Project Overview

• We are the Tahoe Lead Removal Project, a community initiative focused on removing inactive lead telecommunication cables from Lake Tahoe
• Our efforts grew organically from a group of Rubicon Bay neighbors advocating for removal due to the potential risks of lead contamination
• An ongoing lawsuit between California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) and Pacific Bell (AT&T) also centers on these cables
• We are neutral, unaffiliated with either party, and separate from that litigation
• Instead, we propose a direct path to removal through collaboration

• In July 2023, CSPA and AT&T vacated an agreement to remove the cables
• Bothsides previously agreed on terms for removal in 2021, with AT&T securing all required government authorizations
• We seek to execute the removal by building off their established frameworks
• These lead cables are no longer in use, and should be removed regardless of the precise amount of lead leaching out as they remain a long term risk
• We’d respectfully request permits required to deliver this important outcome

Get the lead out! Bring together stakeholders with the best possible partners to deliver the appropriate outcome for the future

Reorient path forward! Shift focus from a legal dispute with national implications back to removal, now driven by our local community

Proactively address risk! Eliminate the potential for a worst-case scenario that could irreversibly damage Lake Tahoe’s water quality

• There are +8 miles of lead cables in Lake Tahoe running from Baldwin Beach to Rubicon Bay
• These cables were originally laid by Bell Systems in the early 20th century, with ownership transferred through a series of telecommunication mergers
• In 2020, AT&T claimed no record of the cables, but nevertheless entered into a consent decree in 2021 to remove them to avoid the burden of litigation
• Homeowners in Rubicon Bay engaged stakeholders on both sides to support near-term removal
• AT&T denied current ownership and confirmed it stopped using the cablesin the 1980s
• AT&T also took the initiative to design engineering methodology for removal, establish the required permits and authorizations, and bring best-in-class 3rd party engineers to the table
• Following delays and a series of news articles, AT&T halted their removal plans in July 2023, and both sides chose to re-engage in further litigation
• Rather than become a party to the ongoing litigation, homeowners came together to build a community effort to remove the lead cables: the Tahoe Lead Removal Project

Source: As cited in 8.24.06 meeting minutes for CA State Lands Commission Calendar Item C19 Amendment of Lease, evidence of telecommunication cables originally placed in Emerald

Bay in 1929. AT&T ownership statement as taken from Courtlistener CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Document #22.

• Cable A bisects the north end of Emerald Bay, terminating near public campgrounds
• Cable B runs from public Baldwin Beach in South Lake Tahoe to a private residence in Rubicon Bay
• Cable B is large enough to be seen from satellites depending on the season and shifting sands

Source: Google Maps https://maps.app.goo.gl/SFxbxYhit1bs8gGy5, Courtlistener CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Complaint Document #33.

• The lead cables are visibly deteriorating
• In numerous places, they lay directly on or bend around rocks which appears to be contributing to their erosion
• They rest in areas of public recreation, in the same shallow waters where visitors swim, feet away from private docks and buoys

Source: Pictures taken by Tahoe Lead Removal Project organizers January 2024.

Source: tahoelead.com.

Source: tahoelead.com.

We’re stakeholders in the safety

and preservation of Lake Tahoe

We’re focused on the future,

not the past nor the current state

We want to bring people together

to deliver a positive outcome

• As stated in our petition, we are strongly opposed to the presence of these cables irrespective of the precise amount of lead currently leaching out
• While that scientific fact is a point of contention in the ongoing litigation, for our community there is no reason why these inactive lead cables should remain in Lake Tahoe
• We should not be forced to accept the risks associated with the presence of lead, as ultimately every member of our community would be the stakeholder in any negative impacts
• Leaving lead cables in Lake Tahoe indefinitely should not be considered a reasonable option
• Furthermore, EPA has clearly mandated that there is a zero tolerance for lead in drinking water

“EPA has set the maximum contaminant level goal for lead in

drinking water at zero because lead is a toxic metal that can be

harmful to human health even at low exposure levels.

