Construction activities subject to the Lake Tahoe Construction Stormwater Permit include clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavation. Dischargers are required to eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters. A SWPPP must be developed and implemented for each site covered by the permit. The SWPPP must include BMPs designed to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and keep products of erosion from moving offsite into receiving waters throughout the construction and life of the project; the BMPs must address source control and, if necessary, pollutant control. BMPs would conform to Chapter 4.5 of the Tahoe BMP Handbook.
Marina General Permit
The Marina General Permit (R6T-2016-0038) regulates stormwater discharges and minor construction activities at commercial marinas within Lake Tahoe. The Marina General Permit regulates industrial stormwater discharges from marina operations, stormwater discharges from parking lots, and other activities associated with marina operation. The permit requires implementation of BMPs and may require additional documentation beyond the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit for the Lake Tahoe Basin, including a Marina Pollution Prevention Plan (MPPP), a Discharger Monitoring Plan (DMP), and a Marina Surface Water Monitoring Plan (MSWMP). 935
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
92 Local
City of South Lake Tahoe Code of Ordinances
Chapter 7.20 of the City’s Code of Ordinances includes local provisions and requirements related to the manner in which grading and sediment control are to be performed within city limits, so as to limit erosion and transport of sediment off-site that may affect water quality. The City’s Code of Ordinances regulates grading on both public and private property with the intent of avoiding pollution of watercourses.
4.10.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the Project:
CEQA Question Impact Determination
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant Impact
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 off-site; Less Than Significant Impact
ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Less Than Significant Impact
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
Less Than Significant Impact
iv. impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation? Less Than Significant Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less Than Significant Impact
4.10.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact
Project implementation would result in grading and excavation of the Project area, which would expose sediment and soil material. Exposed sediment could affect surface water quality if not properly 936
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
93 controlled on-site. All projects in the Tahoe Basin are required to comply with TRPA water quality protections. Temporary construction BMPs that would be required through existing regulations, such as Chapter 33 and Section 60.4 of the TRPA Code, would include temporary erosion control BMPs, dust control measures, requirements to minimize soil disturbance, winterization by October 15, stockpile stabilization, spill prevention plans, tracking prevention, and permanent stabilization of any disturbed areas. All construction projects in the Tahoe Basin must be consistent with TRPA requirements (including Chapter 4.5 of the TRPA BMP Handbook; TRPA 2014), the federal antidegradation policy, and maintain designated beneficial uses of Lake Tahoe.
Further, installation of the replacement bulkhead would involve work within a Water of the State of California and WOUS, and a 1602 LSAA from CDFW and Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from USACE would be required, including the permit conditions (i.e., requirements) associated with each. These would include considerations related to maintaining water quality standards through on-site BMPs and waste discharge requirements. Additionally, and as part of the Project, the in-kind replacement of the bulkhead would occur in front of the existing bulkhead to protect water quality.
Lastly, because the Project would disturb more than 1 acre, a SWPPP would be prepared and implemented upon Project approval, consistent with NPDES requirements and to comply with Lahontan RWQCB Tahoe Construction General Permit (Order No. R6T-2016-0010). The SWPPP, consistent with the Construction General Permit, would identify and require temporary BMPs (e.g., tarping of any stockpiled materials or soil; use of silt fences, fiber rolls, dust control, tracking control, etc.) and permanent BMPs (e.g., structural containment, revegetation, stabilization) for use in all construction areas to reduce or eliminate the discharge of soil, surface water runoff, and pollutants during all excavation, grading, trenching, repaving, or other ground-disturbing activities. The Project would also comply with the South Lake Tahoe City Code Chapter 7.20: Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control. Through compliance with existing regulations, including the Clean Water Act, TRPA Code, NPDES requirements, and the South Lake Tahoe City Code, impacts related to erosion potential and the transport of sediment and other pollutants would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b) Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would involve redeveloping existing marina facilities with new/modern structures and maintaining the current use type. While there would be a modest increase in water consumption during operation due to the increased square footage, water consumption would be more efficient due to the modern facilities and would be provided to the site by STPUD, which is anticipated to have adequate supplies. Groundwater is the primary source of water for most communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and drawdown of groundwater levels has not been a significant problem within the region recently, indicating ample supply (STPUD 2019).
The Project would also replace existing pavement with permeable pavement, and areas not covered by pavement or facilities would include landscaping and be designed to capture stormwater and facilitate 937
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
94 groundwater recharge. On-site storm drain facilities would be designed to infiltrate the 20-year 1 inch per hour storm event as required by TRPA Code Section 60.4. Therefore, the Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with recharge such that sustainable groundwater management within the basin would be impeded. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. c) Would the Project 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 off-site? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would involve the redevelopment of existing marina facilities at TKM. General locations of on-site facilities and overall drainage patterns of the site are anticipated to remain consistent with existing conditions (i.e., runoff would be collected on-site in accordance with NPDES requirements.) The Project would improve stormwater capture systems on site, including a new drainage system, permeable pavement, landscaping/bioswales for stormwater retention, and an underground stormwater storage and infiltration system. Landscaping/bioswale areas would primarily be located along the eastern and southern edges of the Project area with some additional areas provided within the proposed surface parking lot. This would be considered an improvement compared to the existing retention basin within the southeastern portion of the site and a few infiltration locations within the Project area. No streams or rivers traverse the Project area, and no modifications to such features would be required as part of the Project. The replacement boat ramp and bulkhead that would be installed within the existing marina lagoon would not modify existing drainage patterns. Further, the replacement bulkhead would be constructed in front of the existing bulkhead, so as to minimize the potential for inadvertent soil disturbance. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. No mitigation is required.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact
As discussed above, the Project would modify the Project area but would not substantially change the current level of permeability or drainage patterns. Further and consistent with NPDES and TRPA requirements, adequate stormwater capture systems would be provided, including bioswales, to prevent flooding and excess accumulation of surface runoff. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact. No mitigation would be required. 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?
Less Than Significant Impact
938
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
95 As noted above, the Project would manage all stormwater on site, consistent with NPDES and TRPA requirements, including any discharge of stormwater into Lake Tahoe. The Project would comply with Section 7.15 Urban Runoff and Storm Water Quality Management of the City of South Lake Tahoe Code, which requires projects to prevent, control, and reduce storm water pollutants that would contribute pollution to stormwater, a storm drain system, or waters of the state. The Project would also modernize and improve existing on-site stormwater collection and treatment infrastructure, and no substantial increase in stormwater discharge would occur due to compliance with federal, regional, and local regulatory requirements. As such, no additional runoff would be conveyed to the City stormwater infrastructure on Venice Drive East, and the Project would not result in stormwater flows that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage facilities, nor would it subject existing facilities to polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact
As noted above, the Project area is located within Zone X, which represents areas between the 100- and 500-year floodplains or areas of shallow flooding less than one foot in depth. These areas are generally considered to have a minimal flood hazard. The Project would not alter the course of a stream or river such that the direction of flood flows would be redirected. Site grading and improvements would be designed to maintain existing drainage patterns and convey runoff through engineered on-site stormwater facilities consistent with the City of South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code and TRPA Code of Ordinances. Because the Project would occur in an area of minimal to moderate flood hazard and would not obstruct or redirect flood flows, the Project would not modify existing flood risk in the area, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation?
Less Than Significant Impact
As noted above, the Project area is not located within a flood hazard zone and would not increase risks associated with flooding as it would not result in a change of use. While never recorded in the region during historic times, geologic events could trigger a seiche in Lake Tahoe, sending waves up to 30 feet back and forth across the lake (Ichinose et al. 2000). An event of this kind could inundate the Project area, however, the Project would not result in a change in use or intensity such that an increased risk of release of pollutants due to emergency conditions associated with a seiche would occur. On-site facilities would be maintained in accordance with applicable requirements related to safety and stormwater controls, including the replacement 12,000-gallon fuel tank. As such, redevelopment of the Project area would not modify or increase existing risks associated with inundation by a seiche. impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. e) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact
939
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
96 As discussed above, the Project would obtain all applicable permitting prior to Project implementation.
The Project is designed to be consistent with the Lahontan Basin Plan and TRPA Plan Area Statement, and would implement the BMPs outlined in Chapter 5 of the Basin Plan and TRPA Best Management Practices Handbook. Water quality standards and control measures for surface water and groundwater within the Lahontan Region are contained in the Lahontan Basin Plan. The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses for water bodies. It establishes water quality objectives, waste discharge prohibitions, and other implementation measures to protect those beneficial uses. Chapter 5, “Water Quality Standards and Control Measures for the Tahoe Region,” of the Basin Plan summarizes a variety of control measures for the protection and enhancement of Lake Tahoe. The Project does not include development of uses or activities that would conflict with the Basin Plan or with any other water quality control or sustainable groundwater management plan. Additionally, as discussed in item a), above, the Project would not adversely affect surface or groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
940
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
97 4.11 Land Use and Planning
4.11.1 Environmental Setting
All parcels in the Project area are within the boundaries of the City of South Lake Tahoe. More specifically, the Project area is located within the southeast corner of the Tahoe Keys development, a predominantly residential development along the southern shore of Lake Tahoe. Three apartments are currently provided within existing on-site buildings. Neighboring uses consist of residential to the west and south, and recreation and conservation uses to the east and north. The majority of the Project area is zoned as commercial, with the southeastern parcel of the Project area zoned as residential.
4.11.2 Regulatory Setting
Regional
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Regional Plan
Land use planning and regulation in the Tahoe Basin is guided by the TRPA Tahoe Regional Plan and Code of Ordinances. The Regional Plan is intended to establish a balance between the natural environment and the built environment; and attain and maintain TRPA’s environmental thresholds. The Regional Plan includes Goals and Policies that guide decision making as it affects the Region’s resources and environmental thresholds, and they are intended to provide opportunities for orderly growth and development consistent with those thresholds. The Goals and Policies are addressed in six major elements: land use, transportation, conservation, recreation, and public services and facilities Land in the Lake Tahoe Region is assigned to one of eight classifications: Wilderness, Backcountry, Conservation, Recreation, Resort Recreation, Residential, Mixed-Use, and Tourist. The classifications summarize major land uses that exist in the Region and are further supplemented by the plan area statements, community plans, master plans, and area plans. The Regional Plan designates the Project area as MixedUse (City of South Lake Tahoe n.d.). The Regional Plan identifies Mixed-Use areas as 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 classification is to concentrate higher intensity land uses for public convenience and enhanced sustainability (TRPA 2012).
Local
City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan
The City’s General Plan provides a comprehensive plan for the City through 2030. The General Plan vision for future land use and community design is:
In 2030, the Highway 50 corridor has been transformed into an interconnected series of compact mixed‐use (commercial, office, residential, and tourist accommodation) districts that serve the needs of residents and visitors alike. The corridor is the heart of the community and contains year‐round sidewalks and bike paths. The transformation of the corridor has been 941
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
98 fueled by the cooperative efforts of local, regional, and state governments, and private investors who share the vision for a prosperous and healthy region (City of South Lake Tahoe 2011:LU-1).
Several policies in the City General Plan related to land use and enhancing compact development (and indirectly environmental impacts) are applicable to the project, including:
• Policy LU-1.2: Smart Growth. The City shall implement Smart Growth principles to create walkable, mixed-use centers, compact and complete neighborhoods, and enhance gateways and places.
• Policy LU-1.7: Live/Work Opportunities: The City shall encourage live/work and work/live opportunities with flexible buildings and mixed-use land use designations that allow local businesses to grow and evolve over time.
• Policy LU-3.2: Neighborhood and Recreation Connectivity: The City shall improve connections and access to a wide range of recreational opportunities, which will improve the quality of life of residents and visitors.
• Policy LU‐5.3: Commercial Center Enhancement. The City shall encourage the upgrade and/or expansion of existing commercial centers, including improvements to parking and landscaping areas; redesigns to accommodate bicycles, pedestrians, and transit facilities; and remodeling to include “green” technology and improve energy efficiency.
4.11.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the Project:
CEQA Question Impact Determination
a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact 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?
Less Than Significant Impact
4.11.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the Project physically divide an established community? No Impact
The Project would consist of redevelopment of existing marina facilities. The Project would not increase the boundaries of the marina or result in the reduction or modification of the existing Tahoe Keys development. The 3 residential units provided within the Project area are for on-site employees and would be redeveloped as part of the Project, resulting in no net reduction in the number of on-site residences. As the Project area is located along the periphery of the Tahoe Keys development and would not result in a change in use, it would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, there would be no impact, and no mitigation is required.
942
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
99 b) Would the Project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would involve the redevelopment of existing marina facilities with the intent of providing more modern facilities that would be more efficient and consistent with existing development in the area. While the Project would temporarily remove existing housing on site, it would reconstruct the same number and same type of units, maintaining consistency with City General Plan Policy LU-1.7 and providing live/work opportunities within the City. In addition, the Project would enhance an existing marina amenity within the City by providing modernized marina facilities and enhancing ease of access to TKM, thereby encouraging engagement within Tahoe Keys and the broader city, consistent with Policies LU-1.2, LU-3.2, and LU-5.3. With respect to the Regional Plan, the Project would provide modernized facilities designed to enhance the experience and engagement at TKM, consistent with the purpose of mixed-use designation for the Project area to concentrate higher intensity land uses for public convenience and enhanced sustainability. Further, the Project would be required to comply with TRPA Regional Plan policies and TRPA Code of Ordinances, which are adopted for the purpose of minimizing development impacts to the environment.
With respect to the height of the Project, the proposed boat storage building would have a high point of 42 feet above ground surface. As noted above in Section 4.9 (Hazards), the Project is located within Review Area 2, but would not affect existing airport operations or increase risks associated with the operation of Lake Tahoe Airport due to its height. In addition, although the Project would exceed the stated maximum allowable height for buildings per TRPA Code 37.4.1-1, TRPA is considering an amendment to the TRPA Code of Ordinances that would allow for incrementally taller structures located further from the shoreline, taking into consideration the surrounding areas and limited potential for visual impacts. Upon issuance of the exception, implementation of the Project would not conflict with existing land use plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of mitigating an environmental effect.
This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. 943
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
100
4.12 Mineral Resources
4.12.1 Environmental Setting
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 requires that the State Mining and Geology Board identify, map, and classify aggregate resources throughout California that contain regionally significant mineral resources. Designations of land areas are assigned by DOC and California Geological Survey following analysis of geologic reports and maps, field investigations, and using information about the locations of active sand and gravel mining operations. The California Mineral Land Classification System represents the relationship between knowledge of mineral deposits and their economic characteristics (grade and size). Lands classified as Mineral Resource Zones are considered important mineral resource areas.
There are no regionally significant aggregate resources (i.e., sand and gravel resources) in the Project area, as identified by DOC, and there are no ongoing mining activities in or near the Project area (DOC 2016). Mining is not an identified allowable use in the Tahoe Basin per Chapter 21 of the TRPA Code.
4.12.2 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the Project:
CEQA Question Impact Determination
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?
No Impact
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? No Impact
4.12.3 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the Project 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? No Impact
According to the El Dorado County General Plan and DOC, there are no state or regionally valuable mineral resources within the Project boundary (El Dorado County 2003, DOC 2016). The Project would not result in the loss of a potential known mineral resource as no known important mineral resource areas exist within the Project area or vicinity. Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation is required.
b) Would the Project 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? No Impact
944
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
101
As stated above, the Project area is not located within or near any active mining operations (DOC 2016), and no known important mineral resource areas exist within the Project area (El Dorado County 2003).
Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation is required. 945
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
102
4.13 Noise
The impact analysis presented in this section is based primarily on the Environmental Noise Assessment for Tahoe Keys Marina prepared by Saxelby Acoustics (2026). The Environmental Noise Assessment, which is included as Appendix C, provides additional data and information related to the assessment of Project impacts. The following analysis focuses on the potential noise impacts to humans and nearby land uses. Noise impacts that may affect biological resources are considered above in Section 4.4 (Biological Resources).
4.13.1 Environmental Setting
Noise
Noise is defined as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, objectional, or disruptive to daily life.
Noise levels are measured to regulate ambient noise and protect people from exposure to excessive noise. Different land uses have different acceptability levels in terms of noise disturbance. For example, industrial uses have a higher noise threshold than residential uses. Noise standards provide a means of assessing exposure and compatibility based on specific uses.
Sound is measured in decibels (dB), a logarithmic scale that expresses sound pressure relative to the quietest sound the human ear can detect. To reflect how humans actually hear, sound levels are “Aweighted” and expressed as dBA, which adjusts for the ear’s reduced sensitivity to very low or high frequencies. Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3-dB increase. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1 – 2 dB are generally not perceptible. However, it is widely accepted that people can begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5-dB increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10-dB increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness (Caltrans 2013).
Various noise descriptors have been developed to describe time-varying noise levels. The noise descriptors used in this chapter include:
• Equivalent Continuous Sound Level (Leq): Leq represents an average of the sound energy occurring over a specified period. In effect, Leq is the steady-state sound level containing the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound level that occurs during the same period (Caltrans 2013). For instance, the 1-hour equivalent sound level, also referred to as the hourly Leq, is the energy average of sound levels occurring during a 1-hour period. • Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): CNEL is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB penalty applied to sound levels occurring during the nighttime hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and a 5-dB penalty applied to the sound levels occurring during evening hours between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. (Caltrans 2013). • Maximum Sound Level (Lmax): Lmax refers to the maximum instantaneous sound level recorded during a specific period, often used to describe the loudest moment of a noise event, such as a passing truck or construction activity.
946
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
103
With respect to surrounding land uses, residential land uses are located to the north and west with some commercial office space located directly adjacent to the Project area’s western boundary, and open space is located to the east and south beyond Venice Drive East. Significant noise generators in the vicinity of the Project area include US 50, approximately 0.9 miles to the southeast, and SR 89, approximately 1 mile to the southwest. The existing noise environment in the Project area is primarily defined by traffic on Venice Road, car/truck circulation within the Project area, and boat noise (Saxelby Acoustics 2026).
Vibration
Vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object with respect to a given reference point.
Groundborne vibration is vibration of and through the ground. Sources of groundborne vibration include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) and those introduced by human activity (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., operating factory machinery) or transient in nature (e.g., explosions).
Within the context of construction, impact pile-driving and tracked equipment can result in perceptible vibration levels.
Groundborne vibration amplitudes are commonly expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or rootmean-square (RMS) vibration velocity. PPV and RMS vibration velocities are normally described in inches per second (in/sec) but can also be expressed in decibel notation (VdB), which is used mainly in evaluating human response to vibration.
Sensitive Receptors
Noise-sensitive land uses (i.e., sensitive receptors) are generally considered to include uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels, and because of the potential for nighttime noise to result in sleep disruption. Additional land uses such as schools, transient lodging, historic sites, cemeteries, and places of worship are also generally considered sensitive to increases in noise levels. Vibration-sensitive land uses are generally considered to be buildings or structures that could be damaged due to vibration or land uses where vibration levels could interfere with operations or cause human annoyance.
In the vicinity of the Project area, sensitive land uses include residential condominiums located to the north and west, along Tahoe Keys Boulevard and Ala Wai Boulevard.
4.13.2 Regulatory Setting
State
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) The State Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 of the State of California Code of Regulations, establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new buildings which house people, including hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses, and dwellings other than 947
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
104
single-family dwellings. Title 24 mandates that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB CNEL in any habitable room. Title 24 also mandates that for structures containing noise-sensitive uses to be located where the CNEL exceeds 60 dB, an acoustical analysis must be prepared to identify mechanisms for limiting exterior noise to the prescribed allowable interior levels. If the interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be kept closed, the design for the structure must also specify a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment.
Local
City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan
The City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan Health and Safety Element includes several relevant policies related to noise, as outlined below:
• Policy HS-8.1: Annoying and Excessive Non-Transportation Noise Protection: Establishes exterior noise level standards for new non-transportation noise sources, such as mechanical or stationary equipment, as measured at the property line of adjacent noise-sensitive uses.
Projects must ensure that operational noise does not exceed the limits identified in Table HS-1 of the General Plan.
• Policy HS-8.2: Annoying and Excessive Non-Transportation Noise Mitigation: Requires the incorporation of appropriate mitigation measures into project design when non-transportation noise levels would adversely affect nearby noise-sensitive land uses or exceed the standards in Table HS-1. Mitigation is to be implemented at the property line or within designated outdoor activity areas as determined by the City.
• Policy HS-8.3: Overall Background Noise Mitigation: Prohibits projects from increasing existing background noise levels by 3 or more decibels (dB) at receiving land uses in cases where ambient noise levels already exceed the General Plan standards shown in Table HS-1. • Policy HS-8.5: New Transportation Noise Source Mitigation: Requires that new transportation noise sources be mitigated to achieve the noise level standards identified in the General Plan.
The standards apply to all outdoor activity areas and interior spaces of existing noise-sensitive land uses. Mitigation is required where transportation-related noise from new or modified sources would exceed the established exterior or interior noise limits. • Policy HS-8.6: Acoustical Analysis Preparation: Requires preparation of an acoustical analysis during environmental review when proposed projects are located in areas exposed to existing or projected exterior noise levels that exceed the thresholds shown in the General Plan.
TRPA Code of Ordinances – Chapter 68: Noise Limitations Chapter 68 identifies maximum allowable noise levels for single-event noises from short-duration sources. TRPA Code prohibits the creation of noise that would cause threshold exceedances in adjacent land use districts.
68.3.1 Single Noise Events:
948
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
105
Single noise event threshold standards adopted by TRPA are based on the numerical value associated with the maximum measured level in acoustical energy during an event. This threshold establishes maximum noise levels of 82 dBA Lmax at 50 feet at 3,000 rpm, 75 dBA Lmax at the shoreline, or 88-90 dBA at 3.3 feet from the engine exhaust.
68.4 Community Noise Levels:
TRPA shall use CNELs to measure community noise levels. The plan area statements shall set forth CNELs that shall not be exceeded by any one activity or combination of activities (See subsection 11.6.10). In addition, community noise levels shall not exceed levels existing on August 26, 1982, where such levels are known. The CNELs set forth in the plan area statements are based on the land use classification, the presence of transportation corridors, and the applicable threshold. The CNEL corridor GIS data layer indicates the location of special noise corridors for highways and the Lake Tahoe Airport. Consistent with the adopted TRPA Threshold Standards the maximum community noise equivalent levels (CNEL) for the Tahoe Keys Area Plan Statement 102 is 55 dBA CNEL.
68.9 Exemptions to Noise Limitations:
The standards of this chapter shall not apply to noise from TRPA-approved construction or maintenance project or the demolition of structures provides such activities are limited to the hours between 8 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. The standards of this chapter shall not apply to safety signals, warning devices or emergency pressure relief valves, and other similar devices. Emergency work to protect life property shall be exempt from noise standards, as shall be fireworks used in accordance with a state or local permit.
4.13.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the Project result in:
CEQA Question Impact Determination
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? Less Than Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact 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 2 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?
Less Than Significant Impact
949
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
106
4.13.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the Project result in 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? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Construction
Construction activities would temporarily increase noise levels in the Project area, with maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. These activities would occur primarily during daytime hours (8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.), consistent with the TRPA Code of Ordinances, which exempts daytime construction noise from noise limits. The nearest residences, located approximately 250 feet away, would experience maximum noise levels of approximately 76 dBA, representing an increase of no more than 6 dBA over existing ambient conditions (70 – 82 dBA). Because there is no established TRPA threshold for construction noise, the lead agency is utilizing the Caltrans standard of noise impact significance (12 dBA) for temporary construction noise, which is equivalent to a doubling of sound energy and has been the standard of significance for Caltrans projects for many years, including along the US 50 and SR 89 corridors. Application of this standard to construction activities is considered reasonable considering the temporary nature of construction activities. The predicted increase of 6 dBA is below the Caltrans significance threshold, indicating that typical daytime construction would not cause a significant noise impact.
However, if construction were to occur outside normal daytime hours, temporary exceedances could cause sleep disturbance at nearby sensitive receptors and would represent a potentially significant impact.
Operational
Stationary Source
During on-site operations, the Project would generate noise associated with on-site circulation (i.e., in the parking lot area and promenade), boat launch operations, and HVAC. In order to assess stationary source operational noise associated with the aforementioned Project components, Saxelby Acoustics modeled operation noise using SoundPLAN, a noise prediction model. Inputs to the model included sound power levels for the proposed noise sources, existing and proposed buildings, terrain type, and locations of sensitive receptors. These predictions are made in accordance with International Organization for Standardization standard 9613-2:1996 (Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors). This standard is the most commonly used method for calculating exterior noise propagation. Based on the modeling performed, noise levels associated with Project operations would range between 40 and 46 dBA CNEL at nearby sensitive receptors, which would be less than TRPA’s noise level standard of 55 CNEL. Further, based on measured ambient noise levels, on-site noise levels generated by the Project would be consistent with existing conditions (Saxelby Acoustics 2026). 950
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
107
Traffic Noise
Existing land uses in the Project area include commercial and residential activities, as well as marina and boating activities. Based on noise measurements taken within the Project area and taking into account that the Project would not involve a change in use type, the Project is not predicted to cause traffic noise levels to increase by more than 1.5 dBA. The Project falls under the TRPA Tahoe Keys Area Plan Statement 102. The maximum allowable noise level within the Plan Area Statement is 55 dBA CNEL.
Taking into account existing ambient noise levels (based on modeled roadway noise) in combination with the anticipated net increase in daily vehicle trips with Project implementation, the Project would result in a maximum increase of 1.5 dBA, which would not be considered perceptible (i.e., less than 3 dBA) (Saxelby Acoustics 2026). As a result, substantial transportation noise increases would not occur, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
NOI-1: The following measures would be implemented by the contractor during construction:
• Construction shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. • All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained.
• Quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, is to be selected whenever possible. • All stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as generators or air compressors are to be located as far as is practical from existing residences. In addition, the contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the Project area.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited. • The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noisesensitive receptors nearest the Project area during all Project construction.
Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would ensure construction activities are limited to allowable hours and that noise control practices are implemented, thereby reducing impacts to less than significant. b) Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact
Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception.
Data collected for the Noise Report indicated that construction vibration levels anticipated for the Project are less than the 0.2 in/sec threshold at distances of 26 feet. Sensitive receptors that could be impacted by construction-related vibrations, especially vibratory compactors/rollers, are located approximately 26 feet, or further, from typical construction activities (Saxelby Acoustics 2026). At these 951
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
108
distances construction vibrations are not predicted to exceed acceptable levels. Additionally, construction activities would be temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours. This is a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. 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 2 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?
Less than Significant Impact
As noted above, the Lake Tahoe Airport is located approximately 1.6 miles south of the Project area. The Project is located within and adjacent to residential areas and is not in the overflight zone of the airport.
The Project area does not lie within a noise impacted area of the airport (Environmental Science Associates 2019). Furthermore, ambient noise levels, as measured over a 24-hour period, are compliant with all applicable standards (Saxelby Acoustics 2026). As noted in Section 4.9.4 e), the Project would not result in a change in air patterns as a result of Project implementation. As such, noise contours associated with the airport would change as a result of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not expose construction workers or residents to excessive aircraft noise. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
952
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
109
4.14 Population and Housing
4.14.1 Environmental Setting
As of 2019, the City had an estimated population of 22,800 residents and an estimated housing stock of 15,831 dwelling units. The City’s population grew approximately 6.5 percent between 2010 and 2019.
Projections suggest that population growth will continue within the county (City of South Lake Tahoe 2022b). Per the California Department of Finance (DOF), the City’s population has decreased slightly since 2019 and was estimated to be 21,022 residents in 2025 (DOF 2025). Overall City population is expected to increase by 12.4 percent between 2018 and 2045 (City of South Lake Tahoe 2022b).
Due to its status as a vacation destination, the Tahoe region experiences significant seasonal population fluctuations, and has a high proportion of rental properties. Of all housing stock, 49.9 percent of South Lake Tahoe’s housing stock is seasonal or occasional use housing. The proportion of seasonal or occasional use units decreased slightly from 54.5 percent in 2010 (City of South Lake Tahoe 2022b).
The amended 2012 TRPA Regional Plan Land Use Element sets goals for housing development within the Tahoe Basin. Goals outlined in the plan include promoting housing opportunities for full time, seasonal residents and workers in the region, and promoting moderate income housing where it does not conflict with other planning goals. The policy outlines desired qualities of new development including 100% deed restricted housing whenever feasible (TRPA 2025a).
4.14.2 Regulatory Setting
Local
City of South Lake Tahoe Housing Element
The City’s General Plan Housing Element was updated in 2022 and includes the City’s goals, policies, quantified objectives, and housing programs for the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing within its jurisdiction. The City’s Housing Element is intended to increase housing opportunities for South Lake Tahoe residents of all economic levels, to preserve and enhance the supply of housing within the city, and to encourage the construction and maintenance of affordable and workforce housing in South Lake Tahoe.
4.14.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the Project:
CEQA Question Impact Determination
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)?
Less Than Significant Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less Than Significant Impact
953
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
110
4.14.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the Project 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)?
Less Than Significant Impact
As discussed above, the Project area is zoned for commercial and residential uses, however, the residentially zoned parcel is currently occupied by a stormwater basin and has never been developed with residential uses. Redevelopment or intensification of use within existing planned land uses is not considered “growth-inducing” under CEQA. The Project would redevelop the existing marina facilities, an allowed use, and replace existing on-site housing with the same number of units. While existing housing is not expressly permitted under current zoning, under Section 21.5.2(C) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, existing housing that constitutes a nonconforming use may be maintained or replaced in kind. These units would be for the exclusive use of TKM employees. City of South Lake Tahoe Code of Ordinances Section 6.55.410 allows nonconforming housing density and non-conforming housing units to be reconstructed, provided the density of people housed in such a non-conforming location does not increase, which is what would occur as part of the Project.
The Project would include new utility connections for the proposed on-site buildings to existing utility lines in the area, including the potential connection to the STPUD water main within Tahoe Keys Boulevard. However, the Project area and surrounding developed parcels are already served by STPUD or the Tahoe Keys Water Company and the proposed connections are intended to ensure adequate utility service and fire flow to the Project area. Therefore, the installation of a new connection to this existing infrastructure would not be considered an extension of infrastructure that would induce development and therefore population growth. In addition, the proposed on-site water tanks would further ensure adequate fire flow within the Project area and are not associated with an increase in demand. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth or require expansion of public infrastructure. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would involve the temporary removal of 3 residential units, until the replacement units are fully constructed and operational. Although the site is not zoned for residential use, replacement of these units is permissible under TRPA Code Section 21.5.2 (Existing Uses). Refer to Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, for additional discussion of applicable land use regulations. The Project would replace the existing housing on the second floor of the Dock Master Building. The temporary displacement of residents of 3 apartments would represent a negligible portion of the local population and housing availability in the area. Upon completion of construction, the new units would be available to accommodate the same number of on-site residents. Therefore, the Project would not represent a displacement of a substantial number of people or housing. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
954
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
111
4.15 Public Services
4.15.1 Environmental Setting
Fire Protection
South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue provides fire and life safety, rescue and emergency medical service, and fire prevention to the City and the Project area. The closest South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue fire station is approximately 1.1 miles south of the Project area. CAL FIRE also maintains its own station in the nearby community of Meyers. All fire departments in the Tahoe Basin, as well as some jurisdictions in northern Nevada, are members of the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chief Association. This group has a mutual aid agreement to share the resources of each jurisdiction during large emergency events.
Police Protection
The South Lake Tahoe Police Department serves the Project area. The South Lake Tahoe Police Department is a full-service police department that responds to about 2,350 calls for service per month, on average. The closest South Lake Tahoe Police Department office is located approximately 1.5 miles east of the Project area.
Schools
The Project area is located within Lake Tahoe Unified School District, which provides elementary, middle, and high school education for local residents. Tahoe Valley Elementary, located approximately
0.6 miles south of the Project area, South Tahoe Middle School, located approximately 1.3 miles east of the Project area, and South Tahoe High School, located approximately 1.5 miles south of the Project area, would serve the students within the Project area. Lake Tahoe Unified School District provides transportation from locations within the district to these schools. Higher education needs are met by Lake Tahoe Community College.
Medical Facilities
Barton Memorial Hospital is located off South Avenue, 1.3 miles south of the Project area. Barton Memorial Hospital offers comprehensive medical services including behavioral health/psychiatry, endocrinology, laboratory, medical imaging, orthopedics, pediatrics, primary care, and specialty care.
