City Council and Authorities Concurrent
October 8, 2024

Regulatory Background
Federal
A variety of transmission line and tower clearance standards are used throughout the electric transmission industry. Nationally, most transmission line owners follow the National Electric Safety Code (NESC) rules or ANSI guidelines, or both, when managing vegetation around transmission system equipment. The NESC deals with electric safety rules, including transmission wire clearance standards, whereas the applicable ANSI code deals with the practice of pruning and removing vegetation.

State and Local
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order (GO) 95. CPUC’s GO 95 is the key standard governing the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of overhead electric lines in the State.

The CPUC has promulgated various Rules to implement the fire safety requirements of GO 95, including:
 GO 95 Rule 31.2 requires that lines be inspected frequently and thoroughly to ensure that they are in good condition, and that lines temporarily out of service be inspected and maintained in such condition so as not to create a hazard.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.20. WILDFIRE

SEPTEMBER 2024 5.20-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

 GO 95 Rule 35 governs requirements that vegetation management activities be performed in order to establish necessary and reasonable clearances.
 GO 95 Rule 38 establishes minimum vertical, horizontal, and radial clearances of wires from other wires.

California Public Resources Code Sections 4294 and 4293. The California Public Resources Code (CPRC) Sections 4292 and 4293 specify requirements related to fire protection and prevention in transmission line corridors. CPRC Section 4292 states that any person that owns, controls, operates, or maintains any electrical transmission or distribution line has primary responsibility for fire protection of such areas, and shall maintain around and adjacent to any pole or tower which supports a switch, fuse, transf ormer, lightning arrester, line junction, or dead end or corner pole, a firebreak which consists of a clearing of not less than 10 feet in each direction from the outer circumference of such a pole or tower (CPRC 4292).

Power Line Fire Prevention Field Guide 2008 Edition. CAL FIRE, the state’s three investor-owned utilities (Pacific Gas and Electric [PG&E] Company, Southern California Edison Company, and San Diego Gas and Electric), and other California electric utilities have mutually developed a comprehensive field guide for their personnel. Its purpose is “to provide information and guidance to the personnel of the fire service agencies and electrical operators for minimum uniform application within the areas of their r espective jurisdiction and franchise responsibilities.” In addition to safety of the public, the guide details fire hazard reduction maintenance procedures for the safety of conductors and certain hardware.

PG&E's Public Safety Power Shutoff Program . The Public Safety Power Shutoff program was developed in cooperation with state utility regulators at the CPUC. A utility shuts off electricity on transmission and distribution lines in fire-prone areas during high fire-risk periods, including:
 Red flag warning declared by the National Weather Service;  Low humidity levels – generally 20% and below; and/or  Forecasted sustained winds generally above 25 mph and wind gusts in excess of approximately 45 mph.

SVP operates and maintains the distribution and transmission grid inside the City, yet the larger trans - mission grid that brings most of SVP’s energy into the City is integrated throughout the State. Therefore, if large transmission lines are de-energized or constrained, then SVP may need to reduce load quickly to help the greater transmission grid. Depending on the severity of the event, it may mean power shutoffs or rolling outages in the City.

5.20.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacu- ation plan?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION- CONSTRUCTION. The City of Santa Clara does not have an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. The Project does not cross over or is not near any roads in a very high FHSZ nor would it require complete road closures. As stated in Section 5.17, Transportation, the Project may require brief temporary lane closures/disruptions, however, at least one lane of travel through each construction area would remain open throughout the construction period to accommodate roadway users (including emergency vehicles). During temporary lane closures, SVP would implement traffic control protocols and a project-specific traffic plan under Mitigation Measure T -1 (Construction Traffic Control Plan) to accommodate traffic flow. There is no other aspect of the Proposed Project, aside from traffic flow, that could impair an emergency response effort. Therefore, with incor - poration of mitigation, impacts from Project construction would not substantially impact emergency response or evacuation plans.

N
O IMPACT – OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE. Once operational, the proposed Project would have minimal impact on emergency response or evacuation. Occasional maintenance activities would be of short duration throughout the project area. While temporary lane closures are not anticipated, maintenance NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.20. WILDFIRE

SEPTEMBER 2024 5.20-3 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

vehicles or equipment may be temporarily present alongside the roadways depending on structure loca - tions and maintenance activities. However, at least one lane of travel would remain open at all times and any closure or disruption would be of limited duration (likely less than one day).

Option 1 would have a shorter duration of maintenance compared to Option 2, because overhead lines are easier to access. Additionally, Option 1 would have a shorter downtime in the event of a power outage or emergency, due to the visibility and accessibility of the line. However, the maintenance for both options would be of short duration and would be temporary. Therefore, maintenance of the proposed Project would not substantially impair an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Mitigation Measures for Emergency Response
MM T-1 Construction Traffic Control Plan. [see full text in Section 5.17, Transportation] (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 - CONSTRUCTION. The project would not result in any occupied facilities and the City area is not located in a FHSZ as shown on CAL FIRE wildland fire hazard maps (CAL FIRE, 2007). However, there are residences in the Project vicinity located on Lafayette Street near the proposed transmission line route. Therefore, the following analysis focuses on the potential for Project construction and operation to increase the exposure of residences to wildfire risks.

During construction, Project-related activities have the potential to be a fire ignition source. Examples of ignition sources include improperly discarded smoking materials or sparks from welding or from metal striking metal or stone, igniting surrounding vegetation or other flammable materials. To reduce fire risk, SVP would implement standard fire prevention protocols. In addition, the proposed Project is located in a flat, urban environment without extensive easily ignited vegetation, and construction ac tivities would occur over a limited duration (14 months for Option 1). Impacts from wildfire risk during construction would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

L
ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT – OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE. Electrical lines can start a fire if an object such as a tree limb, kite, or mylar balloon simultaneously contacts the power line conductors and a second object, such as the ground or a portion of the supporting pole or tower. System component failures and accidents during maintenance activities can also cause line faults that result in arcing on power lines. Power lines are also subject to conductor -to-conductor contact, which can occur when extremely high winds force two conductors to oscillate so excessively that they contact one another. This contact can result in arcing (sparks) that could ignite nearby vegetation. Aging, failing equipment increases the risk of system failures and faults.

The Project would update and install new electrical line equipment, reducing the risk of a system failure or line fault due to aging equipment. While the proposed Project would result in additional overhead electrical lines, the increase in risk of ignition associated with the additional line would be minimal relative to baseline conditions and the Project is not located in an area of high wildfire risk. Operation and main - tenance activities would be incorporated into SVP’s existing O&M schedule for its existing transmission lines, substations, and associated facilities. As with current operations and maintenance, SVP would com- ply with all current federal and State laws related to vegetation clearance and fire prevention, reducing wildfire risks. Impacts from wildfire risk during operations and maintenance would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.20. WILDFIRE

SEPTEMBER 2024 5.20-4 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

(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? L
ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Project includes construction of a new transmission line. Most activi - ties associated with the proposed Project would occur along existing transmission line ROWs in an urban area and would rely primarily on existing paved roads for access. No fuel breaks or emergency water sources would be required. None of the new transmission lines would be within a wildfire risk area.

Operation and maintenance activities would be incorporated into SVP’s existing O&M schedule for its existing transmission lines, substations, and associated facilities. As with current operations and mainte- nance, SVP would comply with all current federal and State laws related to vegetation clearance and fire prevention. No additional infrastructure that has not been considered would be installed, and no additional fire risk impacts would occur because of operating and maintaining the Project. (d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or down - stream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? L
ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The P roject would not create occupied structures and thus could not expose residents to increased fire risk. The proposed Project is situated in an urban area with flat topography and low fuel load. During construction, there would be ground disturbance at the pole structure locations and, if sections of the line are buried, along the trench. T he proposed Project would use up to two staging areas, each approximately one acre, in areas that are already disturbed. As with current operations and maintenance, SVP would comply with all current regulations related to vegetation clearance and fire prevention. Given the low fire risk in a flat area with no known historic landslides or slope instability and the limited amount of surface disturbance proposed, the exposure of people or structures to risks as a result of runoff, post fire slope instability, or drainage changes would be less than significant.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.21. CORONA AND INDUCED CURRENT EFFECTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 5.21-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

5.21. Corona and Induced Current Effects

5.21.1. Environmental Setting

5.21.1.1. Corona
Corona is one of the phenomena associated with all energized electrical devices, including high voltage transmission lines. The localized electric field near a conductor can be sufficiently concentrated to ionize air close to the conductors. This can result in a partial discharge of electrical energy called a corona discharge, or corona. The corona effect is the physical manifestation of discharged electrical energy into very small amounts of sound, radio noise, heat, and chemical reactions with air components. It is a phenomenon associated with all energized electrical devices but is especially common with high-voltage power lines.

The amount of corona produced by a power line is a function of several factors, including line voltage, conductor diameter, conductor locations in relation to each other, condition of conductors and hardware, and local weather conditions including power line elevation above sea level. Corona typically becomes a design concern for 230 kV and higher power lines that are overhead (i.e., transmission lines on poles or towers). It is less noticeable for lines that are operated at lower voltages (i.e., subtransmission and distribution- sized lines). The electric field gradient is greatest at the conductor surface. Larger -diameter conductors have lower electric field gradients at the conductor surface and, therefore, lower corona noise than smaller- diameter conductors. The corona effect would not be a design concern for underground portions of power lines, regardless of voltage level, because the energized conductors are fully enclosed in a semi-conducting layer within insulated cables that serve to equalize the electrical gradient at the surface of the components.

5.21.1.2. Induced Currents
Electric currents can be induced in metallic objects located within the electric fields created by power lines. An electric current can flow when an object has an induced charge and a path to ground is present.

The amount of induced current that can flow is important to evaluate from a safety perspective because of the potential for electrical shocks to people and the possibility of electric arcs that could form across small gaps between conductive surfaces. These arcs can have the secondary effect of igniting flammable materials in the vicinity of the arc. In addition, induced currents are evaluated for their potential to lead to corrosion of metallic objects from the discharge of the induced current to ground.

From a safety perspective, the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) specifies that transmission lines be designed to limit short circuit current from vehicles or large objects near the line to no more than 5 milliampere (mA). The NESC also addresses shock hazards to the public by providing guidelines on mini- mum clearances to be maintained for practical safeguarding of persons during the installation, operation, or maintenance of overhead transmission lines and their associated equipment.

5.21.2. Environmental Impacts and Assessment
Concerns about project interference with existing businesses and future development in the area were raised during scoping. The CEQA Guidelines do not provide significance criteria for evaluating impacts from corona or induced current effects. Corona and induced current from high voltage power lines can cause environmental impacts through:
 Audible noise
 Radio and television interference
 Computer interference
 Disturbance of cardiac pacemakers
 Ignition of flammable materials
 Corrosion of buried metallic objects
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.21. CORONA AND INDUCED CURRENT EFFECTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 5.21-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

The proposed Project involves construction of a new 115 kV transmission line, relocation of existing distri- bution power lines and/or telecommunication lines along some segments of the new 115 kV transmission line, and minor modifications at two existing substations affected by the Project. The audible corona noise level caused by the 115 kV power line was not quantified. However, circuits operating at 115 kV typic- ally cause noise at levels comparable to the ambient baseline noise levels in the vicinity of the line. Although the Proposed Project would be constructed to accommodate a 230 kV line, it would be operated at 115 kV.

If, in the future, the line was to be upgraded to 230 kV, corona may become a concern. The applicant has proposed to install corona rings on all insulators to prevent future corona impacts. Therefore, the impact of audible noise from the corona effect would be less than significant.

Although corona can generate high frequency energy that may interfere with broadcast signals or electronic equipment, this is generally not a problem for transmission or lower voltage power lines. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) has published a design guide (IEEE, 1971) that is used to limit conductor surface gradients so as to avoid corona levels that would cause electronic interference. Corona or gap discharges related to high frequency radio and television interference impacts are dependent upon several factors, including the strength of broadcast signals, and are anticipated to be very localized if they occur. Individual sources of adverse radio/television interference impacts can be located and corrected on the power lines. Conversely, magnetic field interference with electronic equipment such as computer monitors can be corrected through the use of software, shielding or changes at the monitor location. As a result, impacts from corona, radio/television interference, and magnetic field interference would be less than significant.

Induced currents and voltages on conducting objects near the proposed power lines would not pose a threat in the environment if the conducting objects are properly grounded. Project construction and operation would be done in accordance with SVP’s existing inspection and maintenance program and safety practices. Likewise, induced currents would not increase the risk of fuel ignition in the area.

The electric fields associated with high voltage transmission lines may be of sufficient magnitude to impact operation of a few older model pacemakers resulting in them reverting to an asynchronous pacing (IEEE, 1979). Substantial adverse effects would not occur with prolonged asynchronous pacing; periods of operation in this mode are commonly induced by cardiologists to check pacemaker performance. There- fore, while the transmission line’s electric field may impact operation of some older model pacemakers, the result of the interference would be of short duration and is not considered significant or harmful. No mitigation measures would be required or recommended.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

SEPTEMBER 2024 5.22-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

5.22. Mandatory Findings of Significance
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(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 p lant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate impor- tant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effec ts of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(c) Does the project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. (a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, sub - stantially 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? L
ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION. The proposed Project would be in a highly urbanized area of the City. Project components would be within existing substations in existing roads , or within or adjacent to the public right-of-way. Little vegetation would be affected. Some trees may be removed to accommodate poles and conductors, and other trees would be trimmed. Adjacent properties along the Project include maintained landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs, and grass. As described in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, there are no special-st atus plants or animals in the Project area due to the lack of habitat in such a highly urbanized environment. The Project is not expected to result in impacts to habitats that support sensitive species. However, some special-status birds may use the Project vicinity for foraging, although the habitat is marginal and the potential for occurrence of these species is very low. - Implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-5 would reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels.

Similarly, Section 5.5 (Cultural Resources) and Section 5.18 (Tribal Cultural Resources) show that the Project would have a less than significant impact to important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The records search indicates that no prehistoric cultural resources have been previously identified in the project area. However, as described in Section 5.5 (Cultural Resources) and Section 5.18 (Tribal Cultural Resources), the proposed Project could have an adverse effect on previously undiscovered cultural or tribal cultural resources. With implementation of mitigation measures MM CR1, MM CR-2, and MM TCR-1 for unanticipated discoveries of archaeological and historical resources or human remains- and mitigation measures MM G -2 for paleontological resources, impacts would be less than significant, and the Project would not eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

SEPTEMBER 2024 5.22-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

(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, effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION. CEQA defines a cumulative impact as an effect that is created as a result of the combination of the proposed Project together with other projects (past, present, or future) causing related impacts. Cumulative impacts of a project need to be evaluated when the project’s incre - mental effect is cumulatively considerable and, therefore, potentially significant. The proposed Project is planned for construction from November 2026 through March 2028. Once constructed, the Project would have little to no environmental impacts except for maintenance.

Two projects identified from the Planning Department’s current project list are within 0.25 miles of the proposed Project. The projects are in the application stage and were reviewed to identify whether the NRS-KRS project could contribute to cumulatively significant impacts when evaluated in combination with these projects. The projects are:
 4220 Network Circle – Involving demolition of existing structures and r edevelopment of a 38-acre site near Lafayette Street and Montague Expressway with 584 housing units, open space, and parking.

Status as of May 2024: Pending Review.
 960 Central Expressway – Involving demolition of existing warehousing and loading docks and construc- tion of three buildings for warehousing and/or datacenter uses. Status as of May 2024: Pending Review.

As discussed in Sections 5.1 through 5.21 potential impacts of the proposed Project would occur during construction, with few, if any, operational effects. Because the construction-related impacts of the Project would be temporary and localized, they would have the potential to combine with similar impacts of other projects only if they occur at the same time and in close proximity. The cumulative temporary and localized impacts of the construction of the proposed Project are considered by issue area below. The potential construction period for the two identified projects is unknown, as they have not yet undergone review and approval. Also, actual construction initiation and duration often varies from what is initially anticipated as a result of unforeseen circumstances including market conditions and availability of finan- cing among others. In the future, applications may be submitted for other unknown projects in the vicinity of the Project and may overlap with the Project construction period. Because the area is built out , any projects would be reconstruction or construction of replacement land uses on already occupied sites.

Given the built-out nature of the Project vicinity and the capacity of existing thoroughfares, there would be no post- construction impacts from the p roposed Project that would have the potential to combine with impacts from the projects listed.

The 4220 Network Circle application was filed in March 2024. To date, no hearings have been scheduled and CEQA review has not begun. If construction of the Network Circle proposed project were to coincide with that of the proposed NRS -KRS Project, both projects would use 4 -lane Layette Street and 6 -lane Montague Expressway for access to work areas. The Network Circle project site is close to Montague Expressway and construction related traffic using the Expressway to Lafayette Street would be on Lafayette Street for 500 feet from the west bound Expressway exit and 1,000 feet from the east bound exit. Thereafter, traffic would be within the project site on the former Agnew State Hospital property.

Construction traffic could also access the work site using Lafayette Street from the north. Construction of the NRS-KRS transmission line Project would be on Lafayette Street in the vicinity of the Network Circle project, and would be relatively short term – requiring installation of pole foundations approximately 350 feet apart, installation of tubular steel transmission poles, and stringing of conductor.

For the 960 Central Expressway project, the Notice of Preparation of an EIR and of a scoping meeting was published in December 2021. To date, the EIR has not been prepared. The Central Expressway proposed NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

SEPTEMBER 2024 5.22-3 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

project is proposed at the southwest corner of the intersection of Central Expressway and Lafayette Street, south of KRS. It is expected that construction related traffic for the Central Expressway project would be primarily on Central Expressway with some traffic on Lafayette Street. The NRS-KRS Project would enter KRS north of the Expressway with most of the Project south of Highway 101 within SVP property. It is unknown if the projects would overlap during construction.

Aesthetics. Potential views of the proposed Project are limited by the existing structures, walls, and vegetation along the alignment. NRS and KRS are behind screening walls and set back from nearby roads.

These facilities are already visual elements of the local urba n setting and viewscape, and the continued urbanization of the area is the likely trend for the foreseeable future with little change in its overall visual character. The impacts from the construction of the Project would be minimal because the work would be temporary in nature. The proposed Project represents only a relatively minor incremental change in cumulative conditions given the urban nature of the location and the presence of existing features similar to the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project’s visual effects are less than significant and are not considerable enough to represent a significant cumulative impact.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources. There is no agricultural activity at the site or any of the cumulative project sites. The Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts to agriculture and forestry resources.

Air Quality. Air emissions would occur during construction of the proposed Project. Emissions would include criteria air pollutants that could contribute to existing or projected violations of the ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM10. Other pollutants resulting from construction activities are accounted for in emissions inventories for regional air quality maintenance plans and would not impede attainment or maintenance of ambient air quality standards. Foundation excavation and other constructi on-related activities could potentially expose sensitive receptors to construction-related emissions, including emissions of fugitive dust and DPM, which could expose the receptors to increased health risk and hazards. These would occur only during construction and would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measure MM AQ-1 (Implement Basic Construction Air Quality Mitigation). Any potential adverse cumula- tive air quality impacts would be short -term (lasting for the duration of construction) and would not be cumulatively considerable; therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant. The operation and maintenance emissions (e.g., limited vehicle use) would be less than the emissions during construc - tion activities and also less than the significance thresholds.

Concurrent construction of other projects in close proximity to the proposed Project would result in increased local air quality impacts for the duration of simultaneous construction activities. However, simul- taneous construction projects would also need to comply with BAAQMD rules and regulations regarding criteria pollutants. Any potential adverse cumulative air quality impacts would be short -term (lasting for the duration of construction) and would not be cumulatively considerable; therefore, the cumula tive impact would be less than significant.

Biological Resources. The proposed Project and the cumulative projects are located within an urbanized area and near busy roadways. The proposed Project area contains no habitat for special -status plant species and limited habitat suitable for most special -status wildlife species unless they are adapted to urban environments. However, if present within or adjacent to the proposed Project area, the proposed Project could result in direct or indirect impacts to special-status wildlife species. These impacts would be avoided or minimized with the implementation of Mitigation Measures (MMs) BIO-1 through BIO-5.

As described in Section 4 Project Description and in Appendix D, some vegetation and tree removal or tree trimming may be required for pole installation and vehicle access and to minimize the risk of fire by providing clearance between conductors and trees. Implementation of MM BIO-6 will ensure the proposed Project complies with the local policies and ordinances by following the tree protection requirements and recommendations of the City arborist.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

SEPTEMBER 2024 5.22-4 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

The Project would not represent a significant contribution to cumulative impacts. Given the built-up nature of the City, other cumulative projects in the vicinity have limited biological resources. Impacts to biological resources during operation and maintenance of the NRS -KRS Project would be less than significant, therefore, no contribution to cumulative impacts would occur.

Cultural Resources. There are no known historical or unique archaeological resources identified within the proposed Project area; however, previously unknown buried historical resources or human remains could be discovered and damaged, or destroyed, during ground disturbing work. Short-term construction activities and operation and maintenance activities would not significantly affect any unknown cultural or paleontological resources or human remains with the implementation of mitigation measures MM CR -1 (Worker Training and Management of Unanticipated Discoveries of Historical Resources, Unique Archaeo- logical Resources) and MM CR-2 (Treatment of Human Remains), as discussed in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources. No cultural resources would be affected during Project construction or during operation of the Project, and no contribution to cumulative impacts would occur.

Energy. Construction activities would consume nonrenewable energy resources to power construction equipment and vehicles. The short- term use of fuels by equipment and motor vehicle trips during con - struction would be necessary to install the transmission line. The energy used by the Project during construction and operation would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary considering the new facilities that would increase system reliability and pow er deliverability. The proposed Project would not conflict with any state or local plan for prioritizing renewable energy or energy efficiency, and there would be no considerable contribution to a cumulative impact associated with energy.

Geology and Soils. As discussed in Section 5.7, the proposed Project would be located in an area mapped as likely to experience strong ground shaking, including ground shaking that could result in liquefac tion- related phenomena. Projects in the vicinity of the NRS-KRS Project would also be located in areas mapped as likely to experience strong ground shaking potentially combining to expose people or structures to potential significant cumulative impacts. All construction would be required to comply with building code standards that take into account effects of seismic events. For the proposed Project, implementation of mitigation measure MM G-1 (Conduct Geotechnical Investigations), which would ensure that Project design would reduce the potential for geologic and seismic hazards, such as liquefaction and expansive soils. The Project would not increase potential risks associated with seismic events or other geologic hazards. Short- term construction impacts to soils, including unstable so ils, have the potential to occur; however, final geotechnical recommendations would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level and the proposed Project impacts are not considerable enough to represent a significant cumulative impact. Adherence to similar design and engineering standards, which are applicable to the identified cumulative projects, ensure that their cumulative impacts to geology and soils would also be less than significant.

There is a limited potential for paleontological resources to occur on the site. Mitigation measure MM G-2 (Work Training and Management of Unanticipated Discoveries of Paleontological Resources) would ensure any potential impacts are less than significant and would not contribute to a cumula tively considerable impact.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Because the direct environmental effect of GHG emissions is to influence global climate change, GHG emissions are by their nature inherently a cumulative concern with a cumula- tively global scope. Project-specific GHG emissions would occur from the burning of fuels required by construction equipment and vehicles during construction activities. Primary GHG emissions during con - struction are associated with CO
2 from the combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel in equipment and vehicles. CH4 and N2O are also emitted from fuel combustion but at rates of less than 1 percent of the mass of CO2 combustion emissions. Construction-related emissions would be distributed over 14 months (for Option 1). These estimated levels would not exceed the threshold level of 25,000 metric tons per year for annual mandatory reporting of GHGs.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

SEPTEMBER 2024 5.22-5 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

GHG emissions from operation and maintenance would be minimal, as the transmission line would require only infrequent maintenance. The minor quantity of GHG emissions created during construction and for operation and maintenance would not be a cumulatively considerable impact.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The use of hazardous materials for the Project would be minimal during construction and operation. Hazardous materials would be stored and used in compliance with applicable regulations. Minor spills or releases of hazardous materials could occur due to up set or improper handling and/or storage practices during construction activities. Impacts from routine use, transportation, disposal, and accidental spillage of hazardous materials would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measure MM HM-1 (Hazardous Substance Control and Emergency Response) discussed in Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; no contribution to cumulative impacts would occur.

Hydrology and Water Quality. The Project would not change existing drainage patterns along the route, which is covered primarily with impervious surfaces. The proposed Project would require minimal water for dust control and concrete during construction. Dewatering during foundation excavation for poles is possible, but not anticipated. In the event that dewatering is necessary, the water would be pumped out and treated and encountered groundwater would be tested to meet requirements set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Implementation of Mitigation measures MM HYD -1 (SWPPP or Erosion Control Plan Development and Implementation) and MM HM-1 (Hazardous Substance Control and Emergency Response) would ensure that erosion, sedimentation, or an accidental spill would not signifi- cantly affect water quality. With imple mentation of this mitigation, the Project’s hydrology and water quality impacts are less than significant and are not considerable enough to represent a significant cumulative impact.

Land Use. The proposed Project would be consistent with the policies of the City General Plan. In addition, the proposed Project, as well as the cumulative projects, are required to minimize any impacts to state and federally listed species and/or habitats through c ompliance with CEQA, the federal ESA, the CESA, and/or applicable local habitat conservation plans. The Project would, therefore, not conflict with applica- ble land use policies and regulations and would not contribute to cumulative impacts to land use.

Mineral Resources. No commercial mineral resources are known to exist within the proposed Project site or vicinity. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The Project would not contribute to potential cumulative impacts that may result in the loss of mineral resources.

Noise. The proposed Project is not expected to contribute to a long-term cumulative impact on ambient noise levels in the area. Noise from construction activities would be audible to nearby residents and businesses, but construction would be limited to daytime hours and would be short -term. The nearest sensitive receptors, residents, are located just over 100 feet from the proposed transmission line route at their nearest. It is assumed that the cumulative projects would also be constructed during daytime. There would be a limited potential for the projects to have overlapping construction schedules for an extended duration that could result in substantial levels of combined construction noise. These projects are not likely to combine with noise generated from the construction of the Project to create significant adverse effects since noise reduces rapidly with distance.

Population and Housing. The proposed Project would not result in impacts to population and housing.

During its construction, the Project would provide short-term jobs for a small workforce. Construction workers would be contracted workers from the region. These jobs are not anticipated to result in workers relocating to the area. The Project would not displace any existing hous ing or people. The proposed Pro- ject, combined with the cumulative projects will have the potential to increase the population in the area due to increased job or housing opportunities. The proposed Project itself can facilitate future planned growth by ensuring a reliable and flexible electricity grid in the area. While the development of these NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

SEPTEMBER 2024 5.22-6 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

properties may induce some population growth, this has already been accounted for through the General Plan for the City. The NRS -KRS Project is proposed to increase system reliability and to serve planned growth in the area. The Project’s population and housing impacts would be less than significant and are not considerable enough to represent a significant cumulative impact.

Public Services. The proposed Project would not interrupt fire or police protection services, schools, access to public parks, or other public facilities nor would it require the construction of new public service facilities. The completion of the projects in the vicinity may have the potential to also increase the demand for public services and public facilities, including schools, parks, and fire and police protection. However, impacts from the proposed Project on public services would be incremental and would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact.

Recreation. Although some workers may use nearby park facilities during Project construction; increased use would be minimal and temporary and would not contribute substantially to the physical deterioration of existing facilities. The cumulative projects also have the potential to increase use of park facilities, but the increased use would also be minimal. The projects would have less than significant effects on recreation and would not contribute to cumulative effects associated with other projects.

Transportation. Construction would occur in a highly urbanized setting and would therefore create temporary impacts to traffic volumes, road hazards, and emergency access in the project area. Some road closures and/or one-way traffic controls would be required to allow for certain construction activities and to maintain public safety. While construction would create impacts, these impacts would be localized, temporary in nature, and would not change long-term traffic loads or patterns. Impacts due to traffic and temporary lane closures as a result of the construction of the proposed Project would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measure MM T1 (Construction Traffic Control Plan) discussed in Section 5.17, Transportation and Traffic.

Impacts from the proposed Project, combined with construction of the cumulative projects would have the potential to cum ulatively impact transportation and traffic in the surrounding area; however, the construction schedules of the Projects and that of the proposed Project would be variable. The potential for the planned and current projec ts in the vicinity to require lane closures simultaneously would be a remote possibility and would be limited in duration and location. Adherence to mitigation measure MM T-1 (Construction Traffic Control Plan) would ensure that the proposed Project’s cumulative impacts to traffic and transportation would be incremental, short-term, and less than significant.

Tribal Cultural Resources. There are no known Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) listed in, or are known to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or local register of historical resources within the proposed Project site or surrounding ar ea. However, it is possible that pre viously unidentified TCRs that may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR or local registers could be discovered and damaged, or destroyed, during ground disturbance, which would constitute a significant impact absent mitigation. Implementation of mitigation measure MM TCR -1 (Management of Unan ticipated Tribal Cultural Resources), discussed in Section 5.18 (Tribal Cultural Resources), would ensure evaluation and protection of unanticipated TCR discoveries. Adherence to this mitigation measure would ensure that no tribal cultural resources would be affected during Project construction or during operation of the Project, and no contribution to cumulative impacts would occur.

Utilities and Service Systems. The construction of the proposed Project would generate minimal demand for water or wastewater treatment. Construction would require the disposal of a less than significant amount of all types of waste. No expanded utility facilities or services would be needed for the Project and use and disposal of all water and waste products would comply with all applicable laws and regulations. Operation and maintenance of the proposed Project would not require any dema nd for water or wastewater treatment. Therefore, a less than significant contribution to cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems would occur.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

SEPTEMBER 2024 5.22-7 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Wildfire. The construction of the Proposed Project would require temporary lane closures. The potential for the planned and cur rent projects in the vicinity to require lane closures simultaneously would be a remote possibility and would be limited in duration and location. Implementation of MM T- 1 (Construc- tion Traffic Control Plan) would ensure that at least one lane of travel would remain open. Since the Proposed Project is not located in or near a very high fire hazard severity zone and is in an urban area with flat topography and low fuel load, the risk of wildfire is low. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would be unstaffed and would require only occasional maintenance with a small crew. The Proposed Project would be installing new electrical line equipment, which would reduce the risk of system failure due to aging equipment, which would reduce the cumulative fire risk for the area. Therefore, a less than significant contribution to cumulative impacts to wildfire would occur.

Corona and Induced Current Effects. None of the planned or current projects in the vicinity of the proposed Project would be sensitive to corona or induced current effects. The proposed Project will not contribute to a cumulative impact to corona and induced current effects. (c) Does the project have environmental effects, which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
L
ESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION. The proposed Project would not substantially adversely affect human beings directly or indirectly. The Initial Study identified no environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Adverse effects would be mitigated by implemen tation of mitigation measures and, in most instances, would be short -term construction period impacts. Each type of impact with the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings has been evalu - ated, and this Initial Study concludes that all of these potential impacts are either less than significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of measures presented herein. (See Section 6, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, for a complete listing of the mitigation measures.) Therefore, the proposed Project does not involve any activities, either during construction or operation, which would cause significant adverse effects on human beings that cannot be readily miti - gated to a less than signi ficant level. The proposed operation and maintenance activities would be the same as current operation and maintenance practices for the existing substations and existing SVP trans- mission lines, which have minimal impacts on human beings. The potential beneficial effects of the project include improving the reliability and capacity of the existing transmission system in the City.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

SEPTEMBER 2024 6-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

6. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be used by the City of Santa Clara and SVP to ensure that the mitigation measures adopted as a condition of project approval are implemented.

The MMRP is consistent with CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15074(d), 15091(d), and 15097) for the implementation of mitigation.

SVP will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures presented in Table 6-1. SVP will designate specific personnel to implement and document all aspects of the MMRP. SVP will ensure that the designated personnel have authority to enforce mitigation requirements and will be capable of terminating Project construction activities found to be inconsistent with mitigation objectives.

Additionally, SVP will be responsible for ensuring that construction personnel understand their respon - sibility to adhere to the MMRP requirements and other contractual requirements related to the implementation of mitigation.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

SEPTEMBER 2024 6-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Table 6-1. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Requirement
Timing of
Action
Air Quality
Construction-
Phase Air
Quality
MM AQ -1. Implement Basic Construction Air Quality Mitigation. The Project shall ensure that basic construction emissions control measures are implemented as “Best Management Practices,” as follows:
 All exposed soil surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, and graded areas) shall be watered two times per day.
 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All areas to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Foundation pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading.
 Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage regarding idling shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
 Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at SVP regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Emissions from
construction equip-
ment exhaust are
reduced
During
construction
Biological Resources
Special Status
Wildlife Species
MM BIO-1. Implement Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to and for the duration of any vegetation removal and trimming and any ground disturbing activities, SVP or its designee shall provide Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training to all new personnel prior to beginning work on the Project. The training may be presented in the form of a video. The training program shall be developed by a qualified biologist to educate Project personnel about the Pro ject’s sensitive biological resources. The name and credentials of the qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City no less than 14 days prior to the surveys for review and approval. A draft of the training program (i.e., video and written materials) shall be submitted to the City no less than 14 days prior for approval prior to imple - mentation. The WEAP shall include, at a minimum:

Monitor
implementation of
specified biological
monitor activities
Prior to and
during
construction
Special Status
Wildlife Species
MM BIO-2. Biological Monitoring. SVP or its designee shall retain a qualified biologist as biological moni- tor on the Project, to be approved by the City. If sensitive biological resources are identified during preconstruction surveys or incidentally, the qualified biologist will monitor Project work locations in proxi- mity to sensitive biological resources weekly until biological resources are not found for one consecutive month, at which point weekly monitoring will cease. The qualified biologist shall be notified immediately if any nesting birds or other biological resources are discovered once construction begins. The qualified Monitor sensitive
biological resources
if identified during
preconstruction
survey
Prior to and
during
construction
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

SEPTEMBER 2024 6-3 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Requirement
Timing of
Action
biologist will be the point of contact for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a special-status species or anyone who finds a dead, injured, or entrapped animal. The qualified biologist or biological monitor shall have the authority and responsibility to halt any Project activities that are not in compliance with applicable mitigation measures, permit conditions, or other Project requirements, or will have an unauthorized adverse effect on biological resources.

Special Status
Wildlife Species
MM BIO -3. Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Special -Status Wildlife and Implement Avoidance Measures. A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for each of the species identified below. These surveys can be combined if they meet the requirements outlined in this measure. The name and credentials of the qualified biologist shall be submi tted to the City no less than 14 days prior to the surveys for review and approval. Within 14 days of completion of the surveys, the City shall be provided with a report describing the findings, including the date, time, and duration of the surveys; identity of the surveyor(s); a list of all common and special -status species observed; locations of any special -status species identified, including any established avoidance buffers; and any actions taken at the direction of the City in coordination with CDFW, and/or USFWS.

Bumble Bee: A preconstruction survey for Crotch’s bumble bee and western bumble bee shall be con- ducted during the colony active period for each species (April through August) prior to project vegetation management and ground disturbing activities. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified entomologist or biologist familiar with the life history an d ecology of special -status bumble bee species. The precon - struction survey for special-status bumble bees shall focus on the ruderal habitat within the utility right - of-way adjacent to the Northern Receiving Station and landscaped and ruderal land at the Montague Expressway interchange. The survey shall identify any potential foraging, nesting, and/or overwintering resources present within the Project work are as and a 50-foot buffer where legal access is available. If a potential active special-status bumble bee nest site is identified, a 50-foot avoidance buffer shall be clearly delineated with staking, flagging, and/or signage and Project activities will be p rohibited from the area until it is determined that the nest is no longer potentially active. The qualified biologist shall notify the City for coordination with CDFW within 24 hours as further coordination may be required to avoid or mitigate impacts.

Burrowing Owl. No later than seven days prior to start of project vegetation management and ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl. The survey shall include the focus areas (described below) plus a 25 0-foot buffer where legal access is avail - able. The survey for burrowing owl shall focus on the ruderal habitat described for bumble bees above. If burrows or other structures are identified that contain signs of use by burrowing owl, or if burrowing owl(s) is observed, an avoidance buffer area shall be clearly delineated with staking, flagging, and/or signage. If during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a 250-foot avoidance buffer shall be estab- lished, and Project activities will be prohibited from the area until a qualified biologist deter mines it is occupied either by a non-mated pair or the young have fledged. If outside the nesting season, a 160-foot avoidance buffer shall be established. The prescribed buffers may be adjusted by the quali fied avian biologist in coordination with the City and CDFW based on existing conditions around the burrow, planned construction activities, tolerance of the species at a given location, and other pertinent factors.

If avoidance of burrowing owls is not feasible and work will be conducted outside the nesting season, a Burrowing Owl Passive Relocation Plan shall be developed to provide detailed methods and guidance for passive relocation of burrowing owls. The Burrowin g Owl Passive Relocation Plan shall be submitted to Monitor
implementation of
specified biological
monitor activities
and implement
avoidance measures
Prior to and
during
construction
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

SEPTEMBER 2024 6-4 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Requirement
Timing of
Action
the City for approval in coordination with CDFW prior to conducting passive relocation. An occupied burrow may not be disturbed during the nesting season, unless a qualified biologist determines, by non - invasive methods, that it is not occupied by a mated pair. Passive relocation would include installation of one-way doors on burrow entrances that would let owls out of the burrow but would not let them back in. Once owls have been passively relocated, burrows will be carefully excavated by hand and collapse d by, or under the direct supervision, of a qualified biologist.

Within 14 days of completion of the surveys, the City shall be provided with a report describing the findings, including the date, time, and duration of the surveys; identity of the surveyor(s); any established avoidance buffers in the event burrowing owls are documented to be present; and any actions taken at the direction of the City and/or CDFW.

Western Pond Turtle: No later than seven days prior to start of project vegetation management and ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for western pond turtle. The survey for western pond turtle shall focus on the ruderal habitat within the utility right-of-way southeast adjacent to the Northern Receiving Station.

Western pond turtle or other special-status wildlife found within the Project site during the surveys shall be allowed to leave on its own volition prior to the onset of construction. If species of special concern are found within the Project site during s urveys and will not leave on its own volition, the species will be relocated to the nearest suitable habitat outside of the Project site. Species of special concern will only be handled by qualified personnel as authorized by CDFW and/or USFWS under an issued state scientific collecting permit (SCP), memorandum of understanding (MOU), or federal recovery permit. Impacts to federally or state -listed species or state -listing candidate species are not authorized. If any State or federally listed, candidate, or proposed species are detected work will be stopped and the applicant shall notify the City for coordination with CDFW and or USFWS, within 24-hours for further direction.

Special Status
Wildlife Species
MM BIO -4. Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys and Nest Protection. During the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) If Project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors) , preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted on the site and vicinity by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days before any work activities, including any vegetation removal or trimming, are performed at a given Project location. The surveys shall be conducted following the sequential schedule of the linear Project in a manner that minimizes potential for the surveys to expire before the construction crews proceed to a new Project work location. The survey radii surrounding the work area shall be 250 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. Surveyors will search for all potential nest types (e.g., ground, cavity, shrub/tree, structural, etc.) and determine whether the nest is active. A nest will be determined to be active if eggs or young are present in the nest. Upon discovery of active nest s, the biological monitor will determine if there is need for a buffer or shield to minimize disturbance of the nest. Upon this deter mination and execution of any required minimization action, work may proceed. The extent of the determination will be based upon: acclimation of the species or individual to disturbance, nest type (cavity, tree, ground, etc.), and level and duration of construction activity. If there is a break in construction at a work location for a period of 14 or more days during nesting season, a new nesting bird survey shall be undertaken before construction is allowed to commence at that location to determine if any nests have been established. Bird surveys are not required outside of the nesting season.

Monitor
implementation of
measures to protect
nesting bids
During nesting
season; prior
to and during
construction
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

SEPTEMBER 2024 6-5 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Requirement
Timing of
Action
In the unlikely event a special -status or listed species is found nesting nearby, CDFW and USFWS will be notified, and the City will be provided with nest survey results, if requested. When active nests are identified, monitoring for significant disturbance to the birds will be implemented. Construction will not be allowed to continue unless the qualified biologist determines that no disturbance is occurring.

Special Status
Wildlife Species
MM BIO-5. Preconstruction Bat Survey and Implement Avoidance Measures. A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for special -status bats during the appropriate time of day to maximize detectability to determine if bat species are roosting in trees or other vegetation requiring removal or clearance pruning for the Project. The name and credentials of the qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City no less than 14 days prior to the surveys for review and approval. The survey shall occur no less than 7 days and no more than 14 days prior to beginning tree or other vegetation removal or trimming activities. Survey methodology may include visual surveys for bats (e.g., observation of bats emerging from roosts to forage), inspection for suitable roost hab itat, bat sign (e.g, guano), or use of ultrasonic detectors (e.g., Anabat, etc). Visual surveys shall include all trees or other vegetation requiring removal or clearance pruning for the Project.

If evidence of bat use is observed, the approximate number and species of bats using the roost shall be determined. Bat detectors may be used to supplement survey efforts.

If roosts or a maternity colony are determined to be present, then a Bat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Plan) shall be prepared and implemented to mitigate for the loss of roosting habitat. The Plan shall include information pertaining to the species of bat and location of the roost, exclusion methods and roost removal procedures, compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts (including specific mitigation ratios and location of proposed mitigation) and monitoring to assess bat use of mitigation areas. This Plan shall be submitted to the City and CDFW for review and approval prior to project activities that could disturb roosting bats.

Monitor
implementation of
bat survey and
avoidance measures
Prior to and
during
construction
Compliance with
Local Tree Policies
and Ordinances
MM BIO-6. Tree Protection Measures for Retained Trees. To minimize the potential damage and ensure the long-term health, stability, and survival of retained trees, measures outlined in the Tree Protection Plan below shall be implemented:

Tree Protection Zone
 A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be defined by the City Arborist or City designated ISA Certified Arborist for all trees within 50 feet of any excavations that could be affected by project activities and are intended for preservation. A TPZ will not be established for trees within the Project area that are not within this excavation zone. TPZ will be taken down once excavation work is completed within 50 feet. A TPZ will typically include all area within the dripline of trees to be retained.  The TPZ will be protected by a fenced enclosure to prevent unauthorized access during project activi - ties. Fencing shall be constructed of sturdy but open material (i.e., orange webbed construction fencing, chain-link) with a minimum height of 4 feet and secured in place. Warning signs (e.g. WARNING – Tree Protection Zone – This fence shall not be moved without approval by the City Arborist or a City designated arborist) shall be prominently displayed and visible from all sides of the TPZ fencing.  TPZ fencing shall be installed prior to any demolition, grading, staging, stockpiling, or any other con- struction activities, and shall remain in place until all construction activities are complete.

Monitor
implementation of
tree protection
measures
Prior to and
during
construction
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

SEPTEMBER 2024 6-6 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Requirement
Timing of
Action
 No construction, staging, or storage of materials, equipment or vehicles shall occur within the TPZ with- out advanced approval and oversight by the City Arborist or a City designated ISA Certified Arborist.  No excess soil, excess concrete or concrete wash, chemicals, refuse or other waste shall be placed within the TPZ.
 The primary contractor shall be responsible for maintaining TPZ fencing and enforcing all TPZ guidelines outlined above throughout the course of the Project.

Site Grading, Excavation, and Trenching
 Soil disturbance or grade changes within a TPZ are not permitted unless approved by the City Arborist or a City designated arborist. Any approved grading, excavation or trench work within a TPZ will be field staked and inspected by the City Arborist or a C ity designated ISA Certified Arborist prior to implementation.
 All grading, excavation and trenching work within a TPZ shall be performed under the observation of a City Arborist or City designated ISA Certified Arborist.  All grading shall be designed to provide positive drainage away from the base of trees to be preserved and shall not create ponding within a TPZ.
 Grade changes in the vicinity of trees to be preserved should remain as close to natural grade as possible.

Canopy Pruning
 To the extent possible, any necessary canopy pruning shall be completed prior to the commencement of construction activities.
 Pruning shall be performed by a qualified tree service worker under the direction of a ISA Certified Arborist following International Society of Arboriculture tree pruning best management practices.

Pruning shall not be performed by construction personnel.

Root Pruning
 Any roots one inch and larger requiring removal shall be cut cleanly in sound tissue. No pruning seals or paint shall be used on wounds.
 Roots two inches and greater shall remain in place and undamaged to the extent practicable. If removal is required, cuts shall be made with the approval and under the direction of an ISA Certified Arborist.

Communication for Tree Protection Compliance
 A preconstruction meeting shall be arranged for the City Arborist or City designated ISA Certified Arborist to meet with the Project Planner, Project Contractors, Onsite Project Supervisors, Tree Pruning and Removal Contractor, and/or other appropriate Project Leads to review and secure a commitment to comply with all tree protection measures.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

SEPTEMBER 2024 6-7 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Requirement
Timing of
Action
Cultural Resources
Unanticipated
Discoveries of
Historical
Resources or
Unique
Archaeological
Resources
MM CR-1. Worker Training and Management of Unanticipated Discoveries of Historical Resources, Unique Archaeological Resources. SVP shall conduct a worker environmental awareness program (WEAP) for Project personnel who, during the course of Project work, might encounter or alter historical resources or important/unique archaeological materials. This program may be combined with a ny similar required program, such as for biological resources. The WEAP may include a kickoff tailgate session that describes how to identify cultural resources and what to do if an unanticipated dis covery is made during construc- tion, presents site avoidance requirements and pro cedures to be followed if unantici pated cultural resources are discovered during Project construction, and includes a discussion of disciplinary and other actions that could be taken against persons violating historic preservation laws and SVP policies.

If previously unidentified cultural resources are identified during con struction, construction work within 100 feet of the find shall be halted and directed away from the discovery until a Secretary of the Interior qualified archaeologist assesses the significance of the resource. The archaeologist, in consultation with the City of Santa Clara, State Historic Preservation Officer, any interested Tribes, and any other respon - sible public agency, shall make the necessary plans for treatment of the find(s) and for the evaluation and mitigation of impacts if the finds are found to be eligible to the National or California Registers, qualify as a unique archaeological resource under California Environmental Quality Act Section 21083.2, or are determined to be tribal cultural resource as defined in Section 21074.

Review and attend
worker
environmental
awareness program;
Monitor implemen-
tation of
unanticipated
discovery protocols
Prior to
construction
and during
construction
Unanticipated
Discoveries of
Human Remains
MM CR-2. Treatment of Human Remains. Any human remains discovered are to be treated with respect and dignity. Upon discovery of human remains, all work within 50 feet of the discovery area must cease immediately, nothing is to be disturbed, and the area must be secured. The Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office must be called. The Coroner has two working days to examine the remains after notification. The appropriate land manager/owner of the site is to be called and informed of the discovery. If the remains are located on federal lands, federal land managers, federal law enforcement, and the federal archaeo - logist must be informed as well, due to comple mentary jurisdiction issues. It is very important that the suspected remains, and the area around them, are undisturbed and the proper authorities called to the scene as soon as possible, as it could be a crime scene. The Coroner will deter mine if the remains are archaeological/ historic or of modern origin and if there are any criminal or jurisdictional questions.

After the Coroner has determined the remains are archaeological/historic -era, the Coroner will make recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the remains to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. If the Coroner believes the remains to be those of a Native American, he/she shall contact the Native Amer ican Heritage Commission (NAHC) by tele- phone within 24 hours.

The NAHC will immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the remains. The MLD has 48 hours to make recommendations to the landowner for treatment or disposition of the human remains. If the descendant does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the land - owner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the landowner does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendant may request mediation by NAHC.

According to the California Health and Safety Code, six (6) or more human burials at one (1) location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052).

Monitor
implementation of
human remain
discovery protocols
During
construction
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

SEPTEMBER 2024 6-8 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Requirement
Timing of
Action
Geology and Soils
Geologic and
Seismic Hazards
MM G-1. Conduct Geotechnical Investigations. Because seismically induced liquefaction-related ground failure has the potential to damage or destroy Project components, SVP shall cause design-level geotech- nical investigation for the Project to be performed that shall include investigations designed to assess the potential for geologic and seismic hazards, and specifically include evaluation of the potential for lique - faction and expansive soils to affect the 115 kV line structures. Where liquefaction or expansive soils hazards are found to exist/verified, appropriate engineering design and construction measures shall be incorporated into the Project design as deemed ap propriate by the Project engineer. Finalized Project design incorporating geotechnical recommendations shall be submitted to the City 60 days prior to Project construction.

Ensure a design-level
geotechnical
investigation is
performed
At least 60
days before
final Project
design
Unanticipated
Discoveries of
Paleontological
Resources
MM G -2. Worker Training and Management of Paleontological Resources. A paleontologist must be retained who meets the professional paleontologist qualifications (Society of Vertebrate Paleon tology’s Standard Procedures, 2010) and has demonstrated experience in carrying paleon tological projects to completion. The qualified professional paleontologist shall prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for potentially encountered paleontological resources, and training shall be provided for all staff who will be onsite during excavations. The WEAP shall show what local Pleistocene fossils look like in general, where they may appear in the Project, and how to proceed should material suspected to be a fossil is encountered.

The WEAP shall include procedures to follow if paleontological resources are encountered, including:
 A monitoring plan for soils generated from tubular pole foundation excavations that may encounter Pleistocene sediments. Workers may temporarily halt operations to allow for identification and collec- tion of paleontological resources from soil spoil piles. If a potential significant paleontological resource is noted, a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall be called to the site identify and collect the fossil.
 A plan for treatment of significant fossils that provides for the treatment of specimens to the point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small inverte - brates and vertebrates.
 A specimen identification, analysis, and curation plan that includes identification to the lowest taxono- mic level possible; taxonomic, taphonomic, and biostratigraphic analysis; and curation to the standards of the repository where they will be curated.
 Paleontological resource collection treatment, and identification shall meet standards set forth in the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010).

Review
Paleontological
Resource Monitoring
Program; Monitor
implementation of
Program
Prior to
construction
and during
construction
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hazardous
Substances
Control
MM H -1 Hazardous Substance Control and Emergency Response. SVP shall implement its hazard ous substance control and emergency response. procedures as needed. These procedures identify methods and techniques to minimize the exposure of the public and site workers to potentially hazardous materials during all phases of Project construction through operation. They address worker training appropriate to the site worker’s role in hazardous substance control and emer gency response. The procedures also require implementing appropriate control methods and approved containment and spill-control practices for construction and materials stored on site. If it is necessary to s tore chemicals on site, they shall be Collect and analyze
soil samples and, if
contamination is
discovered, ensure
that construction
activities are con-
ducted according to
Prior to
construction
and during
construction
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

SEPTEMBER 2024 6-9 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Requirement
Timing of
Action
managed in accordance with all applicable regulations. Material safety data sheets shall be maintained and kept available on site, as applicable.

All hazardous materials and hazardous wastes shall be handled, stored, and disposed of in accord ance with all applicable regulations, by personnel qualified to handle hazardous materials. The hazardous substance control and emergency response procedures include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Proper disposal of potentially contaminated soils resulting from leaks or spills.  Establishing site -specific buffers for construction vehicles and equipment located near sensitive resources.
 Emergency response and reporting procedures to address hazardous material spills.  Stopping work at that location and contacting the City Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division immediately if visual contamination or chemical odors are detected. Work will be resumed at this location after any necessary consultation and approval by the Hazardous Materials Division.  SVP shall complete its Emergency Action Plan Form as part of Project tailboard meetings. The purpose of the form is to gather emergency contact numbers, identify first aid locations and provide other tailboard safety information.

SVP’s hazardous
substance control
and emergency
response procedures
Contaminated
Soil and
Groundwater
MM H-2 Soil and Groundwater Management. Prior to Project construction and ground disturbing activi- ties, SVP shall implement an evaluation of potential soil and groundwater contamination at locations along the Project route where excavation, drilling, auguring, or other significant ground disturbance will occur to prevent mobilization of contaminants and exposure of workers and the public.

The evaluation shall be completed at least 60 days prior to the start of Project construction. The evaluation of soil and groundwater shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
 If contaminants below regulatory screening levels are identified, SVP shall coordinate with SCCDEH regarding soil reuse guidelines;
 If contaminants exceeding applicable regulatory screening levels for construction workers and residen- tial users published by the RWQCB, DTSC, or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (except for arsenic which is naturally occurring in the area), are encountered during the Soil and Groundwater Characterization Study SVP shall obtain regulatory oversight from SCCDEH and shall prepare a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP); and
 Soils found in concentrations above established thresholds (except for arsenic) shall be removed and disposed of according to California Hazardous Waste Regulations.

If a SGMP is needed, the SGMP shall be prepared to guide activities during excavation and other ground disturbing activities to ensure that identified contaminated soils or groundwater are handled, removed, and disposed of properly. The SGMP shall be prepared by a licensed qualified professional and submitted to SCCDEH at least 30 days prior to Project construction and shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements:
 Procedures and protocols for the safe handling, storage, stockpiling, and disposal of contaminated soils;  Contaminated soil excavated from the site shall be hauled off- site and disposed of at a licensed hazardous materials disposal site;
Evaluate potential
soil and
groundwater
contamination, if
present, prepare and
implement a Soil and
Groundwater
Management Plan
Prior to and
during
construction
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

SEPTEMBER 2024 6-10 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Requirement
Timing of
Action
 Protocols to manage and dispose of contaminated groundwater that may be encountered during trenching or subsurface excavation activities, and if dewatering is required; and  Procedures and protocols to follow in the event soils or groundwater not previously identified as con- taminated and suspected of being contaminated (on the basis of visual, olfactory, or other evi dence) are identified during site grading or excavation activities or dewatering activities to allow for proper identification and characterization, and subsequent proper handling, removal, and disposal.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality MM HYD-1. SWPPP or Erosion Control Plan Development and Implementation. Following Project appro- val, SVP will prepare and implement a SWPPP, if required by State law, or erosion control plan to minimize construction impacts on surface water and groundwater quality. Implementation of the SWPPP or erosion control plan will help stabilize graded or disturbed areas and reduce erosion and sedimentation. The plan will designate BMPs that will be adhered to during construc tion activities. Erosion and sediment control measures, such as straw wattles, covers, and silt fences, may be installed before the onset of winter rains or any anticipated storm events if soils are not stabilized. Suitable stabilization measures will be used to protect exposed areas during co nstruction activities, as necessary. During construction activities measures will be in place to prevent contaminant discharge.

The Project SWPPP or erosion control plan will include erosion control and sediment trans -port BMPs to be used during construction. BMPs, where applicable, will be designed by using specific criteria from recognized BMP design guidance manuals. Erosion -minimizing efforts may include measures such as properly containing stockpiled soils.

Erosion control measures identified will be installed in an area before construction begins during the wet season and before the onset of winter rains or any anticipated storm events. Temporary measures such as silt fences or wattles, intended to minimize sediment transport from temporarily disturbed areas, will remain in place until disturbed areas have stabilized. The plan will be updated during construction as required by the SWRCB.

A worker education program shall be established for all field personnel prior to initiating fieldwork to provide training in the appropriate application and construction of erosion and sediment control mea - sures contained in the SWPPP. This education program will also discuss appropriate hazardous materials management and spill response. Compliance with these requirements will be ensured by the on -site construction contractor.

Ensure a SWPPP is
prepared and imple-
mented, or if a
SWPPP is not
required, ensure
that an erosion
control plan is
developed and
implemented to
minimize con-
struction impacts on
surface water and
groundwater quality
Prior to and
during
construction
Transportation
Construction
Traffic Control
MM T-1. Construction Traffic Control Plan. Prior to the start of construction, SVP or its designee shall prepare and submit an Encroachment Permit which will include the construction Traffic Con trol Plan for review and approval to the City’s Department of Public Works for public roads and transportation facilities that would be directly affected by the construction activities and/or would require permits and approvals.

SVP shall submit the construction Traffic Control Plan to the City prior to conducting activities covered in the traffic control permits. The construction Traffic Control Plan shall include, but not be limited to:
 The locations and use of flaggers, warning signs, lights, barricades, delineators, cones, arrow boards, etc., according to standard guidelines outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the Ensure that a
Construction Traffic
Control Plan is sub-
mitted by SVP and
approved by the City
of Santa Clara
Prior to
construction
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

SEPTEMBER 2024 6-11 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Requirement
Timing of
Action
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, and/or the California Joint Utility Traffic Control Manual.
 Additional methods to reduce temporary traffic delays and trips during peak travel hours to the extent feasible.
 Typical access routes between all staging areas and the proposed work areas.  Defining methods to coordinate with the City throughout construction to minimize cumulative lane disruption impacts should simultaneous construction projects affect shared segments/ portions of the circulation system.
 Prior to the start of construction, provide (or identify the timing to provide) the City with methods to comply with all specified requirements.
 Plans to coordinate in advance with emergency service providers to avoid restricting the move ments of emergency vehicles. Police departments and fire departments shall be notified in advance by SVP of the proposed locations, nature, timing, and duration of any roadway disruptions, and shall be advised of any access restrictions that could impact their effectiveness. At locations where roads will be blocked, provisions shall be ready at all times to accommodate emergency vehicles, such as imme di- ately stopping work for emergency vehicle passage, providing short detours, and developing alternate routes in conjunction with the public agencies. Documentation of the coordination with police and fire departments shall be gathered prior to the start of construction.  Plans to coordinate in advance with property owners, if any, that may have limited access to properties due to temporary lane closures. Provisions for ensuring secondary access should be provided.  Plans to coordinate with Valley Transportation Authority in advance of construction to minimize disruption to mass transit.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Unanticipated
Tribal Cultural
Resources
MM TCR-1. Management of Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources. During project construction, should subsurface tribal cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist and an authorized tribal representative shall be contacted to assess the signi fi- cance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and Section 21074. If any find is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American groups expressing interest, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to tribal cultural resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, Project reroute or redesign, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fenci ng.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery or other appro priate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in the tribal cultural resource.

Confirm that all
activity in the vicinity
of a found
subsurface tribal
cultural resource is
ceased and that an
authorized tribal
representative is
contacted
During
construction

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 7-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

7.1. Introduction to Comments and Responses Section
The Final IS/MND includes the NRS -KRS 115 kV Transmission Line Project (Project) Draft IS/MND as revised, comments received on the Draft IS/MND, and responses to those comments.

This document has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) Although State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 does not require a Lead Agency to prepare written responses to comments received on a Draft IS/MND, the City and SVP have elected to prepare the follow- ing written responses with the intent of providing a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed Project.

This section summarizes and responds to the comments received during the public review period, which occurred from July 31 to August 30, 2024. This section also provides general responses to common comments.

7.2. Summary of Comments Received
Table 7-1 lists the Public Agencies, Groups, Organizations, and Individuals that submitted comments on the Draft IS/MND. The individual comments were numbered and are included in Appendix H, Public Comments on Draft IS/MND. This section summarizes the concerns in each comment and responds to them. It is important to note that only the substantive comments raised on the merits of the environ - mental analysis are identified, numbered, and responded to, while comments such as those related to the commenter’s interest in or opinions about the project, or a summary of the project itself were noted but not included.

If revisions were made to the IS/MND based on the comments, the revisions are summarized with the res
ponse to the specific comment and are indicated in the text of this Final IS/MND with strikeout for deletions of text, and in underline for new text.

Table 7-1. Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND
Commenter Date of Comment Comment #
A: Public Agencies, Groups, and Organizations
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 8/29/24 A1 SFPUC Water Enterprise 8/26/24 A2
San Jose International Airport 7/24/24 A3
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 8/29/24 A4 B: Individuals
Kanupriya Kabra 8/29/24 B1
Harsha Priya 8/29/24 B2
Aadya Shrotriya 8/29/24 B3
Jigisha Shukla 8/29/24 B4
Jigisha Shukla #2 8/29/24 B5
Praveen Vutukuru and Vijaya Chaganti 8/29/24 B6
Sudhir Kulkarni 8/29/24 B7
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 7-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Commenter Date of Comment Comment #
Rajesh Upalekar 8/29/24 B8
Amit Chandak 8/30/24 B9
Neelam z.dabholkar 8/30/24 B10
Aman Sharma 8/30/24 B11
Aruna Pothukuchi 8/31/24 B12
Fang Gong 8/3/24 B13
Sriharish Pisipati 8/30/24 B14
Saurabh Sharma 8/30/24 B15
Saurabh Sharma #2 8/30/24 B16
Prithvi Arun 8/30/24 B17
Vishnu Hari 8/30/24 B18
Sathiya Narayanan 8/30/24 B19
Unnikrishnan Udinoor 8/30/24 B20
Sweety h 8/30/24 B21
Simple Yadav 8/30/24 B22
Niaz Khan 8/30/24 B23
Kuldeep Singh 8/30/24 B24
Paddy Subbian 8/30/24 B25
Anjana Batchu 8/30/24 B26
Anjana Batchu #2 8/30/24 B27
Amit Chandak #2 8/30/24 B28
Amit Chandak #3 8/30/24 B29
Candida Bayross 8/30/24 B30
Johny Rufus 8/30/24 B31
Mehul Suresh Jain 8/30/24 B32
Priyadarshini Vijayakumar 8/30/24 B33
Manojkumar Mohanram 8/30/24 B34
Anupama Lolage-Baheti 8/30/24 B35
Vijay Srinivasan 8/30/24 B36
Lini Kuriyan 8/30/24 B37
Olivier Madec 8/29/24 B38
Suneet Bisht 8/30/24 B39
Manjunath Jagannatharao 8/30/24 B40
Phani Shankar Pandravada 8/30/24 B41
Harini Tadinada 8/30/24 B42
Shankar Pandravada #2 8/30/24 B43
Vishaka Sutrave 8/30/24 B44
Jerin 8/30/24 B45
Punnya Ann Joy 8/30/24 B46
Manali Desai 8/30/24 B47
SriVidya Chavali 8/30/24 B48
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 7-3 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Commenter Date of Comment Comment #
Hima Sree MC 8/30/24 B49
Lakshmikanth Chowdary Pothula 8/30/24 B50
Sith Thuon 8/29/24 B51
Cipson Jose 8/29/24 B52
Om Shankar 8/29/24 B53
Om Shankar #2 8/29/24 B54
Amit Thakkar 8/29/24 B55
Lenny Le 8/29/24 B56
Srinivas Dangeti 8/29/24 B57
Venkat Patchigolla 8/29/24 B58
Aparna Raman 8/29/24 B59
Gayathiri Lakshmanan 8/29/24 B60
Prashant Tiwari 8/29/24 B61
Srinivas Reddy 8/29/24 B62
Gane Sugali 8/29/24 B63
Adnan Hemani 8/29/24 B64
Darshna Siva 8/29/24 B65
Vinay Iyer 8/29/24 B66
Preetika Tiwari 8/28/24 B67
Kanupriya Kabra #2 8/28/24 B68
Ruchika Sarna 8/27/24 B69
Ruchika Sarna #2 8/28/24 B70
Yuri Kleban 8/27/24 B71
Sir Yuri 8/27/24 B72
Derek Fong 8/27/24 B73
Jeff Holmbeck 8/12/24 B74

7.3. General Responses to Common Comments
This section presents detailed responses to comments that were made by multiple commenters. General Responses (GR) address the following topics:
 GR #1 – Human Health and Scope of CEQA
 GR #2 – Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)
 GR #3 – Corona and Induced Currents
 GR #4 – Property Values and Cost
 GR #5 – Aesthetics
 GR #6 – Noise
 GR #7 – Hazards

7.3.1. General Response #1 – Human Health and Scope of CEQA During the Public Comment Period, SVP hosted a Public Engagement Meeting on August 22. This meeting was attended by approximately one dozen community members, who expressed their concerns about the Project’s potential impact on human health. The commentors cited a list of State reviewing agencies and NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 7-4 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

stated that none of the agencies listed have an association with human health. Commentors stated that CEQA reporting is not qualified enough regarding human health concerns, and recommended that other agencies, who are qualified to study “humans” should be involved in reviewing the proposal. Commentors stated that a third party or independent study should be completed in favor of human health.

CEQA analyses are guided by the CEQA Guidelines, which are defined as:

The CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations) are administrative regulations governing implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The CEQA Guidelines reflect the requirements set forth in the Public Resources Code, as well as court decisions interpreting the statute and practical planning consider - ations. Among other things, the CEQA Guidelines explain how to determine whether an activity is subject to environmental review, what steps are involved in the environmental review process, and the required content of environmental documents. The CEQA Guide - lines apply to public agencies throughout the state, including local governments, special districts, and State agencies (OPR, 2024).

The IS/MND was prepared pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, including all required content, and following the CEQA Appendix G checklist. Further, SVP conducted Public Scoping, which identified additional concerns to be addressed in the Draft IS/MND, expanding the scope of the CEQA document to include an EMF study which is not required as part of the CEQA Guidelines.

CEQA’s Appendix G checklist does not include specific questions related to human health, per se, but it does include questions that address the physical condition of the environment that would be affected by the Project and the nature of the environment with project implementation. Human health is impacted by the physical condition of the environment.

CEQA defines “environment” to mean “the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historic or aesthetic significance.” (Pub. Resources Code § 21060.5) For example, the Air Quality section discusses impacts related to toxic air contaminants, with which the thresholds of significance are set at a level that is agreed upon, by experts, to protect human health.

Not all impact analyses have quantitative thresholds due to their nature (Aesthetics, Energy, Public Services), and some concerns are not included in the CEQA checklist, because there is not a scientific consensus on a threshold of significance (See GR #2, EMF, as an example of this).

7.3.2. General Response #2 – EMF
Several commentors stated that consideration of EMF was absent prior to input during the scoping process.

The scoping process is designed to do exactly this; shape the environmental analysis. Commentors also stated that the lack of specifics included in the EMF section is not acceptable.

A project-specific EMF report was conducted by qualified engineers and was published along with the Draft IS/MND.

Commentors stated that because some of the information had been previously published in an SVP report, they would like a more detailed analysis. While it is true that language from a 2020 report was used, this information is still considered up -to-date, and is fully applicable to the NRS- KRS Project. The EMF report expands on the information presented, uses up -to-date modeling software, and provides detailed engineering drawings and graphs.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 7-5 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Commentors included references to studies that further support SVP’s conclusion – that there is no scientific consensus on EMF impacts to human health. One reference provided by commentors states the following:
“In order to have confidence that an exposure agent is actually linked to human disease, scientists look for strong and consistent associations from epidemiological research. In the cases of electric and magnetic fields, the studies have found only weak association, or no association, between exposure and the incidence of some cancers. In addition, study out - comes are not consistent… There is a general consensus within the scientific community that exposure to EMF is not responsible for human disease” (PSCW, 2017).

It is not within the scope of this IS/MND to speculate on the impact of EMF on human health. The IS/MND has conducted a project-specific study on EMF and presented the results to be reviewed by the public and decision-making bodies.

Several comment letters included questions related to EMF. These are included below.

1. Have you conducted an existing EMF study to identify the current value of the community? (a) The EMF study included a simulation of current magnetic field strength values that exist in the area.

2. Are your EMF study values based on the cumulative, or interference of existing EMF and potential EMF.
(a) The EMF study was set up to assume constructive interference between the potential sources of magnetic fields. This study would not capture potential destructive interference between sources of EMF. Destructive interference between sources of EMF would hav e the effect of reducing EMF.

3. ⁠EMF value was calculated based on existing studies. What was the delta between mathematical modeling and actual values (from existing structures).
(a) No field study to take measurements of EMF was completed. The EMF study accounts for mathematical modeling as outlined in EPRI’s (Electric Power Research Institute) Transmission Line Reference Book, an industry standard reference book addressing electrical aspects of transmission line design.

4. What is the delta between underground and overhead structures’ EMF values? (a) The main change in reported magnetic field strength between overhead and underground placement of magnetic field sources would be due to proximity to the magnetic field source.

For example, an underground cable producing magnetic fields 10 feet below the ground surface would result in a higher magnetic field at the typical reporting and measuring height of 1 meter above ground compared to an overhead conductor installed 20 feet above ground.

5. ⁠Can you provide the same for Route options B and C? (a) The EMF study was completed for the preferred alignment only. The EMF study is dependent on the proposed design of the transmission line and nearby adjacent sources of magnetic fields such as other power lines. The proposed loading for the proposed transmission line would remain the same so the only changing variables that would affect the reported magnetic field strengths would be the height of the poles, conductor phasing, and adjacent power lines. An EMF study will not be prepared for routes that are not analyzed in detail in the CEQA document.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 7-6 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

6. What happens when electrification of rail lines happens- as this is already planned for the future? Have you potentially considered the cumulative EMF effect in coexistence of the high power lines and with railway lines’ electrification? Will the EMF values not be much higher then? (a) The future electrification of the rail lines was not considered. Without having specific informa- tion for the future electrification of the rail line, it is difficult to speculate whether or not EMF levels will increase, stay the same, or decrease.

7. ⁠Can you share the mathematical modeling maps of EMF for 115kV, 230kV and the next two higher values of the power line?
(a) The EMF report includes the modeling for the 115 kV transmission line. Magnetic fields are created by the current flow through the line. The current EMF report uses the forecasted current load (measured in amps) of the transmission line which is mostly ind ependent of the operating voltage. Although the Project is being designed for future growth, there are currently no plans to energize this line to 230 kV or beyond.

8. ⁠Can you share EMF maps from existing structures of 115kV, 230kV and the next 2 higher values of the power line?
(a) The existing power facilities identified running parallel to the proposed transmission line were included in the EMF report using existing load data from SVP. The existing power facilities along the alignment are 12 kV and 60 kV. Although the Project is being designed for future growth, there are currently no plans to energize this line to 230 kV or beyond.

9. ⁠Please share any EMF related information that you have especially if it contains assumptions for any calculations so we can understand the effects of current project and future projects. (a) All the data considered in the modeling of the magnetic field strength in the EMF report are detailed in the EMF report, which has been publicly available on the State Clearinghouse website since July 31, 2024.

10. Why does the electric pole structure proposed have wider diameter at the top? Can you share the design of the top of the pole? Can it be extended by adding another section by bolting, welding or any other method? If so, what extra voltage can be added to the line? (a) The structures themselves and their final geometries are still being finalized, but the proposed poles do not have a wider diameter at the top and are not expected to have a wider diameter at the top in the final design. While modifications to existing structures are possible and there is industry precedent for it, generally structures are replaced when significant upgrades become necessary. Although the Project is being designed for future growth, there are currently no plans to energize this line to 230 kV or beyond.

11. What is the proposed power consumption of 95054 zip code for the next 5, 10 and 15 years in the master plan?
(a) Based on SVP’s load growth plan, power consumption over the next 5, 10, and 15 years is estimated to be 450 MW, 538 MW, and 593 MW, respectively for the 95054 zip code. Please note that the 95054 zip code only includes a portion of the City.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 7-7 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

7.3.3. General Response #3 – Corona and Induced Currents Commentors expressed concerns about the Project’s proximity to the railway line, and the potential risks associated with corona and induced current effects.

As described in Section 5.21, t he corona effect for transmission lines describes the localized electrical discharge caused by ionization of the air surrounding the energized portions of the transmission line. The corona produced by a transmission line is dependent on multiple factors beyond operating voltage such as the diameter of the conductors, the location of conductors relative to each other, the elevation above sea level, weather, and more. Some possible byproducts of corona discharge on transmission lines include a faint glow, buzzing noise, and AM radio interference. Corona rings and specifically designed hardware designed for use on high voltage systems help mitigate corona by attenuating the electric field to reduce the electric field gradient that causes the ionization of the air adjacent to the energized surfaces. The corona effect is localized to the immediate vicinity of the energized portions of the transmission line.

To prevent any interference between the transmission line and the railroad, minimum safety clearances defined by the National Electrical Safety Code and CPUC’s GO-95 would be met or exceeded by the Project.

Additionally, the Applicant will work with UPRR a s needed during the permitting process, to ensure that there are no adverse impacts due to corona or induced currents.

7.3.4. General Response #4 – Property Values and Cost
Commentors expressed concerns about the reason the proposed Project route was chosen, specifically citing costs of construction. Commentors also expressed concerns that the Project may decrease property values.

The proposed Project route was chosen due to several reasons. It is inaccurate to say that the route was chosen based on costs alone. In the initial design process, several routes were considered. Prior to initia - tion of the IS/MND, an Alternatives Analysis was done, which analyzed three routes, and identified the Proposed Project as the most feasible. The reasons for this were explained in Section 4.16.

Property values are not within the scope of a CEQA review. CEQA focuses on the potential physical impacts of a project. The economic effects of a project need only be considered if those effects themselves would cause a significant physical impact on the environment. Decreases in property values are not physical impacts, are speculative, and are difficult to predict. The IS/MND does not speculate about potential effects on property value. Therefore, given the CEQA guidance regarding social and economic impa cts, this is not considered as part of CEQA environmental review.

7.3.5. General Response #5 – Aesthetics
Commentors expressed concerns about the aesthetic impact of the Project, citing that there were no photos from the east side of Lafayette Street presented in the IS/MND.

Revisions to Section 5.1 Aesthetics, were made to add additional information about the visual setting of the residents on the east side of Lafayette Street. The CEQA Appendix G questions focus on scenic resources and public views. The Project is located in a highly urbanized area. Public views of the Project would be from motorists and people on Lafayette Street, but private residences are not considered public viewpoints, and are therefore not specifically analyzed. However, public views from Lafayette Str eet, directly adjacent to these residents are analyzed.

Additionally, aesthetic impacts are analyzed based on the visual change from baseline conditions. The current visual setting includes transmission lines, telephone lines, street lighting, and traffic signals, as well as buildings, fences, landscaping, roads, and a railroad. For viewers looking at Lafayette Street from the sidewalk, the pol es within the median of Lafayette Street would be widely spaced and would not NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 7-8 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

represent a substantial change in the existing visual context. Motorists on Lafayette Street would view the new poles in the context of a developed visually complex built urban environment, and views would be fleeting as they drive. The poles that would be installed in the median of Lafayette Street would be visually consistent with the existing visually complex and built urban environment.

Attached here are three images from Google Earth that show the existing visual setting of locations along Lafayette Street, and explanations for the reasons why the Project would not be considered a significant visual change to the existing setting.

The existing urbanized setting, illustrated in Figure 7 -1, includes several industrial -type visual features, including power poles on both sides of Lafayette Street. Across Lafayette Street, several more power poles, a fenced railroad` right of way, NRS, and Levi’s Stadium are visible. The Project’s industrial elements would be consistent with the developed complex urban environment and would not result in a significant visual change.

Figure 7-1. View of Lafayette Street from the east side of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Fairway Glen Drive, looking west

Figure 7-2 illustrates the existing setting just north of the Mission Gardens community. This figure shows several industrial visual elements, such as power poles with several lines on them, light poles, a fenced railroad right of way, and traffic signals. The power poles shown in this image are older, shorter, and are spaced closer together than t he proposed Project. Residents who would view the Project from the east side of Lafayette Street would have views of the poles from their windows, however, the poles would be spaced further apart than existing power poles on Lafayette Street, approximately 300 feet apart.

Additionally, the poles would be much taller than existing infrastructure, increasing the conductor heights, and limiting the number of views from residences. The Project poles and lines would be viewed in the existing complex urban environment and are similar to the existing industrial elements present in the area. Therefore, there would be a low level of visual change.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 7-9 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Figure 7-2. View of Lafayette Street from the east side of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Hope Drive, looking south

This image illustrates the public view experienced by motorists travelling north on Lafayette Street. The existing visual setting includes industrial elements such as power poles, light poles, a fenced railroad right of way, and Levi’s stadium in the backg round. Motorists on Lafayette Street would view the poles and lines in the median from this perspective, but their experience would be fleeting as they drive. The Project would introduce additional visual elements into the landscaped median but would not result in a significant visual change to the existing setting, given the existing complex visual environment of built and landscaped features. New poles would be widely spaced and existing landscaping between the street and buildings would often screen the views.

Figure 7-3. View of Lafayette Street from a motorist’s perspective, adjacent to the Mission Gardens community, looking north

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 7-10 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

7.3.6. General Response #6 – Noise
Commentors expressed concerns related to noise produced by the Project during construction and after the new 115 kV transmission line becomes operational.

While construction of the project would create noise, this construction would occur within the times allowed under the City’s noise ordinance and would be temporary and intermittent. It is estimated that construction will take 14 months for the overhead alignment, however, due to the linear nature of the Project, construction will be moving along the route during this 14 -month construction period. After construction, ambient noise levels in the Project area are not anticipated to increase and would be similar to current noise levels.

There would be no noise produced by the Project after construction, aside from during maintenance activities or corona noise. The analysis anticipates no permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity once the Project commences operation (Section 5.13.3) One source of audible noise would be due to the corona effect, which is caused by the electric field near the surface of the conductors (see Section 5.21.1.1, Corona).

Commentors specifically stated that they are concerned about noise levels, which are already high in the area due to the proximity of Lafayette Street, the railway line, and the air traffic route. Given that noise levels are elevated in the Project area, due to traffic noise and airport noise (Section 5.15.1), low levels of corona noise from Project components would not be noticeably audible and would not meaningfully contribute to an increase in noise levels relative to the existing conditions.

7.3.7. General Response #7 – Hazards
Commentors expressed concerns related to hazards, fire, and risk of accidents due to the proposed Project.

As stated in Section 5.7, Geology and Soils, the transmission line structures would be designed to meet or exceed all applicable local and State seismic design criteria.

As stated in Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure H-1 (Hazardous Substance Control and Emergency Response) and H -2 (Soil and Groundwater Management), to prevent and reduce potential impacts associate d with hazardous material use and the potential for encountering soil or groundwater contamination.

As discussed in Section 5.15, Public Services, the Project area is adequately served by the City of Santa Clara’s fire department. There are three fire stations located less than one mile from the proposed Project route, and the average response time is 3 minutes for all areas of the City.

As discussed in Sections 5.17, Transportation, and 5.20, Wildfire, the Project would not interfere with emergency response. These sections include a discussion of Mitigation Measure T-1 (Construction Traffic Control Plan), which ensures that access is main tained in the event of an emergency due to fire or other hazards. Fire risk associated with energized transmission lines is of concern in vegetated areas where the vegetation is a fuel source. In an urban setting, with lines located along streets, the risk of fire, such as from a downed line, is minimal.

Hazards due to induced current and the proximity to the railroad is discussed in General Response #3.

7.4. Responses to Comment Set A1 - California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Due to the specifics included in the CDFW comment letter, each concern was independently responded to. The alphanumeric codes correspond with the codes in the CDFW letter, presented in Appendix H, Public Comments on Draft IS/MND.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 7-11 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

A1-1 Thank you for your comment. The CDFW reviewer indicated that a CESA Incidental Take Permit would be required should the Project result in impacts to any CESA listed species.

As described in Section 5.4.1 (Setting) of the IS/MND the Project is located within a fully developed urban area between the San Jose International Airport and Levi Stadium in the City dominated by urban hardscape and land cover. As described in the analysis, CESA listed species are not expected to occur in or near the Project area and the Project is not expected to result in the take of any species listed under CESA. Therefore, a CESA Incidental Take Permit is not required for this project.

A1-2 The CDFW reviewer indicated that a notification pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code would be required should the Project substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow; change or use material from the bed, channel, or bank (including associated riparian or wetland resources); or deposit or dispose of material where it may pass into a river, lake, or stream.

As described in response to Comment A1 -1, the project is located in an urbanized setting and there are no potentially jurisdictional waters or wetlands within the Project area. A supplemental site visit was conducted to verify site conditions and confirmed the analysis presented in Section

5.4 (Biological Resources). The Project will not affect any river, lake, or stream. No infrastructure will be installed beneath aquatic features. A Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement is not required for the Project.

A1-3 Thank you for your comment. The CDFW reviewer notes that Fish and Games Codes provide protection to nesting birds and their eggs. Please see the response to Comment A1-9.

A1-4 The CDFW recommends the IS/MND analyze potential adverse impacts to fully protected species due to habitat modification, loss of foraging habitat, and/or interruption of migratory and breeding behaviors.

Due to a production error, Appendix E containing the table of known and potential occurrences of special-status species, including State fully protected species, that have the potential to occur in or near the Project area was inadvertently left out of the draft IS/MND. Appendix E is included in the Final IS/MND. The fully protected species identified in the assessment that do not also have a state and/or federal listing status include golden eagle and white-tailed kite. As described in Section 5.4.1 (Sett ing), the Project is located within a fully developed urban area dominated by urban hardscape and land cover. The Project area and surrounding land lack suitable habitat to support foraging or nesting for the golden eagle (Appendix E).

As described in Section 5.4.2(a)(Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Criterion ‘a’), limited suitable nesting trees are present within or near the proposed Project area that could support the white-tailed kite during nesting season. Marginal foraging habitat is present adjacent to the Northern Receiving Station, the landscaped interchange for Montague Expressway, and ruderal road shoulders along the west side of the Montague Expressway overpass. The limited marginal foraging habitat consists of ruderal land cover containing primarily grasses and other herbaceous vegetation. Current and historic Google Earth aerial and street view imagery identify these areas are periodically managed for weeds and fire abatement. To verify these conditions a supplemental site visit was conducted. No raptor nests were identified in suitable trees along the Project alignment and no white-tailed kites were observed. Due to the high level of human disturbance along the Project alignment and adjacent areas, the potential for white-tailed kite to nest or forage within or adjacent to the proposed Project area is low.

The Project would not result in habitat modification or the loss of foraging habitat, or the interruption of migratory behaviors. To ensure the Project does not impact breeding behavior or the viability of nests, should they occur, the IS/MND includes MM BIO-4 (Preconstruction Nesting NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 7-12 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Bird Surveys and Nest Protection). This measure requires preconstruction nesting bird surveys and nest protection measures in the event an active bird or raptor nest is identified. MM BIO -2 (Biological Monitoring) requires a biological monitor who will con duct weekly monitoring checks of any sensitive resources that may be identified during the preconstruction surveys or inci- dentally found during construction. In addition, MM BIO-1 (Implement Worker Environmental Awareness Program) requires that all person nel working on the Project are trained on the applicable environmental regulations, BMPs, and other protective measures to ensure impacts to wildlife are reduced or avoided, as well as how to notify the biological monitor if an active nest or other wildlife are discovered in the Project work areas. The implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3 will ensure impacts to fully protected species do not occur.

A1-5 The CDFW recommends that a full list or table is included in the updated Biological Resources Section of the IS/MND that notes species common name, scientific name, state and federal listing status (as applicable), habitat type preference and determination on presence, for all special - status species with the potential to occur within the Project area.

Due to a production error, Appendix E containing the table of known and potential occurrences of special-status species within the Project area was inadvertently left out of the draft IS/MND.

However, the conclusions presented in the Draft IS/MND were based on the evaluation of all potential species that have the potential to occur. Species that were considered to have a very limited or unlikely potential to occur were not carried forward for analysis. Appendix E contains a list of those species and the table is included in the Final IS/MND. The table includes a full list of special-status plant and wildlife species identified during the literature review that have a potential to occur within the Project area and 5 -mile query buffer. The common name, scienti fic name, listing status, habitat type preference, and determination on presence are included in the table for each species.

A1-6 The CDFW recommends the IS/MND provide baseline habitat assessments for special -status plant, fish and wildlife species located and potentially located within the Project area and sur - rounding lands, including all rare, threatened, and endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, §15380).

As stated in Section 5.4.1 (Setting), the IS/MND did include an assessment consistent with CEQA guidelines. The Project is located in an urbanized location and a review of the CDFW VegCAMP BIOS data was not initially conducted. A supplemental review of the Santa Cruz and Santa Clara Fine Scale Vegetation Map (TG & AIS 2023) shows the Project area and adjacent lands largely containing Urban (Developed) cover. Additionally, patches of Californian Annual & Perennial Grassland are mapped where the analysis identified ruderal land cover. Urban – Nonnative Forest cover were included urban landscape trees, particularly at the Oracle Santa Clara Campus/Agnews Historic Park. There are no sensitive vegetation communities in the Project area or adjacent areas.

The IS/MND adequately represented the vegetation communities within the Project area. As described in the Existing Habitat portion of Section 5.4.1 (Setting), “Urban/developed areas occur throughout the proposed Project area and adjacent lands, and include paved roads, bare ground associated with disturbance or development, buildings, paved parking lots, road medians and roadsides, railroad tracks and right-of-way, and landscaped areas. Land uses within the Study Area include residential, parks/open space, commercial, and industrial. Areas not containing hardscape are limited to residential, commercial, and roadside landscaped areas, landscaped parks/open space, and managed (e.g., mowing) ruderal areas of road shoulders and utility rights-of-way. Figure

5.4-1 identifies isolated ruderal communities, park/open space, and landscaped interchange areas meaningful to the analysis as they can provide marginal habitat for special-status species in some locations. The Study Area does not contain natural vegetati on community alliances as described in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al., 2009).” NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 7-13 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

As described in the Jurisdictional Waters portion of Section 5.4.1 (Setting), “There are no poten - tially jurisdictional waters or wetlands within the proposed Project area based upon a review of the USFWS NWI Wetlands Mapper (USFWS, 2024b), USGS Milpitas and San Jose West 7.5-minute quadrangle map, and Google Earth aerial and street view imagery. A formal aquatic resources delineation was not completed for the proposed Project.” A supplemental site visit was conducted to re-verify site conditions and confirmed the assessment of vegetation/land cover and habitat described in Section 5.4 (Biological Resources).

A1-7 The CDFW recommends that the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), as well as pre - vious studies performed in the area, be consulted to assess the potential presence of sensitive species and habitats. CDFW recommended a nine -quadrangle search to determine what may occur in the region.

The IS/MND adequately describes the potential of the proposed Project to impact sensitive plants and wildlife. A 5-mile buffer around the Project area was chosen for the CNDDB query conducted due to the heavily urbanized characteristic of the Project area and surrounding region. No Significant Natural Areas were identified within the Project area or 5-mile buffer.

Additional sources of information were utilized in this analysis, as listed in Section 5.4.1 (Setting), including the following:
• USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation federal resource list for the proposed Project area;
• CNPS Rare Plant Inventory species list within the 7.5 -minute quadrangles overlapping the Project area, Milpitas and San Jose West;
• Jepson eFlora with access to the Consortium of California Herbaria record locations for special-status plants;
• California Academy of Sciences and National Geographic Society – iNaturalist observations within a 5-mile buffer around the Project area;
• Cornell Lab of Ornithology eBird sensitive species observations within a 5-mile buffer around the Project area;
• NRCS Web Soil Survey and National Hydric Soils List; and • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper.

A1-8 CDFW noted that according to Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) records, the Project site contains positive detections of several special-status species and has the potential to support numerous special-status species and their associated habitat.

The IS/MND adequately describes the potential for sensitive plants and wildlife to occur in or near the proposed Project area. We acknowledge the presence of special -status species occurrence records and the potential for the Project site to support several special -status species and their habitat in Section 5.4.1 (Setting – Special-Status Plants and Animals) and Section 5.4.2(a) (Environ- mental Impacts and Mitigation Measures – Criterion ‘a’). However, the Project is located in an urban environment with li mited habitat for sensitive species. Please also see the response to Comment A1-5.

A1-9 The CDFW notes that sensitive birds are known from the region and that trees would be removed during construction and recommends the project be constructed in compliance with APLIC guidelines.

Please see Comment A1-4 for the potential of sensitive birds to nest in any of the trees located in the Project area. In regard to APLIC guidelines, the IS/MND clearly defines the requirements to remain in compliance with APLIC guidelines. Section 4.11 (Pr oject Components) states that the NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 7-14 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Project is being designed in compliance with current APLIC guidelines and will have sufficient dis- tance in between conductor wires as to prevent electrocution. The Project area does not contain wetlands or other aquatic features, large expanses of natural land cover, or agricultural fields that are attractive to birds and raptors (APLIC 1994). The ruderal land cover, landscaped interchange, and the Oracle Santa Clara Campus/Agnews Historic Park have the potential to attract birds; however, each of those areas has existing overhead electrical lines immediately adjacent to them.

The Project would not substantially change the baseline conditions at those locations.

The Project does not propose new electrical distribution lines, generator -tie lines, or fences.

Approximately half of the Project alignment involves existing utility poles supporting existing electrical transmission lines, electrical distribution lines, and/or communication lines, including along Lafayette Street between Agnew Road and Norman Avenue and between Laurelwood Road and the Kifer Receiving Station in the southern end of the Project. The Project would replace some of the existing utility poles along this portion of the alignment and be constructed with the existing lines as an underbuild to the proposed transmission lines; therefore, baseline conditions will not substantially change. The Project is being designed with enough distance between the conductor wires, to comply with current APLIC guidelines to prevent electrocution. SVP investigated the feasibility of placing the entire Project underground and concluded that it was infeasible due to the number of existing utilities underground that would necessitate relocations and require that the NRS-KRS line be buried very deep. An entirely underground option was determined to have more impacts due to the intensity required for construction and increase in ground disturbance when compared to an overhead line. Lastly, schedule and cost were considered, and an entirely underground option would cost more, take longer to construct, and would limit the capacity of the line, which would not meet the objectives of the Project.

A1-10 The CDFW recommends that MM BIO-4 be amended to include different nesting seasons for small bird species, owls, and other raptors, in addition to different survey radii for passerines, small raptors, and large raptors.

To respond to the request, MM BIO-4 (Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys and Nest Protection) has been modified to include the different nesting seasons for small bird species, owls, and other raptors as recommended. This measure has also been modified to incorporate the recommended survey radii of 250 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors.

MM BIO-4 requires that a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 7 days before any work activities occur at a given Project location. Further, if there is a break in construction at a work location for a period of 14 or more day s during the nesting season, a new survey shall be completed before work resumes at that location. Additionally, MM BIO-2 requires weekly biological monitoring of any Project work locations in proximity to sensitive biological resources identified during preconstruction surveys, and any resources identified by the crew incidentally.

Given the highly urbanized nature of the Project area and surrounding region and limited line-of- sight due to residential and urban structures, the recommendation for conducting three surveys prior and including a 1,000 -ft radii survey area for larger rapt ors would be excessive and would not contribute to the protection of these birds.

A1-11 The CDFW recommends the IS/MND should propose measures to conduct a bat habitat assess - ment of suitable bat roosting habitat, provide a survey methodology plan, and tree removal plan.

The IS/MND adequately characterized the potential for bats to roost and forage in the Project area and included measures to avoid or minimize impacts to local bats. Due to the heavily urbanized setting and the level of disturbance in proximity to the limited roosting and foraging NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 7-15 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

habitat, there is a very low potential for bats to be present in available roost habitat along the Project alignment. To verify the conclusions presented in the IS/MND, a supplemental site visit was performed to inspect the three trees proposed for removal. This survey confirmed the absence of structural features that provide day roost habitat for crevice and cavity/hollow roost - ing bats. In addition, MM BIO-5 (Preconstruction Bat Survey and Implement Avoidance Measures) requires a preconstruction survey for bats to determine if roost habitat is present and if bats are roosting in trees or other vegetation requiring removal for the Project. In the unlikely event that the trees proposed for removal develop features that provide suitable roost habitat, MM BIO -5 will ensure that impacts to roosting bats will not occur by requiring the development of a Bat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan which requires coordination with the City and CDFW. The Plan shall include information pertaining to the species of bat and loca tion of the roost, the recom - mended two-step tree removal process, compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts (including specific mitigation ratios and location of proposed mitigation), and monitoring to assess bat use of mitigation areas.

A1-12 The CDFW notes that Crotch’s bumble bee, a state candidate for listing, has been detected in the region and recommends a habitat assessment be conducted by a qualified entomologist knowledgeable with the life history and ecological requirements of Crotch’s bumble bee.

The IS/MND adequately characterized the potential for Crotch’s bumble bee to occur in the Project area. Due to the heavily urbanized setting and the existing level of disturbance, there is a very low/minimal potential for Crotch’s bumble bee to be present along the Project alignment and adjacent land. To verify conditions, a supplemental site visit was conducted of the Project area which confirmed the presence of suitable nest habitat, California ground squirrel and other small mammal burrows, in the ruderal roadside land cover along Bassett Street and the land - scaped interchange area south of the Montague Expressway overpass. However, the interchange area south of the overpass is outside of the Project work area and 50 -ft avoidance buffer recommended for avoiding impacts to bumble bee nests, if present. Further, the ruderal roadside areas are extremely narrow and land use within and adjacent to the Project alignment contains few flowering plants that would provide high quality forage for Crotch’s bumble bee. However, in the unlikely event this species occurs in the Project area during construction, the IS/MND included MM BIO-3 (Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Special-Status Wildlife and Implement Avoidance Measures) which was modeled on the CDFW survey considerations for CESA candidate bumble bee species and requires a preconstruction survey for Crotch’s bumble bee and the establishment of a 50-foot avoidance buffer around a nest, if present. MM BIO -3 states that the survey shall focus on the ruderal habit at within the utility right -of-way adjacent to the Northern Receiving Station and landscaped and ruderal land at the Montague Expressway interchange, but does not state that the survey shall be limited to these locations. Because of the low likelihood of t his species occurring in the Project Area, SVP will not be seeking incidental take authorization for Crotch’s bumble bee.

SVP has confirmed that the use of herbicides and mowing activities will not occur during con - struction and are not activities they apply for operations or maintenance of facilities in the Project area.

A1-13 The CDFW indicated that burrowing owl is known from the region and recommends the IS/MND should include a thorough habitat assessment of potential burrowing owl habitat within and adjacent to the Project area.

As discussed in Section 5.4.2(a)(Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Criterion ‘a’), there are numerous CNDDB records for burrowing owl in the region of the Project area including a 2014 occurrence record overlapping the Northern Receiving Station, adjacent ruderal utility NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 7-16 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

right-of-way, and Levi’s Stadium. To verify site conditions, a supplemental site visit was conducted of the Project area which included the most likely areas that could support burrowing owls. This included the northeastern end of the ruderal utility right -of-way adjacent to the Project. Habitat in this area appeared graded and contained a layer of erosion control material possibly from hydroseeding. No burrows or owls were observed from the fence line using binoculars. In other areas of the right-of-way, the vegetation was approximately 1 to 3 feet tall. In addition, the ruderal utility right-of-way does not provide suitable habitat for burrowing owl. Suitable burrowing owl habitat was not observed in the ruderal roadside areas or the landscaped interchange north of Montague Expressway. The narrow roadside area between Bassett Street and Lafayette Street was observed to lack suitable burrow habitat and contained a high degree of human presence.

The narrow roadside areas adjacent to Montague Expressway on the west side of the overpass contained dense herbaceous vegetation approximately 3 to 5 feet tall. The landscaped inter - change north of Montague Expressway was heavily disturbed by staging activities for an unrelated and unknown construction project. The landscaped interchange south of Montague Expressway contains suitable burrowing owl habitat (i.e., California ground squi rrels and burrows, short vegetation); however, no owls or their sign were observed.

To ensure that owls are protected in the event that habitat and land cover/use changes over time, the IS/MND included MM BIO-3 (Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Special-Status Wildlife and Implement Avoidance Measures) which includes prescriptive survey recommendations and miti - gation guidelines for burrowing owls. If active burrows or potentially active burrows are identified, a 250-ft avoidance buffer will be established during the nesting season, and a 160 -ft avoidance buffer outside the nesting season. Given the highly urbanized characterization of the Project area and surrounding region in addition to the small Project footprint, these avoidance buffer sizes would be adequate. Please note that MM BIO-3 also states “The prescribed buffers may be adjusted by the qualified avian biologist in coordination with the City and CDFW based on existing conditions around the burrow, planned construction activities, tolerance of the species at a given location, and other pertinent factors.” This would include increasing buffers should an owl show signs of disturbance.

7.5. Responses to Comment Set A2 - SFPUC Water Enterprise Representatives from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) submitted a comment identi- fying SFPUC parcels that may be within the proposed Project site. They requested that SVP work with SFPUCs Real Estate Services regarding land rights. SFPUC requested to be listed as a responsible agency in the CEQA document.

The proposed NRS-KRS 115 kV Transmission Line crosses the SFPUC ROW on Lafayette Street contained within the public road ROW. There are no proposed project activities that would encroach on SFPUC ROW.

SVP will coordinate with SFPUC as needed to ensure that the Project follows the required SFPUC processes, and that the Project would not interfere with, endanger, or damage existing or future SFPUC operations, security, or facilities.

7.6. Responses to Comment Set A3 - San Jose International Airport Representatives from the San Jose International Airport (SJC) submitted a comment which expressed concerns about some transmission structures in the southern portion of the Project, due to their height and location near the airport.

SVP and SJC held a meeting to discuss concerns that SJC had regarding the Project based on the filed 7460 form on the FAA’s Obstruction Evaluation website. In the meeting, SJC shared their airport -specific requirements for One-Engine Inoperative elevation restrictions in the vicinity of the departure and NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 7. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SEPTEMBER 2024 7-17 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

approach angles to the airport’s runways. The structure location and height limits were discussed in relation to the specific needs of the airport in order to maintain a safe airspace around the airport. As a result of the meeting, structures on the propos ed transmission line on Bassett Street south of the Laurie Avenue and Lafayette Street intersection are being designed so that each structure remains below the elevation limit defined by SJC’s One -Engine Inoperative Surfaces map that was provided to SVP. No changes to the IS/MND are required due to this change.

7.7. Responses to Comment Set A4 - California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Representatives from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) submitted a comment letter which identified several regulations, restrictions, or permits, that may be required by the Project.

The letter identifies the Project as being within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Santa Clara County and recommends that the City consider the safety zone and noise compatibility policies stipulated in the ALUCP. Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the IS/MND explains that the Project will comply with FAA Part 77 regulations, ensuring impacts related to aviation hazards are less than significant.

The applicant will coordinate with Caltrans as needed prior to or during the construction process to ensure that any permits, such as Encroachment permits, are acquired.

7.8. Responses to Comment Set B1 through B74
Concerns raised in comments B1 through B74 are addressed in General Responses numbers 1 through 7, above.

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

JULY 2024 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Appendix A

LIST OF PREPARERS

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

JULY 2024 A-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

LIST OF PREPARERS
A consultant team headed by Aspen Environmental Group prepared this document under the direction of Silicon Valley Power. The preparers and technical reviewers of this document are presented below.

Lead Agency
Silicon Valley Power, City of Santa Clara
Allie Jackman, Principal Electric Utility Engineer ......................... Project Manager & Lead Agency Contact Project Management and Document Production
Aspen Environmental Group – Prime Contractor
Hedy Koczwara, Vice President, Sr. Environmental Scientist ...... Program Manager Grace Weeks, Environmental Scientists ...................................... Project Manager, Agriculture and Forestry, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public
Services, Utilities, and Service Systems,
Population and Housing, Recreation
Fritts Golden, Senior Associate .................................................... Project Oversight, Aesthetics, Land Use and Planning, Corona and Induced
Effects, Cumulative
Rachael Dal Porto, Environmental Engineer ................................ Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Energy Lauren DeOliveira, Cultural Resources Group Manager .............. Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources
Krystal Pulsipher, Senior Biologist ............................................... Biological Resources Aurie Patterson, Environmental Scientist & Geologist ................ Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mineral Resources
Jeffrey Linn ................................................................................... Noise, Transportation, Wildfire Sharon Heesh ............................................................................... Document Production Kati Simpson................................................................................. Graphic Design Chris Notto ................................................................................... GIS/Graphics Kramer Botanical – Subcontractor for Arborist Report
Neal Kramer, Botanist/Ecologist, Certified Arborist .................... Arborist Report

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

JULY 2024 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Appendix B

REFERENCES

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

JULY 2024 B-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

REFERENCES

4. Project Description
City of Santa Clara. 2023. MapSantaClara Parcel Identification. https://www.san taclaraca.gov/our-city/ departments-a-f/community-development/planning-division/map-santa-clara. Accessed February 2024.

DHS (California Department of Health Services). 2002. An Evaluation of the Possible Risks from Electric an
d Magnetic Fields (EMFs) from Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupations, and Appliances. California EMF Program. June 2002. [Online]: https://ia.cp uc.ca.gov/Environment/ info/esa/lakeview/resources/01_introduction.pdf. Accessed May 2024.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2001. International EMF Project. May 2001. [Online]: https://www. who.int/publications/m/item/international-advisory-committee-meeting-minutes-2001.

Accessed May 2024.
_____. 2007. Environmental Health Criteria Monograph No. 238. Extremely Low Frequency Fields. March 13, 2007
. [Online]: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241572385. Accessed May 2007.

5.1 Aesthetics
None

5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
City of Santa Clara. 2014. City of Santa Clara Zoning Map. Updated January 2014. http://santaclaraca.go v/ home/showdocument?id=756. Accessed April 1, 2024.

DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps. conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed April 1, 2024.

DOC 2017. State of California Williamson Act Contract Land Map. https://planning.l acity.org/eir/Holly woodCenter/Deir/ELDP/(E)%20Initial%20Study/Initial%20Study/Attachment%20B%20Refer ences/California%20Department%20of%20Conservation%20Williamson%20Map%202016.pdf.

Accessed April 1, 2024.
_____. 2016. Important Farmland in California, 2014. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.go v/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/ statewide/2014/fmmp2014_08_11.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2024.

5.3 Air Quality
BAAQMD. 2022. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. https://www.ba aqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california- environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. Accessed May 5, 2024. _____. 2023. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. https://www.ba aqmd.gov/about-air-quality/ research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status. Accessed May 5, 2024.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards Chart. https://ww2.arb.ca. gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. 2014. City of Santa Clara 2010 2035 General Plan. City Council adopted on November 16, 2010. Updated December 9, 2014. https://www.sant aclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/ community-development/planning-division/general-plan. Accessed May 5, 2024.

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

JULY 2024 B-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

5.4 Biological Resources
ABB (All About Birds), 2024. All About Birds: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. [Online]: https://allabout birds.org. Accessed April 2024.

APLIC (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee). Mitigating Bird Collisions With Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC. Washington, D.C. ______. 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006.

Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, CA. http://www.aplic.org/uploads/files/2643/SuggestedPractices2006(LR 2).pdf. ______. 2012. Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC. Washington, D.C. http://www.a plic.org/uploads/files/11218/Reducing_ Avian_Collisions_2012watermarkLR.pdf.

Baldwin et al., 2012 (Baldwin, B.G., D.H., Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T.J. Rosatti). The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. 2nd edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Bumble Bee Watch 2024 – Bumble Bee Watch, a collaborative effort to track and conserve North America’s bumble bees. Partners: Wildlife Preservation Canada, The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, York University Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Ottawa, Montreal Insectarium, London Natural History Museum, BeeSpotter. [Online]: https:// www.bumblebeewatch.org/about/. Accessed April 2024.

CalTrans and CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Available online at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Science-Institute/Habitat-Connectivity. Accessed April 2024.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2013. Report to the Fish and Game Commission:

Evaluation of the Petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to List Townsend’s Big -eared Bat ( Corynorhinus townsendii) as Threatened or Endangered Under the California Endangered Species Act. Prepared by California Department of Fish and Wildlife, March 2013. ______. 2016. Status Review: Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife and Fisheries Division Nongame Wildlife Program, Sacramento, CA. April 11, 2016.
______. 2019. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Report to the Fish and Game Commission: Evaluation of the Petition from the Xerces Society, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Center for Food Safety to List Four Species of Bumble Bees as Endang ered Under the California Endangered Species Act. Prepared by California Department of Fish and Wildlife, April 4, 2019. _____. 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. Available online at: https:// wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols#377281281-invertebrates. Accessed April 2024. ______. 2024. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Rarefind, Version 6. Heritage Section, CDFW, Sacramento.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2024. Rare Plant Inventory. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. [Online]: https://rareplants.cnps.org/Home/. Accessed April 2024.

CWHR. 2021. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System. Various species accounts. Updated versions of California’s Wildlife, edited by Zeiner, D.C. et all 1998 -1990. CDFW, Sacramento, CA. [Online]: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range. Accessed: April 2024.

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

JULY 2024 B-3 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

eBird.org. 2024. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. [Online]: https://ebird.org/home. Accessed April 2024.

Hatfield, R., S. Jepson, R. Thorp, L. Richardson, S. Colla, 2008. Bombus caliginosus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T44937726A69000748. [Online]: http://dx.d oi .org/10.2305/IUCN.UK. 2014-3.RLTS.T44937726A69000748.en. Accessed April 2024.

ICF International 2012. Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. Prepared for City of Gilroy, City of Morgan Hill, City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and Santa Clara Valley Water District. August 2012. [Onli ne]: https://www.s cv-habitatagency.org/178/ Santa-Clara-Valley-Habitat-Plan. Accessed April 2024.
iNaturalist. 2024. iNaturalist Online Database. [Online]: https://www.inaturalist.org/home. Accessed April 2024.

Jepson eFlora. 2024. Jepson eFlora. The Jepson Herbarium, University of California, Berkeley. Revision 12 (2
023) [Online]: https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/. Accessed April 2024.

Jepson, S., D.F. Schweitzer, B. Young, N. Sears, M. Ormes, S.H. Black, 2015. Conservation Status and Ecology of Monarchs in the United States. 36 pp. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, and the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, Oregon.

NAS 2023 – National Audubon Society (NAS). 2023. Important Bird Areas. [Online]: https://ca.audubon. org/important-bird-areas-9. Accessed April 2024.

NatureServe. 2024. NatureServe Explorer [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. [online]:
https://explorer.natureserve.org/. Accessed April 2024.

Sawyer et al. (Sawyer, J., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evans). 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation: Second Edition, 2009.

Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali (editors). 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

USDA NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2024a. Web Soil Survey 3.4.0. [Online]: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Accessed April 2024. ______. 2024b. National Hydric Soil List by State. [Online]: https://www.nr cs.usda.gov/publications/ query-by-state.html. Accessed April 2024.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2020. Monarch ( Danaus plexippus ) Species Status Assessment Report, version 2.1. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 96 pp + appendices. ______. 2023. Species status assessment report for the northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) and southwestern pond turtle ( Actinemys pallida), Version 1.1, April 2023. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California. ______. 2024a. IPaC: Information for Planning and Consultation. [Online]: https://ipac.ec osphere.fws. gov/. Accessed April 2024.
______. 2024b. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper. [Online]: https://fwsprimary.wim.us gs. gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/
WBWG 2017 – Western Bat Working Group (WBWG). Western Bat Species. [Online]: http://wbwg.o rg/ western-bat-species/. Accessed April 2024.

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

JULY 2024 B-4 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Xerces Society. 2018. Petition to the State of California, Fish and Game Commission, to list the Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), Franklin’s bumble bee (Bombus franklini), Suckley cuckoo bumble bee ( Bombus suckleyi ), and western bumble bee ( Bombus occidentalis occidentalis ) as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. Prepared by The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for Food Safety. October 2018.

5.5 Cultural Resources
Broek, J.O.M. 1932. The Santa Clara Valley, California: A Study in Landscape Changes. N.v.A. Oosthoek’s Utig. Maadtij, Utrecht.

Cutter, D.C. 1978. Plans for the Occupation of Upper California: A New Look at the “Dark Age” from 1602 to 1769. Journal of San Diego History 24(1):78-90.

Findlay, J.M. and D.M. Garaventa. 1983. Archaeological Resources of Downtown San Jose: A Preliminary Planning Summary of Prehistoric and Historic Sites in the Central Business District. MS on file, S 5905, CHRIS/NWIC, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert Park.

Fitzgerald, R.T. and J. Porcasi. 2003. The Metcalf Site (CA-SCL-178) and Its Place in Early Holocene California Prehistory. Society for California Archaeology Newsletter 37(4):27-31.

Fitzgerald, R.T. 1991. Archaic Milling Cultures of the Southern San Francisco Bay Region. Archives of California Prehistory 35. Coyote Press, Salinas.

Fredrickson, David A. 1973. Spatial and Cultural Units in Central California Archaeology. University of California, Berkley.

Hart, J.D. 1987. A Companion to California (revised and expanded). Oxford University Press, New York.

Heizer, R.F., and S.F. Cook. 1953. “Capay Man,” An Ancient Central California Indian Burial. In Papers on California Archaeology: 21-26, edited by Richard F. Heizer. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 22:24-26, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Anthropology.

Heizer, R.F. 1949. The Archaeology of Central California, L· The Early Horizon. University of California Anthropological Records. University of California Press, Berkeley. 12(1):1-84. _____. 1952. A Review of Problems in the Antiquity of Man in California. In Symposium of the Antiquity of Man in California, pp. 1 -10. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey No. 16:3 17.
_____. 1950. Observations on Early Man in California. In Papers on California Archaeology: 1 -5, pp. 5-10.

Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey No.7, Berkeley.

Hendry, G.W. and J.N. Bowman. 1940. The Spanish and Mexican Adobe and Other Buildings in the Nine San Francisco Bay Counties, 1776 to about 1850 (and associated maps). MS on file, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

Hildebrandt, W.R. 1983. Archaeological Research of the Southern Santa Clara Valley Project: Based on a Data Recovery Program from Sites CA-SCl-54, CA-SCl-163, CA-SCl-178, CA-SCl-237, and CA-SCl-241 Located in the Route 101 Corridor, Santa Clara County, Cal ifornia. Submitted to California Department of Transportation, District 4, San Francisco. Report S 6369. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA.

Levy, R. 1978. Costanoan. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, Volume 8. Handbook of North American Indians, W.G. Sturtevant, general editor, pp. 485-497. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

JULY 2024 B-5 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Lillard, J.B., R.F. Heizer, and F. Fenenga. 1939. An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California.

Sacramento Junior College Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2. Board of Education of the Sacramento City Unified School District, Sacramento, California.

Meighan, C.W. 1965. Pacific Coast Archaeology. The Quaternary of the United States, edited by H.E.

Wright and D.G. Frey.

Winther, J.C. 1935. Archaeological Investigations at CA -SCl-128, The Holiday Inn Site. For the Ohlone People and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose, California. MS on file, S-5281, CHRIS/NWIC, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert Park.

5.6 Energy
CEC (California Energy Commission). 2022. Final 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR), Volume II - Ensuring Reliability in a Changing Climate. https://efiling.e nergy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn= 241583. Accessed April 26, 2024.
_____. 2023a. 2021 Power Content Label for City of Santa Clara/Silicon Valley Power. https://www. energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/4673. Accessed April 26, 2024. _____. 2023b. Refinery Inputs and Production, Weekly Fuels Watch Dashboard. Data last updated:

September 27, 2023. https://www.ener gy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/weekly-fuels-watch/ refinery-inputs-and-production. Retrieved April 15, 2024. _____. 2024. Electricity Consumption by Entity. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx.

Accessed May 3, 2024.

CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). 2008. Energy Action Plan, 2008 Update. February. http:// www.cpuc.ca.gov/eaps/. Accessed April 26, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. 2024. Utility Fact Sheet. Electric Utility: City of Santa Clara. January –December 2023. http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/about-svp/utility-fact-sheet. Accessed April 26, 2024.

SVP (Silicon Valley Power). 2023. Final 2023 Integrated Resource Plan for Silicon Valley Power. Adopted by
the Santa Clara City Council, December 5, 2023. https://www.si liconvalleypower.com/home/ showpublisheddocument/82481/638367924630670000. Accessed May 3, 2024.

5.7 Geology and Soils
CGS (California Geological Survey). 2001. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Milpitas 7.5 -Minute Quadrangle, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, California. https://maps.co nservation.ca.gov/ cgs/EQZApp/app/.
_____. 2016. Earthquake Shaking Potential for California. https://www.co nservation.ca.gov/cgs/docu ments/publications/map-sheets/MS_048.pdf. Site specific data viewed at: https://usgs.maps. arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf. Accessed April 2024.
_____. 2018. Earthquake Fault Zones, CGS Special Publication #42. https://www.co nservation.ca.gov/cgs/ Documents/Publications/Special-Publications/SP_042.pdf. Accessed April 2024. _____. 2024a. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.co nservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZ App/app/. Accessed April 2024.

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

JULY 2024 B-6 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

_____. 2024b. Big California Earthquakes. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/earthquakes/significant.

Accessed April 2024.

City of Santa Clara. 2011. City of Santa Clara Draft 2010-2035 General Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Im
pact Report. January 2011. http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=12900.

Accessed April 2024.
_____. 2014. City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan. City Council adopted on November 16, 2010.

Upd
ated December 9, 2014. https://www.sant aclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/commu nity-development/planning-division/general-plan. Accessed April 2024.

County of Santa Clara. 2012. “Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones.” https://stgenpln.bl ob.core. windows.net/document/GEO_GeohazardATLAS.pdf. Accessed April 2024.

DWR (Department of Water Resources). 2024. Water Data Library Groundwater Levels. https://wdl.w ater. ca.gov/WaterDataLibrary/Map.aspx. Accessed April 2024.

Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A. 2005. Geologic map of the Milpitas Quadrangle, Alameda and Santa Clara and Counties, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-1531, scale 1:24,000. Viewed at: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71767.htm. Accessed April 2024.

Helley, E.J., 1990, Preliminary contour map showing elevation of surface of Pleistocene alluvium under Santa Clara Valley, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90 -633, scale 1:24,000. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr90633. Accessed April 2024.

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2024. Web Soil Survey, Project Area Map and Data. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed April 2024.

SCCVWD (Santa Clara County Valley Water District). 2024. Your Water – Subsidence. https://www. valleywater.org/your-water/groundwater/subsidence. Accessed April 2024.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. https://vertpaleo.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/ 01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf. Accessed April 2024.

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2024a. Land Subsidence in the Santa Clara Valley. https://www. usgs.gov/centers/land-subsidence-in-california/science/land-subsidence-santa-clara-valley .

Accessed April 2024.
_____. 2024b. Earthquake Hazards Program, 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Sour ce Parameters. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/query_main.cfm. Accessed April 2024.
_____. 2024c. Earthquakes Hazard Program, Earthquake Catalog Search. https://earthquake.u sgs.gov/ earthquakes/search/. Accessed April 2024.

USGS and CGS (United States Geological Survey and California Geological Survey). 2024. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States KML files. https://www.us gs.gov/programs/earthquake- hazards/faults. Downloaded April 2024.

Youd, T.L. and D.M. Perkins. 1978. Mapping Liquefaction Induced Ground Failure Potential, in the Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division.

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

JULY 2024 B-7 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CARB (Air Resources Board). 2023. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000-2021: Tends of Emissions and Other Indicators. December 14, 2023. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data.

Accessed April 25, 2024.
_____. 2022. California’s Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16, 2022. https://ww2. arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf. Accessed April 25, 2024.

BAAQMD. 2022. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. https://www.ba aqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california- environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. Accessed May 5, 2024.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2022. Chapter 2: Emissions trends and drivers.

Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. https:// www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/chapter/chapter-2/. Accessed April 25, 2024.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency). 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May. https://oehha.ca.go v/media/downloads/ climate-change/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay 2018.pdf. Accessed April 25, 2024.

5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Santa Clara. 2014. City of Santa Clara General Plan – Chapter 5: Goals and Policies. https://www. santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/13934/635729106120730000. Accessed April 2024.

OEM (Office of Emergency Management). 2022. County of Santa Clara Emergency Operations Plan.

Ja
nuary 2022. https://emergencymanagement.sccg ov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb261/files/docu ment/2022%20EOP_County%20of%20Santa%20Clara_01.20.2022%20Accessibility%20Check. pdf. Accessed June 2024.

DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2024a. EnviroStor Database. https://www. envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=santa+clara. Accessed April 2024. _____. 2024b. EnviroStor database. “Cortese List Data Resources.” https://www.en virostor.dtsc.ca.gov/ public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES,FUDS&status=ACT,BKLG, COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29.

Accessed April 2024.

OSFM (Office of the State Fire Marshal). 2024. Frequently Asked Questions About: 2023 Fire Hazard Se
verity Zones., Updated March 11, 2024. https://34c031f8-c9fd- 4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn- endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/osfm-website/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness- and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones/fire-hazard-severity-zones-map/2023-fhsz-faqs- march-11-2024.pdf?rev=4652b9617dec4dceac0e6443b19cfe8f&hash= 9C503ABC051104ECE7CC0E7ECCB5FDE0. Accessed April 2024.
_____. 2024b. Santa Clara County, Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://experience.a rcgis.com/ experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/. Accessed April 2024.

SCCALUC (Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission). 2024. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Santa Clara County, San Jose Mineta International Airport. https://stgenpln.b lob.core.windows. net/document/ALUC_SJC_CLUP.pdf. Accessed April 2024.

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

JULY 2024 B-8 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2024. State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=santa+clara.

Accessed April 2024.

5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Santa Clara. 2014. City of Santa Clara General Plan – Chapter 5: Goals and Policies. http://santa claraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=13934. Accessed March 2024.

DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2003. Bulletin 118 Update 2003 – Basin Report 2_009_

02. https://data.cn ra.ca.gov/dataset/bulletin-118-update-2003-basin-reports/resource/20296ca 3-a155-4285-8786-b775b89b9033. Accessed March 2024.
_____. 2024. Bulletin 118 Groundwater Basin Boundaries Dataset. https://data.cn ra.ca.gov/dataset/i08- b118-ca-groundwaterbasins. Accessed March 2024.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2009. Online flood map 06085C0064H, effective 05/18/2009. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=santa%20clara. Accessed March 2024.

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2018. Final California 2018 Integrated Report (303(d) Li
st/305(b) Report), Supporting Information Regional Board 2 – San Francisco Bay Region, Water Body Name: Saratoga Creek. https://www.waterboards.ca.go v/water_issues/programs/water_ quality_assessment/2018_integrated_report.html. Accessed March 2024.

5.11 Land Use and Planning
City of Santa Clara. 2014. City of Santa Clara General Plan – Chapter 5: Goals and Policies. http://santa claraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=13934. Accessed March 2024. _____. 2023a. MAP Santa Clara, Zoning Map. Updated January 1, 2023. https://www.sant aclaraca.gov/ our-city/departments-a-f/community-development/planning-division/map-santa-clara.

Accessed March 2024.
_____. 2023b. Title 18 - Zo ning Code. December 2023. [Online]: https://www.sant aclaraca.gov/home/ showpublisheddocument/82067/638386835249500000

5.12 Mineral Resources
CDOC (California Department of Conservation). 1996. Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region. DMG Open-File Report 96-03. Downloaded from: https://maps.co nservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index. html?map=mlc. Accessed April 2024.
_____. 2024a. CGS Information Warehouse: Mineral Land Classification. https://maps.co nservation.ca. gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc. Accessed April 2024. _____. 2024b. SMARA Statutes and Regulations. https://www.co nservation.ca.gov/dmr/lawsandregu lations. Accessed April 2024.

Google Earth. 2024. Identification of CEMEX Concrete Plant south of Montague Expressway. https://earth. google.com/web/search/CEMEX+Santa+Clara+Concrete+Plant,+Russell+Avenue,+Santa+Clara,+ CA/@37.38681316,-121.95740583,6.58677683a,1891.91957173d,35y,359.99980199h,0t,0r/ data=Cq0BGoIBEnwKJTB4ODA4ZmM5OWFlYWU0MzJiZDoweGQxZmJiZGZjMWQ3NjU4NGMZY npnWZyxQkAhsyodBzl9XsAqQUNFTUVYIFNhbnRhIENsYXJhIENvbmNyZXRlIFBsYW50LCBSdXNzZ NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

JULY 2024 B-9 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

WxsIEF2ZW51ZSwgU2FudGEgQ2xhcmEsIENBGAIgASImCiQJ-NQjAbUCQ0AR-1fmKccBQ0AZS7- 1SBxAXsAhyiI8v61AXsA6AwoBMA. Accessed June 2024.

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2024. Mineral Resources Data System. https://mrdata.u sgs.gov/ mrds/. Accessed April 2024

5.13 Noise
City of Santa Clara. 2014. City of Santa Clara 2010 2035 General Plan. City Council adopted on November 16, 2010. Updated December 9, 2014. https://www.sant aclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/ community-development/planning-division/general-plan. Accessed April 3, 2024.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model, User’s Guide. January. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf. Accessed April 3, 2024.

OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2017. General Plan Guidelines: 2017 Update. Updated Sep
tember 2017. http://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html. Accessed April 3, 2024.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Re
quisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. No. 550/ 9 74 004, Washington, D.C.

5.14 Population and Housing
City of Santa Clara. 2014a. City of Santa Clara General Plan – Chapter 5: Goals and Policies. http:// santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=13934. Accessed March 2024. _____. 2014b. City of Santa Clara General Plan – Appendix 8.12 Housing Element. https://www.sant aclara ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/13932/635713044859030000. Accessed March 2024. _____. 2023. MAP Santa Clara, Zoning Map. Updated January 1, 2023. https://www.san taclaraca.gov/our- city/departments-a-f/community-development/planning-division/map-santa-clara. Accessed March 2024.

California Department of Finance (CA DOF). 2023. E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021 -2023, with 2020 Benchmark. Updated May 2023. https:// dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for- cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/. Accessed March 2024.

California Employment Development Department (CA EDD). 2023. Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census Designated Places – 2023 Annual Average. https://labormarketinfo.ed d.ca. gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and-census-areas.html. Accessed March 2024.

5.15 Public Services
City of Santa Clara. 2011. City of Santa Clara Draft 2010-2035 General Plan – Integrated Final Environ - mental Impact Report, Volume I EIR Text. https://www.sant aclaraca.gov/our-city/departments- a-f/community-development/planning-division/general-plan. Accessed March 2024. _____. 2014a. City of Santa Clara General Plan – Chapter 5: Goals and Policies. http://santaclaraca.go v/ home/showdocument?id=13934. Accessed March 2024.

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

JULY 2024 B-10 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

_____. 2024a. Parks. https://www.sant aclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-g-z/parks-recreation/parks- pools/parks. Accessed March 2024.
_____. 2024b. Agnews Historic Park. https://www.sant aclaraca.gov/Home/Components/ServiceDirect ory/ServiceDirectory/321/2654. Accessed March 2024.
_____. 2024c. City of Santa Clara: Public Safety; Fire Stations and Police Stations within Santa Clara. https://missioncity.map s.arcgis.com/apps/MapTour/index.html?appid=15779cefd9bc463d8bc 6229b61d921d5. Accessed March 2024.
_____. 2024d. Santa Clara Police Department – Fact Sheet. Updated February 15, 2024. https://www.s anta claraca.gov/our-city/departments-g-z/police-department/about-us/fact-sheet. Accessed March 2024.

5.16 Recreation
City of Santa Clara. 2014a. City of Santa Clara General Plan – Chapter 5: Goals and Policies. http://santa claraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=13934. Accessed March 2024. _____. 2024a. Parks. https://www.sant aclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-g-z/parks-recreation/parks- pools/parks. Accessed March 2024.
_____. 2024b. Agnews Historic Park. https://www.sant aclaraca.gov/Home/Components/ServiceDirect ory/ServiceDirectory/321/2654Accessed March 2024.

5.17 Transportation
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2020. 2020 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways.” https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census. Accessed April 3, 2024.

City of Santa Clara. 2011. City of Santa Clara Draft 2010-2035 General Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2011. http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=12900. _____. 2013. “2013 City of Santa Clara Bicycle Map”. http://santaclaraca.go v/home/showdocument?id= 1326. Accessed April 3, 2024.
_____. 2014. City of Santa Clara General Plan – Chapter 5: Goals and Policies. https://www.san taclaraca. gov/our-city/departments-a-f/community-development/planning-division/general-plan.

Accessed April 3, 2024.

VTA (Valley Transit Authority). 2021. Valley Transit Authority Transit Map. October 11, 2021. https://www. vta.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/VTA_MainMap_101121.pdf. Accessed April 3, 2024.

5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
City of San Jose. 2011. Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan. Adopted November 1, 2011.

Golla, V. 2011. California Indian Languages. University of California Press, Berkeley.

King, C.D. 1977. Matalan Ethnohistory. In Final Report of Archaeological Test Excavations of Freeway 04 SCl-101, Post Mile 17.2/29.4, Cochrane Road to Ford Road, edited by S.A. Dietz. MS on file, S 4395, CHRIS/NWIC, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert Park.

Levy, R. 1978. Costanoan. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, Volume 8. Handbook of North American Indians, W.G. Sturtevant, general editor, pp. 485-497. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

JULY 2024 B-11 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Margolin, M. 1978. The Ohlone Way: Indian Life in the San Francisco–Monterey Bay Area. Heyday Books, Berkeley.

OPR (Office of Planning and Research). 2017.Technical Advisory: AB 52 and Tribal Cultural Resources in CEQA. https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20200224-AB_52_Technical_Advisory_Feb_2020.pdf.

5.19 Utilities and Service Systems
CalRecycle 2024a. Facility/Site Summary Details: Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (43 AN 0003). https://www2 . calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1362?siteID=3388. Accessed March 2024. _____. 2024b. Facility/Site Summary Details: Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill (43 -AN-0015). https://www2. calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/3399. Accessed March 2024. _____. 2024c. Facility/Site Summary Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41 AA 0002). https:// www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/3223. Accessed March 2024.

City of Santa Clara. 2014. City of Santa Clara 2010 2035 General Plan. City Council adopted on November 16, 2010. Updated December 9, 2014. https://www.sant aclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/ community-development/planning-division/general-plan. Accessed March 2024.

City of San Jose. 2024. San Jose –Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. https://www.sanj oseca.gov/ your-government/departments-offices/environmental-services/water-utilities/regional-waste water-facility. Accessed March 2024.

Silicon Valley Power. 2023. Utility Fact Sheet. Electric Utility: City of Santa Clara. January-December 2023. https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/about-svp/utility-fact-sheet.

Accessed March 2024.

5.20 Wildfire
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2007. Santa Clara County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. Adopted November 7, 2007. http://frap.fi re.ca.gov/webdata/maps/santa_ clara/fhszs_map.43.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2024.

5.21 Corona and Induced Current Effects
IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers). 1971. Radio Noise Subcommittee Report – Working Group No. 3. Radio Noise Design Guide For High Voltage Transmission Lines. IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Volume PAS 90, Number 2, p. 833. _____. 1979. J.E. Bridges and M.J Frazier. The Effect of 60 Hertz Fields and Currents on Cardiac Pacemakers.

7 Response to Comments
OPR. 2024. CEQA Guidelines. [Online]: https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/. Accessed September 2024.

PSCW (Public Service Commission of Wisconsin) 2017. EMF Electric and Magnetic Fields. [Online]:
https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/Brochures/EMF.pdf. Accessed September 2024.

US EPA 2023. Human Health Risk Assessment. Updated December 6, 2023. [Online]:
https://www.epa.gov/risk/human-health-risk-assessment. Accessed September 2024.

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

JULY 2024 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Appendix C

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Attachment 1
AQ/GHG Emissions Summary
Maximum Daily Emissions by Phase (lbs/day)
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Demolition 2.56 2.14 19.61 19.52 0.03 0.79 11.80 12.59 0.73 1.18 1.91 Site Preparation 2.00 1.55 15.91 18.96 0.05 0.51 13.18 13.69 0.47 1.46 1.93 Overhead Pole Installation 2.15 1.71 16.75 21.09 0.04 0.45 12.63 13.08 0.42 1.39 1.81 Underground Trenching 1.05 0.79 8.90 13.37 0.03 0.19 12.63 12.82 0.18 1.39 1.57 Underground Vault Instalation 2.15 1.71 16.75 21.09 0.04 0.45 12.63 13.08 0.42 1.39 1.81 Paving and Cleanup 1.55 5.95 11.67 16.21 0.03 0.39 0.85 1.25 0.36 0.22 0.58 Maximum Daily Emissions 2.56 5.95 19.61 21.09 0.05 0.79 13.18 13.69 0.73 1.46 1.93 Annual
GHG Emissions (MT/year)
NBCO₂ CO₂T CH₄ N₂O R CO₂e
2027 592.38 592.38 0.03 0.04 0.24 604.41
2028 35.32 35.32 0.00 0.00 0.02 36.15
Total 627.70 627.70 0.03 0.04 0.26 640.56

Attachment 2
AQ GHG Inputs
Equipment HHDT (one way
Phase Count Equipment Type Duration Employees trips/day) Demolition 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws 2 weeks 15 40
2 Rubber Tired Dozers
3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Site Preparation 5 Pickup truck 1 month 15 40
1 Aerial Lifts
1 Bore/Drill Rigs
2 Cement and Mortar Mixers
1 Cranes
1 Excavators
1 Graders
1 Plate Compactors
1 Pumps
1 Rollers
1 Skid Steer Loaders
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Overhead Pole Installation 2 Aerial Lifts 4 months 25 30 1 Bore/Drill Rigs
1 Cement and Mortar Mixers
1 Cranes
1 Excavators
1 Forklifts
1 Generator Sets
1 Other General Industrial Equipment
1 Rollers
1 Skid Steer Loaders
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 Welders
Underground Trenching 2 Excavators 3 months 25 30
2 Skid Steer Loaders
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 Aerial Lifts
1 Bore/Drill Rigs
1 Pumps
Underground Vault Instalation 2 Aerial Lifts 4 months 25 30 1 Bore/Drill Rigs
1 Cement and Mortar Mixers
1 Cranes
1 Excavators
1 Forklifts
1 Generator Sets
1 Other General Industrial Equipment
1 Rollers
1 Skid Steer Loaders
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 Welders
Paving and Cleanup 1 Cement and Mortar Mixers 6 weeks 25 40 1 Pavers
1 Paving Equipment
1 Rollers
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 Air Compressors

Attachment 3
CalEEMod Output
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
NRS-KRS 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 Y ear, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2027) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2027) - Mitigated
1 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

3.3. Site Preparation (2027) - Unmitigated

3.4. Site Preparation (2027) - Mitigated

3.5. Overhead Pole Installation (2027) - Unmitigated

3.6. Overhead Pole Installation (2027) - Mitigated

3.7. Underground Vault Instalation (2027) - Unmitigated

3.8. Underground Vault Instalation (2027) - Mitigated

3.9. Paving and Cleanup (2027) - Unmitigated

3.10. Paving and Cleanup (2027) - Mitigated

3.11. Paving and Cleanup (2028) - Unmitigated

3.12. Paving and Cleanup (2028) - Mitigated

3.13. Underground Trenching (2027) - Unmitigated

3.14. Underground Trenching (2027) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy
2 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

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
3 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

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
4 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated
5 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

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 6 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

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

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
7 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
8 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name NRS-KRS
Construction Start Date 1/1/2027
Operational Y ear 2028
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.00
Precipitation (days) 32.8
Location 37.40266834949317, -121.96598603995236
County Santa Clara
City Santa Clara
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 6706
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Silicon Valley Power
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.22

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
9 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
General Heavy
Industry
1,098 1000sqft 25.2 1,098,000 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-2* Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
* 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. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.16 1.72 16.6 21.3 0.04 0.45 12.6 13.1 0.42 1.39 1.81 — 5,416 5,416 0.27 0.30 4.70 5,518 Mit. 2.16 1.72 16.6 21.3 0.04 0.45 12.6 13.1 0.42 1.39 1.81 — 5,416 5,416 0.27 0.30 4.70 5,518 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — —
Unmit. 2.86 5.95 22.6 21.8 0.05 0.82 13.2 13.7 0.76 1.46 2.16 — 6,164 6,164 0.34 0.41 0.14 6,294 Mit. 2.86 5.95 22.6 21.8 0.05 0.82 12.9 13.5 0.76 1.43 2.16 — 6,164 6,164 0.34 0.41 0.14 6,294 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 2% 2% — 2% — — — — — — — —
10 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.35 1.20 10.6 13.5 0.03 0.29 8.29 8.58 0.27 0.92 1.19 — 3,578 3,578 0.19 0.22 1.48 3,651 Mit. 1.35 1.20 10.6 13.5 0.03 0.29 8.27 8.56 0.27 0.92 1.19 — 3,578 3,578 0.19 0.22 1.48 3,651 %
Reduced
— — — — — — < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5% < 0.5% — — — — — — — Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.25 0.22 1.94 2.46 0.01 0.05 1.51 1.57 0.05 0.17 0.22 — 592 592 0.03 0.04 0.24 604 Mit. 0.25 0.22 1.94 2.46 0.01 0.05 1.51 1.56 0.05 0.17 0.22 — 592 592 0.03 0.04 0.24 604 %
Reduced
— — — — — — < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5% < 0.5% — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 2.16 1.72 16.6 21.3 0.04 0.45 12.6 13.1 0.42 1.39 1.81 — 5,416 5,416 0.27 0.30 4.70 5,518 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 2.86 5.95 22.6 21.8 0.05 0.82 13.2 13.7 0.76 1.46 2.16 — 6,164 6,164 0.34 0.41 0.14 6,294 2028 1.47 5.88 11.3 16.1 0.03 0.34 12.6 13.0 0.31 1.39 1.71 — 4,035 4,035

0.21 0.29 0.11 4,127
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.35 1.20 10.6 13.5 0.03 0.29 8.29 8.58 0.27 0.92 1.19 — 3,578 3,578 0.19 0.22 1.48 3,651 2028 0.08 0.31 0.59 0.85 < 0.005 0.02 0.61 0.63 0.02 0.07 0.08 — 213 213 0.01 0.02 0.10 218 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
11 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
2027 0.25 0.22 1.94 2.46 0.01 0.05 1.51 1.57 0.05 0.17 0.22 — 592 592 0.03 0.04 0.24 604 2028 0.01 0.06 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 35.3 35.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 36.1

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 2.16 1.72 16.6 21.3 0.04 0.45 12.6 13.1 0.42 1.39 1.81 — 5,416 5,416 0.27 0.30 4.70 5,518 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 2.86 5.95 22.6 21.8 0.05 0.82 12.9 13.5 0.76 1.43 2.16 — 6,164 6,164 0.34 0.41 0.14 6,294
2028 1.47 5.88 11.3 16.1 0.03 0.34 12.6 13.0 0.31 1.39 1.71 — 4,035 4,035 0.21 0.29 0.11 4,127 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.35 1.20 10.6 13.5 0.03 0.29 8.27 8.56 0.27 0.92 1.19 — 3,578 3,578 0.19 0.22 1.48 3,651 2028 0.08 0.31 0.59 0.85 < 0.005 0.02 0.61 0.63 0.02 0.07 0.08 — 213 213 0.01 0.02 0.10 218 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.25 0.22 1.94 2.46 0.01 0.05 1.51 1.56 0.05 0.17 0.22 — 592 592 0.03 0.04 0.24 604 2028 0.01 0.06 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 35.3 35.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 36.1

2.4. 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. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
12 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Unmit. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.5. 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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.6. 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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 14 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — —
— — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3. Construction Emissions Details

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

2.54 2.14 19.4 19.4 0.03 0.79 — 0.79 0.73 — 0.73 — 3,582 3,582 0.15 0.03 — 3,595 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — —
—
Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 33.3 33.3 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 35.0 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
16 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
17 / 79

98.5—< 0.005 < 0.005 98.198.1—0.02—0.020.02—0.02< 0.005 0.530.530.060.07Off-Road Equipment
Equipment
Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 0.91 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.96 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.2 16.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.3 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 229 229 0.01 0.01 0.02 232 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.01 272 Hauling 0.20 0.04 2.63 1.26 0.01 0.03 0.56 0.58 0.03 0.15 0.18 — 2,059 2,059 0.17 0.33 0.10 2,160 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.35 6.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.45 Vendor < 0.005
< 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.12 7.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.45 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 56.4 56.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 59.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.05 1.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.07 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.18 1.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.23 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.34 9.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.80 NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

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

2.54 2.14 19.4 19.4 0.03 0.79 — 0.79 0.73 — 0.73 — 3,582 3,582 0.15 0.03 — 3,595 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 33.3 33.3 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005

35.0 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 98.1 98.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 98.5 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 0.91 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.96 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.2 16.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.3 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
18 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 229 229 0.01 0.01 0.02 232 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.01 272 Hauling 0.20 0.04 2.63 1.26 0.01 0.03 0.56 0.58 0.03 0.15 0.18 — 2,059 2,059 0.17 0.33 0.10 2,160 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.35 6.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.45 Vendor
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.12 7.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.45 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 56.4 56.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 59.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.05 1.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.07 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.18 1.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.23 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.34 9.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.80

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

1.69 1.41 12.8 16.6 0.03 0.48 — 0.48 0.44 — 0.44 — 3,137 3,137 0.13 0.03 — 3,148 19 / 79
20 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.53 0.53 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 33.3 33.3 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 35.0 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.08 0.70 0.91 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 172 172 0.01 < 0.005 — 172 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.59 0.59 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 — 1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.92 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.01 0.13 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 28.5 28.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.6 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 229 229 0.01 0.01 0.02 232 Vendor 0.02

0.01 0.33 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.01 272 Hauling 0.20 0.04 2.63 1.26 0.01 0.03 0.56 0.58 0.03 0.15 0.18 — 2,059 2,059 0.17 0.33 0.10 2,160 NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.7 12.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.2 14.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 14.9 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.14 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 113 113 0.01 0.02 0.10 118 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.10 2.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.13 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.36 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.47 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.7 18.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 19.6

3.4. Site Preparation (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 21 / 79
Equipment
Movement
Equipment
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road 1.69 1.41 12.8 16.6 0.03 0.48 — 0.48 0.44 — 0.44 — 3,137 3,137 0.13 0.03 — 3,148 Dust
From
Material
— — — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 33.3 33.3 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 35.0 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road 0.09 0.08 0.70 0.91 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 172 172 0.01 < 0.005 — 172 NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
22 / 79
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Equipment
Movement
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.59 0.59 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 — 1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.92 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road 0.02 0.01 0.13 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 28.5 28.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.6 Dust
From
Material
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 229 229 0.01 0.01 0.02 232 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.01 272 Hauling 0.20 0.04 2.63 1.26 0.01 0.03 0.56 0.58 0.03 0.15 0.18 — 2,059 2,059 0.17 0.33 0.10 2,160 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.7 12.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.2 14.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 14.9 Hauling 0.01
< 0.005 0.14 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 113 113 0.01 0.02 0.10 118 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.10 2.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.13 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.36 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.47 NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.7 18.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 19.6

3.5. Overhead Pole Installation (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.84 1.54 14.5 18.5 0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 3,338 3,338 0.14 0.03 — 3,350 Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 33.2 33.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 35.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
—
Off-Road
Equipment

1.84 1.54 14.5 18.5 0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 3,338 3,338 0.14 0.03 — 3,350 Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 33.3 33.3 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 35.0 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.40 0.34 3.17 4.06 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 732 732 0.03 0.01 — 734 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.35 2.35 < 0.005 0.23 0.23 — 7.29 7.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.67 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.58 0.74 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 121 121 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 122 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.27 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
23 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.10 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 413 413 0.01 0.02 1.39 419 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.31 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.57 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.66 0.83 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 2.69 1,442 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.12 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 382 382 0.01 0.02 0.04 387 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.01 272 Hauling

0.13 0.03 1.76 0.84 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 0.07 1,440 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 84.7 84.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 86.0 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 56.9 56.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 59.6 Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.38 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 301 301 0.02 0.05 0.25 316 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.2 Vendor < 0.005
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.43 9.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.87 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.8 49.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 52.3

3.6. Overhead Pole Installation (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
24 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Off-Road
Equipment

1.84 1.54 14.5 18.5 0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 3,338 3,338 0.14 0.03 — 3,350 Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 33.2 33.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 35.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.84 1.54 14.5 18.5 0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 3,338 3,338 0.14 0.03 — 3,350 Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 33.3 33.3 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 35.0 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.40 0.34 3.17 4.06 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 732 732 0.03 0.01 — 734 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.35 2.35 < 0.005 0.23 0.23 — 7.29 7.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.67 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.58 0.74 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 121 121 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 122 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.27 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.10 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 413 413 0.01 0.02 1.39 419 Vendor 0.02

0.01 0.31 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.57 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.66 0.83 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 2.69 1,442 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.12 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 382 382 0.01 0.02 0.04 387 25 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.01 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.76 0.84 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 0.07 1,440 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 84.7 84.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 86.0 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 56.9 56.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 59.6 Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.38 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 301 301 0.02 0.05 0.25 316 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.43 9.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.87 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.8 49.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 52.3

3.7. Underground Vault Instalation (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.84 1.54 14.5 18.5 0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 3,338 3,338 0.14 0.03 — 3,350 Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 33.2 33.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 35.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.84 1.54 14.5 18.5 0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 3,338 3,338 0.14 0.03 — 3,350 Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 33.3 33.3 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 35.0 26 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.40 0.34 3.17 4.06 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 732 732 0.03 0.01 — 734 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.35 2.35 < 0.005 0.23 0.23 — 7.29 7.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.67 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.58 0.74 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 121 121 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 122 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.27 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.10 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 413 413 0.01 0.02 1.39 419 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.31 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.57 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.66 0.83 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 2.69 1,442 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.12 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 382 382 0.01 0.02 0.04 387 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.01 272 Hauling 0.13

0.03 1.76 0.84 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 0.07 1,440 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 84.7 84.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 86.0 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 56.9 56.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 59.6 Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.38 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 301 301 0.02 0.05 0.25 316 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.2 27 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.43 9.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.87 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.8 49.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 52.3

3.8. Underground Vault Instalation (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.84 1.54 14.5 18.5 0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 3,338 3,338 0.14 0.03 — 3,350 Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 33.2 33.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.05

35.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.84 1.54 14.5 18.5 0.03 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 3,338 3,338 0.14 0.03 — 3,350 Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 33.3 33.3 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 35.0 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.40 0.34 3.17 4.06 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 732 732 0.03 0.01 — 734 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.35 2.35 < 0.005 0.23 0.23 — 7.29 7.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.67 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.58 0.74 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 121 121 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 122 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.27 28 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.10 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 413 413 0.01 0.02 1.39 419 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.31 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.57 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.66 0.83 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 2.69 1,442 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.12 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 382 382 0.01 0.02 0.04 387 Vendor

0.02 0.01 0.33 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.01 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.76 0.84 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 0.07 1,440 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 84.7 84.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 86.0 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 56.9 56.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 59.6 Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.38 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 301 301 0.02 0.05 0.25 316 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01

0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.43 9.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.87 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.8 49.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 52.3

3.9. Paving and Cleanup (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
29 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.24 1.04 9.46 13.7 0.02 0.37 — 0.37 0.34 — 0.34 — 2,036 2,036 0.08 0.02 — 2,043 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 4.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving — 0.70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 33.3 33.3 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 35.0 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.28 0.40 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 59.8 59.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.0 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.12 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving — 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 0.98 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.03 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.89 9.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.93 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
30 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.12 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 382 382 0.01 0.02 0.04 387 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.01 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.76 0.84 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 0.07 1,440 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.63 7.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.98 Hauling
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.3 40.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 42.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.88 1.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.91 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.26 1.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.32 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.67 6.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.00

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

1.24 1.04 9.46 13.7 0.02 0.37 — 0.37 0.34 — 0.34 — 2,036 2,036 0.08 0.02 — 2,043 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 4.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
31 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Paving — 0.70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 33.3 33.3 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 35.0 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.28 0.40 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 59.8 59.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60.0 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.12 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving — 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 0.98 0.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.03 Annual
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.89 9.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.93 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.12 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 382 382 0.01 0.02 0.04 387 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.01 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.76 0.84 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 0.07 1,440 32 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.63 7.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.98 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.3 40.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 42.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.88 1.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.91 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.26 1.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.32 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.67 6.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.00

3.11. Paving and Cleanup (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.17 0.98 9.08 13.6 0.02 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 2,036 2,036 0.08 0.02 — 2,043 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 4.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving — 0.70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 32.5 32.5 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 34.2 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
33 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.05 0.48 0.72 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 108 108 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 108 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving — 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.57 0.57 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 — 1.72 1.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.81 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 17.8 17.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.9 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.13 0.12 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 376 376 0.01 0.02 0.03 381 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.32 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 254 254 0.01 0.04 0.01 265 Hauling 0.13

0.03 1.69 0.81 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,337 1,337 0.10 0.22 0.06 1,404 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 20.1 20.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 20.4 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.4 13.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 14.0 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 70.6 70.6 0.01 0.01 0.06 74.2 34 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.32 3.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.37 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.22 2.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.32 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.7 11.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 12.3

3.12. Paving and Cleanup (2028) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
—
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.17 0.98 9.08 13.6 0.02 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 2,036 2,036 0.08 0.02 — 2,043 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 4.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving — 0.70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 32.5 32.5 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 34.2 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.05 0.48 0.72 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 108 108 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 108 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving — 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
35 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.57 0.57 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 — 1.72 1.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.81 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 17.8 17.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.9 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving — 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.13 0.12 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 376 376 0.01 0.02 0.03 381 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.32 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 254 254 0.01 0.04 0.01 265 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.69 0.81 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,337 1,337 0.10 0.22 0.06 1,404 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 20.1 20.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 20.4 Vendor < 0.005
< 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.4 13.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 14.0 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 70.6 70.6 0.01 0.01 0.06 74.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.32 3.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.37 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.22 2.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.32 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.7 11.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 12.3 36 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

3.13. Underground Trenching (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.73 0.61 6.74 10.5 0.02 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 1,676 1,676 0.07 0.01 — 1,682 Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 33.2 33.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 35.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
—
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.10 1.11 1.73 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 276 276 0.01 < 0.005 — 277 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.76 1.76 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 — 5.47 5.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.75 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.20 0.32 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.6 45.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 0.91 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.95 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.10 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 413 413 0.01 0.02 1.39 419 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.31 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.57 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.66 0.83 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 2.69 1,442 37 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 63.5 63.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 64.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.7 42.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 44.7 Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.28 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 226 226 0.02 0.04 0.19 237 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.5 10.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.7 Vendor
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.07 7.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.40 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.3 37.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 39.2

3.14. Underground Trenching (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.73 0.61 6.74 10.5 0.02 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 1,676 1,676 0.07 0.01 — 1,682 Onsite
truck

0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 33.2 33.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 35.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.10 1.11 1.73 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 276 276 0.01 < 0.005 — 277 38 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.76 1.76 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 — 5.47 5.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.75 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.20 0.32 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.6 45.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 0.91 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.95 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.10 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 413 413 0.01 0.02 1.39 419 Vendor

0.02 0.01 0.31 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.57 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.66 0.83 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 2.69 1,442 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 63.5 63.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 64.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.7 42.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 44.7 Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.28 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 226 226 0.02 0.04 0.19 237 Annual —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.5 10.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.07 7.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.40 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.3 37.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 39.2

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
39 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
40 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
General
Heavy
Industry

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.2. 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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
41 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
—
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 42 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.2.4. 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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
43 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
General
Heavy
Industry

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.3. 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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
44 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
45 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 46 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
47 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.5.2. Mitigated
48 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
49 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 50 / 79
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00

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) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 51 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 52 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Equipme
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. 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) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
—
53 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
—

4.10. 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) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
54 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
55 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 56 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 57 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
58 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week

5.00 Work Days per Phase

10.0 Phase Description
—Demolition Demolition 1/1/2027 1/14/2027
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/15/2027 2/11/2027 5.00 20.0 — Overhead Pole Installation Building Construction 2/12/2027 6/3/2027 5.00 80.0 — Underground Vault
Instalation
Building Construction 8/27/2027 12/16/2027 5.00 80.0 —
Paving and Cleanup Paving 12/17/2027 1/27/2028 5.00 30.0 — Underground Trenching Trenching 6/4/2027 8/26/2027 5.00 60.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Site Preparation Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50 59 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Site Preparation Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Site Preparation Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Site Preparation Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Site Preparation Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74 Site Preparation Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Preparation Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Overhead Pole
Installation
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Overhead Pole
Installation
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Overhead Pole
Installation
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Overhead Pole
Installation
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Overhead Pole
Installation
Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Overhead Pole
Installation
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Overhead Pole
Installation
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Overhead Pole
Installation
Other General Industrial
Equipment
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00

35.0 0.34
Overhead Pole
Installation
Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Overhead Pole
Installation
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
60 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Overhead Pole
Installation
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Overhead Pole
Installation
Welders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Underground Vault
Instalation
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Underground Vault
Instalation
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Underground Vault
Instalation
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Underground Vault
Instalation
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Underground Vault
Instalation
Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Underground Vault
Instalation
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Underground Vault
Instalation
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Underground Vault
Instalation
Other General Industrial
Equipment
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 35.0 0.34
Underground Vault
Instalation
Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Underground Vault
Instalation
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Underground Vault
Instalation
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Underground Vault
Instalation
Welders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Paving and Cleanup Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Paving and Cleanup Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving and Cleanup Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00

36.0 0.38
Paving and Cleanup Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
61 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Paving and Cleanup Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Paving and Cleanup Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Underground Trenching Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Underground Trenching Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Underground Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Underground Trenching Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Underground Trenching Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50 Underground Trenching Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type
Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Fuel Type
Diesel
Engine Tier
Average
Number per Day

1.00 Hours Per Day

8.00 Horsepower

33.0 Load Factor
Demolition 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Site Preparation Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50 Site Preparation Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Site Preparation Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Site Preparation Excavators Diesel Average 1.00

8.00 36.0 0.38
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Site Preparation Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74 Site Preparation Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Preparation Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 62 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Overhead Pole
Installation
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Overhead Pole
Installation
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Overhead Pole
Installation
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Overhead Pole
Installation
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Overhead Pole
Installation
Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Overhead Pole
Installation
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Overhead Pole
Installation
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Overhead Pole
Installation
Other General Industrial
Equipment
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 35.0 0.34
Overhead Pole
Installation
Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Overhead Pole
Installation
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Overhead Pole
Installation
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Overhead Pole
Installation
Welders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Underground Vault
Instalation
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Underground Vault
Instalation
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Underground Vault
Instalation
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Underground Vault
Instalation
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00
367 0.29
63 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Underground Vault
Instalation
Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Underground Vault
Instalation
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Underground Vault
Instalation
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Underground Vault
Instalation
Other General Industrial
Equipment
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 35.0 0.34
Underground Vault
Instalation
Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Underground Vault
Instalation
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Underground Vault
Instalation
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Underground Vault
Instalation
Welders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Paving and Cleanup Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Paving and Cleanup Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving and Cleanup Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Paving and Cleanup Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Paving and Cleanup Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving and Cleanup Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Underground Trenching Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Underground Trenching Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Underground Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00

84.0 0.37
Underground Trenching Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Underground Trenching Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50 Underground Trenching Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74 64 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type
—
One-Way Trips per Day
—
Miles per Trip
—
Vehicle Mix
Demolition —
Demolition Worker 30.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor 10.0 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 30.0 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck 4.00 2.00 HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 30.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 10.0 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 30.0 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 4.00 2.00 HHDT
Overhead Pole Installation — — — —
Overhead Pole Installation Worker 50.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Overhead Pole Installation Vendor 10.0 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Overhead Pole Installation Hauling 20.0 20.0 HHDT
Overhead Pole Installation Onsite truck 4.00 2.00 HHDT
Underground Trenching — — — —
Underground Trenching Worker 50.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Underground Trenching Vendor 10.0 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Underground Trenching Hauling 20.0 20.0 HHDT
Underground Trenching Onsite truck 4.00 2.00 HHDT
Underground Vault Instalation — — — —
Underground Vault Instalation Worker 50.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Underground Vault Instalation Vendor 10.0 8.40 HHDT,MHDT 65 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Underground Vault Instalation Hauling 20.0 20.0 HHDT
Underground Vault Instalation Onsite truck 4.00 2.00 HHDT Paving and Cleanup — — — —
Paving and Cleanup Worker 50.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving and Cleanup Vendor 10.0 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving and Cleanup Hauling 20.0 20.0 HHDT
Paving and Cleanup Onsite truck 4.00 2.00 HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type
—
One-Way Trips per Day
—
Miles per Trip
—
Vehicle Mix
Demolition —
Demolition Worker 30.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor 10.0 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 30.0 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck 4.00 2.00 HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 30.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 10.0 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 30.0 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 4.00 2.00 HHDT
Overhead Pole Installation — — — —
Overhead Pole Installation Worker 50.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Overhead Pole Installation Vendor 10.0 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Overhead Pole Installation Hauling 20.0 20.0 HHDT
Overhead Pole Installation Onsite truck 4.00 2.00 HHDT
Underground Trenching — — — —
Underground Trenching Worker 50.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
66 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Underground Trenching Vendor 10.0 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Underground Trenching Hauling 20.0 20.0 HHDT
Underground Trenching Onsite truck 4.00 2.00 HHDT
Underground Vault Instalation — — — —
Underground Vault Instalation Worker 50.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Underground Vault Instalation Vendor 10.0 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Underground Vault Instalation Hauling 20.0 20.0 HHDT
Underground Vault Instalation Onsite truck 4.00 2.00 HHDT Paving and Cleanup — — — —
Paving and Cleanup Worker 50.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving and Cleanup Vendor 10.0 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving and Cleanup Hauling 20.0 20.0 HHDT
Paving and Cleanup Onsite truck 4.00 2.00 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)
Paving and Cleanup 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26,136

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
67 / 79
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) 68 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Site Preparation — — 10.0 0.00 —
Paving and Cleanup 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.0

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
General Heavy Industry 10.0 80%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2027 0.00 387 0.03 < 0.005
2028 0.00 387 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type
General Heavy
Industry
Trips/Weekday

0.00 Trips/Saturday

0.00 Trips/Sunday

0.00 Trips/Y ear

0.00 VMT/Weekday

0.00 VMT/Saturday

0.00 VMT/Sunday

0.00 VMT/Y ear

0.00 5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type
General Heavy
Industry
Trips/Weekday

0.00 Trips/Saturday

0.00 Trips/Sunday

0.00 Trips/Y ear

0.00 VMT/Weekday

0.00 VMT/Saturday

0.00 VMT/Sunday

0.00 VMT/Y ear

0.00 NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

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)
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

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)

0.00General Heavy Industry 0.00 387 0.0330 0.0040

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) 69 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)

0.00General Heavy Industry 0.00 387 0.0330 0.0040

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) General Heavy Industry 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) General Heavy Industry 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
General Heavy Industry 0.00 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
General Heavy Industry 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
70 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced General Heavy Industry Other commercial A/C R-410A
and heat pumps
2,088 0.00 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced General Heavy Industry Other commercial A/C R-410A
and heat pumps
2,088 0.00 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
71 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Equipment Type Fuel Type

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
72 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
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 12.2 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.50 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 10.5 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 1 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
73 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 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 1 1 1 2
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
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 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
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. 74 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 16.8
AQ-PM 19.6
AQ-DPM 73.9
Drinking Water 50.2
Lead Risk Housing 12.0
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 38.1
Traffic 88.8
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 99.3
Groundwater 93.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 96.1
Impaired Water Bodies 43.8
Solid Waste 75.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 17.8
Cardio-vascular 31.2
Low Birth Weights 62.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 26.9
Housing 25.3
Linguistic 48.7
Poverty 14.7
Unemployment 45.8
75 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 68.7925061
Employed 79.36609778
Median HI 89.15693571
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 88.31002181
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 64.42961632
Transportation —
Auto Access 56.16578981
Active commuting 48.06877967
Social —
2-parent households 36.23764917
Voting 66.09778006
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 46.61876043
Park access 62.01719492
Retail density 89.61888875
Supermarket access 23.44411651
Tree canopy 61.86321057
Housing —
Homeownership 33.00397793
Housing habitability 71.61555242
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 73.55318876 76 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 86.48787373
Uncrowded housing 43.11561658
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 78.54484794
Arthritis 97.3
Asthma ER Admissions 87.5
High Blood Pressure 94.2
Cancer (excluding skin) 87.6
Asthma 98.2
Coronary Heart Disease 97.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 98.8
Diagnosed Diabetes 93.4
Life Expectancy at Birth 91.5
Cognitively Disabled 94.6
Physically Disabled 87.9
Heart Attack ER Admissions 63.3
Mental Health Not Good 95.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 97.1
Obesity 97.1
Pedestrian Injuries 39.7
Physical Health Not Good 97.7
Stroke 97.8
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 73.8
Current Smoker 92.2
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 82.1
Climate Change Exposures —
77 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 13.7
Children 14.8
Elderly 73.9
English Speaking 66.5
Foreign-born 91.6
Outdoor Workers 78.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 26.4
Traffic Density 75.6
Traffic Access 56.3
Other Indices —
Hardship 22.1
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 71.9

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 44.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 81.0 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
78 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

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

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases See Construction Schedule Construction: Off-Road Equipment Construction Schedule
Construction: Architectural Coatings Up to 10 acres paved - 6 percent 26136 sqft Construction: Paving Up to 10 acres repaved if undergrounding Operations: Vehicle Data Operation phase to remain unchanged Operations: Architectural Coatings No operational changes Operations: Energy Use No Operational changes
Operations: Water and Waste Water No operational changes Operations: Solid Waste No Operational changes
Construction: Trips and VMT Equipment Schedule
Operations: Consumer Products no operational changes
Operations: Refrigerants no operational changes
79 / 79
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
JULY 2024 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Appendix D

FINAL ARBORIST REPORT
Arborist Report
for
Silicon Valley Power – 115 kV T-line NRS-KRS Project
Santa Clara, California
Prepared for:

Aspen Environmental Group
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 935
San Francisco, CA 94104
Prepared by:

Kramer Botanical
PO Box 1582
El Granada, CA 94018
September 20, 2024
Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS 115 kV T-line Project Arborist Report Kramer Botanical i September 2024

Arborist Report -
Silicon Valley Power – NRS to KRS 115 kV Transmission
Line Projec t

Table of Contents
Arborist Report .......................................................................................................................................... 0 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Scope of Report ............................................................................................................................................. 1 City of Santa Clara Tree Policies .................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 1. Project Overview Map................................................................................................................... 2 Survey Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Tree Health/Condition .................................................................................................................................. 4 Protected Trees ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Assessment of Project Impacts on Trees ...................................................................................................... 5 Tree Protection for Retained Trees. ............................................................................................................. 7 Appendix A: Tree Survey Results – March 2024 Survey .............................................................................. 9 Appendix B: Tree Location Maps ............................................................................................................... 10 Appendix C: Tree Protection “City of Santa Clara Arborist Notes” ............................................................ 11

Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS 115 kV T-line Project Arborist Report Kramer Botanical ii September 2024
This page intentionally left blank

Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS 115kV T-line Project Arborist Report Kramer Botanical 1 September 2024
Project Overview
Silicon Valley Power (SVP) is proposing to construct approximately 2.24 miles of a new 115 kV transmission line (Project) within the City of Santa Clara (City) limits in Santa Clara County, California.

Based on a Project Description provided by Aspen Environmental Group (AEG) on April 5, 2024, the proposed transmission line will begin at the SVP Northern Receiving Station (NRS), approximately 0.2 miles southeast of Levi’s Stadium, and would travel south down Lafayette Street, Bassett Street and Duane Avenue to end at the SVP Kifer Receiving Station (KRS), approximately 0.1 miles northwest of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Central Expressway.

Two different Options have been proposed for the Project. Under Option 1, the entire Project would be overhead, with transmission lines on new poles. Under Option 2, the Project would be underground from the median of Lafayette Street near NRS to approximately 300 feet south of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Agnew Road, then overhead south of Agnew Road to KRS.

Figure 1 provides an overview of the proposed SVP – NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission-line (T-line) Project route and shows proposed alignments for both Option 1 and Option 2.

Scope of Report
This arborist report provides the following:
• An inventory of trees within and immediately adjacent to proposed SVP – 115 kV T-Line NRS-KRS Project boundaries. Project boundaries extend 25 feet on either side of the Project centerline.

Boundaries are shown on tree location Maps 1-9, provided with this report as Appendix B. • A general assessment of health/condition for each tree surveyed. • An assessment of likely project impacts to trees within the Project area. • A Tree Protection Plan for trees to be retained.

City of Santa Clara Tree Policies
City of Santa Clara General Plan policies which may apply to trees documented by this report for the SVP NRS-KRS 115kV T-line Project include the following:

5.10.1-P4 Protect all cedars, redwoods, oaks, olives, bay laurel and pepper trees of any size, and all other trees over 36 inches in circumference (approximately 11.5 inches in diameter) measured at 48 inches above-grade on private and public property as well as in the public right-of-way.

5.10.1-P3 Require preservation of all City-designated heritage trees listed in the Heritage Tree Appendix 8.10 of the General Plan
Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS 115 kV T-line Project Arborist Report Kramer Botanical 2 September 2024
Figure 1. Project Overview Map.

Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS 115 kV T-line Project Arborist Report Kramer Botanical 3 September 2024
Survey Methods
An initial tree survey for the SVP NRS-KRS 115 kV T-line Project was conducted by Kramer Botanical certified arborist Neal Kramer in March 2024, with Project site visits on March 7, 13, 14, 16 and 20. All trees within Project boundaries, or immediately adjacent with canopy overhanging a Project boundary, having at least one woody trunk with a diameter of 3 inches or greater at 48 inches above the ground were surveyed for this report. Newly planted trees with trunk diameters of less than 3 inches were also included in the survey.

On September 13, 2024, the entire Project alignment was revisited to update information for this report to reflect Project revisions that have occurred since the initial March survey. During the September revisit, the current condition of each tree within Project boundaries was reverified.

Each surveyed tree has been marked with a round aluminum tag, tags numbered 101 – 177 and tags numbered 189 – 266. Tag numbers are generally sequential along the alignment, with tag number 101 starting at the north end of the project alignment. Tree tags 263-266 represent tree additions following alignment revisions made after the initial March 2024 tree survey. As a result, these tree numbers are out of sequence along the alignment. Tree 263 is located at the north end of the Lafayette St section of the alignment, and trees 264-266 are located at the north end of the Basset St section of the alignment.

Tree tags 178 – 188 were trees that were a part of the original March 2024 tree survey but are no longer within the currently proposed alignment. Therefore, they have been removed for this report.

GPS coordinates for each tree were documented using ArcGIS Field Maps paired with a Bad Elf Flex, Mini GNSS Receiver to enhance accuracy. Information regarding the tree species, trunk diameter at 48 inches above the ground, and the approximate canopy spread, and height was collected for each tree.

Health and structure were evaluated for each tree using a basic ground-based inspection, and a general condition rating was assigned using the categories shown below. Individual tree ratings consider a variety of factors, including overall tree vigor, evidence of decay, insects or diseases, and/or any other structural defects observed.

Good: 80-100% healthy foliage and no significant defects.

Fair: 50-79% healthy foliage and/or minor defects.

Poor: 5-49% healthy foliage and/or other significant defects.

Based on maps provided by AEG on September 12, 2024, which show the proposed transmission alignments and transmission pole positions for both overhead alignment Option 1, and underground alignment Option 2, and considering a 25-foot buffer on either side of the transmission centerline, an assessment of project impacts to trees was made. Each tree was assigned a project impact code using one of the following three categories:
(R) Tree may need to be removed for underground trenching, overhead pole placement, or for transmission line clearance.
(CP) Clearance pruning may be required, but trees can likely be retained. (-) No impact expected.

Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS 115 kV T-line Project Arborist Report Kramer Botanical 4 September 2024
Survey Results
A total of 155 trees along the Project Alignments were documented for this report. A summary of all 155 trees is provided with this report as Appendix A. Appendix A lists each surveyed tree sequentially by tag number, and includes information regarding the common and scientific name, trunk diameter at 48 inches above the ground, approximate canopy spread and height, City protected status, and a general tree condition rating at the time of the September 2024 survey. Assessed Project impacts for each tree are indicated in Appendix A for both Project Option 1 (overhead) and Project Option 2 (underground and overhead). Specific notes regarding individual trees are included where relevant.

Approximate tree locations along the transmission alignment are shown on aerial maps 1-9 in Appendix B.

Trees documented for this report include 29 different species. Table 1 below lists each species by common and scientific name in descending order of abundance and includes the total number of each species documented.

Tree Health/Condition
Of the 155 trees documented for this report, 83 trees (54%) are rated in good condition, 61 trees (39%) are in fair condition and 11 trees (7%) are in poor condition. Specific condition ratings for individual trees are included in Appendix A.

Unless expressed otherwise, tree condition assessments for this report were limited to visual examination of accessible tree parts without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies regarding the trees discussed in this report may not arise in the future.

Protected Trees
The City of Santa Clara General Plan (5.10.1-P4) defines “protected trees” as “all healthy cedars, redwoods, oaks, olives, bay laurel and pepper trees of any size and all other trees over 36 inches in circumference (approximately 11.5 inches in diameter) measured at 48 inches above-grade”.

Eighty-one (81) of the 155 trees surveyed for this report qualify as “protected trees” under the City of Santa Clara General Plan. Each protected tree is indicated as such in Appendix A under the “Santa Clara Protected Tree” column.

No “Heritage trees” are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed SVP NRS-KRS 115 kV T- line Project boundaries.

Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS 115 kV T-line Project Arborist Report Kramer Botanical 5 September 2024

Table 1: Tree species documented along the Project alignments, by descending order of abundance (September 2024)
Common Name Scientific Name
Trees
Documented
Native/
Non-
native
Olive Olea europea 28 Non-
Shamel ash Fraxanus uhdei 17 Non-
Chinese Elm Ulmus parvifolia 16 Non-
Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 13 Non-
Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 13 Non-
American elm Ulmus americana 12 Non-
Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 11 Non-
Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 11 Non-
Canary Island Pine Pinus canariensis 5 Non-
Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara 3 Non-
Bradford pear Pyrus calleryana 3 Non-
Evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 3 Non-
Blackwood acacia Acacia melanoxylon 2 Non-
Red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 2 Non-
Purple-leaf plum Prunus cerasifera 'Atropurpurea' 2 Non- Evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 3 Non-
Linden Tillia sp. 2 Non-
Red Horse chestnut Aesculus x carnea 1 Non-
Tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima 1 Non-
Horsetail tree Casuarina sp. 1 Non-
Nichol's willow-leafed
peppermint
Eucalyptus nicholii 1 Non-
Eucalyptus Eucalyptus sp. 1 Non-
Liquidambar Liquidambar styraciflua 1 Non-
Southern Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 1 Non-
Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 1 Non-
Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii 1 Native
Holly oak Quercus ilex 1 Non-
Southern live oak Quercus virginiana 1 Non-
Water gum Tristaniopsis laurina 1 Non-

Assessment of Project Impacts on Trees
Some trees along the Project alignment will need to be removed for the placement of new transmission line structures, or for installation of underground lines, and some trees along the alignment will need to be trimmed to create minimum clearance distances around new structures and transmission lines.

According to tree clearance guidelines provided in the July 2024 “Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Supporting Initial Study” for the Project, in general, trees that are located below the 115 kV transmission line would need to be trimmed so that they are no taller than about 25 feet to 30 feet above ground. Tree branches that are closer than 5 feet vertically or 10 feet horizontally to any conductor or wire (with or without wind) would be trimmed to meet the minimum clearance.

Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS 115 kV T-line Project Arborist Report Kramer Botanical 6 September 2024
The Project Impact Code column in Appendix A of this report indicates the likely impacts to individual trees using impact codes described above in the Survey Methods section of this report. Table 2 and Table 3 below compare impacts to trees for Project Option 1 vs. Project Option 2 by impact category.

Table 2: Impacts to Trees - Option 1 (All Overhead)

To be
Removed
May Require
Clearance
Pruning
No Impact
Expected Total
All trees 4 39 112 155
“Protected” trees 3 29 49 81

Table 3: Impacts to Trees - Option 2 (Underground and Overhead)

To be
Removed
May Require
Clearance
Pruning
No Impact
Expected Total
All trees 3 38 114 155
“Protected” trees 2 28 51 81

Table 4 below lists trees that are projected to be removed for Project Alignment Option 1 vs. Alignment Option 2 by survey tree tag number.

Table 4: Trees Projected for Removal – Alignment Option 1 vs.

Alignment Option 2
(City Protected trees shown in bold font)
Option 1 Option 2
Olive tree #132 -
Deodar cedar tree #177 tree #177
Ginkgo tree #236 tree #236
Horsetail tree tree #263 tree #263
Total 4 trees 3 trees

The above assessment of project impacts on individual trees is based on information available for this report on September 12, 2024. During Project development processes, in consultation with the City arborist or City designated arborist, it may be determined that additional trees will need to be removed for the Project. Or it could also be determined that with special protection measures, a tree listed to be removed can be retained. After the Project is completed, a post construction tree inventory is recommended to confirm the actual number of trees removed for the Project.

Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS 115 kV T-line Project Arborist Report Kramer Botanical 7 September 2024
Tree Protection for Retained Trees.

Development activities have the potential to cause damaging impacts to trees to be retained along the Project alignment. Tree root systems can be functionally compromised by soil compaction resulting from heavy equipment operating within tree root zones, and roots can be damaged or lost during excavation activities related to undergrounding, or installation of foundations for new transmission line poles. Furthermore, if not properly managed construction equipment operating in the vicinity of retained trees can cause significant and irreversible damage to tree trunks and canopies.

To minimize potential damage and ensure the long-term health, stability and survival of retained trees, measures outlined in the Tree Protection Plan below shall be implemented.

TREE PROTECTION PLAN
Tree Protection Zone
• A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be defined by the City arborist or City designated arborist for all trees that could be impacted by project activities and are intended for preservation. A TPZ will typically include all area within the dripline of trees to be retained. • The TPZ will be protected by a fenced enclosure to prevent unauthorized access during project activities. At minimum, TPZ fencing will be constructed of 4-foot-tall high-visibility orange ESA fencing hung from a heavy wire attached to firmly anchored T-posts at no more than 8 foot spacing. Warning signs (e.g. “WARNING - Tree Protection Zone – This fence shall not be moved without approval by the City Arborist or a City designated arborist”) shall be prominently displayed and visible from all sides of the TPZ fencing.
• TPZ fencing shall be installed prior to any demolition, grading, staging, stockpiling, or any other construction activities within 50 feet of a designated TPZ, unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist or a City designated arborist. And unless otherwise approved, the TPZ fencing shall remain in place until all construction activities are complete on the affected construction segment unless otherwise approved.
• No construction, staging, or storage of materials, equipment or vehicles shall occur within a TPZ without advanced approval and oversite by the City arborist or a City designated arborist. • No excess soil, excess concrete or concrete wash, chemicals, refuse or other waste shall be placed within the TPZ.
• The primary contractor shall be responsible for maintaining TPZ fencing and enforcing all TPZ guidelines outlined above throughout the course of the Project.

Site Grading and Excavation and Trenching
Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS 115 kV T-line Project Arborist Report Kramer Botanical 8 September 2024
• Soil disturbance or grade changes within a TPZ are not permitted unless approved by the City arborist or a City designated arborist. Any approved grading, excavation or trench work within a TPZ will be field staked and inspected by the City arborist or a City designated arborist prior to implementation. • All approved grading, excavation and trenching work within a TPZ shall be performed under the observation of a City designated Arborist.
• All grading shall be designed to provide positive drainage away from the base of trees to be preserved and shall not create ponding within a TPZ.
• Grade changes in the vicinity of trees to be preserved should remain as close to natural grade as possible.

Canopy Pruning
• To the extent possible, any necessary canopy pruning shall be completed prior to the commencement of construction activities.
• Pruning shall be performed by a qualified tree service worker under the direction of a certified arborist following International Society of Arboriculture tree pruning best management practices.

Pruning shall not be performed by construction personnel.

Root Pruning
• Any roots one inch and larger requiring removal shall be cut cleanly in sound tissue. No pruning seals or paint shall be used on wounds.
• Roots two inches and greater shall remain in place and undamaged to the extent practicable. If removal is required, cuts shall be made with the approval and under the direction of a certified arborist.

Communication for Tree Protection Compliance
• A preconstruction meeting shall be arranged for the City arborist or City designated arborist to meet with the Project Engineer, Project Contractors, Onsite Project Supervisors, Tree Pruning and Removal Contractor, and/or other appropriate Project Leads to review and secure a commitment to compliance with all tree protection measures.

The City of Sana Clara provides additional guidelines for tree protection. These are outlined in “City of Santa Clara Arborist notes”, a copy of which is included with this report as Appendix C.

Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS 115 kV T-line Project Arborist Report Kramer Botanical 9 September 2024

Appendix A: Tree Survey Results – March/September 2024 Appendix A: Tree Survey Results 2024 - Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS Transmission Line Project Alignment, Santa Clara, Ca rev. nk9/18/24
Tree
# Common Name Scientific Name
Diameter (inches)
at 48" above
grade¹
Canopy
Spread
(feet)
Tree
Height
(feet)
Santa Clara
Protected
Tree (P)
Project
Impact
Code²
General
Condition³ Comments
101 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 5 15 15 - Fair Canopy buried under trumpet vine 102 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 5 12 18 - Fair Canopy buried under trumpet vine 103 Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 10 24 20 - Good
104 Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 9 21 18 - Fair thin canopy 105 Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 8 18 16 - Fair thin canopy 106 Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 6 15 12 - Fair thin canopy 107 Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 10 24 18 - Fair thin canopy 108 Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 7 16 16 - Fair thin canopy 109 Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 9 22 18 - Good
110 Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 8 15 15 - Fair thin canopy 111 Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 9 20 14 - Good
112 Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 5 14 15 - Fair thin canopy 113 Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 6 12 14 - Good
114 Olive Olea europaea 5+5+7 17 18 P - Good
115 Olive Olea europaea 7+6+7 20 20 P - Good
116 Olive Olea europaea 5+3+3 11 12 P - Fair
117 Olive Olea europaea 5+3+3+4 15 12 P - Good
118 Olive Olea europaea 5+4+4+2 16 14 P - Good
119 Olive Olea europaea 4+3+3 13 12 P - Good
120 Olive Olea europaea 3+5+5 16 14 P CP Fair Pole #12
121 Olive Olea europaea 4+3+5 13 14 P - Fair
122 Olive Olea europaea 4+7+6 17 16 P - Fair
123 Olive Olea europaea 5+4 12 12 P - Good
124 Olive Olea europaea 3+5 11 11 P - Good
125 Olive Olea europaea 5+5+3 14 14 P - Good
126 Olive Olea europaea 5+5+5 14 14 P - Fair
127 Olive Olea europaea 5+6 13 13 P - Good
128 Olive Olea europaea 6+4 15 15 P - Good
129 Olive Olea europaea 4+3+4 12 12 P - Good
130 Olive Olea europaea 4 9 9 P - Good
131 Olive Olea europaea 4+3+3 16 16 P - Good
132 Olive Olea europaea 4+6 12 12 P R Good Pole #13
¹More than one diameter in the trunk diameter column represent multiple stems arising below 48 inches above the ground. ³ Condition: Good = 80-100% healthy foliage and no significant defects; Fair = 50-79% healthy foliage and/or minor defects; Poor = 5-49% healthy foliage and/or other significant defects; Dead = less than 5% healthy foliage. ² Project Impact code: R = Remove for pole placement or line clearance, CP = May require pruning for line clearance, (-) = No impacts expected.

Appendix A - Tree Survey Results, SVP NRS-KRS T-line Project 1 Kramer Botanical, September 2024 Tree
# Common Name Scientific Name
Diameter (inches)
at 48" above
grade¹
Canopy
Spread
(feet)
Tree
Height
(feet)
Santa Clara
Protected
Tree (P)
Project
Impact
Code²
General
Condition³ Comments
133 Olive Olea europaea 7 10 10 P - Good
134 Olive Olea europaea 4+5+3 12 12 P - Good
135 Red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 21 28 32 P CP Fair History of branch removals, water sprouts 136 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 12 16 34 P CP Good 137 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 16 24 30 P CP Good 138 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 13 24 36 P - Good 139 Eucalyptus Eucalyptus sp. 18 36 40 P - Good 30° lean SW 140 Horse chestnut Aesculus x carnea 4 8 11 - Fair Cracked bark at base 141 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 7 28 25 - Fair 40° lean SE, soil lifted on NW side 142 Nichol's willow-leafed Eucalyptus nicholii 30 40 35 P CP Fair Thin canopy, previous topped for utility lines 143 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 14 18 24 P - Good
144 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 5 18 20 - Fair
145 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 6 25 22 - Fair
146 Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 8 16 24 - Good
147 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 15 25 26 P - Good
148 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 7 28 25 - Fair Thin canopy 149 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 14 30 25 P - Good
150 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 6 22 18 - Fair Thin canopy 151 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia see comment 16 17 - Fair Numerous small stems from base, 1-3" dia. 152 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 8 28 28 - Fair Late leaf break 153 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 7 24 26 - Good Late leaf break 154 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 6 25 25 - Good
155 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 13 25 24 P - Good
156 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 15 30 27 P CP Good
157 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 13 35 32 P CP Good
158 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 13 25 24 P - Good
159 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 7+8+8+13 26 30 P CP Fair 20% dead branches NE side 160 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 17 27 25 P - Good
161 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 15 25 25 P - Fair
Thin canopy, cracked bark SW side. Root
damage from recent concrete work?
162 Linden Tilia sp. 33 25 35 P - Poor
Significant basal decay cavity, poor response
growth. Hard prune, epicormic sprouts
163 Linden Tilia sp. 24 32 44 P - Fair
164 Liquidambar Liquidambar styraciflua 10 20 30 - Good 165 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 20 43 30 P - Good
166 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 15 21 28 P CP Good Canopy unbalanced to NW ² Project Impact code: R = Remove for pole placement or line clearance, CP = May require pruning for line clearance, (-) = No impacts expected. ³ Condition: Good = 80-100% healthy foliage and no significant defects; Fair = 50-79% healthy foliage and/or minor defects; Poor = 5-49% healthy foliage and/or other significant defects; Dead = less than 5% healthy foliage. ¹More than one diameter in the trunk diameter column represent multiple stems arising below 48 inches above the ground.

Appendix A - Tree Survey Results, SVP NRS-KRS T-line Project 2 Kramer Botanical, September 2024 Tree
# Common Name Scientific Name
Diameter (inches)
at 48" above
grade¹
Canopy
Spread
(feet)
Tree
Height
(feet)
Santa Clara
Protected
Tree (P)
Project
Impact
Code²
General
Condition³ Comments
167 Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara 25 42 60 P - Good
168 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 13 35 35 P - Poor
8" dia. branch failure at 8' above the ground,
bark stripped to base of tree (N side)
169 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 13 28 30 P CP Good
170 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 17 44 36 P - Good
171 Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara 18 28 30 P CP Good Previously topped for utility line 172 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 13 18 28 P CP Good
173 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 14 25 30 P CP Good
174 Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 13 20 24 P - Fair Significant dead branches E side of tree 175 Southern live oak Quercus virginiana 19 42 26 P - Good 176 Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii 43 60 65 P - Good 177 Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara 21 30 30 P R Poor
Pole #19. Hard pruned for utility lines, 20%
dead branches
189 Blackwood acacia Acacia melanoxylon 5+6+3 15 28 - Good 190 Blackwood acacia Acacia melanoxylon 6+7+4 18 25 - Good 191 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 10 30 32 - Fair Codominant with included bark at 8' 192 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 16 30 36 CP Fair Pole #22. Thin canopy south side 193 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 4+7+4 12 18 CP Poor Pole #22. Dead top removed 194 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 16 30 34 P CP Good
195 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 15 25 35 P CP Good
196 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 10 18 30 CP Fair Bark seam, flush cuts 197 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 13+5 18 28 P CP Fair
Main stem removed @ 5', codominants weak
attachments
198 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 10 10 27 CP Poor Main stem removed @ 5', 1 codominant dead 199 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 11 11 20 - Fair
200 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 8 8 18 - Fair
201 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 12 12 22 P - Good
202 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 10 10 24 CP Poor Pole #23. 50% deadwood 203 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 12 12 24 P - Fair 20% deadwood 204 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 6 8 18 - Poor Main stem dead @ 6' 205 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 9 9 26 CP Poor 50% deadwood, weak new growth 206 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 4+4+3+5 15 20 - Fair
207 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 10 16 22 - Fair Thin canopy 208 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 14 24 24 P - Fair Significant needle drop 30% of W side ² Project Impact code: R = Remove for pole placement or line clearance, CP = May require pruning for line clearance, (-) = No impacts expected. ² Condition: Good = 80-100% healthy foliage and no significant defects; Fair = 50-79% healthy foliage and/or minor defects; Poor = 5-49% healthy foliage and/or other significant defects; Dead = less than 5% healthy foliage. ¹More than one diameter in the trunk diameter column represent multiple stems arising below 48 inches above the ground.

Appendix A - Tree Survey Results, SVP NRS-KRS T-line Project 3 Kramer Botanical, September 2024 Tree
# Common Name Scientific Name
Diameter (inches)
at 48" above
grade¹
Canopy
Spread
(feet)
Tree
Height
(feet)
Santa Clara
Protected
Tree (P)
Project
Impact
Code²
General
Condition³ Comments
209 Red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 29 38 42 P - Good 210 Olive Olea europaea 10+7+9 26 22 P - Good
211 Olive Olea europaea 13+12+13+14 34 32 P CP Fair Thin canopy and dead branches on SW side 212 Olive Olea europaea 6+7+8+8+11 28 24 P - Fair 30% dead canopy 213 Olive Olea europaea 7+9+10+7 24 24 P - Good
214 Olive Olea europaea 8+8+12+8+11 30 34 P CP Good
215 Olive Olea europaea 11+8+7 24 22 P CP Good Pole #30 216 Olive Olea europaea 13+10+13+11 24 30 P CP Fair Thin canopy SE side 217 Evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 17 30 30 P CP Fair Fireblight - branch tip dieback 218 Evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 10 30 24 - Fair Thin canopy 219 American elm Ulmus americana 18+15 40 45 P CP Fair Codominant with included bark from base 220 American elm Ulmus americana 11 20 42 CP Fair
221 American elm Ulmus americana 10+5+8+11+11+12 35 45 P CP Fair 6 stems from base 222 American elm Ulmus americana 8+11 28 36 CP Fair Codominant, included bark from base 223 American elm Ulmus americana 9 25 42 CP Fair Canopy unbalanced NE 224 American elm Ulmus americana 8 22 36 CP Fair Canopy unbalanced W 225 American elm Ulmus americana 16+10 32 42 P - Fair Included bark, canopy unbalanced SE 226 American elm Ulmus americana 4+4 28 22 - Poor Included bark, canopy unbalanced SW 227 American elm Ulmus americana 8 22 45 - Poor Trunk imbedded in chain link fence 228 American elm Ulmus americana 8+8 40 42 - Fair
229 American elm Ulmus americana 8 25 42 - Fair Canopy unbalanced E 230 American elm Ulmus americana 11 40 45 - Fair Canopy unbalanced W 231 Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 12 15 24 P - Good
232 Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 8 14 18 - Good
233 Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 13 16 25 P - Good
234 Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 8 13 20 - Good
235 Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 8 11 20 - Good
236 Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 8 14 18 R Good Pole #35
237 Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 6 10 16 - Good
238 Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 3 8 12 - Good
239 Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 6 10 16 - Good
240 Water gum Tristaniopsis laurina 8 15 16 - Good
241 Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 6 9 14 - Good
242 Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 8 12 18 - Good
243 Purple-leaf plum Prunus cerasifera 'Atropurpurea' 8 8 14 - Good ² Project Impact code: R = Remove for pole placement or line clearance, CP = May require pruning for line clearance, (-) = No impacts expected. ² Condition: Good = 80-100% healthy foliage and no significant defects; Fair = 50-79% healthy foliage and/or minor defects; Poor = 5-49% healthy foliage and/or other significant defects; Dead = less than 5% healthy foliage. ¹More than one diameter in the trunk diameter column represent multiple stems arising below 48 inches above the ground.

Appendix A - Tree Survey Results, SVP NRS-KRS T-line Project 4 Kramer Botanical, September 2024 Tree
# Common Name Scientific Name
Diameter (inches)
at 48" above
grade¹
Canopy
Spread
(feet)
Tree
Height
(feet)
Santa Clara
Protected
Tree (P)
Project
Impact
Code²
General
Condition³ Comments
244 Purple-leaf plum Prunus cerasifera 'Atropurpurea' 7+8 8 14 - Good 245 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 9 18 18 - Good Canopy full green 246 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 8 18 18 CP Good
Trunk < 10 feet from pole #36. Canopy full
green
247 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 2 6 12 - Fair Recent planting, waersprouts from base 248 Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 3 8 10 - Good
249 Ginkgo Ginkgo biloba 5 8 16 - Good
250 Tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima 4+3+3 10 16 - Poor Root sprouts, topped @ 16' 251 Holly oak Quercus ilex 3+9+6+8 18 10 P - Good Topped @10" but full green canopy 252 Bradford pear Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford'* 13 24 30 P - Good 253 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 14 16 40 P - Good 254 Bradford pear Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford'* 14 28 30 P - Good 255 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 8 14 22 - Good 256 Bradford pear Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford'* 30 30 25 P CP Good 257 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 7 14 24 - Fair
258 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 6 15 16 - Fair
259 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 6 14 16 - Fair
260 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 6 14 16 - Fair
261 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 6 18 16 - Fair Canopy buried under trumpet vine 262 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 6 12 16 - Fair Canopy buried under trumpet vine 263 Horsetail tree Casuarina sp. 20 33 50 P R Good
Pole #4. Tree located in the median at N end of
the Lafayette St alignment
264 Evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 20 34 30 P Fair
Fireblight - branch tip dieback. Tree located at
N end of the Basset St alignment.
265 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 20 33 25 P Good
Tree located at N end of the Bassett St
alignment
266 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 17 36 25 P Good
Tree located at N end of the Bassett St
alignment
² Condition: Good = 80-100% healthy foliage and no significant defects; Fair = 50-79% healthy foliage and/or minor defects; Poor = 5-49% healthy foliage and/or other significant defects; Dead = less than 5% healthy foliage. ² Project Impact code: R = Remove for pole placement or line clearance, CP = May require pruning for line clearance, (-) = No impacts expected. ¹More than one diameter in the trunk diameter column represent multiple stems arising below 48 inches above the ground.

Appendix A - Tree Survey Results, SVP NRS-KRS T-line Project 5 Kramer Botanical, September 2024 Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS 115 kV T-line Project Arborist Report Kramer Botanical 10 September 2024
Appendix B: Tree Location Maps

Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS 115 kV T-line Project Arborist Report Kramer Botanical 11 September 2024
Appendix C: Tree Protection “City of Santa Clara Arborist Notes”