

Environmental Considerations: Execution of this agreement for on-demand environmental consultant services is not a “project” subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) because it is an administrative activity.

Policy Implications: There are no policy implications associated with this request for City Council direction.
28 1

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

FIVE YEAR MASTER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

CONTRACT FOR THE LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT (TVL)
2026-2031

AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

SUPPORT SERVICES (NEPA, CEQA, & TRPA)
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) will be received until the hour of 5:00 P.M. PST March 26th, 2026 on Planet Bids with tentative award date of May 19th 2026. 29 2

SUMMARY
The City of South Lake Tahoe, California (Sponsor), is soliciting Request for Qualifications (RFQ) from airport environmental consulting firms to provide the Lake Tahoe Airport (Airport) with a five-year (5) master professional services contract. The master professional services contract will provide airport environmental compliance support services related to airport operations and airport capital improvement which include but are not limited to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Code of Ordinances. The Sponsor plans to award a five-year contract, subject to review on an annual basis, for any and all airport capital development subject to federal assistance under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, the California Department of Transportation, California Aid to Airports Program (CAAP), and/or from other sources including local funding.

Proposals are due on or before 03/26/2026 no later than 5:00 P.M. (Pacific Standard Time). Proposals received after the deadline will not be accepted. Proposals and required copies must be submitted by Planet Bids on-line portal. Fax and Electronic mailed (e-mail) submission will not be accepted.

Read this RFQ document carefully as the award will be given to the most “qualified or best value” Proposer responding to this RFQ. The City of South Lake Tahoe reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals or to make no award at all, to extend the period for accepting proposals, to advertise the RFQ at any time and to waive any minor irregularities in any proposals.

In the opinion of the City of South Lake Tahoe, this RFQ is complete and without need of explanation. However, if you have questions, or should you need any clarifying information, please use the Q&A feature that is found within Planet Bids, where the RFQ is posted.

Please note that no information given will be binding upon the City unless such information is issued in writing as an official addendum to this RFQ.

TIMELINE OF CRITICAL DATES
Release of RFQ 02/12/2026
Deadline for Question Submittal via Planet
Bids
02/26/2026
RFQ Submittals DUE 03/26/2026
Selection Committee Review Period/Interviews 04/09/2026 Award Date 05/19/2026
30 3

SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

1. Register with the City
All Proposers must register through the Vendor Portal in the PlanetBids Vendor Portal to be entered in the City of South Lake Tahoe Vendor Database, which is required to submit a proposal. Proposers will be notified by the City of any addenda that may be issued to this Request for Qualification (RFQ). Proposers must register in the City’s Vendor Database to be notified of such addenda.

To register, go to: https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/14997/portal-home and follow the instructions applicable to Proposer. Following submission, Proposer will receive a confirmation message within 24 hours from the City. Proposers are solely responsible for maintaining up to date and accurate information in the Vendor Database.

2. Public Record
Proposals must be submitted through the Planetbids portal. Proposals shall not be e-mailed or faxed to the City.

Proposals not received by the date and time specified in this RFQ, will be rejected. Documents submitted in response to this RFQ will become the property of the City of South Lake Tahoe and will be regarded as public record under California Public Records Act under Government Code 6250 et seq., and subject to review or release to the public, excluding financial records marked “confidential” which shall be available for the Proposer to pick up following a review and selection of the firm(s).

3. Format
Font, Type and Style: All proposals shall be single-sided and professionally prepared (no handwritten proposals will be accepted). There are no requirements on font size, type or style requirements.

4. Submittal Deadline
Response to this RFQ is due on or before 03/26/2026 no later than 5:00 P.M. (Pacific Standard Time) to Planet Bids. Reponses received after the deadline will not be accepted; there are no exceptions. Fax and Electronic mailed (e-mail) submissions will not be accepted.

5. Selection Process
A Selection Committee consisting of City Staff will evaluate the submitted proposals. Proposer(s) will be objectively evaluated based on their responses to the project scope outlined in this RFQ. The written proposal should clearly demonstrate how the Proposer could best satisfy the requirements of the City. The Selection Committee will utilize the Evaluation Method and Criteria described on page 15 of this RFQ to rate and rank each proposal.
31 4
If more information is needed following a review of the Proposals, the Selection Committee may invite one or more of the Proposers to a Selection Interview. Upon completion of interviews, (if needed) a recommendation by the Selection Committee to the City Manager/City Council will be made at that time and awarded in accordance with the City of South Lake Tahoe Procurement Policies & Procedures.

The City of South Lake Tahoe reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals or to make no award at all, to extend the period for accepting proposals, to advertise the RFQ at any time and to waive any minor irregularities in any proposal.

6. Professional Services Agreement
The Professional Services Agreement with the selected Proposer will begin within 30 days of award of contract.

The selected Proposer will be required to sign the City’s Standard Professional Services Agreement. A sample of this Agreement is attached hereto, and the City reserves the right to amend or edit this Agreement however it sees fit.

7. Reservations
a) The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, whether or not minimum qualifications are met, and to modify, postpone, or cancel this Request for Proposal, in whole or in part, or decide to award a contract to perform only some of the services outlined in this Request for Proposals, without liability, obligation, or commitment to any party, firm, or organization. b) In addition, the City reserves the right to request and obtain additional information from any Proposer and to negotiate the final scope of services with the selected Proposer. The City is not liable for any costs incurred by Proposers prior to issuance of an agreement, contract or purchase order. Costs of developing the proposals, oral presentations or any other such expenses incurred by the Proposer in responding to the RFQ are entirely the responsibility of the Proposer and shall not be reimbursed in any manner by the City of South Lake Tahoe.
c) Only the Mayor or the City Manager, after being duly authorized by the City Council, may execute the Agreement with the successful Proposer. Further, it is understood that respondents must independently evaluate the information in this RFQ and that the City makes no guarantee of data accuracy.
d) The City reserves the right to waive or permit cure of minor informalities and/or insignificant mistakes such as matters of form rather than substance and to conduct discussions and negotiations with any qualified respondent in any manner deemed necessary by the City to serve its best interests. The City also reserves the right, based on its sole judgment and discretion, to award a contract based upon the written proposals it receives without conducting discussions, interviews or negotiations. 32 5
e) If, in the opinion of the City, a proposal contains false or misleading statements or references, it may be rejected without notice to Proposer.
f) The City reserves the right to obtain written clarification of any point in a Proposer's proposal or to obtain additional information necessary to properly evaluate a particular proposal. Failure of a Proposer to respond to such a request for additional information or clarification may result in rejection of the proposal.
g) The City reserves the right, without qualification, to select a Proposer for further discussions based solely on the content of the RFQ and relevant information obtained from others concerning the respondent's respective records of past performance.
h) Proposer agrees that any response submitted to this RFQ will remain current and valid for a period of not less than 120 calendar days from the proposal due date.

8. Bidder’s Security - N/A
33 6

INTRODUCTION
Background
The City of South Lake Tahoe, California (Sponsor), is soliciting Request for Qualifications (RFQ) from airport environmental consulting firms to provide the Lake Tahoe Airport (Airport) with a five-year (5) master professional services contract. The master professional services contract will provide airport environmental compliance support services related to airport operations and airport capital improvement which include but are not limited to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Code of Ordinances.

The Sponsor plans to award a five-year contract, subject to review on an annual basis for any and all airport capital development subject to federal assistance under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, the California Department of Transportation, California Aid to Airports Program (CAAP), and/or from other sources including local funding. The five-year contract period is anticipated to begin June 1, 2026 ending on May 31, 2031.

The Lake Tahoe Airport has an overall Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal of

0.00% of total project costs being dedicated towards Race Conscious DBE and is subject to change corresponding with Federal regulations.

Any interested respondent to this RFQ shall convey a good faith effort to solicit DBEs on all funded projects executed by the City as defined in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 26, to subcontract 0.00% of the dollar of the prime contract to certified DBE sub-consultants.

The Sponsor reserves the right to inquire into the prospective proposal’s ability to provide professional services, as defined below, and to amend the Schedule of Projects and contract Scope of Work at the sole discretion of the Sponsor, on behalf of the Lake Tahoe Airport, to include any or all of the below listed services. Environmental consultants employed for work on projects involving airport grants must be responsible and possess the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of the proposed procurement for airport environmental services including compliance with/to NEPA, CEQA and TRPA. Sponsor consideration will be given to such matters as integrity, record of past performance, extent of experience with the type of services required by the Sponsor, technical resources, and accessibility to other resources required to complete the mission of the Airport Sponsor.
34 7
Consultants performing Special Services, which include environmental studies, environmental analysis, environmental permit application and environmental compliance reports may be employed directly by the Sponsor to implement one or more phases of a project or may be employed by the principal consultant via a subcontract agreement. Sponsor selection under this RFQ will adhere to the requirements of 49 USC § 47107(a) (17) and 2 CFR §200.320, as amended. 2 CFR § 200.320 establishes that procurement by competitive proposal, where price is not a factor, may only be used for procurement of architectural/engineering/special services. Title IX of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 requires that qualifications-based selection procedures be used for the selection of firms to perform architectural, engineering and related special services.

Qualifications based procedures require that a contract for Special Services be awarded pursuant to a fair and open selection process based on the qualifications of the firms. The fees for such services are established following selection of a firm through a negotiation process to determine a fair and reasonable price on a project-by-project basis when a need is determined by the Sponsor.

Contemplated airport capital development projects under this contract may include, but are not limited to, any of the following projects below over the five-year contract period (not in order of priority). Project work will be based on funding availability (local, state and federal). Respondents are advised that some services may not be required and the Sponsor reserves the right to initiate an additional procurement action for any project service not included in this RFQ during the contracting period, if required by unforeseen conditions/events that may transpire. The negotiation of the fee services, shall occur at the time those services are needed as specified in Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 150/5100-14E Change 1, Architectural, Engineering, and Planning Consultant Services for Airport Grant Projects. Examples of fee schedule and scope of work are provided in Appendices C and E of Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 150/5100-14E Change 1. An independent cost analysis shall be performed for each of these negotiations for all projected funded in part by the Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program. If a price cannot be agreed upon between the owner and the selected firm and negotiations are terminated, negotiations may be initiated with the second top-rated firm, if one exists. 35 8
Objective
The objective of this RFQ is to establish a five-year on-call master agreement with qualified environmental consulting firms to provide FAA-compliant environmental planning, documentation, and regulatory coordination services for the Lake Tahoe Airport. The selected consultant(s) will support the Airport in complying with all applicable federal, state, regional, and local environmental requirements, including NEPA, CEQA, applicable FAA Orders, and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Code of Ordinances, while minimizing environmental risk, schedule impacts, and potential project delays within the Lake Tahoe Basin.

The master agreement is intended to provide flexible, task-order-based environmental services in support of the Lake Tahoe Airport’s 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and other airport-related projects. Services may include preparation of Categorical Exclusions, Environmental Assessments, CEQA documentation, joint NEPA/CEQA/TRPA environmental reviews, environmental re-evaluations, technical memoranda, and coordination with the FAA, TRPA, and other responsible and trustee agencies. The consultant(s) shall demonstrate experience integrating federal, state, and TRPA environmental processes, addressing TRPA threshold findings, and applying current FAA and CEQA guidance to produce legally defensible environmental documentation that supports timely project delivery.

In addition to CIP support, the agreement will provide on-call environmental planning, permitting, and advisory services to address as-needed airport projects over the five-year term. The Lake Tahoe Airport seeks consultants who can provide proactive environmental risk management, efficient and right-sized staffing, and responsive project management, while maintaining continuity of knowledge of airport operations, environmental sensitivities, and regulatory requirements unique to the Lake Tahoe Basin. The overall goal is to establish a longterm professional partnership that supports regulatory compliance, cost control, and successful implementation of the Airport’s aviation program.

CAPITAL PROJECTS CONTEMPLATED 2026-2031
Please note that City (Airport Sponsor) Fiscal Year (FY) begins on October 1 ending September 30.

1. FY 2026-2027 After consultant selection, provide airport with rough order of magnitude for anticipated project costs for capital financial planning purposes, a focus will be on non-grant eligible work which includes TRPA, CEQA and other agency environmental review. These are estimates and not final negotiated fee schedule for proposed work and should not be treated as such. Anticipated to start estimation process in October 2026 after a 5-year Master Professional Services Contract is executed with the Sponsor. This process will assist the Sponsor in ensure adequate planning for future funding allocations for 2026-2031 contemplated project implementation. Also contemplated is initial 36 9
scoping meeting with FAA Environmental Protection Specialist to qualify level of environmental documentation required to implement 2026 Airport Layout Plan Update with narrative report or a new Airport Master Plan, which should be completed by the end of 2026.

CIP projects anticipated for 2026 - 2027 include:
-Runway 18-36 Crack Seal/Seal Coat/Paint
-Airport Access Road Rehabilitation

2. FY 2027-2028 AIP funded project rehabilitate Taxiway A design which will include NEPA, CEQA, and TRPA approvals. This project is currently anticipated to be awarded to a qualified engineering firm for design, and work in conjunction with the new environmental consulting firm. This project is anticipated to be performed in two phases, with the first phase beginning fiscal year 2028 and the second phase to be completed in 2030.

3. FY 2028-2029 TBD

4. FY 2029-2030 Phase II Taxiway. The objective of the Taxiway Phase II Capital Improvement Project is to deliver a safe, operationally efficient airfield improvement at the Lake Tahoe Airport while ensuring full compliance with applicable environmental regulations, including NEPA, CEQA, and TRPA Code of Ordinances. The project will advance the Airport’s Capital Improvement Program by improving taxiway geometry, pavement condition, and operational reliability in a manner that is consistent with FAA design standards and the environmental sensitivities of the Lake Tahoe Basin.

5. FY 2030-2031 Rehabilitate Runway 18-36 Design. The objective of the FY 2030–2031 Runway 18–36 Rehabilitation Design project is to advance the planning and design of runway pavement rehabilitation at the Lake Tahoe Airport in a manner that enhances safety, maintains operational reliability, and extends the useful life of the primary runway. The project will support the Airport’s Capital Improvement Program by developing a constructible, FAA-compliant design that aligns with anticipated funding, phasing, and operational requirements. Environmental objectives for the Runway 18–36 Rehabilitation Design include completing all necessary environmental review and coordination in compliance with NEPA, CEQA, and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Code of Ordinances. The selected consultant(s) will support preparation of appropriate environmental documentation, environmental reevaluations, and agency coordination to ensure that the proposed design is consistent with previously approved environmental clearances or to obtain any additional approvals required. The overall objective is to achieve environmental clearance and regulatory consistency concurrent with design development, enabling timely implementation of runway rehabilitation while minimizing environmental impacts and 37 10
regulatory risk within the Lake Tahoe Basin.

6. Undetermined CIP as needed. Projects that require CEQA, NEPA, and TRPA will be on an as-need basis.

All projects are dependent upon federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding, Caltrans funding, and/or Airport funding. All project elements require funding approval from the Sponsor prior to being obligated as an amendment to this 5-year Master Professional Services Agreement. Therefore, it shall be understood that some of the services related to the above listed projects may be deleted or modified. The Sponsor reserves the right to phase the projects contemplated 2026-2031 through the course of multiple grants and/or maybe phased into smaller projects as funding and need dictate. The Sponsor reserves the right to initiate additional services not included in the initial procurement. Please note that this request is for a Request for Qualification; a detailed cost proposal is not being requested at this time. Final project costs will be determined through negotiations with the selected firm when the need for such services arise. The negotiation of fees will be specific to each project element and will be included as an amendment to the 5-year Master Professional Services contract.

Applicants are on notice that the City may perform an independent fee analysis on any or all of the projects identified in this solicitation to make a determination of the reasonableness of the fees proposed.
38 11

SCOPE OF SERVICE
Environmental Services and Qualifications
The responding firm shall demonstrate comprehensive experience and technical expertise in providing environmental consulting services for FAA-funded airport projects, particularly within highly regulated environments such as the Lake Tahoe Basin. Environmental services and qualifications shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following work elements:
• Investigation, evaluation, rehabilitation, restoration, and long-term management planning for habitats supporting flora, fauna, wetlands, waters of the United States and State, sensitive species, and specialstatus species, including coordination with federal, state, and local resource agencies. • Preparation of environmental technical reports and documentation, including environmental assessments, risk assessments, remedial action plans, site investigations, mitigation and monitoring plans, and postconstruction compliance reporting in support of airport planning, development, maintenance, and operations.
• Demonstrated experience in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for FAAfunded projects, including preparation and support of Categorical Exclusions (CATEX), Environmental Assessments (EA), and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), as applicable, in coordination with the FAA and other cooperating agencies.
• Preparation of environmental documentation, reports, and studies required to support compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), including but not limited to Initial Studies, Environmental Checklists, technical studies, findings, mitigation measures, and monitoring and reporting programs. • Proven knowledge of TRPA regulations, thresholds, ordinances, and environmental review processes, including experience navigating the multi-jurisdictional permitting framework unique to the Lake Tahoe Basin and coordinating with TRPA staff, local jurisdictions, and state and federal agencies. • Preparation and support of biological assessments, biological evaluations, cultural and natural resource surveys, and permit applications, including coordination with agencies such as the FAA, TRPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, and other applicable regulatory bodies.
• Preparation, updating, and amendment of Industrial and Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP), including development of new SWPPP documents for airport construction projects, implementation support, inspection services, corrective actions, and compliance with state and regional stormwater requirements.
• Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan compliance support services, including preparation and amendment of SPCC plans, regulatory coordination, training support, and technical assistance in response to spill incidents occurring on airport property. 39 12
 Technical support for hazardous materials and hazardous waste management programs, including regulatory compliance assistance, inspections, training support, and coordination with applicable oversight agencies.
 Preparation, amendment, and regulatory coordination for El Dorado County Hazardous Materials Business Plans and related documentation applicable to airport facilities and operations.  Other environmental planning, permitting, compliance, and monitoring services related to airport operations and development, as may be required due to the complex, layered federal, state, regional, and local environmental regulatory structure governing activities within the Lake Tahoe Basin.

The firm shall demonstrate a clear understanding of FAA environmental requirements, TRPA regulatory processes, and the integration of NEPA, CEQA, and TRPA compliance for airport projects, as well as a proven ability to coordinate effectively with multiple agencies and stakeholders to successfully deliver compliant projects.

MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
No cost or fee schedules shall be submitted with this RFQ solicitation. FAA AIP grant guidelines require cost and fee information to be presented during contract negotiations after the selection of the most qualified consultant with which to negotiate. Please refer to Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 150/5100-14E, Architectural, Engineering, and Planning Consultant Services for Airport Grant Projects for more information on the selection process being used in this recruitment.

The following details provide additional information relevant to the selection process and the Airport:

Firms submitting Statements may be selected for an interview within thirty (30) days after the deadline. The date, time and location will be coordinated with the firm.

The Sponsor will negotiate a fee and billing schedule and contract with the successful firm.

The Sponsor reserves the right to hold Statements of Qualifications for a minimum of ninety (90) days before action is requested.

STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
Submittals shall not exceed 30 one-sided pages. The page limit does not include project team resumes, project schedule, table of contents, or cover page(s). Late submittals will not be accepted. The SOQ shall include the following as a minimum:

Transmittal Letter
Scope of Work and Projects Contemplated Understanding – Provide a detailed discussion of the specified scope of work and duties including a proposed work plan to complete the required services listed within Section III and Capital Projects Contemplated in Section I. Consultants are encouraged to explain, in detail, their understanding of the scope of work to achieve successful environmental compliance in those Capital Projects Contemplated in 40 13
Section I. Please feel free to identify any supplemental tasks deemed necessary for successful completion of the project.

Project Team – Include a flow chart of project team including key project personnel and any sub-consultants that will be assigned to the project. Provide a narrative description of the qualifications and experience of each key person along with their proposed project responsibilities. A resume shall be included for each person on the flow chart and identify proposed sub-consultants and their personnel. Sub-consultants shall attend the interview with “short listed” prime consultants. Please note that resumes/CVs do not count towards total page count in submittal and shall be attached at the end by reference or appendix. Respondents must clearly indicate if the firm is subcontracting portions of the work.

Following the award of a contract with the Sponsor, no additional subcontracting will be permitted without the expressed written consent of the City.

Statement of Qualifications – Include descriptions of example of California projects completed within the past five years that are comparable in scope to the tasks and duties specified within this RFQ.

References – Provide three public agency references including names, addresses and telephone numbers that may be contacted by the City.

Familiarity with FAA NEPA, CEQA and TRPA Procedures and Personnel: Provide an explanation of your experience with NEPA, CEQA and TRPA regulations, policies, procedures and personnel. Any experience or familiarity with the unique environmental review processes required by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency should be included in this section, if applicable.
41 14

PROPOSAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS
Proposal Requirements - All proposals must include the following information and shall be organized as described below.

A. Cover Letter (0-5 points)
The cover letter shall be addressed to the Airport Manager, and at a minimum, must contain the following:
• Identification of Firm, including name, address and telephone number • Name, title, address and telephone number of contact person during period of proposal evaluation
• A statement to the effect that the proposal shall remain valid for a period of not less than 120 calendar days from date of submittal
• Signed by person authorized to bind the Firm to the terms of the proposal.

B. Previous Work in California (0-20 points)
The Proposer shall demonstrate substantial experience providing environmental consulting services for projects located within the State of California, with a strong emphasis on compliance with state, regional, and federal environmental regulations. This experience shall reflect a comprehensive understanding of California’s regulatory framework and the ability to successfully deliver complex environmental services for public agencies and aviation-related facilities.

C. Company History, Background and Experience (0-20 points) Describe the Company’s history and organizational structure, including the size of the company, location of office(s) and years in business. Provide resumes for project team members. Also include the Firm’s background, experience, and capacity to undertake the project/services for the City of South Lake Tahoe in conformity with the requirements of the RFQ.

D. Scope of Work/Qualifications (0-35 points)
Describe the Company’s general approach to managing the services provided including an explanation of the methodology to be followed and specific plans to manage, control, and supervise the services in order to insure satisfactory provision of services. In developing the work plan, reference should be made to the specific requirements and specifications noted in the Scope of Services (pages 12 – 14). Provide a delivery schedule designed to meet the requirements of the City. An implementation timeline from the Company is required. Provide description implementation plan considerations, including timeframes and deliverables for various stages of the agreement.
42 15
E. Financial Responsibility (0-10 points)
The Proposer shall demonstrate financial responsibility and stability sufficient to successfully perform the required services for the duration of the contract. This includes the ability to manage project resources, personnel, and operational expenses in a timely and reliable manner. The City seeks assurance that the Proposer has the financial capacity to meet contractual obligations without interruption to services.

F. Description of Recent Projects/References (0-10 points) Provide a description of accounts/ agreements of a similar nature including at least three (3) recent client references with names and telephone numbers, contact persons.

EVALUATION METHOD & CRITERIA
Proposals will first be reviewed for responsiveness to the requirements. If any information is missing from the required content, the proposal may be deemed non-responsive and returned to proposer and any further review is subject to the City’s discretion (see Reservations, page 4).

The Selection Committee will make a recommendation based on the criteria in this Proposal to award the contract/agreement to a selected Proposer. The City may conduct interviews as described on page 4 under Selection Process.

Evaluation Criteria
Recommendations for selection will be based on the following weighted criteria of 100 possible points and passing status on all Pass or Fail categories, if any.

Criteria Points
A. Cover Letter 5
B. Previous Work in California 20
C. Company History, Background & Experience 20
D. Scope of Work/Qualifications 35
E. Financial Responsibility 10
F. Description of Recent Projects/References 10
43 16
Attachments:

Attachment 1 – Sample Standard PSA
Attachment 2 – DRAFT of Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan FISMND Attachment 3 – Pavement Maintenance Management Program (PMMP) Attachment 4 – TVL 2026 CIP Package
44 17
ATTACHMENT 1
SAMPLE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT
45 ACITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into as of the _________day of ________ 202X by and between the City of South Lake Tahoe, a municipal corporation (“City”) and _____________________ (“Consultant”).

RECITALS
A. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement.

B. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein.

C. City desires to retain Consultant to render professional services as set forth in this Agreement.

AGREEMENT

1. Scope of Services. Consultant shall perform the services set forth in this agreement and shall provide said services at the time, place, and in the manner specified in this agreement. Consultant shall have no power or authority by this Agreement to bind City in any respect.

The Consultant agrees that it has satisfied itself by its own investigation and research regarding the conditions affecting the work to be done and labor and materials needed, and that its decision to execute this Contract is based on such independent investigation and research.

All services provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement will be provided in accordance with the terms set forth in the Exhibit A, “Scope of Services,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Exhibit B, “Compensation Schedule,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, outlines the fees and compensation which shall be paid pursuant to this Agreement.

2. Term/Time of Performance. The services by Consultant are to commence upon the execution of the Agreement and continue for _________ years. 46 3. Compensation. Compensation to be paid to Consultant shall be in accordance with the Schedule set forth in Exhibit B which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. In no event shall Consultant’s compensation, including travel and out-of-pocket expenses, exceed ___________ without additional written authorization from City. Payment by City under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of defects, even if such defects were known to City at the time of payment. Payment is contingent upon compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, as set forth herein. Consultant shall obtain prior written authorization from the City Project Manager for any costs in excess of budgeted amounts for each line item, task, or obligation under the Scope of Services.

4. Method of Payment. Consultant shall submit monthly billings to City describing the work performed during the preceding month. Consultant’s bills shall include a brief description of the services performed, the date the services were performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, the applicable hourly rate, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than 30 days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff.

5. Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may request that Consultant perform extra work. As used herein, “Extra Work” means any work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, extra work without prior written authorization from City.

6. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by City or Consultant immediately for cause or without cause upon thirty days (30) days written notice of termination. Upon termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed up to the effective date of termination, and City shall be entitled to all work performed to that date.

Termination, revocation, or expiration of this Agreement shall not release either party from liability resulting from an event which occurred prior to such termination, revocation or expiration.
47 7. Ownership of Documents.

All plans, studies, documents and other writings, including working notes and internal documents, prepared by and for Consultant, its officers, employees and agents and subcontractors in the course of implementing this Agreement, shall become the property of City upon payment to Consultant for such work, and City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or to any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant’s expense, provide such reports, plans, studies, documents and other writings to City upon written request. All documents prepared by Consultant are confidential and shall be maintained to preserve their confidential nature. Release of any such documents to third parties shall only be made upon written consent of City.

8. Consultant’s Books and Records.
a. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services, or expenditures and disbursements charged to City for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant for services provided pursuant to this Agreement.
b. Consultant shall maintain all documents and records which demonstrate performance under this Agreement for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from records shall be available at Consultant’s address indicated for the date of termination or completion of this Agreement. c. Any records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available for inspection or audit, at any time during regular business hours, upon written request by the City Manager, City Attorney, City Auditor or a designated representative of these officers. Copies of such documents shall be provided to City for inspection at City offices when it is practical to do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the receipt of notices in this Agreement.
48 d. Where City has reason to believe that such records or documents may be lost or discarded due to dissolution, disbandment or termination of Consultant’s business, City may, by written request by any of the above-named officers, require that custody of the records be given to City and that the records and documents be maintained at City offices. Access to such records and documents shall be granted to any party authorized by Consultant, Consultant’s representatives, or Consultant’s successor-in-interest.

9. Independent Contractor. It is understood that Consultant, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an independent contractor and shall not act as an agent or employee of City.

Consultant shall obtain no rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City’s employees, and Consultant hereby expressly waives any claim it may have to any such rights. All employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors hired or retained by Consultant are employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors of Consultant and not of the City.

City is not required to make any deductions or withholdings form the compensation payable to Consultant under the provisions of this Contract, and is not required to issue W-2 Forms for income and employment tax purposes for any of Consultant’s assigned personnel. Any third party persons employed by Consultant shall be entirely and exclusively under the direction, supervision, and control of Consultant. Consultant hereby indemnifies and holds City harmless from any and all claims that may be made against City based upon any contention by any third party that an employer-employee relationship exists by reason of this Contract.

10. Interest of Consultant. Consultant, (and principals, associates and professional employees of consultant) covenants and represents that it does not now have any investment or interest in real property and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, in the area covered by this Agreement or any other source of income, interest in real property or investment which would be affected in any manner or degree by the performance of Consultant’s services hereunder. Consultant further covenants and represents that in the performance of its duties hereunder no person having any such interest shall perform any services under this Agreement.
49 Consultant is not a designated employee within the meaning of the Political Reform Act because Consultant:
a. Will not serve in a staff capacity and will conduct research and arrive at conclusions with respect to their rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel independent of the control and direction of City or of any City official, other than normal agreement monitoring; and,
b. Possesses no authority with respect to any city decision beyond rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel. [FPPC Reg. 18700.3(a)].

11. Professional Ability of Consultant. City has relied upon the professional training and ability of Consultant to perform the services hereunder as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Consultant shall therefore provide properly skilled professional and technical personnel to perform all services under this Agreement. All work performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall be in accordance with applicable legal requirements and shall meet the standard of quality ordinarily to be expected of competent professionals in Consultant’s field of expertise.

12. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and local laws, codes, ordinances and regulations in carrying out their duties under this Agreement. Consultant shall observe and comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and codes of federal, state and local governments, and shall commit no trespass on any public or private property in performing any of the work authorized by this Agreement. The City, its officials, officers, elected officials, appointed officials and employees shall not be liable at law or in equity as a result of any failure of Consultant to comply with this section.

In the event it is determined that the Consultant is required to pay prevailing wages for the work performed under this Agreement, the Consultant shall pay all penalties and wages as required by law.

13. Licenses. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant 50 represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any licenses, permits, insurance and approvals which are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. If Consultant will be physically present in the City of South Lake Tahoe to perform some or all of the services, Consultant shall maintain a City of South Lake Tahoe business license at all times services are performed under this Agreement. Consultant acknowledges that payments made pursuant to this Agreement may be withheld until this provision has been satisfied.

14. Indemnity. Consultant hereby agrees to and shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any liability for any and all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages and injuries, direct or indirect (including any and all costs and expenses in connection therein), arising out of this Agreement or caused in any way by Consultant’s negligent performance of this Agreement or its breach of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except for any such claims arising out of the negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

Consultant agrees to defend City from and against any and all losses, damages, claims costs and fees arising out Consultant’s negligent acts, errors, omissions, regarding this Agreement, the Consultant’s work under this Agreement, or the consultant’s Scope of Work.

City does not, and shall not, waive any rights against Consultant which it may have by reason of the aforesaid hold harmless agreement, because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City by Consultant, of any of the insurance policies hereinafter set forth.

This hold harmless agreement by Consultant shall apply to all damages and claims for damages, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of any of the aforesaid operation of Consultant or any subcontractor, regardless of whether such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages.

Consultant further waives any and all rights to any type of express or implied indemnity or right of contribution from the City for any liability, claims, demands, costs, charges and expenses and causes of action of whatsoever arising out of or in any way connected with this Agreement, and consultant’s work under this Agreement.
51 15. Insurance Requirements.
a. Consultant, at Consultant’s own cost and expense, shall procure and maintain, for the duration of the contract, the following insurance policies.
i. Workers’ Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance for their employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In addition, Consultant shall require each subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers’
Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California for all of the subcontractor’s employees. Any notice of cancellation of all Workers’ Compensation policies must be received by City at least thirty (30) days prior to such change. Consultant shall provide thirty (30) days written notice of nonrenewal of any Workers’ Compensation policies. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work
performed by Consultant for City.
ii. Commercial General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance no less broad than ISO form CG 00 01 in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. Coverage must be made on
the standard Occurrence form. Claims-Made forms are not acceptable without prior written consent of City. City of South Lake Tahoe must be endorsed as an additional insured for liability arising out of ongoing operation by on behalf of Consultant. If a commercial general liability insurance form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general
aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required
occurrence limit.
52 iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain automobile liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for owned, hired and nonowned vehicles, in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each occurrence. iv. Professional Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain professional errors and omissions liability insurance for protection against claims alleging negligent acts, errors or omissions which may arise from Consultant or by its employees, or subcontractors. The amount of this insurance shall not be less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) on a claims-made annual aggregate basis, or a combined single-limit per occurrence basis.
v. Cyber Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain cyber liability insurance with limits not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim, two million dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate. Coverage shall be sufficiently broad to sufficiently broad to respond to the duties and obligations as is
undertaken by Vendor in this agreement and shall include, but not limited to, claims involving security breach; system failure; data recovery; business interruption; cyber extortion; social engineering; infringement of intellectual property, including but not limited to infringement of copyright, trademark, trade dress, invasion of privacy violations, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, release of private information, and alteration of electronic information. The policy shall provide coverage for breach response costs as well as regulatory fines and penalties, and credit monitoring expenses with limits sufficient to respond to these obligations. Vendor’s policy shall be primary and shall not seek contribution from the City’s coverage, shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, and shall be endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are additional
insureds. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of 53 the policy by Vendor shall not affect coverage provided to the City. If Vendor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums listed above, City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the Vendor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to City.
b. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall be with insurers possessing a AM Best’s rating of no less than A:VII and shall be endorsed with the following specific language:
i. City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional
insured’s under Consultant’s General Liability and Automobile Liability policies with respect to liability arising out of this Agreement and/or work performed by or on behalf of the
Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations.
ii. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance maintained by City, including any self-insured retention City may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not contribute with it.
iii. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each,
except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring Consultant.
iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City except for Consultant’s Professional Liability and Employers’ Liability policies, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees or agents.
54 v. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. vi. No policies of insurance carried by Consultant shall be suspended, voided, canceled, or changed in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days written notice to the City Attorney by Certified Mail.
c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. The Consultant shall be responsible for all deductibles in all of Consultant’s insurance policies.

The amount of deductibles for insurance coverage required herein shall be reasonable and approved by the City Attorney.
d. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Consultant shall not commence work under this contract until all insurance required under this section has been approved by City as to form, amount and carrier, nor shall Consultant allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until all similar insurance required and reasonably consistent limits of the subcontractor has been so obtained and approved. Certificates of insurance shall contain no exclusions unless negotiated with the City Attorney and approved, in writing, by the City Attorney.

16. Notices. Any notice required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and either served personally or sent prepaid, first class mail. Any such notice shall be addressed to the other party at the address set forth below.

Notice shall be deemed communicated within 48 hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this section.

If to City: City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Provide a copy to: City Attorney’s Office
City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Suite 300
55 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
If to Consultant:

Provide a copy to:

17. Assignment and Subcontracting. The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation, experience and competence of Consultant. Assignments of any or all rights, duties or obligations of the Consultant under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express consent of City. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the written authorization of City. If City consents to such subcontract, Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts or omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in the Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such subcontractor other than as otherwise required by law.

18. Waiver. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision under this Agreement.

19. Dispute Resolution. Any dispute concerning this Agreement will be first submitted to the City Manager or his designee for resolution. If no resolution is reached, such dispute shall be submitted to the City Council. The decision of the City Council shall be final and shall be appealable only to the El Dorado Superior Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5, and as provided by law.

20. Controlling Law Venue. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be held exclusively in the Superior Courts in the County of El Dorado, South Lake Tahoe Division.

21. Prohibited Interests. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any Consultant or person, other than the independent contractors hired in accordance with Consultant’s standard business practice, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid, nor has it agreed to pay any Consultant or person, other than a bona 56 fide employee working solely for Consultant or an independent contractor hired as discussed above, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

22. Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer, and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment because of ancestry, age, color, disability, genetic information, gender expression, gender identity, marital status, medical condition, military or veteran status, national origin, race, religion, reproductive health decision making, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff, or termination.

23. Drug-Free Workplace Certification. This certification is only required for Consultants receiving payment from Grant Funding. By signing this Agreement, Consultant hereby certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the Consultant will comply with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 (Government Code Section 8355, et seq.) and will provide a drug-free workplace by taking the following actions:
a. Publish a statement notifying employees that unlawful manufacture, distribution dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying actions to be taken against employees for violations, as required by Government Code Section 8355(a). b. Establish a Drug-Free Awareness Program as required by Government Code Section 8355(a)(2) to inform employees about all of the following:
i. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
ii. The person’s or organization’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
iii. Any available counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance program; and
57 iv. Penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations.
c. Provide, as required by Government Code Section 8355(a)(3), that every employee who performs grant activities under this Agreement:
i. Will receive a copy of the Consultant’s drug-free policy statement; and
ii. Will agree to abide by the terms of the Consultant’s statement as a condition of employment on this Agreement.

Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments under this Agreement or termination of the Agreement, or both, and Consultant may be ineligible for award of any future City agreements if City determines that any of the following has occurred: the Consultant (1) has made false certification, or (2) violates the certification by failing to carry out the requirements as noted above.

24. Anti-Lobbying Certification. Consultant shall submit to City the Anti-Lobbying Certification contained in Exhibit C. Further, Consultant shall require that the language of the certification in Exhibit C be included in all contracts or subcontracts entered into in connection with this Agreement and that all Consultants and contractors shall certify and disclose accordingly.

25. Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion. By signing this Agreement, Consultant assures that neither it nor its principals, is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered transactions by any Federal department or agency.

26. Americans with Disabilities Act. By signing this Agreement, Consultant assures the City that it complies with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, (42 U.S.C. 12101, et. seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to ADA.

27. Amendments. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney.
58 28. Severability. If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

29. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of Agreement between City and Consultant. All prior written and oral communications, including correspondence, drafts, memoranda, and representations, are superseded in total by this Agreement.

30. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the parties when at least one copy hereof shall have been signed by both parties hereto. In approving this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.

31. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence for this Agreement.

32. Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement.

Each party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and to bind each respective party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first written above.

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE: CONSULTANT:

By___________________________ By ________________________________ City Manager Name, Title
Date __________________________ Date _____________________________

Business License # ___________________
59 APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By____________________________ Date ________________________________ City Attorney
ATTEST:

By______________________________ Date ________________________________ City Clerk
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Scope of Services
Exhibit B – Compensation Schedule
Exhibit C - Anti-Lobbying Certification
60 EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
61 EXHIBIT B

SCHEDULE OF CHARGES AND TIMELINE
BUDGET
Estimated fees (not to exceed) $________
Hourly Rate: $________/hour
Travel and out-of-pocket expenses $________
(travel is included in the TOTAL (not to exceed amount) TOTAL (not to exceed) $________

TIMELINE
62 EXHIBIT C

ANTI-LOBBYING CERTIFICATION
Consultant shall submit to City this certification prior to or at the time of the execution of this Agreement.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U. S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty not less than $10,000 and no more than $100,000 for such failure.

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge or belief, that:

1. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; and

2. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instruction.

Consultant:

Name, Title
By:________________________________________
63 18
ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT OF LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

MASTER PLAN FISMND
64 LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for December 2025
City of South Lake Tahoe

65 66

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Prepared for December 2025
City of South Lake Tahoe

2600 Capitol Avenue
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95816
916.564.4500
esassoc.com
Bend
Irvine
Los Angeles
Mobile
Oakland
Orlando
Palm Beach County
Pasadena
Pensacola
Petaluma
Portland
Rancho Cucamonga
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Santa Barbara
Sarasota
Seattle
Tampa
Thousand Oaks
67 68
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan i ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025

CONTENTS
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Page
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Project Location................................................................................................................................ 2 Existing Airport Facilities................................................................................................................. 6 Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 12 Required Approvals ........................................................................................................................ 16 Public Review.................................................................................................................................. 17 Final IS/MND .................................................................................................................................... 17 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected................................................................................. 18 Environmental Checklist ................................................................................................................ 19 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................ 19 Agriculture and Forestry Resources......................................................................................... 21 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................ 23 Biological Resources................................................................................................................ 32 Cultural Resources................................................................................................................... 60 Energy...................................................................................................................................... 80 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................... 84 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................... 91 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................... 96 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................. 106 Land Use and Planning.......................................................................................................... 113 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................. 116 Noise...................................................................................................................................... 117 Population and Housing ......................................................................................................... 134 Public Services....................................................................................................................... 135 Recreation.............................................................................................................................. 137 Transportation........................................................................................................................ 138 Tribal Cultural Resources....................................................................................................... 140 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................................. 144 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................... 145 Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................... 149 69 Contents
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan ii ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2 Airport Master Plan Study Area ........................................................................................ 4 Figure 3 City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan Land Use Designations...................................... 5 Figure 4 TRPA Regional Plan Land Use......................................................................................... 7 Figure 5 Existing TVL Airside Facilities........................................................................................... 8 Figure 6 Existing TVL Landside Facilities ..................................................................................... 10 Figure 7 Proposed Airport Master Plan Elements......................................................................... 13 Tables
Table 1 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards .......................................................... 24 Table 2 Lake Tahoe Air Basin Attainment Status ........................................................................ 25 Table 3 EDCAQMD Significance Thresholds .............................................................................. 26 Table 4 EDCAQMD Fuel Use Screening Criteria for Diesel PM Health Risk............................... 26 Table 5 Average Daily Construction Emissions (pounds per day) ............................................... 30 Table 6 Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring in the Airport Property ............................. 39 Table 7 TRPA Sensitive Plants.................................................................................................... 53 Table 8 TRPA Special Interest Wildlife Species .......................................................................... 53 Table 9 GHG Emissions from Project Construction..................................................................... 94 Table 10 Representative Environmental Noise Levels ................................................................ 117 Table 11 FTA Construction Vibration Damage Criteria................................................................ 120 Table 12 FTA General Assessment Criteria for Groundborne Vibration...................................... 121 Table 13 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments (DNL or CNEL)............... 122 Table 14 Caltrans Vibration Guidelines for Potential Damage to Structures................................ 123 Table 15 Caltrans Guidelines for Vibration Annoyance Potential ................................................ 123 Table 16 Noise Level Performance Protection Standards for Noise Sensitive Land Uses Affected by Non-Transportation Sources ...................................................................... 124 Table 17 Exterior Noise Level Performance Standards for New Projects Affected by or Including Non-Transportation Noise Sources ............................................................... 126 Table 18 Maximum Noise Levels from Construction Equipment ................................................. 128 Table 19 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ................................................................ 129 Table 20 Distances Exceeding 0.02 in/sec Threshold ................................................................. 129 Appendices
A. Air Quality Technical Work
B. Biological Resources Technical References
C. California Department of Parks and Recreation Forms
D. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Determination
E. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
F. Comments and Responses
70 Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 1 ESA / D202100181.08 Final IS/MND December 2025

INITIAL STUDY
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

1. Project Title: Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South Lake Tahoe 1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: John Dickinson
Airport Manager, Lake Tahoe Airport
530.542.6182

4. Project Location: City of South Lake Tahoe/Tahoe Basin portion of El Dorado County

5. Project Sponsor’ s Name and
Address:

Lake Tahoe Airport
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Suite 100
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

6. General Plan Designation(s): Special District (SD)
Conservation (C)

7. Zoning Designation(s): Commercial/Public Service
Introduction
This initial study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed update to the Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan. 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.
71 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 2 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Background
Lake Tahoe Airport (the Airport or TVL) is a publicly owned, public-use, general aviation airport.1 The Airport is owned and operated by the City of South Lake Tahoe, a municipality located in El Dorado County, California. TVL provides communities around the southern portion of Lake Tahoe with direct access to aviation facilities designed to accommodate a variety of general aviation services, operations, and aircraft types ranging from small piston-engine aircraft to larger corporate turbine or jet aircraft. As of the publication of this initial study, TVL has no scheduled commercial air service.

The TVL Airport Master Plan was last updated in 2017. Since that time, the Airport and community have experienced changes that necessitate an updated vision to adequately plan for the needs of Airport users.

The principal goal of the proposed update to the Airport Master Plan is to provide a carefully considered, systematic approach to the Airport’s overall maintenance, development, and operation over a 20-year planning period.2 The proposed update to the Airport Master Plan is designed to identify and then plan for current and future Airport facility needs in advance of the actual demand for those facilities. The proposed update to the Airport Master Plan is also designed to review and assess the Airport’s current conformance with federal and state airport design and operational standards to help ensure that the Airport continues to operate as safely as possible.

The Airport Master Plan process included an analysis of various development options for meeting facility requirements at the Airport over the next 20 years. The objective of this analysis was to identify a set of feasible development alternatives that enable TVL 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” evaluated in this initial study, includes a range of improvements described in detail below.

Project Location
The Airport is located in the City of South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, approximately 99 miles east of the City of Sacramento and approximately 66 miles south of the City of Reno (see Figure 1). Existing land uses surrounding the Airport include open space and forestland to the east, south, west, and north; residential uses to the east and northwest; and commercial uses to the northwest. Figure 2 provides an aerial image of the Airport and its surrounding environs. Figure 3 depicts the South Lake Tahoe General Plan land use designations for the Airport and adjacent lands.3 1 General aviation airports are public-use airports that do not have scheduled service or have less than 2,500 annual passenger boardings (Title 49, United States Code [USC], Section 47102(8)). 2 Woolpert, 2024, Draft Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan, Prepared for the City of South Lake Tahoe. 3 City of South Lake Tahoe, 2011, South Lake Tahoe General Plan, adopted May 17, 2011. 72 South Lake Tahoe Airport
Lake Tahoe

N EVA D A

C ALIFOR N IA
text
¨¦§80
£¤50
£¤50
£¤50
£¤50
£¤50
£¤395
£¤50
£¤395
£¤50
£¤50
ST88
ST4
ST ST206
89 ST431
ST341
ST267
ST79
ST756
ST513
ST342
ST89
ST28
ST88
ST89
ST28
Douglas
County
Carson City
Lyon County
Washoe County
Nevada County Storey County
Placer County
El Dorado
County
Alpine County
Mono County
Amador County
Calaveras
County
Tuolumne
County
South Lake
Tahoe
Truckee
Carson City
Gardnerville
Ranchos
Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\2021xxx\D202100181_08_TahoeAirport_MasterPlanUpdate\03_Project\TVL_MPU_CEQA_TRPA\TVL_MPU_CEQA_TRPA.aprx Fig1_RegionalLocation, EPimentel 2/19/2025 SOURCE: Esri, 2025; ESA, 2025 Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan IS/MND Figure 1
Regional Location
N
0 8
Miles
El Dorado
County
73 ÅÄ89
£¤50
Lake
Tahoe Boulevard
Golden Bear Trail
Pioneer Trail
£¤50
36 D Street
18 Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\2021xxx\D202100181_08_TahoeAirport_MasterPlanUpdate\03_Project\TVL_MPU_CEQA_TRPA\TVL_MPU_CEQA_TRPA.aprx Fig2_StudyArea, EPimentel 2/19/2025 SOURCE: USDA, 2022; Esri, 2025; Woolpert, 2024; ESA, 2025 Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan IS/MND Figure 2
Airport Master Plan Study Area
N
0 2,000
Feet Airport Property Line
74 ÅÄ89
£¤50
Lake
Tahoe Boulevard
Golden Bear Trail
Pioneer Trail
£¤50
36 D Street
18 Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\2021xxx\D202100181_08_TahoeAirport_MasterPlanUpdate\03_Project\TVL_MPU_CEQA_TRPA\TVL_MPU_CEQA_TRPA.aprx Fig3_SLT_GPLU, EPimentel 2/19/2025 SOURCE: USDA, 2022; Esri, 2025; COSLT, 2011; ESA, 2025 Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan IS/MND Figure 3
City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan Land Use Designations N
0 2,000
Feet
Airport Property Line
South Lake Tahoe City Limit
Land Use
Conservation
Recreation
Low Density Residential
High Density Residential
Neighborhood Center
Town Center
Special District
75 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 6 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
In addition to the City of South Lake Tahoe, the Airport is also located within the planning area for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). The TRPA has land use and environmental regulatory authority for the long-term preservation of Lake Tahoe and its environs. Jurisdictions within the TRPA’s planning area, such as the City of South Lake Tahoe, acknowledge the role of the TRPA to adopt environmental thresholds regulating carrying capacities and a regional plan to achieve the goal of the long-term preservation of Lake Tahoe. As such, land use plans as well as individual development projects must be consistent with the TRPA’s regional environmental thresholds. Figure 4 depicts the TRPA Regional Plan land use designations for the Airport and adjacent lands.4 Existing Airport Facilities
Airside Facilities
Airside facilities are the portions of the Airport that accommodate the movement of aircraft and encompass runways, taxiways, airfield lighting, and other facilities necessary to support flight activity.

Figure 5 depicts TVL’s existing airside facilities.

Runway
Lake Tahoe Airport is comprised of one runway, Runway 18-36, which 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 to provide access between the terminal/hangar facilities and the runways. Since TVL 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 intended to allow aircraft to quickly exit the runway following landing. Due to changes in taxiway design standards and anticipated operational demand, these taxiways were identified for removal as part of the 2017 Master Plan. Taxilanes are used to access hangars near the south end of the apron, which vary in condition from newly replaced to poor.

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 TVL consists of over 700,000 square feet of pavement, which is divided into areas for staging based and transient aircraft, and for use by the Airport’s Fixed Base Operator (FBO).5
4 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), 1987, Threshold Standards and Regional Plan, adopted by the TRPA Governing Board June 25, 1987, Updated December 12, 2012, amended May 22, 2024. 5 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. 76 ÅÄ89
£¤50
Lake
Tahoe Boulevard
Golden Bear Trail
Pioneer Trail
£¤50
36 D Street
18 Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\2021xxx\D202100181_08_TahoeAirport_MasterPlanUpdate\03_Project\TVL_MPU_CEQA_TRPA\TVL_MPU_CEQA_TRPA.aprx Fig4_TRPA_LU, EPimentel 2/19/2025 SOURCE: USDA, 2022; Esri, 2025; TRPA, 2012; ESA, 2025 Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan IS/MND Figure 4
TRPA Regional Plan Land Use
N
0 2,000
Feet
Airport Property Line
South Lake Tahoe City Limit
Land Use
Conservation (CONS)
Mixed-Use (COM/PS)
Recreation (REC)
Residential (RES)
77 necessary to support flight activity. Figure 2-2 depicts TVLs existing airside facilities.

Figure 2-2: TVL Airside Facilities
Source: Woolpert

2.2.1 Runway
Lake Tahoe Airport is comprised of one runway, Runway 18-36, which 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. Table 2-3 provides additional detail about the runway at TVL
Figure 5
Existing TVL Airside Facilities
0 50
Feet
N
SOURCE: Woolpert, 2024 Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan IS/MND 2021/D202100181.08 - TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE/Illustrator 78 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 9 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Airfield Lighting
A rotating beacon identifies the location of the Airport at night and during periods of poor visibility. For civilian airports like TVL, this beacon projects alternating green and white beams from dusk to dawn. The TVL rotating beacon is located east of the runway near the segmented circle.

Runway lighting aids are necessary to provide pilots with critical takeoff and landing information concerning runway alignment, lateral displacement, rollout operations, and runway distance remaining.

Runway edge lights are used to outline the edges of runways during periods of darkness or restricted visibility conditions. Runway 18-36 is outfitted with Medium Intensity Runway Lighting (MIRL).

A Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) is a series of lights that provide visual guidance during a runway approach. A four-light PAPI system is installed on Runway 18. Runway 18 is also equipped with a Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashing Lights (MALSF). Note that approach light systems are designed to provide pilots with the basic means of transitioning from instrument flight to visual flight during landing. Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) are high-intensity white strobe lights located on each side of the runway threshold to enable rapid identification of the runway threshold, particularly at night and during periods of poor visibility. Runway 36 is equipped with REILs.

Taxiway edge lights aid in providing visual guidance to pilots and ground service/maintenance vehicles accessing the taxiway in low visibility or night conditions. Taxiway lighting at TVL is only available at the apron entrances and high-speed taxiways.

Additional visual aids and instrumentation at TVL assist pilots in arriving or departing. The Airport’s segmented circle and lighted wind cone provide pilots with traffic pattern and wind direction/velocity information. This equipment is located east of the runway.

Weather Reporting
Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS) program is a joint effort of the National Weather Service (NWS), the FAA, and the Department of Defense and serves as the nation's primary surface weather observing network. It is designed to support weather forecast activities and aviation operations and, at the same time, support the needs of the meteorological, hydrological, and climatological research communities.

The TVL ASOS is located west of the runway, near the north end of the general aviation apron. The system provides on-site weather data collection and reporting capabilities. Without on-airport weather reporting, charter/air taxi flights may not be allowed to take off or land in instrument (poor) weather conditions.

Landside Facilities
Landside development at the Airport is west of all airside components. In general, these facilities include a terminal building, FBO structure, aircraft hangars, fuel storage facilities, roadways, and parking lots.

Figure 6 depicts TVL’s existing landside facilities.

Terminal Building
The terminal building is a remnant of the Airport’s commercial passenger service but serves as a useful asset for current-day operations. The structure contains just over 30,000 square feet of office, restaurant, and administrative space. 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. 79 in Figure 2-4.

Figure 2-4: TVL Landside Facilities
Source: Woolpert
Figure 6
Existing TVL Landside Facilities
0 25
Feet
SOURCE: Woolpert, 2024 Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan IS/MND 2021/D202100181.08 - TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE/Illustrator N
80 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 11 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Airport Buildings and Hangars
Aside from the terminal building and FBO structure, there are other support structures located around the Airport property.

CALSTAR (California Shock and Trauma Air Rescue) occupies a mobile trailer near the hangar service drive. CALSTAR is an affiliate of REACH Air Medical Services, which provides emergency transport services throughout western states. CALSTAR maintains administrative offices in the terminal building and utilizes the mobile trailer for 24-hour on-call services, where staff can remain close to its helicopter for quick response times.

The Airport uses a maintenance shed to store snow removal equipment, mowers, and other materials used in day-to-day operations. The Airport owns and leases general aviation hangars, which are generally located on the south side of the ramp area. All hangars are currently occupied and the Airport maintains a waiting list to address any turnover or vacancy. The FBO leases two stand-alone hangars near the north side of the ramp, which are used for aircraft maintenance and overnight storage.

An Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), constructed in the late 1960s, is still standing but has been out of commission for approximately 20 years, as declining operations at the Airport and a change in federal funding led to the eventual closure of the ATCT in 2004.

Airport Support Facilities
Airport Access Roadways
Emerald Bay Road (U.S. Route 50) runs parallel to the west boundary of the Airport and provides access to the City of South Lake Tahoe to the north and the Town of Meyers to the south. Lisa Maloff Way serves as a oneway access point where vehicles enter south of the terminal area, drive north, and exit back on to Emerald Bay Road. This road is currently in poor condition, due to vehicle usage and seasonal weather impacts.

The primary hangar complex is accessed via a service drive located to the immediate right upon entering Lisa Maloff Way. Across from the service drive, users can veer left and enter the Terminal Lot. As vehicles proceed along Lisa Maloff Way, past the terminal building, the FBO building and FBO Lot can be accessed via an additional service drive on the right side. On the left, vehicles can enter the Terminal Lot via an additional entrance; this is also where vehicles exit the Terminal Lot.

Airport Parking
Two parking areas, one west of the terminal building across from Lisa Maloff Way (Terminal Lot) and a second near the FBO building (FBO Lot), serve pilots, tenants, and visitors. The Terminal Lot contains 150 striped parking spaces. Excess spaces in the winter months are used for Recreational Vehicle (RV) and boat parking to generate additional revenues for the Airport. The FBO Lot is partially striped and can support storage of approximately 50 vehicles. Six accessible (ADA) parking spaces are available in front of the main terminal building entrance.
81 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 12 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Fencing
The Airport maintains 6-foot fencing around the perimeter of the Airfield Operating Area. This fence follows the property line along the southeast side but otherwise is generally situated to serve as a boundary between environmentally sensitive areas on the east side and as a security measure on the west landside areas.

Project Description
The proposed update to Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan (proposed project) comprises a long-range 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. The proposed Airport Master Plan projects are depicted on Figure 7 and are described below.

Landside Improvements
Reconstruct Existing Ground Service Equipment (GSE) Facility This project comprises reconstruction of the existing Ground Service Equipment (GSE) facility located directly south of the Airport’s terminal building. The GSE facility provides storage for the Airport’s snow removal, grass cutting, and other ground maintenance vehicles, as well as various other Airport vehicles and equipment. Reconstruction of this facility is intended to ensure that it remains usable for an extended period. The existing facility is approximately 12 feet in height, and the reconstructed facility would be approximately 18 feet in height. Construction of the facility would occur over an estimated duration of eight months and would require excavation of one to two feet in depth.

Remediate and Demolish Former Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) The project includes the closure and removal of the Airport’s ATCT, located west of the primary apron area. The ATCT at TVL closed more than 20 years ago and has since fallen into disrepair. The project would include demolition and removal of the existing approximately 50-foot-tall structure over an estimated duration of three months.

Incorporate Bike Path onto Airport Property
In 2024, the TRPA adopted the Active Transportation Plan (ATP).6 This document outlines improvements and recommendations for the overall active transportation infrastructure of the Lake Tahoe region. Active transportation includes any form of walking, bicycling, rolling, or other non-motorized transportation, and the infrastructure required to accommodate these activities. The TRPA 2024 ATP includes the development of a bicycle lane and bicycle path along Emerald Bay Road, which runs along the western side of the Airport. An additional bike path is planned to be constructed in the area near the Upper Truckee River, which runs along the eastern side of the airfield. 6 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), 2024, Active Transportation Plan, adopted by the TRPA Governing Board on April 24, 2024.
82 X X X
X
0 UNITS 1
INCH = HORIZ
SCALE
600
300 300 600
FT FT

FUTURE BOX HANGARS
(65' x 70')

FUTURE AIRCRAFT

WASH RACK

FUTURE ASOS FUTURE ASOS

CRITICAL AREA

EXISTING GSE BUILDING
(RECONSTRUCT)

ATCT CLOSED -

TO BE REMOVED
FUTURE

PARKING
GARAGE
FUTURE

ELECTRICAL
VAULT
FUTURE

ELECTRICAL

CHARGING

STATION

FUTURE TAXIWAY

CONNECTORS

NEW BLAST PAD
Airport Property Line
Emerald Bay Rd
Lisa Maloff Way
D F
B E F
TWY A
F
H J K
Upper Truckee R i verUpper Truckee R i ve
NEW BLAST PAD r
Figure 7
Proposed Airport Master Plan Elements
0 2000
Feet
SOURCE: Woolpert, 2025 Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan IS/MND 2021/D202100181.08 - TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation/05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE/Illustrator N
83 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 14 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
The estimated width of the bike path within the Airport property would be 12 feet. Equipment for constructing the bike path would include excavators, trail dozers, and potentially smaller machinery such as mini-excavators or compact tractors with attachments for earthmoving and shaping the trail.

Construction of the bike path would occur over an estimated duration of nine months and would occur within the Airport property boundary.

Box Hangar Development and Access Taxilane, and Non-Aeronautical Pavement Removal
This project includes the development of four new aircraft box hangars along the northern side of the existing apron area as well as removal of excess pavement. With the relocation of the ASOS from its existing location (described below under Airside Improvements), this area of the Airport would become available for new buildings and development. Currently, TVL has six rows of T-hangars and four box hangars for aircraft storage. The development of these four new box hangars would allow for more covered aircraft storage or aviation-related businesses at the Airport. The hangars would measure 70 feet wide, 65 feet in depth, and approximately 30 feet in height, a size capable of accommodating a wide range of small to medium sized corporate jets. In addition to the construction of these hangars, a small taxi lane would be constructed for aircraft access, and a parking lot and access road would be constructed for automobile access. Construction of the project would occur over an estimated duration of nine months and would require excavation of 2 to 3 feet in depth.

Install Electrical Vault
This project includes the construction of an airport electrical vault. An airfield lighting vault is an aboveground facility that houses regulators, controls, and other equipment necessary to operate the wide range of lights present on an airfield. Currently, the Airport’s main electrical control systems are housed within the primary terminal building; however, there are many advantages to housing these systems within a standalone electrical vault. The proposed new electrical vault would provide easy access to all electrical control systems as well as ensuring the continued operations of airfield lights during a power outage through dedicated external backup generators. The proposed new electrical vault would be approximately 8 feet in height and would be located just south of the existing terminal building. Construction of the project would occur over an estimated duration of six months.

Airport Parking Garage
This project includes the construction of a new parking structure across from the terminal building.

Currently, this area is occupied by a parking lot that accommodates approximately 100 vehicles. The proposed parking garage would be a three-level, approximately 50,000-square-foot structure with a maximum height of 36 feet. The facility would include 600 to 750 vehicle spaces, 20 to 25 electric vehicle charging stations, and a transit stop. Construction of the facility would occur over an estimated duration of 24 months. Construction is anticipated to require limited excavation for building foundations and could include pile driving depending on the results of the required geotechnical evaluation. The parking structure would occupy the same footprint as the existing parking lot and would not penetrate the Airport’s airspace.
84 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 15 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Install Electric Aircraft Charging Station
This project includes the addition of an electrical charging station proposed just north of the FBO. Given the advancements in technology for electric aircraft in the past few years, it is reasonable to assume that electric aircraft could operate at TVL within the planning period. As such, this project would accommodate electrical charging for these types of aircraft. The proposed facility may also provide opportunities for vehicle charging. Construction of the project would occur over an estimated duration of less than one month and would require minor excavation to install a surface pad.

Airside Improvements
Remove and Reconstruct Taxiway Connectors
This project includes the removal and addition of several taxiway connectors located across the airfield.

The taxiway connectors to be removed include the two high-speed exit taxiways located near the midpoint of the runway, currently designated as Taxiways E and F. Additionally, the bypass taxiway located at the Runway 18 end, designated as Taxiway J, would be removed. In addition to these taxiway removals, a portion of the taxiway pavement located at the Runway 36 end would be removed to conform with FAA requirements.

To account for these taxiway removals, three new taxiway connectors would be constructed along the length of the runway. A new bypass taxiway would be constructed at the Runway 36 end, with another connector being built just before the Runway 36 end threshold. An additional runway connector taxiway would be located just north of the existing high-speed exit taxiways. Finally, a connector taxiway would be constructed to connect the northeastern portion of the existing apron area with Taxiway A.

Relocate Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS)
This project includes the relocation and upgrade of the ASOS, currently located north of the existing apron area. The ASOS would be relocated to the other side of the runway just south of the existing segmented circle. This location would allow for the necessary 500-foot ASOS critical area to be relocated, allowing for future development of the northern apron area.

Adjust Pavement Width of Parallel Taxiway
This project involves the shifting of the Taxiway A centerline to be offset 300 feet from the runway centerline to comply with the FAA separation standards. With the taxiway centerline adjusted, a reduction in taxiway width to 35 feet would be applied to a majority of Taxiway A, with a portion of the taxiway being adjusted to 50 feet in width.

Design and Construct New Blast Pads
Blast pads are surfaces at the end of an airport runway that absorb the force of exhaust during takeoffs and landings. This project includes the removal of currently oversized blast pad pavement on each runway end to meet FAA’s design standards.

Install New Aircraft Wash Rack
This project includes the construction of an aircraft wash rack, to be located on the northern end of the existing apron area. A wash rack is a designated area of an apron used for cleaning aircraft. The wash 85 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 16 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
rack would be large enough to accommodate most types of aircraft operating at the Airport and allow pilots and ground crew members to manually wash aircraft in need of cleaning. The wash rack would include a water runoff collection filtering system as well as complimentary hoses and water supply to assist with cleaning. Construction of the project would occur over an estimated duration of one month and would not require excavation.

Project Construction
Project construction activities would include demolition and removal of aging or obsolete facilities and construction of new facilities as described under the individual project descriptions above. Project construction would include limited excavation, grading, and disturbance of unpaved ground surface.

Anticipated construction equipment required for the proposed improvements would include excavators, graders, front-end loaders, asphalt pavers, rollers, dump trucks, bottom dumps, and street sweepers.

Project Schedule
Implementation of Airport Master Plan improvements is expected to occur over a 20-year period from 2025 through approximately 2045.

Required Approvals
Adoption of the Airport Master Plan would require the following approvals. • The City of South Lake Tahoe would adopt the Airport Master Plan, the Airport Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and the Airport Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
• The FAA would approve the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) drawing and Aviation Demand Forecast presented in the Airport Master Plan report.

Implementation of projects in the Airport Master Plan may also require approval from:
• Tahoe Regional Planning Agency7
• Regional Water Quality Control Board – Lahontan
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• El Dorado County Air Quality Management District
7 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. 86 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 17 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Public Review
The Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND) was circulated for a 30-day period of public review and comment beginning on Monday, October 6, 2025 and ending on Wednesday, November 5, 2025. The Draft IS/MND directed that written comments should be mailed to:

Robin Blair
Administrative Assistant II
City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Suite 203
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Or submitted via email to [email protected].

The City received written comments on the Draft IS/MND from one public agency (the California Department of Transportation), three individuals, and one organization (The League to Save Lake Tahoe).

In addition, the City received a DVD from a member of the public that included a collection of technical and scientific studies in PDF format but did not provide any comments on the Draft IS/MND. The receipt of the documents provided on the DVD is acknowledged and no further response is required.

To further ensure that local agencies and the general public had adequate opportunity to provide comments regarding the Draft IS/MND, the City held a public workshop on Monday, October 20, 2025 beginning at 5:00 p.m. at the Lake Tahoe Airport at 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. No written or oral comments provided during the workshop raised significant environmental issues or pertained to the sufficiency and adequacy of the Draft IS/MND with respect to disclosing the significance of the physical environmental impacts that could result with implementation of the proposed project that were evaluated in the Draft IS/MND.

The 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 are provided in Appendix F of this Final IS/MND. 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 received provides new information that warrants recirculation of the Draft IS/MND. The comments do not identify new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts. Finally, the comments do not provide any new information or issues that necessitated corrections or revisions to the text or analysis in the Draft IS/MND.

Final IS/MND
Together, the Draft IS/MND, the comments on the Draft IS/MND and the responses to the comments provided in Appendix F, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) included as Appendix E, comprise this Final IS/MND.
87 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 18 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ☐ Air Quality ☒ Biological Resources ☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☒ Geology and Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Hydrology and Water Quality ☐ Land Use and Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☒ Noise ☐ Population and Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Utilities and Service Systems ☐ Wildfire ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial study:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.

An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
[City to provide ESA a signed and dated PDF scan of this page once the document is approved and final] 88 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 19 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact No Impact
I. AESTHETICS — Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Impact Analysis
Topic a
Scenic vistas are locations from which the public can experience unique and exemplary views, typically from vantage points that offer panoramic views of great breadth and depth. The Lake Tahoe region affords numerous high-quality views of the lake within a forested mountainous environment.

Emerald Bay Road (U.S. Route 50) runs parallel to the west boundary of the Airport and provides access to the City of South Lake Tahoe to the north and the Town of Meyers to the south. Lisa Maloff Way serves as a one-way access point where vehicles enter south of the terminal area, drive north, and exit back on to Emerald Bay Road. Views experienced from those traveling north and south of the Airport on U.S. Route 50 generally comprise a paved two-lane roadway flanked by large pine trees, intermittent views of open meadows and distant mountains, and varying pockets of mainly commercial development.

Publicly accessible views from Lisa Maloff Way and the Airport include flat open views of the runway areas backed by long-range views of large-scale mountains to the east.

The proposed project comprises a long-range 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. The proposed Airport Master Plan projects are depicted on Figure 7 and are described in the Project Description above. The majority of the proposed improvements would be low-rise in nature and would not substantially affect any recognized scenic vistas. 89 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 20 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Amid these improvements, the proposed project would include construction of a new parking structure across from the terminal building. Currently, this area is occupied by a parking lot that accommodates approximately 100 vehicles. The proposed parking garage would be a three-level approximately 50,000- square-foot structure with a maximum height of 36 feet. While the Airport is immediately adjacent to U.S. Route 50, views toward the Airport from the roadway are largely obscured by trees that exist on reserved land owned by the Airport. Further, U.S. Route 50 is at a higher elevation than the Airport. Thus, the majority of the proposed improvements would be low-rise in nature and would not substantially affect any recognized scenic vistas. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Topic b
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) manages the California Scenic Highway Program. The goal of the program is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would affect the aesthetic value of the land adjacent to the highways. U.S. Route 50 from Echo Summit to South Lake Tahoe is an officially designated state scenic highway. As noted above, while the Airport is immediately adjacent to U.S. Route 50, views toward the Airport from the roadway are largely obscured by trees that exist on reserved land owned by the Airport. Furthermore, U.S. Route 50 is at a higher elevation than the Airport. The majority of the proposed project improvements would be low-rise in nature and would not substantially affect any recognized scenic resources within a state scenic highway.

Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Topic c
The proposed project would not introduce any new structures or features not typically found within an airport or that would be visually out of character with the existing visual setting of the Airport property.

Consequently, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, and this impact would be less than significant.

Topic d
The Airport currently contains several light sources, including apron, building, and runway and taxiway lighting, which are all required to ensure the safe operation of aircraft on the airfield. The Airport contains a variety of visual aids, which assist pilots in locating the Airport at night or during other periods of reduced visibility. The proposed project would add new airfield lighting, as well as relocate some existing airfield light sources. The FAA regulates the location, type, and height of all airfield light sources to ensure that light and glare would not result in safety hazards. Lighting associated with proposed landside improvements would include minimal lighting for the new aircraft box hangars and the proposed Airport parking garage. Lighting associated with these facilities would be consistent with typical landside airport facilities and would not substantially increase the amount of light and glare that currently exists on site.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
90 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 21 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact No Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
Topic a
The Airport primarily consists of largely developed land and is not located within any areas designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.8 The proposed project comprises a long-range plan for Airport development that includes both airside and landside improvements within the Airport property. The proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use, and there would be no impact under this significance criterion.

Topic b
The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments 8 California Department of Conservation, 2022, California Important Farmland Finder, accessed June 11, 2025, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov.
91 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 22 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
that are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value.9
The Airport property is designated for public transportation (i.e., airport), and conservation uses by the City of South Lake Tahoe and the TRPA. There are no agricultural uses, lands zoned for agricultural protection, or lands under a Williamson Act contract within the Airport property.

Land under Williamson Act contract is located immediately to the north of the Airport. However, none of the components of the proposed project would occur on land containing a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project comprises a long-range plan for Airport development that includes both airside and landside improvements within the Airport property. Implementation of the proposed project would not affect the zoning, contract status, or viability of the land under Williamson Act contract located to the north of the Airport. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Topic c
Timber production is largely prohibited in the Lake Tahoe Basin, as TRPA regulations are focused on strengthening the forest resources of the region. No land within the City of South Lake Tahoe (including the Airport) is designated as forestland or timberland. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland or timberland. There would be no impact under this significance criterion.

Topics d and e
The proposed project is located within an existing, developed site, the Airport, and the majority of improvements would occur on land that is already developed. There is no land designated as forestland within or adjacent to the project site, and there are no agricultural uses within the project site. As such, no forestlands or agricultural lands would be converted or encumbered as a result of the proposed project, and there would be no impact under this significance criterion.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

References
California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed June 11, 2025. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov.
———. 2025. Williamson Act Program. Accessed June 11, 2025. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa.
9 California Department of Conservation, 2025, Williamson Act Program, accessed June 11, 2025, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa.
92 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 23 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Air Quality
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact No Impact
III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Regulatory Framework
Under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the following air pollutants, referred to as criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), particulate matter up to 10 micrometers in size (PM10), and particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers in size (PM2.5). The CAA defines the need to establish two standards— primary standards, which define maximum concentrations of criteria air pollutants to protect public health, and secondary standards, which define maximum concentrations of criteria air pollutants to protect public welfare.

Individual states are required to identify general geographic areas where the NAAQS for these criteria air pollutants are not met. The EPA designates such areas as nonattainment areas and qualifies the nonattainment status by severity of nonattainment ranging from marginal to moderate to serious to extreme nonattainment. Areas that were in nonattainment but have since attained the NAAQS are considered to be an attainment/maintenance area for several years before being designated as being in attainment. A state with a nonattainment or maintenance area must prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that describes the programs and requirements that the state will implement to attain or maintain the NAAQS by the deadlines specified in the CAA, as well as subsequent related documents promulgated by the EPA.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) monitors air quality conditions throughout the state and enforces state air regulations, issues permits, and formulates and maintains SIPs. Under the California Clean Air Act, patterned after the federal CAA, areas are designated as attainment or nonattainment for California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Table 1 presents the NAAQS and CAAQS for criteria air pollutants.
93 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 24 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
TABLE 1

STATE AND FEDERAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant Averaging Time State Standard (CAAQS)a
Federal Primary Standard
(NAAQS)b
Ozone 1-hour 0.09 ppm NA c
8-hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm d
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-hour 20 ppm 35 ppm
8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm
24-hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Annual NA 0.030 ppm
Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Annual e 20 µg/m3 NA
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
24-hour NA 35 µg/m3
Annual 12 µg/m3 9 µg/m3
Sulfates 24-hour 25 µg/m3 NA
Lead 30-day 1.5 µg/m3 NA
Cal. Quarter NA 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-month average NA 0.15
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm NA
Visibility-Reducing Particles 8-hour —f NA
Notes: CAAQS = California ambient air quality standards; Cal = calendar; NA = not applicable; NAAQS = national ambient air quality standards; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter a. CAAQS for ozone, CO (except Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NO2, PM, and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All other state standards shown are values not to be equaled or exceeded. b. NAAQS, other than ozone and particulates, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the fourth highest daily concentration is 0.08 ppm or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than the standard. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 98th percentile is less than the standard. c. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked the national 1-hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005. d. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour ozone concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than 0.070 ppm. EPA will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1, 2017.

Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment dates varying based on the ozone level in the area.
e. State standard = annual geometric mean; national standard = annual arithmetic mean. f. Statewide visibility reducing particle standard (except Lake Tahoe Air Basin): Particles in sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of

0.23 per kilometer when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. This standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10 mile nominal visual range.

Sources: CARB 2024; EPA 2024.

The proposed project is located in the City of South Lake Tahoe, which is located within the Lake Tahoe Air Basin (LTAB) portion of El Dorado County. Air quality in the project area is regulated by the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDCAQMD) and the TRPA. The EDCAQMD is responsible for ensuring that federal and state air quality standards are met by monitoring ambient air pollutant levels throughout El Dorado County. The EDCAQMD implements strategies to ensure SIP regulations are maintained and issues air quality permits. Construction of the proposed project is subject 94 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 25 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
to several rules adopted by the EDCAQMD, including Rule 223 regarding fugitive dust and Rule 215 regarding the application of architectural coatings. The TRPA has the authority to adopt air quality and other environmental quality thresholds and to enforce ordinances designed to achieve the thresholds.

Table 2 presents information regarding the air quality attainment status for the LTAB. As shown in Table 2, LTAB is classified as Nonattainment-Transitional for ozone (state standard) and nonattainment for PM10 (state standard). Historically, the LTAB was designated nonattainment for carbon monoxide (federal standard) but was reclassified to attainment in 1998.