Parks
South Lake Tahoe Parks and Recreation Department maintains parks, recreational programs, and events in the South Lake Tahoe area. South Lake Tahoe Parks and Recreation manages 8 parks and beaches within the South Lake Tahoe area. Facilities also include a campground, senior center, ice skating rink, and recreation with swimming complex. The closest parks to the Project area include Al Tahoe Pioneers Cemetery and Regan Beach approximately 1.0 mile east of the Project area.
Other recreation opportunities include public access trails on the CTC Cove East property, which is adjacent to the east side of the Project area.
955
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
112
4.15.2 Regulatory Setting
State
California Fire Code
The 2022 California Fire Code, which is codified at Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, incorporates by adoption the 2021 International Fire Code and contains regulations related to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the California Fire Code include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. The California Fire Code contains specialized technical regulations related to fire and life safety. The California Building Standards Code, including the California Fire Code, is revised and published every three years by the California Building Standards Commissions.
California Health and Safety Code
State fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, which includes regulations for building standards (as set forth in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers, smoke alarms, highrise building and childcare facility standards, and fire-suppression training.
4.15.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the Project:
CEQA Question Impact Determination
a) 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 public services:
i) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact
ii) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact
iii) Schools? No Impact
iv) Parks? Less Than Significant Impact
v) Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact 956
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
113
4.15.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need and/or provision of new or physically altered governmental services and/or facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services?
i) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact
As noted above, South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue provides fire and emergency medical services to the Project area, with the closest fire station located 1.1 miles south of the Project area. The Project would involve the redevelopment and modernization of existing marina facilities, including updating existing buildings to comply with current California Fire Code requirements. The Project would also provide additional access points to the Project area via Venice Drive East and would not modify the existing alignment or width of Venice Drive East. All internal circulation and parking lots in the Project area would be designed to accommodate emergency vehicle turn radiuses.
Policy PQP‐6.6 of the City General Plan outlines target response time for fire and emergency incidents, at 4 minutes for a single engine response and 10 minutes for a multiple vehicle response (City of South Lake Tahoe 2011). Because the Project area is already developed and located within the existing South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue’s existing service area, as well as the fact that the Project would not permanently modify existing roads in the vicinity of the Project area, response times to the Project area would not be altered during operation of the Project. During construction, access for emergency vehicles and at least 1 lane of traffic with flaggers on either side of the lane closure would be maintained at all times in coordination with the South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue and Public Works Department.
Further, the height of the proposed on-site structures would not exceed the height of other facilities in the area and is not anticipated to require special equipment to provide adequate fire service. In addition, the Project would include an emergency command center which would be accessible for use by local emergency services in cases of emergency in the surrounding area, thereby increasing the ability of emergency responders to respond to calls for service within the lake. The impacts associated with its construction are evaluated throughout this IS/MND.
During construction, some temporary lane closures may be necessary along Venice Drive East while utility connections are installed. During these periods, access for emergency vehicles would be maintained at all times and in coordination with the South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue and Public Works Department. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on fire protection. No mitigation is required.
ii) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact
The South Lake Tahoe Police Department provides police protection services to the area and the existing on-site buildings. Because the Project would replace existing uses on site with facilities that would serve 957
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
114
a similar function and would provide more secure storage of boats on-site, no substantial increase in demand for police protection is anticipated as a result of Project implementation. Further and as noted above, the Project would provide an emergency command center that would increase the ability for emergency responders to provide service within the vicinity of the Project area and Lake Tahoe. The impacts associated with construction of the emergency command center are evaluated as part of this IS/MND. Further, as the Project would not modify existing roadways or modify existing emergency access routes, access for the South Lake Tahoe Police Department (approximately 1.5 miles away) would be maintained. Therefore, the Project would not necessitate new or expanded police facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. iii) Schools?
No Impact
The Project area is currently served by the Lake Tahoe Unified School District. As the Project would maintain the same number of on-site residences upon completion of construction, the Project would not increase the number of residents and/or students within the Project area, and substantial indirect growth is not anticipated as a result of the projected increase in commercial square footage of the Project, which would be primarily attributed to the boat storage and boat showroom facilities (compared to existing conditions.) No impact to school capacity is anticipated, and no mitigation is required.
iv) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would involve redevelopment of existing marina facilities and would provide better access to water-based recreation opportunities for local residents. The Project would continue to allow access to bathrooms and public parking opportunities for adjacent open space and recreational opportunities to the east and would provide increased pedestrian access and amenities (e.g., an improved and expanded promenade.) As a result, the Project would not necessitate the provision of new or modified park facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. v) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact
Because the Project would maintain the number of existing on-site residences, no significant impacts to other public facilities (e.g., libraries) would occur as a result of increased local population. In general, the Project would improve local/regional access to modernized marina facilities, and no significant impacts to public services are anticipated. No mitigation is required. 958
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
115
4.16 Recreation
4.16.1 Environmental Setting
South Lake Tahoe Parks and Recreation Department maintains parks, recreational programs, and events in the South Lake Tahoe area. South Lake Tahoe Parks and Recreation manages 8 parks and beaches within the South Lake Tahoe area. Facilities also include a campground, senior center, ice skating rink and recreation complex with a swimming pool. The closest parks to the Project area include Al Tahoe Pioneers Cemetery and Regan Beach approximately 1.0 mile east of the Project area (South Lake Tahoe Parks and Recreation n.d.).
The CTC manages and protects nearly 4,700 state properties, totaling about 6,900 acres, for the purpose of protecting the natural environment and promoting public recreation and access to Lake Tahoe (CTC 2025). The Cove East CTC property borders the Project area to the east and provides hiking, walking and beach access for visitors. Visitors park along Venice Drive East to access the trailhead next to the existing entrance to TKM.
4.16.2 Regulatory Setting
State
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) preserves open space and parkland in urbanizing areas of the state by authorizing local governments to establish ordinances requiring developers of new subdivisions to dedicate land for parks, pay an in-lieu fee, or perform a combination of the two. The amount of land dedicated, or fees paid shall be based upon the residential density, which shall be determined on the basis of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map or parcel map and the average number of persons per household. The Quimby Act standards are used as a potential metric for assessing appropriate recreation acreage but are not a requirement under the impact analysis. As the Project would maintain the same number of residences on-site compared to existing conditions, this regulation is not considered applicable.
4.16.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
CEQA Question Impact Determination
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?
Less Than Significant Impact
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?
Less Than Significant Impact
959
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
116
4.16.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
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?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would redevelop the existing marina facilities to provide modern amenities and improve access for aquatic recreation through the addition of new boat ramps and small watercraft storage.
Although implementation of the Project may result in a modest increase in visitation to the marina, recreational, commercial, and dining activities would remain confined to the Project area. Some visitors may also access the adjacent CTC Cove East Trail and property; however, such use currently occurs and would not represent a new or intensified pattern of activity. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant impact on recreational resources. No mitigation is required. b) Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact
As discussed above, the Project would redevelop the existing TKM to enhance recreational access and improve existing facilities. The Project would not expand the marina or associated recreational facilities beyond the existing developed footprint of the Project area. The Project would replace on-site housing in kind and would not increase the number of residents within the Project area. Therefore, the Project would not result in the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that could cause an adverse physical effect on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. 960
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
117
4.17 Transportation
The impact analysis presented in this section is based primarily on the 2025 SLT Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Transportation Analysis (Transportation Analysis) prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. for the applicant. The Transportation Analysis, which is included as Appendix D, provides additional data and information related to the assessment of Project impacts.
4.17.1 Environmental Setting
Roadway Network
Regional access to the Project area is provided by US 50 and SR 89. Local access to the Project area and other uses within the vicinity of the Project area include:
• Venice Drive East. Venice Drive East is a 2-lane road that travels in a northwest to southwest direction beginning at the entrance to TKM and becoming Venice Drive at the western edge of the Project area. Venice Drive, which continues from the intersection of Venice Drive East and Tahoe Keys Boulevard, continues west and terminates approximately 1.6 miles to the northwest of the Project area at Aloha Drive. Venice Drive East contains curb and gutter on both sides of the street.
• Tahoe Keys Boulevard. Tahoe Keys Boulevard is a 2-lane road that travels in a northwest to southwest direction towards Highway US 50. Tahoe Keys Boulevard contains curbs on both sides of the street and a dirt sidewalk intermittently. The northern portion of the street, beginning from Michaels Drive, is separated by a dirt median with trees. Both directions of travel contain bike lanes or space for bicyclists. Tahoe Keys Boulevard begins at US 50 approximately 4,010 feet southeast of the Project area and extends to a dead end approximately 4,040 feet northeast of the Project area.
• Venice Drive. Venice Drive East’s western extension, Venice Drive, is located west of Tahoe Keys Boulevard. It provides the other primary access point to the Tahoe Keys development, along with 15th Street which connects to Venice Drive further to the west.
All 3 streets (Tahoe Keys Boulevard, Venice Drive, and Venice Drive East) are considered collector streets under the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan (City of South Lake Tahoe 2011).
Transit Network
Public transit within the City is provided primarily by the Tahoe Transportation District (TTD), which operates the South Shore Transit System (also known as BlueGO). Transit routes connect major destinations such as the “Y” area, Stateline, and the Lake Tahoe Community College, with stops along US 50 and within nearby residential and commercial districts. The marina does not currently have any nearby transit options. The closest bus stop, which is serviced by TTD, is located 275 ft east of the Tahoe Keys Blvd/US 50 signalized intersection or 1.5 miles south of the site. Microtransit options are also unavailable near the site. South Lake Tahoe’s Lake Link microtransit service is available as far west as the Grocery Outlet located at 2358 Lake Tahoe Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe, California 96150, or 1.8 miles south of the site.
961
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
118
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The City General Plan identifies a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes to promote safe, multimodal travel. A Class II bike lane is found along Tahoe Keys Boulevard between Venice Drive East and Eloise Avenue. This bike lane (Class III) continues along Venice Drive from Tahoe Keys Boulevard east until it concludes at the CTC Cove East recreational trail. Additional unmarked bicycle routes are located throughout the neighborhood south of the Project area along Washington Avenue, Eloise Avenue, Tahoe Island Drive, and 12th Street. Both Class II bike lanes as well as sidewalks are located along US 50 near the intersection with Tahoe Keys Boulevard. A permanent bike map showing the nearby bicycle routes is posted at the intersection of Tahoe Keys Boulevard and Venice Drive just below the northbound stop sign. Sidewalk coverage is intermittent, with segments of paved pedestrian access near intersections and unpaved paths along sections of Venice Drive East and Tahoe Keys Boulevard (LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2026).
4.17.2 Regulatory Setting
State
Senate Bill 743
SB 743, passed in 2013, required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop new State CEQA Guidelines that address traffic metrics under CEQA. As stated in the legislation, upon adoption of the new guidelines, “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service (LOS) or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” These updates indicated that VMT would be the primary metric used to identify transportation impacts.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 was added on December 28, 2018, to further address that the significance of transportation impacts should be determined based on VMT instead of congestion (such as level of service [LOS]). The updated State CEQA Guidelines were approved, and lead agencies had an opt-in period until July 1, 2020, to implement the updated guidelines regarding VMT. As of July 1, 2020, implementation of Section 15064.3 of the updated CEQA Guidelines apply statewide.
Local
TRPA Regional Plan and Code of Ordinances
The TRPA regulates land use and transportation throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin. TRPA’s Regional Plan and Code of Ordinances require that all projects be consistent with regional transportation, air quality, and scenic quality thresholds.
The TRPA 2025 Regional Transportation Plan (TRPA 2025b) provides guidance for multimodal transportation network buildout. The plan encourages actions that reduce reliance on private vehicles, support walkable and transit-oriented communities, and meet TRPA’s environmental threshold carrying capacities. Key objectives include:
• Reducing regional VMT and improving air quality through expanded transit service. 962
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
119
• Implementing bicycle and pedestrian facilities to enhance active transportation connectivity. • Managing parking and roadway operations to support the environmental and scenic goals of the basin.
Projects located within TRPA’s jurisdiction must demonstrate consistency with the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan, applicable transportation thresholds, and TRPA Code Chapter 90 (Transportation), which governs roadway improvements, transit service, and transportation demand management requirements.
On August 26, 2024, TRPA provided updated guidance for the assessment of Project-generated VMT within its jurisdiction. Per the updated guidance, VMT analysis is conducted on an annual average daily basis, reflecting the standard for overall greenhouse gas emissions. VMT for each existing and proposed land use is calculated by multiplying peak day trip generation by a peak day-to-average annual daily factor to get average annual daily trips. Next, the average annual daily trips are multiplied by the zone’s average trip length to obtain daily VMT. Per TRPA standards, the annual daily trips are multiplied by the average trip length within the Tahoe Basin, as TRPA only regulates VMT within the Tahoe Basin.
City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan – Transportation and Circulation Element The Transportation and Circulation Element of the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan establishes policies for the local transportation system. Relevant goals include improving public transit and nonmotorized travel options, maintaining safe and efficient vehicular circulation, and coordinating transportation planning with TRPA regional objectives. The following goals and policies would help in improving transportation within the City (City of South Lake Tahoe 2011). • Policy TC-1.1: Overall Street Design. The City shall develop: all arterial streets to provide infrastructure for vehicles, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians; all collector streets to provide at a minimum infrastructure for vehicles, transit, bicycles and pedestrians; and local streets to provide adequate shared infrastructure for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The City shall develop a network of routes along collector and local streets for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Policy TC-3.6: Bicycle Parking and Storage. The City shall require new multi-family residential and commercial properties to provide accommodations for bicycle parking. • Policy TC-3.12: Bicycle Parking and Storage. The City shall provide bike racks and bike storage at all public building, parks, and recreation areas, and shall require bicycle racks or lockers for significant new private development projects or substantial additions. • Policy TC-3.14: Pedestrian-Friendly Districts. The City shall create a pedestrian-friendly, village atmosphere within the Valley and Stateline community plan areas. • Policy TC-3.18: Commercial Building Access. The City shall facilitate pedestrian access to commercial buildings by requiring building entries to be oriented towards sidewalks or walkways.
The General Plan classifies Tahoe Keys Boulevard and Venice Drive East as collector streets, designed to provide local circulation and access to residential, commercial, and recreational areas while connecting 963
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
120
to US 50 and SR 89. Projects must be consistent with City roadway classifications, design standards, and multimodal goals outlined in the General Plan.
4.17.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the Project:
CEQA Question Impact Determination
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact
4.17.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the Project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would involve the modification/redevelopment of existing facilities within TKM to provide modernized marina facilities that would serve residents and visitors. As noted above, primary access to the Project area would occur along Venice Drive East and Tahoe Keys Boulevard. These roadways are classified as collector streets under the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan and provide local circulation to residential, commercial, and recreational uses, with regional access via US 50 and SR 89.
The Project would provide features to reduce vehicle trips and to promote non-motorized transportation. Transportation features include:
• Non-Motorized Vehicle Accessibility. The facility would include bicycle racks for visitors. In addition, the facility would also include racks for kayaks, adjacent to the promenade and accessible to all visitors.
• Sidewalks, Walking Paths, and Greenery. The redevelopment would be designed to encourage walking, with benches, green spaces, trees, appropriate lighting, and signage. • Housing. The redevelopment would reconstruct employee housing on-site to maintain/reduce employee trips.
According to the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Transportation Analysis (LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2026), the Project would generate approximately 1,839 daily vehicle trips, which would represent an increase of 175 daily vehicle trips compared to existing conditions. Morning peak-hour trips would remain unchanged, and evening peak-hour trips would increase by 37. Taking into 964
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
121
consideration trip capture and what uses associated with the Project would generate vehicle trips, daily VMT is anticipated to increase by 218, which would be below the low-VMT screening criteria established by TRPA of 715 daily VMT (LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2026). As the Project would not exceed the low-VMT screening threshold, it would not conflict with TRPA or City of South Lake Tahoe plans, policies, or regulations (including the Regional Transportation Plan) as it would not represent a substantial increase in daily VMT.
With respect to alternative transportation (i.e., bicycle, transit, pedestrian), the Project would not modify existing facilities in the vicinity of the Project area (i.e., local roadways). Bike lanes are present along Tahoe Keys Boulevard and Venice Drive East and are noted in the General Plan as Class II bike lanes; however, because the bike lanes do not include designated striping to separate the vehicle and bike lanes, these bike lanes are considered Class III (i.e., shared facilities). No public transit routes currently serve the site; however, the Project would not impede or alter existing or planned transit services. The Project may temporarily disrupt full access to bike lanes on Venice Drive East during construction; however, these impacts would be temporary and at least 1 lane of travel would be maintained at all times.
The Project would also provide additional on-site bicycle parking and an updated promenade within which local residents and visitors could walk through the Project area. This would be consistent with the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan’s objective regarding enhancing bicycle and pedestrian facilities to encourage alternative transportation. In addition, the Project would internalize and provide additional landscaping around the Project’s parking facilities, which would be consistent with the 2025 Regional Plan’s objective to manage parking operations to support scenic goals of the Tahoe Basin.
As the Project would not modify or reduce existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities along Tahoe Keys Boulevard and Venice Drive East, it would be consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and Policy TC1.1 related to the provision and maintenance of complete streets that allow for walking, cycling, and driving. As noted above, additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities would be provided within the Project area, which would be consistent with City General Plan policies TC-3.6, TC-3.12, and TC-3.14. As a result, the Project would be considered to be consistent with existing local and regional policies related to the provision and maintenance of alternative transportation and would not represent a conflict with plans, policies, or regulations related to alternative transportation. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
b) Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact
During construction, daily worker commute would generate additional vehicle trips over the 2-year construction period. However, these trips would be temporary and cease upon completion of construction. Further, as the Project would involve modernization of existing marina facilities, it is not anticipated to induce further construction near the Project area. As a result, the Project would have a less than significant temporary impact on VMT during construction. 965
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
122
With respect to operation and as noted above, the Project would generate 218 additional VMT per day, which would be less than TRPA’s low-VMT screening criteria. As the Project would not exceed screening criteria, it would not be considered in conflict or inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3 subdivision (b) related to the generation of VMT. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
c) Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact
Vehicle access to the Project area would continue via Venice Drive East, which provides adequate sight distance and geometric design consistent with City roadway standards. No new roadways, intersections, or modifications to existing street alignments are proposed that would alter existing circulation patterns or introduce incompatible uses. Construction of the Project may create temporary modified traffic patterns for trenching to install a water line connection from the Project area to local utility lines located in the vicinity. Temporary lane closures may occur during construction along Venice Drive East and Tahoe Keys Boulevard; however, access for emergency vehicles and at least 1 lane of traffic would be maintained at all times in coordination with the South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue and Public Works Department. The Project would not permanently modify roadway geometry, intersection control, or bicycle/pedestrian facilities in a manner that would increase operational hazards. Therefore, impacts related to geometric design features or incompatible uses would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
d) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact
Emergency vehicle access would be maintained via Venice Drive East and Tahoe Keys Boulevard, which are designated collector roadways capable of accommodating emergency response vehicles. The proposed site layout includes drive aisles, parking configurations, and turnaround areas designed to meet South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue and California Fire Code access requirements.
During construction, temporary lane closures may occur along adjacent roadways; however, access for emergency vehicles would be maintained in coordination with the South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue and Public Works Department and in accordance with Chapter 33 of the California Fire Code, which requires that fire apparatus access must be maintained at all times.
Through compliance with applicable fire and access requirements, the Project would not result in the provision of inadequate emergency access during construction or operation, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
966
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
123
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
4.18.1 Environmental Setting
As of the mid-1800s, the Washoe inhabited the region of the Project area. A Hokan-speaking hunting and gathering group, the Washoe inhabited the chain of valleys along the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada, from Honey Lake to Antelope Valley. The Pine Nut Mountains and the Virginia Range formed the eastern boundary of Washoe territory, while the western boundary extended several miles beyond the Sierra crest.
A great deal of information has been written about Washoe land use in the Tahoe Basin and their use of the region’s resources. Lake Tahoe is the center of the Washoe world, both geographically and socially.
Legendary and mythological associations to places within the basin are common. Semi-sedentism and higher population densities are reported and may have developed in conjunction with their residential and subsistence resource stability.
Native American Consultation
In accordance with AB 52, as identified in the PRC Section 21080.3.1(b)(2) of CEQA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Native American tribes identified by the NAHC must be invited to consult on projects. Section 106, 33 CFR Part 325 and the USACE Tribal Consultation Policy specify tribal consultation will be directed by the USACE under the guidance of a Tribal Liaison. The environmental review, consultation, and any other actions required by applicable federal environmental laws for this Project are being, or have been, carried out by USACE under Section 106, 33 CFR Part 325.
On April 11, 2025, the NAHC provided a record search of the Sacred Lands File for the Project area and a contact list for regional tribes that may have knowledge of cultural or tribal resources within or immediately adjacent to the Project area. The City provided additional contacts for 2 additional regional tribes that may have knowledge of cultural or tribal resources within or immediately adjacent to the Project area. In all, 4 tribes were contacted as part of the CEQA process and in accordance with CEQA requirements. Inquiry letters were mailed and emailed to the tribes identified by the NAHC on April 25, 2025. Two tribes, the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria and the Wilton Rancheria responded. The United Auburn Indian Community subsequently deferred consultation responsibilities to the Washoe Tribe, which did not provide a response. The Wilton Rancheria declined consultation. Follow-up phone calls were made on May 27, 2025. Tribal consultation for the purposes of compliance with AB 52 was concluded after a response period elapsed for the remaining tribes (NCE 2025c).
4.18.2 Regulatory Setting
State
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires public agencies to consider the effects of their actions on “[T]ribal cultural resources.” PRC Section 21084.2 establishes that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse 967
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
124
change in the significance of a [T]ribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC Section 21074 states:
a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe that are either of the following:
A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR.
B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
2) 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 Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.
b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a Tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a Tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).
AB 52, signed by the California Governor in September of 2014, established a new class of resources under CEQA: “[T]ribal cultural resources,” defined in PRC Section 21074. Pursuant to CEQA requirements, lead agencies undertaking CEQA review must, upon written request of a California Native American Tribe, begin consultation before the release of an EIR, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration.
968
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
125
4.18.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
CEQA Question Impact Determination
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 California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
Less Than Significant Impact
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.
Less Than Significant Impact
4.18.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
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 California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Less Than Significant Impact
As noted above in Section 4.5 (Cultural Resources), an investigation of both cultural and tribal cultural resources was conducted to locate, describe, and evaluate tribal cultural resources that may be present within the APE. The APE has experienced significant previous disturbance (e.g., construction of the Tahoe Keys development from dredged fill and urban development). Based on the results of the records search conducted at the North Central Information Center, the NAHC Sacred Lands File, and responses received from the tribes in the area, no tribal cultural resources were identified (NCE 2025c).
While there is some potential for buried prehistoric deposits, the likelihood of encountering resources during ground disturbance is considered low due to the results of the investigations conducted within the APE and because much of the Project area is highly disturbed. Therefore, due to historic disturbance within the Project area, the limited ground disturbance in the area, and available information regarding the lack of resources within the Project area, the Project is not anticipated to result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of any 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. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 969
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
126
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? Less Than Significant Impact
As previously discussed, the Project area is highly disturbed, and no evidence of potential tribal cultural resources was found through records search information or provided by the tribes. As a result, the potential for tribal cultural resources to be identified within the Project area is considered minimal, and no resources are known to be present. While there is some potential for deeply buried prehistoric deposits below the dredged fill of the Tahoe Keys development, the likelihood of encountering intact archaeological resources during ground disturbance is considered low due to the previous disturbance of the Project area and lack of recorded resources. Impacts would be less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
970
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
127
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
4.19.1 Environmental Setting
Water and Wastewater
The Project area overlies the TVS Groundwater Subbasin (California Department of Water Resources 2018). The subbasin is managed by the STPUD. Groundwater from the TVS is the primary source of water for the area (Kennedy Jenks 2021). Water service is currently provided to the Project area by the Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association water company through a connection at the western edge of the existing marina.
Sewage collection and treatment is provided in the vicinity of the Project area by STPUD. The Sanitary Sewer Collection System includes 312 miles of sewer gravity main, 106 miles of sewer laterals, 20 miles of pressurized sewer transmission lines; and 43 pump stations to convey all the wastewater to the wastewater treatment plant. All secondary treated effluent is exported 30 miles to Alpine County for agricultural use (STPUD 2020). Sewage is conveyed away from the Project area via an existing 8-inch diameter cast-in-place sewage pipe connected to STPUD wastewater infrastructure.
Electricity and Natural Gas
Electricity is provided to the area by Liberty Utilities and natural gas is provided by Southwest Gas.
Electrical is provided to the site from 4 Liberty Utilities transformers located in various positions both within and outside of the Project area.
Telecommunications
Telecommunication services are provided by a number of companies, including AT&T and Charter. These companies provide television, internet, and telephone services to the residences and other buildings in the vicinity of the Project area through aboveground infrastructure.
Storm Water Drainage
Existing stormwater drainage structures in the Project area are limited to localized catch basins and storm drain pipe, gravel swales and infiltration trenches, and the vegetated wet basin. All stormwater within the Project area is conveyed to on-site catch basins, swales, or basins which eventually drain into the lagoon.
Solid Waste
South Tahoe Refuse is under contract with the City to collect solid waste from City households and businesses as well as to process and transfer all solid waste for disposal or recycling. South Tahoe Refuse’s main facility, which consists of a transfer station, materials recovery facility, and the Tahoe Basin Container Service, has a total permitted capacity of 370 tons per day, but currently receives 200 to 250 tons per day. Solid waste is transported to Lockwood Regional Landfill (a Class I landfill) in Storey County, Nevada, which receives approximately 5,000 tons per day and has an estimated closure date of 2050 (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 2009). 971
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
128
4.19.2 Regulatory Setting
State
California Fire Code
The 2022 California Fire Code, which is codified as Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, incorporates by adoption the 2021 International Fire Code and contains regulations related to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the California Fire Code include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. The California Fire Code contains specialized technical regulations related to fire and life safety. The California Building Standards Code, including the California Fire Code, is revised and published every three years by the California Building Standards Commission.
California Integrated Waste Management Act
The California Integrated Waste Management Act (CIWMA or Assembly Bill [AB] 939) of 1989 created the California Integrated Waste Management Board, now known as CalRecycle. CalRecycle is the agency designated to oversee, manage, and track California’s 92 million tons of waste generated each year. AB 939 requires each jurisdiction to divert 50% of its solid waste from being disposed in landfills, and was supplemented by AB 341 which establishes a statewide policy of 75% diversion. CalRecycle provides grants and loans to help cities, counties, businesses, and organizations meet the State’s waste reduction, reuse, and recycling goals. CalRecycle promotes a sustainable environment in which these resources are not wasted but can be reused or recycled. In addition to many programs and incentives, CalRecycle promotes the use of new technologies to divert resources away from landfills. CalRecycle is responsible for ensuring that waste management programs are carried out primarily through local enforcement agencies.
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) Energy consumption of new buildings in California is regulated by State Building Energy Efficiency Standards contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, Part 2, Chapter 2-53. Title 24 applies to all new construction of both residential and nonresidential buildings, and regulates energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. Current Building Energy Efficiency Standards have improved efficiency requirements from previous codes and the updated standards are expected to result in a statewide energy consumption reduction. Title 24 establishes mandatory minimum green building standards as well as more stringent voluntary measures, which are known as Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures, respectively. Cities and counties, at their discretion, may adopt Tier 1 or Tier 2 as mandatory, or adopt and enforce other standards that are more stringent than Title
24. Where a local jurisdiction has not adopted a more stringent construction and demolition (C&D) ordinance, construction activities are required to implement Section 5.408 of the Part 11 of Title 24.
Under Title 24, Part 11, Section 5.408, construction activities are required to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of their nonhazardous C&D waste. Applicable projects are required to 972
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
129
prepare and implement a Construction Waste Management Plan, which is submitted to the local jurisdiction before issuance of building permits. The City of South Lake Tahoe does not currently have an adopted C&D waste management ordinance that is more stringent than Title 24 requirements.
Regional
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
The TRPA Code of Ordinances includes requirements for basic water, wastewater, and electrical services in Chapter 32. Section 32.4 of the Code contains a basic water service requirement for projects proposing a new structure, reconstruction, or expansion of an existing structure, designed or intended for human occupancy, specifically directing that such projects shall have adequate water rights and water supply systems. If the local fire district has not adopted fire flow standards, Section 32.4.2 of the Code identifies minimum adequate fire flows based on land use type within the Tahoe Basin.
Section 32.5 of the Code specifically directs that such projects that would generate wastewater shall be served by facilities for the treatment and export of wastewater from the Tahoe Basin. To be considered served, a service connection shall be required to transport wastewater from the parcel to a treatment plant. Section 32.6 of the Code requires that adequate electrical supply shall be served to structures intended for human occupancy.
4.19.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the Project:
CEQA Question Impact Determination
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact c) Result in a determination by the waste water 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? Less Than Significant Impact
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?
Less Than Significant Impact
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact
4.19.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or 973
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
130
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact
Water
While the Project area currently receives water service from the Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association water company, water service and connection would either continue to be provided by the water company via existing infrastructure along the Project area perimeter or be transferred to STPUD as part of the Project. Water service would either be provided to the Project area via a new connection to existing Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association infrastructure in the area or, as an option, to STPUD via an existing water main located just northwest of the intersection of Tahoe Keys Boulevard and Michaels Street, within the Tahoe Keys Boulevard right-of-way. A connection to this main would be established by trenching along Tahoe Keys Boulevard and Venice Drive East.
As discussed in Section 4.10 (Hydrology and Water Quality), STPUD water supply is derived from groundwater within the South Tahoe Subbasin. STPUD’s 2005 Groundwater Management Plan established a safe pumping yield of 9,528 acre-feet per year (AFY). Historical and current groundwater demand remains below this value and has generally declined since 2007. Following the adoption of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), STPUD has incorporated updated sustainability criteria consistent with SGMA requirements. The established sustainable yield as defined by SGMA must not exceed the basin’s average annual recharge, which was approximately 39,000 AFY between 1983 and 2015. The total available groundwater for extraction in the Tahoe South Subbasin, which the Project area overlies, is estimated at 32,050 AFY. STPUDs groundwater extraction remains well below these levels, ranging between 5,886 and 6,432 AFY (Kennedy Jenks 2021). While the Project would increase the square footage of on-site facilities, much of this would be associated with storage of watercraft that has little to no water demand. In general and taking into consideration the efficiency of the proposed on-site buildings, the Project would result in a minor increase in water demand relative to existing uses and remaining regional supply capacity. As noted above, the Project has already received a will serve letter from the Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association, indicating that adequate water and water service are available to the Project (Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association 2025). Therefore, the Project’s water needs can be accommodated without affecting STPUD infrastructure beyond the planned installation of a connection to an existing water main as part of the Project. Impacts associated with the construction of the optional connection to STPUD infrastructure are addressed throughout this document, including trenching within and repaving of Tahoe Keys Boulevard and Venice Drive East.
Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Wastewater
Wastewater is conveyed from the site to the STPUD Sanitary Sewer Collection System. The permitted wet-weather flow into the STPUD wastewater plant is 18.5 million gallons per day (MGD). The peak season for the marina is summer, and normal dry-weather flow to the wastewater plant is 4 MGD (STPUD 2020). Taking into consideration a potential peaking factor of 3, the existing plant has a remaining capacity for more than 2 MGD of normal dry-weather flow. Although the Project proposes to 974
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
131
increase commercial, retail, and restaurant space that may require sewer service, the Project would not result in inadequate capacity within STPUD Sanitary Sewer Collection System such that new or modified facilities would be necessary per a will-serve letter issued by STPUD on December 10, 2025 (STPUD 2025a). Based on STPUD estimated flow calculations for the project, existing infrastructure has adequate capacity to provide sewer service for the Project. As a result, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Stormwater
As discussed in detail in Section 4.10 (Hydrology and Water Quality), stormwater is currently and would continue to be treated within the Project area consistent with applicable federal, state, and local requirements (including TRPA). A SWPPP would be prepared and implemented upon Project approval, consistent with NPDES requirements and to comply with Lahontan RWQCB Tahoe Construction General Permit (Order No. R6T-2016-0010) related to stormwater control during construction. The SWPPP, consistent with the Construction General Permit, would identify and require temporary BMPs (e.g., tarping of any stockpiled materials or soil; use of silt fences, fiber rolls, dust control, tracking control, etc.) and permanent BMPs (e.g., structural containment, revegetation, stabilization) for use in all construction areas to reduce or eliminate the discharge of soil, surface water runoff, and pollutants during all excavation, grading, trenching, repaving, or other ground-disturbing activities. The Project would also comply with the South Lake Tahoe City Code Chapter 7.20: Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control. Through compliance with existing regulations, including the Clean Water Act, TRPA Code, NPDES requirements, and the South Lake Tahoe City Code, the Project would improve stormwater capture systems within the Project area, compared to existing site conditions, including the provision of an underground infiltration basin, landscaping, and permeable pavement. No significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
The Project area, which is fully developed, currently receives electricity from Liberty Utilities transformers located on and surrounding the Project area and natural gas from Southwest Gas via existing underground lines. The Project area also hosts a cell tower that would be retained in its current location. Because the site already functions as an active marina with connections to electrical and natural gas utilities and taking into consideration that the Project would provide more efficient fixtures, the need for expanded electricity, natural gas, and/or telecommunications infrastructure is not anticipated. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact
As discussed above, groundwater is the primary source of water for most communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and recent data indicate that groundwater levels have remained stable, suggesting that adequate water supplies are available (STPUD 2019). Furthermore, the STPUD Urban Groundwater Management Plan predicts approximately 29,472 AFY available for use, without causing over-extraction 975
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
132
of the South Tahoe Subbasin, while existing demand ranges from 5,886 and 6,432 AFY (Kennedy Jenks 2021). As the Project would result in a minor increase in water demand relative to regional supply capacity, Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association anticipates that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development (Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association 2025). Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. c) Would the Project 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? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project area is currently served by STPUD, and no new connection is required. Further, as noted above with respect to the need for new or expanded wastewater infrastructure, the Project is not anticipated to exceed the capacity of existing wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure, including the STPUD wastewater plant. Further, the Project would be required to comply with the requirements of the California Green Building Code including low-flow toilets and other water-efficient fixtures to achieve a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use. With respect to wastewater from boats and as noted above, the Project is not anticipated to increase boat usage in the area but rather provide modernized and improved boat storage facilities within the Project area. Wastewater from boats would continue to be collected at existing pump out stations in the area, including Tahoe Keys Marina, Zephyr Cove Marina, Homewood Marina, North Tahoe Marina, and Obexer’s Marina. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on the existing wastewater treatment system, and no mitigation is required.
d) Would the Project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact
Demolition and construction activities associated with the Project would generate solid waste requiring disposal at area landfills. Waste generated during Project construction would include vegetation debris, concrete, wood, and other building materials. Construction and demolition (C&D) waste would be generated by construction of the Project. In accordance with Section 5.408 of the CALGreen Code (Part 11 of Title 24), the Project would implement a Construction Waste Management Plan for recycling and/or salvaging for reuse of a minimum of 65 percent of C&D debris generated during Project construction.
Operation of the Project may increase solid waste output from the Project area compared to existing conditions. However, this would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. The Project area is already served by South Tahoe Refuse and would continue to utilize solid waste collection services during Project operation. Additionally, the Lockwood Regional Landfill, which would likely receive solid waste generated by the Project, has a projected closure date in 2050 with an average daily throughput of 5,000 tons per day (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 2009). Any solid waste 976
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
133
generated by the Project would likely only be a relatively small increase over existing conditions. Based on the projected closure date of the nearby landfill, adequate capacity is considered to be available for the Project. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
e) Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact
Waste generation from construction would be temporary and would not reduce available capacities at existing landfills, including Lockwood Regional Landfill. Disposal of construction waste would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Future waste from residential use would be separated into waste, recyclables, and compost per AB 1826. Further, the City in partnership with South Tahoe Refuse is working to comply with current and applicable diversion requirements. In 2022, the City received a waiver from SB 1383, which requires 75% of all organic waste to be diverted. The City is currently working with El Dorado County and other cities within the County to ensure adherence to AB 341 waste diversion goal of 75% of all waste. As of 2018, the City of South Lake Tahoe has been achieving approximately 68% diversion (South Lake Tahoe Waste Management Authority 2018). Similar to existing conditions and in compliance with TRPA Policy PS-3.3 requiring garbage pick-up service in the Tahoe Basin, the Project area would continue to have solid waste collected provided by South Tahoe Refuse. Because the Project would be served by South Tahoe Refuse, the Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
977
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
134
4.20 Wildfire
4.20.1 Environmental Setting
CAL FIRE designates fire hazard severity zones for areas under State jurisdiction. For areas under local jurisdiction, CAL FIRE identifies areas that they consider to be Very High FHSZs; the local jurisdiction must choose whether to adopt the CAL FIRE recommendations. The City has adopted the recommended local designation of Very High FHSZ (City of South Lake Tahoe 2022a); the vast majority of the City is identified as a Very High FHSZ (CAL FIRE 2025). Within the Project area, there is a mix of Moderate, High, and Very High FHSZs, and fire hazard severity trends higher from west to east (CAL FIRE 2025).
As noted above, the Project area is developed but has some vegetation along the perimeter, in the existing stormwater basin, and within landscaped areas. There are 3 existing wood frame buildings onsite, located within the northern portion of the Project area.
4.20.2 Regulatory Setting
State
Title 24 Regulations
The Office of the State Fire Marshal is responsible for promulgating regulations that promote fire and life safety for inclusion into the state building codes including the CBC, California Fire Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code and California Historical Building Code. These documents are also referred to as California Code of Regulations, Title 24. The Office of the State Fire Marshal works with local government, fire officials, building officials and the private sector to develop fire and life safety building standards addressing roof coverings, fire alarm systems, motion picture production facilities, hazardous materials, and organized camps. The Office of the State Fire Marshal also regulates the adoption of building standards in assembly, institutional, educational, and residential buildings, as well as high-rises and any building containing State employees.
Local
City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan – Health and Safety Element This element provides the policy context for the City to achieve its vision for future health and safety.
The following policies apply to the Project (City of South Lake Tahoe 2011):
• Policy HS-2.1: Fire Resistant Construction: The City shall require new, remodeled, and/or rehabilitated developments to be constructed using fire resistant materials, particularly roofing, and state-of-the-art fire prevention techniques.
• Policy HS-2.2: Fire-Safe Landscaping: The City shall require defensible space plans for all new and rehabilitated structures to conform to the principles of fire-safe landscaping, including incorporation of fire-resistant plants and strategic planting, to create defensible space. 978
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
135
• Policy HS-2.3: Defensible Landscaping Space Requirements: The City shall require property owners to maintain defensible space through annual landscaping maintenance, including the removal of dead/dying material and pruning/thinning of flammable vegetation. • Policy HS-2.5: Fire Flow Requirements: The City shall require that all new construction meets the minimum fire flow requirements as set forth in the California Building and Fire Codes.
4.20.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
CEQA Question Impact Determination
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact
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?
Less Than Significant Impact
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?
Less Than Significant Impact
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?
Less Than Significant Impact
4.20.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would involve redevelopment of existing marina facilities, and would not result in the modification of existing adjacent roadways or emergency access routes. Temporary roadway restrictions to Venice Drive East and Tahoe Keys Boulevard are anticipated as part of the Project due to the installation of utility line connections, however these roads would remain accessible during construction as discussed in Section 4.16.4 (Transportation).
The City has partnered with El Dorado County and the CodeRED emergency notification service to alert residents and business by telephone, cell, text, email, and social media when there is a threat to the health or safety of residents. The City encourages all residents to sign up for the notification. If there is a wildfire, the notification system will inform residents with directions on evacuation procedures, as necessary. As noted above in Section 4.9 (Hazards), the City has an approved emergency evacuation map for Tahoe Keys. As the Project would not modify existing emergency evacuation routes or plans and would participate in the CodeRED emergency notification service, the Project would not substantially impair implementation of the emergency evacuation plan for Tahoe Keys (refer to Section 4.9 [Hazards] above). Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 979
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
136
b) Would the Project, 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?
Less Than Significant Impact
Portions of the Project area are within a locally-designated Very High FHSZ (CAL FIRE 2025). The Project does not include construction on steep slopes, and existing vegetation would be removed and replaced with fire resistant landscaping consistent with the City’s defensible space requirements. The Project would demolish existing structures on the site and replace existing tree and vegetation coverage that provides fuel for fires. Structures would be designed according to current City of South Lake Tahoe Code standards and California Building and Fire Codes which provide for more effective and efficient fire protection, such as automatic sprinkler systems and automatic smoke detection systems and fireretardant roof coverings. In addition, Chapter 7A of California Building Code, which became effective in 2008, includes specific requirements related to the design and construction (including materials, such as fire-retardant wood and roofing materials) of new buildings within an area that may be subject to wildfire. Existing hydrants along Venice Drive East would be maintained, similar to existing conditions, and be available for fire suppression purposes, as necessary. The Project area is generally surrounded by fire breaks afforded by the existing marina and Venice Drive East, which would further reduce wildfire risk. Further, the Project would replace outdated buildings and replace them with newly constructed buildings that are in compliance with the most current codes that require fire resistance measures (including Chapter 7A), and may alleviate current fire hazards on the site, such as buildings with out-ofdate fire abatement measures and materials. As a result, the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks in the vicinity. Therefore, the potential for residential exposure to possible pollutants and the uncontrolled spread of wildfire due to the Project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
c) Would the Project 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? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project includes the installation of three water storage tanks with a combined capacity of up to 500,000 gallons for the purpose of water storage and increased firefighting flow capacity within the Project area and vicinity. Additionally, and as part of the Project, existing electrical lines would be moved underground, which would further reduce fire risk compared to existing conditions. The Project requires no infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk and would provide new connections to existing water infrastructure (either via Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association infrastructure or the STPUD 8” water main within Tahoe Keys Boulevard). Both of these connections are addressed as part of the Project and throughout this IS/MND. The Project would replace existing buildings originally constructed in the late 1960’s and early 1970s with new construction built to current code requirements pertaining to fire prevention. Because the Project would improve firefighting capability of the marina and comply with 980
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
137
current fire codes for construction, the Project would not result in increased fire risk compared to existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. d) Would the Project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project area is located adjacent to Truckee Marsh and the marina lagoon and is flat and previously developed. The Project would construct new buildings to enhance marina functions and would involve grading parts of the Project area to construct the proposed structures. The Project would also replace and upgrade existing stormwater collection systems. If a fire were to occur, the location of the Project area at the low point in the watershed would preclude downslope hazards. New stormwater conveyance systems would be designed to meet the capacity as defined by applicable standards, and runoff would be treated on site. The Project area and adjacent areas are largely developed and/or flat with a gradual slope towards Lake Tahoe in the north and do not contain burn scars or steep terrain that would be subject to post-fire slope instability. As a result, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
981
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
138
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
4.21.1 CEQA Checklist Summary
CEQA Question Impact Determination
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? Less Than Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
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, or the effects of probable future projects.)
Less Than Significant Impact
c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
4.21.2 Answers to CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance Questions 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?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated As discussed in Section 4.4 (Biological Resources), Project construction could impact protected migratory bird species during breeding and nesting season and other special status species with potential to occur.
However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5, and compliance with permit conditions, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. The quality and functions of biological resources in the Project area would not change substantially with implementation of the Project. With implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, the construction and operation of facilities within the Project area would not 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; or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of endangered, rare, or threatened species.
As discussed in Section 4.5 (Cultural Resources) and Section 4.18 (Tribal Cultural Resources), no historical, archaeological, or tribal cultural resources would be significantly impacted by the Project, and 982
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
139
no mitigation is required with respect to historic and prehistoric resources. With implementation of mitigation measures pertaining to biological resources, this impact would be less than significant. 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, or the effects of probable future projects.)? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would involve redevelopment of existing marina facilities, which are currently served by various municipal services and utilities. The Project would involve the construction and operation of multiple new buildings and facilities within a previously developed area, adjacent to residential, recreational, and commercial uses. Other projects located within the immediate vicinity of the Project are limited to utility modernization efforts to the west of the Project area. More specifically, the City is also lead agency under CEQA for the Well #4 Site Improvements and Waterline Upgrades Project, which would provide a 1,600 sf well building with separate restroom and a new 12-inch water line within Venice Drive and Tahoe Kyes Boulevard. Construction of the utility modernization project is expected to begin in March 2026 and December 2026, which could overlap with implementation of the Project.
For the most part, the Project would not be considered cumulatively considerable with other projects located in the area due to its relatively isolated location within the eastern portion of the Tahoe Keys development. Further, the Project (as demonstrated above) would not result in an exceedance for any criteria air pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment; therefore, there would be no cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants or GHGs. The Project would also not contribute to a significant loss of cultural or biological resources, decrease in water quality, or degradation of regional VMT.
With respect to construction noise, it is possible that residents located east of Tahoe Keys Boulevard and west of the marina lagoon may perceive construction noise from both the Project and the aforementioned cumulative project. However, due to the approximate distance between the 2 construction sites (850 feet), intervening structures and vegetation, and noise attenuation over distance, construction noise associated with the 2 projects is not considered additive or cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated As discussed in Section 3.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), the Project has the potential to result in adverse effects on human beings related to hazardous materials during construction should contaminated soils be encountered upon removal of existing on-site buildings. With implementation of mitigation measures committed to by the lead agency (Mitigation Measure HAZ-1), impacts from the Project related to the risk of an accidental release of hazardous substances that could adversely affect human health or the environment during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. 983
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
References South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
140
5 References
Bureau Veritas. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – Tahoe Keys Marina.
California Air Resources Board. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf.
California Air Resources Board. 2013. California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality—2013 Edition. http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/almanac13.htm.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. “About The California Air Resources Board.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp.pdf.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2025. “iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics.” https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2016. “Mines Online.” https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022. “California Important Farmland Finder.” https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2025. “Williamson Act Enrollment Finder.” https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/App/.
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2025. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2025. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-populationand-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2025/.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2025. “Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones City of South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County.” https://calfire.app.box.com/s/wahuw9ny7cgn89xpxh7092ur50r1pwvj/folder/286538106901.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2024. Final – Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/construction/documents/environmental-compliance/construction-sitebmps_final-march-2024_a11y.pdf.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2025. “State Scenic Highway Program Map.” https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/47e2009986264718a5a13a2c81382774#data_s=id%3 AdataSource_2-199ba603ee3-layer-4%3A187.
984
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
References South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
141
California Department of Water Resources. 2018. “Water Management Boundary Tool.” https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/boundaries/.
California Energy Commission. 2024. “2024 Total System Electric Generation.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2024-totalsystem-electric-generation.
California Geological Survey. 2024. “EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application.” California Department of Conservation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/.
California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC). 2025. “About the California Tahoe Conservancy.” https://tahoe.ca.gov/about-us/.
Chandler, R. 2001. 2001 History of Tahoe Keys. Tahoe Daily Tribune, December 19, 2001. https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/history-of-tahoe-keys/ City of South Lake Tahoe. n.d. Land Use Plans and Zoning Map. https://www.cityofslt.gov/2457/LandUse-Plans-and-Zoning-Map.
City of South Lake Tahoe. 2010. General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. https://www.cityofslt.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15125/General-Plan-Draft-EnvironmentalImpact-Report?bidId=.
City of South Lake Tahoe. 2011. City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan (2011). https://www.cityofslt.gov/2457/Land-Use-Plans-and-Zoning-Map.
City of South Lake Tahoe. 2014. Emergency Evacuation Map for the Tahoe Keys. https://casouthlaketahoe.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/4397/Emergency-Evacuation-Map-forthe-Tahoe-Keys-FINAL.
City of South Lake Tahoe. 2020. City of South Lake Tahoe Climate Action Plan. https://www.cityofslt.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17277/South-Lake-Tahoe-Climate-ActionPlan-2020-PDF?bidId=.
City of South Lake Tahoe. 2022a. City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, 2021– 2026. https://www.cityofslt.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17558/Final-Local-Hazard-MitigationPlan-2022?bidId=.
City of South Lake Tahoe. 2022b. City of South Lake Tahoe 2022-2027 Housing Element. https://www.cityofslt.gov/DocumentCenter/View/17094/Complete_HousingElement_CLEAN_re ducedsize?bidId=.
Design Workshop. 2025. Site Coverage Reference Plan – Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment. 985
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
References South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
142
El Dorado County. 2002. Guide to Air Quality Assessment. https://www.eldoradocounty.ca.gov/LandUse/Air-Quality-Management-District/Air-Quality-Planning-and-Information/Guide-to-AirQuality-Assessment El Dorado County. 2003. Figure CO-1, Important Mineral Resource Areas. https://www.eldoradocounty.ca.gov/Land-Use/Planning-and-Building/PlanningDivision/Adopted-General-Plan#section-3.
Environmental Science Associates. 2019. Lake Tahoe Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Prepared for Lake Tahoe Airport Land Use Commission.
https://www.cityofslt.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13175/TVL_Final_ALUCP_ALUCP_ONLY_1909 12?bidId=.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2024. “National Flood Hazard Layer (NHFL) Viewer.” https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa 9cd&extent.
Forensic Analytical Consulting Services, Inc. 2025. Pre-Demolition Asbestos, Lead, PCBs and Universal Waste Survey Report, Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project. Prepared for NCE and Suntex Marinas.
Hyne, N.J., P. Chelminski, J.E. Court, D.S. Gorsline, and C.R. Goldman. 1972. “Quaternary History of Lake Tahoe, California.” Geological Society of America Bulletin 83: 1435-1448.
Ichinose, G.A., J.G. Anderson, K. Satake, R.A. Schweickert, and M.L. Lahren. 2000. “The potential hazard from tsunami and seiche waves generated by large earthquakes within Lake Tahoe, CaliforniaNevada.” Geophysical Research Letters 27 (8): 1203-1206.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf Kennedy Jenks. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for South Tahoe Public Utility District.
Prepared for South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD). https://www.stpud.us/files/e4f16f047/STPUD-2020-UWMP-30June2021_final.pdf.
Lahontan Regional Water Board (Lahontan RWQCB). 2025. Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/references.html .
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2026. SLT Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Transportation Analysis. Prepared for Suntex Marinas.
986
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
References South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
143
National Interagency Fire Center. 2025. “InterAgency Fire Perimeter History - All Years View.” https://data-nifc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/nifc::interagencyfireperimeterhistory-all-yearsview/explore?location=38.923829%2C-120.027100%2C13.97.
NCE. 2024. Aquatic Resources Delineation Report, Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project. Prepared for Suntex Marinas.
NCE. 2025a. Biological Resources Assessment, Tahoe Keys Dock Replacement Project. Prepared for Suntex Marinas.
NCE. 2025b. Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project - Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Addendum. Prepared for Suntex Marinas.
NCE. 2025c. Cultural Resources Inventory Report, Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project. Prepared for Suntex Marinas.
NCE. 2025d. Hazards Constraint Review, Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project. Prepared for Suntex Marinas.
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 2009. Fact Sheet - Lockwood Regional Landfill. https://ndep.nv.gov/uploads/land-waste-solid-fac-docs/lockwood-fact-sheet.pdf.
Reno Tahoe Geo Associates, Inc. 2024. Geotechnical Survey Report, Tahoe Keys Marina, South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, California. Prepared for Suntex Marinas.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 2016. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County – Chapter 7, Odors.
https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch7Odors%20FINAL6-2016.pdf.
Saxelby Acoustics. 2026. Environmental Noise Assessment, Tahoe Keys Marina. Prepared for NCE and Suntex Marinas.
South Lake Tahoe Parks and Recreation. n.d. “Parks and Beaches.” Accessed December 30, 2025. https://www.cityofslt.gov/866/Parks-and-Beaches.
South Lake Tahoe Waste Management Authority. 2018. Monthly Waste Facility Diversion Summary 2017-2018.
South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD). 2019. Tahoe-Sierra Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update. Prepared by Kennedy Jenks. https://stpud.specialdistrict.org/plan-documents.
South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD). 2020. Sewer System Management Plan. https://stpud.specialdistrict.org/plan-documents.
South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD). 2025a. Will-Serve Letter for Sewer Service Re: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment, South Lake Tahoe, CA.
987
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
References South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
144
South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD). 2025b. Groundwater Management. https://www.stpud.us/groundwater-management.
Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association. 2025. Can and Will Serve Letter – Tahoe Keys Marina, 2435 Venice Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 1993. 1993 Lake Tahoe Basin Scenic Resource Evaluation.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2002. Plan Area Statement 102, Tahoe Keys. https://www.trpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/documents/archive/2/102.pdf.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2014. Best Management Practices Handbook. https://www.tahoebmp.org/Documents/BMPHandbook/BMP_Handbook.pdf.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2018. Shoreline Plan Draft EIS. Prepared by Ascent Environmental. https://www.trpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/documents/archive/10-AirQuality.pdf.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2025a. Threshold Standards and Regional Plan. https://www.trpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Adopted-Regional-Plan.pdf.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2025b. Connections 2050: Regional Transportation Plan. https://www.trpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Connections-2050-Regional-TransportationPlan_Full-Plan-with-Cover.pdf.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2025. “National Web Soil Survey.” https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2017. Annual Energy Outlook 2012 with Projections to 2050. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/grace1/docs/0383-2017.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2025. Criteria Air Pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/criteriaair-pollutants.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2025. “Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 05/01/1968 to 06/09/2016.” South Lake Tahoe AP, California (048762). https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?ca8762. 988
Appendix A
Air Quality Modeling Results
989
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 1 / 75
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment 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
2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.2.2. Onsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.2.3. Offsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.2.4. Total Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
2.2.5. Onsite Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
2.2.6. Offsite Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.4. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
990
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 2 / 75
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2027)
3.1.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
3.1.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
3.1.3. Onsite - Mitigated
3.1.4. Offsite - Mitigated
3.2. Site Preparation (2027)
3.2.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
3.2.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
3.2.3. Onsite - Mitigated
3.2.4. Offsite - Mitigated
3.3. Grading (2027)
3.3.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
3.3.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
3.3.3. Onsite - Mitigated
3.3.4. Offsite - Mitigated
3.4. Building Construction (2027)
991
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 3 / 75
3.4.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
3.4.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
3.4.3. Onsite - Mitigated
3.4.4. Offsite - Mitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2028)
3.5.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
3.5.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
3.5.3. Onsite - Mitigated
3.5.4. Offsite - Mitigated
3.6. Paving (2028)
3.6.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
3.6.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
3.6.3. Onsite - Mitigated
3.6.4. Offsite - Mitigated
3.7. Paving (2029)
3.7.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
3.7.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
3.7.3. Onsite - Mitigated
992
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 4 / 75
3.7.4. Offsite - Mitigated
3.8. Architectural Coating (2028)
3.8.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
3.8.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
3.8.3. Onsite - Mitigated
3.8.4. Offsite - Mitigated
3.9. Architectural Coating (2029)
3.9.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
3.9.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
3.9.3. Onsite - Mitigated
3.9.4. Offsite - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
993
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 5 / 75
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.3.2. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.4.2. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.5.2. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
994
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 6 / 75
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
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
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
995
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 7 / 75
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
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
996
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 8 / 75
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
997
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 9 / 75
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
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
998
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 10 / 75
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
8. User Changes to Default Data
8.1. Justifications
8.4. Construction
8.4.1. Construction Phases
8.4.9. Paving
8.5. Operations
8.5.2. Area Sources
8.5.2.4. Landscape Equipment
999
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 11 / 75
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment
Construction Start Date 4/1/2027
Operational Year 2029
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70000
Precipitation (days) 44.8000
Location 38.93488773069947, -120.00233697278776
County El Dorado-Lake Tahoe
City South Lake Tahoe
Air District El Dorado County AQMD
Air Basin Lake Tahoe
TAZ 415
EDFZ 0-A
Electric Utility Liberty Utilities
Gas Utility —
App Version 2022.1.1.39
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
Racquet Club 144.600 1000sqft 3.31956 144,600 4,000.00 — — — 1000
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 12 / 75
Condo/Townhouse 3.00000 Dwelling Unit 0.18750 3,180.00 0.00000 — 8.00000 Workforce housing units to replace
existing
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-2* Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers
Construction C-8 Use Renewable Diesel
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-10-B Water Active Demolition Sites
Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Construction C-12 Sweep Paved Roads
Transportation T-34* Provide Bike Parking
* Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.
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. ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.14250 28.7760 1.18066 32.0485 33.2291 5,891.98 Mit. 0.63319 5.75466 0.10852 29.8947 29.9751 5,891.98
% Reduced 80% 80% 91% 7% 10% —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Unmit. 32.8473 10.5841 0.34335 29.8947 30.2381 3,253.87 Mit. 32.3495 4.01051 0.08129 29.8947 29.9760 3,253.87 1001 Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 13 / 75
% Reduced 2% 62% 76% — 1% —
Average Daily (Max) — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.78154 10.4627 0.40679 16.9705 17.1804 2,340.56 Mit. 5.69630 2.66478 0.05394 16.9705 17.0245 2,340.34
% Reduced 1% 75% 87% — 1% < 0.5%
Annual (Max) — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.05513 1.90945 0.07424 3.09712 3.13543 387.506
Mit. 1.03958 0.48632 0.00984 3.09712 3.10697 387.471
% Reduced 1% 75% 87% — 1% < 0.5%
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year
2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Includes both onsite and offsite emissions.
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily - Summer (Max) — — — — — —
2027 3.14250 28.7760 1.18066 32.0485 33.2291 5,891.98
2028 1.29647 9.96462 0.30649 29.8947 30.2012 3,237.88
Daily - Winter (Max) — — — — — —
2027 1.35571 10.5841 0.34335 29.8947 30.2381 3,253.87
2028 32.8473 10.0276 0.30702 29.8947 30.2017 3,237.02
2029 32.8291 6.62516 0.21056 12.2921 12.5027 1,674.36
Average Daily — — — — — —
2027 1.18396 10.4627 0.40679 12.6377 13.0444 2,340.56
2028 4.69964 6.77470 0.20988 16.9705 17.1804 2,132.87
2029 5.78154 1.16525 0.03709 1.90245 1.93954 294.973
Annual — — — — — —
2027 0.21607 1.90945 0.07424 2.30637 2.38061 387.506 1002 Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 14 / 75
2028 0.85768 1.23638 0.03830 3.09712 3.13543 353.120
2029 1.05513 0.21266 0.00677 0.34720 0.35397 48.8361
2.2.2. Onsite 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 ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily - Summer (Max) — — — — — —
2027 3.05170 27.9724 1.17173 19.6601 20.8318 5,316.00
2028 0.99143 8.92495 0.30024 0.00000 0.30024 2,405.68
Daily - Winter (Max) — — — — — —
2027 1.02988 9.39093 0.33657 0.00000 0.33657 2,405.30
2028 32.6962 8.92495 0.30024 0.00000 0.30024 2,405.68
2029 32.6823 6.52196 0.21056 0.00000 0.21056 1,488.41
Average Daily — — — — — —
2027 1.09377 9.95103 0.40226 4.09088 4.49314 1,978.43
2028 4.49483 6.12182 0.20615 0.00000 0.20615 1,613.61
2029 5.75619 1.14868 0.03709 0.00000 0.03709 262.147
Annual — — — — — —
2027 0.19961 1.81606 0.07341 0.74658 0.82000 327.551
2028 0.82031 1.11723 0.03762 0.00000 0.03762 267.152
2029 1.05050 0.20963 0.00677 0.00000 0.00677 43.4014
2.2.3. Offsite 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 ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily - Summer (Max) — — — — — —