Lead is persistent, and it can bioaccumulate in the body over time.”

Source: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/basic-information-about-lead-drinking-water

• Over decades, corporate telecommunication structures have evolved in response to economic and regulatory factors, especially following the Telecommunications Act of 1996
• While tracing that lineage is convoluted to most public observers, merger and acquisition law clearly states that companies acquireassets and liabilities in consolidation events
• The reality is that no one involved in the original decision to lay these underwater lead cables still operates in a professional capacity
• No individual is to blame, but rather this situation is an opportunity for a broader range of stakeholders to to come together and demonstrate leadership on a complex historical issue
• Current litigation efforts have the downside of “lose-lose” for almost everyone involved, with more resources devoted to court battles than the projected cost of removal

• Unfortunately, the media has portrayed this situation in a divisive way that assigns blame to the telecommunication companies that may have unknowingly acquired legacy lead infrastructure
• While the telecom companies have the resources and know how to step up and demonstrate true leadership in sustainability by taking action - the reasons why they won’t are self evident
• The simple reality: AT&T does not own the cables, as they confirmed during legal proceedings

Source: Courtlistener CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Complaint Document #22.

active litigation is a complicated decision and included additional considerations in the Appendix

• It's also inappropriate to render the preservation of Lake Tahoe subject to a lawsuit that has already extended for years, reversed course, and exposed obvious motivations beyond the basin
• We’d proactively address a few of the key considerations below that should not dissuade action
  • As referenced on previous page, AT&T has stated they don’t own the cables

Ownership

• • If they change course and claim ownership (along with liability), we will adjust
  • We take the Proposition 65 allegations in the lawsuit very seriously
  • However, the Plaintiff previously agreed to waive these allegations if AT&T

Prop 65

agreed to remove the cables, a key component of the consent decree

• • We aim to take a similar approach - with removal the top priority
  • We are proposing a spring 2025 removal, which gives this litigation an entire year to conduct further testing

Timing

• • To date both sides have already conducted multiple testing cycles
  • Our community has already waited 3+ years for this project, and Lake Tahoe has been waiting for decades!

Source: As referenced previously regarding AT&T no longer owning the cables, Courtlistener CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Complaint Document #22.

• In their July 18, 2023 filing, AT&T outlined their rationale for delaying removal
• This included the passage below, that considers hypothetical lead exposure and its lack of impact
• Where we differ from AT&T: they state the cables pose no threat right now, whereas we view this on a multi-generational timeline and want them removed to address potential, future risks

Source: Courtlistener CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Complaint Document #41.

• Scenario: weathering slowly disintegrates the outside layer and exposes lead over time
• In many places the deterioration of the cable is visible to the naked eye
• The cables rests on rocks throughout their paths, bends around others and shows wear and tear
• We worry that underwater currents, especially during the winter months, creates rubbing on the rocks that could speed up deterioration

Source: Pictures taken by Tahoe Lead Removal Project organizers January 2024.

• Scenario: animals come into direct contact with lead underwater or on the shore
• Lake Tahoe has a delicate ecosystem that is already under many threats
• This cable could potentially negatively impact the fish in the lake and wildlife

“ALL ANIMALS are susceptible to lead toxicosis, although the effects are most often seen in birds, especially loons and swans, condors, vultures, and eagles. Other bird species, including crows, robins, mourning doves, upland game birds, and domestic poultry, have also been seen with lead toxicosis”

- NYS Wildlife Health Program

Source: https://cwhl.vet.cornell.edu/system/files/public/cwhl-fact-sheets-lead.pdf

with lead contaminated waters or cause a breach

• The cables rest in Emerald Bay, Baldwin Beach and Rubicon Bay, areas with many boaters and swimmers
• Beach goers sometimes set up sometimes within a few feet of where the cables rest
• It impacts our peace of mind to do activities above lead cables regardless of verifiable amount of leaching
• Boats anchoring could create a dangerous situation

Source: Pictures taken by Tahoe Lead Removal Project organizers August 2023 (left) and April 2024 (right).