TABLE 2

LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant
Designation/Classification
Federal Standards (NAAQS) State Standards (CAAQS)
Ozone – 1-hour NA Nonattainment-Transitional
Ozone – 8-hour Unclassifiable/Attainment Nonattainment-Transitional Carbon Monoxide (CO) Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment Particulate Matter (PM10) Unclassifiable/Attainment Nonattainment Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment Sulfates NA Attainment
Lead Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide NA Unclassified
Visibility Reducing Particles NA Unclassified
Note: NA = not applicable
Source: CARB 2023
The EDCAQMD’s Guide to Air Quality Assessment provides quantitative significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants during project construction and operation.10 These significance thresholds are summarized in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, for ozone precursor pollutants - reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) - the EDCAQMD has adopted a mass emission threshold of 82 pounds per average day. For the other criteria air pollutants, a project is considered to have a significant impact on air quality if it will cause or contribute significantly to a violation of the applicable national or state ambient air quality standard(s). Guidance provided in Chapters 4-6 of the Guide to Air Quality Assessment can be used to determine whether project-related emissions of these pollutants will cause or contribute to a violation of an applicable ambient air quality standard. 10 EDCAQMD 2002.
95 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 26 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
TABLE 3

EDCAQMD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Criteria Pollutants and Precursors
Construction-Related
Significance Threshold
Operational Related
Significance Threshold
ROG 82 ppd 82 ppd
NOx 82 ppd 82 ppd
Carbon Monoxide (CO) NAAQS and CAAQS NAAQS and CAAQS
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) NAAQS and CAAQS NAAQS and CAAQS
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS and CAAQS NAAQS and CAAQS
Particulate Matter (PM10) NAAQS and CAAQS NAAQS and CAAQS Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS and CAAQS NAAQS and CAAQS Sulfates CAAQS CAAQS
Lead NAAQS and CAAQS NAAQS and CAAQS
Hydrogen Sulfide CAAQS CAAQS
Note: NOx = oxides of nitrogen; ppd = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gases Source: EDCAQMD 2002
As found in Chapter 7 of the Guide to Air Quality Assessment, for health risks, a project is considered to have a significant impact if this probability exceeds one in one million (1 × 10⁻⁶). However, if the project implements Toxics Best Available Control Technology (T-BACT), the threshold for significance is adjusted to ten in one million (1 × 10⁻⁵). For non-carcinogenic effects, the assessment computes a Hazard Index (HI) by comparing estimated exposure levels to reference exposure levels. An HI greater than 1.0 indicates a significant non-cancer health risk. Because implementation of the proposed project would not increase operational emissions, the potential health risks associated with the project are from diesel exhaust emissions that occur during construction.

In EDCAQMD’s Guide to Air Quality Assessment, the potential health risk for diesel exhaust particulate matter will not exceed the health risk criteria in Chapter 7 if total diesel fuel use for construction equipment for the duration of the construction phase is less than shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4

EDCAQMD FUEL USE SCREENING CRITERIA FOR DIESEL PM HEALTH RISK PM Control Technology a
Maximum Gallons of Diesel Fuel Consumption
during Construction Phase
T-BACT applied 37,000 gallons
T-BACT not applied 3,700 gallons
Notes: PM = particulate matter; T-BACT = toxics best available control technology a. For the purposes of this screening test, T-BACT is defined as the use of 1996 and later model year engines in all Diesel construction equipment.

Source: EDCAQMD 2002
96 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 27 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Impact Analysis
Topic a
The LTAB is currently non-attainment for ozone (state ambient standards) and PM10 (state ambient standard).

While an air quality plan for the area exists for ozone, currently there is none for particulate matter. The Sacramento Regional 2008 NAAQS 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (Plan) was developed for application within the Sacramento region, which includes the LTAB portion of El Dorado County. The Plan outlines how the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area (SFNA), including the western portions of El Dorado County, will meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS by July 20, 2027.

If a project can demonstrate consistency with the Plan for ROG and NOx emissions, it would be determined that it would not have a significant cumulative impact with respect to ozone.

The EDCAQMD considers projects consistent with the Plan if the project satisfies the following criteria.

Compliance of the proposed project with each of these criteria is also discussed below.

1. The project does not require a change in the existing land use designation (i.e., general plan amendment, rezone), and projected emissions of ROG and NOx from the proposed project are equal to or less than the emissions anticipated for the site if developed under the existing land use designation.

The project would be consistent with the land use designations for the area in the County General Plan and would not require a General Plan Amendment or rezoning. The emissions inventories used to develop a region’s air quality attainment plans are based primarily on projected population growth and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the region, which are based, in part, on the planned growth identified in regional and community plans. Therefore, projects that would result in increases in population or employment growth beyond that projected in regional or community plans could result in increases in VMT above that planned in the attainment plan. The resulting excess emissions could conflict with a region’s air quality planning efforts. Increases in VMT beyond that projected in area plans generally would be considered to have a significant adverse incremental effect on the region’s ability to attain or maintain state and federal ambient air quality standards.

The proposed project would not change existing land use designations as it consists of airport improvements to the existing airport property. Additionally, the proposed project would not generate VMT since there are no operational changes to the existing airport. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the general plan.

2. The project does not exceed “project alone” significance criteria in the EDCAQMD CEQA Guide.

As detailed under Topic b, the proposed project’s construction and operational emissions would be less than the project-level significance thresholds identified by the EDCAQMD. Therefore, the proposed project does not exceed the “project alone” significance criteria.

3. The lead agency for the project requires the project to implement any applicable emission reduction measures contained in and/or derived from the Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP).

The Plan contains control measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Sacramento region. The Plan relies on many existing federal, state, and local control programs to achieve reductions of ozone precursors. Additionally, the CARB, SFNA air districts, and the Sacramento Area Council of 97 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 28 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Governments (SACOG) continue to enforce existing strategies and implement traffic control measures (TCMs). These measures include:
– The CARB maintains the most stringent mobile source emissions control program in the nation.

The CARB has adopted numerous regulations aimed at reducing exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) and oxides of nitrogen (e.g., NO2). Further, the CARB and the SFNA air district staff work closely on identifying and distributing incentive funds to accelerate cleanup of engines.

Key incentive programs include the Carl Moyer Program, the Goods Movement Program, the Lower-Emission School Bus Program, and the Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP). – The CARB maintains a long-standing light-duty mobile source program. The CARB estimates that light-duty vehicle NOx emissions will be reduced by about 60 percent in 2024 when compared to 2017. Key light-duty programs include Advanced Clean Cars (ACC); On-Board Diagnostics; Reformulated Gasoline; Incentive Programs; and the Enhanced Smog Check Program.
– The CARB also maintains a long-standing heavy-duty mobile source program. Heavy-duty NOx emissions are expected to be reduced by about 50 percent in 2024 when compared to 2017. Key programs include Heavy- Duty Engine Standards, Clean Diesel Fuel, Truck and Bus Regulation and Incentive Programs.
– The CARB and EPA maintain long-standing programs to reduce emissions from off-road sources.

Off-road NOx emissions will be reduced by about 25 percent in 2024 when compared to 2017.

Key programs include Off-Road Engine Standards, Locomotive Engine Standards, Clean Greenhouse Gases Diesel Fuel, Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Regulation, and In-Use Large Spark Ignition (LSI) Fleet Regulation.
– SACOG provides transportation planning and funding for the greater Sacramento region and has worked with local governments to develop and implement transportation related policies and measures. For example, one of the TCMs previously developed is the Spare the Air program. The current 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) aims to reduce VMT through transportation policies and implementing actions that foster the next generation of mobility solutions, modernize funding for transportation infrastructure, and build and maintain a safe, reliable, and multimodal transportation.11 As these measures are primarily implemented at the state and regional level, the proposed project does not conflict with any of these control measures.

4. The project complies with all applicable district rules and regulations.

The EDCAQMD maintains a list of current rules and regulations. The proposed project does not include any components that conflict with applicable rules and regulations and will be required to comply with them as permit conditions of approval.

The proposed project is consistent with the EDCAQMD’s standards for determination of compliance with the Plan. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the air quality plan for the region and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. This impact would be less than significant.

Topic b
Construction-related emissions arise from a variety of activities, including (1) grading, excavation, road building, and other earth moving activities; (2) travel by construction equipment and employee vehicles, 11 SACOG 2019.
98 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 29 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
especially on unpaved surfaces; (3) exhaust from construction equipment; (4) architectural coatings; and (5) asphalt paving.

The proposed project includes a series of improvements to the Airport that would occur over an approximately 20-year period. These improvements are intended to improve the safety of existing Airport operations, meet compliance with current FAA design standards, and accommodate existing and forecasted aviation demands. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase aircraft operations or the number of Airport employees.

Proposed project elements include pavement marking and signage improvements, pavement reconstruction and rehabilitation, taxiway modifications, construction and expansion of new hangars and fixed-base operator facilities, construction of a new parking garage, demolition and removal of an existing air traffic control tower, relocation of a weather observation system, and installation of a new bike path, electric aircraft charging station, and aircraft wash rack.

Construction-related fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. The proposed project construction activities would occur primarily on the paved surface of the Airport property and would include some excavation, grading, and disturbance of unpaved ground surfaces within the Airport property. Although the proposed project elements would not emit large amounts of fugitive dust during their respective construction periods, it is possible for implementation of the proposed project to result in some fugitive dust. However, the City must comply with EDCAQMD Rule 223-1, which requires preparation and implementation of a fugitive dust plan. Compliance with Rule 223-1 would reduce nuisance dust impacts to a level that is less than significant.

Average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 were estimated using the current version California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod Version 2022.1). Emissions were calculated using information, such as square footage, for each project element. Off-road equipment, durations of construction phases, and the number of worker trips used to model construction emissions for each project element were based on CalEEMod default values. Haul trips were calculated using information specific to each project element. Because the construction schedule is unknown, emissions were conservatively estimated assuming all project elements occur simultaneously. In reality, average daily emissions would be lower, as construction would be spread over 20 years and equipment would become progressively cleaner over time.

Table 5 compares average daily construction emissions to the EDCAQMD’s significance thresholds for each modeled year of construction.

As shown in Table 5, maximum daily construction emissions are estimated at 15.7 pounds per day of ROG and 15.3 pounds per day of NOx, well below the El Dorado County AQMD significance thresholds of 85 pounds per day for both pollutants. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would also remain below thresholds with standard dust control measures in place. Construction activities would not cause or contribute to a violation of state or federal ambient air quality standards, nor result in a substantial decline in regional air quality.
99 Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 30 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
TABLE 5

AVERAGE DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY)
Year a ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2026 1.5 15.3 16.3 < 0.1 0.1 0.5
2027 15.7 1.5 2.2 < 0.1 0.2 0.2
EDCAQMD Significance Threshold 85 85 AAQS AAQS AAQS AAQS Exceed Threshold (Yes or No)? No No No b No b No b No b Notes: AAQS = ambient air quality standards; CO = Carbon Monoxide; NA = No mass emission threshold for this pollutant; NOX = Oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SO2 = Oxides of sulfur; ROG = Reactive organic gas a. "Year" refers to the modeled construction year, assuming a worst-case scenario in which all project elements are built simultaneously. b. Emissions of these pollutants would be minimal and would not cause or contribute to a violation of the applicable CAAQS or NAAQS.

Construction emissions estimates were developed using CalEEMod version 2022.1. See Appendix A for model outputs and more detailed assumptions.

Source: ESA 2025.

The proposed project would not alter airport operations, including staffing, flights, or customer activity; therefore, operational emissions would remain unchanged and not contribute to regional air quality degradation.

Because construction and operational emissions are below thresholds that EDCAQMD considers cumulatively considerable, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively significant net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in nonattainment. Impacts would be less than significant.

Topic c
Construction activities would generate toxic air contaminants (TACs), primarily diesel particulate matter (DPM), from the operation of off-road diesel-powered equipment. To evaluate potential health risks from construction-related DPM emissions, the EDCAQMD has established a screening threshold of 37,000 gallons of diesel fuel, assuming the use of T-BACT.12 Projects with diesel fuel usage below this threshold are presumed to result in a less than significant health risk.

The threshold assumes T-BACT is implemented, which EDCAQMD defines as the use of 1996 and later model year engines for all diesel construction equipment. Under federal emissions regulations, 1996 model year nonroad engines rated over 175 kilowatts (kW) were required to meet Tier 1 standards, which included a particulate matter (PM) emission limit of 0.4 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr).

For this project, PM emissions were estimated based on the fleet-wide mix for calendar years 2026 and 2027. The PM emission rates vary by equipment type and year but range from 0.05 to 0.17 g/bhp-hr, well below the 1996 Tier 1 T-BACT benchmark. Total diesel fuel consumption for the full duration of construction is estimated to be approximately 34,177 gallons, which is below the EDCAQMD screening 12 El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDCAQMD), 2002, Guide to Air Quality Assessment, February 2002, https://www.eldoradocounty.ca.gov/files/assets/county/v/1/documents/government/air-quality/guide-to-air-qualityassessment/chapter3_rf6.pdf. 100
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 31 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
threshold. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the health risk impact would be less than significant.

Since the Airport Master Plan projects would not result in any permanent sources of toxic air emissions, the proposed project would not result in any new long-term sources of TAC in the area. This impact would be less than significant.

Topic d
EDCAQMD has identified typical sources of odor in the Guide to Air Quality Assessment,13 a few examples of which include manufacturing plants, rendering plants, coffee roasters, wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, and solid waste transfer stations. While sources that generate objectionable odors must comply with air quality regulations, the public’s sensitivity to locally produced odors often exceed regulatory thresholds. The proposed project would not include uses that have been identified by EDCAQMD as potential sources of objectionable odors; therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

References
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2023. Maps of State and Federal Area Designations. 2023.

Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations. ———. 2024. Table of Ambient Air Quality Standards. July 16, 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/AAQS%20Table_ADA_FINAL_07222024.pdf.

El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDCAQMD). 2002. Guide to Air Quality Assessment. February 2002. https://www.eldoradocounty.ca.gov/files/assets/county/v/1/documents/ government/air-quality/guide-to-air-quality-assessment/chapter3_rf6.pdf.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). 2019. 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). Adopted November 18, 2019. https://www.sacog.org/planning/blueprint/2020-mtp-scs.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2024. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Table. December 16, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. 13 El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDCAQMD), 2002, Guide to Air Quality Assessment, February 2002, https://www.eldoradocounty.ca.gov/files/assets/county/v/1/documents/government/air-quality/guide-to-air-quality-assessment/ chapter3_rf6.pdf.
101
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 32 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Biological Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
Data Sources/Methodology
This section identifies the existing biological resources at the Airport property; identifies the federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to biological resources within the region; and describes proposed project impacts on those biological resources as well as mitigation measures to reduce project-related potentially significant impacts. The information and analysis presented in this section is focused on specialstatus species,14 wildlife habitats, vegetation communities, and potentially jurisdictional waters of the United States and waters of the state that occur or have the potential to occur on the Airport property. The results of the assessment presented in this section are based upon literature review and queries of the CDFW’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of federal endangered and threatened species, and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, as well as a field survey conducted at the Airport property by a qualified biologist. 14 Species that are protected pursuant to federal or state endangered species laws or have been designated as Species of Special Concern by CDFW, or species that are not included on any agency listing but meet the definition of rare, endangered or threatened species of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b), are collectively referred to as “special-status species.” 102
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 33 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
The sources of reference data reviewed for this evaluation included the following:
• South Lake Tahoe U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle • Historic and current aerial imagery15
• CDFW CNDDB list of special-status species occurrences within the South Lake Tahoe and surrounding USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles16
• The California Native Plant Society online database17 • A USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation species list18 • USFWS Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species (online mapping program)19 (USFWS 2025b)
• USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) online mapper20 On May 19, 2025, ESA biologist Jessica Orsolini conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of the Airport property for biological resources. During the survey, the ESA biologist walked through the Airport property recording existing habitat types, plants, and wildlife species observed. Vegetation communities and wildlife habitats were identified based on the field survey and by using aerial photo interpretation.

During the biological survey, habitats were evaluated for their potential to support regionally occurring special-status species and the presence of any other biologically sensitive resources such as wetlands, riparian habitat, or drainages. While a formal aquatic resources delineation was not conducted, potential wetlands and other waters of the United States were noted. No protocol surveys for special-status species were conducted.

Regional Setting
The Airport property is in the City of South Lake Tahoe in El Dorado County, California. Regionally, the proposed project area is in the Sierra Nevada within the northern High Sierra Nevada floristic province of the Sierra Nevada region.21 The Sierra Nevada of California is a north-northwest aligned mountain range that is substantially steeper on the eastern slope than the western slope. Elevation of the region ranges from 1,000 to 14,495 feet. Regional natural vegetation communities in the vicinity of the Airport property include montane conifer forests, sagebrush scrub, wetlands, and riverine habitat. The climate is typically temperate to cold and dry.

The Airport property area is generally flat where the runway, taxiway, and facility structures are located with gentle slopes in the undeveloped areas along the eastern and western edges of the property.

Elevations range from approximately 6,255 to 6,330 feet. The Airport property primarily consists of structures and landscaping with Jeffrey pine forest along the eastern and western edges. The Upper Truckee River crosses from south to north along the eastern property edge and an intermittent drainage runs south to north between the taxiway and Airport structures. Existing land uses surrounding the 15 Google Earth 2025. 16 CDFW 2025. 17 CNPS 2025. 18 USFWS 2025a. 19 USFWS 2025b. 20 USFWS 2025c. 21 Baldwin et al. 2012. 103
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 34 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Airport include open space and forestland to the east, south, west, and north; residential uses to the east and northwest; and commercial uses to the northwest. U.S. Route 50runs parallel to the Airport to the west.

Natural Communities and Other Land Covers
Natural communities are assemblages of plant species that are defined by species composition and relative abundance. Other land covers consist of unvegetated areas or areas significantly disturbed by human activities. The natural communities described herein correlate where applicable with the list of terrestrial biological communities recognized by the CNDDB.22 Eight habitat types were identified within the proposed project area. They can be divided into two main classifications: uplands (natural and other) and aquatic habitats.

Structures and Landscaping
Structures and urban landscaping comprise the majority of Airport property. Structures and hardscape include the runway, taxiway, aircraft aprons, the terminal and Airport buildings, aviation hangars, the parking lot and Airport access roadways among other Airport infrastructure (Figures 5 and 6). These facilities are described in more detail under Existing Airport Facilities in the Introduction. Between and around the runway and taxiway is grassland dominated by bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa) that is regularly maintained through mowing.

Jeffrey Pine Forest
Within the proposed project area, Jeffrey pine forest occurs on the slopes at the eastern and western edges of the Airport property, outside the fenced portion of the Airport facilities. This community type is dominated by an overstory of Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) mixed with lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta).

The understory is open with scattered shrub and herbaceous species including pinemat (Ceanothus prostratus), big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), bulbous bluegrass, and bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides). Jeffrey pine forest is not considered a sensitive natural community by CDFW.23 Big Sagebrush Scrub
Big sagebrush scrub occurs in the northeastern corner of the Airport property, outside the fenced portion of the Airport facilities. This community primarily occurs east of the Upper Truckee River and west of the edge of the Jeffrey pine forest. This community type is dominated by shrubs and herbaceous species consisting of big sagebrush, greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula), Woods’ rose (Rosa woodsii), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), mule ears (Wyethia mollis), butterweed (Senecio integerrimus), and bulbous bluegrass. Lemmon’s willows (Salix lemmonii) are also scattered throughout this community.

Big sagebrush scrub is not considered a sensitive natural community by CDFW.24 Seasonal Wetlands
A formal aquatic resources delineation was not conducted during the biological reconnaissance survey; however, areas with wetland vegetation or wetland hydrology were noted. Within the Airport property but outside the fenced facilities, the topographically level benches on either side of the Upper Truckee River were vegetated with many hydrophytic species including Lemmon’s willow, plantainleaf buttercup (Ranunculus alismifolius), slender cinquefoil (Potentilla gracilis), bigleaf lupine (Lupinus polyphyllus) 22 CDFW 2023. 23 CDFW 2023. 24 CDFW 2023.
104
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 35 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
and rushes (Juncus sp.). The NWI has mapped these areas as a matrix of wetland communities consisting of freshwater forested/shrub wetland (mapped as palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded, and seasonally saturated; abbreviated PSS1C and PSS1B) and freshwater emergent wetland (mapped as palustrine, emergent, persistent, seasonally flooded; abbreviated PEM1B).25 Areas of wetland vegetation, saturated soils, and standing water were also observed on the Airport property in a low swale between the taxiway and runway. Hydrophytic species observed include Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis), mountain rush (Juncus balticus), willow saplings (Salix sp.), alpine timothy (Phleum alpinum), polygala knotweed (Polygonum polygaloides), and narrowleaf minerslettuce (Montia linearis).

Upper Truckee River (Perennial Creek)
The Upper Truckee River is a perennial aquatic feature that flows from south to north through the eastern and northern portions of the Airport property. The river occurs entirely outside the fenced perimeter of the Airport facilities. Flowing water was present in the river during the reconnaissance survey. The Upper Truckee River on the Airport property has flows consisting of a mix of riffles and runs. Scattered Lemmon’s willow and wetland vegetation occurs along the banks. The NWI has mapped the portion of the Upper Truckee River that occurs on Airport property as riverine (mapped as riverine, upper perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded; abbreviated R3UBH).26 Intermittent Drainage
An intermittent excavated drainage runs along the west side of the taxiway and drains into the Upper Truckee River north of the north end of the runway on the Airport property. This drainage contained flowing water during the reconnaissance survey with flows primarily consisting of slow runs. Vegetation along the banks was dominated by Lemmon’s willow. Portions of the drainage contained cattails (Typha sp.) and field horsetail (Equisetum arvense). The NWI has mapped this intermittent drainage as riverine (mapped as riverine, intermittent, streambed, seasonally flooded, excavated; abbreviated R4SBCx).27 The NWI has also mapped several tributaries to this drainage originating to the west,28 though besides a small detention basin south of the aircraft hangers (discussed below), these features were not observed during the reconnaissance survey.

Detention Basin
A small detention basin occurs just south of the aircraft hangars. During the survey, this basin contained water but was choked with cattails. Lemmon’s willows occur around the edges. This feature likely captures runoff from Airport facilities and the surrounding hillside. A large drain inlet occurs at the east edge of this feature. The NWI has mapped a riverine feature in this area (mapped as riverine, intermittent, streambed, temporarily flooded; abbreviated R4SBA).29
Federal and State Protected Wetlands and Waters
The federal government regulates waters of the United States, including many wetlands, under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The federal government defines wetlands in CWA Section 404 as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and 25 USFWS 2025c. 26 USFWS 2025c. 27 USFWS 2025c. 28 USFWS 2025c. 29 USFWS 2025c. 105
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 36 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.”30 Indicators of three wetland parameters (hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetlands hydrology), as determined by site investigation, must be present at a site for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to classify the site as a wetland.31
The USACE is the responsible agency for regulating wetlands under CWA Section 404, while the EPA has overall responsibility for the CWA. CDFW does not normally have direct jurisdiction over wetlands unless they are subject to regulation under streambed alteration agreements or they support State-listed species; however, CDFW has trust responsibility for wildlife and habitats pursuant to California law. “Other waters of the United States” refer to those hydric features that are regulated by the CWA but are not wetlands.32 To be considered jurisdictional, these features must exhibit an ordinary high-water mark.

Examples of other waters of the United States include rivers, creeks, intermittent channels, ponds, and lakes. The definition and regulatory framework of wetlands and jurisdictional waters are further described in the CWA portion of this chapter (see below).

A formal aquatic resources delineation has not been conducted for the proposed project though areas with wetland vegetation or wetland hydrology were noted during the biological reconnaissance survey. A portion of the Upper Truckee River flows through the eastern and northern portions of the Airport property and an intermittent channelized tributary of the Upper Truckee River flows along the west side of the taxiway through the Airport property. Areas of wetland vegetation and wetland hydrology were identified in low areas between the taxiway and runway, and around the Upper Truckee River, and a small detention basin was observed south of the aircraft hangars.

Sensitive Natural Communities
A sensitive natural community is a biological community that is regionally rare, provides important habitat opportunities for wildlife, is structurally complex, or is in other ways of special concern to local, state, or federal agencies. Most sensitive natural communities are given special consideration because they perform important ecological functions, such as maintaining water quality and providing essential habitat for plants and wildlife. Some natural communities support a unique or diverse assemblage of plant species and therefore are considered sensitive from a botanical standpoint. CEQA may identify the elimination of such communities as a significant impact.

Sensitive natural communities include (a) habitats and natural communities that are regulated by federal and state resource agencies, (b) natural communities ranked S1, S2, or S3 by CDFW, and (c) areas protected by county ordinance. The CNDDB generates a list of ecologically sensitive and/or threatened habitat types within the California. There are no sensitive natural communities mapped in the CNDDB on the Airport property. Seasonal wetlands, the detention basin, the intermittent drainage, and the Upper Truckee River located on the Airport property area are sensitive natural communities because they are regulated by federal and state resource agencies.
30 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328.3(c)(1); 40 CFR 120.2(c)(1). 31 Environmental Laboratory, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, January 1987. 32 33 CFR 328.4. 106
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 37 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable wildlife habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization creates isolated "islands" of wildlife habitat. Fragmentation can also occur when a portion of one or more habitats is converted into another habitat, such as when woodland or scrub habitat is altered or converted into grasslands after a disturbance such as fire, mudslide, or grading activities. Wildlife corridors mitigate the effects of this fragmentation by (1) allowing animals to move between remaining habitats, thereby permitting depleted populations to be replenished and promoting genetic exchange; (2) providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk of catastrophic events (such as fire or disease) on population or local species extinction; and (3) serving as travel routes for individual animals as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and other needs.

The proposed project would make improvements to an existing Airport. Activities and management at the Airport are deterrents to wildlife movement through the area and there are no documented wildlife movement corridors through the Airport property. The Upper Truckee River along the eastern edge of the Airport provides aquatic and riparian habitat suitable for wildlife movement through the area. No Airport improvements are planned near the river outside of existing facility fencing and any wildlife crossing through this area are likely already adapted to the ongoing disturbance from Airport operations.

Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to impact wildlife corridors.

Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) Section 3(5)A as a specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. There is no critical habitat designated within or adjacent to the Airport property.

Special-Status Species
Special-status species are regulated pursuant to federal and/or state endangered species laws or have been designated as Species of Special Concern by CDFW. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b) defines rare, endangered, or threatened species that are not included in any listing.33 Species recognized under these terms are collectively referred to as special-status species. Special-status species or natural communities evaluated in this report are defined as:

1. Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA34

2. Species that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under FESA35

3. Species listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA)36
33 For example, vascular plants listed as rare or endangered or as Rare Plant Rank 1 or 2 by CDFW are considered to meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b). 34 50 CFR 17.12 (listed plants), 50 CFR 17.11 (listed animals), and various notices in the Federal Register (FR) (proposed species). 35 61 FR 40, February 28, 1996. 36 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Section 670.5. 107
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 38 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025

4. Plants listed as rare or endangered under the California Native Plant Protection Act37

5. Animal species of special concern to CDFW

6. Animals fully protected under Fish and Game Code38

7. Species that meet the definitions of rare and endangered under CEQA; a plant or animal species may be treated as “rare or endangered” even if not on one of the official lists39

8. Plants ranked by California Native Plant Society as “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” (California Rare Plant Ranks 1A, 1B, and 2) meet CEQA significance criteria and State Fish and Game Code sections 1901, 2062, and 2067 criteria as rare, threatened, or endangered species

9. Natural communities that are waters, wetlands, riparian communities, or any biological community ranked S1, S2, or S3 by CDFW40
A list of special-status plant and terrestrial wildlife species that have the potential to occur in the project area was compiled based on data contained in the CNDDB; 41 and California Native Plant Society’s Rare
Plant Inventory;42 a search of the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation database (Appendix B).43 Table 6 below provides a list of special-status species, their general habitat requirements, and an assessment of their potential to occur on the Airport property. The analysis also includes consideration of nesting birds regulated by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and/or California Fish and Game Code and species protected under the TRPA.

The “Potential to Occur” categories are defined as follows:
• None: A species is determined to have no potential to occur if (1) its specific habitat requirements are not present; AND/OR (2) it is outside the range or presumed to be extirpated from the area or region; AND/OR (3) a survey has been conducted according to agency protocol and the species was not found. • Low: A species is determined to have a low potential to occur if (1) its known current distribution or range is outside of but near the study area; AND/OR (2) only limited or marginally suitable habitat is present. • Moderate: A species is determined to have a moderate potential to occur if (1) habitat is present in the study area or immediately adjacent areas; AND (2) the study area is in the known range of the species, even if the species was not observed during general biological surveys. • High: A species is determined to have a high potential to occur or be present if (1) habitat is present in the study area or immediately adjacent areas; AND (2) the study area is in the known range of the species; AND/OR (3) there are recent and reliable records of the species on or near the site.

Conclusions regarding habitat suitability and species occurrence are based on the analysis of existing literature and databases described previously and known habitats occurring within the project areas and regionally. Only species classified as having a moderate or high potential for occurrence were considered in the impact analysis.
37 Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq. 38 Fish and Game Code Section 3511 (birds), Section 4700 (mammals), and Section 5050 (reptiles and amphibians). 39 CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. 40 CDFW 2023. 41 CDFW 2025. 42 CDFW 2025. 43 USFWS 2025a. 108
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 39 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
TABLE 6

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE AIRPORT PROPERTY Scientific Name
Common Name
Listing Status:

Federal/State/
CNPS/Local General Habitat
Potential to Occur in the Airport
Property
Fish
Catostomus lahontan
Lahontan mountain sucker
—/SSC/— Occur in the Walker, Carson, Truckee,
and Susan River drainages of the
Lahontan Basin in the Eastern Sierra
Nevada, but not in the Eagle Lake Basin.

Also found in the North Fork Feather
River drainage, mainly in Red Clover
Creek. Found in shallow (<6.6 feet), clear,
low-gradient streams associated with
diverse substrates, from sand to boulders,
in areas with dense cover. Have been
found in streams up to 9,186 feet at
temperatures of 34 to 77 F.

High – This species was found in
the Upper Truckee River in the
Airport property during surveys in
2005 and 2011.

Oncorhynchus clarkii
henshawi
Lahontan cutthroat trout
FT/SSC/— Historically in all accessible cold waters of
the Lahontan Basin in a wide variety of
water temperatures and conditions.

Cannot tolerate presence of other
salmonids. Requires gravel riffles in
streams for spawning.

Low – Lahontan cutthroat trout
occur in the isolated headwaters
of the Upper Truckee River and
were planted in Lake Tahoe in
2011. These fish planted in Lake
Tahoe, which could potentially
migrate into the Upper Truckee
River in the vicinity of the Airport
property, are unlikely to exist now
due to predation.

Prosopium williamsoni
mountain whitefish
—/SSC/— Inhabit clear cold streams at rivers at
elevations of 4,593 to 7,545 feet.

Favorable habitat includes mountain
lakes or streams with deep pools
(>3.3 feet) where summer temperatures
range from 52 to 70 degrees F. Spawning
occurs between October and early
December when water temperatures are
below 52 degrees F.

High – This species was found in
the Upper Truckee River in the
Airport property during surveys in
2011. This species was also
collected from this location in
1949.

Siphateles bicolor pectinifer
Lahontan Lake tui chub
—/SSC/— Inhabits large, deep lakes. Tolerates a
wide range of physiochemical water
conditions. Spawns in near-shore shallow
areas over beds of aquatic vegetation.

None – No suitable habitat on the
Airport property.

Reptiles
Actinemys marmorata
northwestern pond turtle
PT/SSC/— Highly aquatic species found in a broad
range of aquatic habitats including rivers
and streams, permanent lakes, ponds,
reservoirs, settling ponds, marshes, and
other inundated wetlands. May use
brackish, semi-permanent, or ephemeral
features when inundated. Requires
basking sites and loose soil in surrounding
uplands suitable for nest excavation.

Occurs throughout non-desert CA from 0
to 6,700 ft. Isolated populations are known
from the Mojave River, Susan River,
Truckee River, Carson River, and Klamath
Basin.

Low – Airport property is outside
the geographic range of this
species.
109
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 40 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Scientific Name
Common Name
Listing Status:

Federal/State/
CNPS/Local General Habitat
Potential to Occur in the Airport
Property
Amphibians
Ambystoma macrodactylum
sigillatum
southern long-toed
salamander
—/SSC/— Found under wood, logs, rocks, bark and
other objects near breeding sites, which
can include ponds, lakes, and streams.

Outside of breeding season species
retreats into burrows or other refugia.

Low – Limited suitable habitat in
the Airport property.

Lithobates pipiens
Northern leopard frog
—/SSC/— Highly aquatic species. Shoreline cover,
submerged and emergent aquatic
vegetation are important habitat
characteristics. Native range is east of the
Sierra Nevada crest.

None – Limited suitable habitat in
the Airport property, not known to
occur in the vicinity.

Rana sierrae
Sierra Nevada yellow-legged
frog
FE/ST/— Always encountered within a few feet of
water. Tadpoles may require 2 to 4 years
to complete their aquatic development.

Low – Limited suitable habitat in
the Airport property and vicinity;
not known to occur within the
vicinity.

Birds
Accipiter artricapillus
American goshawk
—/SSC/TRPA Coniferous forest with high levels of
canopy cover. Uses old nests and
maintains alternate sites. Usually nests on
north slopes, near water. Red fir, lodgepole
pine, Jeffrey pine, and aspens are typical
nest trees. Goshawks generally do not
nest near areas of human habitation or
paved roads
Low – The coniferous forests in
the Airport property and vicinity do
not provide suitable nesting
habitat for this species due to
regular human disturbance.

Asio otus
Long-eared owl
—/SSC/— Require a combination of grassland or
other open country for foraging, and
dense tall shrubs or trees for nesting and
roosting.

Low –Suitable foraging habitat is
found in the Airport property and
vicinity but the presence of the
Airport and other development
decreases the likelihood of this
species occurring.

Aquila chrysaetos
Golden eagle
—/—/FP/TRPA Forages in open terrain such as
grasslands, deserts, savannahs, and
early successional stages of forest and
shrub habitats; nests in canyons and
large trees in open habitats. In the Sierra
Nevada, golden eagles favor grasslands
and areas of shrubs or saplings, and
open-canopied woodlands of young blue
oaks.

Low –Suitable foraging habitat is
found in the meadow communities
in the Airport property and vicinity
but the presence of the Airport and
other development decreases the
likelihood of this species occurring
in the vicinity.

Cypseloides niger
black swift
—/SSC/— Breeds in the Sierra Nevada Mtns.,
Cascade Range, and Central Coast
Range. Nests in moist crevices or caves
on sea cliffs above the surf and on cliffs
behind or adjacent to waterfalls in deep
canyons. Does not overwinter in
California
None – Airport property provides
no suitable habitat.

Empidonax traillii
willow flycatcher
—/SE/— Inhabits extensive thickets of low, dense
willows on edge of wet meadows, ponds,
or backwaters. Requires dense willow
thickets for nesting/roosting. Low,
exposed branches are used for singing
posts/hunting perches.

Moderate – The montane riparian
scrub in the northern part of the
Airport property and vicinity
provides potential nesting habitat
for this species.
110
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 41 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Scientific Name
Common Name
Listing Status:

Federal/State/
CNPS/Local General Habitat
Potential to Occur in the Airport
Property
Falco peregrinus anatum
Peregrine falcon
—/—/FP/TRPA Nests on vertical cliff habitat, with large potholes or ledges, that is inaccessible to
land predators. Hunts in a wide variety of
habitats including meadows, woodlands,
marshes, and mudflats.

None – Airport property provides
no suitable nesting habitat.

Haliaeetus leucocephalus
bald eagle
FD/SE/FP/TRPA Nests in large stands with tree heights
usually over 100 ft tall. Nests typically
within one mile of water.

Low – Limited nesting habitat
within the Airport property due to
distance to foraging habitat.

Pandion haliaetus
osprey
—/—/TRPA Nests in large nests built in tree-tops
within 15 miles of a good fish-producing
body of water.

Low – Limited nesting habitat
within the Airport property due to
distance to foraging habitat.

Riparia riparia
Bank swallow
—/ST/— Colonial nester, primarily in riparian and
other lowland habitats. Requires vertical
banks/cliffs with fine-textured sandy soils
near streams, rivers, lakes to dig nesting
hole.

Low – Potential nesting habitat
occurs along the Upper Truckee
River, but no suitable habitat
occurs within the Airport property.

Strix occidentalis
occidentalis pop. 2
California spotted owl –
Sierra Nevada Distinct
Population Segment (DPS)
PT/—/SSC Occurs in dense, old-growth conifer
forests with multiple canopy layers.

Roosts are most often in dense canopy
on north facing slopes, usually within
1,000 feet of permanent water. Resides
mostly in the southern Cascade Range of
northern California, along the west slope
of the Sierra Nevada, and in the
mountains of central and southern
California south to the Mexican border.

Low – The coniferous forest in and
surrounding the Airport property
do not contain the old growth used
by this species for nesting and are
subject to regular human
disturbance.

Waterfowl Species —/—/TRPA Open water. High – The Upper Truckee River in the Airport property and vicinity
provides suitable habitat for
waterfowl.

Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
yellow-headed blackbird
—/SSC/— Nests in freshwater emergent wetlands
with dense vegetation and deep water,
often along borders of lakes or ponds.

Nests only where large insects are
abundant.