2027 0.09080 1.24941 0.01432 14.9451 14.9595 847.200
2028 0.30504 1.03967 0.00625 29.8947 29.9010 832.200
1003
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 15 / 75
Daily - Winter (Max) — — — — — —
2027 0.32584 1.19319 0.00678 29.8947 29.9015 848.566
2028 0.31540 1.10264 0.00678 29.8947 29.9015 831.339
2029 0.14681 0.10321 0.00000 12.2921 12.2921 185.951
Average Daily — — — — — —
2027 0.09019 0.51170 0.00452 8.54678 8.55130 362.129
2028 0.20481 0.65288 0.00373 16.9705 16.9743 519.253
2029 0.02535 0.01657 0.00000 1.90245 1.90245 32.8257
Annual — — — — — —
2027 0.01646 0.09339 0.00083 1.55979 1.56061 59.9546
2028 0.03738 0.11915 0.00068 3.09712 3.09780 85.9682
2029 0.00463 0.00302 0.00000 0.34720 0.34720 5.43467
2.2.4. Total Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Includes both onsite and offsite emissions.
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily - Summer (Max) — — — — — —
2027 0.58880 5.75466 0.10852 20.0558 20.1643 5,891.98
2028 0.63319 3.85402 0.08037 29.8947 29.9751 3,237.88
Daily - Winter (Max) — — — — — —
2027 0.65432 4.01051 0.08129 29.8947 29.9760 3,253.87
2028 32.3495 3.91699 0.08090 29.8947 29.9756 3,237.02
2029 32.3452 2.88499 0.05004 12.2921 12.3421 1,674.36
Average Daily — — — — — —
2027 0.29936 2.14105 0.04674 10.1695 10.2162 2,340.34
2028 4.24433 2.66478 0.05394 16.9705 17.0245 2,132.87
2029 5.69630 0.50651 0.00881 1.90245 1.91126 294.973
1004
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 16 / 75
Annual — — — — — —
2027 0.05463 0.39074 0.00853 1.85593 1.86446 387.471
2028 0.77459 0.48632 0.00984 3.09712 3.10697 353.120
2029 1.03958 0.09244 0.00161 0.34720 0.34881 48.8361
2.2.5. Onsite 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 ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily - Summer (Max) — — — — — —
2027 0.49800 4.50525 0.09960 7.66744 7.76704 5,316.00
2028 0.32816 2.81436 0.07412 0.00000 0.07412 2,405.68
Daily - Winter (Max) — — — — — —
2027 0.32849 2.81733 0.07451 0.00000 0.07451 2,405.30
2028 32.1984 2.81436 0.07412 0.00000 0.07412 2,405.68
2029 32.1984 2.78178 0.05004 0.00000 0.05004 1,488.41
Average Daily — — — — — —
2027 0.20916 1.62935 0.04222 1.62269 1.66491 1,978.22
2028 4.03951 2.01190 0.05021 0.00000 0.05021 1,613.61
2029 5.67095 0.48994 0.00881 0.00000 0.00881 262.147
Annual — — — — — —
2027 0.03817 0.29736 0.00771 0.29614 0.30385 327.516
2028 0.73721 0.36717 0.00916 0.00000 0.00916 267.152
2029 1.03495 0.08941 0.00161 0.00000 0.00161 43.4014
2.2.6. Offsite 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 ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily - Summer (Max) — — — — — —
1005
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 17 / 75
2027 0.09080 1.24941 0.01432 14.9451 14.9595 847.200
2028 0.30504 1.03967 0.00625 29.8947 29.9010 832.200
Daily - Winter (Max) — — — — — —
2027 0.32584 1.19319 0.00678 29.8947 29.9015 848.566
2028 0.31540 1.10264 0.00678 29.8947 29.9015 831.339
2029 0.14681 0.10321 0.00000 12.2921 12.2921 185.951
Average Daily — — — — — —
2027 0.09019 0.51170 0.00452 8.54678 8.55130 362.129
2028 0.20481 0.65288 0.00373 16.9705 16.9743 519.253
2029 0.02535 0.01657 0.00000 1.90245 1.90245 32.8257
Annual — — — — — —
2027 0.01646 0.09339 0.00083 1.55979 1.56061 59.9546
2028 0.03738 0.11915 0.00068 3.09712 3.09780 85.9682
2029 0.00463 0.00302 0.00000 0.34720 0.34720 5.43467
2.3. Operations 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. ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.97382 1.95588 0.13739 4.85739 4.99478 5,723.11 Mit. 5.97382 1.95588 0.13739 4.85739 4.99478 5,723.11
% Reduced — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.99721 1.99440 0.13740 4.85739 4.99479 5,724.93 Mit. 5.99721 1.99440 0.13740 4.85739 4.99479 5,724.93
% Reduced — — — — — —
Average Daily (Max) — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.57044 1.95627 0.13293 4.27553 4.40845 5,713.87 1006
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 18 / 75
Mit. 5.57044 1.95627 0.13293 4.27553 4.40845 5,713.87
% Reduced — — — — — —
Annual (Max) — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.01661 0.35702 0.02426 0.78028 0.80454 945.997
Mit. 1.01661 0.35702 0.02426 0.78028 0.80454 945.997
% Reduced — — — — — —
2.4. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Mobile 0.72809 0.27354 0.00234 4.85739 4.85973 202.983
Area 5.15614 0.05451 0.01125 — 0.01125 26.4111
Energy 0.08959 1.62783 0.12380 — 0.12380 3,831.25
Water — — — — — 103.240
Waste — — — — — 1,558.51
Refrig. — — — — — 0.71695
Total 5.97382 1.95588 0.13739 4.85739 4.99478 5,723.11
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Mobile 0.74990 0.31174 0.00235 4.85739 4.85974 204.720
Area 5.15772 0.05484 0.01125 — 0.01125 26.4960
Energy 0.08959 1.62783 0.12380 — 0.12380 3,831.25
Water — — — — — 103.240
Waste — — — — — 1,558.51
Refrig. — — — — — 0.71695
Total 5.99721 1.99440 0.13740 4.85739 4.99479 5,724.93
Average Daily — — — — — —
Mobile 0.74086 0.29555 0.00235 4.27553 4.27787 204.228
1007
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 19 / 75
Area 4.73998 0.03289 0.00678 — 0.00678 15.9283
Energy 0.08959 1.62783 0.12380 — 0.12380 3,831.25
Water — — — — — 103.240
Waste — — — — — 1,558.51
Refrig. — — — — — 0.71695
Total 5.57044 1.95627 0.13293 4.27553 4.40845 5,713.87
Annual — — — — — —
Mobile 0.13521 0.05394 0.00043 0.78028 0.78071 33.8123
Area 0.86505 0.00600 0.00124 — 0.00124 2.63712
Energy 0.01635 0.29708 0.02259 — 0.02259 634.307
Water — — — — — 17.0926
Waste — — — — — 258.029
Refrig. — — — — — 0.11870
Total 1.01661 0.35702 0.02426 0.78028 0.80454 945.997
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Mobile 0.72809 0.27354 0.00234 4.85739 4.85973 202.983
Area 5.15614 0.05451 0.01125 — 0.01125 26.4111
Energy 0.08959 1.62783 0.12380 — 0.12380 3,831.25
Water — — — — — 103.240
Waste — — — — — 1,558.51
Refrig. — — — — — 0.71695
Total 5.97382 1.95588 0.13739 4.85739 4.99478 5,723.11
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Mobile 0.74990 0.31174 0.00235 4.85739 4.85974 204.720
1008
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 20 / 75
Area 5.15772 0.05484 0.01125 — 0.01125 26.4960
Energy 0.08959 1.62783 0.12380 — 0.12380 3,831.25
Water — — — — — 103.240
Waste — — — — — 1,558.51
Refrig. — — — — — 0.71695
Total 5.99721 1.99440 0.13740 4.85739 4.99479 5,724.93
Average Daily — — — — — —
Mobile 0.74086 0.29555 0.00235 4.27553 4.27787 204.228
Area 4.73998 0.03289 0.00678 — 0.00678 15.9283
Energy 0.08959 1.62783 0.12380 — 0.12380 3,831.25
Water — — — — — 103.240
Waste — — — — — 1,558.51
Refrig. — — — — — 0.71695
Total 5.57044 1.95627 0.13293 4.27553 4.40845 5,713.87
Annual — — — — — —
Mobile 0.13521 0.05394 0.00043 0.78028 0.78071 33.8123
Area 0.86505 0.00600 0.00124 — 0.00124 2.63712
Energy 0.01635 0.29708 0.02259 — 0.02259 634.307
Water — — — — — 17.0926
Waste — — — — — 258.029
Refrig. — — — — — 0.11870
Total 1.01661 0.35702 0.02426 0.78028 0.80454 945.997
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2027)
3.1.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
1009
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 21 / 75
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 2.21478 19.9005 0.79594 — 0.79594 3,438.66 Demolition — — — 0.92527 0.92527 —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.26092 2.34445 0.09377 — 0.09377 405.102 Demolition — — — 0.10900 0.10900 —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.04762 0.42786 0.01711 — 0.01711 67.0693 Demolition — — — 0.01989 0.01989 —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.1.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.06792 0.04620 0.00000 5.65962 5.65962 88.5178
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.01855 1.20321 0.01432 9.28552 9.29984 758.682 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.00831 0.00628 0.00000 0.58591 0.58591 10.4335
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00213 0.14379 0.00169 0.96195 0.96363 89.3187 1010
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 22 / 75
Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.00152 0.00115 0.00000 0.10693 0.10693 1.72739
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00039 0.02624 0.00031 0.17556 0.17586 14.7877
3.1.3. Onsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Demolition — — — 0.59217 0.59217 —
Off-Road Equipment 0.36229 4.50525 0.06327 — 0.06327 3,438.66 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — —
Demolition — — — 0.06976 0.06976 —
Off-Road Equipment 0.04268 0.53076 0.00745 — 0.00745 405.102 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Demolition — — — 0.01273 0.01273 —
Off-Road Equipment 0.00779 0.09686 0.00136 — 0.00136 67.0693 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.1.4. Offsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.06792 0.04620 0.00000 5.65962 5.65962 88.5178
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
1011
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 23 / 75
Hauling 0.01855 1.20321 0.01432 9.28552 9.29984 758.682 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.00831 0.00628 0.00000 0.58591 0.58591 10.4335
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00213 0.14379 0.00169 0.96195 0.96363 89.3187 Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.00152 0.00115 0.00000 0.10693 0.10693 1.72739
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00039 0.02624 0.00031 0.17556 0.17586 14.7877
3.2. Site Preparation (2027)
3.2.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 3.05170 27.9724 1.17173 — 1.17173 5,316.00 Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 19.6601 19.6601 —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.55181 5.05803 0.21188 — 0.21188 961.249 Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 3.55498 3.55498 —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.10071 0.92309 0.03867 — 0.03867 159.146 1012
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 24 / 75
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 0.64878 0.64878 —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.2.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.07925 0.05390 0.00000 6.60290 6.60290 103.271
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.01156 0.74968 0.00892 5.78548 5.79440 472.708 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.01489 0.01124 0.00000 1.04918 1.04918 18.6833
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00204 0.13752 0.00161 0.91994 0.92155 85.4183 Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.00272 0.00205 0.00000 0.19148 0.19148 3.09323
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00037 0.02510 0.00029 0.16789 0.16818 14.1420
3.2.3. Onsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 7.66744 7.66744 —
Off-Road Equipment 0.49800 2.58959 0.09960 — 0.09960 5,316.00 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1013 Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 25 / 75
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — —
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 1.38644 1.38644 —
Off-Road Equipment 0.09005 0.46825 0.01801 — 0.01801 961.249 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 0.25303 0.25303 —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01643 0.08546 0.00329 — 0.00329 159.146 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.2.4. Offsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.07925 0.05390 0.00000 6.60290 6.60290 103.271
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.01156 0.74968 0.00892 5.78548 5.79440 472.708 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.01489 0.01124 0.00000 1.04918 1.04918 18.6833
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00204 0.13752 0.00161 0.91994 0.92155 85.4183 Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.00272 0.00205 0.00000 0.19148 0.19148 3.09323
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00037 0.02510 0.00029 0.16789 0.16818 14.1420 1014
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 26 / 75
3.3. Grading (2027)
3.3.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.58640 14.2321 0.59767 — 0.59767 2,970.23 Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 7.08259 7.08259 —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.09562 0.85783 0.03602 — 0.03602 179.028 Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 0.42690 0.42690 —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01745 0.15655 0.00657 — 0.00657 29.6401 Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 0.07791 0.07791 —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.3.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.06792 0.04620 0.00000 5.65962 5.65962 88.5178
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1015
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 27 / 75
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.00425 0.00321 0.00000 0.29977 0.29977 5.33808
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.00078 0.00059 0.00000 0.05471 0.05471 0.88378
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.3.3. Onsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 2.76221 2.76221 —
Off-Road Equipment 0.28690 2.04249 0.05545 — 0.05545 2,966.70 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — —
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 0.16649 0.16649 —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01729 0.12311 0.00334 — 0.00334 178.815 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 0.03038 0.03038 —
Off-Road Equipment 0.00316 0.02247 0.00061 — 0.00061 29.6049 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1016
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 28 / 75
3.3.4. Offsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.06792 0.04620 0.00000 5.65962 5.65962 88.5178
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.00425 0.00321 0.00000 0.29977 0.29977 5.33808
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.00078 0.00059 0.00000 0.05471 0.05471 0.88378
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.4. Building Construction (2027)
3.4.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.02988 9.39093 0.33657 — 0.33657 2,405.30 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.18542 1.69074 0.06060 — 0.06060 433.049 1017
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 29 / 75
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.03384 0.30856 0.01106 — 0.01106 71.6962 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.4.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.30005 0.24098 0.00000 23.7297 23.7297 370.888
Vendor 0.02579 0.95221 0.00678 6.16505 6.17182 477.678
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.05327 0.04022 0.00000 3.75426 3.75426 66.8538
Vendor 0.00530 0.16945 0.00122 0.97578 0.97700 86.0834
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.00972 0.00734 0.00000 0.68515 0.68515 11.0684
Vendor 0.00097 0.03092 0.00022 0.17808 0.17830 14.2521
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.4.3. Onsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.32849 2.81733 0.07451 — 0.07451 2,405.30 1018
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 30 / 75
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.05914 0.50723 0.01342 — 0.01342 433.049 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01079 0.09257 0.00245 — 0.00245 71.6962 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.4.4. Offsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.30005 0.24098 0.00000 23.7297 23.7297 370.888
Vendor 0.02579 0.95221 0.00678 6.16505 6.17182 477.678
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.05327 0.04022 0.00000 3.75426 3.75426 66.8538
Vendor 0.00530 0.16945 0.00122 0.97578 0.97700 86.0834
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.00972 0.00734 0.00000 0.68515 0.68515 11.0684
Vendor 0.00097 0.03092 0.00022 0.17808 0.17830 14.2521
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.5. Building Construction (2028)
3.5.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
1019
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 31 / 75
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.99143 8.92495 0.30024 — 0.30024 2,405.68 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.99143 8.92495 0.30024 — 0.30024 2,405.68 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.59176 5.32703 0.17920 — 0.17920 1,435.88 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.10800 0.97218 0.03270 — 0.03270 237.726 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.5.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.27925 0.17886 0.00000 23.7297 23.7297 365.218
Vendor 0.02579 0.86081 0.00625 6.16505 6.17129 466.981
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.29173 0.21408 0.00000 23.7297 23.7297 365.021
Vendor 0.02367 0.88856 0.00678 6.16505 6.17182 466.318
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.17164 0.11727 0.00000 12.4462 12.4462 218.118
1020
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 32 / 75
Vendor 0.01539 0.52346 0.00373 3.23492 3.23865 278.538
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.03132 0.02140 0.00000 2.27143 2.27143 36.1119
Vendor 0.00281 0.09553 0.00068 0.59037 0.59105 46.1151
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.5.3. Onsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.32816 2.81436 0.07412 — 0.07412 2,405.68 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.32816 2.81436 0.07412 — 0.07412 2,405.68 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.19587 1.67980 0.04424 — 0.04424 1,435.88 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.03575 0.30656 0.00807 — 0.00807 237.726 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.5.4. Offsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.27925 0.17886 0.00000 23.7297 23.7297 365.218
1021
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 33 / 75
Vendor 0.02579 0.86081 0.00625 6.16505 6.17129 466.981
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.29173 0.21408 0.00000 23.7297 23.7297 365.021
Vendor 0.02367 0.88856 0.00678 6.16505 6.17182 466.318
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.17164 0.11727 0.00000 12.4462 12.4462 218.118
Vendor 0.01539 0.52346 0.00373 3.23492 3.23865 278.538
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.03132 0.02140 0.00000 2.27143 2.27143 36.1119
Vendor 0.00281 0.09553 0.00068 0.59037 0.59105 46.1151
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.6. Paving (2028)
3.6.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.62588 5.84990 0.21041 — 0.21041 1,354.92 Paving 0.00388 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.07471 0.69832 0.02512 — 0.02512 161.741 Paving 0.00046 — — — — —
1022
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 34 / 75
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01364 0.12744 0.00458 — 0.00458 26.7781 Paving 0.00008 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.6.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.09277 0.06808 0.00000 7.54617 7.54617 116.079
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.01092 0.00746 0.00000 0.79159 0.79159 13.8725
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.00199 0.00136 0.00000 0.14447 0.14447 2.29675
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.6.3. Onsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
1023
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 35 / 75
Paving 0.00388 — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.21425 2.13595 0.04771 — 0.04771 1,354.92 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Paving 0.00046 — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.02558 0.25498 0.00570 — 0.00570 161.741 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Paving 0.00008 — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.00467 0.04653 0.00104 — 0.00104 26.7781 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.6.4. Offsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.09277 0.06808 0.00000 7.54617 7.54617 116.079
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.01092 0.00746 0.00000 0.79159 0.79159 13.8725
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.00199 0.00136 0.00000 0.14447 0.14447 2.29675
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1024
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 36 / 75
3.7. Paving (2029)
3.7.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.61696 5.72780 0.19772 — 0.19772 1,354.44 Paving 0.00388 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.10866 1.00881 0.03482 — 0.03482 238.552 Paving 0.00068 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01983 0.18411 0.00636 — 0.00636 39.4950 Paving 0.00012 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.7.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.09012 0.06336 0.00000 7.54617 7.54617 114.156
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
1025
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 37 / 75
Worker 0.01556 0.01017 0.00000 1.16792 1.16792 20.1518
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.00284 0.00186 0.00000 0.21315 0.21315 3.33636
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.7.3. Onsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Paving 0.00388 — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.21423 2.13574 0.04769 — 0.04769 1,354.44 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Paving 0.00068 — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.03773 0.37616 0.00840 — 0.00840 238.552 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Paving 0.00012 — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.00689 0.06865 0.00153 — 0.00153 39.4950 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.7.4. Offsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
1026
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 38 / 75
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.09012 0.06336 0.00000 7.54617 7.54617 114.156
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.01556 0.01017 0.00000 1.16792 1.16792 20.1518
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.00284 0.00186 0.00000 0.21315 0.21315 3.33636
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.8. Architectural Coating (2028)
3.8.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.10731 0.80814 0.01536 — 0.01536 133.975 Architectural Coatings 31.9591 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01281 0.09647 0.00183 — 0.00183 15.9931 Architectural Coatings 3.81508 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1027
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 39 / 75
Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.00234 0.01761 0.00033 — 0.00033 2.64784 Architectural Coatings 0.69625 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.8.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.05835 0.04282 0.00000 4.74593 4.74593 73.0041
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.00687 0.00469 0.00000 0.49785 0.49785 8.72471
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.00125 0.00086 0.00000 0.09086 0.09086 1.44447
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.8.3. Onsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 31.9591 — — — — —
1028
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 40 / 75
Off-Road Equipment 0.02114 0.64604 0.00235 — 0.00235 133.975 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 3.81508 — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.00252 0.07712 0.00028 — 0.00028 15.9931 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.69625 — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.00046 0.01407 0.00005 — 0.00005 2.64784 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.8.4. Offsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.05835 0.04282 0.00000 4.74593 4.74593 73.0041
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.00687 0.00469 0.00000 0.49785 0.49785 8.72471
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.00125 0.00086 0.00000 0.09086 0.09086 1.44447
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1029
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 41 / 75
3.9. Architectural Coating (2029)
3.9.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.10236 0.79416 0.01284 — 0.01284 133.968 Architectural Coatings 31.9591 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01803 0.13987 0.00226 — 0.00226 23.5951 Architectural Coatings 5.62881 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.00329 0.02553 0.00041 — 0.00041 3.90644 Architectural Coatings 1.02726 — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.9.2. Offsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.05668 0.03985 0.00000 4.74593 4.74593 71.7950
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
1030
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 42 / 75
Worker 0.00979 0.00640 0.00000 0.73453 0.73453 12.6739
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.00179 0.00117 0.00000 0.13405 0.13405 2.09830
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.9.3. Onsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 31.9591 — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.02114 0.64604 0.00235 — 0.00235 133.968 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 5.62881 — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.00372 0.11378 0.00041 — 0.00041 23.5951 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 1.02726 — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.00068 0.02077 0.00008 — 0.00008 3.90644 Onsite truck 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3.9.4. Offsite - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
1031
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 43 / 75
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Worker 0.05668 0.03985 0.00000 4.74593 4.74593 71.7950
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average Daily — — — — — —
Worker 0.00979 0.00640 0.00000 0.73453 0.73453 12.6739
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — —
Worker 0.00179 0.00117 0.00000 0.13405 0.13405 2.09830
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.
4.1.2. Mitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.5. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
1032
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 44 / 75
Racquet Club — — — — — 1,862.95
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 19.3034
Total — — — — — 1,882.25
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 1,862.95
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 19.3034
Total — — — — — 1,882.25
Annual — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 308.433
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 3.19590
Total — — — — — 311.628
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 1,862.95
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 19.3034
Total — — — — — 1,882.25
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 1,862.95
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 19.3034
Total — — — — — 1,882.25
Annual — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 308.433
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 3.19590
Total — — — — — 311.628
1033
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 45 / 75
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club 0.08856 1.61024 0.12238 — 0.12238 1,926.61 Condo/Townhouse 0.00103 0.01759 0.00142 — 0.00142 22.3869 Total 0.08959 1.62783 0.12380 — 0.12380 1,949.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club 0.08856 1.61024 0.12238 — 0.12238 1,926.61 Condo/Townhouse 0.00103 0.01759 0.00142 — 0.00142 22.3869 Total 0.08959 1.62783 0.12380 — 0.12380 1,949.00
Annual — — — — — —
Racquet Club 0.01616 0.29387 0.02233 — 0.02233 318.972
Condo/Townhouse 0.00019 0.00321 0.00026 — 0.00026 3.70640 Total 0.01635 0.29708 0.02259 — 0.02259 322.679
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club 0.08856 1.61024 0.12238 — 0.12238 1,926.61 Condo/Townhouse 0.00103 0.01759 0.00142 — 0.00142 22.3869 Total 0.08959 1.62783 0.12380 — 0.12380 1,949.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club 0.08856 1.61024 0.12238 — 0.12238 1,926.61 Condo/Townhouse 0.00103 0.01759 0.00142 — 0.00142 22.3869 Total 0.08959 1.62783 0.12380 — 0.12380 1,949.00
Annual — — — — — — 1034
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 46 / 75
Racquet Club 0.01616 0.29387 0.02233 — 0.02233 318.972
Condo/Townhouse 0.00019 0.00321 0.00026 — 0.00026 3.70640 Total 0.01635 0.29708 0.02259 — 0.02259 322.679
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Consumer Products 3.16249 — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.94564 — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 1.04801 0.05451 0.01125 — 0.01125 26.4111 Total 5.15614 0.05451 0.01125 — 0.01125 26.4111
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Consumer Products 3.16249 — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.94564 — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 1.04959 0.05484 0.01125 — 0.01125 26.4960 Total 5.15772 0.05484 0.01125 — 0.01125 26.4960
Annual — — — — — —
Consumer Products 0.57715 — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.17258 — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 0.11531 0.00600 0.00124 — 0.00124 2.63712 Total 0.86505 0.00600 0.00124 — 0.00124 2.63712
4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
1035
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 47 / 75
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Consumer Products 3.16249 — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.94564 — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 1.04801 0.05451 0.01125 — 0.01125 26.4111 Total 5.15614 0.05451 0.01125 — 0.01125 26.4111
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Consumer Products 3.16249 — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.94564 — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 1.04959 0.05484 0.01125 — 0.01125 26.4960 Total 5.15772 0.05484 0.01125 — 0.01125 26.4960
Annual — — — — — —
Consumer Products 0.57715 — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.17258 — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 0.11531 0.00600 0.00124 — 0.00124 2.63712 Total 0.86505 0.00600 0.00124 — 0.00124 2.63712
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 102.096
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 1.14471
Total — — — — — 103.240
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 102.096
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 1.14471
1036
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 48 / 75
Total — — — — — 103.240
Annual — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 16.9031
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 0.18952
Total — — — — — 17.0926
4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 102.096
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 1.14471
Total — — — — — 103.240
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 102.096
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 1.14471
Total — — — — — 103.240
Annual — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 16.9031
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 0.18952
Total — — — — — 17.0926
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
1037
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 49 / 75
Racquet Club — — — — — 1,554.12
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 4.39101
Total — — — — — 1,558.51
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 1,554.12
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 4.39101
Total — — — — — 1,558.51
Annual — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 257.302
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 0.72698
Total — — — — — 258.029
4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 1,554.12
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 4.39101
Total — — — — — 1,558.51
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 1,554.12
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 4.39101
Total — — — — — 1,558.51
Annual — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 257.302
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 0.72698
Total — — — — — 258.029
1038
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 50 / 75
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 0.69417
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 0.02278
Total — — — — — 0.71695
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 0.69417
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 0.02278
Total — — — — — 0.71695
Annual — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 0.11493
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 0.00377
Total — — — — — 0.11870
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 0.69417
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 0.02278
Total — — — — — 0.71695
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 0.69417
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 0.02278
1039
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 51 / 75
Total — — — — — 0.71695
Annual — — — — — —
Racquet Club — — — — — 0.11493
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — 0.00377
Total — — — — — 0.11870
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
1040
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 52 / 75
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
1041
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 53 / 75
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
1042
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 54 / 75
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — 1043
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 55 / 75
— — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Total — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
1044
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 56 / 75
Total — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — —
1045
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 57 / 75
— — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 4/1/2027 5/31/2027 5.00000 43.0000 — Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/1/2027 8/31/2027 5.00000 66.0000 — Grading Grading 9/1/2027 9/30/2027 5.00000 22.0000 —
Building Construction Building Construction 10/1/2027 10/31/2028 5.00000 283.000 — Paving Paving 11/1/2028 3/31/2029 5.00000 108.000 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/1/2028 3/31/2029 5.00000 108.000 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 33.0000 0.73000
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 148.000 0.41000 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
1046
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 58 / 75
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.000000 7.00000 367.000 0.29000 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 82.0000 0.20000 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 14.0000 0.74000 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00000 7.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 46.0000 0.45000 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00000 6.00000 10.00000 0.56000
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 81.0000 0.42000 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00000 6.00000 89.0000 0.36000 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00000 6.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.000000 6.00000 37.0000 0.48000
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.000000 8.00000 33.0000 0.73000
Demolition Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 4.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.000000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Grading Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.000000 8.00000 148.000 0.41000 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.000000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.000000 7.00000 367.000 0.29000 1047
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 59 / 75
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00000 8.00000 82.0000 0.20000 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 14.0000 0.74000 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00000 7.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.000000 8.00000 46.0000 0.45000 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00000 6.00000 10.00000 0.56000
Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.000000 8.00000 81.0000 0.42000 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00000 6.00000 89.0000 0.36000 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00000 6.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.000000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.000000 6.00000 37.0000 0.48000
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition Worker 15.0000 8.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 5.90000 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 10.6512 20.0000 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation Worker 17.5000 8.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 5.90000 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 6.63636 20.0000 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading Worker 15.0000 8.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 5.90000 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
1048
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 60 / 75
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction Worker 62.8920 8.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 24.0206 5.90000 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving Worker 20.0000 8.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 5.90000 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 12.5784 8.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor — 5.90000 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition Worker 15.0000 8.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 5.90000 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 10.6512 20.0000 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation Worker 17.5000 8.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 5.90000 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 6.63636 20.0000 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading Worker 15.0000 8.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 5.90000 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
1049
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 61 / 75
Building Construction Worker 62.8920 8.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 24.0206 5.90000 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving Worker 20.0000 8.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 5.90000 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 12.5784 8.70000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor — 5.90000 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 6,439.50 2,146.50 216,900 72,300.0 —
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building
Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 39,800.0 0.00000
1050
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 62 / 75
Site Preparation 3,500.00 — 99.0000 0.00000 0.00000
Grading — — 22.0000 0.00000 0.00000
Paving 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 4.00000
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Phase Name Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Paving Racquet Club 4.00000 4%
Paving Condo/Townhouse — 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2027 0.00000 453.209 0.03300 0.00400
2028 0.00000 453.209 0.03300 0.00400
2029 0.00000 453.209 0.03300 0.00400
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses 175.000 175.000 175.000 63,875.0 218.000 218.000 218.000 79,570.0
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses 175.000 175.000 175.000 63,875.0 218.000 218.000 218.000 79,570.0 1051 Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 63 / 75
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
Land Use Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Mitigated (number) Racquet Club Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Racquet Club Gas Fireplaces 0 0
Racquet Club Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Racquet Club Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Racquet Club No Fireplaces 0 0
Racquet Club Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Racquet Club Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Racquet Club Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Racquet Club Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
Condo/Townhouse Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Condo/Townhouse Gas Fireplaces 0 0
Condo/Townhouse Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Condo/Townhouse Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Condo/Townhouse No Fireplaces 0 0
Condo/Townhouse Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Condo/Townhouse Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Condo/Townhouse Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Condo/Townhouse Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
6,439.50 2,146.50 216,900 72,300.0 —
1052
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 64 / 75
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 40.0000
Summer Days day/yr 180.000
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 40.0000
Summer Days day/yr 180.000
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Racquet Club 1,493,712 453.209 0.0330 0.0040 5,994,915
Condo/Townhouse 15,477.5 453.209 0.0330 0.0040 69,659.8
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Racquet Club 1,493,712 453.209 0.0330 0.0040 5,994,915
Condo/Townhouse 15,477.5 453.209 0.0330 0.0040 69,659.8
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
1053
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 65 / 75
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Racquet Club 8,552,099 39,325.9
Condo/Townhouse 95,954.9 0.00000
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Racquet Club 8,552,099 39,325.9
Condo/Townhouse 95,954.9 0.00000
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Racquet Club 824.220 0.00000
Condo/Townhouse 2.32875 0.00000
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Racquet Club 824.220 0.00000
Condo/Townhouse 2.32875 0.00000
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Racquet Club Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00180 4.00000 4.00000 18.0000
1054
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 66 / 75
Racquet Club Stand-alone retail R-134a 1,430.00 0.03750 1.000000 0.00000 1.000000 refrigerators and
freezers
Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
Condo/Townhouse Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Racquet Club Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00180 4.00000 4.00000 18.0000
Racquet Club Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.03750 1.000000 0.00000 1.000000
Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
Condo/Townhouse Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
1055
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 67 / 75
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
1056
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 68 / 75
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 30.5000 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 10.9000 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 6.85000 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 2 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
1057
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 69 / 75
Snowpack Reduction 0 0 0 N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 2 1 1 3
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction 1 1 1 2
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. 1058
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 70 / 75
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 60.6596
AQ-PM 0.68451
AQ-DPM 44.4306
Drinking Water 36.6429
Lead Risk Housing 35.5514
Pesticides 0.00000
Toxic Releases 7.15179
Traffic 31.4375
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00000
Groundwater 83.4468
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 76.2012
Impaired Water Bodies 77.2995
Solid Waste 91.0424
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 30.1969
Cardio-vascular 3.25274
Low Birth Weights 83.5001
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education —
Housing 62.8264
Linguistic 30.6943
Poverty 43.8945
Unemployment —
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
1059
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 71 / 75
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 51.85422815
Employed 43.12844861
Median HI 47.42717824
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 72.4111382
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 22.25073784
Transportation —
Auto Access 65.16104196
Active commuting 70.73014244
Social —
2-parent households 57.83395355
Voting 55.38303606
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 72.26998588
Park access 52.48299756
Retail density 30.54022841
Supermarket access 35.95534454
Tree canopy 96.76632876
Housing —
Homeownership 74.34877454
Housing habitability 67.99692031
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 15.89888361 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 87.80957269
Uncrowded housing 68.66418581
Health Outcomes — 1060
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 72 / 75
Insured adults 65.30219428
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 92.2
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 78.8
Cognitively Disabled 64.4
Physically Disabled 33.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 93.6
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 56.2
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 86.6
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 20.9
Elderly 20.5
1061
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 73 / 75
English Speaking 98.1
Foreign-born 9.8
Outdoor Workers 39.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 88.3
Traffic Density 42.0
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 24.5
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 59.9
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 41.0000 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 62.0000 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. 1062
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 74 / 75
8. User Changes to Default Data
8.1. Justifications
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Total construction period is estimated to be 24 months.
Construction: Paving Based on current site plan.
Operations: Hearths No wood fireplaces or stoves would be provided.
Operations: Landscape Equipment Modified to reflect average snowfall days per year in South Lake Tahoe.
8.4. Construction
8.4.1. Construction Phases
Phase Type Phase Name Model Parameter Default Value New Value Demolition Demolition End Date 4/29/2027 5/31/2027
Demolition Demolition Work Days per Phase 20.0000 43.0000 Site Preparation Site Preparation Start Date 4/30/2027 6/1/2027 Site Preparation Site Preparation End Date 5/7/2027 8/31/2027 Site Preparation Site Preparation Work Days per Phase 5.00000 66.0000 Grading Grading Start Date 5/8/2027 9/1/2027
Grading Grading End Date 5/19/2027 9/30/2027
Grading Grading Work Days per Phase 8.00000 22.0000
Building Construction Building Construction Start Date 5/20/2027 10/1/2027 Building Construction Building Construction End Date 4/6/2028 10/31/2028 Building Construction Building Construction Work Days per Phase 230.000 283.000 Paving Paving Start Date 4/7/2028 11/1/2028
Paving Paving End Date 5/2/2028 3/31/2029
Paving Paving Work Days per Phase 18.0000 108.000
1063
Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Detailed Report, 3/12/2026 75 / 75
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating Start Date 5/3/2028 11/1/2028 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating End Date 5/28/2028 3/31/2029 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating Work Days per Phase 18.0000 108.000
8.4.9. Paving
Phase Name Land Use Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value Paving Racquet Club Area Paved acres 0.00000 4.00000
Paving Racquet Club % Asphalt % 0.00000 4.00000
8.5. Operations
8.5.2. Area Sources
8.5.2.4. Landscape Equipment
Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00000 40.0000
1064
Appendix B
Biological Resources Assessment
1065
P.O. Box 1760
Zephyr Cove, NV 89448
NCE Project No. 1259.03.25
Biological Resources Assessment
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
South Lake Tahoe, CA
Tahoe Keys SMI,
LLC
17330 Preston Road Suite #100c
Dallas, TX 75252
December 2025
1066
Biological Resources Assessment
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
South Lake Tahoe, CA
December 2025
Prepared for:
Tahoe Keys SMI, LLC
17330 Preston Road Suite #100c
Dallas, TX 75252
Prepared by:
Dylan Karlowicz
Staff Biologist II
Dave Rios
Principal Scientist
NCE
P.O. Box 1760
Zephyr Cove, NV 89448
NCE Project No. 1259.03.25
1067
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Executive Summary South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
ES-1
Executive Summary
Tahoe Keys SMI, LLC (TKSMI) is proposing the redevelopment of the Tahoe Keys Marina (TKM), hereafter referred to as the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (Project), in order to revitalize the TKM land side facilities and operations. The Project would involve the demolition of 3 existing marina buildings, other ancillary structures on the site, and existing parking lots and utilities. Landside redevelopment would include new buildings, parking lots, entrances, and utilities (including upgraded water connections to mains in Venice Drive and Tahoe Keys Boulevard). Buildings would include an approximately 52,600-square-foot (sf) indoor boat storage facility with indoor water tanks, 3 units of workforce housing (to replace the 3 existing units that would be demolished as part of the Project), and space for restaurants, retail, concessions, and boat sales. The existing boat launch and gantry crane would be relocated, and the existing bulkhead that borders the lagoon would be replaced. A significant element of the Project is bringing the site into compliance with water quality best management practices and assisting in controlling aquatic invasive species. The City of South Lake Tahoe is acting as lead agency, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21177) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387).
The approximately 16.5-acre Project area is predominately developed or open water. Perennial open water in the lagoon is an extension of Lake Tahoe created by dredging during the development of the Tahoe Keys in the 1960s and 1970s. Aquatic vegetation present in the lagoon includes native Andean watermilfoil (Myriophyllum quitense) and non-native Eurasian watermilfoil (M. spicatum). Vegetation in the upland portion of the Project area includes:
• Trees, shrubs, and ornamental landscaping around the existing paved areas, buildings, bulkhead, and boat launch.
• Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) shrubland along the berms of the dredge spoils containment area and current boat trailer storage area.
• Forbs and ruderal species in the undeveloped parcel along Venice Drive. • Wetland plant species and standing water in the 2,449-sf regularly maintained stormwater basin.
A Biological Study Area (BSA) was established for database research and background review of the Project. The BSA is defined as a 1-mile buffer of the Project area. Dominant vegetation communities in the BSA include Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) and lodgepole pine (P. contorta) forests, quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) forest and shrubland, wet meadow, willow (Salix spp.) scrub, upper montane mixed chaparral, and perennial grassland.