• Scenario: seismic event in Lake Tahoe
• The Lake Tahoe Basin sits on 3 distinct fault lines, including the West Shore Fault
• The path of this fault intercepts the cable between Baldwin Beach and Emerald Bay
• While there has never been a significant earthquake on record in the area, this remains a profound risk as we consider a multi-generational timeline
• While the probability of this event is low, it also implies that each day these lead cables stay in the water brings the potential for catastrophic consequences that could change the water quality forever

Source: Gordon Seitz, PhD, CEG, Characterization of the Highest Slip Rate Fault in the Lake Tahoe Basin: Paleoseismic Investigation of the West Tahoe Fault.

1. Verify Public

2. Engage Potential

Consensus

Partners

4. Raise Requisite

5. Finalize

Funds

Preparations

3. Acquire Required

Authorizations

6. Get The Lead Out!

2024

1. Verify Public Consensus

2. Engage Potential Partners

3. Acquire Required Authorizations

4. Raise Requisite Funds

• Given the nature of the project, we’re planning conservatively across all phases
• While 2025 may seem far off, we have the benefit of watching this process unfold in 2022-23 and anticipate that it will take time and require flexibility - we must be prepared
• We made a conscious decision to begin fundraising after we have baseline validation from agencies
• Seasonality and recreation provides only 2 realistic windows for removal: Spring and early Fall
• Fall 2025 is considered “Plan B” and has a wide range of potentially challenging dynamics

2025

6a. Get

6b. Get

5. Finalize

The

The

Prep

Lead

Lead

Out!

Out!

• Our website - tahoelead.com - provides the public with a place to learn more about our community efforts
• The website hosts our petition
• We do not accept donations at this juncture despite many inquires
• We lay out our mission, approach, and links to public articles
• We also write pieces for the website
• Our first article posted was “Thank you AT&T”, as we are grateful for their efforts to design the appropriate methodology and establish key precedents

Sources: tahoelead.com.

• Since launching our public petition we have seen consistent growth of support
• What originally started as a few dozen households quickly evolved to a movement

Tahoe Tribune article

Public launch

Rubicon neighborhood launch

Sources: typeform.com.

Moonshine Ink article

KTVN interview

515 individuals have

signed our petition as

of May 17th!

• We’re inspired by those who’ve “never been” and support us, showing broad appeal of the cause

Wish I could go more often

22%

Visit

36%

multiple times a year

Sources: typeform.com, summary results.

Full time resident

15%

Own a home

15%

11%

Never been

Sources: Tahoe Daily Tribune. Mountain Democrat. KTVN 2 News Nevada.

• Their efforts established best-in-class engineering methodologies
• These approaches were approved by government agencies, establishing a clear removal approach
• With the same authorizations, we can further engage these same potential partners while running a request-for-proposal (RFP) process as appropriate
• Since launching, we’ve received inbound interest from local firms and see potential for a coalition
• A projected budget of $1.5 million to $2 million has been further verified with potential partners

Sources: jfbrennan.com for bottom left and center, Moonshine Ink/Ted Coakley III for bottom right.

• By leveraging previous project planning, we have a clear understanding of required removal efforts
• We have broken these down into three phases, each with a 3rd party partner

Hosting ✅

Extraction

Launch point to and from the

Underwater diving +

water; equipment storage

barge-based removal

✅

Denotes partner identified & secured.

Disposal

Collection and safe delivery to

lead smelter

• Project activities will be concentrated in the southwest corner of Lake Tahoe
• Hosting serves as the base of operations, as the barge will make daily site visits, and return with extracted cable
• Extraction will occur alongside the shoreline, and include four lakeside excavations and cappings
• Disposal will start once the first truck is full and ready to make its delivery directly to the lead smelter

Note: Cable locations illustrative based as sourced from graphics on Courtlistener CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Complaint Document #33. Image taken via Google Maps.