Low – Freshwater emergent
wetlands within the Airport
property provide marginal quality
habitat for this species.

Mammals
Aplodontia rufa californica
Sierra Nevada mountain
beaver
—/SSC/— Moist forest habitats with ample
vegetative ground cover. Deep, friable
soils and a cool, moist microclimate are
required for burrowing.

None – Airport property does not
provide suitable habitat.

Canis lupus
gray wolf
FE/SE/— Habitat generalist historically occupying
diverse habitats including tundra, forests,
grasslands, and deserts. Primary habitat
requirements are the presence of
adequate ungulate prey, water, and low
human contact. This native species was
likely extirpated from California in the
1920s but have returned to California on
their own by dispersal of individuals from
source populations in other states.

None – Airport property does not
provide suitable habitat. There are
no known of occurrences of
wolves around South Lake Tahoe.

Gulo gulo luscus
North American wolverine
FT/ST/FP Typically found in very remote areas of
the northern North America and high
elevation areas of the Sierra Nevada and
Rocky Mountains. Uses caves, logs, and
burrows for cover and denning. Hunts in
more open areas.

None – The presence of an
existing developed and populated
area in and near the Airport
property precludes the use of the
area by wolverine.
111
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 42 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Scientific Name
Common Name
Listing Status:

Federal/State/
CNPS/Local General Habitat
Potential to Occur in the Airport
Property
Lepus americanus tahoensis
Sierra Nevada snowshoe
hare
—/SSC/— Boreal riparian areas in the Sierra Nevada.

Thickets of deciduous trees in riparian
areas and thickets of young conifers.

Low – Airport property is outside
of the typical high-elevation habitat
preferred by this species.

Lepus townsendii townsendii
western white-tailed
jackrabbit
—/SSC/— Plains and prairie and in alpine meadows
with scattered coniferous trees.

Low – Suitable habitat for this
species occurs in the Airport
property, however this species is
less likely to occur within the
developed portions of the Basin.

Odocoileus hemionus
Mule deer
—/—/TRPA Mule deer range and habitat includes
coniferous forest, foothill woodland, shrub
land, grassland, agricultural fields, and
suburban environments.

Low– Suitable habitat for this
species occurs in the Airport
property; however mule deer are
less likely to occur within the
developed portions of the Basin.

Pekania pennanti
fisher
—/SSC/— Preferred habitat is characterized by
dense, multi-storied coniferous forest that
includes a high percentage of snags and
downed logs in proximity to riparian
corridors.

None – Coniferous forests within
the Airport property provide low
quality habitat for this species and
the species is not known to occur
in the vicinity.

Taxidea taxus
American badger
—/SSC/— Found throughout most of California
except the northern North Coast. Abundant
in drier open stages of many shrub, forest,
and herbaceous habitats with friable soils.

Friable soils are required to dig burrows for
refugia and rearing young
Low – Airport property provides
only marginally suitable habitat.

No evidence of badger dens were
observed during the biological
reconnaissance survey.

Vulpes vulpes necator
pop. 2
Sierra Nevada red fox –
Sierra Nevada DPS
FE/ST/— Found in the Cascades in Siskiyou
County and from Lassen County south to
Tulare County. Found in a variety of
habitats, including alpine dwarf-shrub, wet
meadow, subalpine conifer, lodgepole
pine, red fir, aspen, montane chaparral,
montane riparian, mixed conifer, and
ponderosa pine. Most sightings in the
Sierra Nevada are above 7,000 feet.

Uses dense vegetation and rocky areas
for cover and den sites. Den sites include
rock outcrops, hollow logs and stumps,
and burrows in deep, loose soil. Prefers
forests interspersed with meadows or
alpine fell-fields.

None – Airport property provides
limited suitable habitat and occurs
below the typical elevation range
of this species.

Invertebrates
Bombus occidentalis
western bumble bee
—/CE/— Formerly found in much of California, the
western bumble bee is now much
reduced in abundance and mostly
restricted to high meadows or coastal
environments. It currently is observed in
high elevation meadows, forests, riparian
areas in the Sierra Nevada and Cascades
as well as in coastal grasslands in
northern California. As generalist
foragers, they do not depend on any one
flower type. They feed on nectar and
pollen from flowers and nest and
hibernate in abandoned rodent burrows
and bird nests. It requires undisturbed
nest sites and overwintering sites.

Low – The Airport property lacks
the high elevation meadow habitat
typically used by this species.
112
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 43 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Scientific Name
Common Name
Listing Status:

Federal/State/
CNPS/Local General Habitat
Potential to Occur in the Airport
Property
Danaus Plexippus pop. 1
Monarch butterfly –
California overwintering
population
PT/—/— During the breeding season, monarchs
lay their eggs on their obligate milkweed
host plant (primarily Asclepias spp.). After
larvae emerge, they feed on the
milkweed. The larva then pupates into a
chrysalis before emerging 6 to 14 days
later as an adult butterfly. In temperate
climates, such as western North America,
monarchs undergo long-distance migration
to their overwintering sites. Overwintering
monarchs require specific microclimates
which are primarily located at sites along
the Pacific Coast, roosting in eucalyptus,
Monterey pines, and Monterey cypress
trees.

None – No milkweed occurs on
the Airport property and the
project areas occur outside the
range of the overwintering
population.

Plants and Fungi
Arabis rigidissima var.
demota
Galena Creek rockcress
—/—/1B.2/TRPA Well-drained, stony soil underlain by
basic volcanic rock in upper montane
coniferous forests. Occurs from 7,400 to
8,400 feet elevation. Blooms July through
August.

None – Airport property provides
no suitable habitat. Airport
property outside the known
elevational range of the species.

Astragalus austinae
Austin’s astragalus
—/—/1B.3 Exposed ridges and meadows above
timberline. Occurs from 8,005 to
9,745 feet elevation. Blooms July
(sometimes May) through September.

None – Airport property provides
no suitable habitat. Airport
property outside the known
elevational range of the species.

Boechera tularensis
Tulare rockcress
—/—/1B.3 Rocky slopes in subalpine coniferous
forests and upper montane coniferous
forests. Occurs from 5,990 to 10,990 feet
elevation. Blooms June (sometimes May)
through July (sometimes August).

None – Airport property provides
no suitable habitat.

Botrychium ascendens
upswept moonwort
—/—/2B.2 Moist habitats near springs and streams.

Occurs from 3,660 to 9,990 feet elevation.

Blooms July (sometimes June) through
August.

Moderate – Suitable habitat along
banks of the Upper Truckee River
and in the in wet meadows and
freshwater emergent wetlands in
the Airport property.

Botrychium crenulatum
scalloped moonwort
— /—/2B.2 Habitats with wet or moist soils such as
marshes, meadows, bogs, seeps, and
along the edges of lakes and streams.

Occurs from 4,160 to 10,760 feet
elevation. Blooms June through
September.

Moderate – Suitable habitat along
banks of the Upper Truckee River
and in the in wet meadows and
freshwater emergent wetlands in
the Airport property.

Brasenia schreberi
watershield
—/—/2B.3 Freshwater marshes and swamps.

Occurs from 0 to 7,220 feet elevation.

Blooms June through September.

Moderate – Suitable habitat
occurs in the freshwater emergent
wetlands in the Airport property.

Carex daveyi
Davy’s sedge
—/—/1B.3 Dry, often sparse meadows in subalpine
coniferous forest and upper montane
coniferous forest. Occurs from 4,920 to
10,500 feet elevation. Blooms May
through August.

Moderate – Suitable habitat
occurs in the sage scrub
community and in the vegetated
grassy areas around the runway
and taxiway on the Airport
property.

Carex hystericina
porcupine sedge
—/—/2B.1 Perennial rhizomatous herb found in
marshes and swamps and sometimes
stream banks. Occurs from 2,000 to
7,875 feet. Blooms May through June.

Moderate – Suitable habitat
occurs in the freshwater emergent
wetlands in the Airport property.
113
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 44 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Scientific Name
Common Name
Listing Status:

Federal/State/
CNPS/Local General Habitat
Potential to Occur in the Airport
Property
Carex limosa
mud sedge
—/—/2B.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb found in
sphagnum bogs and fens, soggy
meadows, seeps, marshes and swamps,
and edges of lakes in upper and lower
montane coniferous forest. Occurs from
3,935 to 8,860 feet. Blooms June through
August.

Moderate – Suitable habitat
occurs in the wet meadows and
freshwater emergent wetlands in
the Airport property.

Chaenactis douglasii var.
alpina
alpine dusty maidens
—/—/2B.3 Perennial herb found in alpine boulder
and rock field. Occurs from 9,400 to
11,155 feet. Blooms July through
September.

None – Airport provides no
suitable habitat and is outside the
known elevational range of the
species.

Claytonia megarhiza
fell-fields claytonia
—/—/2B.3 Perennial herb found in alpine boulder
and rock field in subalpine coniferous
forest. Occurs from 8,530 to 11,590 feet.

Blooms July through September.

None – Airport provides no
suitable habitat and is outside the
known elevational range of the
species.

Draba asterophora var.
asterophora
Tahoe draba
—/—/1B.2/TRPA Perennial herb found in alpine talus
slopes, rock outcrops and crevices, on
decomposed granite in subalpine
coniferous forest. Occurs from 8,205 to
11,500 feet. Blooms July through August
(sometimes September).

None – Airport property provides
no suitable habitat. Airport
property outside the known
elevational range of the species.

Draba asterophora var.
macrocarpa
Cup Lake draba
—/—/1B.1/TRPA Perennial herb found in subalpine
coniferous forests, in relatively deep soil
in the shade of granitic rocks. Occurs
from 8,205 to 9,235 feet. Blooms July
through August (sometimes September).

None – Airport property provides
no suitable habitat. Airport
property outside the known
elevational range of the species.

Elodium blandowii
Blandow’s bog moss
—/—/2B.3 Moss found in meadows and seeps in
subalpine coniferous forest. Occurs from
6,110 to 8,860 feet.

Moderate – Suitable habitat
occurs in the freshwater emergent
wetlands in the Airport property.

Epilobium palustre
marsh willowherb
—/—/2B.3 Perennial rhizomatous herb found in bogs,
fens, mesic meadows, and seeps. Occurs
from 4,215 to 7,695 feet. Blooms July
through September.

Moderate – Suitable habitat occurs
in the freshwater emergent
wetlands in the Airport property.

Erigeron miser
starved daisy
—/—/1B.3 Perennial herb found in rocky upper
montane coniferous forest. Occurs from
6,035 to 8,595 feet. Blooms June through
October.

Moderate – Suitable habitat
occurs in the Jeffrey pine forest
community on the Airport property.

Eriogonum luteolum var.
saltuarium
Jack’s wild buckwheat
—/—/1B.2 Annual herb found in granitic, sandy soils
of great basin scrub and upper montane
coniferous forest. Occurs from 5,580 to
7,875 feet. Blooms July through
September.

Moderate – Suitable habitat
occurs in the Jeffrey pine forest
and sagebrush scrub communities
on the Airport property.

Erythranthe carsonensis
Carson Valley monkeyflower
—/—/1B.1 Annual herb found in granitic soils in
openings of Great Basin scrub. Known
from one occurrence in California in the
vicinity of Fredricksburg in Alpine County
at 4,855 feet. Blooms April through June.

None. Airport property outside the
known geographic and elevational
range of the species.

Glyceria grandis
American managrass
—/—/2B.3 Perennial rhizomatous herb found in
found in streams, ditches, ponds, bogs,
fens, marshes, swamps, seeps, and wet
meadows. Occurs from 50 to 6,495 feet.

Booms June through August.

Moderate – Suitable habitat
occurs in the Upper Truckee River
and in the wet meadows and
freshwater emergent wetlands in
the Airport property.
114
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 45 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Scientific Name
Common Name
Listing Status:

Federal/State/
CNPS/Local General Habitat
Potential to Occur in the Airport
Property
Lewisia longipetala
long-petaled lewisia
—/—/1B.3/TRPA Perennial herb found in mesic sites, in
cracks of granite or gravely volcanic soils
in alpine boulder and rock fields and
subalpine coniferous forests. Occurs from
8,205 to 9,595 feet. Blooms July through
August (sometimes September).

None – Airport property provides
no suitable habitat. Airport
property outside the known
elevational range of the species.

Meesia uliginosa
broad-nerved hump moss
—/—/2B.2 Moss growing on damp soil in bogs, fens,
wet meadows and seeps in subalpine
coniferous forest and upper montane
coniferous forest. Occurs from 3,970 to
9,200 feet. Blooms July through October.

Moderate – Suitable habitat
occurs in the wet meadows in the
Airport property.

Oreocarya crymophila
subalpine oreocarya
—/—/1B.3 Perennial herb found in rocky, volcanic
soils of subalpine coniferous forest. Occurs
from 8,530 to 10,500 feet. Blooms July
through August.

None –Airport property outside the
known elevational range of the
species.

Phacelia stebbinsii
Stebbins’ phacelia
—/—/1B.2 Annual herb found in cismontane
woodland, lower montane coniferous
forest, and meadows and seeps. Occurs
from 2,000 to 6,595 feet. Blooms May
through July.

Moderate – Suitable habitat
occurs in the freshwater emergent
wetlands and Jeffrey pine forest
communities on the Airport
property.

Potamogeton robbinsii
Robbins’ pondweed
—/—2B.3 Aquatic perennial rhizomatous herb found
in deep water within marshes and
swamps. Occurs from 5,020 to
10,825 feet. Blooms July through August.

Low – there are no deepwater
marshes or swamps on the Airport
property. The freshwater emergent
wetlands only provide marginal
habitat due to their shallow depth.

Rorippa subumbellata
Tahoe yellowcress
—/SE/1B.1/TRPA Perennial rhizomatous herb found on
sandy beaches in decomposed granitic
sand on the shores of Lake Tahoe. Occurs
from 6,200 to 6,250 feet. Blooms May
through September.

None – Airport property provides no
suitable habitat. Airport property is
outside the geographic range of
this species.

Schoenoplectus
subterminalis
water bulrush
—/—/2B.3 Aquatic perennial rhizomatous herb found
in bogs and fens and along margins of
montane marshes and swamps. Occurs
from 2,460 to 7,380 feet. Blooms June
through August (sometimes September).

Low – There are no bogs, fens,
marshes, or swamps on the
Airport property.

Scutellaria galericulata
marsh skullcap
—/—/2B.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb found in
swamps, meadows, stream banks and
wet places in coniferous forests. Occurs
from 0 to 6,890 feet. Blooms June
through September.

Moderate – Suitable habitat
occurs along the Upper Truckee
River and in the wet meadows and
freshwater emergent wetlands in
the Airport property.

Stuckenia filiformis ssp.
alpina
northern slender pondweed
—/—/2B.2 Aquatic perennial rhizomatous herb found
in shallow, clear water of lakes, drainage
channels, marshes and swamps. Occurs
from 985 to 7,055 feet. Blooms May
through July.

Moderate – Suitable habitat
occurs in the Upper Truckee River
and in the freshwater emergent
wetlands in the Airport property.

Viola purpurea ssp. aura
golden violet
—/—/2B.2 Perennial herb found in sandy soils of
great basin scrub and pinyon juniper
woodland. Occurs from 3,280 to
8,205 feet. Blooms April through June.

Low – The Jeffrey pine forest and
sagebrush scrub communities on
the Airport property are only
marginally suitable for this species.
115
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 46 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Scientific Name
Common Name
Listing Status:

Federal/State/
CNPS/Local General Habitat
Potential to Occur in the Airport
Property
Natural Communities
Fen —/—/— A peat-accumulating wetland that
receives some drainage from surrounding
mineral soil and usually supports marshlike vegetation. Low growing herbaceous perennials with low to medium shrubs are
the dominant vegetation types. Soil is
slightly acidic and contains moderate
amounts of nutrients. Found widely
scattered in the North Coast and Klamath
ranges and through the Sierra Nevada
from Tulare Co. to OR. Elevations range
from 0 to 6,000 feet in the north portion of
the range and 5,000 to 9,000 feet in the
southern portion of the range.

None. This natural community was
not observed on Airport property
during the biological
reconnaissance survey.

Sphagnum bog —/—/— Bog with Sphagnum sp. moss and lowgrowing herbaceous perennials and low shrubs. Occurs in cold, highly acidic,
permanently waterlogged soils that are low
in available nutrients. Incomplete
decomposition of peat is common.

None. This natural community was
not observed on Airport property
during the biological
reconnaissance survey.

Key:

Federal: (USFWS)
FE = Listed as Endangered by the Federal Government
FT = Listed as Threatened by the Federal Government
FC = Candidate for listing by the Federal Government
PT/PE = Proposed for listing by the Federal Government
State: (CDFW)
SE = Listed as Endangered by the State of California
ST = Listed as Threatened by the State of California
SR = Listed as Rare by the State of California (plants only) SSC = California Species of Concern
FP = Fully Protected
CNPS: (California Native Plant Society)
Rank 1A = Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere
Rank 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2A = Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 2B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere

0.1 = Seriously endangered in California

0.2 = Fairly endangered in California

0.3 = Not very endangered in California
– = No Listing
Local: TRPA = TRPA Special Interest Species.

Source: USFWS 2025a; CDFW 2025; CNPS 2025.

Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
FESA44 prohibits unauthorized take of fish, wildlife, and plants that are listed as threatened or endangered and their designated critical habitat. Candidate species are those for which there is sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose listing, but for which the development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. Candidate species are usually evaluated as special-status species during the environmental review process. FESA specifies procedures for addressing effects or consequences of proposed actions on federally listed species.

Procedures for addressing impacts to federally listed species follow two principal pathways. The first pathway is a Section 10(a) incidental take permit, which applies to situations where a non-federal government entity must resolve potential adverse impacts to species protected under the FESA. The 44 16 USC 1531–1544.
116
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 47 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
second pathway involves Section 7 consultation, which applies to projects directly undertaken by a federal agency or private projects requiring a federal permit or approval such as a Section 404 permit under the CWA or receiving federal funding.

Clean Water Act
The federal CWA was enacted as an amendment to the federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, which outlined the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States.

The CWA serves as the primary federal law protecting the quality of the nation’s surface waters, including lakes, rivers, and coastal wetlands.

Section 401 – Under CWA Section 401, applicants for a federal license or permit to conduct activities which may result in the discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States must obtain certification from the state in which the discharge would originate or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency with jurisdiction over affected waters at the point where the discharge would originate.

Therefore, all projects that have a federal component and may affect state water quality (including projects that require federal agency approval, such as issuance of a Section 404 permit) must also comply with CWA Section 401.

Section 402 – Under the CWA Section 402, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has adopted a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit (General Permit) for storm water discharges associated with any construction activity including clearing, grading, excavation reconstruction, and dredge and fill activities that results in the disturbance of at least one acre of total land area. The general permit requires the site owner to notify the state, to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and to monitor the effectiveness of the plan.

De minimis discharge activities that are regulated by an individual or general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES) permit, such as discharges resulting in construction dewatering, also require the General Order for Dewatering and Other Low Threat Discharge to Surface Waters Permit (Section 402). Project applicants/proponents should apply for this permit concurrently with the NPDES permit application.

Section 404 – CWA Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged and fill materials into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States refers to oceans, bays, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Applicants must obtain a permit from the USACE for all discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, before proceeding with a proposed activity. Waters of the United States are under the jurisdiction of the USACE and the EPA.

Compliance with CWA Section 404 requires compliance with several other environmental laws and regulations. The USACE cannot issue an individual permit or verify the use of a general nationwide permit until the requirements of NEPA, FESA, and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have been met. In addition, USACE cannot issue or verify any permit until a water quality certification or a waiver of certification has been issued pursuant to CWA Section 401. 117
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 48 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Migratory Bird Act
The MBTA45 enacts the provisions of treaties between the U.S., Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the former Soviet Union and authorizes the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to protect and regulate the taking of migratory birds. Unless and except as permitted by regulations, the MBTA states that without a permit issued by the U.S. Department of the Interior, it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill any migratory bird. The law also applies to the intentional disturbance and removal of nests occupied by migratory birds or their eggs during the breeding season. USFWS is responsible for overseeing compliance with the MBTA.

Bald Eagle Protection Act
The Bald Eagle Protection Act46 prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald and golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from human-induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle's return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death, or nest abandonment.

State
Regional Water Quality Control Board
The SWRCB and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) (together “Boards”) are the principal state agencies with primary responsibility for the coordination and control of water quality. In the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne), the Legislature declared that the “state must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of the waters in the state from degradation …”47 Porter-Cologne grants the Boards the authority to implement and enforce the water quality laws, regulations, policies and plans to protect the groundwater and surface waters of the state. Waters of the state determined to be jurisdictional would require, if impacted, waste discharge permitting and/or a Clean Water Act Section 401 certification (in the case of the required USACE permit).

The enforcement of the state's water quality requirements is not solely the purview of the Boards and their staff. Other agencies (e.g., CDFW) have the ability to enforce certain water quality provisions in state law.

California Endangered Species Act
The CESA was enacted in 1984. Under CESA, the California Fish and Game Commission has the responsibility for maintaining a list of threatened species and endangered species. Pursuant to the requirements of the CESA, an agency reviewing a project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any state-listed endangered or threatened species may be present in the project site and determine whether the project would have a potentially significant impact on such species. In addition, CDFW encourages informal consultation on any project which may impact a candidate species. The CESA prohibits the take of California listed animals and plants in most cases, but CDFW may issue incidental take permits under special conditions.
45 16 USC 703–712. 46 16 U.S.C. 668–668c. 47 California Water Code section 13000. 118
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 49 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Pursuant to the requirements of the CESA, an agency reviewing a project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any state-listed endangered or threatened species may be present in the project study area and determine whether the project would have a potentially significant impact on such species.

Project-related impacts to species on the CESA endangered or threatened list would be considered significant. “Take” of protected species incidental to otherwise lawful management activities may be authorized under Fish and Game Code Section 206.591. Authorization from CDFW would be in the form of an incidental take permit under Section 2801.

California Fish and Game Code
The California Fish and Game Code protects a variety of species from take. Certain species are considered fully protected, meaning that the code explicitly prohibits all take of individuals of these species except for take permitted for scientific research. It is also possible for a species to be protected under the California Fish and Game Code, but not fully protected.

Fully Protected Species – Certain species are considered fully protected, meaning that the code explicitly prohibits all take of individuals of these species except for take permitted for scientific research.

Section 5050 lists fully protected amphibians and reptiles, Section 5515 lists fully protected fish, Section 3511 lists fully protected birds, and Section 4700 lists fully protected mammals. Except as provided in Sections 2081.7 or 2835, fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the species for the protection of livestock.

Nesting Birds and Birds-of-Prey (CA Fish and Game Code Section 3503, 3503.5, 3800, 3505) – Under Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code, it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Section 3503.5 of the code prohibits take, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes (hawks) or Strigiformes (owls), or of their nests and eggs. Migratory non-game birds are protected under Section 3800, while other specified birds are protected under Section 3505.

Take Prohibition (CA Fish and Game Code Section 86, 2080) – Fish and Game Code Section 86 defines ‘take’ and Section 2080 prohibits ‘taking’ of a species listed as threatened or endangered under CESA48 or otherwise fully protected, as defined in CA Fish and Game Code Section 3511, 4700, and 5050.

Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (CA Fish and Game Code Section 1602) – CDFW has jurisdictional authority over streams and lakes and the wetland resources associated with these aquatic systems under California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 et seq. through administration of lake or streambed alteration agreements. Such agreements are not a permit, but rather a mutual accord between CDFW and the project proponent. California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. was repealed and replaced in October of 2003 with the new Section 1600–1616 that took effect on January 1, 2004 (Senate Bill No. 418 Sher). Under the new code, CDFW has the authority to regulate work that will “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river lake or stream.” CDFW enters into a streambed alteration agreement with the project proponent and can impose conditions in the 48 California Fish and Game Code Section 2080.
119
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 50 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
agreement to minimize and mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Because CDFW includes under its jurisdiction streamside habitats that may not qualify as wetlands under the federal CWA definition, CDFW jurisdiction may be broader than the USACE jurisdiction.

A project proponent must submit a notification of streambed alteration to CDFW before construction. The notification requires an application fee for streambed alteration agreements, with a specific fee schedule to be determined by CDFW. CDFW can enter into programmatic agreements that cover recurring operation and maintenance activities and regional plans. These agreements are sometimes referred to as Master Streambed Alteration Agreements (MSAAs).

Under Fish and Game Code Section 1602 (Streambed Alteration Agreements), the CDFW takes jurisdiction over the stream zone which is defined top of bank or outside extent of riparian vegetation, whichever is the greatest. Within the stream zone, waters of the state are typically delineated to include the streambed to the top of the bank and adjacent areas that would meet any one of the three wetland parameters in the USACE definition (vegetation, hydrology, and/or soils). Whereas federal jurisdiction requires meeting all three parameters, in practice meeting one parameter, or even the presence (rather than dominance) of wetland plants in an area associated with a jurisdictional streambed would qualify an area as waters of the state. CDFW jurisdiction is not limited to navigable waters or tributaries to navigable waters; however, isolated wetlands and wetlands not associated with a streambed are not subject to CDFW jurisdiction.

Native Plant Protection Act (CA Fish and Game Code Section 1900-1913) State listing of plant species began in 1977 with the passage of the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), which directed the CDFW to carry out the legislature’s intent to “preserve, protect, and enhance endangered plants in this state.” The NPPA gave the California Fish and Game Commission the power to designate native plants as endangered or rare and to require permits for collecting, transporting, or selling such plants. CESA expanded on the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection for plants. CESA established threatened and endangered species categories and grandfathered all rare animals—but not rare plants—into the act as threatened species. Thus, three listing categories for plants are employed in California: rare, threatened, and endangered.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15380
Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, CEQA Guidelines section 15380(d) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specific criteria.

CEQA also specifies the protection of other locally or regionally significant resources, including natural communities or habitats. Although natural communities do not presently have legal protection, CEQA requires an assessment of such communities and potential project impacts. Natural communities that are identified as sensitive in the CNDDB are considered by the CDFW to be significant resources and fall under the CEQA Guidelines for addressing impacts.
120
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 51 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Local
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Environmental Thresholds TRPA has established environmental thresholds for vegetation, wildlife, and fisheries. These environmental thresholds are used to establish the significance of an environmental effect to biological resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin. TRPA environmental thresholds for biological resources are defined below.

Vegetation Thresholds
Common Vegetation
Management Standard: Increase plant and structural diversity of forest communities through appropriate management practices as measured by diversity indices of species richness, relative abundance, and pattern.

Richness – Maintain the existing species richness of the Basin by providing for the perpetuation of the following plant associations:

Yellow Pine Forest: Jeffrey pine, white fir, incense cedar, sugar pine.

Red Fir Forest: red fir, Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, western white pine, mountain hemlock, western juniper.

Subalpine Forest: whitebark pine, mountain hemlock, mountain mahogany.

Shrub Associations: greenleaf and pinemat manzanita, tobacco brush, Sierra chinquapin, huckleberry oak, mountain whitethorn.

Sagebrush Scrub Vegetation: basin sagebrush, bitterbrush, Douglas chaenactis.

Deciduous Riparian: quaking aspen, mountain alder, black cottonwood, willow.

Meadow Association (wet and dry meadow): mountain squirrel tail, alpine gentian, whorled penstemon, asters, fescues, mountain brome, corn lilies, mountain bentgrass, hairgrass, marsh marigold, elephant heads, tinker's penney, mountain Timothy, sedges, rushes, buttercups.

Wetland Associations (marsh vegetation): pond lilies, buckbean, mare’s tail, pondweed, common bladderwort, bottle sedge, common spikerush.

Cushion Plant Association (alpine scrub): alpine phlox, dwarf ragwort, draba.

Relative Abundance – Of the total amount of undisturbed vegetation in the Lake Tahoe Basin:
• Maintain at least 4 percent meadow and wetland vegetation. • Maintain at least 4 percent deciduous riparian vegetation. • Maintain no more than 25 percent dominant shrub association vegetation. • Maintain 15–25 percent of the Yellow Pine Forest in seral stages other than mature. • Maintain 15–25 percent of the Red Fir Forest in seral stages other than mature.

Pattern – Provide for the proper juxtaposition of vegetation communities and age classes by:
• Limiting acreage size of new forest openings to no more than eight acres. • Adjacent openings shall not be of the same relative age class or successional stage to avoid uniformity in stand composition and age.
121
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 52 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
A non-degradation standard to preserve plant communities shall apply to native deciduous trees, wetlands, and meadows while providing for opportunities to increase the acreage of such riparian associations to be consistent with the stream environment zone49 (SEZ) threshold.

Native vegetation shall be maintained at a maximum level to be consistent with the limits defined in the Land Capability Classification of the Lake Tahoe Basin, California-Nevada, A Guide for Planning, Bailey, 1974, for allowable impervious cover and permanent site disturbance.

Late Seral and Old Growth Forest Ecosystems
Numerical Standard: Attain and maintain a minimum of 55 percent by area of forested lands within the Tahoe Basin in a late seral or old growth condition, and distributed across elevation zones. To achieve the 55 percent, the elevation zones shall contribute as follows:
• The Subalpine zone (greater than 8,500 feet elevation) will contribute 5 percent (7,600 acres) of the forested land;
• The Upper Montane zone (between 7,000 and 8,500 feet elevation) will contribute 30 percent (45,900 acres) of forested land;
• The Montane zone (lower than 7,000 feet elevation) will contribute 20 percent (30,600 acres) of forested land.

Forested lands within TRPA-designated urban areas are excluded in the calculation for threshold attainment. Areas of the montane zone within 1,250 feet or urban areas may be included in the calculation for threshold attainment if the area is actively being managed for late seral and old growth conditions and has been mapped by TRPA. A maximum value of 40 percent of the lands within 1,250 feet of urban areas may be included in the calculation.

Because of these restrictions the following percentage of each elevation zone must be attained to achieve this threshold:
• 61 percent of the Subalpine zone must be in late seral or old growth condition; • 60 percent of the Upper Montane zone must be in late seral or old growth condition; • 48 percent of the Montane Zone must be in late seral or old growth condition.

Uncommon Plant Communities
Numerical Standard: Provide for the non-degradation of the natural qualities of any plant community that is uncommon to the Tahoe Basin or of exceptional scientific, ecological, or scenic value. This threshold shall apply but not be limited to:

1. The deepwater plants of Lake Tahoe

2. Grass Lake (sphagnum bog)
49 A stream environment zone is an area that owes its biological and physical characteristics to the presence of surface or ground water. The precise definition is an area determined to be an SEZ by application of the criteria set forth in the TRPA’s Water Quality Management Plan for the Lake Tahoe Region, Volume III, SEZ Protection and Restoration Program, dated November 1988.
122
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 53 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025

3. Osgood swamp

4. The Freel Peak Cushion Plant community

5. Taylor Creek Marsh

6. Pope Marsh

7. Upper Truckee Marsh

8. Hell Hole
Sensitive Plants
Numerical Standard: Maintain a minimum number of population sites in the Tahoe Basin for each of the five sensitive plant species identified in Table 7.

TABLE 7

TRPA SENSITIVE PLANTS
Species Minimum Number of Population Sites
Arabis rigidissima var. demota 7
Draba asterophora var. asterophora 5
Draba asterophora var. macrocarpa 2
Lewisia longipetala 2
Rorippa subumbellata 26
Source: TRPA
Wildlife Thresholds
Special Interest Species
Numerical Standard: Provide a minimum number of population sites and disturbance zones in the Tahoe Basin for the species identified in Table 8.

TABLE 8

TRPA SPECIAL INTEREST WILDLIFE SPECIES
Species of
Interest
Minimum Number
of Population Sites Disturbance Zone (mi.)
Influence
Zone (mi.)
Goshawk 12 Most suitable 500 acres surrounding a nest site including a 0.25-mile buffer centered on nest sites.

3.50 Osprey 4 0.25 0.60
Bald eagle (wintering) 2 Mapped areas Mapped areas
Bald eagle (nesting) 1 0.50 Variable
Golden eagle 4 0.25 9.0
Peregrine falcon 2 0.25 7.6
Waterfowl 18 Mapped areas Mapped areas
Deer — Mapped areas Meadows
Source: TRPA
123
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 54 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Habitats of Special Significance
Management Standard: A non-degradation standard shall apply to significant wildlife habitat consisting of deciduous trees, wetlands, and meadows while providing for opportunities to increase the acreage of such riparian associations.

Fisheries Thresholds
Stream Habitat
Numerical Standard: Maintain the 75 miles of excellent, 105 miles of good, and 38 miles of marginal stream habitat as indicated by the Stream Habitat Quality Overlay map, amended May 1997, based upon the re-rated stream scores set for in Appendix C-1 of the 1996 Evaluation Report.

Instream Flows
Management Standard: Until instream flow standards are established in the Regional Plan to protect fishery values, a non-degradation standard shall apply to instream flows.

Policy Statement: It shall be a policy of the TRPA Governing Board to seek transfers of existing points of water diversion from streams to Lake Tahoe.

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout
Policy Statement: It shall be the policy of the TRPA Governing Board to support, in response to justifiable evidence, state and federal efforts to reintroduce Lahontan cutthroat trout.

Lake Habitat
Management Standard: A non-degradation standard shall apply to fish habitat in Lake Tahoe. Achieve the equivalent of 5,948 total acres of excellent habitat as indicated by the Prime Fish Habitat Overlay Map as may be amended based on best available science.

TRPA Code of Ordinances
The TRPA Code of Ordinances compiles all the laws and ordinances needed to implement the TRPA’s Regional Plan. The following chapters are relevant to biological resources: Chapter 61, Vegetation and Forest Health; Chapter 62, Wildlife Resources; and Chapter 63, Fish Resources.

Impact Analysis
Topic a
The following analysis considers the potential for the proposed project to have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on special-status species that are known or have potential to occur on or near the project site.

Database searches of the CNDDB,50 the CNPS’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants,51 and USFWS’s Resource List52 were conducted within the Airport property and vicinity to identify previously reported occurrences of special-status species. A reconnaissance-level field survey to characterize existing conditions and determine the potential for the occurrence of special-status species was conducted on 50 CDFW 2025. 51 CNPS 2025. 52 USFWS 2025.
124
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 55 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
May 19, 2025. Table 6 above summarizes the potential for special-status species to occur on the Airport property. No special-status species were observed during the field visits. Detailed below is a summary of those findings and proposed mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts to less than significant levels.

Special-Status Wildlife Species
Database queries returned thirty-one special-status wildlife species that could occur or that have been documented in the vicinity of the Airport property. Only four of these species: Lahontan mountain sucker, mountain whitefish, willow flycatcher and waterfowl, have a moderate or high potential to occur within the Airport property due to the habitat conditions present, distance to known occurrences of the species, or both. Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act protect raptors and passerines and their eggs and nests from incidental “take.” These protections apply to both specialstatus birds identified in Table 6 and other birds that may occur in the project area. The implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-3 would ensure that potential impacts to these special-status species and nesting birds would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Nesting Birds
Construction activities performed during the bird nesting season (March 1 to August 31), especially those that involve the use of mechanized equipment (e.g., grading and excavation), or vegetation removal could affect nesting bird species within 0.25-mile of the project sites. The loss or failure of any active nest by direct (i.e., removing vegetation containing a nest) or indirect (nest abandonment caused by construction disturbance), must be avoided under federal and California law described previously. If construction activities and the removal and trimming of vegetation are scheduled during the bird nesting season, the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure that potential impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potential Bird Collision
In addition to disturbance impacts on nesting birds there is potential for direct bird mortality to occur through collisions of birds and aircraft. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in aircraft operations, and thus the proposed project would not increase the potential or number of bird-related mortalities due to collisions with aircraft compared with the baseline condition. The impact would be less than significant.

Special-Status Fish Species
Lahontan mountain sucker and mountain whitefish have potential to occur within the Upper Truckee River where it crosses through the Airport property. No work is proposed in or immediately adjacent to the Upper Truckee River. Work to remove the blast pads and construct the new ASOS will occur within 150 feet of the river. Impacts to special-status fish could occur if excess sediment or hazardous materials enter the river while they are present. This would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would protect the water quality in the Upper Truckee River and would ensure that potential impacts to special-status fish would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Special-Status Plant Species
Database queries returned twenty-nine special-status plant species that could occur or that have been documented in the vicinity of the Airport property. Of these, fifteen have a moderate potential to occur 125
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 56 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
within or in the vicinity of the Airport property. The reconnaissance-level survey conducted for this project did not record presence of any special-status plant species; however, this survey does not constitute a full botanical inventory of the site and does not meet the requirements outlined in the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. 53 The majority of these species are associated with the Upper Truckee River, freshwater emergent wetlands, and the Jeffrey pine forest communities that are outside of the developed footprint of the Airport property and would not be impacted by the proposed project. However, the potential for impacting special-status plant species exists in undeveloped locations within the Airport. If construction activities and the removal and trimming of vegetation are located in undeveloped areas that have the potential to support specialstatus plant species, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would ensure that potential project impacts to special-status plant species would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Topic b
A formal wetland delineation has not yet been conducted within the Airport property. A portion of the Upper Truckee River flows through the eastern side of the Airport property and an intermittent channelized tributary of the Upper Truckee River flows along the west side of the taxiway through the Airport property. Areas of wetland vegetation and wetland hydrology were identified in low areas between the taxiway and runway, and around the Upper Truckee River. A small detention basin was observed just south of the aircraft hangars. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would ensure that the proposed project would be designed to avoid, restore, or compensate for direct and indirect effects to any potentially jurisdictional features and that the project would not impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the TRPA, CDFW or USFWS. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Topic c
As described above, 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 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.