The BSA includes urbanized areas including the Tahoe Keys, Tahoe Island, Highland Woods, and Al Tahoe. The BSA also includes the Upper Truckee Marsh wetland which is an environmentally sensitive area that provides habitat for numerous special status species (SSS). SSS refers broadly to plants and animals that receive some level of protection or designation under federal, state, or local regulations because of their rarity, threat of extinction, or other conservation concerns.
Reconnaissance-level field surveys of the Project area were performed on July 17 and 18, 2024, May 19 and 20, 2025, and October 29, 2025, to evaluate vegetation communities and habitats, develop an inventory of plants and wildlife, and determine the potential for SSS to occur in the Project area and immediate vicinity in the BSA. 1068
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Executive Summary South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
ES-2
A California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search was conducted for the BSA on October 4, 2025, which identified occurrences of 13 SSS including American goshawk (Accipiter atricapillus), bank swallow (Riparia riparia), Great Basin rams-horn (Helisoma newberryi), Lahontan Lake tui chub (Siphateles bicolor pectinifer), Lahontan mountain sucker (Catostomus lahontan), Lake Tahoe amphipod (Stygobromus lacicolus), Lake Tahoe benthic stonefly (Capnia lacustra), Lake Tahoe stygobromid (S. tahoensis), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens), Tahoe yellow cress (Rorippa subumbellata), western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis), and yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus). During the reconnaissance-level surveys, a bank swallow and yellow-headed blackbird were observed east of the Project area in the Upper Truckee Marsh. In addition, Tahoe yellow cress was observed northeast of the Project area along the shore of Lake Tahoe. Habitat in the Project area is either lacking or heavily disturbed for the species identified by the CNDDB, but bank swallow and yellow headed blackbird are present in the BSA and may occur in the Project area as transients or flyovers. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) were also observed in the BSA during the reconnaissance-level surveys, but there are no known nest sites for these species in the BSA.
A United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) report and species list was accessed through the IPaC website for the Project area on October 30, 2025. The IPaC report species list identified the potential for 7 SSS including gray wolf (Canis lupus), Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator), California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis), northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (SNYLF) (Rana sierrae), Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi), and monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). The IPaC report indicated no critical habitat for these species is present within the Project area. During the surveys, potential habitat for LCT was identified in the Project area. LCT were not observed; however, LCT are assumed to be present based on the Project area’s connection to Lake Tahoe and the ongoing restoration and stocking efforts in the Tahoe Basin.
Following the reconnaissance-level surveys, evaluation of suitable habitats, and review of the best available information, it was determined that the Project “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” LCT during replacement of the bulkhead and relocation of the boat launch. Therefore, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as the federal action agency will initiate informal consultation with USFWS for LCT. It was determined the Project will have no effect on the other species included on the IPaC species list considering known population ranges, habitat conditions, and lack of occurrence data in the BSA.
This Project is located outside of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries jurisdiction; therefore, a NOAA Fisheries species list is not required and no effects to NOAA Fisheries species are anticipated.
A California Native Plant Society (CNPS) rare plant inventory 1-quad search was conducted, and 13 California Rare Plant Rank 1 and 2 species were identified. Habitat for these species was assessed during the reconnaissance-level surveys. NCE determined, based on elevation ranges, habitat requirements, and conditions in the Project area, that 5 of these species are absent, 7 are unlikely to occur, and 1 has potential to occur. The species unlikely to occur include upswept moonwort (Botrychium ascendens), watershield (Brasenia schreberi), Davy’s sedge (Carex davyi), American manna grass (Glyceria grandis), broad-nerved hump-moss (Meesia uliginosa), marsh skullcap (Scutellaria galericulata), and slender-leaved pondweed (Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina). Tahoe yellow cress has potential to occur considering the presence of lake margin habitat and proximity of CNDDB and Tahoe Yellow Cress Adaptive Management Working Group (AMWG) monitoring occurrences around the Project area. Publicly available AMWG monitoring data shows that Tahoe yellow cress was present 1069
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Executive Summary South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
ES-3
at the Upper Truckee East, Upper Truckee West, Tahoe Keys, and Lighthouse monitoring sites in the BSA in 2019, which is the most recently available online data (TRPA 2025). A localized cluster of approximately 15 Tahoe yellow cress individuals was observed in the BSA during the May 20, 2025, reconnaissance-level survey along the shoreline of Lake Tahoe approximately 800 feet north of the Project area (Upper Truckee West AMWG monitoring site). Lake margin habitat conditions in the Project area are developed, heavily disturbed, and/or artificial (from dredging) and provide limited habitat for the species.
Avoidance and minimization measures described in this Biological Resources Assessment will be incorporated into the Project environmental document, as appropriate, to prevent impacts to SSS, including those listed (or candidates for listing) under the California Endangered Species Act and Federal Endangered Species Act, and those protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and other state, federal, or local laws.
Permitting requirements will depend on final Project improvements and potential impacts. However, based on review of the biological factors and Waters of the United States/Waters of the State conditions, the following permits will be required:
• USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit 28 – Modifications of Existing Marinas • Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Report of Waste Discharge Notice of Intent (Covered under the 404 Nationwide Permit 28) • California Department of Fish and Wildlife Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement • Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Major Marina Project Application • City of South Lake Tahoe Building Permit
1070
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Table of Contents South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Surrounding Land Use and Setting ........................................................................................... 2
1.3 Relevant Regulations ................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Permitting Requirements.......................................................................................................... 5 2 Study Methods ......................................................................................................................6
2.1 Database Research.................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Reconnaissance-level Surveys .................................................................................................. 6 3 Results...................................................................................................................................8
3.1 Physical Conditions................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Biological Conditions................................................................................................................. 8
3.3 Database Search and Survey Results...................................................................................... 12 4 Discussion............................................................................................................................36
4.1 Special Status Wildlife............................................................................................................. 36
4.2 Special Status Plants............................................................................................................... 41
4.3 Habitats and Natural Communities of Special Concern.......................................................... 42
4.4 Invasive Species ...................................................................................................................... 43 5 Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................................................44
5.1 Special Status Species............................................................................................................. 44
5.2 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ................................................................................. 44 6 References...........................................................................................................................46 List of Tables
Table 1. Reconnaissance-level survey dates, times, and weather conditions. .............................................7 Table 2. Special status wildlife species evaluated for the Project...............................................................15 Table 3. Special status plant species evaluated for the Project..................................................................22 Table 4. Plant species observed during the reconnaissance-level surveys.................................................25 Table 5. Wildlife species observed during the reconnaissance-level surveys.............................................30 List of Appendices
Appendix A
Figures
1071
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Table of Contents South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
ii
Appendix B
USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation Report
Appendix C
Photographs
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Project Location Map
Figure 2 – National Wetland Inventory Map
Figure 3 – CALVEG Map
Figure 4 – CNDDB Occurrences Map
Figure 5a – Biological Resources Observations Map
Figure 5b – Invasive Species Observations Map
Figure 6 – Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Resource Map
1072
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
List of Abbreviations South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
iii
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Definition
AIS Aquatic Invasive Species
AMWG Adaptive Management Working Group
BIOS Biogeographic Information and Observation System
BMP Best Management Practice
BRA Biological Resources Assessment
BSA Biological Study Area
Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council
CALVEG Classification and Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological Groupings CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CWA Clean Water Act
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
GIS Geographic Information System
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
LCT Lahontan cutthroat trout
LSAA Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement
LTBMU Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
LTBWCG Lake Tahoe Basin Weed Coordinating Group
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1073
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
List of Abbreviations South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
iv
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NWI National Wetland Inventory
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SF Square Feet
SNYLF Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog
SSS Special Status Species
TKM Tahoe Keys Marina
TKSMI Tahoe Keys SMI, LLC
TRPA Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
WOUS Waters of the United States
1074
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Introduction South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
1 1 Introduction
The Tahoe Keys Marina (TKM) has been a central feature of boating, public recreation, and waterway access to Lake Tahoe since its construction in the 1960s and 1970s. TKM is located in the City of South Lake Tahoe (City) on the south shore of Lake Tahoe and includes parcels 022-210-021, 022-210-032, 022-210-040, and 022-210- 044. Under the watch of its previous owners, TKM suffered substantial physical deterioration, deferred maintenance, general neglect, and a lack of adequate investment to maintain the marina as a world-class destination. Tahoe Keys SMI, LLC (TKSMI) purchased TKM in December 2021 with the intended goal and objective of redeveloping the property into a marquee marina commensurate with the caliber of Lake Tahoe, the City, and the surrounding communities. Since its purchase, TKSMI has diligently worked to improve the existing physical and environmental shortcomings of the marina by implementing stormwater/water management controls, actively managing upland storage of boats, and working with agencies to implement aquatic invasive species (AIS) controls. However, to achieve sustainable long-term environmental improvements, TKSMI must reconstruct the physical infrastructure required to achieve applicable environmental performance standards now and into the future.
This Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) was prepared for the Tahoe Keys Redevelopment Project on behalf of Tahoe Keys SMI, LLC (TKSMI). This BRA describes the biological resources in the Project area and the potential for impacts to biological resources that must be considered for permit applications and compliance with various regulations under the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts (CESA and FESA, respectively), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Code of Ordinances.
The objectives of this report are to:
• Summarize all site-specific information related to existing biological resources. • Draw reasonable conclusions about the biological resources that could occur in the Project area based on habitat suitability, historical occurrences, existing data, and the proximity of the Project to a species’ known range.
• Identify and discuss the potential impacts to biological resources from the proposed Project likely to occur on and near the site within the context of CEQA.
• Identify avoidance and minimization measures that would reduce potential impacts and that are generally consistent with recommendations of the resource agencies for affected biological resources.
1.1 Project Description
TKSMI is proposing the redevelopment of the TKM, hereafter referred to as the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (Project), in order to revitalize the TKM land side facilities and operations. The Project would involve the demolition of 3 existing marina buildings, other ancillary structures on the site, and existing parking lots and utilities. Landside redevelopment would include new buildings, parking lots, entrances, and utilities (including upgraded water connections to mains in Venice Drive and Tahoe Keys Boulevard). Buildings would include an approximately 52,600-square-foot (sf) indoor boat storage facility with indoor water tanks, 3 units of workforce housing (to replace the 3 existing units that would be demolished as part of the Project), and space for restaurants, retail, concessions, and boat sales. The existing boat launch and gantry crane would be relocated, and the existing bulkhead that borders the lagoon would be replaced. A significant element of the 1075
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Introduction South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
2 Project is bringing the site into compliance with water quality best management practices (BMPs) and assisting in controlling AIS. The City is acting as lead agency in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21177) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387).
1.2 Surrounding Land Use and Setting
A Biological Study Area (BSA), defined as a 1-mile buffer of the Project area (Appendix A, Figure 1), was established for database research and background review of the Project. Dominant vegetation communities in the BSA include Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) and lodgepole pine (P. contorta) forests, quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) forest and shrubland, wet meadow, willow (Salix spp.) scrub, upper montane mixed chaparral, and perennial grassland. The BSA includes urbanized areas including the Tahoe Keys, Tahoe Island, Highland Woods, and Al Tahoe. The BSA also includes the Upper Truckee Marsh wetland, which is an environmentally sensitive area that provides high-quality habitat for numerous special status species (SSS) and non-SSS. SSS refers broadly to plants and animals that receive some level of protection or designation under federal, state, or local regulations because of their rarity, threat of extinction, or other conservation concerns.
Within the BSA, land use is approximately 50 percent urban, consisting of roadways, residences, docks, businesses, restaurants, and a school. Approximately 25 percent of the BSA is open space associated with the Upper Truckee Marsh, Trout Creek, and Upper Truckee River corridors, and the remaining 25 percent is open water associated with the TKM lagoon. The open space northeast of the Project area along the Upper Truckee River and Marsh is undergoing restoration by the California Tahoe Conservancy (Conservancy) and includes an unpaved pedestrian trail providing access to the shore of Lake Tahoe.
TKM is an inland marina offering a comprehensive range of boating and recreational services. The marina provides amenities such as boat rentals, maintenance services, fueling stations, boat trailer storage, dry storage, and full service launching and landing. The marina serves as a hub for boating enthusiasts in the Lake Tahoe region and on peak summer days experiences substantial boating activity and traffic. TKM maintains a high occupancy rate, with its slips often fully booked and a waiting list for annual rentals.
1.3 Relevant Regulations
1.3.1 Federal
Endangered Species Act
The FESA protects plants and wildlife that are listed as endangered or threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Section 9 of the FESA prohibits the taking of endangered wildlife, where taking is defined as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct” (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.3). This statute also governs removing, possessing, maliciously damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on federal land and removing, cutting, digging up, damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on non-federal land, in knowing violation of state law.
Under Section 7 of the FESA, federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), as applicable, if their actions, including permit approvals or funding, could adversely affect an endangered species (including plants) or its critical habitat. Through consultation and the issuance of a biological opinion, the USFWS or NOAA 1076
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Introduction South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
3 Fisheries may issue an incidental take statement allowing take of the species that is incidental to another authorized activity provided the action will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Section 10 of the FESA provides for issuance of incidental take permits to private parties provided a habitat conservation plan is developed.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 703 et seq.) states it is unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds. The law also applies to the removal of nests occupied by migratory birds during the breeding season. The list of bird species protected under the MBTA, which includes raptors, can be found in CFR Title 50, Part 10.13.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, enacted in 1940, prohibits take of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) or golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), including nests, eggs, feathers, or other parts without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior. The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." Regulations further define "disturb" as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior" (50 CFR 22.6).
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Section 404 of the CWA gives the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction over fill materials in essentially all water bodies, including wetlands. All federal agencies are to avoid impacts to wetlands whenever there is a practicable alternative. Section 404 establishes a permit program administered by USACE regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States (WOUS), including wetlands. Section 401 of the CWA requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit that allows activities resulting in a discharge to WOUS must obtain a state certification that the discharge complies with other provisions of the CWA. The State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administer the certification program in California. The guidelines allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system only if there is no practicable alternative that would have less adverse impacts.
1.3.2 State
California Endangered Species Act and California Fish and Game Code Pursuant to the CESA and Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code, an Incidental Take Permit from the California Department of Wildlife (CDFW) is required for Projects that could result in the “take” of a State listed threatened or endangered species. Under the CESA, “take” is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species proposed for listing (called “candidates” by the state). Section 2080 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the taking, possession, purchase, sale, and import or export of 1077
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Introduction South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
4 endangered, threatened, or candidate species, unless otherwise authorized by permit or in the regulations. A Section 2081 permit is issued when a Project is consistent with an existing Biological Opinion.
California Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) of 1977 (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1900 – 1913) was created to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and endangered plants in this State.” The NPPA is administered by CDFW. The Fish and Wildlife Commission has the authority to designate native plants as “endangered” or “rare” and to protect endangered and rare plants from take. CESA provided further protection for rare and endangered plant species, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code.
California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 - Streambed Alteration Agreement Sections 1600 – 1616 of the California Fish and Game Code protect Waters of the State. Section 1602 of the code regulates any work that will: 1) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; 2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or 3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake. For Project activities that may affect stream channels and/or riparian vegetation regulated under Sections 1600 through 1603, CDFW authorization is required in the form of a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA).
California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 – Nesting Birds Nesting birds are protected in California under CDFG Code Section 3503. Section 3503 states, “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.” Birds of prey are also protected in California under provisions of the CDFG Code Section 3503.5, which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered take by the CDFW.
1.3.3 Local
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Code of Ordinances and Regional Plan The TRPA Code of Ordinances includes requirements for protection and management of “sensitive plants” and “uncommon plant communities,” regulations regarding tree removal, and protection of wildlife habitat, including stream environment zones (TRPA Code Chapter 61). The TRPA Code also includes regulations regarding protection of certain animal species known as “special interest species” (TRPA Code Chapter 62). TRPA designated special interest species are species that are “locally important because of rarity or other public interest, and threatened, endangered, or rare species as designated under state and federal endangered species acts.”
Updated in 2012, the TRPA Regional Plan identifies goals for the region and policies that establish the strategies necessary to achieve those goals. The TRPA Regional Plan integrates the requirements of the Bi-State Compact, 1078
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Introduction South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
5 the thresholds for special interest species and their habitats, related plans and legal requirements, and the public’s input. As a result, the TRPA Regional Plan provides coordinated and integrated direction for the TRPA’s regulatory Code of Ordinances and implementation programs.
El Dorado County General Plan, Objective 7.4.2: Identify and Protect Resources The El Dorado County General Plan identifies and protects critical fish and wildlife habitat where feasible, including deer winter, summer, and fawning ranges; deer migration routes; stream and river riparian habitat; lake shore habitat; fish spawning areas; wetlands; wildlife corridors; and diverse wildlife habitat.
1.4 Permitting Requirements
Based on a review of the biological factors and WOUS/Waters of the State conditions the following permits will be required for the Project. Permitting requirements will depend on final Project design and potential impacts:
• USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit 28 – Modifications of Existing Marinas • RWQCB Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Report of Waste Discharge Notice of Intent (Covered under the 404 Nationwide Permit 28)
• CDFW Section 1602 LSAA
• TRPA Major Marina Project Application
• City of South Lake Tahoe Building Permit
1079
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Study Methods South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
6 2 Study Methods
2.1 Database Research
SSS databases were reviewed to determine the presence, absence, and potential for SSS to occur within the Project area. The following site-specific references and background information were reviewed:
• California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory (CNPS 2025) o 2025 Inventory of rare and endangered plants occurrences • California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2025a) o 2025 Inventory of rare plants and wildlife occurrences • USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) (USFWS 2025a) o Federally endangered and threatened species, and their critical habitats, that may occur or be affected by the Project (Appendix B)
• CDFW Special Animals List (CNDDB 2025)
o 2025 state listed species
• TRPA and Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) open Geographic Information System (GIS) data (TRPA 2025)
o Sensitive and special interest plant and wildlife species information
2.2 Reconnaissance-level Surveys
Reconnaissance-level field surveys of the Project area were performed on July 17 and 18, 2024, May 19 and 20, 2025, and October 29, 2025, by an NCE scientist to evaluate and verify vegetation communities, assess habitat for SSS, and develop a baseline inventory of SSS and non-SSS wildlife and botanical resources (Table 1). The reconnaissance-level surveys involved walking meandering transects through the Project area identifying suitable habitats for SSS, identifying plants and vegetation communities, observing aquatic species in the lagoon from the marina shore and docks, observing birds and noting any potential nest sites, identifying potential bat roosts, and noting any other wildlife observations, including tracks and other signs. Microhabitats, structures, or other biological features that may provide refugia for SSS, such as ponds, snags, and burrows were also noted.
The botanical component was conducted by walking the entire Project area following the CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). All plant and animal species observed were identified and recorded to the taxonomic level necessary to determine their rarity or listing status.
1080
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Study Methods South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
7 Table 1. Reconnaissance-level survey dates, times, and weather conditions.
Date Start-End Time Temperature (°F) Wind Speed (mph) Cloud Cover (%) July 17, 2024 13:00 – 16:52 81 – 82 1 – 5 0 – 10
July 18, 2024 09:40 – 14:40 66 – 80 0 – 3 10 – 50
May 19, 2025 07:40 – 15:16 58 – 74 1 – 3 0 – 10
May 20, 2025 08:28 – 12:17 49 – 62 0 – 6 0
October 29, 2025 10:14 – 13:03 53 – 63 1 – 3 0
Seasonal and daily timing was appropriate for reconnaissance-level field surveys of biological resources in the Project area. Survey equipment used included binoculars, a Kestrel 3000 pocket weather meter, notebook, and an iPhone utilizing ESRI Field Maps software to document field observations. 1081
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
8 3 Results
3.1 Physical Conditions
The Project area is located within Sections 4 and 5, Township 12 north, Range 18 east within the United States Geological Survey Emerald Bay 7.5-minute quadrangle map. The elevation within the Project area is approximately 6,240 feet above mean sea level. Topography in the BSA is generally flat, with moderate gentle slopes in the upland areas, and flat open areas associated with the Upper Truckee Marsh and Upper Truckee River corridor (Appendix A, Figure 1). Photographs of the Project area are presented in Appendix C.
The regional climate in South Lake Tahoe consists of mild, warm summers and cold winters. Temperatures vary throughout the year from an average maximum temperature of 79.7 degrees Fahrenheit in July to an average minimum temperature in December of 16.2 degrees Fahrenheit. Most precipitation falls from October to April, averaging 16.3 inches per year. Average annual snow depth is 2 inches, with a maximum monthly average snow depth of 8 inches in January (Western Regional Climate Center 2023).
According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, the Project area contains 15.7 acres of Oxyaquic Xerorthents-Water association, 0 to 5 percent slopes, 0.6 acres of Tahoe complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, and 0.3 acres of Marla loamy coarse sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2025).
3.2 Biological Conditions
3.2.1 National Wetland Inventory and Aquatic Resources
The USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) identifies freshwater forested/shrub wetland, freshwater emergent wetland, and lake features within the Project area (Appendix A, Figure 2). Jurisdictional aquatic resources were delineated by NCE for USACE and CDFW permit applications on July 30, 2024, and it was determined that open water in the lagoon, which is connected to Lake Tahoe, a Traditionally Navigable Waterway, is jurisdictional. No other jurisdictional aquatic resources were determined to be present (Suntex Marinas 2024).
3.2.2 CALVEG
Natural communities and vegetation types in the BSA were initially analyzed with Classification and Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological Groupings (CALVEG) data and verified during the reconnaissance-level surveys.
Vegetation alliances in the BSA include Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, mixed conifer - fir, big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), upper montane mixed chaparral, wet meadow, perennial grass/forb, quaking aspen, aspen (shrub), willow (riparian scrub), rivers and streams, perennial lakes and ponds, open water, urban/developed, and barren (USDA 2018). The Project area resides within areas mapped as urban/developed, rivers and streams, perennial grasses and forbs, willow (riparian scrub), wet meadow, and Jeffrey pine alliances (Appendix A, Figure 3). Unless otherwise referenced, the descriptions of the habitats found in the BSA and Project area below are taken from the United States Forest Service (USFS) Vegetation Descriptions for the Great Basin Ecological Province, CALVEG Zone 9 (USDA 2009).
1082
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
9 Jeffrey Pine Alliance
The Jeffrey Pine Alliance is present in the BSA and Project area. Jeffrey pine assumes dominance without a Great Basin understory occasionally in the Pine Nut Mountains, Fort Sage Mountains - Lemmon Valley and Glass Mountain Subsections (Mono) on flat to moderately steep slopes. Elevations are commonly in the range of approximately 5,200 – 8,600 feet (1,586 – 2,623 meters). Incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) is associated with this type as well as shrubs of the Upper Montane Mixed Chaparral Alliance, such as greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula) and mountain whitethorn (Ceanothus cordulatus). The Mixed Conifer - Fir Alliance commonly occurs adjacent to these sites.
Lodgepole Pine Alliance
The Lodgepole Pine Alliance is present in the BSA but absent in the Project area. This alliance has been mapped extensively in the Glass Mountain Subsection and more sparsely in the Sweetwater Mountains - Pine Grove Hills and White Mountains Subsections (Mono) and Sheldon Range Subsection (Northwest). Sites tend to be on flat to low gradient slopes having volcanic and pyroclastic deposits at elevations mainly between 6,800 – 10,600 feet (2,074 – 3,233 meters). Quaking aspen occasionally forms a hardwood understory at elevations below approximately 9,400 feet (2,867 meters). The Eastside Pine Alliance is often found adjacent to this alliance.
Mixed Conifer - Fir Alliance
The Mixed Conifer - Fir Alliance is present in the BSA but absent in the Project area. The Mixed Conifer - Fir Alliance occurs at elevations up to about 9000 feet (2,745 meters), typically on eastside soils. Three major species define this mixed conifer type: white fir (Abies concolor), Jeffrey pine, and/or lodgepole Pine (P. contorta). At lower elevations the Mixed Conifer Pine Alliance associates such as Pacific Douglas-Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa) may occur in trace amounts. As elevations begin to increase, red fir (A. magnifica) becomes more prominent. Other associates at all elevations may include sugar pine (P. lambertiana) and incense cedar. Upper elevation and Great Basin shrubs are often found on or next to these locations, including greenleaf manzanita, huckleberry oak (Quercus vaccinifolia), curlleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius), snowbrush (Ceanothus velutinus), mountain alder (Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia), mountain sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana), and bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata). Black oak (Q. kelloggii), willows and quaking aspen are also likely to occur.
Big Sagebrush Alliance
The Big Sagebrush Alliance is present in the BSA, and although it is not mapped in the Project area, big sagebrush is present around the perimeter of the boat trailer storage area. The Big Sagebrush Alliance, consisting of dominant big and/or mountain sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana), is the most extensively mapped shrub type in this zone, occurring in 16 subsections of the Mono, Northwest, and Southeast Sections. Developing on a wide range of substrates, this alliance has been mapped within the elevation range of approximately 4,200 – 11,000 feet (1,280 – 3,355 meters). It occurs in association with other Great Basin shrubs such as bitterbrush, curlleaf mountain mahogany and black sagebrush (Artemisia nova). In association with Jeffrey pine, it is one of the understory indicator species that identifies the Eastside Pine Alliance. It is strongly associated with singleleaf pinyon pine (P. monophylla) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) at lower elevations as well as bristlecone (P. longaeva), limber (P. flexilis), and lodgepole pines on higher elevation sites. 1083
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
10 Upper Montane Mixed Chaparral Alliance
The Upper Montane Mixed Chaparral Alliance is present in the BSA but absent in the Project area. This alliance is a mid to high elevation shrub type in which no single species is dominant. Not well represented in this zone, it has been mapped sparsely in 6 subsections of the Mono Section and 1 in the Northwest Section. Characteristic, non-dominant species in this area generally include only greenleaf manzanita, mountain whitethorn, and snowbrush. Slopes tend to be south and west facing within the general elevation mapped, approximately 4,400 – 10,400 feet (1,342 – 3,172 meters).
Wet Meadows Alliance
The Wet Meadows Alliance is present in the BSA but absent in the Project area. Despite the general aridity of this zone, surface and near-surface waters are plentiful in some areas, such as the Owens River watershed in the Crowley Flowlands Subsection of the Mono Section. These seasonally or permanently wet herbaceous sites have been mapped in widely scattered areas over 17 subsections. The Wet Meadows Alliance has been chiefly identified on saturated alluvium and coarse substrates within a wide elevation range from below 4,000 feet (1,220 meters) to approximately 12,000 feet (3,660 meters). Indicator forbs and graminoids of this area include Hartweg iris (Iris hartwegii) and western blue flag (I. missouriensis), various rushes (Juncus spp.), false hellebore (Veratrum californicum), buttercup (Ranunculus spp.), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), water sedge (Carex aquatilis) and various other sedges (Carex spp.), mat muhly (Muhlenbergia richardsonis), streamside bluebells (Mertensia ciliata), scented shootingstar (Dodecatheon redolens), dwarf larkspur (Delphinium depauperatum), fringed willowherb (Epilobium ciliatum), and Sierra woodrush (Luzula orestera). Since this alliance has been mapped extensively within all subsections of the Northwest Section, some of these sites share alkaline-tolerant species more characteristic of the Alkaline Mixed Grasses and Forbs Alliance as well.
Perennial Grass and Forb Alliance
The Perennial Grass and Forb Alliance is present in the BSA and Project area. It has been identified in scattered patches within the broad elevation range of approximately 4,000 – 12,000 feet (1,220 – 3,660 meters). It has been mapped within 12 subsections of the Mono, Northwest, and Southeast Sections. Mule’s ears (Wyethia mollis) is a diagnostic species on many sites, but this alliance includes some species within the Alpine Grasses and Forbs Alliance at the highest elevations. The mixture may include both native and introduced bluegrass (Poa spp.), the natives Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), Nevada needlegrass (A. nevadense), pine needlegrass (A. pinetorum), thingrass (Agrostis pallens), Great Basin wild rye (Elymus cinereus), and squirreltail (Elymus elymoides) at most elevations; the non-native crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desertortum), tall wheatgrass (Elytrigia elongata), and quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) on the lowest and more disturbed sites; and many native perennial forbs such as Eaton’s daisy (Erigeron eatonii), glaucous willowherb (Epilobium glaberrimum), Congdon’s false horkelia (Horkeliella congdonis), and desert biscuitroot (Lomatium foeniculaceum).
Quaking Aspen Alliance
The Quaking Aspen Alliance is present in the BSA but is absent in the Project area. Quaking aspen occurs as an indicator of moist conditions in high elevation meadows and other moist areas. It is generally dominant on more productive sites, often forming dense, long-lived clonal patches on the landscape in the Sweetwater Mountains - Pine Grove Hills and Glass Mountain Subsections, and more sparsely in 8 other subsections of the Mono Section 1084
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
11 and 3 subsections of the Northwest Section. In this area, it has been mapped chiefly at elevations above 6,000 feet (1,830 meters) on a variety of geologic substrates. Quaking aspen has been identified as the principal hardwood understory species in bristlecone pine, Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, and limber pine sites. Along with arboreal curlleaf mountain mahogany, it forms the hardwood associates of singleleaf pinyon pine stands. Shrub associates on moist sites include interior rose (Rosa woodsii), currants (Ribes spp.), and silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana) and on drier sites big sagebrush, and bitterbrush. Other associated taxa are herbaceous species in dry and seasonally moist grasslands and meadows and riparian hardwoods such as willows and water birch (Betula occidentalis).
Aspen (Shrub) Alliance
The Aspen (Shrub) Alliance is present in the BSA but absent in the Project area. Quaking aspen will persist in a shrub form as snow-sculpted clones in leeward slopes. Such “krummholz aspen” stands have been mapped prominently only in the extreme northwestern border of the Sheldon Range Subsection of the Northwest Section adjacent to the northeastern edge of the Warner Mountains in Modoc County. Elevations are between approximately 6,000 – 8,000 feet (1,830 – 2,440 meters). Such sites are often surrounded by tree-sized aspen clones where conditions are favorable and are associated with species such as lodgepole pine and mountain sagebrush.
Willow (Riparian Scrub) Alliance
The Willow (Riparian Scrub) Alliance is present in the BSA and Project area. Any single or combination of shrub willow(s) dominate the species composition of this alliance. It has been mapped within a wide elevation range from about 2,200 – 9600 feet (671 – 2,928 meters). In the Northern Sierras, species may include Arctic (S. arctica), Booth’s (S. boothii), Drummond’s (S. drummondiana), mountain (S. eastwoodiae), narrow-leaved (S. exigua), Geyer’s (S. geyeriana), Jepson’s (S. jepsonii), Arroyo (S. lasiolepis), Lemmon’s (S. lemmonii), strapleaf (S. ligulifolia), shining (S. lucida), dusky (S. melanopsis), Sierra (S. orestera), Mackenzie’s (S. prolixa), snow (S. reticulata), or Scouler’s (S. scouleriana) willows. Many of these sites are adjacent to or include small quantities of quaking aspen, white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), and other riparian species.
Water
Rivers and streams and perennial lakes and ponds are present in the BSA and Project area. Water is labeled in CALVEG mapping in those cases in which permanent sources of surface water are identified within a landscape unit of sufficient size to be mapped. The category includes lakes, streams, and canals of various sizes, bays, and estuaries, and similar water bodies. These areas are considered to have a minimum of vegetation components, except along the edges, which may be mapped as types such as Wet Meadows, Tule-Cattail freshwater marshes, or Pickleweed-Cordgrass saline or mixed marshes. Islands within water bodies may be mapped according to their terrestrial dominant vegetation types.
Barren
Barren areas are present in the BSA but absent in the Project area. Landscapes generally devoid of vegetation as seen from a high-altitude image source such as aerial photography, are labeled as Barren. This includes mappable landscape units in which surface lithology is dominant, such as exposed bedrock, cliffs, interior sandy or gypsum areas, etc. It does not include areas considered modified or developed, as in urban areas. 1085
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
12 Urban
Urban areas are mapped in the BSA and Project area. This category applies to landscapes that are dominated by urban structures, residential units, or other developed land use elements such as highways, city parks, cemeteries, etc. In those cases, in which the managed landscapes may have a considerable vegetation component, other land use categories may be more appropriate, such as ornamental conifer and hardwood mixtures within city parks.