• We’re excited to share that Tahoe Keys Marina has agreed to partner with us on this project!
• As the largest marina in Lake Tahoe, this location is ideal for the engineering operations and in close proximity to the site
• From the onset of the previous permitting process, Tahoe Keys Marina was identified as the preferred location
• Engineering firms previously confirmed this hosting location is fit for purpose
• Members of our effort make contact with Tahoe Keys Marina in May 2023 and they’ve been a pleasure to work with - we’re grateful for their years of leadership on this issue!

Source: Katie Linton, Tahoe Keys Marina, klinton@suntex.com.

• AT&T and their partners have established an engineering methodology for removal that was previously approved by all required government agencies
• Under the approved plan, scuba divers with a rover will inspect the cable before guiding it to the surface where it is cut in a safe manner on a barge and immediately wrapped
• Based on AT&T’s California State Parks permit, the project is expected to take ~16 work days

Underwater rover

Nitrile Gloves

Source: Rover from J.F. Brennan (jfbrennan.com). Nitrile Gloves from Palmflex (Palmflex.com). Industrial hydraulic cutter from JAG Industries (jagindustries.co.uk). HDPE wraps from

May Wes Manufacturing (maywes.com). CA State Park permit sourced via Courtlistener CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Complaint Document #33.

High Density Polyethylene

Hydraulic Cutter

(HDPE) Wraps

the barge and wrapped for transportation to the smelter

towards the surface where its handed off

At the end of the day, the

cable is securely capped and

placed for easy retrieval in

the morning

Note: Diagram is illustrative based on details provided in Case 2:21-cv-00073-JDP Document 33-1 Filed 06/02/23.

Cable will be excavated, cut and capped on the respective beaches above the high water mark

Cable is guided

Divers inspect the cable and

carefully lift it off the lake floor with

help of underwater rover

was bringing J.F. Brennan to the table

• Over 100+ years of operations, this Wisconsin-based engineering firm has established itself as the premier marine construction firm in the nation
• They recently completed a high profile underwater cable project in Puget Sound
• We’ve been fortunate to connect with them multiple times since starting the project
• They’ve verbally stated that if we can secure the permits and raise the money that they are willing to do the work!
• We’re ready to engage others as appropriate and see a key role for local firms to play

Sources: jfbrennan.com.

• Once extracted and loaded into shipping containers, semi-trucks will deliver the sections of lead cables directly to a lead smelting plant
• Recycling the lead and copper in the cable has a wide range of positive externalities, including reducing the relative need for dangerous mining of these materials!
• Salvage value will also be recovered which provides opportunity for additional impact

Sources: Left imagine form gme-recycling.com, middle image from cssmindustry.com, right image from Tampa Bay Times.

physical removal of the cables

• This amount was never adjusted prior to vacating the consent decree, and has been verified in discussion with J.F. Brennan, who was clear that costs have risen with inflation since 2021
• There are additional potential costs, including transactional, consulting, or legal fees associated with relevant permitting efforts or the costs of the disposal or transportation
• Insurance is another key consideration, and we’ve incorporated that into our budgeting
• Given salvage value of copper and lead, overall costs are partially offset by more than $200,000
• We are conservatively forecasting an all-in cost of $2,400,000
• We aim to fund the project with a coalition of partners, including non-profits, conservancies, and lakefront home owners who have previously stated desire to contribute
• While we are a community effort, we view the community funding the project as a last resort and unlikely scenario given the inbound interest we’ve already received
• We are open to appropriate considerations on both of these fronts

Source: Cost figure sourced directly from Courtlistener CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Complaint Document #22, page 3.

• We are grateful to AT&T for their due diligence and efforts to establish precisely which agencies are required to provide permits for this project
• In June 2023, AT&T represented in U.S. District Court that “all required permits and approvals have been obtained”
• This claim was fundamental to their position that they were doing everything required by the consent decree
• If for whatever reason AT&T was incorrect, this fact needs to be escalated ASAP as there are legal implications to misrepresentation

Source: Courtlistener CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Complaint Document #33.

• From October 2022 to April 2023, AT&T received all the required permits
• This timing aligned with the ~6 month expectations originally outlined
• Their great work proves that this project is possible and all agencies are willing to provide authorizations
• We are hopeful that because they were recently issued, the agencies can address our applications accordingly
• We propose a conservative window for removal of April 1 to May 23, 2025

Source: Courtlistener CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Complaint Document #33.

• We’re fortunate to have many members of our community contributing to our efforts
• For the permitting process, please find our organizers below

Evan Dreyer

Zach Steeb

evan@tahoelead.com

zach@tahoelead.com

●14+ years in finance industry

●3+ years in real estate development

●6+ years as nonprofit board member

●8+ years in corporate finance

●Investor in 50+ startups

●Experience in M&A integrations

●NYU Masters in Risk Management

●Active CPA since 2014

●Vice President at Rubicon Mutual

●North Star homeowner and

Water Company

multi-time Trans Tahoe swimmer

Kate Johnson

kate@tahoelead.com

●Director of Strategy at Propel ●8+ years of startup experience ●Former External Relations at Google ●South Lake Tahoe resident ●Kayaked around 64 miles of Lake

Tahoe shoreline, in a single day

• While this situation has created significant consternation in our community over the past 4 years, we are excited that there is a direct path to removal
• Lake Tahoe is worth preserving if there is any risk of irreversible negative impact
• All involved parties have previously agreed in various forms that these lead cables not only should be removed but can be removed
• We aim to organize the same project, this time driven by our community and not a corporation under threat of legal ramifications
• We are grateful for your consideration and partnership, and hope we can come together to make something special happen for Lake Tahoe
• Let’s get the lead out!

2020

June 2020

November 2020

January 2021

Local home

Moonshine Ink

Local

owners

publishes article

homeowners host

become aware

regarding

AT&T personnel

of lead cables

situation

on private property, local divers provide tour

August 2020

via boat

CSPA files formal notice of violation of federal and

CSPA filed a suit

December 2020

California law

in Federal Court

Local property

against Pacific

owners submit 1st

Bell following tests

formal letter to

that confirm

AT&T council

presence of lead

Source: Courtlistener CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Internal Tahoe Lead Removal Project actions and considerations.

2021

May 2021 Local homeowners submit letter #2

November 2021 CSPA and Pacific Bell enter into a consent decree to avoid burden of litigation; AT&T agrees to remove with $1.5 million budget, permits to be acquired within 6 months

2022

April 2022

January 2023

Consent decree

Local

extended following

homeowners

permitting delays

submit letter #3

January 2022

October 2022

April 2023

WSJ begins

AT&T acquires 1st

AT&T

investigation

permit

acquires final permit

Consent decree extended again

Source: Courtlistener CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Internal Tahoe Lead Removal Project actions and considerations.

2023

June 2023

July 2023

Local

Wall Street Journal

homeowners

publishes investigative

submit letter #4

series about abandoned lead cables across

May 2023

America

AT&T delays project for

AT&T withdraws from

range of

consent decree

reasons

October 2023 Tahoe Lead Removal Project officially formed as a California LLC

2024

February 2024

April 2024

June to September 2024

Tahoe Lead

Tahoe Keys

Litigation between CSPA

Removal Project

Marina formally

and AT&T set to resume

publicly launches

agrees to work

following thorough lead

with Tahoe Lead

testing by both sides

Removal Project

April to December 2024 Tahoe Lead Removal Project to acquire all 7 authorizations as previously done by AT&T

Project funding to commence once path to permitting has been established and partners confirmed

Source: Courtlistener CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Internal Tahoe Lead Removal Project actions and considerations.

2025

April to May 2025 Tahoe Lead Removal Project proposed window for removal

February 2025 Tahoe Lead Removal Project internal deadline for all permits & funding

• On January 14, 2021, 3 law groups filed a civil suit on behalf of California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act and Prop 65
• They somehow obtained a portion of the cables, and conducted testing through which “reasonable inference can be drawn” that lead is being disseminated into Lake Tahoe
• Since both sides dissolved the consent decree in July 2023, they have brought in national law firms - Kirkland & Ellis and Aqua Terra Aeris - inappropriately transforming Lake Tahoe into a battleground with bigger implications
• We are respectful and supportive of the legal process; our community includes members who value the work of “environmental watchdogs” and longtime AT&T customers
• We seek a direct path to removal, and generally view this litigation as delaying the appropriate course of action given the potential impact and relative cost of removal

Source: Courtlistener CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Complaint — Document #1.

• The Plaintiff claimed they needed more time for testing, even though they originally brought the suit back in January 2021
• Our community should not be forced to incur this risk at the convenience of two parties whose interests extend far beyond the Lake Tahoe Basin

Source: Courtlistener CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Document #85 and #127.

Latest scheduling confirmed by court

• The current litigation brings additional layers of complexity to an inherently challenging situation
• We appreciate that taking decisive action ahead of finality in this case is complicated
• Since the beginning we have aimed for a Spring 2025 removal, specifically given this dynamic - we wanted to ensure the legal proceedings had concluded
• However, it’s increasingly apparent that both sides are willing to extend this process well into 2025 and perhaps beyond
• This development is concerning, as key permits expire in 2025 - potentially extending the timeline for removal even if the sides agree on that course of action again
• Given the Wall Street Journal’s accusations, its apparent that this is case has nationwide implications which is why the focus is on lead testing - but Lake Tahoe is not their scientific laboratory
• Every year this removal project is delayed and deprioritized increases the risk of catastrophe
• That’s another year of erosion, anchors, and potential for an earthquake

who specializes in compliance systems, M&A transactions and submarine cables

• This lawyer signed the November 2021 consent decree

Source: LinkedIn as accessed May 4, 2024. Source: Courtlistener CA Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. Document #22.

• In January 2024, EPA sent letters requesting telecommunication companies to meet with the agency about their lead-sheathed phone cables
• This action was a new phase of an EPA investigation to protect the public from potential lead hazards, previously launched in 2023
• EPA testing in 3 states near telecom lead-cable locations identified found 101 results, 41% of the samples taken, exceeded the EPA’s lead-safety guideline for children
• Our group has connected with the EPA on these specific lead cables, including direct dialogue with the Lake Tahoe Basin Coordinator

Source: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/epa-calls-on-telecom-executives-to-meet-about-lead-sheathed-phone-cables-52627f24

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/telecom-other-industries-face-extra-scrutiny-over-lead-releases

January 11, 2024

• There is bipartisan consensus around this issue, as confirmed by members of both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives
• Representatives on both side of the aisle commenting on these potential risks to our communities highlights the importance of this issue and path forward

“There is no safe level of lead exposure—none—which is why

I’m so disturbed by these reports of lead cable lines

throughout the country”

Representative Frank Pallone, Jr (R., NJ), ranking member

of the House Energy and Commerce committee

“We take seriously the concerns raised about potential lead

exposure from communications lines—including the

infrastructure that first connected so many remote and

rural parts of the country,” FCC spokesperson

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/lawmakers-demand-telecom-firms-act-on-toxic-lead-cables-after-wsj-investigation-9c4f6a09

July 11, 2023

“Exposure to lead in our soil and water can significantly

harm public health, especially for children in frontline

communities. As we learn more about the impact of these

abandoned lead cables across our country, we must ensure

that we are taking all the necessary steps and actions to

protect communities from lead exposure.”

U.S. Senator Tom Carper (D., Del.), chairman of the

Environment and Public Works Committee