Topic d
The project would not create barriers or temporarily disturb any high-quality wildlife movement corridors such as streams or riparian corridors. The Airport property is small in relation to surrounding habitats with higher quality wildlife habitat. The proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The impact would be less than significant.

Topic e
TRPA has established environmental thresholds for vegetation, wildlife, and fisheries. As described above, Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 would ensure that the proposed project would 53 CDFW 2018.
126
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 57 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
not result in significant impacts to special-status wildlife, plants, or their habitats. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would ensure that any potential temporary or permanent impacts to wetlands or waters of the United States or state would be fully mitigated consistent with TRPA ordinances. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure that potential project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Topic f
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan that apply to the Airport property. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
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.

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. 127
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 58 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
• 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.
• 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 drip-pans. 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.

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.

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 Ordinances, Section 33.6, Vegetation Protection During Construction and Chapter 61, Vegetation and Forest Health shall be integrated into project design plans.
128
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 59 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
References
Baldwin, B.G., D. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D. Wilken (eds.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Sacramento, CA.
———. 2023. California Natural Community List. Accessed June 2025. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/ FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline.
———. 2025. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Search for the U.S. Geological Survey

7.5-minute South Lake Tahoe Topographic Quadrangle and Surrounding Six quadrangles. Accessed June 2025.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2025. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Sacramento, California. Accessed June 2025. http://rareplants.cnps.org/index.html.

Google Earth. 2025. Aerial Imagery of Study Area. Accessed June 2025. https://earth.google.com/web/.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2025a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC).

Species List Generated: June 2, 2025. Accessed June 2, 2025. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. ———. 2025b. Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species. Critical Habitat Portal Online Mapper. Accessed June 2025. http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/. ———. 2025c. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed June 2025. http://fws.gov/wetlands/. 129
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 60 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Cultural Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Regulatory Framework
Federal
Although the proposed project is not anticipated to require compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the federal guidelines for the treatment of cultural resources are relevant for determining whether cultural resources, as defined under CEQA, are present, and for guiding the treatment of such resources. The following sections summarize the relevant federal regulations and guidelines.

National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 was enacted primarily to acknowledge the importance of protecting the heritage of the United States from federal development. The following describes the NHPA’s responsibilities:
• Set the federal policy for preserving our nation’s heritage. • Establish a federal-state and federal-tribal partnership. • Establish the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and National Historic Landmarks Programs.
• Mandate the selection of qualified state historic preservation officers (SHPOs). • Establish the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. • Charge federal agencies with responsible stewardship. • Establish the role of certified local governments within the states.

The regulations supporting the federal policy for historic preservation set by the NHPA can be found in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) title 36, part 800 (36 CFR 800), “Protection of Historic Properties.” This provides guidelines on how to follow the policy set forth in the NHPA.

National Register of Historic Places
The National Register is the nation’s master inventory of cultural resources worthy of preservation. It is administered by the National Park Service, which is represented at the state level by the SHPO. The National Register includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archeological, or cultural significance at the federal, state, or local level. Resources that are listed in or have been found by the SHPO to be eligible for listing in the National Register are called historic properties.
130
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 61 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Under the NHPA, a property is considered significant if it meets the NHPA listing criteria in 36 CFR

60.4, which read as follows:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and
a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or c) that embody the characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent works 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) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Although there are exceptions, certain kinds of resources are not usually considered for listing in the National Register: religious properties, moved properties, birthplaces and graves, cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years.

In addition to meeting at least one of the four criteria, a property or district must retain integrity, meaning that it must have the ability to convey its significance through the retention of seven aspects, or qualities, that in various combinations define integrity:
– Location: The place where the historic property was constructed. – Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure, and style of the property.
– Setting: The physical environment of the historic property, inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the buildings.
– Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property. – Workmanship: Physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history.
– Feeling: The property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. – Association: Direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

Properties that are listed in the National Register, as well as properties that are formally determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register, are automatically listed in the California Register and therefore are considered historical resources under CEQA.54 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Secretary’s Standards) 54 California Code of Regulations Title 14, section 4851, Historical Resources Eligible for Listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, accessed January 27, 2025, https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I67F9B4365B4D11EC976B 000D3A7C4BC3?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData= (sc.Default)&bhcp=1.
131
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 62 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
were published and codified as 36 CFR 68 in 1995 and updated in 2017.55 The Secretary’s Standards for rehabilitation have been adopted by local government bodies across the country for reviewing proposed work on historic properties under local preservation ordinances. The Secretary’s Standards provide a useful analytical tool for understanding and describing the potential impacts of changes to historic resources and are used to inform CEQA review. Developed by the National Park Service for reviewing certified rehabilitation tax credit projects, the rehabilitation standards provide guidance for reviewing work on historic properties.

Conformance with all rehabilitation standards does not determine whether a project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource under CEQA. Rather, projects that comply with the standards benefit from a regulatory presumption that they would have a less-thansignificant adverse impact on a historic resource. Projects that do not comply with the rehabilitation standards may or may not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource and would require further analysis to determine whether the historic resource would be “materially impaired” by the project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b).

State
California implements the NHPA through its statewide comprehensive cultural resource preservation programs. The California Office of Historic Preservation, an office of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, implements the policies of the NHPA on a statewide level. The California Office of Historic Preservation also maintains the California Historical Resources Inventory. The SHPO is an appointed official who implements historic preservation programs within the state’s jurisdiction.

California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects in California. To be considered a historical resource, a property must generally be at least 50 years old; often a threshold of 45 years is used to account for project buildout. A historical resource is defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 as a cultural resource (i.e., a built-environment resource, archaeological resource, or human remains) that meets at least one of the following criteria:
1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register.
2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Public Resources Code section 5024.1(g), shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial 55 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer), The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstruction Historic Buildings, revised 2017, accessed January 27, 2025, https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/secretarystandards-treatment-historic-properties.htm. 132
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 63 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register. 4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to of the Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Public Resources Code section 5024.1(g)) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

Therefore, under the CEQA Guidelines, even if a resource is not included in any federal, state, or local register or identified in a qualifying historical resources survey, a lead agency may still determine that any resource is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA if there is substantial evidence supporting such a determination. A lead agency must consider a resource to be historically significant if it finds that the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register.

CEQA requires a lead agency to determine whether a proposed project would have a significant effect on important historical resources or unique archaeological resources. If a resource is neither a unique archaeological resource nor a historical resource, the CEQA Guidelines note that the effects of the project on that resource shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)). As noted above, projects that comply with the Secretary’s Standards benefit from a regulatory presumption under CEQA that they would have a less-than-significant impact on a historical resource. Projects that do not comply with the Secretary’s Standards may or may not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and must be subject to further analysis to assess whether they would result in material impairment of a historic resource’s significance.

California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register, administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation, is the authoritative guide to historical and archeological resources that are significant within the context of California’s history. The eligibility criteria for inclusion in the California Register are based on and correspond to the National Register criteria. Under CEQA, certain resources are determined to be automatically included in the California Register, including California properties that are formally eligible for or listed in the National Register. These resources are considered historical resources by the San Francisco Planning Department for the purposes of CEQA. The criteria used for determining eligibility for listing in the California Register closely parallel those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register but also include relevance to California history. To be eligible for listing in the California Register as a historical resource, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria (Public Resources Code section 5024.1(c)):
• Criterion 1 (Event): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California. • Criterion 2 (Person): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to history. • Criterion 3 (Design/Construction): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values.
• Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important in prehistory or history.
133
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 64 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
In addition, to be considered eligible for listing in the California Register, a historical resource must possess integrity. Consideration of integrity for evaluation of California Register eligibility closely follows the seven aspects of integrity that apply to the National Register (listed above).

Local
South Lake Tahoe General Plan
The Natural and Cultural Resources Element of the South Lake Tahoe General Plan includes the following goals and policies to protect archaeological, historic, and cultural resources.

Goal NCR-4: To preserve and maintain sites and structures that serve as significant, visible connections to South Lake Tahoe’s social, cultural, and architectural history.

Policy NCR‐4.1: Significant Site Preservation. The City shall preserve sites of historical, cultural and architectural significance within the city, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties.

Policy NCR‐4.2: Historic Landmark Designation. The City shall designate structures or sites having special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value as local historic landmarks. The City shall protect local historic landmarks from demolition and inappropriate alterations, and develop criteria for evaluating the appropriateness for sites or structures to be designated as local historic landmarks, and provide incentives for preservation of local historic landmarks.

Policy NCR‐4.3: Archeological Investigations. The City shall require archeological investigations for all applicable discretionary projects, in accordance with CEQA regulations, for areas not previously surveyed and/or that are determined sensitive for cultural resources (e.g., undeveloped parcels near water features). The City shall require the preservation of discovered archeologically significant resources (as determined based on TRPA, state, and federal standards by a qualified professional) in place if feasible, or provide mitigation (avoidance, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures) prior to further disturbance.

Policy NCR‐4.5: Human Remain Discovery. The City shall require/condition projects and other ground disturbance activities to notify the City if human remains are discovered and halt work.

The County Coroner will be notified according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5(d) and (e) shall be followed.

Tahoe Regional Planning Authority Code of Ordinances
South Lake Tahoe does not have its own set of local designation criteria. Rather, Municipal Code section 6.10.120 (Building Design) refers to the TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 29 for the process of review related to historic resources. Chapter 29 has been superseded by Chapter 67: Historic Resource Protection.
134
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 65 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
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.
135
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 66 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Cultural Context
Pre-contact Setting
The project site is located in the vicinity of two archaeological complexes: the Martis Complex (4,000 to 1,500 years before present [B.P.]) and the Kings Beach Complex (1,500 to 150 B.P.). Initial characterizations of the Martis Complex highlighted a preference for basalt in the production of bifaces and large, roughly chipped, heavy projectile points that are variable in form; basalt drills; the rare use of chert and obsidian for tool production; the use of the mano and metate; and an economy that appeared to emphasize hunting of large game. The Martis Complex may be connected to cultures in Central California and the Great Basin, but may represent a widespread cultural pattern along the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada. Initial characterizations of the Kings Beach Complex highlighted a preference for obsidian in the production of small projectile points; the rare use of basalt; an absence of drills; the use of bedrock mortars; and an economic emphasis on seed processing and fishing. At about 1,500 B.P. (before present), changes in technology and subsistence and settlement strategies indicate the decline of the Martis Complex and the emergence of the Kings Beach Complex. Early King Beach (1,300–700 B.P.) is thought to represent the initial phase of the Washoe ethnographic pattern.

Ethnographic Setting – Washoe
The project site is located on the ancestral lands of the washoan-speaking, a branch of the Hokan language, Washoe (or Washo) people, near areas ethnographically associated with the Wel mel it. 56 Their territory
from time immemorial is bordered by the steep Sierra Nevada Mountains to the west, Honey Lake to the north, the Pine Nut Mountains and Virginia Mountain range to the east, the Sonora Pass to the south, and at the heart is Lake Tahoe.57 Lake Tahoe or Da ow a ga is considered by the Washoe to be the center of their world, for it “breaths life” in the surrounding ecosystems and people.58 Numerous tributaries flow throughout their territory; in particular, the Upper Truckee River flows through the Plan Area. The Washoe, a Great Basin people, are categorized into subgroups or bands that are characterized by slight differences in language, customs, and geography. These subgroups include the northern Wel mel ti, the eastern Pau wa lu, and the southern Hung a lel ti.
59,60 Although their habitation settlements were historically concentrated within their 4,000 square mile territory, the Washoe transversed an estimated 10,000 to 13,000 square miles during seasonal explorations west into the California Central Valley, south to Mono Lake, and east along several rivers in Nevada to Pyramid Lake and Walker Lake.61,62,63 The Washoe population estimates of the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries ranged from approximately 500 to 1,500.64 Traditionally, the Washoe lived in small autonomous egalitarian local communities that were led at times by an informal or elected male or female detumu (“the one in front”), who, during instances of violence, co-led with a war leader.65 Regional communities, which were comprised of multiple local communities existed throughout the territory. The local communities were comprised of family units that established permanent winter settlements and 56 Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 2009. 57 Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 2009. 58 Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 2009. 59 D’Azevedo 1986. 60 Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 2009. 61 D’Azevedo 1986. 62 Davenport 2019. 63 USFS, n.d. 64 D’Azevedo 1986. 65 D’Azevedo 1986. 136
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 67 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
temporary seasonal mobile camps in the valleys and mountains.66 Shared areas and corridors existed for not only the Washoe, but also neighboring tribes such as the Paiute and Maidu.67,68 Economically, the Washoe engage in hunting, fishing, and gathering. Their territory encompassed open valley meadows and marshland, foothills, and mountain environments that contained a wide variety of resources. Of these resources, the pronghorn antelope, mule deer, mountain sheep, white-tailed jackrabbit, cottontail, snowshoe hare, other small mammals, trout, Tahoe suckers, Lahontan tui chub, mountain whitefish, various non-predatory or scavenging bird species, insects, honey, the piñon nut, acorn, and a variety of berries, mushrooms, bulbs, roots, grasses, leafy plants, and seeds were utilized for consumption, medicinal, and utilitarian purposes.69,70 Hunting strategies and weaponry included the use of blinds and deer disguises and the bow and arrow with basalt, chert, flint, and obsidian projectile points.71 The Truckee River and Lake Tahoe were major year-round fisheries with desirable locations for villages and camps.

Long nets, snares, traps, or the bow and arrow were used to collect small mammals and birds. Spears, bone fishhooks, harpoons, nets and basketry, dams, weirs, and fish traps were used for fishing. The art of twining and coiled basketry was highly important as their products were used in ceremonial practices, food preparation, water and food storage, cradle construction, and other activities. Traditionally, willow rods, willow sewing and twinning elements, fern, bracken root, and redbud bard were used.72,73 Traditional multigeneration and unique marker designs were used. The production of baskets, especially by the southern Washoe, intensified as the demand by settlers increased during the late 19th and 20th centuries.

Washoe lifeways were not directly affected by the earliest historic-period activities in California and Nevada. However, By the 1850s and 1860s, thousands of outsiders, including fur trappers, explorers, and those migrating west, had moved through their territory to reach California.74 At the same time, Central Pacific Railroad laborers, ranchers, miners, and other settlers within the territory restricted Washoe peoples’ use of traditional lands and resources. These newcomers brought diseases and violence that impacted some communities. Although their settlement, subsistence, cultural, and religious practices were profoundly disrupted by the loss of lands and extreme pressures to assimilate, many traditional customs persist among the Washoe people today. They are strongly represented by a variety of organizations, such as the federally recognized Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California (Carson Colony, Dresslerville Colony, Woodfords Community, Stewart Community, & Washoe Ranches).75 Under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, the Washoe began to form a tribal government and called themselves the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California. In 1937, the tribe adopted a constitution and laws and was recognized as a formally organized tribe. They are committed to the preservation of their culture and language, the protection of sites and objects, and stewardship of over 10,000 square miles of ancestral territory in California and Nevada, including nine counties, six national forests, and four Bureau of Land Management districts. 66 Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 2020. 67 D’Azevedo 1986. 68 Davenport 2019). 69 Barrett 1917. 70 D’Azevedo 1986. 71 Henton and Markley 1985. 72 Barrett 1917. 73 Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 2009. 74 Davenport 2019. 75 USBIA 2022. 137
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 68 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Historic Era Context
Exploration and Access
The following general historical summary of the area is excerpted from the South Lake Tahoe General Plan:76
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.

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 76 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=. 138
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 69 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
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 percent) is owned or managed by federal or state governments.77 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.78 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.79
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.”80 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.81 By the 1930s, rope tows made accessing the tops of ski slopes much easier.82 The first in the basin were installed at what is now the Sugar Bowl Resort when it opened in 1939.83 Immediately after the war, a series of ski resorts opened all along the basin’s western half: Sierra-atTahoe (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.84 To prepare, the Squaw Valley Development Corporation had to construct roads, bridges, administrative buildings, hotels, restaurants, not to mention 77 Tahoe Fund, “Tahoe’s Environmental History,” accessed May 20, 2025. 78 Tahoe Fund, “Tahoe’s Environmental History.” 79 Tahoe Fund, “Tahoe’s Environmental History.” 80 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/. 81 “Sierra Heritage: History of California Skiing,” Tahoetopia.com, accessed May 20, 2025, https://tahoetopia.com/news/sierraheritage-history-california-skiing. 82 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/. 83 Sugarbowl, “Skiing Happy Since 1939,” accessed May 20, 2025, https://www.sugarbowl.com/history. 84 Palisades Tahoe, “History Runs Deep,” accessed May 20, 2025, https://www.palisadestahoe.com/explore/our-history. 139
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 70 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
lifts, ski runs, and facilities needed to actually host the events.85 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.86 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.87
One of the answers was creation of the TRPA, a bi-state agency authorized by Congress to manage growth and development in the watershed.88
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.89 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.90 However, runway construction began concurrently with planning efforts. When the Tahoe Valley Airport opened on August 1, 1959,91 it opened with no master plan document. 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.92 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.93 In spite of the airport having no night lighting, no air traffic control tower, and no hangars, the plan was for 85 Jenny Goldsmith, “2020 Hindsight: Looking Back on 100 Years of Historical Events at Lake Tahoe,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, February 27, 2020. 86 “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_7747cd38-34aa5673-8d1d-03f99da21355.html. 87 “45 Years Later – Lake Tahoe Feels Ripples of 1960 Games,” The Union, March 3, 2005. 88 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-in-the-basin/. 89 Lake Tahoe Airport, “History of Lake Tahoe’s Airports,” October 18, 2018, 2, https://cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/12754/10182018_AIRPORT-HISTORY. 90 “History and Reason for Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Listed,” Tahoe Sierra Tribune, October 22, 1959, 4. 91 “History of Lake Tahoe’s Airports,” 2. 92 “Airport Manager Operator Term Master Plan as Not Realistic,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, September 3, 1959. 93 Promotional brochure, August 1963. 140
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 71 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
it to sustain 24-hour operations in time for the Olympics in February 1960.94 Indeed, the airport recorded 1,170 flights in November 1959, justifying the need for an airfield to serve the area.95 From the beginning, El Dorado County, who operated the Airport, sought support from local businesses (casinos) and the federal government to expand Airport facilities.96 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.97 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.98 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.99 The temporary terminal was long and narrow, measuring 120-feet by 20-feet and consisted of prefabricated structures moved to the site.100,101 In 1962, the runway was extended to 8,540 feet and a fire and rescue building was constructed at the end of the runway.102 Shortly thereafter, a larger hangar was added to the north end of the runway (extant).103,104 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 FAA air traffic control.105 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.106,107 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.108 The delay in approval of a terminal seems to stem from issues around financing construction.109,110 94 “Airport Work Reprogramming Approved; Lights, Beacons scheduled for November 15,” Tahoe Mountain Tribune, August 27, 1959. 95 “1170 Operations Reported for Moth at Tahoe Airport,” Tahoe Mountain Tribune, December 1, 1959. 96 “History and Reason,” October 22, 1959. 97 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. 98 “History and Reason,” October 22, 1959. 99 “The Lake Tahoe Airport,” Tahoe Realty News, May 1, 1960. 100 “The Lake Tahoe Airport,” Tahoe Realty News, May 1, 1960. 101 “County Seeks Lease-Back Offers for Tahoe Airport Terminal,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, April 4, 1968, A3. 102 “FAAP’s at Tahoe, Too,” promotional brochure, August 1963. 103 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. 104 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. 105 “FAA Tower at Tahoe Easily Justifies its Construction, “Tahoe Daily Tribune, November 4, 1965, 12. 106 “FAA Tower,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, November 4, 1965. 107 “Nearing Completion,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, October 5, 1964. 108 “Proposed Terminal,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, January 26, 1965. 109 “Airport Terminal Proposal Rejected,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, June 11, 1963, 1. 110 “Supervisors See Big Future for Airport,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, July 1, 1965. 141
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 72 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
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. 111 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.112 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.113 This master plan was prepared by engineer Reinhard Brandley of Sacramento.114 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.115 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) providing the preferred proposal.116 Shortly after, a rendering of an A-frame design was proposed.117 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.”118 At the same time, other reports noted that the County wanted to formalize a handoff to the City prior to undertaking the terminal project.119 This second justification for delay seems to be the more accurate, as shortly thereafter in June 1969,120 plans were drawn up for the current terminal showing a design that was remarkably similar to the rendering published in August 1968.121 Construction on the terminal began in early 1970 after removal of the temporary terminal building. It was constructed by Gil Construction of Pacheco122 at a cost of approximately $800,000, with structural engineering design by AV Colosi and Associates of Oakland.123 After years of waiting for a permanent terminal, the final completion and dedication of the building was further delayed as disputes over the 111 “City Asked to Take Over Tahoe Airport Operation,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, December 2, 1965. 112 “Should City Take Over Lake Tahoe’s Airport,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, January 6, 1966. 113 “County Orders Updated Master Plan for Tahoe Airport,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, October 12, 1967, 1. 114 “County Orders,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, October 12, 1967. 115 “County Receives Money for Tahoe Airport Runway Project,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, July 20, 1968, 1. 116 “County Considering Lease-Back for New Tahoe Airport Terminal,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, August 1, 1968, 1 & 3. 117 “A-Frame Plus,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, August 8, 1968, 41. 118 Ceremonies Friday Will Re-Open Tahoe Airport,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, October 24, 1968, 12. 119 “A-Frame Plus,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, August 8, 1968, 41. 120 “Architect for Tahoe Air Terminal,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, February 13, 1969, 3. 121 “Structural Plan,” prepared by AV Colosi and Associates, dated June 16, 1969, on file with the Lake Tahoe Airport. 122 “Contract Let for Tahoe Airport Terminal Building,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, August 7, 1969, 27. 123 “Architect for Tahoe,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, February 13, 1969. 142
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 73 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
funding and financing model for terminal construction festered between county supervisors.124 Regardless, the terminal finally opened to the public in July 1970.125 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.126 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.

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 1994.127,128 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.) Methodology
Records Search
ESA received the results of a records search from the North Central Information Center (NCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) on December 18, 2024 (File No. ELD-24- 122). The review included the proposed project site and a 0.5-mile radius. Previous surveys, studies, and site records were accessed. Records were also reviewed in the Built Environment Resources Directory and Archaeological Resources Directory for El Dorado County, which contain information on places of recognized historical significance, including those evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Inventory of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest. The purpose of the records search was to (1) determine whether known cultural resources have been recorded within the proposed project vicinity, (2) assess the likelihood for unrecorded cultural resources to be present based on historical references and the distribution of nearby sites, and (3) develop a context for the identification and preliminary evaluation of cultural resources.

The NCIC records search indicated that 33 previously recorded archaeological resources are mapped within or within 0.5-mile of the project site. Among these resources, eight are mapped within the project site and three are mapped within 100 feet. The resources recorded within the project site consist of one multi-component site with both pre-contact and historic-era components (P-09-0005817), two historic-era road alignments (P-09-004529; P-09-004537), two historic-era refuse scatters (P-09-004332; P-09- 004535), a historic-era campsite (P-09-005814), and a historic-era fence (P-09-005816). 124 “No Water – But Tahoe Airport Terminal Opening on Weekend,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, May 21, 1970, 10. 125 “Old and New,” Placerville Mountain Democrat, July 16, 1970, 36. 126 All these buildings, minus the terminal, are shown on a 1969 aerial as viewed in Google Earth. 127 “Pilots Now Have Place to Store Planes,” Tahoe Daily Tribune, date unknown. 128 Architectural Plans, September 1993. On file with the Lake Tahoe Airport. 143
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 74 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Architectural Resources
Architectural Resources Survey
ESA conducted an intensive site survey of the entire Airport property on March 20, 2025. At that time, all buildings and built features on the Airport property were photographed and recorded. Original documents and photographs maintained on the Airport property were reviewed and photographed. Additional research was conducted at local archives and through online databases. As a result of the survey and preliminary research, ESA identified two potential historic architectural resources for further evaluation and recordation: the Lake Tahoe Airport and the Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal. No other individual buildings or features of the Lake Tahoe Airport appeared to warrant individual recordation and evaluation after completing the initial round of archival research.

Historic Architectural Resources Analysis
ESA evaluated both the Lake Tahoe Airport and the Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal for eligibility for listing in the California Register and as a local historic resource as defined by the TRPA. The results of that analysis are found in Appendix C. The following summarizes those findings.

As a complex, the Lake Tahoe Airport is recommended ineligible for listing on the California Register or as a local historic resource as defined by the TRPA. The complex was developed over an approximately 60 year period and does not reflect a single unified architectural plan, nor does it reflect a cohesive master plan. It does not appear to have had a historically significant role in regional development, nor does it have an association with important historical events. No historically significant individuals are associated with the Airport. Also, it does not appear to provide potential for informing the greater understanding of Airport construction.

The Lake Tahoe Terminal Building (Terminal) 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 character-defining features of the Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal are 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; and 144
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 75 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
• 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.

The Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal qualifies as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.

Archaeological Resources
Cultural Resources Survey
An ESA archaeologist completed a pedestrian surface survey of the Airport property on May 19, 2025.

The archaeological survey included all accessible and unpaved areas within the fenced runway and Airport area, and targeted survey of the locations of known cultural resources outside of the fence that are within the Airport’s property boundary.

During the pedestrian survey the previously recorded resources were revisited and documented. No new archaeological resources were identified during the survey.

ESA evaluated the California Register eligibility and historic resource designation under TPRA’s ordinances of these resources as documented in the Archaeological Resources Inventory Report prepared for this analysis.129 As a result of these evaluations, all historic-era archaeological resources, including two roads/trails (P-09-004529, P-09-004537), four refuse scatters (P-09-004332, P-09-004535, P-09- 005815, and the historic-era component of P-09-005817), the remains of a summer camp (P-09-005814), a fence segment (P-09-005816) were recommended as not eligible for the California Register and not eligible as a historic resource under TPRA’s ordinances.

The pre-contact component of P-09-005817 consists of two bedrock milling features, each with one mortar cup. This resource is recommended to be treated as eligible for the California Register and as a historic resource under TRPA’s ordinances for this project. Therefore, P-09-005817 is considered a historical resource under CEQA.

Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment
The underlying geology at the area consists of Holocene-age flood plain deposits in the area where the runway and terminal are located and Pleistocene-age glacial tell and lacustrine terrace deposits on the upland areas on the western and eastern edges of the Airport property.130 Because the Airport runway was constructed on a floodplain and the alignment of the Upper Truckee River was diverted east, soils within the fenced portion of the Airport’s property that includes the runway, hangars, and terminal are located on artificial fill and soils brought deposited to elevate the Airport. The alignment of the Upper Truckee Creek to the east of the runway is entirely artificial. Prior to construction of the Airport, this area was a braided channel that meandered throughout the entire riparian corridor. Soils along the eastern edges of the Airport boundary appear to not have been significantly disturbed by construction of the Airport. Soils in this area consist of Gefo gravelly loamy coarse sand and Ubaj and Jabu series sandy loams.131 129 Sims, Ashleigh, Tahoe Airport Master Plan, Archaeological Resources Inventory Report. Confidential report on file at City of South Lake Tahoe, June 2025. 130 Saucedo 2005. 131 USDA 2025. 145
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 76 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Due to the significant level of disturbance and the placement of artificial fill, the fenced portion of the Airport property and the area between the Airport fence and the eastern bank of the Upper Truckee River, has a very low sensitivity for buried pre-contact archaeological resources. The very eastern and northeastern edge of the Airport property has some potential for buried archaeological resources. This area also appears to have not been impacted by construction of the Airport. Therefore, undisturbed portions of the eastern and northeastern edge of the Airport property have a moderate potential for pre-contact archaeological resources.

The proposed project does not include ground disturbing components in these areas.

Impact Analysis
Topic a
Within the project site there is one historical resource, the Lake Tahoe Airport Terminal. This building is located between the parking lot along Lisa Maloff Way and the apron on a site that sloped such that the main entrance is at the second floor, while apron access is at the first floor. The project proposes several actions that are located in the vicinity of the Terminal. This includes replacement/reconstruction of the existing GSE facility located south of the Terminal and construction of a new multi-story parking structure in the location of the current parking lot. The project also includes one action that occurs within the Terminal: relocation of the Airport’s main electrical control system from inside the Terminal to a separate electrical vault located just south of the Terminal. All other proposed actions are located at the north or south ends of the runway or otherwise are not in the immediate vicinity of the Terminal.

The Terminal is recommended eligible for the California Register under Criterion 3 for its architectural design. Construction of a new parking multi-story parking garage would alter the setting in which the Terminal currently exists by introducing a new building that would limit views of the forest and mountains to the west. However, this alteration of the setting would not remove any character-defining features of the Terminal as noted above. Similarly, replacement of the GSE building with a new building would not remove or otherwise modify any character-defining features of the architectural design.

Relocation of the electrical control system from the Terminal interior to a new, separate, exterior electrical vault would require internal modifications to the Terminal. However, the interior of the building has been modified extensively since it was constructed in 1970. Those remaining interior characterdefining features associated with public spaces include open peak framing and views to the east. Neither of these features are associated with the electrical operation of the building or the Airport and neither would be altered by moving the electrical controls outside the building.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not alter character-defining features of the Terminal to a degree that the building would lose its ability to adequate convey its historical significance.

All work associated with the proposed project is either not associated with the Terminal or does not alter features of the Terminal that are part of its significance for architectural design. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Topic b
This section discusses archaeological resources, both as historical resources according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, as well as unique archaeological resources, as defined in California Public Resources (PRC) (CEQA) Section 21083.2(g). A significant impact would occur if the project would 146
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 77 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
cause a substantial adverse change to an archaeological resource through physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource.

Based on the results of the records search, background research, pedestrian survey, resource evaluation, and archaeological sensitivity assessment, one archaeological historical resource was identified on the Airport property. The pre-contact component of P-09-005817 consists of two bedrock milling features, each with one mortar cup. This resource is more than 800 feet away from any components of the proposed project, including the landside and airside improvements. Therefore, this resource would not be impacted by the proposed project.

The archaeological sensitivity analysis found that the project area, consisting of the proposed areas where the landside and airside improvements are proposed, has a low potential for encountering archaeological resources. While unlikely, there is the potential for the discovery of buried archaeological resources during ground-disturbing activities. Accordingly, the proposed project shall implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1, Cultural Resources Awareness Training, and Mitigation Measure CUL-2:

Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources, to determine, mitigate, and reduce any potential significant impacts. If any previously unrecorded archaeological resources are identified during proposed project ground-disturbing activities and were found to qualify as a historical resource per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 or a unique archaeological resource, as defined in PRC (CEQA) Section 21083.2(g), any impacts to the resource resulting from the proposed project could be potentially significant. Any such potential significant impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-2. Therefore, the potential impacts to the significance of archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Topic c
Based on the records search and survey results, no human remains are known to exist within the project site. It is possible that human remains would be encountered during construction of the proposed project.

Therefore, the possibility of inadvertent discovery cannot be entirely discounted. In the event of the discovery of human remains during project construction activities, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3, Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains, would reduce potential impacts to human remains. Therefore, the potential impacts associated with disturbance of human remains would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
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.
147
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 78 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
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).

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.

References
California Code of Regulations. Title 14, Section 4851, Historical Resources Eligible for Listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I67F9B4365 B4D11EC976B000D3A7C4BC3?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transition Type=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1.

City of South Lake Tahoe. 2010. 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-Environmental-Impact-Report?bidId=.

North Central Information Center. Records Search File No. ELD-24-122. On file, ESA, December 18, ESA.
148
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 79 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Saucedo, G.J. 2005. Geologic map of the Lake Tahoe bins, California and Nevada. California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map. Scale 1:100,000.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2024. TRPA Code of Ordinances. Adopted by the Governing Board December 12, 2012, Amended June 6, 2024.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2025. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. Version 3.4. Accessed June 4, 2025.
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer. 2017. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstruction Historic Buildings. Revised 2017. https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/secretary-standards-treatment-historic-properties.htm. 149
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 80 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Energy
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VI. ENERGY — Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Regulatory Framework
State
State of California Energy Action Plan
The California Energy Committee (CEC) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved the first State of California Energy Action Plan in 2003. The plan established shared goals and specific actions to ensure that adequate, reliable, and reasonably priced electrical power and natural gas supplies are provided. It also identified policies, strategies, and actions that are cost-effective and environmentally sound for California’s consumers and taxpayers.

In 2005, the CEC and CPUC adopted a second Energy Action Plan to reflect various policy changes and actions from the prior two years. At the beginning of 2008, the agencies determined that it would not be necessary or productive to prepare a new energy action plan. This determination was based in part on a finding that the state’s energy policies have been significantly influenced by the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (discussed below). Rather than produce a new energy action plan, the CEC and CPUC prepared an update that examines the state’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change.

California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,132 which focused on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020. Under Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has the primary responsibility for reducing GHG emissions in California; however, AB 32 also tasked the CEC and CPUC with providing information, analysis, and recommendations to CARB regarding strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the energy sector.

In 2016, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 and its companion bill, AB 197.

SB 32 and AB 197 amended Health and Safety Code Division 25.5 and established a new climate pollution reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, with provisions to ensure that the benefits of state climate policies reach disadvantaged communities. 132 California Health and Safety Code, Division 25.5.
150
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 81 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Assembly Bill 1279 (California Climate Crisis Act)
Signed into law in September 2022, AB 1279 requires the State of California to achieve two objectives by 2045 or sooner: (1) net zero GHG emissions; and (2) a reduction in statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions of 85 percent below 1990 levels. AB 1279 requires CARB to identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality, and to identify and implement policies and strategies for GHG removal and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies. It is anticipated that the energy sector will have a large role in achieving the AB 1279 emissions reduction goals.

California Integrated Energy Policy
In 2002, the Legislature enacted SB 1389, which required the CEC to develop an integrated energy plan every two years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels, for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs.

The CEC has adopted the 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update, which assesses major energy trends and issues facing the state’s electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors and provides policy recommendations to conserve resources; protect the environment; ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies; enhance the state’s economy; and protect public health and safety. The 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report covers a broad range of topics, including energy reliability, demand planning, fossil fuel transition, and embedding equity and environmental justice at the CEC, among other issues.133
Local
Adopted El Dorado County General Plan
The adopted General Plan provides for long-range direction and policy for the use of land within the county. It provides a mechanism through which the County can focus on the issues of greatest local concern and a basis for decision-making regarding long-term physical development. The following General Plan goals, objectives, and policies related to energy resources are applicable to the proposed project:

Objective 5.6.2: Encourage Energy-Efficient Development Policy 5.6.2.1. Require energy conserving landscaping plans for all projects requiring design review or other discretionary approval.

Impact Analysis
Topic a
Development of the proposed project at the Airport would result in energy use primarily during construction, including fuel consumption by off-road equipment and construction-related vehicle trips.

Operational energy use would be minimal and limited to electricity demand from new features such as lighting in the parking structure and electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. 133 CEC 2023.
151
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 82 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
The proposed project does not include any elements that would result in an unusually high use of transportation fuel as compared to other or similar developments. The volume of diesel and gasoline fuels that would be consumed during construction were calculated based on the estimated greenhouse gas emissions for the project and the gasoline and diesel CO2 emission factors from The Climate Registry.134 Based on the proposed project’s estimated equipment use and construction duration, it is estimated to result in the consumption of a total of approximately 89,710 gallons of diesel fuel and a total of approximately 2,994 gallons of gasoline during the construction period. Fuel use during construction would represent 0.13 percent of diesel and less than 0.1 percent of gasoline sold in El Dorado County in 2023. Therefore, fuel use during construction would be minimal in comparison to the overall usage within El Dorado County.

Operation of the proposed project would comply with CALGreen Title 24 energy efficiency requirements, which would ensure that electricity use associated with the operation of the project would not be wasteful or inefficient. The proposed project would not alter Airport operations, including staffing, flights, or customer activity; therefore, operational emissions would remain unchanged and there would be no change in fuel consumption from vehicles.

For the above reasons, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy use inefficiencies, and/or the energy intensiveness of materials by amount and fuel type for construction and operation of the project. The proposed project would comply with all existing energy standards, including those established by the County, and would not result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. For these reasons, the proposed project would be expected to result in a less-than-significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation.

Topic b
The proposed project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations regulating energy usage. In addition, energy providers are actively implementing measures to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and to improve energy efficiency. The primary energy provider in the project area is Algonquin Power and Utilities, who generate more than 70 percent of their power from a diverse portfolio of renewable sources.135 Algonquin Power would be subject to SB 100 and the California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard Program. Signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, SB 100 increased California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard target to 60 percent of total electric retail sales by 2030 and requires 100 percent of electric retail sales to come from eligible renewable or carbon-free resources by 2045.

Algonquin, as the utility provider, is subject to these requirements. Other statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g., the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and the impact would be less than significant. 134 TCR 2024. 135 Algonquin Power 2024.
152
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 83 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Mitigation Measures
None required.

References
Algonquin Power. 2024. 2024 ESG Report. Accessed June 2025. https://algonquinpower.com/uploads/docs/AQN-ESG-Report-2024.pdf.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2023. Final 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/Adopted_2022_IEPR_Update_with_errata_ ada.pdf. Accessed June 2025.