3.3 Database Search and Survey Results
The CNDDB search conducted for the BSA on October 4, 2025, identified occurrences of 13 SSS (Appendix A, Figure 4):
• American goshawk (Accipiter atricapillus)
• bank swallow (Riparia riparia)
• Great Basin rams-horn (Helisoma newberryi)
• Lahontan Lake tui chub (Siphateles bicolor pectinifer) • Lahontan mountain sucker (Catostomus lahontan)
• Lake Tahoe amphipod (Stygobromus lacicolus)
• Lake Tahoe benthic stonefly (Capnia lacustra)
• Lake Tahoe stygobromid (Stygobromus tahoensis)
• mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni)
• northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens)
• Tahoe yellow cress (Rorippa subumbellata)
• western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis)
• yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus) During the reconnaissance-level surveys, a bank swallow and yellow-headed blackbird were observed east of the Project area in the Upper Truckee Marsh (Appendix A, Figure 5a). Habitat in the Project area is either lacking or heavily disturbed for the species identified by the CNDDB, but bank swallow and yellow-headed blackbird are present in the BSA and may occur in the Project area as transients while flying or foraging. No nesting habitat for these species is present in the Project area. In addition, ospreys (Pandion haliaetus), a TRPA special interest species, have been observed during the reconnaissance-level surveys in the BSA flying over the Upper Truckee Marsh east of the Project area. Osprey nesting habitat is absent in the Project area, and no potential nests were observed in the vicinity during the reconnaissance-level surveys. There are no osprey nests in the BSA as documented by the TRPA.
A USFWS IPaC report and species list was accessed through the IPaC website for the Project on October 30, 2025. The IPaC report species list identified the potential for 7 species:
• gray wolf (Canis lupus)
• Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator)
1086
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
13 • California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) • northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata)
• SNYLF
• LCT
• monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus)
The IPaC report indicated no critical habitat for these species is present within the BSA or Project area. During the reconnaissance-level field surveys, potential habitat for LCT was identified in the BSA and Project area, but this species was not observed during the survey. In addition, LTBMU suitable habitat for SNYLF is mapped in the BSA and Project area. Following habitat evaluations during the reconnaissance-level surveys, it was determined that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect LCT; therefore, informal consultation between the USACE and USFWS will be necessary for LCT.
In addition, 2 bald eagles, which are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, were observed in the BSA, and 1 briefly flew over the Project area during the July 18, 2024, survey (Appendix A, Figure 5a).
There are no bald eagle nest sites in the BSA as documented by the TRPA, and potential nest sites in the vicinity were not observed during the reconnaissance-level surveys. No other species identified in the IPaC report, or other federally listed/protected species, were observed during the reconnaissance-level surveys. This Project is located outside of NOAA Fisheries jurisdiction; therefore, a NOAA Fisheries species list is not required and no effects to NOAA Fisheries species are anticipated. A summary of special status wildlife species identified by the database research or otherwise considered for analysis is presented in Table 2.
The CNPS rare plant inventory 1-quad search (Emerald Bay) conducted on May 29, 2025, identified 13 California Rare Plant Rank 1 and 2 species with ranges that could overlap with the Project area. Habitat for these species was assessed during the reconnaissance-level surveys, and it was determined 5 species are absent/precluded, 7 species are unlikely to occur, and 1 species has potential to occur based on elevation ranges, habitat requirements, and conditions in the Project area. The species unlikely to occur are:
• upswept moonwort (Botrychium ascendens)
• watershield (Brasenia schreberi)
• Davy’s sedge (Carex davyi)
• American manna grass (Glyceria grandis)
• broad-nerved hump-moss (Meesia uliginosa)
• marsh skullcap (Scutellaria galericulata)
• slender-leaved pondweed (Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina) One plant species, Tahoe yellow cress, was determined to have potential to occur considering the presence of occupied lake margin habitat in the BSA and proximity of CNDDB and Tahoe Yellow Cress Adaptive Management Working Group (AMWG) monitoring occurrences around the Project area. A localized cluster of 15 Tahoe yellow cress plants were observed along the shoreline of Lake Tahoe approximately 800 feet north of the Project area during the May 20, 2025, reconnaissance-level survey (Upper Truckee West AMWG monitoring site). Publicly available AMWG monitoring data shows that Tahoe yellow cress was present at the Upper Truckee East, Upper 1087
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
14 Truckee West, Tahoe Keys, and Lighthouse monitoring sites in the BSA in 2019, which is the most recently available online data (TRPA 2025). Lake margin habitat conditions in the Project area are developed, heavily disturbed, and/or artificial (from dredging) and provide limited habitat for the species. A summary of special status plant species identified by the database research or otherwise considered for analysis is presented in Table 3.
1088
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
15 Table 2. Special status wildlife species evaluated for the Project.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Mammals
Canis lupus
gray wolf
FE SE Wolves can adapt to a wide variety of
habitats provided there is abundant prey
(CDFW 2025b), large open areas, and
minimal human disturbance. They may
utilize burrows of other animals or dig
new burrows for pup rearing (Heard and
Williams 1992). California currently has
nine confirmed wolf packs active in
Lassen, Modoc, Shasta, and Tehama
Counties. There are at least 44 wolves
known to be in the state (CDFW 2025b).
Absent. Suitable habitat is absent in the
Project area and the BSA is located
outside of known pack territories and
areas of activity. This species is
remarkably rare, and no individuals are
currently known to occur in the Lake
Tahoe basin. Not observed during the
reconnaissance-level surveys.
Vulpes vulpes
necator
Sierra Nevada red
fox
FE
FS:S
ST In the Sierra Nevada, high-elevation
(8,100 – 11,608 feet) forests
interspersed with meadows or alpine
fell-fields. Open areas are used for
hunting while forested habitats are used
for cover and reproduction. Forest edges
are utilized extensively (Seidensticker
1999). The Sierra Nevada Distinct
Population Segment sightings have been
limited to federal lands in Alpine, Fresno,
Inyo, Madera, Mono and Tuolumne
counties. Less than 50 individuals exist in
the wild (USFWS 2021).
Absent. The Project area does not
contain suitable habitat and is outside of
typical elevation range. This species is
remarkably rare, and no individuals are
currently known to occur in the Lake
Tahoe basin. Not observed during the
reconnaissance-level surveys.
Birds
Accipiter
atricapillus
American goshawk
BLM:S
FS:S
SI
SSC
American goshawks are distributed
throughout California in middle to higher
elevation forested areas, particularly in
the North Coast Ranges through the
Sierra Nevada, Klamath, Cascade, and
Warner Mountains (Zeiner et al. 1990).
Locally, they can be yearlong residents
and seasonal migrants. Goshawks
usually nest on north-facing slopes near
water and require mature conifer or
aspen forests with large diameter trees,
dense canopy cover, and an open
understory interspersed with meadows
or shrub patches. Open areas provide
foraging opportunities, while logs, snags,
and broken-top trees are used as
"plucking posts" to de-feather prey
(Woodbridge and Hargis 2006).
Unlikely. There is 1 occurrence listed in
the CNDDB within 1 mile of the Project
area, from 1981 at the Tahoe Valley
Campground to the south. This species
could occur in the BSA or Project area as
a transient because suitable conifer and
foraging habitat is present along the
Upper Truckee Marsh adjacent to the
Project area. Suitable nesting and
foraging habitat is absent in the Project
area and goshawks are unlikely to nest
in the BSA considering the level of
development and lack of preferred
nesting habitat. Not observed during the
reconnaissance-level surveys.
Empidonax traillii
willow flycatcher
FS:S SE A rare to locally uncommon summer
resident in wet meadow and montane
riparian habitats at 2,000 – 8,000 feet
(600 – 2,500 meters) in the Sierra
Nevada and Cascade Range. They most
often occur in broad, open river valleys
Unlikely. Suitable nesting habitat is
absent within the Project area. Suitable
habitat is present in the BSA (Upper
Truckee Marsh/Upper Truckee River);
however, this species is rare, and
occurrence data is lacking. Not observed
1089
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
16 Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
or large mountain meadows with lush
growth of shrubby willows associated
with surface water or saturated soils
within the defended territory in the
early breeding season. Dense willow
thickets are required for nesting and
roosting. Low, exposed branches are
used for singing posts and hunting
perches (Bombay et al. 1999, Sanders
and Flett 1989, Serena 1982). This
species was once locally abundant along
willow dominated riparian and meadow
communities across California, including
the Upper Truckee River (Bombay et al.
2003).
during the reconnaissance-level surveys,
and no diagnostic “fitz-bew” calls were
heard. According to personal
communication with the Conservancy,
there are recent willow flycatcher
detections in a specific area of the Upper
Truckee Marsh, estimated 1,500 feet
northeast of the Project area.
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
bald eagle
FS:S SE
SI
Bald eagles have an expansive range
with breeding areas in Northern
California, wintering mostly in the
Klamath Basin, and a few favored inland
areas of Southern California. Locally,
they are yearlong residents and migrants
in the Tahoe Basin. Bald eagles use
shorelines along large bodies of water
and river courses for both nesting and
wintering. Snags, broken-topped trees,
or rocks near water are required for
foraging and nesting. Most nests are in
large trees with open branches within 1
mile of a water body. In Lake Tahoe,
known nesting sites include Emerald Bay
and Marlette Lake. Wintering sites are in
Taylor, Tallac, Pope, and the Upper
Truckee Marsh (Romsos 2000).
Present. Suitable habitat is present in
the BSA, including TRPA bald eagle
wintering habitat mapped in the Upper
Truckee Marsh and partially overlapping
the southeast corner of the Project area.
Two individuals (adult and juvenile) were
observed in the Jeffrey pine stand 900
feet northeast of the Project area, then
proceeded to briefly fly over the Project
area. No nesting habitat is present in the
Project area, and bald eagles are unlikely
to nest in the BSA considering the level
of disturbance/development.
Pandion haliaetus
osprey
SI
WL
Ospreys occur along rivers, lakes,
reservoirs, and seacoasts and often cross
land between water bodies. They build
large stick nests on living or dead trees
or manmade structures, usually near or
above water (Campbell et al. 1990,
Palmer 1988). In the Lake Tahoe basin,
osprey nests are located near the
northeastern and southwestern
shorelines and near Fallen Leaf Lake
(TRPA 2025).
Present. Ospreys have been observed in
the BSA, over the Upper Truckee Marsh,
during the reconnaissance-level surveys.
No nest sites were observed, and none
are documented in the BSA.
Riparia riparia
bank swallow
BLM:S ST Occurs in open habitats, often near
flowing water (American Ornithologists'
Union [AOU] 1983). Nests in burrows
dug near the tops of steep banks, along
the edge of inland water, or along the
coast. May also nest in gravel pits, road
embankments, etc. Bank swallows
typically dig a new burrow each season
but sometimes they will use old burrows
Present. One individual was observed
foraging in the BSA, over the Upper
Truckee River adjacent to the Project
area. Suitable foraging habitat is present
in the BSA, and bank swallows may
forage over open water in the Project
area. Nesting habitat is absent in the
Project area; however, nesting habitat
may be present in the BSA. CNDDB
1090
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
17 Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
or abandoned belted kingfisher
(Megaceryle alcyon) cavities. Individuals
often return to the same nesting area in
successive years, depending on nesting
success (Turner and Rose 1989).
Individuals may forage up to several
kilometers from the nesting area over
fields, wetlands, water, etc. Bank
swallows are neotropical migrants and
migrate to South America in late July or
early August. They typically arrive to
breeding habitats in North America
between March and May.
occurrences are from a colony
documented by CDFW in 1962, and 1
individual observed in 1976.
Strix occidentalis
occidentalis
California spotted
owl
BLM:S
FS:S
PT
SSC An uncommon, permanent resident in
dense, old-growth, multi-layered mixed
conifer, redwood, and Douglas fir
habitats from sea level up to
approximately 7,600 feet (2,300 meters).
Often associated with sources of water
(Garrett and Dunn 1981). May move
downslope in winter along the eastern
and western slopes of the Sierra Nevada,
and in other areas. Uses dense, multilayered canopy cover for roost seclusion.
Complex (multi-layered), high canopy
cover (approximately 70 percent) forests
provide microclimates, protection, and
habitat for prey species. Large trees
(>24-inch diameter at breast height),
and the canopy cover they provide, are
the best predictor for California spotted
owl occupancy. The nest tree within a
territory is usually the oldest, largest
(living or dead), defected tree (cracks,
disease scars, decaying wood).
Heterogenous habitat (structurally
complex forests) with coarse woody
debris, vegetation diversity, forest
edges, etc., are important characteristics
for prey species habitat, such as
woodrats, and California spotted owl
foraging (USFWS 2022a).
Unlikely. The Project area does not
contain suitable nesting, roosting, or
foraging habitat. Suitable but limited
foraging habitat may be present in the
BSA; therefore, the species may occur as
a nocturnal transient. Not observed
during the reconnaissance-level surveys.
Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
yellow-headed
blackbird
SSC Breeding habitat includes freshwater
marshes with bulrush, cattail, and tule.
Nests are baskets of woven grasses,
reeds, and cattails around stems. Nonbreeding habitat includes open agriculture lands, pastures, and fields
(AOU 1983). Migrates to the southwest
United States and Mexico in the fall.
Returns to breeding sites across the
United States in the spring.
Present. Several territorial Individuals
were observed in the BSA, in the Upper
Truckee Marsh east of the Project area,
during the reconnaissance-level surveys
in 2024 and 2025. Suitable foraging and
nesting habitats are absent in the
Project area, but present in the BSA
(Upper Truckee Marsh). CNDDB includes
occurrences in the Upper Truckee Marsh
in the BSA.
1091
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
18 Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Reptiles
Actinemys
marmorata
northwestern pond
turtle
BLM:S
FS:S
PT
SSC Western pond turtles are semi-aquatic
and use a wide range of ephemeral
water bodies including rivers, streams,
lakes, natural and artificial ponds,
wetlands, marshes, vernal pools,
reservoirs, irrigation ditches, and
estuaries for breeding, feeding, and
overwintering. Preferred aquatic
conditions include standing or slowmoving water containing underwater shelter sites (vegetation, undercut
banks, logs, etc.), and basking sites.
Upland habitats are also used for nesting
and overwintering. Upland nesting
habitat varies but is near aquatic habitat
and typically contains sparse vegetation
with short grasses and forbs, and little to
no canopy cover (USFWS 2023a).
Absent. Suitable habitat is absent in the
Project area. The Upper Truckee Marsh
in the BSA provides suitable habitat;
however, the species is not known to
occur in the Lake Tahoe basin or other
high-elevation habitats in the Sierra
Nevada. Not observed during the
reconnaissance-level surveys.
Amphibians
Lithobates pipiens
northern leopard
frog
SSC Found in springs, slow streams, marshes,
bogs, ponds, canals, flood plains,
reservoirs, and lakes, usually in or near
permanent water with rooted aquatic
vegetation. In summer, they commonly
inhabit wet meadows and fields. Shelter
underwater, in damp niches, or in caves
when inactive. Wintering sites are
usually underwater, though some frogs
possibly overwinter underground. Eggs
are laid and larvae develop in typically
shallow, still, permanent water, in areas
well exposed to sunlight. Generally, eggs
are attached to vegetation just below
the surface of the water (NatureServe
2023a).
Unlikely. Suitable habitat is absent in the
Project area, but present in the BSA
(Upper Truckee Marsh). A buffered
CNDDB occurrence from 1933 is present
in the BSA, documenting an observation
near Tallac Village and Camp Richardson
to the west. Not observed during the
reconnaissance-level surveys.
Rana sierrae
Sierra Nevada
yellow-legged frog
FE
FS:S
ST
WL
Inhabit the Sierra Nevada mountains in
lakes, ponds, marshes, meadows, and
streams at elevations ranging from 4,500
– 12,000 feet (1,370 – 3,660 meters).
Their range extends from the western
Sierra Nevada north of Fresno County to
the eastern Sierra Nevada in Inyo and
Mono counties. Breed in the shallows of
ponds and lakes or in inlet streams and
deposit their eggs underwater in
clusters, which they attach to rocks,
gravel, or vegetation (USFWS n.d.).
Absent. Suitable habitat is mapped by
the USFS in the Project area. However,
the USFS suitable habitat GIS layer is a
buffer of all wetland features in the
range of the species. Suitable habitat is
absent in the Project area, but present in
the BSA (Upper Truckee Marsh).
However, the species has not been
documented along the Upper Truckee
River for numerous decades, as
channelization of the river has led to the
absence of backwater ponds/pools,
streams, and marshes free of predatory
fish species. Critical habitat is absent in
the BSA. Not observed during the
reconnaissance-level surveys.
1092
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
19 Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Fish
Catostomus
lahontan
Lahontan mountain
sucker
SSC Inhabit shallow (less than 2 meters),
clear, low-gradient streams in the
Lahontan basin associated with diverse
substrates from sand to boulders, in
areas with dense cover, macrophytes,
logs, and undercut banks. May also be
found in larger, more turbid rivers and
smaller lakes and reservoirs, but not
large lakes such as Tahoe, Eagle, or
Pyramid lakes. Largely absent from
California reservoirs (CDFW 2015).
Unlikely. Suitable habitat is not present
in the Project area but is present in the
BSA (Upper Truckee River). CNDDB
occurrences are present along the Upper
Truckee River adjacent to the Project
area. However, the species is unlikely to
occur in the lagoon and was not
observed during the reconnaissancelevel surveys.
Prosopium
williamsoni
mountain whitefish
SSC Found in cold mountain lakes at least 10
meters deep and fast, clear, or silty
streams with large pools. Stream
populations spawn in riffles over gravel
and small rubble. Lake populations move
into tributaries to spawn between
October and early December or seek
gravel shallows in lakes. Eggs stick to
bottom substrate. No nest is constructed
(NatureServe 2023b).
Unlikely. The CNDDB includes records of
occurrences in Lake Tahoe and along the
Upper Truckee River in the BSA. The
species is unlikely to occur in the lagoon
considering the presence of invasive
species and disturbed/absent preferred
aquatic habitat. Spawning habitat is not
present in the Project area, and the
species was not observed during the
reconnaissance-level surveys.
Siphateles bicolor
pectinifer
Lahontan Lake tui
chub
SSC Found in large, deep lakes. In Lake
Tahoe, larger individuals occupy deeper
water during the day and shallow water
at night. They stay in the upper water
column in summer and move deeper in
the water column in winter (Miller
1951). When young reach 1 – 2 cm they
move from beds of aquatic vegetation to
deeper offshore areas. Successful
spawning, egg hatching, and larval
survival appear to depend on access to
algal beds in shallow, inshore areas
(Moyle et al. 1995, 1989).
Unlikely. The CNDDB includes records of
occurrences in Lake Tahoe and along the
Upper Truckee River in the BSA. The
species is unlikely to occur in the lagoon
considering the presence of invasive
species and disturbed/absent preferred
aquatic habitat. Spawning habitat is not
present in the Project area, and the
species was not observed during the
reconnaissance-level surveys.
Oncorhynchus
clarkii henshawi
Lahontan cutthroat
trout
FT Inhabits cool, well-oxygenated
freshwater lakes, rivers, and streams.
Requires spawning and nursery habitat
characterized by cool water pools in
close proximity to cover and velocity
breaks, well vegetated and stable stream
banks, and silt-free rocky substrate in
riffle-run areas. Found in drainages of
the Truckee, Humboldt, Carson, Walker,
and Quinn Rivers (USFWS 1995).
Potential. There is low potential the
species would occur in the lagoon
considering the presence of invasive
species and disturbed/absent preferred
aquatic habitat. Spawning habitat is not
present in the Project area, and the
species was not observed during the
reconnaissance-level surveys. Since
2022, 100,000 individuals are stocked
annually into Lake Tahoe by the
Lahontan National Fish Hatchery
Complex each year. The Upper Truckee
River has also been subject to various
LCT restocking efforts.
1093
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
20 Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Insects
Bombus
occidentalis
western bumble
bee
FS:S SC Historical distribution is from the Pacific
coast to the Colorado Rocky Mountains;
severe population decline west of the
Sierra-Cascade Crest, but populations
are known from the Great Basin, the
Rocky Mountains and Alaska; several
subspecies have been suggested. Food
plant genera include Melilotus, Cirsium,
Trifolium, Centaurea, Chrysothamnus,
and Eriogonum (Koch et al. 2012).
Potential. Numerous individuals of 2
bumble bee species were observed
during the surveys, but Bombus
occidentalis was not observed. A CNDDB
occurrence from 1975 is present at Pope
Beach in the BSA. Suitable habitat
including food plants and suitable
conditions for burrows are present in
the Project area, but the species was not
observed during the reconnaissancelevel surveys.
Danaus plexippus
monarch butterfly
FS:S
PT
Utilizes fields, roadsides, open areas,
grassland, tundra, wetlands, and
mountains. During the breeding season,
monarchs lay their eggs on obligate
milkweed host plants (Asclepias spp.).
Multiple generations can breed yearround. Monarchs migrate from the coastal regions of California in fall and
return in the spring (USFWS n.d.).
Unlikely. The Project area contains
suitable nectar plants but lacks host
plant species required for reproduction.
No overwintering habitat is present. May
occur as a transient during migration.
Not observed during the
reconnaissance-level surveys.
Capnia lacustra
Lake Tahoe benthic
stonefly
This species is found in deep water (30 –
90 meters) habitats of Lake Tahoe where
adults and larvae feed on dead plant
material and diatoms on macroalgae.
Adults are wingless and spend their lives
underwater. It is the only stonefly that
does not emerge from the water to
mate and lay eggs (Nevada Division of
Natural Heritage 2016; Caires et al.
2016, 2013). This species is endemic to
Lake Tahoe where it has become
threatened by eutrophication and
invasive species. In Nevada, half of the
populations known in the 1960s are
extinct, and the species and its
associated plant beds have declined.
This species has been recommended for
listing under the state and federal
Endangered Species Acts.
Unlikely. Deepwater habitats are absent
in the Project area. The species is
unlikely to occur considering disturbance
levels, habitat conditions, and presence
of invasive species in the Project area.
CNDDB occurrences are present in the
BSA, in Lake Tahoe north of the Project
area. Not observed during the
reconnaissance-level surveys.
Amphipods
Stygobromus
lacicolus
Lake Tahoe
amphipod
This species prefers deep water lake
habitat and is endemic to Lake Tahoe
(Wang and Holsinger 2001).
Unlikely. Deep water habitats are absent
in the Project area. The species is
unlikely to occur considering disturbance
levels, habitat conditions, and presence
of invasive species in the Project area.
CNDDB occurrences are present in the
BSA, in Lake Tahoe north of the Project
area. Not observed during the
reconnaissance-level surveys.
1094
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
21 Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence
Stygobromus
tahoensis
Lake Tahoe
stygobromid
This species prefers deep water lake
habitat (60 – 495 meters) and is endemic
to Lake Tahoe (Wang and Holsinger
2001).
Unlikely. Deepwater habitats are absent
in the Project area. The species is
unlikely to occur considering disturbance
levels, habitat conditions, and presence
of invasive species in the Project area.
CNDDB occurrences are present in the
BSA, in Lake Tahoe north of the Project
area. Not observed during the
reconnaissance-level surveys.
Gastropods
Helisoma
newberryi
Great Basin ramshorn
FS:S Suitable habitat includes welloxygenated substrates in large lakes and slow rivers, including larger spring
sources and spring-fed creeks. They are
detritivores and burrow in soft mud just
beneath the surface (Taylor 1981).
Unlikely. There is 1 CNDDB occurrence
in Lake Tahoe north of the Project area.
The species is unlikely to occur
considering disturbance levels, habitat
conditions, and presence of invasive
species in the Project area. Not observed
during the reconnaissance-level surveys.
Sources:
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS)
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW)
California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB)
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)
Federally Listed Species:
C = Candidate
FE = Federally Endangered
FT = Federally Threatened
FSC = Species of Concern
PT = Proposed Threatened
FCE = Candidate for Endangered
FPD = Proposed for Delisting
Other
FS:S = Forest Service Sensitive
BCC = Bird of Conservation Concern
BLM:S = Bureau of Land Management
Sensitive
TRPA
SI = Special Interest Species
California State Listed Species:
SE = State Endangered
ST = State Threatened
SR = State Rare
SC = State Candidate
WL = CDFW Watch List
SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern
1095
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
22 Table 3. Special status plant species evaluated for the Project.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Regulatory Status
Habitat Requirements Blooming
Period Potential for Occurrence
Federal State CNPS
Astragalus austiniae
Austin’s astragalus 1B.3 Alpine boulder and rock field, subalpine coniferous forest. Elevation range 8,005 – 9,727 feet.
July to
September
Absent. Outside of elevation range,
suitable habitat is not present. Not
observed during the surveys.
Boechera tularensis
Tulare rockcress 1B.3
Perennial herb that prefers rocky slopes, subalpine
coniferous forest, and upper montane coniferous
forest. Elevation range 6,000 – 11,000 feet.
June to July
Absent. Project area lacks suitable
habitat. Not observed during the
surveys.
Botrychium ascendens
upswept moonwort
FS:S 2B.3
Wet or moist soils in lower montane coniferous
forests, such as along the edges of lakes and
streams. Elevation range 4,950 – 6,039 feet.
Fertile early
July to early
September
Unlikely. Stormwater basin in the
Project area may provide habitat. Not
observed during the surveys.
Botrychium
crenulatum
scalloped moonwort
FS:S 2B.2
Lower montane coniferous forests, meadows and
seeps, marshes and swamps. Elevation range 4,950
– 10,800 feet.
Fronds mature
June to
September
Absent. Project area lacks suitable
habitat. Not observed during the
surveys.
Brasenia schreberi
watershield 2B.3 Freshwater marshes and swamps. Elevation range 95 – 7,220 feet.
June to
September
Unlikely. Stormwater basin with
wetland species is present in the Project
area, which may provide habitat. Not
observed during the surveys.
Carex davyi
Davy’s sedge 1B.3
Perennial herb that prefers subalpine and upper
montane coniferous forests between 5,000 and
10,500 feet. Usually in wetlands.
May to August
Unlikely. Stormwater basin with
wetland species is present in the Project
area, which may provide habitat. Not
observed during the surveys.
Claytonia megarhiza
fell-fields claytonia 2B.3 Alpine boulder and rock field, subalpine coniferous forest. Elevation range 8,530 – 11,590 feet.
July to
September
Absent. Outside of elevation range,
suitable habitat is not present. Not
observed during the surveys.
Erigeron miser
starved daisy FS:S 1B.3 Upper montane coniferous forests in rocky areas. Elevation range 2,600 – 8,600 feet.
June to
October
Absent. Project area lacks suitable
habitat. Not observed during the
surveys.
Glyceria grandis
American manna grass 2B.3
Perennial rhizomatous herb that prefers bogs, fens,
meadows, seeps, marshes, and swamps along
stream banks, or lake margins. Elevation range 50 –
6,500 feet.
June to August
Unlikely. Stormwater basin with
wetland species is present in the Project
area, which may provide habitat. Lake
margin habitat in the Project area is
developed/disturbed. Not observed
during the surveys.
Meesia uliginosa
broad-nerved humpmossFS:S 2B.2
Bogs and fens, meadows and seeps in montane
coniferous forests. Elevation range 4,290 – 8,250
feet.
July to October
Unlikely. Stormwater basin with
wetland species is present in the Project
area, which may provide habitat. Not
observed during the surveys.
1096
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
23 Scientific Name
Common Name
Regulatory Status
Habitat Requirements Blooming
Period Potential for Occurrence
Federal State CNPS
Rorippa subumbellata
Tahoe yellow cress
SE
SI 1B.1
Shoreline supporting decomposed granitic soils;
known only from the shoreline of Lake Tahoe.
Elevation range 6,210 – 6,230 feet.
Blooms May to
September
Potential. Lake margin habitat in the
Project area is developed/disturbed, but
CNDDB and AMWG monitoring
occurrences are in proximity. 15
individuals were observed along the
shore of Lake Tahoe approximately 800
feet north of the Project area during the
May 20, 2025, reconnaissance-level
survey near the Upper Truckee West
AMWG monitoring site (TRPA 2025).
Scutellaria galericulata
marsh skullcap 2B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb that prefers lower
montane coniferous forests, meadows, seeps,
marshes, and swamps. Elevation range 0 – 6,800
feet.
June to
September
Unlikely. Stormwater basin with
wetland species is present in the Project
area, which may provide habitat. Not
observed during the surveys.
Stuckenia filiformis
ssp. alpina
slender-leaved
pondweed
2B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb that prefers marshes,
swamps, and a variety of shallow freshwater
habitats. Elevation range 980 – 7,000 feet.
May to July
Unlikely. Stormwater basin with
wetland species is present in the Project
area, which may provide habitat. Not
observed during the surveys.
Special Status Codes
Federally Listed Species (Federal):
FE = Federally Endangered
FT = Federally Threatened
FD = Federally Delisted
PT = Proposed Threatened
FCE = Federally Endangered
Candidate
FPD = Proposed for Delisting
FS:S = Forest Service Sensitive
Source: CNPS 2025
California Listed Species (State):
SE = State Endangered
ST = State Threatened
SR = State Rare
SC = State Candidate
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
SI = Special Interest Species
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List Categories:
1 = Rare in California and elsewhere
2 = Rare in California, but not elsewhere
A = Presumed extirpated or extinct
B = Rare, threatened, or endangered
3 = Plants about which we need more information
4 = Plants of limited distribution
CNPS Threat Code Extensions:
.1 = Seriously endangered in California (Over 80% of
occurrences threatened)
.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened)
.3 = Not very endangered in California (<20% of
occurrences threatened)
1097
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
24 3.3.1 Habitat Conditions in the Project Area
Habitats in the Project area were heavily modified in the 1960s and 1970s. TKM is located within a former wetland which was dredged and filled, resulting in the Upper Truckee River being channelized eastward. Open water in the Project area is essentially an artificial extension of Lake Tahoe, lacking a natural lakebed for fish and other aquatic species habitat otherwise found in undeveloped shoreline areas nearby. Aquatic habitat in the Project area is separated from terrestrial habitat by a sheet pile bulkhead; therefore, there is minimal lakeshore or transition zone habitat. The Tahoe Keys development area, including the lagoon, has become infested with AIS such as Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), and New Zealand mudsnails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum). Landowners and regulatory agencies alike have invested in the study, removal, treatment, and ongoing monitoring and management of these AIS in the Tahoe Keys area.
Aquatic species observed in the lagoon during the reconnaissance-level surveys (visible depth of water from the marina shore and docks) included Andean watermilfoil, Eurasian watermilfoil, bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Removal of aquatic species in the marina with a mowing boat/removal machine was ongoing during the surveys, and piles of Eurasian watermilfoil were observed on the docks from the recent removal activities.
Upland habitat in the Project area is primarily paved, developed, or disturbed with ornamental trees and landscaping around the buildings with minimal native vegetation or habitats. The main parking lot and boat storage area are paved, while the trailer storage yard in the southwest corner of the Project area is unpaved and surrounded by big sagebrush, conifers, and non-natives such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense).
The parcel along Venice Drive is dominated by pygmy weed (Crassula sp.), mountain tarweed (Madia glomerata), quack grass (Elymus repens), squirreltail, bulbous blue grass (Poa bulbosa), western aster (Symphyotrichum ascendens), and Pacific lupine (Lupinus lepidus). The stormwater basin located near the boat storage area is dominated by Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), northwest territory sedge (Carex utriculata), tall willowherb (Epilobium brachycarpum), fringed willowherb, floating pondweed (Potamogeton natans), and willows. The roadways along Venice Drive and Tahoe Keys Boulevard are typical of an urban interface zone in South Lake Tahoe, with lodgepole and Jeffrey pines and various shrubs and forbs in the understory.
3.3.2 Invasive Species
During the reconnaissance-level surveys, AIS observed included largemouth bass, bluegill, and Eurasian watermilfoil. However, the surveys were terrestrial in nature; therefore, additional AIS may be present in the Project area. Other invasive species observed during the surveys included American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) in the stormwater basin and along the shoreline of Lake Tahoe, and plants listed by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) and/or the Lake Tahoe Basin Weeds Coordinating Group (LTBWCG) (Appendix A, Figure 5b) including:
• cheatgrass – LTBWCG Weed of Interest, Cal-IPC high
• bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) – LTBWCG Group 2, Cal-IPC moderate • Canada thistle – LTBWCG Group 1, Cal-IPC moderate
• common sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella) – Cal-IPC moderate 1098
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
25 • curly-leaf pondweed – Cal-IPC moderate
• flix weed (Descurainia sophia) – Cal-IPC limited
• red stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium) – Cal-IPC limited • Eurasian watermilfoil – Cal-IPC high
• narrow leaved plantain (Plantago lanceolata) – Cal-IPC limited • Kentucky blue grass (Poa pratensis) – Cal-IPC limited • woolly mullein (Verbascum thapsus) – Cal-IPC limited
LTBWCG Group 1 species should be reported to TRPA and eradicated immediately. These are species that are not established in the Lake Tahoe Basin but are either documented in areas adjacent to the basin where potential for introduction is high, or are present as small, manageable populations. Group 2 species should be managed with a goal of control to prevent further spread into the Lake Tahoe Basin. Isolated populations should be targeted for eradication. LTBWCG Weeds of Interest should be reported immediately if seen (https://ucanr.edu/sites/tahoeinvasiveweeds/Get_Involved/Report_a_Weed/).