The Climate Registry (TCR). 2024. 2024 Default Emission Factors. Accessed June 2025. https://theclimateregistry.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-Emission-Factor-Document_ FINAL.pdf.
153
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 84 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Geology and Soils
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Regulatory Framework
Federal
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
The Earthquake Hazards Reductions Act (EHRA) (42 U.S. Code Section 7701 et seq.) passed in 1977 and is designed to minimize the risks to lives and properties from future earthquakes and seismic activity on a nationwide scale by installing a hazards reduction program that effectively addresses earthquakes. In this process, the federal government implemented the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). Congress adopted the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Act (NEHRPA) to amend the NEHRP in November 1990 to refine the description of agency responsibilities, program goals, and objectives, and reauthorized the act in 2004.

The mission of the NEHRP is to provide improved understanding, characterization, and prediction of hazards vulnerabilities; improved building codes and land use practices; risk reduction through postearthquake investigations and education; development and improvement of design and construction techniques; increased mitigation capacity; and accelerated application of research findings. The NEHRPA gives the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) lead agency status for this program, which 154
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 85 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
allows FEMA to assign numerous planning, coordinating, and reporting responsibilities. Other agencies affiliated with the NEHRPA include the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit
The NPDES system was established within the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial point discharges to surface waters of the United States. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the CWA (33 U.S. Code Section 1301 et seq.) and its associated regulations promulgated by the USEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 122 et seq.) requiring the permitting of stormwater-generated pollution under the NPDES. The SWRCB’s jurisdiction is administered through nine regional water quality control boards. Under the federal CWA and the PorterCologne Act, an operator must obtain coverage under the General Construction Permit for any construction or demolition activity (i.e., clearing, grading, and excavation) that results in a land disturbance of one acre or more. The General Permit requires the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce sedimentation into surface waters and to control erosion.

The CWA was amended in 1987 to require NPDES permits for non-point source (i.e., stormwater) pollutants in discharges. Stormwater sources are diffuse and originate over a wide area rather than from a definable point. The goal of NPDES stormwater regulations is to improve the quality of stormwater discharged to receiving waters to the “maximum extent practicable” through the use of structural and nonstructural BMPs. BMPs can include the development and implementation of various practices including educational measures (workshops informing public of what impacts results when household chemicals are dumped into storm drains), regulatory measures (local authority of drainage facility design), public policy measures, and structural measures (filter strips, grass swales, and detention ponds). One element involving compliance with the NPDES permit is preparation of a SWPPP that addresses the control of water pollution, including sediment, in runoff during construction (see the Hydrology and Water Quality section for more information about the NPDES and SWPPPs).

State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act, Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 2621–2630) is intended to mitigate the effects of surface faulting on structures designed for human occupancy. This law primarily serves to act as a preventive measure for the construction of buildings for human occupancy directly on the surface trace of active faults, but addresses no seismic hazards apart from the hazard of surface fault rapture. In accordance with this Act, the State Geologist is required to establish regulatory zones, known as Earthquake Fault Zones, around the surface traces of active faults and map the designated regions accordingly for all affected cities, counties, and California agencies. If a development is within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the affected jurisdiction must require a geologic investigation to prove that the proposed structures would not be constructed across active faults prior to approving any development.

The California Building Standards Commission is responsible for coordinating, managing, adopting, and approving building codes in California. The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) (CCR Title 24). Where no other building codes apply, CBC Chapter 18 regulates excavation, foundations, and retaining walls. 155
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 86 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) (California PRC Section 2710 et seq.) was enacted by the California Legislature in 1975 to regulate activities related to mineral resource extraction. The act requires the prevention of adverse environmental effects caused by mining, the reclamation of mined lands for alternative land uses, and the elimination of hazards to public health and safety from the effects of mining activities. At the same time, SMARA encourages both the conservation and the production of extractive mineral resources, requiring the State Geologist to identify and attach levels of significance to the state’s varied extractive resource deposits. Under SMARA, the mining industry in California must plan adequately for the reclamation of mined sites for beneficial uses and provide financial assurances to guarantee that the approved reclamation will actually be implemented.

The requirements of SMARA must be implemented by the local lead agency with permitting responsibility for the proposed mining project.

Local
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Regional Plan
In 1969, Nevada and California established the TRPA with the consent of Congress through a bi-state compact. TRPA is the nation’s first environmental organization with land use authority crossing state lines and continues to be unique in the United States. The bi-state compact charges TRPA with establishing a regional plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin with the mandate to achieve environmental standards, called thresholds. Environmental threshold standards set long-term environmental goals for the region.

The TRPA Regional Plan outlines actions to attain these thresholds that restore Lake Tahoe while balancing economic and community vitality. The compact gives TRPA authority to enforce the TRPA Code of Ordinances (described below). Goal S-1 of the TRPA Regional Plan seeks to minimize soil erosion and the loss of soil productivity, and features policies that are focused on generally limiting new impervious land coverage and, in particular, prohibiting new impervious land coverage in designated land capability districts, with some limited exceptions. Policy S-1.2 establishes a requirement to prohibit new impervious land coverage in Land Capability Districts 1-3, and a large portion of the Airport is designated as 1B.

Policy S-1.2 (C) allows public service facilities within Land Capability Districts 1-3, such as the Airport and the improvements envisioned in the proposed project, pending the following requirements are met:
i. The project is necessary for public health, safety, or environmental protection; ii. There is no reasonable alternative, which avoids or reduces the extent of encroachment in land capability districts 1-3;
iii. The impacts are fully mitigated;
iv. Land capability districts 1-3 lands are restored in the amount of 1.5 times the area of land capability districts 1-3 which is disturbed or developed beyond that permitted by the Bailey co-efficients; and v. Alternatively, because of their public and environmental benefits, special provisions for nonmotorized public trails may be allowed and defined by ordinances.136 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Code of Ordinances
Chapter 33 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, Grading and Construction, is intended to apply to grading, excavation, filling, clearing of vegetation, or disturbance of the soil, and protection of vegetation during 136 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), 1987, Threshold Standards and Regional Plan, adopted by the TRPA Governing Board June 25, 1987, updated December 12, 2012, amended May 22, 2024. 156
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 87 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
construction. Section 33.3 provides grading standards as they relate to seasonal weather conditions, discharge requirements, dust control, material disposal, cutting and filling practices, standards for excavation, and standards for the discovery of historic resources. Per section 33.5, the Code of Ordinances also provides additional scheduling requirements for projects presenting special problems with regard to project completion, site development, or water quality management, such as crossings of stream environment zones, major earthworks, or major clearing projects. In this scenario, TRPA may require, as a condition of approval, submittal, and approval of project schedules prior to site disturbance.

Changes to the schedules shall be provided to TRPA prior to commencing the activity on the schedule.

Lastly, Chapter 60 provides water discharge standards coming from properties in the Lake Tahoe Basin in addition to regulations for domestic, municipal, and industrial wastewater discharge. The Code of Ordinances provides standards for both surface runoff and discharge affecting groundwater.137 South Lake Tahoe General Plan
In the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan, which was adopted on May 17, 2011, the Health and Safety Element provides policy context for the City of South Lake Tahoe to achieve its vision for future health and safety, and includes standards for emergency response and disaster preparedness; fire hazards; seismic and geologic hazards; flooding hazards; avalanche hazards; hazardous materials; airport hazards; and noise. In particular, Policy HS-3.2 calls on the City to promote the upgrade, retrofitting, and/or relocation of all existing critical facilities and other public facilities that do not currently meet building standards and are within areas susceptible to seismic or geologic hazards. 138
South Lake Tahoe City Code
In the City of South Lake Tahoe City Code, Chapter 7.20 (Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control) is designed to provide the following regulatory mechanisms:

1. Regulating grading on both public and private property within the city of South Lake Tahoe to safeguard life, limb, health, property, and public welfare;

2. To avoid pollution of watercourses with hazardous materials, nutrients, sediments, or other earthen materials generated on or caused by surface runoff or by aerial deposition of pollutants generated from the permit area on or across the permit area; and

3. To ensure that the intended use of a graded site is consistent with the city of South Lake Tahoe general plan, any specific plans adopted thereto and applicable city of South Lake Tahoe ordinances including the zoning ordinance, flood damage prevention ordinance, environmental review ordinance and applicable chapters of the California Building Code. In the event of conflict between this chapter and state or federal law, this chapter shall prevail unless preempted by the state or federal law. In the event of conflict between this chapter and other chapters of the South Lake Tahoe City Code, this chapter shall prevail.139
137 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), 2012, TRPA Code of Ordinances, adopted December 12, 2012, Effective February 9, 2013, amended June 26, 2024. 138 City of South Lake Tahoe, 2011, South Lake Tahoe General Plan, adopted May 17, 2011. 139 City of South Lake Tahoe, 2024, South Lake Tahoe City Code, Chapter 7.20, Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control. Current through Ordinance 1192, passed December 10, 2024.
157
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 88 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Impact Analysis
Topic a.i
The proposed project comprises a long-range plan for Airport development that includes both airside and landside improvements that would occur over approximately a 20-year period. 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. The proposed Airport Master Plan projects are depicted on Figure 7 and are described in the Project Description. Construction activities pertaining to the proposed project would occur primarily on the paved surface of the Airport property and would include limited excavation, grading, and disturbance of unpaved ground surface within the Airport property. The proposed project is intended to improve the safety of existing Airport operations, meet compliance with current FAA design standards, and accommodate existing and forecasted aviation demands.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in aircraft operations or an increase in the number of Airport employees.

There are two inactive faults located in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The West Tahoe Fault is located to the west of Lake Tahoe, and the other is unnamed. The Airport is not located in any seismic hazard zones regulated under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, nor is it located within any special study zones. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Topic a.ii
As specified in the CBC, the Lake Tahoe Basin is located in Seismic Zone D, which is prone to high seismicity and has the potential to produce intense ground shaking from earthquakes. As a result, buildings constructed in the region are required to build to a standard capable of withstanding Seismic Zone D hazards. Compliance with these regulations helps prevent significant damage and public safety risks during an earthquake.

The City of South Lake Tahoe has adopted the California Building Standards Code, which thereby requires all new buildings, including those included in the proposed project, to withstand the potential seismic hazards within the Lake Tahoe Basin. Accordingly, new buildings constructed under the Airport Master Plan would be built to accommodate the risks of fault rupture and ground shaking. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Topic a.iii
The Lake Tahoe Basin is located in a mountainous region, with elevations ranging from approximately 6,200 to 11,000 feet. While the region is home to two inactive faults, none of the City of South Lake Tahoe, including the Airport, is located within a Seismic Hazard Zone, as regulated by the California Geological Survey. Therefore, the region surrounding the Airport features a minimal risk of liquefaction or lateral spreading, an additional geological hazard typically associated with areas capable of liquefaction. In addition, the project site is on largely graded and developed land, and the majority of the proposed project components would occur on land that has already been developed. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
158
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 89 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Topic a.iv
The Lake Tahoe Basin contains a variety of mountains ranging between 6,200 and 11,000 feet in elevation, and features many areas that are susceptible to landslides. However, the project site is on largely graded and developed land, and the majority of the proposed project components would occur on land that has already been developed. Thus, the potential for landslides to occur within the project site as a result of the proposed project is minimal, and the impact would be less than significant.

Topics b through d
The proposed project would involve a series of improvements within the Airport, largely focused on improving and replacing existing facilities, along with some completely new structures. Some of these components (such as the proposed parking garage) would include excavation and land disturbance.

However, federal, state, and local standards have been established that would require the project to adhere to several permitting and regulatory conditions. Construction activities disturbing equal to or greater than one acre would be required to apply for an NPDES SWPPP permit, which is regulated by the RWQCB and, as such, necessitates erosion prevention measures for the construction and operation phases of the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to meet the standards provided in Chapter 7.20 of the City of South Lake Tahoe City Code, Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control. As a result of these actions, this impact would be less than significant.

Topic e
The Airport features no septic tanks and the proposed project would not involve the creation of any septic systems or alternative wastewater systems. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Topic f
No unique paleontological resources or geologic features are known to occur on the Airport property.

Project construction activities would occur primarily on the paved surface of the Airport property and would include limited excavation, grading, and disturbance of unpaved ground surface. While highly unlikely, it is possible that ground-disturbing activities off the paved Airport surface could inadvertently encounter and damage previously unknown subsurface paleontological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
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.

References
City of South Lake Tahoe. 2011. South Lake Tahoe General Plan. Adopted May 17, 2011. ———. 2024. South Lake Tahoe City Code. Chapter 7.20, Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control.

Current through Ordinance 1192, passed December 10, 2024. 159
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 90 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 1987. Threshold Standards and Regional Plan. Adopted by the TRPA Governing Board June 25, 1987. Updated December 12, 2012. Amended May 22, 2024. ———. 2012. TRPA Code of Ordinances. Adopted December 12, 2012. Effective February 9, 2013.

Amended June 26, 2024.
160
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 91 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Regulatory Framework
State
A variety of statewide rules and regulations mandate the quantification and, if emissions exceed established thresholds, the reduction of GHGs. CEQA requires lead agencies to evaluate project-related GHG emissions and the potential for projects to contribute to climate change and to provide appropriate mitigation in cases where the lead agency determines that a project would result in a significant addition of GHGs to the atmosphere. Below is a discussion of other state programs, regulations, plans, and goals designed to reduce GHG emissions.

Executive Order S-3-05
In June 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05, which established the following statewide emission-reduction targets through the year 2050:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

This executive order does not contain any requirements that directly pertain to the proposed project; however, future actions taken by the State of California and the EDCAQMD to implement these goals may affect the proposed project, depending on the specific measures that are developed and their timeline of implementation
Executive Order B-55-18
In September 2018, Governor Brown signed Executive Order B-55-18, committing California to total, economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. Executive Order B-55-18 directs CARB to work with relevant state agencies to develop a framework to implement accounting to track progress toward this goal. The goal will be incorporated into future Scoping Plans, as policies and actions which affect major sectors of California’s economy, including transportation, agriculture, development, industrial, and others. This executive order does not contain any requirements that would need to be implemented at the project level.

The carbon neutrality requirements would be implemented on a regional and local level through regional electricity providers and vehicle and equipment standards. 161
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 92 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Climate Change Scoping Plan (AB 32 Scoping Plan)
In December 2008, CARB approved the AB 32 Scoping Plan, outlining the State of California’s strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit. The Scoping Plan estimates a reduction of 174 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) (about 191 million tons) from the transportation, energy, agriculture, forestry, and high-climate-change-potential sectors, and proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify California’s energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. The Scoping Plan must be updated every 5 years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on track to achieve the 2020 GHG reduction goal. Appendices C and E of the adopted 2008 AB 32 Scoping Plan include a list of 39 recommended action measures to reduce GHG emissions.140 CARB released its first Scoping Plan Update in May 2014141 and subsequent updates in 2017 and 2022, as described below.

Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 32
In April 2015, Governor Brown issued an Executive Order B-30-15 to establish a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Reaching this emission reduction target will facilitate California in reaching its ultimate goal of reducing emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050, as identified in Executive Order S-3-05.

Subsequently, Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), which codifies the Executive Order’s 2030 emissions reduction target, was approved by the Governor on September 8, 2016. SB 32 requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the 1990 statewide GHG emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030.

Assembly Bill 1279 (California Climate Crisis Act)
Signed into law in September of 2022, AB 1279 requires the state to achieve two things by 2045 or sooner:
(1) net zero GHG emissions and (2) a reduction in statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions of 85 percent below 1990 levels. AB 1279 requires CARB to ensure that the 2022 Scoping Plan, described further below, identifies and recommends measures to achieve carbon neutrality, and to identify and implement policies and strategies for CO2 removal and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality
The 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan), adopted by CARB in December 2022, expands on prior Scoping Plans and responds to AB 1279 by outlining a technologically feasible, cost-effective, and equity-focused path to achieve the state’s climate target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels and achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier.142 The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon. 140 CARB 2008. 141 CARB 2014. 142 CARB 2022.
162
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 93 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
The 2022 Scoping Plan also discusses the role of local governments in meeting the State’s GHG emissions reduction goals because local governments have jurisdiction and land use authority related to community-scale planning and permitting processes, local codes and actions, outreach and education programs, and municipal operations. The efforts of local governments to reduce GHG emissions within their jurisdictions are critical to achieving the state’s long-term climate goals. Furthermore, local governments make critical decisions on how and when to deploy transportation infrastructure and can choose to support transit, walking, bicycling, and neighborhoods that allow people to transition away from cars; they can adopt building ordinances that exceed statewide building code requirements; and they play a critical role in facilitating the rollout of zero-emission vehicle infrastructure.143 The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies a construction equipment sector action for the Scoping Plan Scenario that commits to 25 percent of energy demand to be electrified by 2030 and 75 percent electrified by 2045.144 Since construction of the proposed project would be completed prior to 2030, this construction equipment sector action is not directly applicable to the proposed project.

Regional
South Lake Tahoe Climate Action Plan
The City developed its first Climate Action Plan (CAP), which was adopted in October 2020. The CAP provides actions to reduce GHG emissions from the construction sector, including:

Action ZNE-1: Adopt green building standard. Develop the code to require or incentivize the following measures in new construction (new buildings, additions, major alterations, and repairs to existing buildings):
• All electric appliances;
• Energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements beyond Title 24 standards; • Efficient indoor and outdoor lighting standards;
• Installation of 240-volt outlets in garages for EV charging; and • Installation of Energy Star appliances wherever appliances are furnished as a standard part of the construction.

Impact Analysis
Topic a, b
Neither EDCAQMD nor TRPA have adopted a numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions.

As previously discussed, in the Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Newhall Land and Farming (CBD vs. CDFW) case the Court provided some guidance to evaluate the cumulative significance of a project’s GHG emissions, which include relying on existing numerical thresholds of significance established by another air district. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) has developed significance thresholds for GHG emissions, which include 1,100 MT CO2e per year during construction. For operations, thresholds include a 10,000 MT CO2e per year for stationary sources and for land use emissions, SMAQMD has tier based thresholds.

Projects must implement Tier 1 best management practices (no natural gas infrastructure and CALGreen 143 CARB 2022. 144 CARB 2022.
163
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 94 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Tier 2 compliance with EV-ready spaces), and if emissions still exceed 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year, Tier 2 measures are required to reduce vehicle miles traveled by 15 percent for residential and office uses or achieve no net increase for retail uses.145 Although the SMAQMD GHG thresholds are not strictly applicable to the EDCAQMD, the SMAQMD GHG thresholds are currently being used by other air districts in the region such as the Bay Area Air District and Placer County Air Pollution Control District in evaluating GHG impacts and is the best available standard for evaluation.

During construction, the proposed project would generate emissions of GHG from operation of heavyduty construction equipment, operation of worker vehicles and haul trucks, excavation of materials, paving activities, and application of architectural coatings. Construction GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1. Specific information on building acreages and paving surfaces for the proposed project was used to generate CalEEMod defaults for construction phases, equipment, vehicle trips, and truck haul trips. Because the construction schedule is unknown, emissions were conservatively estimated assuming all project elements occur simultaneously.

In reality, annual GHG emissions would be lower, as construction would be spread over 20 years.

Detailed modeling assumptions are included in Appendix A in this document.

Table 9 indicates proposed project construction would generate a total of approximately 608 MTCO2e over an estimated 20-year buildout period.

TABLE 9

GHG EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
Year a
Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e per year)
2026 563
2027 45
GHG Significance Threshold b 1,100
Exceed Threshold (Yes or No)? No
Notes: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent a. "Year" refers to the modeled construction year, assuming a worst-case scenario in which all project elements are built simultaneously.
b. Since the neither EDCAQMD nor TRPA have adopted a numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions, the SMAQMD bright-light threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year is used.

Source: ESA, 2025.

El Dorado County does not have a quantitative GHG emissions threshold for construction projects; therefore, this analysis uses SMAQMD’s GHG emission threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e to assess the potential impacts. The proposed project’s GHG emissions are well below this threshold and the impact would be less than significant.

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 145 SMAQMD 2020.
164
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 95 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
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. That is, the growth in future aircraft operations would 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 proposed project would not result in any new permanent sources of GHG emissions exceeding the bright-line threshold of 1,100 MT of CO2e/year established by the SMAQMD (see Table 9). Since the SMAQMD threshold was designed to meet the AB32 goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, the proposed project would not result in an increase in GHG emissions that would impair the state’s ability to implement AB 32. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

References
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. December 2008.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. ———. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. May 2014. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_ change_scoping_plan.pdf.
———. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2020. CH2 Thresholds Table 4 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) Thresholds and Best Management Practices. April 23, 2020. https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/CH2ThresholdsTable4-2020.pdf. 165
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 96 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Regulatory Framework
Federal
Hazardous Materials Management
The primary federal agencies with responsibility for hazardous materials management include the USEPA, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the U.S.

Department of Transportation (USDOT). With respect to hazardous materials, state and local agencies often have either parallel or more stringent regulations than federal agencies. In most cases, state law mirrors or overlaps federal law and enforcement of these laws is the responsibility of the state or of a local agency to which enforcement powers are delegated. For these reasons, the requirements of the law and its enforcement are discussed under either the state or local agency section.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), individual states may implement their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of RCRA as long as the state program is at least as stringent as federal RCRA requirements and is approved by the USEPA. The USEPA approved California’s RCRA program, referred to as the Hazardous Waste Control Law, in 1992. In addition, RCRA regulates USTs 166
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 97 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
under Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 2801, as expanded by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.

Toxic Substance Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 was enacted by Congress to give the USEPA the ability to track the 75,000 industrial chemicals currently produced or imported into the United States. The USEPA repeatedly screens these chemicals and can require reporting or testing of those that may pose an environmental or human-health hazard. The USEPA can ban the manufacture and import of those chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk.

Hazardous Materials Transportation
The USDOT regulates hazardous materials transportation on all interstate roads. Within California, the state agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing federal and state regulations and for responding to transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Together, federal and state agencies determine driver-training requirements, load labeling procedures, and container specifications. Although special requirements apply to transporting hazardous materials, requirements for transporting hazardous waste are more stringent, and hazardous waste haulers must be licensed to transport hazardous waste on public roads.

Occupational Safety
OSHA is the agency responsible for assuring worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. The federal regulations pertaining to worker safety are contained in CFR Title 29, as authorized in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. They provide standards for safe workplaces and work practices, including standards relating to hazardous materials handling. At sites known or suspected to have soil or groundwater contamination, construction workers must receive training in hazardous materials operations and a site health and safety plan must be prepared. The health and safety plan establishes policies and procedures to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential hazards at the contaminated site.

Oil Pollution Prevention
Part 112 of Subchapter D of Chapter I of Title 40 of the CFR (40 CFR 112) establishes procedures, methods, equipment, and other requirements to prevent discharges from non-transportation-related onshore and offshore facilities into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or that may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States. These regulations require facilities with a single tank or cumulative aboveground storage capacities of 1,320 gallons or greater of petroleum to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan (40 CFR 112.1). The purpose of an SPCC plan is to form a comprehensive federal/state spill prevention program that minimizes the potential for discharges. The SPCC plan must address all relevant spill prevention, control, and countermeasures necessary at the specific facility for which the SPCC plan is written.

State
California Code of Regulations
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Sections 66261.20 through 66261.24, contains technical descriptions of characteristics that would classify wasted material, including soil, as hazardous 167
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 98 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
waste. When excavated, soils with concentrations of contaminants higher than certain acceptable levels must be handled and disposed as a hazardous waste.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for regulating the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous substances in the state. DTSC maintains a Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List for site cleanup. This list is commonly referred to as the Cortese List.

Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to update the Cortese List at least annually. DTSC is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other state and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List.

Universal Waste Rule
Universal waste comes primarily from consumer products containing mercury, lead, cadmium, and other substances that are hazardous to human health and the environment. These items cannot be discarded in household trash or disposed of in landfills. Examples of universal waste are batteries, fluorescent tubes, and many electronic devices.

California’s Universal Waste Rule allows individuals and businesses to transport, handle, and recycle certain common hazardous wastes, termed universal wastes, in a manner that differs from the requirements for most hazardous wastes. The more relaxed requirements for managing universal waste were adopted to ensure that they are managed safely and are not disposed of in the trash.

Surface Water Quality
The SWRCB and RWQCB are delegated authority from the USEPA to implement portions of the CWA and the state’s water quality law, the Porter-Cologne Act. These agencies have established water quality standards that are required by section 303 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Act. The Porter-Cologne Act states that basin plans will consist of beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives. Water quality objectives for the Upper Truckee River are specified in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Lahontan Basin Plan) prepared by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Board in compliance with the federal CWA and the California Water Code (Section 13240). The Lahontan Basin Plan establishes water quality objectives and implementation programs to meet stated objectives and to protect the beneficial uses of water in the Lahontan Region that are applicable to surface and groundwater discharges from the proposed project site. To minimize the potential effects of construction runoff on receiving water quality, the NPDES regulations require the municipal authority to evaluate the quality of its storm water discharge and receiving waters, identify areas of pollutant loading, and implement a program of BMPs to control pollutant discharges. In accordance with NPDES regulations, the state requires that any construction activity within the Tahoe Basin affecting one acre or more must obtain coverage under the Construction Storm Water NPDES Permit for the Tahoe Basin, NPDES No. CAG616001 Order No. R6T-2016-0010 (Tahoe General Construction Permit) to minimize the potential effects of construction runoff on receiving water quality. Future development and operations at the Airport would be required to adhere to the BMPs identified in the Airport’s current SWPPP and any updated SWPPP. These BMPs include, but are not limited to non-structural (e.g., preventative maintenance, spill prevention and response, and stormwater 168
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 99 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
management) and structural (e.g., overhead coverage of fuel farm, control devices in vegetation lined drainage, and de-icing containment) BMPs.

Stormwater Management
Discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (“MS4s”) are regulated because of concern over the high concentration of pollutants found in those discharges. The MS4 permits require the discharger to develop and implement a Storm Water Management Plan/Program (SWMP) with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants. The City of South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado, and Placer counties are co-permittees of a Phase I joint NPDES Permit/Waste Discharge Requirement for storm water/urban runoff (NPDES No. CAG616001, Order No. R6T-2022-0046). According to the permit, the primary pollutants of concern for storm water treatment in the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic Unit (LTHU) are fine sediment particles, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus. As a provision of the NPDES permit under which the City is a copermittee, along with Placer County and El Dorado County, the City and Counties have prepared a SWMP for the Lake Tahoe Basin as part of each jurisdiction’s integrated strategy for stormwater management. The SWMP outlines a comprehensive set of priorities and activities that constitute the components required in the NPDES permit.

Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program In January 1996, CalEPA adopted regulations implementing a Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program). The program has six elements: hazardous waste generators and hazardous waste on-site treatment; underground storage tanks; aboveground storage tanks; hazardous materials release response plans and inventories; risk management and prevention programs; and Unified Fire Code hazardous materials management plans and inventories. The plan is implemented at the local level. The Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is the local agency that is responsible for the implementation of the Unified Program. The El Dorado County Department of Environmental Management, Hazardous Waste Division is the local CUPA.

Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law The California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory Law of 1985 (Business Plan Act) requires businesses that store hazardous materials on-site to prepare a hazardous materials business plan and submit it to local health and fire departments. The business plan must include details of the facility and business conducted at the site, an inventory of hazardous materials that are handled and stored on-site, an emergency response plan, and a safety and emergency response training program for new employees with an annual refresher course.

Hazardous Waste Handling
The DTSC regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste.

State and federal laws require detailed planning to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of, and, in the event that such materials are accidentally released, to prevent or to mitigate injury to health or the environment. Laws and regulations require hazardous materials users to store these materials appropriately and to trin employees to manage them safely.

Under the federal RCRA, individual states may implement their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of RCRA, as long as the state program is at least as stringent as federal RCRA requirements. In California, the DTSC regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. 169
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 100 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
The hazardous waste regulations establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribe management of hazardous waste; establish permit requirements for hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identify hazardous waste that cannot be disposed of in landfills.

Aboveground Storage Of Petroleum Products
The Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act of 1990 requires owners or operators of facilities that store petroleum products with a capacity of 1,320 gallons or more to file a storage statement with the SWRCB and prepare a SPCC plan. The plan must identify appropriate spill containment or equipment for diverting spills from sensitive areas, as well as discuss facility-specific requirements for the storage system, inspections, recordkeeping, security, and personnel training.

Underground Storage Tanks
State laws governing USTs specify requirements for permitting, monitoring, closure, and cleanup associated with these facilities. Regulations set forth construction and monitoring standards for existing tanks, release reporting requirements, and closure requirements. SCEMD has regulatory authority for permitting, inspection, and removal of USTs. Any entity proposing to remove a UST must submit a closure plan to the regulating agency prior to tank removal. Upon approval of the UST closure plan, the regulating agency would issue a permit, oversee removal of the UST, require additional subsurface sampling if necessary, and issue a site closure letter when the appropriate removal and/or remediation has been completed.

Hazardous Materials Transportation
The State of California has adopted USDOT regulations for the intrastate movement of hazardous materials; state regulations are contained in 26 CCR. In addition, the State of California regulates the transportation of hazardous waste originating in the state and passing through the state (26 CCR). Both regulatory programs apply in California.

The two state agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing federal and state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are the CHP and Caltrans. The CHP enforces hazardous materials and hazardous waste labeling and packing regulations to prevent leakage and spills of material in transit and to provide detailed information to cleanup crews in the event of an accident. Vehicle and equipment inspection, shipment preparation, container identification, and shipping documentation are the responsibility of the CHP, which conducts regular inspections of licensed transporters to assure regulatory compliance. Caltrans has emergency chemical spill identification teams at as many as 72 locations throughout the state that can respond quickly in the event of a spill.

Common carriers are licensed by the CHP, pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 32000. This section requires the licensing of every motor (common) carrier who transports, for a fee, in excess of 500 pounds of hazardous materials at one time, and every carrier, if not for hire, who carries more than 1,000 pounds of hazardous material of the type requiring placards.

Every hazardous waste package type used by a hazardous materials shipper must undergo tests that imitate some of the possible rigors of travel. Every package is not put through every test. However, most packages must be able to be kept under running water for a time without leaking, dropped fully loaded 170
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 101 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
onto a concrete floor, compressed from both sides for a period of time, subjected to low and high pressure, and frozen and heated alternately.

Occupational Safety
Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations in California. Because California has a federally approved OSHA program, it is required to adopt regulations that are at least as stringent as those found in Title 29 of the CFR.

Cal/OSHA regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials in the workplace require employee safety training, safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal/OSHA enforces hazard communication program regulations, which contain training and information requirements, including procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, and communicating hazard information relating to hazardous substances and their handling. The hazard communication program also requires that Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) be available to employees, and that employee information and training programs be documented. These regulations also require preparation of emergency action plans (escape and evacuation procedures, rescue and medical duties, alarm systems, and training in emergency evacuation).

Emergency Response
Pursuant to the Emergency Services Act, California has developed an Emergency Plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local governmental agencies and private persons.

Response to hazardous materials incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is administered by the State Office of Emergency Services, which coordinates the responses of other agencies, including the USEPA, CHP, CDFW, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (in this case, the Lahontan RWQCB), the local air districts (in this case, EDCAQMD) and local agencies. The State Emergency Plan defines the “policies, concepts, and general protocols” for the proper implementation of the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). The SEMS is an emergency management protocol that agencies within the State of California must follow during multi-agency response efforts whenever state agencies are involved.

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code is contained within Title 24, Chapter 9 of the CCR. Based on the International Fire Code, the California Fire Code is created by the California Buildings Standards Commission and regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities. Similar to the International Fire Code, the California Fire Code and the California Building Code use a hazards classification system to determine the appropriate measures to incorporate to protect life and property.

The California Public Resources Code includes fire safety regulations that apply to state responsibility areas during the time of year designated as having hazardous fire conditions. During the fire hazard season, these regulations restrict the use of equipment that may produce a spark, flame, or fire; require the use of spark arrestors on equipment that has an internal combustion engine; specify requirements for the safe use of gasoline-powered tools in fire hazard areas; and specify fire-suppression equipment that must be provided on-site for various types of work in fire-prone areas. Additional codes require that any person who owns, controls, operates, or maintains any electrical transmission or distribution line must maintain a 171
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 102 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
firebreak clearing around and adjacent to any pole, tower, and conductors that carry electric current as specified in Sections 4292 and 4293. The state’s Fire Prevention Standards for Electric Utilities (14 CCR Sections 1250-1258) provides specific exemptions from electric pole and tower firebreak and electric conductor clearance standards and specifies when and where standards apply.

California Public Resources Code
California Public Resources Code Sections 4201 through 4204 require the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to prepare fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) maps for all lands within State Responsibility Areas (SRAs)146 and to make recommendations for such zones in Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs).147 Each zone is to embrace relatively homogeneous lands and is to be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors present, including areas where winds have been identified as a major cause of wildfire spread.

California Building Code
In January of 2008, California officially switched from the Uniform Building Code to the International Building Code (IBC). The IBC specifies construction standards to be used in urban interface and wildland areas where there is an elevated threat of fire.

Local
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
The following policies relative to hazards and hazardous materials set forth under the TRPA Regional Plan would be applicable to the proposed project.

Water Quality
Goal WQ-2. Reduce or eliminate point sources of pollutants which affect, or potentially affect, water quality in the Tahoe region.

Policy WQ-2.1. Discharge of municipal or industrial wastewater to Lake Tahoe, its tributaries, or the groundwaters of the Tahoe region is prohibited, except for existing development operating under approved alternative plans for wastewater disposal, and for fire suppression efforts in accordance with applicable state laws.

Policy WQ-2.2. Discharges of sewage to Lake Tahoe, its tributaries, or the groundwaters of the Lake Tahoe region are prohibited. Sewage collection, conveyance and treatment districts shall have approved spill contingency, prevention, and detection plans.

Goal WQ-3. Reduce or eliminate non-point sources of pollutants which affect, or potentially affect, water quality in the Tahoe region in a manner consistent with the Lake Tahoe TMDL, where applicable.

Policy WQ-3.1. Reduce loads of sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus to Lake Tahoe; and meet water quality thresholds for tributary streams, surface runoff, and groundwater. 146 State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) are designated geographic areas in California where the State of California, specifically CAL FIRE, is financially responsible for preventing and suppressing wildfires. 147 In Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs), fire protection is primarily the responsibility of local government agencies, such as city or county fire departments. CAL FIRE does not directly provide fire protection services in LRAs, though they may offer support or guidance.
172
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 103 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Policy WQ-12. Projects shall be required to meet TRPA BMP requirements as a condition of approval for all projects. All projects shall be required, as a condition of approval, to apply Best Management Practices to the project parcel during construction and as follows upon completion of construction:

A. New projects on undeveloped parcels shall require application and maintenance of temporary and permanent BMPs as a condition of project approval.

B. Projects which expand structures or land coverage shall require application and maintenance of temporary and permanent BMPs to the project area.

C. Rehabilitation projects, other than minor utility projects, shall require the preparation of a plan and schedule for application and maintenance of temporary and permanent BMPs to the entire parcel. The amount of work required pursuant to the project approval shall consider the cost and nature of the project.

D. Where area-wide treatments are approved, projects shall install improvements in accordance with the approved area-wide BMP plan.148
Lake Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan
The Lake Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) was completed in February 2025.149 The updated plan addresses the region’s evolving wildfire risks, focusing on fuels reduction, preparedness, structural ignitability, and wildfire response. The CWPP is a community-driven plan that prioritizes wildfire risk reduction, using local input and data to guide fuel reduction, improve preparedness, and address structural ignitability. The CWPP is not an evacuation plan. The CWPP identifies areas needing fuel reduction treatments, supports funding requirements for project implementation, and offers educational opportunities to help the public understand wildfire prevention. It also outlines actions homeowners and communities can take to reduce wildfire risk.

Lake Tahoe Regional Evacuation Plan
The Lake Tahoe Regional Evacuation Plan describes the strategies for managing evacuations which exceed the day-to-day capabilities of the various public safety agencies in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The Sheriff’s Office or law enforcement agency with jurisdiction is charged with the responsibility of evacuation in response to a major event threatening the life safety of residents and visitors. With a special emphasis placed on the wildland fire threat, the strategies outlined in the Regional Evacuation Plan are designed using an all-hazards approach to preparing for and managing evacuations. The Regional Evacuation Plan is designed to be applied in any event regardless of the threat or hazard that precipitates the need to evacuate an area. The Regional Evacuation Plan was developed by the cooperative efforts of the Lake Tahoe Fire Chiefs and Lake Tahoe Law Enforcement agencies and is intended to provide the public with critical information related to evacuations and is considered a living document that will be updated from time to time.150
148 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), 1987, Threshold Standards and Regional Plan, adopted by the TRPA Governing Board June 25, 1987, updated December 12, 2012, amended May 22, 2024. 149 Tahoe Resource Conservation District, 2025, Lake Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 150 Lake Tahoe Fire Chiefs Association, 2024, Lake Tahoe Regional Evacuation Plan, September 10, 2024. 173
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 104 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Impact Analysis
Topic a
Construction activities are required to comply with numerous hazardous materials and stormwater regulations designed to ensure that hazardous materials are transported, used, stored, and disposed of in a safe manner to protect worker safety, and to reduce the potential for a release of construction-related fuels or other hazardous materials to affect stormwater and downstream receiving water bodies. Contractors working on the proposed project would be required to prepare and implement a hazardous materials business plan that would require that hazardous materials used for construction are stored in appropriate containers with secondary containment to contain a potential release. For construction activities disturbing equal to or greater than one acre, the state Construction General Permit would require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP that would require the use of BMPs to prevent the release of pollutants leaving the construction site through runoff. Cal/OSHA regulations provide for the proper labeling, storage, and handling of hazardous materials to reduce the potential harmful health effects that could result from worker exposure to hazardous materials. Through compliance with applicable hazardous materials storage, disposal, and stormwater permitting regulations, hazardous materials impacts associated with potential releases from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Operational activities are also required to comply with numerous hazardous materials and stormwater regulations designed to ensure that hazardous materials are transported, used, stored, and disposed of in a safe manner to protect worker safety, and to reduce the potential for a release of fuels or other hazardous materials to affect stormwater and downstream receiving water bodies. The California Fire Code would require measures for the safe storage and handling of hazardous materials. Through compliance with applicable hazardous materials storage, disposal, and hazardous materials impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the routine operations of the Airport would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Topic b
The required compliance with the numerous laws and regulations discussed above that govern the transportation, use, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials would limit the potential for creation of hazardous conditions due to the use or accidental release of hazardous materials, and would render this impact less than significant.