Cal-IPC rating definitions are as follows:
• High – These species have severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal and establishment. Most are widely distributed ecologically. • Moderate – These species have substantial and apparent, but generally not severe, ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal, though establishment is generally dependent upon ecological disturbance. Ecological amplitude and distribution may range from limited to widespread.
• Limited – These species are invasive, but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level or there was not enough information to justify a higher score. Their reproductive biology and other attributes result in low to moderate rates of invasiveness. Ecological amplitude and distribution are generally limited, but these species may be locally persistent and problematic.
Complete lists of plant and wildlife species observed during the reconnaissance-level surveys are presented in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.
Table 4. Plant species observed during the reconnaissance-level surveys.
Scientific Name Common Name Native?
Abies concolor white fir Y
Acer macrophyllum big leaf maple Y
Achillea filipendulina fernleaf yarrow N
1099
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
26 Scientific Name Common Name Native?
Achillea millefolium common yarrow Y
Acmispon americanus American bird's foot trefoil Y
Agrostis scabra rough bentgrass Y
Alnus incana mountain alder Y
Alopecurus pratensis meadow foxtail N
Amaranthus blitoides mat amaranth Y
Amelanchier sp. service berry Y
Arctostaphylos patula greenleaf manzanita Y
Artemisia tridentata big sagebrush Y
Astragalus sp. milkvetch Y
Berberis aquifolium mountain grape Y
Betula occidentalis water birch Y
Bromus tectorum cheatgrass N
Caragana arborescens Siberian pea tree N
Carex utriculata northwest territory sedge Y
Ceanothus prostratus mahala mat Y
Ceanothus velutinus snowbrush Y
Ceratophyllum demersum coon's tail Y
Cirsium arvense Canada thistle N
1100
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
27 Scientific Name Common Name Native?
Cirsium vulgare bull thistle N
Collinsia parviflora small flowered blue eyed mary Y
Cornus sericea American dogwood Y
Crassula sp. pygmy weed N
Dasiphora fruticosa shrubby cinquefoil Y
Delphinium glaucum Sierra larkspur Y
Descurainia sophia flix weed N
Draba verna spring draba N
Elymus elymoides squirreltail Y
Elymus repens quack grass N
Epilobium brachycarpum tall willowherb Y
Epilobium ciliatum fringed willowherb Y
Ericameria nauseosa rubber rabbitbrush Y
Erigeron canadensis Canada horseweed Y
Eriogonum umbellatum sulphur buckwheat Y
Erodium cicutarium red stemmed filaree N
Fraxinus sp. ash -
Gayophytum diffusum spreading groundsmoke Y
Geranium sp. geranium N
1101
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
28 Scientific Name Common Name Native?
Hordeum jubatum fox tail barley Y
Iris missouriensis western blue flag Y
Juncus balticus Baltic rush Y
Juniperus communis common juniper Y
Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce N
Lepidium nitidum shining pepper grass Y
Lepidium perfoliatum clasping pepperweed N
Linum lewisii Lewis' flax Y
Lonicera sp. honeysuckle -
Lupinus lepidus Pacific lupine Y
Madia glomerata mountain tarweed Y
Matricaria discoidea pineapple weed Y
Melilotus albus white sweetclover N
Myriophyllum quitense Andean watermilfoil Y
Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil N
Oenothera elata Hooker's evening primrose Y
Penstemon sp. beardtongue Y
Persicaria maculosa spotted ladysthumb N
Phacelia hastata mountain phacelia Y
1102
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
29 Scientific Name Common Name Native?
Picea pungens blue spruce N
Pinus contorta lodgepole pine Y
Pinus ponderosa ponderosa pine Y
Plantago lanceolata narrow leaved plantain N
Poa bulbosa bulbous blue grass N
Poa pratensis Kentucky blue grass N
Populus tremuloides quaking aspen Y
Portulaca oleracea common purslane N
Potamogeton crispus curly-leaf pondweed N
Potamogeton natans floating pondweed Y
Potentilla gracilis slender cinquefoil Y
Pseudognaphalium stramineum cottonbatting plant Y
Purshia tridentata antelope bitterbrush Y
Pyrus calleryana Callery pear N
Ribes aureum golden currant Y
Rorippa sinuata spreading yellow cress Y
Rorippa subumbellata Tahoe yellow cress Y
Rosa woodsii Woods' rose Y
Rumex acetosella common sheep sorrel N
1103
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
30 Scientific Name Common Name Native?
Rumex salicifolius willow dock Y
Salix geyeriana Geyer’s willow Y
Salix lemmonii Lemmon's willow Y
Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra shining willow Y
Sambucus mexicana blue elderberry Y
Sisymbrium altissimum tall tumblemustard N
Solidago velutina threenerve goldenrod Y
Spergularia rubra red sandspurry N
Symphyotrichum ascendens western aster Y
Tanacetum parthenium feverfew N
Tragopogon dubius yellow salsify N
Turritis glabra tower rockcress Y
Verbascum thapsus woolly mullein N
Table 5. Wildlife species observed during the reconnaissance-level surveys.
Scientific Name Common Name Native?
Birds
Actitis macularius spotted sandpiper Y
Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird Y
Anas platyrhynchos mallard Y
1104
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
31 Scientific Name Common Name Native?
Ardea alba great egret Y
Ardea herodias great blue heron Y
Aythya collaris ring-necked duck Y
Bombycilla cedrorum cedar waxwing Y
Branta canadensis Canada goose Y
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk Y
Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk Y
Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird Y
Cardellina pusilla Wilson's warbler Y
Cathartes aura turkey vulture Y
Certhia americana brown creeper Y
Charadrius vociferus killdeer Y
Colaptes auratus northern flicker Y
Contopus sordidulus western wood-pewee Y
Corvus corax common raven Y
Cyanocitta stelleri Steller's jay Y
Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird Y
Fulica americana American coot Y
Gallinago delicata Wilson's snipe Y
1105
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
32 Scientific Name Common Name Native?
Genus podilymbus pied-billed grebe Y
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle Y
Hirundo rustica barn swallow Y
Larus californicus California gull Y
Leuconotopicus villosus hairy woodpecker Y
Mareca strepera gadwall Y
Melospiza melodia song sparrow Y
Mergus merganser common merganser Y
Pandion haliaetus osprey Y
Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant Y
Phalaropus tricolor Wilson’s phalarope Y
Pheucticus melanocephalus black-headed grosbeak Y
Pica hudsonia black-billed magpie Y
Plegadis chihi white-faced ibis Y
Poecile gambeli mountain chickadee Y
Psaltriparus minimus bushtit Y
Quiscalus mexicanus great-tailed grackle Y
Riparia riparia bank swallow Y
Setophaga coronata yellow-rumped warbler Y
1106
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
33 Scientific Name Common Name Native?
Sphyrapicus ruber red-breasted sapsucker Y
Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch Y
Stelgidopteryx serripennis northern rough-winged swallow Y Sterna forsteri Forster's tern Y
Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark Y
Sturnus vulgaris European starling N
Tachycineta thalassina violet-green swallow Y
Turdus migratorius American robin Y
Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird Y
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus yellow-headed blackbird Y Zenaida macroura mourning dove Y
Insects
Ammophila procera common thread-waisted wasp Y
Andrena sp. mining bee Y
Argia vivida vivid dancer Y
Bombus fervidus golden northern bumble bee Y
Bombus vosnesenskii yellow-faced bumble bee Y
Colias eurytheme orange sulfur Y
Cupido amyntula western tailed-blue Y
Nymphalis antiopa mourning cloak Y
1107
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
34 Scientific Name Common Name Native?
Phyciodes sp. crescent Y
Pieris rapae cabbage white N
Satyrium behrii Behr’s hairstreak Y
Sympetrum corruptum variegated meadowhawk Y
Mammals
Castor canadensis North American beaver Y
Neotamias senex shadow chipmunk Y
Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel Y
Sylvilagus audubonii desert cottontail Y
Tamiasciurus douglasii Douglas squirrel Y
Amphibians
Lithobates catesbeianus American bullfrog N
Pseudacris sierra Sierran treefrog Y
Fish
Lepomis macrochirus bluegill N
Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass N
3.3.3 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife corridors generally include migration routes used by resident and migratory species for passage from one location to another. Corridors exist in a variety of situations and are considered a sensitive resource as they connect otherwise fragmented areas of suitable habitat for wildlife. Maintaining the continuity of wildlife corridors is essential to support species with specific foraging requirements, preserve species’ distributions, and maintain gene flow among populations.
Movement corridors and linkages were assessed using the CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). The information reviewed included the Essential Connectivity Area-California Essential Habitat Connectivity layer (CDFW 2010), the Natural Landscape Blocks layer (CDFW 2017), and the Missing Linkages in 1108
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Results South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
35 California layer (CDFW 2001). The BSA does not overlap within these layers, and because of the high level of disturbance in the developed and dredged artificial lake habitat, the Project area does not provide any significant connectivity or corridor for wildlife or SSS. 1109
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Discussion South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
36 4 Discussion
4.1 Special Status Wildlife
Certain wildlife is considered special status based on federal, state, or local laws regulating their development, limited distributions, or other factors leading to increased management or monitoring among public and private organizations. Special status wildlife and plant species were found to be present within or immediately adjacent to the Project area during the reconnaissance-level surveys. SSS observed during the surveys included bald eagle, osprey, bank swallow, yellow-headed blackbird, and Tahoe yellow cress. In addition, the Project area is directly adjacent to the Upper Truckee Marsh, which provides habitat for various SSS in the BSA. These species, including their regulatory status, habitat, and potential to be impacted by the Project, are discussed below.
4.1.1 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout
The LCT was listed under the FESA as threatened in 1975. Critical habitat has not been designated for the species. This species inhabits freshwater lakes, streams, and rivers in the Lahontan Basin which includes hydrographic systems in northern Nevada, northeastern Sierra Nevada mountains of California, and southeastern Oregon. Historically, LCT were found in cold-water habitats including Pyramid Lake, Walker Lake, Lake Tahoe, and Independence Lake, low gradient rivers including Humboldt, Carson, Truckee, Walker, and Marys Rivers, and headwater tributaries including Donner and Prosser Creeks. Riverine habitat is characterized by small, cool, silt-free streams with pools associated with velocity breaks and vegetation cover, stable banks, and riffle-run areas with rocky substrates (USFWS 1995).
At the time of listing, anthropogenic impacts and other threats including mining, logging, grazing, pollution, water diversions, dams and reservoirs, and non-native trout introduction had resulted in declining habitat quality and connectedness leading to reduced population numbers and viability across its range. The most recent 5-year review of LCT was published in 2023 and states that non-native trout, habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation remain the primary threats to LCT. A rising contemporary threat is hybridization with nonnative rainbow trout (USFWS 2023b).
The Upper Truckee River and Lake Tahoe are part of the Tahoe LCT Management Unit. This management unit is unique in that LCT are frequently stocked in several water bodies by the Lahontan National Fish Hatchery, the Numana Fish Hatchery, and several state hatcheries to restore and artificially maintain LCT populations in waterbodies in which the species has gone extinct. Only 1 of the potential LCT recovery populations in the Truckee River watershed and Tahoe LCT Management Unit, the Upper Truckee River/Meiss Meadow population approximately 14 miles south of the BSA, is resilient (USFWS 2023b). Stocking and restoration efforts for LCT in Lake Tahoe and its tributaries, including the annual release of 100,000 individuals from the Lahontan National Fish Hatchery Complex to Lake Tahoe since 2022, are ongoing (USFWS 2022b). However, predation from nonnative fish results in low survival and abundance of LCT (Al-Chokhachy et al. 2009). Occurrences of LCT in the lower reaches of the Upper Truckee River appear to be rare, but hatchery LCT have been documented in the Upper Truckee River near the Truckee Marsh (USDA 2011).
Critical habitat has not been designated for this species, but the Upper Truckee River and Lake Tahoe are identified by resource agencies as suitable habitat. No LCT were observed during the reconnaissance-level surveys; however, these surveys were terrestrial in nature and only involved scanning the surface and visible depth of water in the lagoon from the marina docks and shore. Habitat for LCT in the Project area is low quality 1110
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Discussion South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
37 because of development, AIS, and lack of suitable riverine spawning habitat. Habitats in the TKM would not be utilized for LCT spawning and nursery because of the lack of pools near cover and velocity breaks, wellvegetated stream banks, and riffle-run areas with a silt-free rocky substrate. Despite this, the marina’s connection to Lake Tahoe makes it reasonable to assume LCT can occur within the Project area, especially when considering recent stocking efforts.
The Project involves replacing approximately 1,600 linear feet of the existing sheet pile bulkhead. The bulkhead replacement will involve installing new 34-foot-long sheet piles directly in front of the existing sheet piles, which will be secured to the existing metal walers and reinforced with concrete caps. In many locations, brace pipe piles will also need to be removed. Equipment anticipated to be used for the bulkhead replacement work will include barges (most likely sectional), barge and land-based cranes, a vibratory hammer (most likely an American Piledriving Equipment [APE] model 150 vibratory hammer with an APE model 327 or 375 power unit for pile installation), assist cranes on the upland, and miscellaneous hand tools and equipment as needed. At maximum revolutions per minute, the vibratory hammer and power unit are expected to produce sound up to 80 dB at 50 feet and 58 dB at 100 feet away. All in-water work will have deployed turbidity curtains surrounding specific work areas, and equipment and materials will be staged in the paved upland area inside covered storage and secondary containment, as appropriate. No dewatering activities are anticipated to occur, but dewatering may be required for foundation and utility trench work that encounter groundwater in the upland areas.
The Project also proposes relocation of the boat launch ramp, which will require removal of the existing sheet pile bulkhead in the new location and extension of the bulkhead in the old location. Equipment to be used for the boat launch relocation will include long-reach excavators and a vibratory hammer. The new boat launch will most likely have a temporary sheet pile perimeter to control turbidity and allow for the excavation of material to create the terminal slope into the water. Turbidity curtains would be installed around the temporary wall as secondary containment. No dewatering is proposed. Once final grade is established by the excavators, the precast ramps would be slid into place and anchored with sheets and/or steel beams to secure the ramp in place.
Large rock or gravel would then be installed as a revetment to ensure the shoreline is stabilized.
Construction of the new sheet pile bulkhead and new boat launch are the Project elements with the greatest risk to cause “take” of LCT through noise, visual, sound pressure, and turbidity-related disturbances that may interrupt behaviors or cause physical injury. For take or adverse effects to occur, LCT must be present and unable to avoid adverse conditions. LCT, while unlikely to occur, are expected to respond to construction activity by avoiding the area and potential adverse conditions (USFWS 2025b).
Turbidity monitoring will be required within and outside the turbidity curtains. If turbidity levels exceed the threshold established by the RWQCB during the permitting process, then the construction approach and BMPs will be modified so the Project can proceed within the compliance threshold. Since a vibratory hammer will be used, no underwater attenuation devices are proposed for sound pressure reduction, as vibratory hammers are generally considered a minimization measure for sheet piling impacts on fish and other wildlife. This is because vibratory hammers are considered a continuous source of noise, with lower peak sound pressure levels, while impact hammers are an impulsive source of noise with peak sound pressure levels that have potential to reach the threshold (206 dB) for onset of physical injury to fish (NOAA Fisheries 2023, Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group 2008). There are no established injury criteria for vibratory pile driving. Resource agencies, in general, agree that vibratory pile driving is an alternative to impact driving that minimizes single-strike peak sound pressure and reduces adverse effects to fish (Caltrans 2020). No dewatering or other activities that could trap or harm LCT are proposed.
1111
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Discussion South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
38 Based on the LCT stocking efforts in Lake Tahoe, existing aquatic habitat conditions, presence of non-native fish species, results of the reconnaissance-level surveys, and proposed Project impacts, it was determined the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect LCT. The federal action agency, USACE, will initiate informal consultation with the USFWS.
4.1.2 Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged frog
The SNYLF was listed as endangered under the FESA in 2014 and 24 critical habitat units covering 1,082,147 acres were designated in 2016 (USFWS 2016). Threats contributing to the danger of extinction throughout the species’ range include habitat destruction due to dams, water diversions, recreation, grazing, road construction, and timber harvesting; predation by trout, bullfrogs, and other non-native species; climate change; drought; and chytrid fungus. Historically, SNYLF inhabited lakes, ponds, marshes, meadows, and streams at elevations between 4,500 and 12,000 feet in the western Sierra Nevada from Fresno, Inyo, and Mono Counties and areas north of Lake Tahoe. Generally, they are not found more than 1 meter from water and breed in a variety of habitats including shallows of still lakes or ponds and slow-flowing inlet streams. Egg masses are deposited underwater and attach to rocks, gravel, or vegetation, or are deposited under banks. At high elevations, both frogs and tadpoles overwinter under ice in lakes and streams. Throughout its range, SNYLF did not co-evolve with any species of fish, as they predominantly occur in water bodies above natural fish barriers (USFWS 2014).
Estimates of SNYLF population losses range between 69 percent and 93 percent, with an estimated 44 percent reduction of suitable watershed habitat (USFWS 2014). Current SNYLF population trends are unknown but are assumed to remain declining or artificially stable with reintroduction efforts. The USFWS has not yet published a 5-year review of the species.
The Upper Truckee River corridor, and nearly all tributaries and wetland areas in the Lake Tahoe Basin, have been identified by the LTBMU as suitable habitat for SNYLF. According to the LTBMU, known occurrences of SNYLF in the Lake Tahoe Basin are in the Desolation Wilderness at Tamarack, Cagwin, Lucille, Margery, Jabu, and Upper, Middle, and Lower Velmas Lakes and the headwaters of Trout Creek at Hell Hole. The LTBMU conducts annual surveys for herpetofauna, including SNYLF, throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin. Within the BSA, LTBMU herpetofauna surveys have been conducted in the Upper Truckee Marsh east of the Project area in 2013 and 2014, and at Pope Beach west of the Project area in 2016, with no SNYLF detections (pers. comm. with Erin Miller [LTBMU] and unpublished LTBMU GIS data). SNYLF historical occurrences documented by the CNDDB in the South Lake Tahoe region are from 1913 at Fallen Leaf Lake approximately 3 miles southwest of the Project area, 1863 at the summit of Johnson Pass approximately 8 miles south of Project area, 2013 at Hell Hole meadow approximately 7 miles southeast of the Project area, and 1935 at Star Lake approximately 6 miles southeast of the Project area.
Based on the results of the reconnaissance-level surveys, presence of predatory fish species in the TKM, lack of suitable habitat in the Project area, lack of recent occurrence information, and unlikelihood of occurrence, the Project will have no effect on SNYLF. There is no designated federal critical habitat for SNYLF in the Project area or BSA; therefore, no impacts to critical habitat will result from the Project.
4.1.3 Western Bumble Bee
The western bumble bee is a candidate for listing under the CESA and is under review for FESA listing. It was once one of the most common bumble bee species in the western United States and Canada, but its abundance and distribution have declined severely since the mid-20th century because of disease, insecticides, and habitat 1112
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Discussion South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
39 loss/modification associated with agriculture, urbanization, conifer encroachment, grazing, logging, and climate change (Jepsen and Foltz Jordan 2013, Evans et al. 2008). As a candidate species under the CESA, it is temporarily afforded protections under the act as if it was state listed as endangered or threatened. Western bumble bees usually nest underground and are found in a variety of habitats including woodlands, farmlands, urban areas, montane meadows, and prairie grasslands (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 2014, Williams et al. 2014). Food plant genera include, but are not limited to, Melilotus, Cirsium, Trifolium, Centaurea, Chrysothamnus, and Eriogonum (Koch et al. 2012).
No western bumble bees were observed during the reconnaissance-level surveys; however, numerous flowering plants that could provide food sources were observed, and numerous golden northern bumble bees (B. fervidus) and yellow-faced bumble bees (B. vosnesenskii) were observed in the Project area and BSA. Suitable underground nesting habitat is present in the Project area, specifically in the open area along Venice Drive and in the trailer storage yard, considering the presence of small mammal burrows, friable soils, and other artificial structures such as partially buried plywood boards, etc. However, no bumble bee nests were observed during the surveys.
Western bumble bee habitat in the Project area is minimal and low-quality because of existing development and disturbance; therefore, they have a low potential to occur. Considering the presence of potential underground nesting habitat, the presence of other bumble bee species in the Project area, and an occurrence of western bumble bee documented by the CNDDB in the BSA, there is a low potential for the species to be impacted by construction activity in the upland areas. Coordination with CDFW regarding western bumble bees, if necessary, will occur during the LSAA application.
4.1.4 Bank Swallow
Bank swallows are listed as threatened under the CESA. The species has declined in California because of habitat destruction and streamflow alteration. The species prefers open habitats, frequently near flowing water and nests in burrows dug near the tops of steep banks, along the edge of inland water, or along the coast (AOU 1983). Bank swallows may also nest in gravel pits, road embankments, or similar artificial structures. Individuals are known to forage over fields, wetlands, and water up to several kilometers from nesting sites. They are neotropical migrants and migrate to South America in late July or early August and arrive at breeding habitats in North America between March and May (Smith et al. 2022).
During the reconnaissance-level surveys, 1 bank swallow was observed foraging over the Upper Truckee River adjacent to the Project area. Suitable foraging habitat is present along the Upper Truckee River and across the Upper Truckee Marsh in the BSA, and bank swallows may forage over the open water in the Project area.
Nesting habitat is absent in the Project area; however, nesting habitat may be present in the BSA. There is a buffered CNDDB occurrence, which overlaps the Project area, from a colony documented by CDFW in 1962, and another observation of 1 individual in 1976.
Nesting habitat was not observed in the Project area or immediate vicinity during the reconnaissance-level surveys and there are no known active nesting bank swallow colonies in the BSA. Therefore, the Project would not impact bank swallows. It is likely that the single individual observed during the survey was a migrant stopping to forage at the marsh adjacent to the Project area. Coordination with CDFW regarding bank swallows, if necessary, will occur during the LSAA application process. 1113
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Discussion South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
40 4.1.5 Yellow-headed blackbird
The yellow-headed blackbird is a CDFW species of special concern. Breeding habitat for the species includes freshwater marshes with bulrush (Schoenoplectus spp.), tule (Schoenoplectus acutus), and cattail (Typha spp.).
Non-breeding habitat includes open agriculture lands, pastures, and fields (AOU 1983). Yellow-headed blackbirds migrate to the southwest United States and Mexico in the fall and return to breeding sites across the United States in the spring (Smith et al. 2022). The species is listed as a CDFW species of special concern because of habitat loss resulting from the alteration and loss of wetlands throughout the state.
During the reconnaissance-level surveys, several territorial individuals were observed in the Upper Truckee Marsh adjacent to the Project area. Suitable foraging and nesting habitats are absent in the Project area considering the high degree of development and disturbed site conditions, but these habitats are present in the BSA, specifically in the Upper Truckee Marsh. In addition, the CNDDB documents numerous occurrences within the Upper Truckee Marsh in the BSA.
The Project has potential to impact yellow-headed blackbirds should they attempt to nest in the Upper Truckee Marsh adjacent to the Project area. The potential impact would be primarily from noise during pile driving or other construction activities. There are no other anticipated Project activities with the potential to impact yellow-headed blackbirds. Coordination with CDFW regarding yellow-headed blackbirds, if necessary, will occur during the LSAA application process.
4.1.6 Osprey
The osprey is a CDFW watch list species and TRPA special interest species. Ospreys occur along rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and seacoasts, and often cross land between water bodies. They build large stick nests on living or dead trees or manmade structures, usually near or above water (Campbell et al. 1990, Palmer 1988). In the Lake Tahoe Basin, known osprey nests are located on the north, northeastern, and southwestern shorelines and near Fallen Leaf Lake.
Ospreys were observed flying over the Upper Truckee Marsh during the reconnaissance-level surveys. Nesting habitat is absent in the Project area and limited in the BSA considering the level of human development and disturbance within the vicinity of conifer stands. Foraging habitat is present in the Upper Truckee Marsh and in the marina, specifically in areas of open water. Urban structures in the Project area may provide suitable perches for osprey and other raptors.
While osprey nesting sites are not known to be present in the BSA and nesting is unlikely, the Project has the potential to impact nesting ospreys should they establish a nest site within the vicinity of the Project area prior to or during construction. In a worst-case scenario, noise-related impacts from construction activities could disturb an osprey attempting to nest near the Project, potentially resulting in nest abandonment. In addition, noise from construction activity may temporarily discourage foraging over high-quality habitat in the Upper Truckee Marsh. Coordination with CDFW and TRPA regarding osprey, if necessary, will occur during the permitting process.
4.1.7 Bald Eagle
During the reconnaissance-level surveys, no nest sites were observed in the Project area or BSA, but 1 adult and 1 juvenile bald eagle were observed in the Jeffrey pine stand approximately 900 feet northeast of the Project 1114
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Discussion South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
41 area. The bald eagles were perched at the top of the Jeffrey pines near the shore of Lake Tahoe for approximately 1 hour, then proceeded to fly over the Project area to the west during the survey.
Bald eagles are listed as endangered under the CESA, are a TRPA special interest species, and are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Locally, they are yearlong residents and migrants in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Bald eagles use shorelines along large bodies of water and river courses for both nesting and wintering.
Snags, broken-topped trees, or rocks near water are required for foraging and nesting. Most nests are in large trees with open branches within 1 mile of a water body. In the Lake Tahoe Basin, known nesting sites include Emerald Bay, Camp Richardson, Fallen Leaf Lake, Marlette Lake, and Skunk Harbor. Wintering sites are located at Taylor, Tallac, Pope, and the Upper Truckee Marsh (Romsos 2000).
Suitable foraging habitat is present in the BSA, including TRPA bald eagle wintering habitat mapped in the Upper Truckee Marsh and partially overlapping the southeast corner of the Project area. No nesting habitat is present in the Project area, and bald eagles are unlikely to nest in the BSA due to human disturbance and development.
While bald eagle nesting sites are not known to be present in the BSA and nesting is unlikely, the Project has the potential to impact nesting bald eagles should they establish a nest site within the vicinity of the Project area prior to or during construction. In a worst-case scenario, noise-related impacts from pile driving activities could disturb a bald eagle attempting to nest near the Project, potentially resulting in nest abandonment. In addition, noise from construction activity may temporarily discourage foraging over high-quality habitat in the Upper Truckee Marsh. Coordination with CDFW, TRPA, and USFWS regarding bald eagles, if necessary, will occur during the permit application process.
4.1.8 Migratory Nesting Birds
Nesting bird activity, or evidence of previous nesting activity, was not observed in the Project area during the reconnaissance-level surveys. However, nesting bird activity was observed immediately outside of the Project area in the BSA (Appendix A, Figure 5a). Habitat for nesting birds in the Project area is limited to the vegetation along the berms surrounding the trailer storage area, the disturbed open area along Venice Drive, various native and ornamental trees/plants, and on the existing buildings/structures. Vegetation removal is anticipated as part of the Project and has potential to impact nesting birds if conducted during the nesting season (February 1st to August 31st).
The Upper Truckee Marsh, located east of the Project area, provides high-quality habitat for riparian/wetland nesting birds, including nesting habitat for special status bird species such as the yellow-headed blackbird. There is a potential risk of indirect, noise-related impacts to nesting birds in the Upper Truckee Marsh from construction activity depending on peak dB levels, frequency, duration, seasonal timing, nest location, and a species and/or individual’s tolerance to noise.
4.2 Special Status Plants
4.2.1 Tahoe Yellow Cress
Tahoe yellow cress is listed as endangered under the CESA and is a TRPA special interest species. This plant occurs on sandy soils in the shore zone of Lake Tahoe including active beaches, stream inlets, beach dunes, and backshore depressions (Morefield 2001). Tahoe yellow cress occurs within a narrow 3-meter elevation band; therefore, available habitat along the shore is highly dependent on lake level (USFWS 2010). This species is threatened by recreational activity within the shore zone, artificially prolonged high-water levels, and shore 1115
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Discussion South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
42 zone development (USFWS 2010, Morefield 2001). A conservation strategy is being implemented by various organizations and agencies in the Lake Tahoe Basin, including the LTBMU, the Conservancy, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Tahoe Lakefront Owners Association.
Habitat for Tahoe yellow cress is limited in the Project area. TKM is located within a dredged shore zone that was once a wetland, likely resulting in shore zone soil conditions that are unsuitable for the species. In addition, most of the shore zone and water edge habitat in the marina is non-existent, as sheet piles divide the lake from the land on which the existing development resides. The only potential habitat in the Project area is located along the water’s edge in the northeastern Project area, following the trail adjacent to the Upper Truckee River and Conservancy restoration area; however, this habitat is overcrowded with wetland species and shrubs. It also lacks the sandy soils and open spaces with minimal competition that Tahoe yellow cress requires.
Tahoe yellow cress was observed approximately 800 feet north of the Project area during the reconnaissancelevel surveys along the shore of Lake Tahoe. There are numerous CNDDB and AMWG monitoring occurrences near the Project area. Considering the habitat conditions in the Project area, the species has low potential to occur and no impacts to Tahoe yellow cress are anticipated as result of the Project. Additional coordination with CDFW and TRPA for Tahoe yellow cress, if necessary, will occur during the permit application process.
4.3 Habitats and Natural Communities of Special Concern
4.3.1 TRPA Threshold Habitats
Numerical and management standards apply to certain areas specified by TRPA as habitat for special interest species identified in the TRPA Regional Plan. The Bi-State Compact gives TRPA authority to establish environmental quality standards, called thresholds, and to enforce ordinances to achieve thresholds. Habitat threshold areas including bald eagle wintering habitat, fish habitat, and waterfowl habitat are mapped by TRPA in the BSA and partially overlap the Project area (Appendix A, Figure 6). Based on the existing development and lack of habitat observed in the Project area during the reconnaissance-level surveys, it is assumed that impacts to these threshold habitats are previously mitigated, and these habitats are no longer present in the Project area, except perhaps, fish habitat mapped in the north end of the TKM lagoon. No impacts will occur on these habitats because of the Project, and no mitigation will be required. In addition, the LTBMU has provided a buffer of all wetlands associated with the Lake Tahoe Basin as suitable habitat for SNYLF. TRPA has adopted this SNYLF suitable habitat into their open GIS wildlife data, but there are no TRPA threshold standards for SNYLF or its habitat. TKM is mapped as suitable habitat for SNYLF, but as previously discussed, suitable habitat is not present in the Project area because of development and the presence of predatory fish species. Additional coordination with TRPA for threshold habitat areas, if necessary, will occur during the permitting process.
4.3.2 Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
The lagoon within the Project area consists of open water with a hydrological connection to Lake Tahoe. The lagoon has a lacustrine Cowardin classification. It was determined that open water associated with the marina is WOUS/Waters of the State of California because of the nexus to Lake Tahoe, a Traditionally Navigable Waterway.
Runoff from pavement was designed to flow to a concrete swale and then into a sand/oil separator which then discharges into the man-made stormwater basin. The basin has a standpipe which discharges to the marina in 1116
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Discussion South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
43 the event a 20-year 1-hour storm occurs. The 2,449 sf regularly maintained stormwater basin is a non-federal jurisdictional aquatic resource because it is man-made for a waste treatment system.
A man-made stormwater ditch is in the southeastern portion of the study area near East Venice Drive. The stormwater ditch begins near the entrance of the TKM trailer storage lot and travels north towards the manmade stormwater basin. The stormwater ditch flows in the direction of the stormwater basin but because of an increase in the elevation of the ditch, flow is not delivered to the stormwater basin during storm events. The stormwater ditch is a non-federal aquatic resource because it is man-made in an upland for stormwater purposes, and the ditch is not hydrologically connected to an aquatic resource.
Additional information on aquatic resources is provided in the Aquatic Resources Delineation Report (Suntex Marinas 2024).
4.4 Invasive Species
For the purposes of this assessment, an “invasive” species is a non-native species whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, environmental harm or harm to human health. The Tahoe Keys is an area of high concern for the spread and introduction of AIS. For example, an infestation of New Zealand mudsnails was discovered in a 3- mile stretch on the south shore of Lake Tahoe between Tahoe Keys and Ski Run Marina in 2023. In addition, the Tahoe Keys harbors the largest Lake Tahoe populations of AIS, including non-native warm water fish such as largemouth bass and bluegill, aquatic plants including Eurasian watermilfoil and curly-leaf pondweed, and invertebrates such as Asian clams (Corbicula fluminea). The Tahoe Keys is a location of discussion and analysis in the Lake Tahoe AIS Management Plan (TRPA 2014) and the Lake Tahoe AIS Implementation Plan (Wittmann 2015). In compliance with TRPA Code Subsection 84.6.2.B.1, the Project proponent submitted an AIS Management Plan for the TKM property to TRPA. The plan identifies measures to prevent the establishment of AIS in the marina, control or eradicate AIS, and reduce the potential for their spread, and identifies an early detection program.
Considering the infestation of invasive species described above and in Section 3.3.2, the Project has the potential to cause the spread of invasive species unless appropriate construction controls and avoidance and minimization measures are followed. Measures to prevent the spread or introduction of invasive species are also anticipated to be included in the permit requirements and in the AIS Management Program, which is updated annually. All measures regarding aquatic and terrestrial invasive species in the permit requirements and AIS Management Program will be implemented into the Project design. 1117
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Conclusions and Recommendations South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
44 5 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Special Status Species
5.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
Following the database research and reconnaissance-level surveys, NCE determined the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect LCT. Therefore, NCE will develop a Biological Assessment and the USACE, as the federal action agency, will initiate informal consultation with USFWS for this species. The Project proponent will implement the avoidance and minimization measures in Section 5.2 below to ensure that no take of federally listed or protected species, including bald eagles, occurs. Additional avoidance and minimization measures may be required following informal consultation and issuance of the letter of concurrence.
5.1.2 California Endangered Species Act
Following the database research and the reconnaissance-levels surveys, an Incidental Take Permit from CDFW is not anticipated to be required. Impacts to the species listed as a candidate, threatened, or endangered species under the CESA with potential to occur, including bank swallow, western bumble bee, Tahoe yellow cress, and bald eagle are not anticipated as the avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 5.2 will be followed. Additional coordination with CDFW, if necessary, will occur during the LSAA application process.
Additional requirements, such as construction monitoring, may be stipulated by the Project’s LSAA.
5.1.3 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Project-related impacts to TRPA special interest species or threshold habitats are not anticipated and will be avoided by implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures below. Additional requirements or conditions of approval may be stipulated by the Project’s TRPA permit.
5.2 Avoidance and Minimization Measures
BIO-1: Project activities that could result in nesting migratory bird and raptor take, such as removal of vegetation or man-made structures and conducting activities that may cause noise or vibrations to the extent of causing nest abandonment (e.g., sheet piling), will be performed outside the migratory bird and raptor nesting season defined as February 1st through August 31st. If these activities are to occur during the nesting season, the Project proponent will hire a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird and raptor survey no more than 15 days prior to the beginning of those activities within a minimum 500-foot buffer of the Project area. The survey results shall be submitted to CDFW prior to the start of construction activities, or as otherwise required by the LSAA. If nesting birds or raptors are detected within or near the Project area during the nesting bird survey, the designated biologist (as named under the LSAA) will coordinate with CDFW to establish a suitable activity-free buffer around active nest sites and implement a monitoring program. The size of the buffer, duration of buffer, acceptable activities, and monitoring requirements will be established through coordination with CDFW. In addition, the Project proponent may consider installing a sound barrier wall to reduce potential noise impacts to nesting birds in the Upper Truckee Marsh. The location, design, material, and timeframe for the sound barrier wall will be established through coordination with CDFW during the LSAA permitting process.
BIO-2: A pre-construction survey for special status plants and wildlife, including those identified in the Biological Resources Assessment, BA, and LSAA, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to 1118
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Conclusions and Recommendations South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
45 the onset of construction activities, or at an interval specified in the LSAA. If any SSS (or sign of presence) are identified within an appropriate buffer distance of the Project area, as determined by the biologist or CDFW/USFWS, the biologist will coordinate with CDFW/USFWS and the Project proponent shall plan to implement additional measures to avoid impacts on SSS, including relocating or rescheduling Project activities, or other measures specified by CDFW/USFWS.
BIO-3: A qualified biologist shall conduct environmental awareness training for construction personnel conducting in-water work. The training shall include basic visual identification of SSS including LCT, required preconstruction measures, general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species as they relate to the Project, penalties for non-compliance, and the boundaries of the Project area and of the permitted disturbance zones. Supporting materials containing training information shall be prepared and distributed. Upon completion of training, all construction personnel shall sign a form stating that they have attended the training and understand the measures. Proof of this instruction shall be kept on file with the Project proponent.
BIO-4: To prevent the spread of AIS, any construction equipment and materials that enter or leave the lagoon will be inspected for AIS, and if needed, decontaminated prior to the start of the Project. Decontamination protocol will be consistent with the Project permits and AIS Management Program. Equipment and materials will be cleaned and free of dirt, vegetation material, and other debris prior to entering the lagoon. Re-inspection and decontamination of equipment and materials at the end of the Project will also be conducted to avoid spreading AIS from TKM to other locations. Floating plant fragments resulting from the Project work will be collected by hand or skim and disposed of in a secure manner. Materials removed from the existing bulkhead will be placed on pavement to dry for 1 week. If a rain event occurs during this drying time, the drying time will need to be restarted. If temperatures reach below freezing for 6 continuous hours during this drying time, this will count as a sufficient freeze period to kill AIS, and the drying period can be suspended. Any drainage inlets near where materials are placed for drying will be temporarily modified to prevent the flow of AIS contaminated water from flowing back into the lagoon.
BIO-5: Biological monitoring by a qualified biologist will be conducted weekly, or at an interval specified in the Project permits, to survey for nests and monitor for SSS. The monitoring is to ensure no take of SSS occurs during the Project and to ensure all Project permit conditions are followed. Biological monitoring will also include searching for LCT and other native fish inside the temporary sheet pile wall around the new boat launch construction location. The biologist will have authority to stop any Project activity that may impact SSS in the Project area. Monitoring reports will be provided to the Project proponent weekly, or as otherwise required by the Project permits.
1119
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
References South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
46 6 References
Al-Chokhachy, R., M. Peacock, L.G. Heki, and G. Thiede. 2009. “Evaluating the reintroduction potential of Lahontan cutthroat trout in Fallen Leaf Lake, California.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29(5):1296–1313.
American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Inc.
Bombay, H.L., T.M. Besnon, B.E. Valentine, and R.A. Stefani. 2003. A Willow Flycatcher Survey Protocol for California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=84019&inline.
Bombay, H.L., M.L. Morrison, and L.S. Hall. 1999. 1998 Annual report for the challenge cost-share agreement between California State University, Sacramento and USDA Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest regarding willow flycatcher monitoring.
Caires, A.M., S. Chandra, and C.R. Nelson. 2016. “Unique reproductive characteristics of Lake Tahoe’s Capnia lacustra (Plecoptera: Capniidae), a stonefly in decline.” Freshwater Science 35(4):1291–1299.
Caires, A.M., S. Chandra, B.L. Hayford, and M.E. Wittmann. 2013. “Four decades of change: dramatic loss of zoobenthos in an oligotrophic lake exhibiting gradual eutrophication.” Freshwater Science 32(3):692– 705.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2001. Missing Linkages in California’s Landscape [ds 420]. Originator:
Hunter, R et al. 2001. Missing Linkages: restoring connectivity to the California landscape. California Wilderness Coalition, The Nature Conservancy, US Geological Survey, Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species, and California State Parks. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios6/.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. Essential Connectivity Areas-California Essential Habitat Connectivity [ds 620]. Originator: Spencer, W.D. et al. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios6/.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. California Fish Species of Special Concern, 3rd Edition. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/SSC/Fishes.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017. Natural Landscape Blacks-California Essential Habitat Connectivity [ds 621]. Originator: Spencer, W.D. et al. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios6/.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025a. “California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) – Commercial version.” https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025b. “Gray Wolf.” https://wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/mammals/gray-wolf#known-wolves.
California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2025. “Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5).“ https://www.rareplants.cnps.org.
1120
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
References South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
47 California Natural Diversity Database. 2025. Special Animals List. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Sacramento, CA. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline.
Caltrans. 2020. Technical Guidance for the Assessment of Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish. California Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/hydroacoustic-manual-a11y.pdf.
Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, and M.C. McNall. 1990. The birds of British Columbia Volume 2. Nonpasserines: diurnal birds of prey through woodpeckers. University of British Columbia Press.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2014. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Western Bumble Bee Bombus occidentalis, occidentalis subspecies (Bombus occidentalis occidentalis) and the mckayi subspecies (Bombus occidentalis mckayi) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. https://species-registry.canada.ca/indexen.html#/documents?documentTypeId=18&sortBy=documentTypeSort&sortDirection=asc&pageSize=1
0. Evans, E., R. Thorp, S. Jepson, and S. Hoffman-Black. 2008. Status Review of three formerly common species of bumble bees in the subgenus Bombus. The Xerces Society. http://www.xerces.org/wpcontent/uploads/2008/12/xerces_2008_bombus_status_review.pdf.
Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group. 2008. Agreement in principle for interim criteria for injury to fish from pile driving activities. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/ser/bio-fhwg-criteria-agree-a11y.pdf.
Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California. Audubon Society.
Heard, D.C., and T.M. Williams. 1992. “Distribution of wolf dens on migratory caribou ranges in the Northwest Territories, Canada.” Canadian J. Zoology 70:1504–1510.
Jepsen, S. and S. Foltz Jordan. 2013. Bombus occidentalis Species Fact Sheet. Prepared by the Xerces Society for Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP).
Koch, J., J. Strange, and P. Williams. 2012. Bumble Bees of the Western United States. https://xerces.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/12-053_01_Western_BB_guide.pdf.
Miller, R.G. 1951. The natural history of Lake Tahoe fishes. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. 160 pp.
Morefield, J.D. 2001. Nevada rare plant atlas [with rare plant fact sheets]. Compiled by the Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Carson City, for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada. http://heritage.nv.gov/atlas/atlas.html.
Moyle, P.B., J.E. Williams, and E.D. Wikramanayake. 1989. Fish species of special concern of California. Final report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division.
Moyle, P.B., R.M. Yoshiyama, J.E. Williams, and E.D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish species of special concern in California. Second edition. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division.
NatureServe. 2023a. “Northern Leopard Frog.” NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.101454/Lithobates_pipiens.
NatureServe. 2023b. “Mountain Whitefish.” NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].” Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104696/Prosopium_williamsoni. 1121
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
References South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
48 Nevada Division of Natural Heritage. 2016. Element Subnational Ranking Form in Biotics 5 database.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
NOAA Fisheries. 2023. National Marine Fisheries Service: Summary of Endangered Species Act Acoustic Thresholds (Marine Mammals, Fishes, and Sea Turtles). https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3/2023- 02/ESA%20all%20species%20threshold%20summary_508_OPR1.pdf.
Palmer, R.S. 1988. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 4. [Diurnal raptors, part 1]. Yale University Press.
Romsos, S. 2000. “Species Accounts for Select Focal Species: bald eagle.” In Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment, edited by App. O. Knopp and D. Murphy. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station.
Sanders, S.D. and M.A. Flett. 1989. Ecology of the Sierra Nevada population of willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), 1986-1987. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division.
Seidensticker, J. 1999. “Red fox: Vulpes.” In The Smithsonian book of North American mammals, edited by D.E.
Wilson and S. Ruff. Smithsonian Institute Press.
Serena, M. 1982. The status and distribution of the willow flycatcher (Empidomax traillii) in selected portions of the Sierra Nevada, 1982. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Branch.
Smith, M.A., J. Mahoney, E.J. Knight, L. Taylor, N.E. Seavy, O.H. Bailey, M. Carbone, W. DeLuca, N.S. Gonzalez, M.F. Jimenez, G.M.W. O'Bryan, N. Rao, C.J. Witko, C. Wilsey, and J.L. Deppe. 2022. “Bird Migration Explorer Database.” National Audubon Society. birdmigrationexplorer.org.
Suntex Marinas. 2024. Aquatic Resources Delineation Report for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project.
Prepared by NCE. September 2024.
Taylor, D.W. 1981. “Freshwater mollusks of California: a distributional checklist.” California Fish and Game 67(3):
140–163.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2014. Lake Tahoe Region Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan, California - Nevada.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2025. “Tahoe Wildlife Data.” https://data-trpa.opendata.arcgis.com/.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2025. “Tahoe Yellow Cress Monitoring Program”. https://monitoring.laketahoeinfo.org/YellowCress.
Turner, A. and C. Rose. 1989. Swallows and martins an identification guide. Houghton Mifflin Co.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2009. Vegetation Descriptions of Central Valley Ecological Province CALVEG Zone 9. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5330786.pdf.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2011. Basin-wide Native Non-game Fish Assessment 2011 Annual Report. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5362793.pdf.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2018. Existing Vegetation Data (CALVEG) by Tiles (EvegTile17B_05_24k_v1) in Albers for Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. USDA Forest Service Remote Sensing Lab, Ecosystem Planning [2009].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2025. “Web Soil Survey.” http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Lahontan cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi, Recovery Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form. Rorippa subumbellata. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q1LW. 1122
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
References South Lake Tahoe, CA
Biological Resources Assessment December 2025
49 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog and Northern Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and Threatened species Status for Yosemite Toad. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/04/29/2014-09488/endangered-and-threatenedwildlife-and-plants-endangered-species-status-for-sierra-nevada.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. “Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog, the Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and the Yosemite Toad; Final Rule.” Federal Register 81(166):59046–59119.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment of the Sierra Nevada Red Fox. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/08/03/2021-16249/endangered-and-threatenedwildlife-and-plants-endangered-species-status-for-the-sierra-nevada.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022a. Species Status Assessment for the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis), Version 2.0.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022b. Lake Tahoe to Receive 100,000 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout This Summer.
June 3, 2022 Press Release. https://fws.gov/press-release/2022-06/lake-tahoe-receive-100000- lahontan-cutthroat-trout-summer.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023a. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule for the Northwestern Pond Turtle and Southwestern Pond Turtle.” Federal Register 88(190):68370–68399.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023b. Species status assessment report for the northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) and southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys pallida), Version 1.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2025a. “Information for Planning and Consultation.” Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2025b. Letter of Concurrence. Informal Consultation for the Tahoe Keys Dock Replacement Project, South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, California.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. n.d. “Species Search.” Accessed July 3, 2024. https://www.fws.gov/species.
Wang, D. and J.R. Holsinger. 2001. “Systematics of the subterranean amphipod genus Stygobromus (Crangonyctidae) in western North America, with emphasis on species of the hubbsi group.” Amphipacifica 3(2):39–147.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2023. “Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. South Lake Tahoe AP, California (048762)”. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca8762.
Williams, P.H., R.W. Thorp, L.L. Richardson, and S.R. Colla. 2014. Bumble bees of North America: an Identification Guide. Princeton University Press.
Wittmann, M.E. and S. Chandra. 2015. Implementation Plan for the Control of Aquatic Invasive Species within Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe AIS Coordination Committee.
Woodbridge, B. and C.D. Hargis. 2006. Northern goshawk inventory and monitoring technical guide. Gen. Tech.
Rep. WO-71. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988 – 1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. I – III.
California Department of Fish and Game.
1123
Appendix A
Figures
1124
Document Path: P:\Active Projects\Suntex Marinas - 1276\1259.01.25 - Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment\GIS\AGP\dkarlowicz\TKM - dkarlowicz.aprx FIGURE
SOURCE JOB NUMBER DRAWN DATE REVISED APPROVED
USGS Topographic Basemap 1259.03.25 D. Karlowicz 7/3/2024 10/29/2025 D. Rios Project Location Map 1
Tahoe Keys Marina
Redevelopment Project
0 1,000 2,000
ft.
1 in. = 2,000 ft.
¯
Project Area
Biological Study Area
Washoe
Carson City
Douglas
Alpine
Amador
El Dorado
Placer
County: El Dorado
USGS 7.5' Quad Map: Emerald Bay
TRS: T.12N., R.18E., Sec. 4 & 5
1125
Document Path: P:\Active Projects\Suntex Marinas - 1276\1259.01.25 - Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment\GIS\AGP\dkarlowicz\TKM - dkarlowicz.aprx FIGURE
SOURCE JOB NUMBER DRAWN DATE REVISED APPROVED
Bing Aerial Basemap, USFWS 1259.03.25 D. Karlowicz 8/26/2024 10/30/2025 D. Rios National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map 2
Tahoe Keys Marina
Redevelopment Project
0 500
ft.
1 in. = 500 ft.
¯
Project Area
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Riverine
1126
Document Path: P:\Active Projects\Suntex Marinas - 1276\1259.01.25 - Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment\GIS\AGP\dkarlowicz\TKM - dkarlowicz.aprx FIGURE
SOURCE JOB NUMBER DRAWN DATE REVISED APPROVED
Bing Aerial Basemap, USDA 1259.03.25 D. Karlowicz 7/3/2024 10/30/2025 D. Rios 3 Classification and Assessment with Landsat of
Visible Ecological Groupings (CALVEG) Map
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
0 600 1,200 1,800
ft.
1 in. = 1,800 ft.
¯
Project Area
Biological Study Area
Barren
Lodgepole Pine
Willow (Riparian Scrub)
Wet Meadows
Big Sagebrush
Upper Montane Mixed Chaparral
Perennial Grasses and Forbs
Jeffrey Pine
Mixed Conifer - Fir
Quaking Aspen
Aspen (Shrub)
Rivers and Streams
Perennial Lakes and Ponds
Water
Urban or Developed
1127
Document Path: P:\Active Projects\Suntex Marinas - 1276\1259.01.25 - Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment\GIS\AGP\dkarlowicz\TKM - dkarlowicz.aprx FIGURE
SOURCE JOB NUMBER DRAWN DATE REVISED APPROVED
Bing Aerial Basemap, CDFW 1259.03.25 D. Karlowicz 7/2/2024 10/30/2025 D. Rios California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Map 4
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
0 600 1,200 1,800
ft.
1 in. = 1,800 ft.
¯
Project Area
Biological Study Area
Great Basin rams-horn
Lahontan Lake tui chub
Lake Tahoe benthic stonefly
Lake Tahoe amphipod
Lake Tahoe stygobromid
American goshawk
yellow-headed blackbird
Lahontan mountain sucker
Tahoe yellow cress
mountain whitefish
bank swallow
northern leopard frog
western bumble bee
1128
Document Path: P:\Active Projects\Suntex Marinas - 1276\1259.01.25 - Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment\GIS\AGP\dkarlowicz\TKM - dkarlowicz.aprx FIGURE
SOURCE JOB NUMBER DRAWN DATE REVISED APPROVED
Bing Aerial Basemap, NCE 1259.03.25 D. Karlowicz 6/9/2025 10/30/2025 D. Rios Biological Resources Observations Map 5a
Tahoe Keys Marina
Redevelopment Project
0 800
ft.
1 in. = 800 ft.
¯
Project Area
bald eagle
bank swallow
black-billed magpie
nest
osprey
Steller's jay nest
yellow-headed
blackbird
Tahoe yellow cress
American beaver den
1129
Document Path: P:\Active Projects\Suntex Marinas - 1276\1259.01.25 - Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment\GIS\AGP\dkarlowicz\TKM - dkarlowicz.aprx FIGURE
SOURCE JOB NUMBER DRAWN DATE REVISED APPROVED
Bing Aerial Basemap, NCE 1259.03.25 D. Karlowicz 6/9/2025 10/30/2025 D. Rios Invasive Species Observations Map 5b
Tahoe Keys Marina
Redevelopment Project
0 400
ft.
1 in. = 400 ft.
¯
Project Area
Eurasian watermilfoil
Canada thistle
cheatgrass
bull thistle
woolly mullein
American bullfrog
1130
Document Path: P:\Active Projects\Suntex Marinas - 1276\1259.01.25 - Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment\GIS\AGP\dkarlowicz\TKM - dkarlowicz.aprx FIGURE
SOURCE JOB NUMBER DRAWN DATE REVISED APPROVED
Bing Aerial Basemap, TRPA, LTBMU 1259.03.25 D. Karlowicz 7/3/2024 10/30/2025 D. Rios Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) 6 Resource Map
Tahoe Keys Marina
Redevelopment Project
0 600 1,200 1,800
ft.
1 in. = 1,800 ft.
¯
Project Area
Biological Study Area
Bald Eagle Winter Habitat
Waterfowl Habitat
Fish Habitat
SNYLF Suitable Habitat (LTBMU)
SNYLF: Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog
LTBMU: Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
1131
Appendix B
USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation Report
1132
10/30/2025 19:23:11 UTC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Reno Fish And Wildlife Office
1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234
Reno, NV 89502-7147
Phone: (775) 861-6300 Fax: (775) 861-6301
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2026-0010738
Project Name: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through IPaC by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological 1133
Project code: 2026-0010738 10/30/2025 19:23:11 UTC
2 of 15
▪
▪
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ endangered-species-consultation-handbook.pdf
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see Migratory Bird Permit | What We Do | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (fws.gov).
It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors.
For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https:// www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservationmigratory-birds.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries
1134
Project code: 2026-0010738 10/30/2025 19:23:11 UTC
3 of 15
▪
▪
▪
Bald & Golden Eagles
Migratory Birds
Wetlands
OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".
This species list is provided by:
Reno Fish And Wildlife Office
1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234
Reno, NV 89502-7147
(775) 861-6300
1135
Project code: 2026-0010738 10/30/2025 19:23:11 UTC
4 of 15
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2026-0010738
Project Name: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Type: Marina - Maintenance/Modification
Project Description: The proposed Project includes:
• Replacement of the existing bulkhead and reconfiguration of the existing boat launch and marine fueling facilities.
• Installation of site-wide stormwater infrastructure, drainage facilities, and Best Management Practices (BMPs).
• Demolition of all existing upland buildings.
• Construction of 4 new 2-story buildings with a total floor area of approximately 60,000 square feet (sf) containing concession spaces, marina accessory retail, food and beverage establishments and office space.
• Construction of a 52,615-sf water and fire flow storage tank(s) and marina facility (Marina Facility) to, respectively, accommodate large indoor potable water tank(s) to provide the greater Tahoe Keys area additional fire flow and indoor storage of vessels.
• Construction of a 2-story, approximately 23,250-sf marina support building which will also house office space, 3 residential units, boat sales, and a dock master with supportive marina services.
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@38.931845100000004,-120.00204844966181,14z Counties: El Dorado County, California
1136
Project code: 2026-0010738 10/30/2025 19:23:11 UTC
5 of 15
1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 7 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
1 1137
Project code: 2026-0010738 10/30/2025 19:23:11 UTC
6 of 15
MAMMALS
NAME STATUS
Gray Wolf Canis lupus
Population: U.S.A.: All of AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, IN, IL, KS, KY, LA, MA,
MD, ME, MI, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, and WV; and portions of AZ, NM, OR, UT, and WA. Mexico.
There is final critical habitat for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4488
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/UZT3K3D2QFHSXIGHK7V2ZO6FL4/documents/ generated/11040.pdf
Endangered
Sierra Nevada Red Fox Vulpes vulpes necator
Population:
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4252
Endangered
BIRDS
NAME STATUS
California Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis
Population: Sierra Nevada
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7266
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/UZT3K3D2QFHSXIGHK7V2ZO6FL4/documents/ generated/11040.pdf
Proposed
Threatened
REPTILES
NAME STATUS
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/UZT3K3D2QFHSXIGHK7V2ZO6FL4/documents/ generated/11040.pdf
Proposed
Threatened
AMPHIBIANS
NAME STATUS
Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog Rana sierrae
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9529
Endangered
FISHES
1138
Project code: 2026-0010738 10/30/2025 19:23:11 UTC
7 of 15
1. 2.
NAME STATUS
Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3964
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/UZT3K3D2QFHSXIGHK7V2ZO6FL4/documents/ generated/11040.pdf
Threatened
INSECTS
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
General project design guidelines:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/UZT3K3D2QFHSXIGHK7V2ZO6FL4/documents/ generated/11040.pdf
Proposed
Threatened
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.
YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.
USFWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LANDS
AND FISH HATCHERIES
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA.
BALD & GOLDEN EAGLES
Bald and Golden Eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to Bald or Golden Eagles, or their habitats, should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, as described in the various links on this page.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2 1
1139
Project code: 2026-0010738 10/30/2025 19:23:11 UTC
8 of 15
3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
There are Bald Eagles and/or Golden Eagles in your project area.
Measures for Proactively Minimizing Eagle Impacts
For information on how to best avoid and minimize disturbance to nesting bald eagles, please review the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. You may employ the timing and activity-specific distance recommendations in this document when designing your project/ activity to avoid and minimize eagle impacts. For bald eagle information specific to Alaska, please refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity.
The FWS does not currently have guidelines for avoiding and minimizing disturbance to nesting Golden Eagles. For site-specific recommendations regarding nesting Golden Eagles, please consult with the appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Office or Ecological Services Field Office.
If disturbance or take of eagles cannot be avoided, an incidental take permit may be available to authorize any take that results from, but is not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. For assistance making this determination for Bald Eagles, visit the Do I Need A Permit Tool. For assistance making this determination for golden eagles, please consult with the appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Office or Ecological Services Field Office.
Ensure Your Eagle List is Accurate and Complete
If your project area is in a poorly surveyed area in IPaC, your list may not be complete and you may need to rely on other resources to determine what species may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys). Please review the Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles, to help you properly interpret the report for your specified location, including determining if there is sufficient data to ensure your list is accurate.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to bald or golden eagles on your list, see the "Probability of Presence Summary" below to see when these bald or golden eagles are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Jan 1 to
Aug 31
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Dec 1 to
Aug 31
1140
Project code: 2026-0010738 10/30/2025 19:23:11 UTC
9 of 15
▪
▪
▪
▪
probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data
PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ( )
Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during that week of the year.
Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire range.
Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps.
No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/ collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/ media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occurproject-action 1141
Project code: 2026-0010738 10/30/2025 19:23:11 UTC
10 of 15
1. 2.
3. MIGRATORY BIRDS
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).
The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the "Probability of Presence Summary" below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/11928
Breeds Mar 21
to Aug 21
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Jan 1 to
Aug 31
Black-throated Gray Warbler Setophaga nigrescens
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9584
Breeds May 1
to Jul 20
California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10955
Breeds Mar 1 to
Jul 31
Calliope Hummingbird Selasphorus calliope
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9526
Breeds May 1
to Aug 15
Cassin's Finch Haemorhous cassinii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9462
Breeds May 15
to Jul 15
1 1142
Project code: 2026-0010738 10/30/2025 19:23:11 UTC
11 of 15
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10575
Breeds Jun 1 to
Aug 31
Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9465
Breeds May 15
to Aug 10
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Dec 1 to
Aug 31
Hermit Warbler Setophaga occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/11957
Breeds May 5
to Jul 15
Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9408
Breeds Apr 20
to Sep 30
Long-eared Owl asio otus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3631
Breeds Mar 1 to
Jul 15
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914
Breeds May 20
to Aug 31
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743
Breeds Jun 1 to
Aug 31
Willet Tringa semipalmata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10669
Breeds Apr 20
to Aug 5
PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental 1143
Project code: 2026-0010738 10/30/2025 19:23:11 UTC
12 of 15
probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ( )
Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during that week of the year.
Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire range.
Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps.
No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC American Dipper
BCC - BCR
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Black-throated
Gray Warbler
BCC - BCR
California Gull
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Calliope
Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Cassin's Finch
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Clark's Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
1144
Project code: 2026-0010738 10/30/2025 19:23:11 UTC
13 of 15
▪
▪
▪
▪
Evening Grosbeak
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Hermit Warbler
BCC - BCR
Lewis's
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Long-eared Owl
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Olive-sided
Flycatcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Western Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Willet
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/ collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/ media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occurproject-action
WETLANDS
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.
1145
Project code: 2026-0010738 10/30/2025 19:23:11 UTC
14 of 15
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site.
LAKE
L1UBHx
FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND
PEM1C
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
PSS1B
PSSC
RIVERINE
R3UBF
1146
Project code: 2026-0010738 10/30/2025 19:23:11 UTC
15 of 15
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: NCE
Name: Dylan Karlowicz
Address: PO Box 1760
City: Zephyr Cove
State: NV
Zip: 89448
Email [email protected]
Phone: 7755882505
1147
Appendix C
Photographs
1148
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Photo Log Biological Resources Assessment
South Lake Tahoe, CA December 2025
1 Photograph 1: West-facing view of the unpaved trailer storage area and surrounding berm with big sagebrush, ruderal species, and conifers.
Photograph 2: North-facing view of the vacant disturbed parcel along Venice Drive dominated by grasses, forbs, and ruderal species.
1149
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Photo Log Biological Resources Assessment
South Lake Tahoe, CA December 2025
2 Photograph 3: Southwest-facing view of the paved boat storage area and stormwater basin with standing water and wetland plant species.
Photograph 4: South-facing view of the paved boat storage area. 1150
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Photo Log Biological Resources Assessment
South Lake Tahoe, CA December 2025
3 Photograph 5: South-facing view of the paved parking area and adjacent Conservancy restoration area.
Photograph 6: View of Eurasian watermilfoil around the marina docks and bulkhead. 1151
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Photo Log Biological Resources Assessment
South Lake Tahoe, CA December 2025
4 Photograph 7: Southeast-facing view of the bulkhead division between the upland and lagoon.
Photograph 8: Southwest-facing view of the docks, sheet pile bulkhead, boat ramp, and marina landscaping. 1152
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Photo Log Biological Resources Assessment
South Lake Tahoe, CA December 2025
5 Photograph 9: Northeast-facing view of the approximate new boat launch location and existing bulkhead.
Photograph 10: Northeast-facing view of the shoreline area in the lagoon dominated by emergent wetland species and big sagebrush.
1153
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Photo Log Biological Resources Assessment
South Lake Tahoe, CA December 2025
6 Photograph 11: East-facing view of the Upper Truckee River and Marsh adjacent to the Project area.
Photograph 12: East-facing view of a juvenile bald eagle perched in the stand of Jeffrey pines northeast of the Project area.
1154
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Photo Log Biological Resources Assessment
South Lake Tahoe, CA December 2025
7 Photograph 13: Southwest-facing view of Venice Drive in the Project area.
Photograph 14: Northwest-facing view of Tahoe Keys Boulevard in the Project area. 1155
Appendix C
Noise Study
1156
Environmental Noise Assessment
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, California
March 16, 2026
Project #250201
Prepared for:
NCE Lake Tahoe Office
224 Kingsbury Grade Road, Suite 203
Stateline, NV 89449
(775) 588-2505
Prepared by:
Saxelby Acoustics LLC
Luke Saxelby, INCE Bd. Cert.
Principal Consultant
Board Certified, Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) 1157
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com
Page i
\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx` Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................................................. 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE ........................................................................................................ 1 EXISTING NOISE AND VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTS ........................................................................... 6 EXISTING NOISE RECEPTORS ........................................................................................................................ 6 EXISTING GENERAL AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS ................................................................................................... 6 FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE ENVIRONMENT AT OFF-SITE RECEPTORS ..................................................... 7 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 7 EVALUATION OF PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE ON EXISTING SENSITIVE RECEPTORS ...................... 9 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................... 11 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................. 11 REGULATORY CONTEXT .................................................................................................................. 12 FEDERAL ................................................................................................................................................ 12 STATE .................................................................................................................................................... 12 LOCAL .................................................................................................................................................... 13 CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABLE VIBRATION ........................................................................................................ 13 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................................................................... 14 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................................................. 14 PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................................. 16 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 21 List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Plan.......................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Noise Measurement Sites and Receptor Locations ....................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Project Operational Noise Contours, CNEL .................................................................................. 10
1158
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com
Page ii
\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx` List of Tables
Table 1: Typical Noise Levels ......................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2: Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data ......................................................... 7 Table 3: Predicted Traffic Noise Level and Project-Related Traffic Noise Level Increases ........................... 8 Table 4: Construction Equipment Noise ..................................................................................................... 11 Table 5: Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment .................................................................. 11 Table 6: Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings ................................................................................ 14 Table 7: Significance of Changes in Noise Exposure ................................................................................... 15 Table 8: Project-Generated Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors ............................................................... 17 Appendices
Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology
Appendix B: Field Noise Measurement Data
Appendix C: Traffic Noise Calculations
1159
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com