Topic c
There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the Airport; therefore, there would be no impact relative to schools.

Topic d
The SWRCB GeoTracker website includes two listings for the Airport. However, the two listings are for two leaking underground fuel tank sites that were remediated to the satisfaction of the regulatory 174
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 105 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
agencies, and the cases were closed in 2004151 and 2010. 152 Therefore, there would be no impact relative
to hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Topic e
The proposed project is located at the Airport and would be located within its airport land use plan.

However, the purpose of the proposed project is to improve Airport operations, including safety.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would reduce the potential impact relative to being located within two miles of, or in this case, on, an airport to a less-than-significant level.

Topic f
All of the construction activities would occur on the Airport property and not on public roads. The construction activities would involve a number of vehicles using local roads and has the potential to interfere with emergency evacuation routes. However, the construction activities would not require a large number of vehicles and no roads would be closed or restricted. Therefore, the potential impacts would be less than significant relative to affecting designated emergency routes.

Topic g
The Airport is located in an area designated by CAL FIRE as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) under local responsibility (South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue) as recommended by the State Fire Marshal on February 10, 2025.153 The Airport is required to comply with numerous regulations designed to reduce fire danger, including the California Fire Code. Through compliance with the applicable regulations, impacts associated with wildfires would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

References
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2025. Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

California State Water Resources Control Board. 2025a. GeoTracker. Oasis Aviation (T0601700115). ———. 2025b. GeoTracker. South Lake Tahoe Airport (T10000001522).

Lake Tahoe Fire Chiefs Association. 2024. Lake Tahoe Regional Evacuation Plan. September 10, 2024.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 1987. Threshold Standards and Regional Plan. Adopted by the TRPA Governing Board June 25, 1987. Updated December 12, 2012. Amended May 22, 2024.

Tahoe Resource Conservation District. 2025. Lake Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 151 California State Water Resources Control Board, 2025a, GeoTracker, Oasis Aviation (T0601700115). 152 California State Water Resources Control Board, 2025b, GeoTracker, South Lake Tahoe Airport (T10000001522). 153 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), 2025, Fire Hazard Severity Zones. 175
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 106 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Hydrology and Water Quality
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY —
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or offsite;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Regulatory Framework
Federal
Surface Water Quality
Water quality objectives for all waters of the United States are established under applicable provisions of the federal CWA. The CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters from a point source unless authorized by a NPDES permit. Implementation of these regulations has been delegated to the state.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits The NPDES permit system was established in the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial point discharges to surface waters of the United States. Each NPDES permit for point discharges contains limits on allowable concentrations of pollutants contained in discharges. Sections 401 and 402 of the CWA contain general requirements regarding NPDES permits. Section 307 of the CWA describes the factors that the USEPA must consider in setting effluent limits for priority pollutants.

The CWA was amended in 1987 to require NPDES permits for non-point source (i.e., stormwater) pollutants in discharges. Stormwater sources are diffuse and originate over a wide area rather than from a 176
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 107 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
definable point. The goal of NPDES stormwater regulations is to improve the quality of stormwater discharged to receiving waters to the “maximum extent practicable” through the use of structural and nonstructural BMPs. BMPs can include the development and implementation of various practices including educational measures (workshops informing public of what impacts results when household chemicals are dumped into storm drains), regulatory measures (local authority of drainage facility design), public policy measures, and structural measures (filter strips, grass swales, and detention ponds).

Floodplain Regulations
Federal regulations governing development in a floodplain are set forth in Title 44, Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The FEMA imposes building regulations on development within flood hazard zones depending upon the potential for flooding within each area. Building regulations are incorporated into the municipal code of jurisdictions participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

The City of South Lake Tahoe Floodplain Management Ordinance provides direction for new and existing developments located within special flood hazard zones. The primary goal of this ordinance is to reduce future flood damage through the implementation of building techniques that minimize the potential loss of life and property due to development in floodplains. The regulations are outlined in South Lake Tahoe City Code Chapter 6.65, Floodplain Management.

State
Surface Water Quality
The SWRCB and RWQCB are delegated authority from the USEPA to implement portions of the CWA and the state’s water quality law, the Porter-Cologne Act. These agencies have established water quality standards that are required by section 303 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Act. The Porter-Cologne Act states that basin plans will consist of beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives. Water quality objectives for the Upper Truckee River are specified in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Lahontan Basin Plan) prepared by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board in compliance with the federal CWA and the California Water Code (Section 13240). The Lahontan Basin Plan establishes water quality objectives and implementation programs to meet stated objectives and to protect the beneficial uses of water in the Lahontan Region that are applicable to surface and groundwater discharges from the proposed project site. To minimize the potential effects of construction runoff on receiving water quality, the NPDES regulations require the municipal authority to evaluate the quality of its storm water discharge and receiving waters, identify areas of pollutant loading, and implement a program of BMPs to control pollutant discharges. In accordance with NPDES regulations, the state requires that any construction activity within the Tahoe Basin affecting one acre or more must obtain coverage under the Construction Storm Water NPDES Permit for the Tahoe Basin, NPDES No. CAG616001 Order No. R6T-2016-0010 (Tahoe General Construction Permit) to minimize the potential effects of construction runoff on receiving water quality. Future development and operations at the Airport would be required to adhere to the BMPs identified in the Airport’s current SWPPP and any updated SWPPP. These BMPs include, but are not limited to non-structural (e.g., preventative maintenance, spill prevention and response, and stormwater management) and structural (e.g., overhead coverage of fuel farm, control devices in vegetation lined drainage, and de-icing containment) BMPs.
177
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 108 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Stormwater Management
Discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (“MS4s”) are regulated because of concern over the high concentration of pollutants found in those discharges. The MS4 permits require the discharger to develop and implement a Storm Water Management Plan/Program (SWMP) with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants. The City of South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado, and Placer counties are co-permittees of a Phase I joint NPDES Permit/Waste Discharge Requirement for storm water/urban runoff (NPDES No. CAG616001, Order No. R6T-2022-0046). According to the permit, the primary pollutants of concern for storm water treatment in the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic Unit (LTHU) are fine sediment particles, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus. As a provision of the NPDES permit under which the City is a copermittee, along with Placer County and El Dorado County, the City and Counties have prepared a SWMP for the Lake Tahoe Basin as part of each jurisdiction’s integrated strategy for stormwater management. The SWMP outlines a comprehensive set of priorities and activities that constitute the components required in the NPDES permit.

Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to compile a list of impaired water bodies that do not meet water quality standards and to develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for impaired water bodies to determine the key pollutants and contributing sources to the impairment. California’s Lake Tahoe TMDL (dated November 2010 and approved by the USEPA in 2011) requires attainment of the California transparency objective for Lake Tahoe over a 65 year implementation period. Based on California law, the Lahontan Regional Board has the obligation to implement and enforce the Lake Tahoe TMDL through NPDES permits (over which USEPA has jurisdiction) issued to California local government entities. In November 2010, Lahontan Regional Board modified their Basin Plan to establish a TMDL for Sediment and Nutrients (Tahoe TMDL). The Tahoe TMDL identified a long-term goal to restore deep water transparency to 1967-1971 levels (97.4 feet from current 68 feet) within 65 years.154 Local
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
The following policies relative to hydrology and water quality set forth under the TRPA Regional Plan are applicable to the proposed project.

Water Quality
Goal WQ-2. Reduce or eliminate point sources of pollutants which affect, or potentially affect, water quality in the Tahoe region.

Policy WQ-2.1. Discharge of municipal or industrial wastewater to Lake Tahoe, its tributaries, or the groundwaters of the Tahoe region is prohibited, except for existing development operating under approved alternative plans for wastewater disposal, and for fire suppression efforts in accordance with applicable state laws.

Policy WQ-2.2. Discharges of sewage to Lake Tahoe, its tributaries, or the groundwaters of the Lake Tahoe region are prohibited. Sewage collection, conveyance and treatment districts shall have approved spill contingency, prevention, and detection plans. 154 California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), 2010, Final Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load Report. 178
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 109 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Goal WQ-3. Reduce or eliminate non-point sources of pollutants which affect, or potentially affect, water quality in the Tahoe region in a manner consistent with the Lake Tahoe TMDL, where applicable.

Policy: WQ-3.1. Reduce loads of sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus to Lake Tahoe; and meet water quality thresholds for tributary streams, surface runoff, and groundwater.

Policy WQ-12. Projects shall be required to meet TRPA BMP requirements as a condition of approval for all projects. All projects shall be required, as a condition of approval, to apply Best Management Practices to the project parcel during construction and as follows upon completion of construction:

A. New projects on undeveloped parcels shall require application and maintenance of temporary and permanent BMPs as a condition of project approval.

B. Projects which expand structures or land coverage shall require application and maintenance of temporary and permanent BMPs to the project area.

C. Rehabilitation projects, other than minor utility projects, shall require the preparation of a plan and schedule for application and maintenance of temporary and permanent BMPs to the entire parcel. The amount of work required pursuant to the project approval shall consider the cost and nature of the project.

D. Where area-wide treatments are approved, projects shall install improvements in accordance with the approved area-wide BMP plan.

TRPA also regulates water quality and development in Stream Environment Zones (SEZs). Section 60.4 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances sets forth requirements for installation of BMPs for the protection or restoration of water quality and attainment of minimum discharge standards. TRPA mandates that all municipal, public, and private land uses institute BMPs. TRPA’s BMP Retrofit Program is part of the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) and requires all property owners to implement BMPs, whether they own residential, multifamily, commercial, or industrial properties. The primary goal of the BMP Retrofit Program is to reduce the amount of runoff generated by the developed impervious surfaces located on private properties before it discharges to public rights-of-way. It is also a goal to stabilize unstable slopes, thereby reducing the potential for sediment inputs into storm water.

In addition to these requirements, future development at the Airport would also be required to comply with water quality standards set forth in Chapter 60, Water Quality, of the TRPA Code of Ordinances.

TRPA Code Chapter 60 establishes standards for water discharge from properties in the Basin as well as regulations for discharge of domestic, municipal, and industrial wastewaters. Standards are established for both surface runoff and discharge to groundwater.155
City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan
The Natural and Cultural Resources Element of the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan includes Goal NCR‐2 to protect and enhance the clarity of Lake Tahoe and water quality in the area’s rivers, creeks, and groundwater. This goal includes policies aimed at protecting South Lake Tahoe’s hydrological resources through stormwater quality management and retention and containment of hazardous materials.156 155 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), 2012, TRPA Code of Ordinances, adopted December 12, 2012, Effective February 9, 2013, amended June 26, 2024. 156 City of South Lake Tahoe, 2011, South Lake Tahoe General Plan, adopted May 17, 2011. 179
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 110 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
South Lake Tahoe City Code
In the City of South Lake Tahoe City Code, Chapter 7.20 (Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control) is designed to provide the following regulatory mechanisms:

1. Regulating grading on both public and private property within the city of South Lake Tahoe to safeguard life, limb, health, property, and public welfare;

2. To avoid pollution of watercourses with hazardous materials, nutrients, sediments, or other earthen materials generated on or caused by surface runoff or by aerial deposition of pollutants generated from the permit area on or across the permit area; and

3. To ensure that the intended use of a graded site is consistent with the city of South Lake Tahoe general plan, any specific plans adopted thereto and applicable city of South Lake Tahoe ordinances including the zoning ordinance, flood damage prevention ordinance, environmental review ordinance and applicable chapters of the California Building Code. In the event of conflict between this chapter and state or federal law, this chapter shall prevail unless preempted by the state or federal law. In the event of conflict between this chapter and other chapters of the South Lake Tahoe City Code, this chapter shall prevail.157
Groundwater Quality
The South Tahoe Public Utility District prepared a groundwater management plan for the Tahoe Valley South Subbasin. The plan was developed to regulate, manage, conserve, and protect the groundwater resources available to the District so that the groundwater will remain a viable potable water resource and be available to be put to the most efficient and beneficial use by the District and its customers.158 Impact Analysis
Topic a
Water from the airfield is collected in a drainage ditch located along the west side of Taxiway A. Water in the drainage ditch flows north by gravity eventually discharging into the Upper Truckee River. The Upper Truckee River lies immediately to the east of the Airport and continues north before discharging into Lake Tahoe. The Upper Truckee River and the tributaries, which make up the Upper Truckee River Watershed comprise the largest contribution to the waters of Lake Tahoe.

Project construction activities would occur primarily on the paved surface of the Airport property and would include limited excavation, grading, and disturbance of unpaved ground surface within the Airport property. Construction activities could generate loose, erodible soils that, if not properly managed, could cause sedimentation and result in an adverse water quality impact. Additionally, accidental discharges of fuels, oils, hydraulic fluid, grease, and other hazardous substances used during construction activities could contaminate stormwater flows in the drainage ditch, and potentially degrade receiving water quality. The proposed project would be required to adhere to the BMPs identified in the Airport’s current SWPPP and any updated SWPPP. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to obtain and act in compliance with an NPDES operating permit. Adherence to the SWPPP and NPDES operating permit 157 City of South Lake Tahoe, 2024, South Lake Tahoe City Code, Chapter 7.20, Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control. Current through Ordinance 1192, passed December 10, 2024. 158 South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD), 2022, Alternative Plan for Tahoe Valley South Subbasin (6-005.01), First FiveYear Update, April 22, 2022. 180
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 111 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
would ensure that BMPs are employed at the Airport to reduce potential impacts to water quality.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Topic b
The proposed project lies within the Tahoe South Subbasin of the Tahoe Valley Groundwater Basin. The Tahoe Valley Groundwater Basin is within the larger structural feature commonly referred to as the Lake Tahoe Basin. The principal source of groundwater in the Tahoe Valley South subbasin is from Tertiary and Quaternary age glacial, fluvial, and lacustrine sediments, collectively referred to as basin-fill deposits.

These deposits typically have moderate permeability.

Conversion of pervious surfaces to impervious surfaces can result in a decrease in the amount of infiltration of surface water to the groundwater that can, in some cases, cause a reduction in groundwater recharge. The proposed project would include taxiway removal and other pavement improvements that would collectively result in an approximately 251,810 square-foot net decrease in impervious surface on the Airport property.159 Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge resulting from conversion of pervious surfaces to impervious surfaces.

While the proposed project would include development of new facilities, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in aircraft operations or an increase in the number of Airport employees. The proposed improvements are intended to improve existing Airport operations and would neither individually nor collectively result in increases in water demand that would substantially decrease groundwater supplies. As a result, impacts to related to groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge would be less than significant.

Topic c
Water from the airfield is collected in a drainage ditch located along the west side of Taxiway A. Water in the drainage ditch flows north by gravity eventually discharging into the Upper Truckee River. The Upper Truckee River lies immediately to the east of the Airport and continues north before discharging into Lake Tahoe. As discussed above, the proposed project would involve a net decrease in impervious surfaces and would therefore result in a reduced rate and amount of stormwater runoff compared to existing conditions. The installation of the majority of the structures would occur on areas that are already paved. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase the amount or rate of runoff or result in flooding on-or off-site. Furthermore, all properties in the Tahoe Basin are required to include stormwater BMPs designed to infiltrate the runoff from a 20-year 1-hour storm. BMPs include installing erosion control and stormwater infiltration measures. Finally, the proposed project would be required to implement BMPs as discussed under topic a. Therefore, impacts associated with increases in surface runoff on drainage capacity and flooding would be less than significant.

Topic d
The proposed project would involve the construction of new structures located in a 100-year flood hazard zone. The design and construction of these facilities would be subject to compliance with FEMA, County, and City floodplain management regulations, which require the review of a development permit to ensure the facility includes flood proofing to minimize damage due to flooding and is designed to prevent a 159 Woolpert, 2024, Draft Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan, prepared for the City of South Lake Tahoe, page 5-21. 181
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 112 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
change in flood or drainage patterns. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to the SWPPP and NPDES operating permit which include infiltration BMPs to reduce the potential to release sediment and other pollutants. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Topic e
The proposed project would be required to adhere to the BMPs identified in the Airport’s current SWPPP and any updated SWPPP. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to obtain and act in compliance with an NPDES operating permit. Adherence to the SWPPP and NPDES operating permit would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or groundwater management plan. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

References
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). 2010. Final Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load Report.

City of South Lake Tahoe. 2011. South Lake Tahoe General Plan. Adopted May 17, 2011. ———. 2024. South Lake Tahoe City Code. Chapter 7.20, Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control.

Current through Ordinance 1192, passed December 10, 2024.

South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD). 2022. Alternative Plan for Tahoe Valley South Subbasin (6- 005.01). First Five-Year Update. April 22, 2022.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 1987. Threshold Standards and Regional Plan. Adopted by the TRPA Governing Board June 25, 1987. Updated December 12, 2012. Amended May 22, 2024. ———. 2012. TRPA Code of Ordinances. Adopted December 12, 2012. Effective February 9, 2013.

Amended June 26, 2024.

Woolpert. 2024. Draft Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan. Prepared for the City of South Lake Tahoe. 182
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 113 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Land Use and Planning
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Regulatory Framework
Local
City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan
The City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan sets out a long‐term vision for the city’s development, redevelopment, and environmental protection through the year 2030.160 The Land Use and Community Design Element of the General Plan provides the policy context for the City of South Lake Tahoe to achieve its vision for future land use and community design. This element includes goals, policies, and standards for future land use, development, redevelopment, community design, sustainability, and change in South Lake Tahoe. This element also includes a description of the Land Use Diagram and the related land use classification system and standards. The General Plan land use designations for the Airport are Special District and Conservation, which are described below:
• Special District (SD): This designation provides for unique land uses that require flexibility or special considerations. This includes public facilities, industrial uses, and transportation uses (i.e., airport).
• Conservation (C): This designation provides for the permanent preservation of natural resources, habitat protection, watershed management, public and quasi‐public uses, areas that contain public health and safety hazards such as floodways, and areas containing environmentally sensitive features.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Regional Plan
In 1969, Nevada and California established the TRPA with the consent of Congress through a bi-state compact. TRPA is the nation’s first environmental organization with land use authority crossing state lines and continues to be unique in the United States. The bi-state compact charges TRPA with establishing a regional plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin with the mandate to achieve environmental standards, called thresholds. Environmental threshold standards set long-term environmental goals for the region. The TRPA Regional Plan outlines actions to attain these thresholds that restore Lake Tahoe while balancing economic and community vitality. The compact gives TRPA authority to enforce the TRPA Code of Ordinances (described below). The TRPA Regional Plan land use designations for the Airport are Mixed-Use and Conservation, which are described below:
• Mixed-Use: Urban areas that have been designated to provide a mix of commercial, public services, light industrial, office, and residential uses to the region or have the potential to provide future commercial, public service, light industrial, office, and residential uses. The purpose of this 160 City of South Lake Tahoe, 2011, South Lake Tahoe General Plan, adopted May 17, 2011. 183
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 114 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
classification is to concentrate higher intensity land uses for public convenience, and enhanced sustainability.
• Conservation: Non-urban areas with value as primitive or natural areas, with strong environmental limitations on use, and with a potential for dispersed recreation or low intensity resource management. Conservation areas include (1) public lands already set aside for this purpose; (2) highhazard lands, stream environment zones, and other fragile areas, without substantial existing improvements; (3) isolated areas which do not contain the necessary infrastructure for development; (4) areas capable of sustaining only passive recreation or non-intensive agriculture; and (5) areas suitable for low-to-moderate resource management.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Code of Ordinances
The TRPA Code of Ordinances provides a codified implementation of the TRPA Regional Plan. The Code is designed, among other things, to implement the goals and policies of the TRPA Regional Plan in a manner attaining and maintaining the environmental thresholds. The Code compiles all the ordinances of TRPA into one document except for certain procedural ordinances such as the ordinances adopting plan amendments. The Code addresses many subjects, including but not limited to required permits for development, findings required for approval of projects, environmental impact statements, plan area statements, land use, density and coverage, development standards, allocations of development, grading and construction practices, resource management, water quality, air quality, and transportation.

Impact Analysis
Topic a
Typically, the physical division of an established community refers to the construction of a physical feature that would impair the mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying areas. Examples of physically dividing a community could be the establishment of a roadway or a set of railroad tracks through a community, or removal of a means of access such as a local road or bridge. The proposed project comprises improvements within the existing Airport property. The proposed project would not result in the construction of any physical barriers that would divide any community.

There would be no impact under this criterion.

Topic b
The proposed project comprises a long-range plan for Airport development that includes both airside and landside improvements that would be consistent with existing land use designations and development standards set forth by the City of South Lake Tahoe and the TRPA. CEQA does not consider inconsistency with land use plans and policies to be a physical effect on the environment unless the plan or policy was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating a significant environmental effect.

Adverse physical effects on the environment that could result from construction and operation of the proposed project are evaluated and disclosed in the appropriate topical sections of this document. As discussed in the analyses, the proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
184
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 115 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
References
City of South Lake Tahoe. 2011. South Lake Tahoe General Plan. Adopted May 17, 2011.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 1987. Threshold Standards and Regional Plan. Adopted by the TRPA Governing Board June 25, 1987. Updated December 12, 2012. Amended May 22, 2024. ———. 2012. TRPA Code of Ordinances. Adopted December 12, 2012. Effective February 9, 2013.

Amended June 26, 2024.
185
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 116 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Mineral Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Impact Analysis
Topics a and b
Currently, the California Department of Conservation identifies the land within the Airport as MRZ-4, or areas of unknown mineral resource significance. The South Lake Tahoe General Plan does not identify any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or the state within or near the project site. Project construction activities would occur primarily on the paved surface of the Airport property and would include limited excavation, grading, and disturbance of unpaved ground surface within the Airport property. Construction and operation of the project would not conflict with or limit access to mineral resources. Therefore, impacts related to mineral resources would be less than significant. 186
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 117 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Noise
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIII. NOISE — Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
General Characteristics of Noise
Sound is characterized by parameters that describe the rate of oscillation (frequency) of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests in waves, the speed that they travel, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound. The sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize how loud a sound is, and the decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity.

Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a process called A-weighting, expressed as dBA. The dBA, or A-weighted decibel, refers to a scale of noise measurement that reflects the different frequencies that humans can hear. On this scale, the normal range of human hearing extends from about 0 dBA to about 140 dBA. Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of only 1 dBA in sound level cannot be perceived.

Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change is considered a perceptible difference while a 5 dBA change is considered readily noticeable. A 10 dBA increase in the level of a continuous noise represents a perceived doubling of loudness.161 Table 10 presents representative noise sources and their corresponding noise levels in dBA at varying distances from the noise sources.

Noise Descriptors
Noise is generally defined as sound that is loud, disagreeable, unexpected, or unwanted. Variations in noise exposure over time are typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level (called Leq) that represents the acoustical energy of a given measurement, or alternatively as a statistical description of what sound level is exceeded over some fraction (10, 50, or 90 percent) of a given observation period (e.g., L10, L50, L90). Lmax is the maximum instantaneous noise level registered during a measurement period.

Noise metrics assess community response to noise by including the loudness of the noise, total number of noise events, duration, and time of day that the noise events occur in one single number rating scale. DayNight Average Sound Level (DNL), also referred to as Ldn, is expressed in dBA and represents the noise level over a 24-hour period. DNL is a 24-hour average of hourly Leq noise levels, but with penalties to 161 Caltrans 2013.
187
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 118 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
account for the increase in sensitivity to noise events that occur during more sensitive nighttime periods.

Specifically, DNL adds a penalty of 10 dB to the measured noise levels during the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.).

TABLE 10

REPRESENTATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE LEVELS
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock band
Jet fly-over at 100 feet
100
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
90 Diesel truck going 50 miles per hour at 50 feet Food blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area during daytime
Gas lawn mower at 100 feet 70 Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60
Large business office
Quiet urban area during daytime 50 Dishwasher in next room Quiet urban area during nighttime 40 Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban area during nighttime
30 Library
Quiet rural area during nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) 20 Broadcast/recording studio
10 0
Source: Caltrans, 2013
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is expressed in dBA and is used in California to represent cumulative noise exposure. Similar to DNL, CNEL is a 24-hour average of hourly Leq noise levels. Unlike DNL, CNEL includes penalties applied to noise events occurring in the evening, which is defined as after 7 p.m. and before 10 p.m., when noise is considered more intrusive. Both metrics contain nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) penalties. When a noise event occurs in the evening, a penalty of 4.77 dBA is added to the measured sound level. A 10 dBA penalty is added to nighttime noise events. The evening weighting is the only difference between CNEL and DNL. For purposes of aircraft noise analysis in California, the FAA recognizes the use of CNEL.
188
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 119 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Vibration and Groundborne Noise
Groundborne noise typically refers to noise generated by vibrations from outside a structure but experienced inside the structure. Groundborne noise can be a problem in situations where the primary airborne noise path is blocked, such as in the case of a subway tunnel passing near homes or other sensitive structures. Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium. Typically, groundborne vibrations generated by man-made activities attenuate rapidly with the distance from the source of the vibration. The effects of vibration on structures are typically measured by peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec). Vibration decibels (VdB) are the units used to assess the effects of vibrations on people. VdB is used to distinguish vibration decibels from sound decibels (dB).

With the exception of long-term occupational exposure, vibration levels rarely affect human health.

Instead, most people consider vibration to be an annoyance that can affect concentration or disturb sleep.

Vibration that results in sleep disturbance may result in health effects related to that sleep disturbance.

People may tolerate infrequent, short-duration vibration levels, but human annoyance to vibration becomes more pronounced if the vibration is continuous or occurs frequently. High levels of vibration can damage fragile buildings or interfere with sensitive equipment. Depending on the age of the structure and type of vibration (transient, continuous, or frequent intermittent sources), vibration levels as low as 0.5 to

2.0 in/sec PPV can damage a structure.162
Typical sources of groundborne vibration in urban areas are large-scale construction projects that involve pile driving, vibratory construction equipment, or underground tunneling. Vibration is also caused by transit rail vehicles. In general, such vibration is only an issue when there are sensitive receptors located nearby. Because rubber tires and suspension systems mitigate vibrations, rubber tire vehicles such as buses, trucks, and automobiles rarely create substantial vibration absent discontinuities in the road surface.163
Sensitive Receptors
Human response to noise varies considerably from one individual to another. Effects of noise at various levels can include interference with sleep, concentration, and communication; physiological and psychological stress; and hearing loss. Given these effects, some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others, due to the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Consistent with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s General Plan Guidelines 2017, residences, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, parks and other outdoor recreation areas, and sensitive wildlife habitat generally are more sensitive to noise.

Existing land uses surrounding the Airport include open space and forestland to the east, south, west, and north; residential uses to the east (in unincorporated El Dorado County); and residential and commercial uses to the northwest within the City of South Lake Tahoe. While some residential communities do exist in the vicinity of the Airport, none of the proposed projects would be located on or near existing, developed residential properties.
162 Caltrans 2020. 163 FTA 2018.
189
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 120 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal standards for aircraft noise evaluation are formalized in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 150 (14 CFR Part 150), FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, and FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions.
164 For aviation noise analyses, the FAA has determined that the 24-hour cumulative exposure of individuals to noise resulting from aviation activities must be established in terms of DNL. However, the FAA recognizes CNEL as an alternative metric for assessing aircraft noise exposure in California.

The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual identifies general assessment construction noise criteria.165 For residential uses, it identifies a 1-hour Leq of 90 dBA during daytime and 80 dBA during nighttime. For commercial and industrial uses, the criterion is a 1-hour Leq of 100 dBA for both daytime and nighttime.

Federal regulations also establish noise limits for medium and heavy trucks (more than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle weight rating) under 40 CFR part 205, subpart B. The federal truck pass-by noise standard is 80 dB at 15 meters from the vehicle pathway centerline. These controls are implemented through regulatory controls on truck manufacturers.

Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from construction activities at a project site are typically estimated using data published by the FTA in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
166 The FTA has adopted vibration standards that are used to evaluate potential building damage impacts related to construction activities, which are shown in Table 11.

TABLE 11

FTA CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION DAMAGE CRITERIA
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Notes: PPV = Peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second Source: FTA 2018.

In addition, the FTA has also adopted standards associated with human annoyance for ground-borne vibration impacts for the following three land-use categories: Vibration Category 1 – High Sensitivity, Vibration Category 2 – Residential, and Vibration Category 3 – Institutional. The FTA defines Category 1 as buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within the building, including vibrationsensitive research and manufacturing facilities, hospitals with vibration-sensitive equipment, and university research operations. Vibration-sensitive equipment includes, but is not limited to, electron 164 FAA 2006. 165 FTA 2018. 166 FTA 2018.
190
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 121 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
microscopes, high-resolution lithographic equipment, and normal optical microscopes. Category 2 refers to all residential land uses and any buildings where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. Category 3 refers to institutional land uses such as schools, churches, other institutions, and quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive equipment but still have the potential for activity interference. The vibration thresholds associated with human annoyance for these three land-use categories are shown in Table 12.

TABLE 12

FTA GENERAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION Land Use Category
Impact levels (VdB, micro-inch per second)
Frequent
Events a
Occasional
Events b
Infrequent
Events c
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations. 65 VdB d 65 VdB d 65 VdB d Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use. 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB Notes:

VdB is vibration velocity level in decibels.
a. “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. b. “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. c. “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. d. This criterion is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes.

Source: FTA 2018.

State
California Code of Regulations
California Code of Regulations Title 21, subchapter 6 (California Airport Noise Standard), defines incompatible noise levels as exposure of nearby communities to aircraft noise levels of 65 CNEL or greater. Land use incompatibility is most likely to occur for most types of noise-sensitive uses when they are within the 65 CNEL contour. One of the suggested measures for controlling and reducing noise problems within Title 21 is to develop compatible land uses within the 65 CNEL contour. If residences are sound insulated or refuse sound insulation as part of a residential sound insulation program, they are considered a compatible land use under Title 21.

California Code of Regulations has guidelines for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure, as shown in Table 13.

The State of California also establishes noise limits for vehicles licensed to operate on public roads. For heavy trucks, the State pass-by standard is consistent with the federal limit of 80 dB. The state pass-by standard for light trucks and passenger cars (less than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle rating) is also 80 dB at 15 meters from the centerline. These standards are implemented through controls on vehicle manufacturers and by legal sanction of vehicle operators by state and local law enforcement officials. 191
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 122 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
TABLE 13

LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS (DNL OR CNEL) Land Use
Normally
Acceptablea
Conditionally
Acceptableb
Normally
Unacceptablec
Clearly
Unacceptabled
Single-Family Homes, Duplexes, Mobile Homes 50–60 55–70 70–75 above 75 Multifamily Homes 50–65 60–70 70–75 above 75
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing
Homes
50–70 60–70 70–80 above 80
Transient Lodging—Motels, Hotels 50–65 60–70 70–80 above 75 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters — 50–70 — above 70 Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports — 50–75 — above 75 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50–70 — 67–75 above 75
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
50–75 — 70–80 above 80
Office Buildings, Business and Professional,
Commercial
50–70 67–77 above 75 —
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50–75 70–80 above 75 — Notes: CNEL = community noise equivalent level; DNL = day-night average noise level a. Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. b. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. c. Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
d. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines, Appendix D, 2017.

The state has also established noise insulation standards for new multifamily residential units, hotels, and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation-related noise. These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of 45 dB DNL in any habitable room. They require an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than DNL 60 dB. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process.

There are no state regulations related to construction-induced vibration. However, the Caltrans consolidated vibration criteria from various sources for assessing the potential damage to structures from ground vibration induced by construction equipment, and these criteria are included in their Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual167 and summarized in Table 14. As shown in this table, the building damage criteria for continuous vibration sources is about half of the criteria for transient sources.
167 Caltrans 2013.
192
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 123 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
TABLE 14

CALTRANS VIBRATION GUIDELINES FOR POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES Structure Type and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient
Sources a
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources b
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Notes: PPV = Peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second a. Transient sources create a single, isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. b. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Source: Caltrans 2020.

Groundborne vibration and noise can also disturb people, who are generally more sensitive to vibration during the nighttime hours when sleeping than during daytime waking hours. Numerous studies have been conducted to characterize the human response to vibration. Table 15 provides Caltrans’ guidelines regarding vibration annoyance potential (expressed here as PPV).

TABLE 15

CALTRANS GUIDELINES FOR VIBRATION ANNOYANCE POTENTIAL
Human Response
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient
Sources a
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources b
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.1
Severe 2.0 0.4
Notes: PPV = Peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second a. Transient sources create a single, isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. b. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Source: Caltrans 2020.

Local
Lake Tahoe Airport is located within the City of South Lake Tahoe within El Dorado County. There are noise-sensitive receivers, such as single-family and multifamily residences and Tahoe Valley RV Resort & Campground in close proximity to the Airport. The single- and multifamily residences are located 193
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 124 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
within the City of South Lake Tahoe and the campground is located in an unincorporated area of El Dorado County.

El Dorado County
Code of Ordinances
The El Dorado County Code of Ordinances, Section 130.37.020 exempts noise sources of traffic on public roadways, railroad line operations, aircraft in flight, and any other activity where regulation thereof has been preempted by state or federal law. Construction (e.g., construction, alteration, or repair activities) during daytime hours is allowed as long as all construction equipment is equipped with manufacturer-installed muffling devices and maintained in good working order.168 General Plan
The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element of the El Dorado County General Plan provides standards for noise sensitive land uses affected by both transportation and non-transportation sources. For the purposes of the Noise Element, transportation noise sources are defined as traffic on public roadways, railroad line operations and aircraft in flight. As described previously, control of noise from aircraft in flight is preempted by federal laws and regulations.

The Noise Element provides daytime, evening, and nighttime standards for non-transportation sources as shown in Table 16. Non-transportation noise sources may include industrial operations, outdoor recreation facilities, HVAC units, schools, hospitals, commercial land uses, other outdoor land uses, etc.

TABLE 16
NOISE LEVEL PERFORMANCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR NOISE SENSITIVE LAND USES AFFECTED BY NONTRANSPORTATION SOURCES Noise Level Descriptor
Daytime
(7 a.m. to 7 p.m.)
Evening
(7 p.m. to 10 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
Community Rural Community Rural Community Rural
Hourly Leq, dB 55 50 50 45 45 40
Maximum Level, dB 70 60 60 55 55 50
Notes:

Each of the noise levels specified above shall be lowered by five dB for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. These noise level standards do not apply to residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses (e.g., caretaker dwellings).

The County can impose noise level standards which are up to 5 dB less than those specified above based upon determination of existing low ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site.

In Community areas the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving property. In Rural Areas, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied at a point 100' away from the residence. The above standards shall be measured only on property containing a noise sensitive land use as defined in Objective 6.5.1. This measurement standard may be amended to provide for measurement at the boundary of a recorded noise easement between all effected property owners and approved by the County Source: El Dorado County, 2019
Policy 6.5.1.11 states that the noise standards outlined in Table 6-2 of the General Plan shall not apply to those activities associated with actual construction of a project as long as such construction occurs 168 El Dorado County 2025.
194
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 125 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekends, and on federally recognized holidays.169
City of South Lake Tahoe
City Code
Section 6.15.100 requires that when construction activities that include impact equipment and activities such as pile driving, soil compaction, or vibratory hammers that could potentially affect nearby structures occur within 200 feet of existing structures, an analysis shall be conducted of potential vibration levels based on the criteria contained in the City General Plan Update EIR (September 2010). Construction activities shall be designed to avoid or mitigate vibrations above 0.02 in/sec. There is no discussion of construction or operational noise standards in the City code.

Section 6.55.200 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code discusses the airport land use compatibility plan, which contains policies that are intended to prevent the development of new noise sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the Airport (City of South Lake Tahoe, 2025). The proposed project does not involve the development of noise sensitive land uses; therefore, this section of the municipal code is not applicable to the project.

General Plan
Policy HS-6.3 in the City’s General Plan Health and Safety Element states that all construction activities that include impact equipment and activities such as pile driving, soil compaction, or vibratory hammers could potentially affect nearby structures.170 Where these activities occur within 200 feet of existing structures, the City shall require an analysis of vibration impacts. In accordance with the policy, construction operations must be designed to avoid or mitigate for vibrations above 0.02 in/sec.

According to Policy HS-8.1, the City shall require all new non-transportation noise sources to not exceed the exterior noise level standards shown in Table 17. These standards shall be measured immediately within the property line of parcels designated as noise-sensitive uses. In instances where a noise-sensitive use is adversely affected by non-transportation noise levels in excess of standards shown in Table 17, per Policy HS-8.2, the City shall require appropriate mitigation to be incorporated into the project’s design in order to achieve the standards shown in Table 17, as measured immediately within the property line or within a designated outdoor activity area of the project (at the discretion of the Community Development Director). Policy HS-8.3 states that the City shall not allow any project to increase the overall background noise levels at receiving land uses by three or more decibels (dB) in instances when measured ambient noise levels exceed the hourly equivalent sound level (Leq) standards contained within Table 17.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Chapter 68.3 of the TRPA‘s Code of Ordinances describes single-event noise level limits for aircraft, watercraft, motor vehicles, motorcycles, off-road vehicles, and over-snow vehicles.171 As the control of noise from aircraft in flight is preempted by federal laws and regulations, the single event noise criteria contained within Chapter 68.3 are not considered applicable to the proposed project. 169 El Dorado County 2019. 170 City of South Lake Tahoe 2022. 171 TRPA 2023. 195
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 126 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
TABLE 17
EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR NEW PROJECTS AFFECTED BY OR INCLUDING NONTRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES Noise Level Descriptor Daytime
(7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
Hourly Leq, dB 55 45
Notes:

1. Each of the noise levels specified above shall be lowered by five dB for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises (e.g., humming sounds, outdoor speaker systems). These noise level standards do not apply to residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses (e.g., caretaker dwellings).

The City can impose noise level standards that are more restrictive than those specified above based on determination of existing low ambient noise levels.

Fixed noise sources which are typically of concern include but are not limited to the following:

HVAC Systems
Pump Stations
Emergency Generators
Steam Valves
Generators
Air Compressors
Conveyor Systems
Pile Drivers
Drill Rigs
Welders
Outdoor Speakers
Cooling Towers/Evaporative Condensers
Lift Stations
Boilers
Steam Turbines
Fans
Heavy Equipment
Transformers
Grinders
Gas or Diesel Motors
Cutting Equipment
Outdoor Speakers Blowers
The types of uses which may typically produce the noise sources described above include but are not limited to: industrial facilities including pump stations, trucking operations, tire shops, auto maintenance shops, metal fabricating shops, shopping centers, drive-up windows, car washes, loading docks, public works projects, batch plants, bottling and canning plants, recycling centers, electric generating stations, race tracks, landfills, sand and gravel operations, and athletic fields.

2. For the purposes of this General Plan, transportation noise sources are defined as traffic on public roadways, railroad line operations, and aircraft in flight. Control of noise from these sources is preempted by Federal and State regulations. Nontransportation noise sources may include industrial operations, outdoor recreation facilities, HVAC units, loading docks, etc.

Source: City of South Lake Tahoe 2022.

Thresholds of Significance
Construction Noise
For noise sensitive receptors within the El Dorado County, construction noise is exempted as long as such construction occurs between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekends and federally recognized holidays.

For noise-sensitive receivers within the City of South Lake Tahoe, a significant impact would result if construction noise exceeds 55 dB hourly Leq at noise sensitive receivers between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Vibration Structural Damage
The City of South Lake Tahoe has defined a vibration impact standard. A vibration impact would occur if the construction activities occur within 200 feet of existing structures and the PPV level exceeds 0.02 in/sec. This threshold is more stringent than the FTA and Caltrans thresholds for both historic structures and buildings of standard construction.

El Dorado County does not have vibration impact standards. Therefore, the standards established by the City of South Lake Tahoe are used for this analysis.
196
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 127 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Vibration Human Annoyance
Neither the City of South Lake Tahoe nor El Dorado County have established human annoyance impact standards due to construction vibration. Therefore, the FTA’s impact threshold are used for this analysis.

For residential and other land uses where people are likely to sleep, the human annoyance impact threshold used is 80 VdB.

Impact Analysis
Topic a
The proposed project includes a series of improvements to the Airport that would occur over approximately a 20-year period. The actual construction duration of the various project components would vary from less than 1 month to 24 months. Proposed project elements include pavement marking and signage improvements, pavement reconstruction and rehabilitation, taxiway modifications, construction and expansion of new hangars and fixed-base operator facilities, construction of a new parking garage, demolition and removal of an existing air traffic control tower, relocation of a weather observation system, installation of a new bike path, electric aircraft charging station, and aircraft wash rack.

Construction activities would include the use of heavy equipment, such as excavators, graders, front-end loaders, asphalt pavers, rollers, dump trucks, bottom dumps, and street sweepers along with the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other sources of noise. Pile driving may be required for the construction of the future parking garage depending on soil conditions. Typical construction phases would include clearing and demolition, excavation and grading, foundation installation, building construction, paving, and finishing. During each construction phase there would be a different mix of equipment operating and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of each activity. As such, construction activity noise levels at the project site would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, location, and duration of use of the various pieces of construction equipment.

Details related to the mix of construction equipment and usage times are not available, as the various elements of the project are still being designed. Table 18 presents noise levels associated with typical construction equipment that are likely to be used for the proposed project.

Consistent with the general assessment methodology provided by the FTA, this analysis assumes the simultaneous operation of the two noisiest pieces of construction equipment to calculate construction noise levels for comparison with the threshold. For pile driving activities, the simultaneous operation of a pile driver and crane is assumed, which would result in exterior noise levels exceeding the 55 dBA threshold as far as 4,600 feet from pile driving activities. To estimate noise levels from standard construction equipment (other than pile driving), the simultaneous operation of a concrete saw and jackhammer is assumed. This would result in exterior noise levels exceeding the 55 dBA Leq threshold at receptors within 1,630 feet of construction activities. Receptors are located within these distances from proposed project sites and would be exposed to noise levels in excess of the City’s impact threshold of 55 dB hourly Leq resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is identified to reduce this impact to less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required for pile driving activities occurring within 4,600 feet of noise sensitive receivers and standard construction activities occurring within 1,630 feet of noise sensitive receptors within the City of South Lake Tahoe to ensure construction noise levels of 55 dB hourly Leq or less at the receptors. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce this impact to South Lake Tahoe receptors to less than significant. 197
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 128 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
TABLE 18

MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Construction Equipment Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA, Lmax) Air Compressor 78
Backhoe 78
Bore/Drill Rig 84
Chain Saw 84
Compactor 83
Concrete Batch Plant 83
Concrete Mixer Truck 79
Concrete Pump Truck 81
Concrete Saw 90
Crane 81
Dozer 82
Excavator 81
Front End Loader 79
Generator Set 81
Grader 85
Haul Truck 77
Impact and Vibratory Pile Driver 101
Jackhammer 89
Paver 77
Pump 81
Roller 80
Rough Terrain Forklift 83
Scraper 84
Sweeper/Scrubber 82
Tractor 84
Sources: FHWA 2006; FTA 2018.

Construction noise impacts to receptors within El Dorado County would be less than significant as long as construction activities associated with the proposed project take place between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekends, and on federally recognized holidays. It is assumed that the proposed project’s construction activities would be limited to these hours, and therefore the impact would be less than significant.

Overall, construction noise impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
198
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 129 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Topic b
Construction equipment associated with the proposed project would generate groundborne vibration.

Table 19 shows the vibration levels associated with the highest vibration generating construction equipment. Vibration levels are provided as PPV expressed in in/sec and root mean square (RMS) velocity expressed as VdB. Based on the information presented in Table 19, impact pile drivers produce maximum vibration at 0.644 in/sec at 25 feet. Pile driving, if found to be necessary, would be used only for construction activities associated with the proposed parking garage. For standard construction equipment anticipated to be used for the proposed project, maximum vibration levels generated would be

0.210 PPV at 25 feet from the use of a vibratory roller. This corresponds to an RMS velocity level of 94 VdB at 25 feet from the source activity.

TABLE 19

VIBRATION LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment Approximate PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet Approximate RMS (VdB) at 25 feet Pile Driver (impact) 0.644 104
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Large Bulldozer, Caisson Drill 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: FTA 2018.

Structure Damage
Vibration from construction activities would have the potential to impact nearby structures and cause structural or cosmetic building damage. As discussed earlier, the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan identifies a vibration threshold for structural damage at 0.02 in/sec when construction activities occur within 200 feet of structures. Table 20 presents the distances within which each equipment type would generate vibration levels in excess of 0.02 in/sec.

TABLE 20
DISTANCES EXCEEDING 0.02 IN/SEC THRESHOLD
Equipment Distance (feet)
Pile Driver (impact) 255
Vibratory Roller 120
Large Bulldozer 70
Loaded Trucks 65
Jackhammer 40
Small Bulldozer 10
Source: Table compiled by ESA in 2025.
199
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 130 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
If the distances separating construction equipment from nearby structures are less than the distances presented in Table 20, the City’s building damage vibration threshold would be exceeded resulting in potential structural damage. There are no offsite structures within 255 feet of the proposed parking garage where pile driving is likely to occur or within 120 feet of project construction areas where non-pile driving equipment would be used. However, there are structures on Airport property that could be affected. The Airport Terminal building, which is eligible for listing on the California Register as a historic building, is located approximately 60 feet from the location of the proposed parking structure where pile driving activities could occur. At this distance, pile driving would result in a vibration level of

0.17 in/sec, which would exceed the City of South Lake Tahoe vibration impact threshold of 0.02 in/sec and result in a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2 is identified to reduce vibration impact from pile driving activities at the proposed parking structure to nearby structures, primarily the Airport Terminal. Therefore, the vibration impact from construction would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Human Annoyance
Construction vibration could annoy people within a building primarily through sleep disturbance at night.

Therefore, receptors for human annoyance include residences, hotels, motels, and other land uses where people sleep. The FTA vibration impact threshold for human annoyance at Category 2 land uses including residences and buildings where people sleep is 80 VdB for infrequent events such as construction activities. The RMS value of a vibratory roller at 25 feet would be 94 VdB. In order to be greater than 80 VdB, a vibratory roller needs to be within 80 feet of a receptor. There are no residences or other Category 2 land uses within 80 feet of the project construction areas. Besides, construction activities would be limited to daytime hours consistent with El Dorado County noise ordinance restrictions. Therefore, the human annoyance impact from construction vibration would be less than significant.

Topic c
Airport land use compatibility plans (ALUCPs) are adopted by airport land use commissions (ALUCs) and ensure compatibility of airport operations with land use planning in the surrounding communities affected by airport noise and safety concerns. The objectives of compatible land use planning are to encourage land uses that are generally considered to be incompatible with airports (such as residential, schools, and churches) to be located away from airports and to encourage land uses that are more compatible (such as industrial and commercial uses) to be located in the vicinity of airports. The City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the South Lake Tahoe ALUC, adopted an updated ALUCP on September 12, 2019, for the environs of South Lake Tahoe Airport, which identifies the Airport influence area with land uses exposed to aircraft noise above CNEL 65 dB and noise compatibility policies.172
Compatible land use planning is an important consideration during the master planning process that involves changes to aircraft operations thereby resulting in a change in the extent of surrounding land uses affected within the 65 CNEL contour. However, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any changes to aircraft operations, runway use, or the types or number of aircraft operating at the Airport. Therefore, there would be no change to the extent of incompatible land uses within the CNEL 172 South Lake Tahoe ALUC 2019.
200
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 131 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
65 dB contour in the Airport vicinity covered under the airport land use plan with implementation of the proposed project, and implementation of the proposed project would not result in additional people residing or working in the airport land use plan area who would be exposed to excessive aircraft noise levels.

All proposed project components would be located on Airport property and would not introduce any new residents to the project area. In summary, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in an airport land use plan area to excessive noise levels and this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
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.
• Ensure that all heavy construction equipment include manufacturer approved/supplied mufflers and other standard noise-reducing engine devices. • Use “quiet” pile driving methods such as hydraulic pressing, vibratory hammers, or preaugering to reduce noise. • Use acoustic barriers and noise curtains around high noise generating stationary equipment. • Minimize heavy equipment engine idling whenever possible. • Stage all heavy construction as far away as possible from noise sensitive uses. • Limit construction operations to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekends, and on federally recognized holidays.
• Erect temporary noise barriers to block a line-of-sight between construction equipment and noise sensitive receivers when it is feasible and practical.

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. 201
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 132 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
• 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.
• 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.

References
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September 2013. Accessed June 2025. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/ programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf. ———. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April 2020. Accessed June 2025. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgmapr2020-a11y.pdf.

City of South Lake Tahoe. 2022. General Plan Policy Document – Health and Safety Element. Amended November 1, 2022.
———. 2025. South Lake Tahoe City Code. Accessed June 2025. www.codepublishing.com/CA/SouthLakeTahoe/.

City of South Lake Tahoe Airport Land Use Commission. 2007. Lake Tahoe Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. May 2007. Accessed June 2025. https://ca-southlaketahoe.civicplus.com/Document Center/View/1139/CLUP-COMPLETE-2007.

County of El Dorado County. 2019. El Dorado County General Plan Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element. Amended August 2019. Accessed June 2025. www.eldoradocounty.ca.gov/files/assets/ county/v/1/documents/land-use/planning-amp-zoning/adopted-general-plan/6_health-safety.pdf.

El Dorado County. 2025. El Dorado County Code of Ordinances. Accessed June 2025. library.municode.com/ca/el_dorado_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT130ZO_ART 3SIPLPRDEST_CH130.37NOST.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2006. FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. April 28, 2006. Accessed June 2025. www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-07/5050-4B_complete.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Construction Noise Handbook. Chapter 9.0, Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges. August 2006. Accessed June 2025. www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

September 2018. Accessed June 2025. www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. 202
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 133 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Lake Tahoe Airport Land Use Commission. 2019. Lake Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

September 2019. Accessed June 2025. www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/13175/TVL_Final_ ALUCP_ALUCP_ONLY_190912?bidId=.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2023. Code of Ordinances. Amended September 27, 2023.

Accessed June 2025. www.trpa.gov/code-of-ordinances-8/. 203
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 134 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Population and Housing
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Impact Analysis
Topics a and b
The proposed project comprises a long-range plan for Airport development that includes both airside and landside improvements that would occur over approximately a 20-year period. The proposed project is intended to improve the safety of existing Airport operations, meet compliance with current FAA design standards, and accommodate existing and forecasted aviation demands. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the construction of new residences; as such, it would not induce residential growth. While a limited number of new buildings and facilities would be constructed with implementation of the proposed project, the project is not anticipated to result in an increase in Airport employees. The proposed project would not result in the displacement of any housing or necessitate the construction of replacement housing. Therefore, impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
204
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 135 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Public Services
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES —
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the following
public services:
i) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
v) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Impact Analysis
Topic a.i
The proposed project comprises a long-range plan for Airport development that includes both airside and landside improvements that would occur over approximately a 20-year period. 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. The proposed project is intended to improve the safety of existing Airport operations, meet compliance with current FAA design standards, and accommodate existing and forecasted aviation demands. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in aircraft operations or an increase in the number of Airport employees.

The proposed project would not result in a substantial need for fire protection facilities or new or physically altered government facilities. The proposed project would not increase the level of aircraft operations or the number of employees; therefore, existing fire protection facilities and services would be minimally affected. For fire protection services, the Airport is served by South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue.

The nearest fire station is South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue Station Three, which serves as the administration headquarters and is located at 2101 Lake Tahoe Boulevard in South Lake Tahoe, approximately 1.6 miles to the north of the Airport. The buildings envisioned in the proposed project would be required to meet the fire flow and fire safety requirements per the FAA and the City of South Lake Tahoe and would be designed to meet access requirements for fire and emergency vehicles and personnel. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Topic a.ii
It is not anticipated that the proposed project would result in any additional security needs. For police services, the Airport is served by the South Lake Tahoe Police Department, and their headquarters is located at 1352 Johnson Boulevard in South Lake Tahoe, approximately 3.7 miles to the northeast of the 205
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 136 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Airport. The proposed project would not result in the construction of residential units or result in an increase in Airport employees. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce a need to alter any existing police facility or a need to construct a new police facility. This impact would be less than significant.

Topic a.iii
The proposed project would not result in the construction of residential units nor generate any residential population and would therefore not induce a need to alter any school facilities or construct any school facilities. There would be no impact.

Topic a.iv
The proposed project would not result in the construction of residential units nor generate any residential population. The proposed project does not include any parks and would not generate the need for new or altered park or recreation facilities. There would be no impact.

Topic a.v
The proposed project would involve a series of improvements within the Airport largely focused on improving and replacing existing facilities. The proposed project would not result in the construction of residential units nor generate any residential population and would therefore not induce a need to alter any additional government facilities. There would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
206
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 137 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Recreation
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVI. RECREATION —
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Impact Analysis
Topics a and b
The proposed project would involve a series of improvements within the Airport property largely focused on improving and replacing existing facilities. The proposed project would not result in the construction of residential units nor generate any residential population that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. As discussed in the Project Description, the proposed project includes construction of segments of a future bicycle path that would occur within the Airport property boundary. The physical environmental effects of the construction of the bicycle path segments are addressed in the applicable topical sections of this initial study. Impacts related to recreation would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
207
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 138 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Transportation
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVII.TRANSPORTATION — Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Regulatory Framework
Local
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Regional Plan Transportation Element The bi-state compact and TRPA Regional Plan calls for the development of an integrated transportation plan addressing all modes of travel to reduce dependency on the automobile, reduce air pollution that is caused by motor vehicles, and provide public transportation and public programs and projects related to transportation. The TRPA Regional Plan Transportation Element includes transportation goals, policies, and implementation measures that address multiple aspects of transportation planning and interact to create a successful multi-modal transportation system.

The TRPA is designated as the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization (TMPO) for state and federal transportation planning. In addition to fulfilling the bi-state compact’s directives, as the TMPO, TRPA is required to develop a long-range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) consistent with federal transportation laws. The RTP must also meet statutory requirements in California through the adoption of a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The SCS lays out a plan for reducing passenger vehicle related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in California. The goals and policies of the RTP are identical to those in the Regional Plan Transportation Element. In addition to goals and policies, the RTP also includes a detailed transportation improvement strategy, predicated on received or forecasted funding.

Impact Analysis
Topic a
The proposed project comprises a long-range plan for Airport development that includes both airside and landside improvements that would occur over approximately a 20-year period. 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. The proposed project is intended to improve the safety of existing Airport operations, meet compliance with current FAA design standards, and accommodate existing and forecasted aviation demands. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in aircraft operations or an increase in the number of Airport employees. The 208
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 139 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
proposed project would not conflict with the goals, policies, and implementation measures of the TRPA Regional Plan Transportation Element or the RTP. This impact would be less than significant.

Topic b
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts, describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts and states that, generally, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project, is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. Section 15064.3, subdivision (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. As discussed above, 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. The proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). This impact would be less than significant.

Topic c
The proposed project would only result in operational changes and would not alter any existing facilities or infrastructure in a manner that would increase hazards. There would be no impact related to this significance criterion.

Topic d
The proposed project would not alter existing roadways or require roadway lane closures. Implementation of the proposed project would not create obstacles within the Airport property that would hinder response to emergencies within the Airport. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

References
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 1987. Threshold Standards and Regional Plan. Adopted by the TRPA Governing Board June 25, 1987. Updated December 12, 2012. Amended May 22, 2024. 209
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 140 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Tribal Cultural Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES —
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources.

Code Section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Regulatory Framework
California Register of Historical Resources
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the California Register is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.” A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the California Register if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it meets one or more of the following criteria, which are modeled on National Register criteria, and retains sufficient integrity to reflect its historical significance:
• It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
• It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. • It 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. • It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

Typically, an archaeological site in California is recommended eligible for listing in the California Register based on its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion 4). Important information includes chronological markers such as projectile point styles or obsidian artifacts that can be subjected to dating methods or undisturbed deposits that retain their stratigraphic integrity. However, archaeological sites may also be recommended eligible under California Register Criteria 1, 2, and/or 3. 210
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 141 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
As with traditional cultural properties in the National Register, identification of tribal cultural resources for the California Register emphasizes a place or a feature’s value and significance to living communities.

Assembly Bill (AB) 52, summarized below, further clarified this designation process.

Public Resources Code
AB 52, enacted in September 2014, amended CEQA to explicitly recognize that California Native American tribes have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices. AB 52 has been codified as Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1, 21074 and 21084.2, and established a new category of cultural resources known as tribal cultural resources in order for state and local agencies to consider tribal cultural values when determining impacts on cultural resources. Public Resources Code section 21074(a) defines a tribal cultural resource as any of the following:
• Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
– Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register; or – Included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).173
• A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code section 5024.1(c).174 In applying these criteria, the lead agency would consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
• A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of CEQA section 21074(a)175 also is a tribal cultural resource if the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope. • An historical resource as described in CEQA section 21084.1,176 a unique archaeological resource as defined in CEQA section 21083.2,177 or a non-unique archaeological resource as defined in CEQA section 21083.2178 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it meets the criteria of CEQA section 21074(a).
173 Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k) defines “local register of historical resources” as “a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution.” 174 The criteria set forth in Public Resources Code section 5024.1(c) include whether a resource: “(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, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” 175 A cultural landscape meets the criteria of Public Resources Code section 21074(a) if it either is “included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources” or is “included in a local register of historical resources” pursuant to section 5020.1(k). 176 Public Resources Code section 21084.1 defines an historical resource as “a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources.” 177 Public Resources Code section 21083.2(g) defines unique archaeological resource as “an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: (1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; (2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; (3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.” 178 Public Resources Code section 21083.2(h) defines nonunique archaeological resource as “an archaeological artifact, object, or site which does not meet the criteria in subdivision (g).” 211
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 142 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
AB 52 requires lead agencies to analyze project impacts on “tribal cultural resources” separately from archaeological resources,179 in recognition that archaeological resources have cultural values beyond their ability to yield data important to prehistory or history. AB 52 also defines tribal cultural resources in Public Resources Code section 21074 (see above), and requires lead agencies to engage in additional consultation procedures with respect to California Native American tribes.180 Native American Heritage Commission
The NAHC identifies and manages a catalog of places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans. This database, known as the Sacred Lands File, is a compilation of information on known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands and other places of cultural or religious significance to the Native American community. The NAHC also performs other duties regarding the preservation and accessibility of sacred sites and burials and the disposition of Native American human remains and burial items.

Public Resources Code sections 5097.9 through 5097.991 describe the duties and role of the NAHC and requires the cooperation of State and local agencies in carrying out their duties with respect to Native American resources.

Health and Safety Code, Sections 7052 and 7050.5
Section 7052 of the Health and Safety Code states that the disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony. Section 7050.5 requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC.

Other Relevant State Regulations
Sections of the Public Records Act (Government Code sections 6254(r), 6254.10), as well as Health and Safety Code section 7050.5, Penal Code section 622.5, and Public Resources Code section 622.5 provide guidance for protection of archaeological resources and human remains. These codes provide protection from unauthorized excavation, looting, or vandalism; guidance following discovery of human remains; penalty for injuring or destroying objects of historic or archaeological interest; and penalty for unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological or historical features.

Impact Analysis
Topic a.i, ii
ESA contacted the California State NAHC on December 17, 2024, to request a search of the NAHC’s Sacred Lands File and a list of Native American representatives who may have knowledge of tribal cultural resources in the project site, or interest in the project. The NAHC replied to ESA by email on December 26, 2025, with the statement that the result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was positive. The NAHC response included a list of eight Native American representatives from five tribes who may have knowledge of tribal cultural resources in the project site, or be interested in the project. 179 PRC Sections 21074 and 21083.09. 180 PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, and 21082.3. 212
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 143 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
As per Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1, the City has received requests from the Colfax-Todds Valley Consolidated Tribe, Susanville Rancheria, and Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California to be consulted with on the City’s projects. The City sent letters via certified mail to representatives of these three tribes on January 25, 2025 inviting them to consult with the City regarding the Master Plan.

As of the publication of this document, the City has not received a response to the request for consultation.

See the Cultural Resources section above for a summary of ESA’s NCIC records search, background research, pedestrian survey, and archaeological sensitivity analysis.

Based on the results of the NAHC SLF search, tribal outreach, CHRIS records search, and pedestrian survey of the project area, no known tribal cultural resources listed or determined eligible for listing in the California Register, or included in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), pursuant to PRC Section 21074(a)(1), would be affected by the proposed project.

However, if any previously unrecorded archaeological resource were identified during ground-disturbing construction activities and were found to qualify as a tribal cultural resource pursuant to PRC Section 21074(a)(1) (determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register or in a local register of historical resources), any impacts of the proposed project on the resource could be potentially significant.

Any such potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementing Mitigation Measure CUL-1, Mitigation Measure CUL-2, and Mitigation Measure CUL-3. Thus, any potential impacts to tribal cultural resources associated with the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
See Cultural Resources section for mitigation measures.

References
North Central Information Center. Records Search File No. ELD-24-122. On file, ESA, December 18, ESA.
213
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 144 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Utilities and Service Systems
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Impact Analysis
Topics a through c
The proposed project comprises a long-range plan for Airport development that includes both airside and landside improvements that would occur over approximately a 20-year period. While the proposed project would include development of new facilities, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in aircraft operations or an increase in the number of Airport employees. The proposed improvements are intended to improve existing Airport operations and would neither individually nor collectively result in increases in wastewater generation or water demand that would require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, expansion of existing facilities, or exceed wastewater treatment requirements. This impact would be less than significant.

Topics d and e
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in aircraft operations or an increase in the number of Airport employees. Construction of individual project elements over a 20-year period would generate construction waste, but the volume of waste produced would not be anticipated to exceed the capacity of landfills that serve Airport. All solid waste generated by the proposed project would be required to meet federal, state, and local regulations regarding solid waste. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
214
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 145 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Wildfire
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XX. WILDFIRE — If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Regulatory Framework
Federal
National Fire Protection Association
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is a non-profit organization with a mission to eliminate death, economic loss, and property damage from fire, electrical and associated hazards. The NFPA design, building and installation criteria includes 300 codes and standards which aim to minimize the risk of fire incidents.

NFPA 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, establishes a recommended response time for dispatched incidents. The NFPA recommends that fire departments respond to emergency calls within six minutes of receiving the call, 90 percent of the time.

State
California Health and Safety Code
Section 13000 of the California Health and Safety Code outlines state fire regulations such as building standards, fire notification systems, fire protection devices (extinguishers and smoke alarms), high-rise building standards, and childcare facilities standards. The State Fire Marshall is responsible for enforcing the regulations and standards outlined in Section 13000 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Emergency Response
Pursuant to the Emergency Services Act, California has developed an Emergency Plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local governmental agencies and private persons.

Response to hazardous materials incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is administered by the State Office of Emergency Services, which coordinates the responses of other agencies, including the USEPA, 215
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 146 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
the CHP, CDFW, the RWQCB (in this case, the Lahontan RWQCB), the local air districts (in this case, EDCAQMD) and local agencies. The State Emergency Plan defines the “policies, concepts, and general protocols” for the proper implementation of the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). The SEMS is an emergency management protocol that agencies within the State of California must follow during multi-agency response efforts whenever state agencies are involved.

California Public Resources Code
California Public Resources Code Sections 4201 through 4204 require (CAL FIRE to prepare fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) maps for all lands within State Responsibility Areas (SRAs)181 and to make recommendations for such zones in Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs).182 Each zone is to embrace relatively homogeneous lands and is to be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors present, including areas where winds have been identified as a major cause of wildfire spread.

California Building Code
In January of 2008, California officially switched from the Uniform Building Code to the International Building Code (IBC). The IBC specifies construction standards to be used in urban interface and wildland areas where there is an elevated threat of fire.

Local
Lake Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan
The Lake Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) was completed in February 2025.183 The updated plan addresses the region’s evolving wildfire risks, focusing on fuels reduction, preparedness, structural ignitability, and wildfire response. The CWPP is a community-driven plan that prioritizes wildfire risk reduction, using local input and data to guide fuel reduction, improve preparedness, and address structural ignitability. The CWPP is not an evacuation plan. The CWPP identifies areas needing fuel reduction treatments, supports funding requirements for project implementation, and offers educational opportunities to help the public understand wildfire prevention. It also outlines actions homeowners and communities can take to reduce wildfire risk.

Lake Tahoe Regional Evacuation Plan
The Lake Tahoe Regional Evacuation Plan describes the strategies for managing evacuations that exceed the day-to-day capabilities of the various public safety agencies in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The Sheriff’s Office or law enforcement agency with jurisdiction is charged with the responsibility of evacuation in response to a major event threatening the life safety of residents and visitors. With a special emphasis placed on the wildland fire threat, the strategies outlined in the Regional Evacuation Plan are designed using an all-hazards approach to preparing for and managing evacuations. The Regional Evacuation Plan is designed to be applied in any event regardless of the threat or hazard that precipitates the need to evacuate an area. The Regional Evacuation Plan was developed by the cooperative efforts of the Lake Tahoe Fire Chiefs and Lake Tahoe Law Enforcement agencies and is intended to provide the public with 181 State Responsibility Areas are designated geographic areas in California where the State of California, specifically CAL FIRE, is financially responsible for preventing and suppressing wildfires. 182 In Local Responsibility Areas, fire protection is primarily the responsibility of local government agencies, such as city or county fire departments. CAL FIRE does not directly provide fire protection services in LRAs, though they may offer support or guidance. 183 Tahoe Resource Conservation District, 2025, Lake Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 216
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 147 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
critical information related to evacuations and is considered a living document that will be updated from time to time.184
Impact Analysis
Topic a
The Airport is located in an area designated by CAL FIRE as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) under local responsibility (South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue) as recommended by the State Fire Marshal on February 10, 2025.185
The proposed project comprises a long-range plan for Airport development that includes both airside and landside improvements that would occur over approximately a 20-year period. 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. The proposed project is intended to improve the safety of existing Airport operations, meet compliance with current FAA design standards, and accommodate existing and forecasted aviation demands. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in aircraft operations or an increase in the number of Airport employees.

All project construction activities would occur on the Airport property and not on public roads.

Construction activities would not require a large number of vehicles and no roads would be closed or restricted. The Airport is required to comply with numerous state and local regulations as described in the Regulatory Framework above that are designed to reduce fire danger and ensure adequate emergency accesses and response. Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The impact would be less than significant.

Topic b
The proposed project comprises a long-range plan for Airport development that includes both airside and landside improvements within the existing developed Airport property. The Airport is required to comply with numerous state and local regulations as described in the Regulatory Framework above that are designed to reduce fire danger. Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would exacerbate wildfire risks. The impact would be less than significant.

Topic c
The proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. The impact would be less than significant.

Topic d
The proposed project comprises a long-range plan for Airport development that includes both airside and landside improvements within the existing developed Airport property. The Airport is required to comply 184 Lake Tahoe Fire Chiefs Association, 2024, Lake Tahoe Regional Evacuation Plan, September 10, 2024. 185 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), 2025, Fire Hazard Severity Zones. 217
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 148 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
with numerous state and local regulations as described in the Regulatory Framework above that are designed to reduce fire danger. Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. The impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

References
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2025. Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Lake Tahoe Fire Chiefs Association. 2024. Lake Tahoe Regional Evacuation Plan. September 10, 2024.

Tahoe Resource Conservation District. 2025. Lake Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 218
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 149 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE —
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Impact Analysis
Topics a and c
With the incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. The proposed project would not impact rare or endangered wildlife species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. With implementation of the mitigation measures described in this document, the project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Topic b
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. No other projects are proposed that would overlap or interact with the proposed project. The cumulative impact of the proposed project is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
219
Environmental Checklist
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan 150 ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
This page intentionally left blank
220
Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan ESA / D202100181.08
Final IS/MND December 2025
Appendix A
Air Quality Technical Work
221
222
Appendix A
Air Quality Technical Work
223
224
A-1 CalEEMod Output
Appendix A. Air Quality Technical Work
225
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
1 / 52
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2026) - Mitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.4. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2026) - Mitigated
226
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
2 / 52

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated

3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

3.12. Paving (2027) - Mitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
227
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
3 / 52

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
228
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
4 / 52

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
229
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
5 / 52

8. User Changes to Default Data
230
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
6 / 52

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation
Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 44.8
Location 38.89416147771169, -119.9963541030523
County El Dorado-Lake Tahoe
City South Lake Tahoe
Air District El Dorado County AQMD
Air Basin Lake Tahoe
TAZ 417
EDFZ 0-A
Electric Utility Liberty Utilities
Gas Utility Southwest Gas Corp.

App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
General Light
Industry

4.50 1000sqft 0.10 4,500 0.00 — — Ground Service
Equipment (GSE)
Facility
231
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
7 / 52
Parking Lot 38.0 1000sqft 0.87 0.00 0.00 — — Bike Path
General Light
Industry

18.2 1000sqft 0.42 18,200 0.00 — — Box Hanger
General Light
Industry

0.63 1000sqft 0.01 625 0.00 — — Elecetrical Vault
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

61.7 1000sqft 1.42 61,685 0.00 — — Airport Parking
Garage
Parking Lot 1.93 1000sqft 0.04 0.00 0.00 — — Surface Pad for EV Charger
General Light
Industry

1.60 1000sqft 0.04 1,600 0.00 — — Aircraft Wash Rack
Parking Lot 106 1000sqft 2.42 0.00 0.00 — — Taxiway and Pavement Removal
and Reconstruction
General Light
Industry

0.50 1000sqft 0.01 500 0.00 — — ASOS

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-10-B Water Active Demolition Sites

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.49 1.26 10.6 14.6 0.03 0.38 17.5 17.9 0.35 1.78 2.14 — 2,891 2,891 0.11 0.07 1.63 2,916 Mit. 1.49 1.26 10.6 14.6 0.03 0.38 17.5 17.9 0.35 1.78 2.14 — 2,891 2,891 0.11 0.07 1.63 2,916 232
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
8 / 52
%
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 34.3 34.3 47.5 29.6 0.13 1.24 213 214 1.14 22.9 24.0 — 18,590 18,590 0.22 2.39 0.57 19,306 Mit. 34.3 34.3 47.5 29.6 0.13 1.24 206 207 1.14 21.9 23.0 — 18,590 18,590 0.22 2.39 0.57 19,306 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 3% 3% — 4% 4% — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.05 2.03 10.9 11.6 0.03 0.36 24.3 24.7 0.33 2.93 3.26 — 3,330 3,330 0.09 0.23 1.15 3,401 Mit. 2.05 2.03 10.9 11.6 0.03 0.36 23.9 24.3 0.33 2.87 3.20 — 3,330 3,330 0.09 0.23 1.15 3,401 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 2% 2% — 2% 2% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.37 0.37 1.98 2.12 < 0.005 0.07 4.44 4.50 0.06 0.53 0.59 — 551 551 0.01 0.04 0.19 563 Mit. 0.37 0.37 1.98 2.12 < 0.005 0.07 4.37 4.43 0.06 0.52 0.58 — 551 551 0.01 0.04 0.19 563 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 2% 2% — 2% 2% — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.49 1.26 10.6 14.6 0.03 0.38 17.5 17.9 0.35 1.78 2.14 — 2,891 2,891 0.11 0.07 1.63 2,916 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
233
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
9 / 52
2026 3.84 3.23 47.5 29.6 0.13 1.24 213 214 1.14 22.9 24.0 — 18,590 18,590 0.22 2.39 0.57 19,306 2027 34.3 34.3 10.1 14.7 0.03 0.34 17.5 17.8 0.31 1.78 2.10 — 2,882 2,882 0.11 0.07 0.04 2,905 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.26 1.06 10.9 11.6 0.03 0.36 24.3 24.7 0.33 2.93 3.26 — 3,330 3,330 0.09 0.23 1.15 3,401 2027 2.05 2.03 1.04 1.55 < 0.005 0.04 1.34 1.37 0.04 0.14 0.17 — 272 272 0.01 0.01 0.05 274 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.23 0.19 1.98 2.12 < 0.005 0.07 4.44 4.50 0.06 0.53 0.59 — 551 551 0.01 0.04 0.19 563 2027 0.37 0.37 0.19 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 45.0 45.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 45.3

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.49 1.26 10.6 14.6 0.03 0.38 17.5 17.9 0.35 1.78 2.14 — 2,891 2,891 0.11 0.07 1.63 2,916 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.84 3.23 47.5 29.6 0.13 1.24 206 207 1.14 21.9 23.0 — 18,590 18,590 0.22 2.39 0.57 19,306 2027 34.3 34.3 10.1 14.7 0.03 0.34 17.5 17.8 0.31 1.78 2.10 — 2,882 2,882 0.11 0.07 0.04 2,905 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.26 1.06 10.9 11.6 0.03 0.36 23.9 24.3 0.33 2.87 3.20 — 3,330 3,330 0.09 0.23 1.15 3,401 2027 2.05 2.03 1.04 1.55 < 0.005 0.04 1.34 1.37 0.04 0.14 0.17 — 272 272 0.01 0.01 0.05 274 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.23 0.19 1.98 2.12 < 0.005 0.07 4.37 4.43 0.06 0.52 0.58 — 551 551 0.01 0.04 0.19 563 2027 0.37 0.37 0.19 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 45.0 45.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 45.3 234
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
10 / 52

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (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

2.72 2.29 20.7 19.0 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.78 — 0.78 — 3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 — 3,438 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 18.8 18.8 — 2.85 2.85 — — — — — — —
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

0.15 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
— — — — — — 1.03 1.03 — 0.16 0.16 — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
235
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
11 / 52
Off-Roa 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 d
Equipm
ent
Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.19 0.19 — 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 0.48 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

3.2. Demolition (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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 236
TVL TRPA CEQA Documentation Detailed Report, 5/13/2025
12 / 52
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

2.72 2.29 20.7 19.0 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.78 — 0.78 — 3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 — 3,438 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 12.0 12.0 — 1.82 1.82 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck