U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-2021-0001-EA SIEBERT SUBSTATION October 2020

Location: Esmeralda County

Applicant/Address: NV Energy 6100 Neil Road, MS S2A41 Reno, Nevada 89511

Preparing Office U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Tonopah Field Office Phone: 775-482-7800 Fax: 775-482-7810 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 6 1.1 Purpose and Need for Action and Decision to Be Made ...... 6 1.2 Scoping and Issues ...... 6 1.3 Land Use Plan Conformance Statement ...... 7 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 7 2.1 Location of the Proposed Action ...... 7 2.2 Access and Road Improvements...... 7 2.3 Facilities ...... 7 2.3.1 Facility Design Factors ...... 7 2.4 Proposed Disturbance Areas ...... 8 2.5 Construction Activities ...... 8 2.5.1 Pre-Construction Activities ...... 8 2.5.2 Construction Methods ...... 8 2.6 Work Force ...... 9 2.7 Equipment ...... 9 2.8 Solid Waste and Hazardous or Regulated Materials ...... 10 2.9 Post-Construction Cleanup and Reclamation ...... 10 2.10 Applicant Committed Environmental Protection Measures ...... 11 2.10.1 General Measures ...... 11 2.10.2 Air Quality...... 11 2.10.3 Cultural and Paleontological Resources ...... 11 2.10.4 Fire Prevention and Response ...... 12 2.10.5 Hazardous or Solid Wastes ...... 14 2.10.6 Migratory Birds ...... 14 2.10.7 Golden Eagles ...... 15 2.10.8 Noxious Weeds, Invasive and Non-native Species ...... 15 2.10.9 Public Safety ...... 15 2.10.10 Soil and Water Resources ...... 15 2.10.11 Survey Monuments...... 16 2.10.12 Vegetation and Wildlife ...... 16 2.11 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ...... 16 2.12 No Action Alternative ...... 16 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND PROPOSED MITIGATION OR AVOIDANCE MEASURES ...... 16 3.1 Introduction ...... 16 3.2 Air Quality ...... 18 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 18 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ...... 18 3.2.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ...... 19 3.3 Environmental Justice and Socioeconomics ...... 19 3.3.1 Affected Environment ...... 19 3.3.1.1 Population and Demography ...... 19 3.3.1.2 Environmental Justice Population ...... 20 3.3.1.3 Electrical Infrastructure ...... 20 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ...... 20 3.3.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ...... 20 3.4 Lands and Access ...... 20 3.4.1 Affected Environment ...... 20 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ...... 21 3.4.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ...... 21

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page i Siebert Substation ROW

3.5 Minerals ...... 21 3.5.1 Affected Environment ...... 21 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ...... 21 3.5.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ...... 21 3.6 Noxious Weeds, Invasive and Non-native Species ...... 21 3.6.1 Affected Environment ...... 22 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ...... 22 3.6.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ...... 22 3.7 Native American Cultural Concerns ...... 23 3.7.1 Affected Environment ...... 23 3.7.1.1 Tribal Consultation and Information Sharing ...... 23 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ...... 23 3.7.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ...... 23 3.8 Recreation ...... 24 3.8.1 Affected Environment ...... 24 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ...... 24 3.8.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ...... 24 3.9 Soils ...... 24 3.9.1 Affected Environment ...... 24 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ...... 25 3.9.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ...... 26 3.10 Special Status Wildlife Species and Migratory Birds ...... 26 3.10.1 Affected Environment ...... 26 3.10.1.1 Reptiles and Amphibians ...... 27 3.10.1.2 Raptors including Migratory Raptors ...... 27 3.10.1.3 Other Birds including Migratory Birds ...... 28 3.10.1.4 Bats ...... 28 3.10.1.5 Other Mammals ...... 29 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ...... 29 3.10.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ...... 30 3.11 Special Status Plant Species ...... 30 3.11.1 Affected Environment ...... 30 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ...... 31 3.11.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ...... 31 3.12 Vegetation ...... 31 3.12.1 Affected Environment ...... 31 3.12.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ...... 32 3.12.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ...... 32 3.13 Visual Resources ...... 32 3.13.1 Affected Environment ...... 32 3.13.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ...... 33 3.13.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ...... 33 3.14 Water Resources ...... 33 3.14.1 Affected Environment ...... 33 3.14.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ...... 33 3.14.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ...... 33 3.15 Wildlife ...... 33 3.15.1 Affected Environment ...... 34 3.15.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ...... 35 3.15.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ...... 35 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 35 4.1 Description of Cumulative Effects Study Area Boundaries ...... 36 4.2 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts ...... 36 4.2.1 Lands and Access ...... 36 4.2.1.1 Past and Present Actions ...... 36 4.2.1.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 37

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page ii Siebert Substation ROW

4.2.1.3 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts ...... 37 4.2.2 Noxious Weeds, Invasive and Non-native Species ...... 38 4.2.2.1 Past and Present Actions ...... 38 4.2.2.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 39 4.2.2.3 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts ...... 39 4.2.3 Recreation ...... 40 4.2.3.1 Past and Present Actions ...... 40 4.2.3.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 41 4.2.3.3 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts ...... 41 4.2.4 Soils ...... 42 4.2.4.1 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts ...... 42 4.2.5 Special Status Wildlife Species and Migratory Birds ...... 42 4.2.5.1 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts ...... 42 4.2.6 Special Status Plant Species ...... 43 4.2.6.1 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts ...... 43 4.2.7 Vegetation ...... 44 4.2.7.1 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts ...... 44 4.2.8 Visual Resources ...... 45 4.2.8.1 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts ...... 45 4.2.9 Wildlife ...... 45 4.2.9.1 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts ...... 45 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 46 5.1.1 Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted ...... 47 6 REFERENCES...... 47 Air Resources ...... 50 Environmental Justice and Socioeconomics ...... 50 Lands and Access ...... 51 Minerals and Geology ...... 51 Noxious Weeds, Invasive, and Non-Native Species ...... 52 Recreation ...... 52 Soils ...... 53 Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species and Migratory Birds ...... 54 Vegetation...... 54 Visuals Resources ...... 55 Water Resources ...... 56 Wildlife, General ...... 56

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2-1: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ROW ...... 7 TABLE 2-2: PROPOSED PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY SURFACE DISTURBANCE ...... 8 TABLE 2-3: MAJOR EQUIPMENT USED DURING CONSTRUCTION ...... 9 TABLE 2-4: PROJECT HAZARDOUS AND REGULATED MATERIALS ...... 10 TABLE 3-1: SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY ELEMENTS AND OTHER RESOURCES ...... 16 TABLE 3-2: SUMMARY OF TONOPAH, NEVADA (268160) CLIMATE DATA (05/01/1902 TO 06/09/2016) ...... 18 TABLE 3-3: POPULATION DATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT AREA ...... 19 TABLE 3-4: ROWS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA ...... 20 TABLE 3-5: STUDY AREA SOILS ...... 25 TABLE 4-1: PAST AND PRESENT RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACTIONS IN THE LANDS CESA ...... 37 TABLE 4-2: PAST AND PRESENT MINERALS ACTIONS IN THE LANDS CESA ...... 37 TABLE 4-3: PAST AND PRESENT RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACTIONS IN THE WEED CESA ...... 38 TABLE 4-4: PAST AND PRESENT MINERALS ACTIONS IN THE WEED CESA ...... 39 TABLE 4-5: PAST AND PRESENT RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACTIONS IN THE RECREATION CESA ...... 40 TABLE 4-6: PAST AND PRESENT MINERALS ACTIONS IN THE RECREATION CESA ...... 41

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page iii Siebert Substation ROW

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location and Land Status Figure 2: Water and Air Resources Figure 3: Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Figure 4: Land, Access, and Abandoned Mine Lands Figure 5: Baseline Survey Areas Figure 6: Soil Resources Figure 7: Vegetation Resources Figure 8: KOP Location Figure 9: Land CESA Figure 10: Biology, Visuals, and Soils CESA Figure 11: Recreation CESA

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Impact Definitions Appendix B: Visual Simulation and Contrast Rating

ACRONYMS AND ABBERVIATIONS APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee bgs below ground surface BLM Bureau of Land Management CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CESA cumulative effects study area CFR Code of Federal Regulations EA Environmental Assessment EJ Environmental Justice EPM Environmental Protection Measure ESA Endangered Species Act ESD ecological site description FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 HMA herd management area KOP Key Observation Point MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MOU memorandum of understanding mph miles per hour NAAQS Nevada Ambient Air Quality Standards NAC Nevada Administrative Code NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife NESC National Electrical Safety Code NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NNHP Nevada Natural Heritage Program NRCS National Resource Conservation Service NRS Nevada Revised Statutes NVE NV Energy OHV off-highway vehicle PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page iv Siebert Substation ROW

POD Plan of Development RFFA reasonably foreseeable future actions ROW right-of-way US95 US Highway 95 USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service VRM Visual Resource Management

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page v Siebert Substation ROW

1 Introduction Sierra Pacific Power Company, doing business as (dba) NV Energy (NVE), proposes to construct, operate, and maintain the Siebert Substation (Project) on public land managed by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as shown on Figure 1. NVE has submitted a Plan of Development (POD) and SF- 299 application for a right-of-way (ROW) which includes the construction and operation of the 120/55 kilovolt (kV) substation and associated 138 and 508 line folds, as described in the POD (NVE, 2020). The Project, and associated ROW use areas consist of: • The Siebert Substation ROW (NVN 99659), including: o the Siebert Substation; o the Access Route; o the Centerline Travel Route; and • The Short-Term Siebert Substation ROW (NVN 99680), consisting of the Temporary Disturbance Area. The BLM has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA), in conformance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §1500-1508) and the BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1. The EA describes a Proposed Action and No Action Alternative and evaluates impacts to the affected environment associated with their implementation. The document further describes applicant committed environmental protection measures (EPMs), specifically designed to eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. 1.1 Purpose and Need for Action and Decision to Be Made The BLM administers the surface of public land under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). The FLPMA governs BLM’s administration of public land. The purpose of the ROW action is for NVE to increase reliability of the 55 kV system for customers in the Tonopah and Goldfield area by adding a second 120/55 kV source through installation of a new substation and associated line folds, and provide power to local mining projects. The BLM’s purpose is to respond to NVE’s request for a ROW to build, operate, and maintain a substation on public land. The BLM’s need for the federal action is established by the BLM’s responsibility under Section 302 and 501 of the FLPMA; the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and BLM’s responsibility to respond to a ROW application pursuant to 43 CFR §2801.9 and BLM Manual 2800, which require a BLM ROW grant for use of public lands for “systems of facilities over, under, on, or through public lands”. The decision the BLM would make, based on the analysis conducted pursuant to the NEPA, includes: 1) approve the POD for the ROWs with no modification; 2) approve the POD for the ROWs with modifications; or 3) deny the approval of the POD. 1.2 Scoping and Issues A BLM interdisciplinary team conducted internal scoping between May 13 and June 8, 2020. During this process, BLM personnel identified elements associated with supplemental authorities and other resources and uses to be addressed in this document. No specific issues were identified and the results of the internal scoping is discussed in Chapter 3. BLM sent letters by mail to the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, and Yomba Shoshone Tribe on July 13, 2020. The letters informed the Tribes of the Project location, a brief description, and invited feedback on the Project. Although none of the Tribes have expressed concerns regarding the Project, Native American consultation and coordination is always open and ongoing.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 6 Siebert Substation ROW

1.3 Land Use Plan Conformance Statement The Proposed Action conforms with the BLM’s Tonopah Resource Management Plan Record of Decision dated October 1997 (BLM 1997), the Esmeralda County Master Plan (Esmeralda County 2011), and Esmeralda County Public Lands Policy Plan (Esmeralda County 2013). 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives 2.1 Location of the Proposed Action The Project is located in Esmeralda County on public lands administered by the BLM Tonopah Field Office, Battle Mountain District. The requested ROW occurs entirely on BLM-administered land, as shown on Figure 1. The legal description of the Project is presented in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Legal Description of Proposed ROW Township/Range, Mount Diablo Baseline Section Number Aliquot Part and Meridian, Nevada 1 1 T2N, R45E 10 S /2SW /4 1 1 T2N, R45E 14 NW /4SW /4 1 1 1 1 1 T2N, R45E 15 NW /4, N /2SW /4, N /2SE /4 E = East; N = North; W = West; SW = Southwest; NE = Northeast 2.2 Access and Road Improvements Construction vehicles would access the proposed substation location and associated transmission line ROW primarily from United States Highway 95 (US 95) via an existing dirt road which intersects the existing Centerline Travel Route. Approximately 5,850 linear feet of the existing dirt road would require maintenance within its current footprint; no additional disturbance would occur associated with this road. The existing Centerline Travel Route would require improvements for vehicle access for the construction of the substation. The approximately 4,236 linear-foot existing Centerline Travel Route would be widened from 10 feet to 20 feet and would serve as permanent access to the substation. In addition, an Access Route would be constructed leading from the Centerline Travel Route into the substation area, as shown on Figure 1. 2.3 Facilities The proposed Project would include: • One 120/55 kV transformer; • Nine breakers; • 18 switches; • One control enclosure; • Associated buswork and electric appurtenances; • 138 line fold; and • 508 line fold. 2.3.1 Facility Design Factors The design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project would meet, or exceed, the requirements of the following: • National Electrical Safety Code (NESC); • United States Department of Agriculture - Rural Utilities Services; • U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards; and • NVE’s requirements for safety and protection of landowners and their property.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 7 Siebert Substation ROW

Based on the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) recommendations, adequate raptor protection construction per NESC Rule 2345E, Table 2345-6, in conjunction with the APLIC Report CEC-500-2006-022 (APLIC, 2006) would be implemented. This is also addressed under Applicant Committed EPMs. 2.4 Proposed Disturbance Areas Permanent and temporary surface disturbance areas associated with the Proposed Action are summarized in Table 2-2. Table 2-2: Proposed Permanent and Temporary Surface Disturbance Individual Approximate Total Disturbance Disturbance Type Component Disturbance Dimensions (acres) (acres) Permanent Disturbance Siebert Substation 500 by 535 feet 6.1 Permanent Disturbance Access Road 331 by 52 feet 0.4 8.5 Permanent Disturbance Centerline Travel 4,236 by 10 feet 2.0 Route Temporary Disturbance Temporary 1,400 by 1,150 feet 30.8 30.8 Disturbance Area 2.5 Construction Activities 2.5.1 Pre-Construction Activities The initial activity prior to construction is the engineering survey and staking of facilities. This would include marking the substation boundaries, wire pulling sites, etc. In addition, signs, flags and/or fencing would be used to delineate Project features, such as access and sensitive resource areas, if required. Additional staking may be required just prior to construction to refresh previously installed stakes and flagging and/or delineate any sensitive resource areas identified, if any. NVE would not initiate any construction or other surface disturbing activities on the ROW until after the release of the BLM Notice to Proceed (Form 2800-15) is issued by the Authorized Officer or his/her designee. 2.5.2 Construction Methods Holes for the structure poles and guy wire soil anchors would be excavated to depths of approximately eight to 10 feet. Augering, utilizing a truck-mounted auger, is the preferred method of excavation. However, backhoe excavation may be used as an alternative excavation method, as geological conditions require. At wire stringing sites, the lead-line would be installed in the travelers on each structure by ground crews. The lead-line would be spooled out from a large, motorized drum at one wire site and threaded through the travelers on each structure by ground crews traveling to the next wire site. There, the lead- line would be attached to the conductors and shield wires, which would then be pulled back through to the first wire site. After the conductors and shield wires reach the pulling site, they would be correctly sagged and tensioned, then permanently clipped into the clamps at each structure. Poles for the line folds would be delivered and assembled (if necessary) in the Temporary Disturbance Area. From this area, the poles would be delivered to each pole site location. Construction of the Siebert Substation would involve two stages: 1) Site preparation, and 2) Structural and electrical construction.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 8 Siebert Substation ROW

Site preparation – Construction would begin with the clearing of vegetation and organic material from the area of construction. The area would then be graded to subgrade elevation. Structural footings and underground utilities, along with electrical conduit and grounding grid would then be installed, followed by above ground structures and equipment. A chain link fence would be constructed around the substation for security and to restrict unauthorized persons and wildlife from entering the substation. The substation would then be finished, graded, and graveled. Structural and Electrical Construction – The Siebert Substation would require a new control enclosure. The control enclosure would likely be constructed of prefabricated steel and concrete. Major equipment to be installed inside the control enclosure would consist of relay and control panels, alternating current and direct current load centers to provide power to equipment inside and outside the control building, a battery bank to provide a back-up power supply, a heating/cooling system to prevent equipment failure, and communications equipment for remote control and monitoring of essential equipment. Steel structures would be erected on concrete footings to support switches, electrical buswork, instrument transformers, lightning arrestors, and other equipment, as well as termination structures for incoming transmission lines. Structures would be fabricated from tubular steel and galvanized or painted a tan color to blend in with predominant vegetation and soil types. Structures would be grounded by thermally welding one or more ground wires to each structure. Major equipment would be set by crane and either bolted or welded to the foundations to resist seismic forces. Smaller equipment, including air switches, current and voltage instrument transformers, insulators, electrical buswork, and conductors would be mounted on steel structures. Control cables would be pulled from panels in control enclosure, through the underground conduits and concrete trench system, to the appropriate equipment. After the cables are connected, the controls would be set to the proper settings, and all equipment would be tested before the substation is energized. Surplus materials, equipment, and construction debris would be removed at the completion of construction activities. All man-made construction debris would be removed and disposed of, as appropriate, at permitted landfill sites. 2.6 Work Force The construction work force would consist of approximately 10 to 25 personnel. Construction is anticipated to last for approximately one year. Employees and/or contractors would most likely be sourced from Reno but would stay in Tonopah during their work shifts. Project construction would also require additional support personnel, including construction inspectors, surveyors, and project managers. 2.7 Equipment Table 2-3 includes a list of the typical equipment expected to be used during construction of the Project. Table 2-3: Major Equipment Used During Construction Equipment Use ¾-ton and one-ton pickup trucks Transport construction personnel Two-ton flatbed trucks; flatbed boom truck Haul and unload materials Rigging truck Haul tools and equipment Mechanic truck Service and repair equipment Aerial bucket trucks Access poles, string conductor, and other uses Shop vans Store tools Bulldozer Grade access roads and pole sites, reclamation Truck-mounted digger or backhoe Excavate Small mobile cranes (12 tons) Load and unload materials Transport Haul poles and equipment

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 9 Siebert Substation ROW

Equipment Use Drill rig with augers Excavate and install poles Excavator Excavate and install poles Puller and tensioner Pull conductor and wire Cable reel trailers Transport cable reels and feed cables into conduit Semi tractor-trailers Haul structures and equipment Splice trailer Store splicing supplies/air condition manholes Take-up trailers Install conductor Air compressors Operate air tools Air tampers Compact soil around structure foundations Concrete truck Pour concrete Dump truck Haul excavated materials/import backfill Fuel and equipment fluid truck Refuel and maintain vehicles Water truck Suppress dust and fire Winch truck Install and pull sock line and conductors into position 2.8 Solid Waste and Hazardous or Regulated Materials Hazardous and/or regulated materials which may be utilized within the Project Area are shown in Table 2-4. Table 2-4: Project Hazardous and Regulated Materials Two-cycle oil Lubricating Grease ABC Fire Extinguisher Mastic Coating Acetylene Gas Insulating Oil Air Tool Oil Bee Bopper Wasp and Hornet Spray (Tetramethrin and 3-Phenoxybenzyl) Diesel Fuel Oxygen Antifreeze Paint Automatic Transmission Fluid Paint Thinner Battery Acid Petroleum Products Bee Bop Insect Killer Prestone II Antifreeze Canned Spray Paint Puncture Seal Tire Inflator Chain Lubricant (petroleum distillates and Sorbitan Safety Fuses trioleate) Connecter Grease Safety Solvent Contact Cleaner 2000 Starter Fluid Eye Glass Cleaner (Benzalkonium chloride) WD-40 Gas Treatment Wagner Brake Fluid Gasoline 2.9 Post-Construction Cleanup and Reclamation Surplus materials, equipment, and construction debris would be removed at the completion of construction activities. All man-made construction debris would be removed and disposed of, as appropriate, at permitted landfill sites. Cleared vegetation would either be shredded and spread over the ROW as mulch and erosion control or disposed of offsite, depending on agency requirements. The Siebert Substation ROW area, the Access Route, and Centerline Travel Route would remain as permanent disturbance areas. The Temporary Disturbance Area would be reclaimed by: • Re-contouring to approximate pre-construction widths and grades; • De-compacting where necessary; • Seeding with the approved seed mix; and • Spreading vegetation remnants and/or rocks, where appropriate.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 10 Siebert Substation ROW

2.10 Applicant Committed Environmental Protection Measures NVE has committed to the following EPMs to prevent environmental degradation during construction, operation, and reclamation activities of the Project. 2.10.1 General Measures • The limits of the Temporary Disturbance Area would be marked with staking and/or flagging. Environmentally sensitive areas, if present, would be flagged or fenced for avoidance; • Prior to construction, all construction personnel would be instructed on the protection of sensitive resources that have the potential to occur on site; • All construction vehicle movement would be restricted to the ROW, pre-designated access roads, and public roads; • Non-specular conductors would be installed to reduce visual impacts; • Fences and gates, if damaged or destroyed by construction activities, would be repaired or replaced to their original pre-construction condition as required by the landowner or the BLM; and • All existing roads would be left in a condition equal to or better than their pre-construction condition. 2.10.2 Air Quality • Emissions of fugitive dust from disturbed surfaces would be minimized by the application of water from a water truck as a method of dust control; • Project vehicle speeds would be limited to 20 mph in the construction area and on unpaved roads; • Paved public streets would be swept if visible soil material is tracked on by construction vehicles. • Excavation and grading activities would be suspended when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph and visible dust persists that create a health hazard to neighboring property owners or visibility impacts to vehicular traffic; • NVE would obtain and comply with a Nevada Surface Area Disturbance (SAD) permit. 2.10.3 Cultural and Paleontological Resources • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.4(g), NVE would notify the BLM-authorized officer, by telephone, and with written confirmation, immediately upon the discovery of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony (as defined in 43 CFR 10.2). Further pursuant to 43 CFR 10.4, NVE would immediately stop all activities in the vicinity of the discovery and not commence again until a notice to proceed is issued by the BLM-authorized officer; • NVE would not knowingly disturb, alter, injure, or destroy any historical or archaeological site, structure, building, or object. If NVE discovers any cultural resource that might be altered or destroyed by construction activities, the discovery would be left intact and reported to the BLM-authorized officer; • Prior to construction, NVE would inform all field personnel of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 and the Native American Graves Protection Act and Repatriation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-601) responsibilities and their associated penalties; and • NVE would not knowingly disturb, alter, injure, or destroy scientifically important paleontological deposits. In the event that previously undiscovered paleontological resources are discovered by NVE in the performance of any surface disturbing activity,

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 11 Siebert Substation ROW

the item(s) or condition(s) would be left intact and immediately brought to the attention of the BLM-authorized officer. If significant paleontological resources are found, avoidance, recordation, and/or data recovery would be required. 2.10.4 Fire Prevention and Response • In the event of a fire, the field crew would evacuate and immediately call “911” or the Central Nevada Interagency Dispatch Center at (775) 623-3444. All fires would be reported to the jurisdictional fire agency, regardless of size and actions taken; • NVE would designate a Fire Marshal (NVE Fire Marshal), who would coordinate with a Fire Marshal to be designated by the prime contractor (Contractor Fire Marshal) and the BLM’s fire management representative, as necessary. The Contractor Fire Marshal would be responsible for the following tasks: o Conducting regular inspections of tools, equipment, and first aid kits for completeness; o Conducting regular inspections of storage areas and practices for handling flammable fuels to confirm compliance with applicable laws and regulations; o Posting smoking and fire rules at centrally visible locations on site; o Coordinating initial response to contractor-caused fires within the ROW and temporary work area; o Conducting fire inspections along the ROW and temporary work area; o Ensuring that all construction workers and subcontractors are aware of all fire protection measures; o Remaining on duty and on site when construction activities are in progress and during additional periods when fire safety is an issue, or designating another individual to serve in this capacity when absent; o Reporting all wildfires in accordance with the notification procedures described below; o Initiating and implementing fire suppression activities until relieved by agency or local firefighting services at the event of a Project-related fire. Project fire suppression personnel and equipment, including water tenders, would be dispatched within 15 minutes from the time that a fire is reported; and o Coordinating with the NVE Project Manager regarding current fire conditions potential and fire safety warnings from the BLM and communicating these conditions to the contractor’s crew. • The NVE Construction Foreman or Contractor Fire Marshal would immediately notify firefighting services of any fires on site; • Contractors would be notified to stop or reduce construction activities that pose a significant fire hazard until appropriate safeguards are taken; • If an accidental fire occurs during construction, immediate steps to extinguish a fire (if it is manageable and safe to do so) would be taken using available fire suppression equipment and techniques. Fire suppression activities would be initiated by NVE and/or its contractor until relieved by the agency or local firefighting services; • Smoking would only be permitted in designated cleared areas and would be prohibited while walking or working in areas with vegetation or while operating equipment. In areas where smoking is permitted, all burning tobacco and matches would be completely extinguished and discarded in ash trays, not on the ground; • “NO SMOKING” signage and fire rules would be posted at the equipment staging area during the fire season; • Fire suppression equipment would be present in areas where construction tools or equipment have the potential to spark a fire;

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 12 Siebert Substation ROW

• Extra precautions would be taken when fire danger is considered to be high; • All field personnel would be instructed regarding emergency fire response. The contractors would receive training on the following: initial fire suppression techniques; fire event reporting requirements; methods to determine if a fire is manageable; fire control measures to be implemented by field crews on site; when the worksite should be evacuated; how to respond to wildfires in the vicinity; and how to maintain knowledge of and plans for evacuation routes; • No open burning, campfires, or barbeques would be allowed along the ROW, at equipment staging areas, switching stations, on access roads, or in any other Project- related construction areas; • All welding or cutting of powerline structures or their component parts would be approved by the NVE Construction Foreman. Welding or cutting activities would cease one hour before all fire response personnel leave a construction area to reduce the possibility of material associated with welding activities smoldering and starting a fire. Welder vehicles would be equipped with fire suppression equipment; • All internal combustion engines, both stationary and mobile, would be equipped with approved spark arresters that have been maintained in good working condition. Light trucks and cars with factory-installed (type) mufflers in good condition would be used on roads cleared of all vegetation with no additional equipment required. Vehicles equipped with catalytic converters are potential fire hazards and would be parked on cleared areas only; • The use of torches, fuses, highway flares, or other warning devices with open flames would be prohibited. NVE and its contractors would only use electric or battery-operated warning devices on site; • Equipment parking areas, small stationary engine sites, and gas and oil storage areas would be cleared of all extraneous flammable materials. “NO SMOKING” signs would be posted in these areas at all times; • Fuel tanks would be grounded; • NVE and the contractors would provide continuous access to roads for emergency vehicles during construction; • All motorized vehicles and equipment would be equipped with the following fire protection items: one long-handled round-point shovel; one ax or Pulaski fire tool; one five-pound ABC Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher; one five-gallon water backpack (or other approved container) full of water or other extinguishing solution; and a hard hat, work gloves, and eye protection; • Project construction worksites would include the following equipment: power saws, if required by construction, equipped with an approved spark arrester and accompanied by one five-pound ABC Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher and a long-handled, round-point shovel when used away from a vehicle; fuel service trucks with one 35-pound capacity fire extinguisher charged with the necessary chemicals to control electrical and fuel fires; at least two long-handled, round-point shovels and two five-pound ABC Dry Chemical Fire Extinguishers at wood cutting, welding, or other construction work sites that have a high risk of starting fires; at least one radio and/or cellular telephone to contact fire suppression agencies or the Project management team; and backpumps filled with water (two at each wood-cutting site, one at each welding site, and two at each tower installation or construction site, or any activity site at risk of igniting fires); and • During periods of increased fire danger, a fire suppression vehicle would be available in the construction area or stationed near high-risk construction work sites and would be equipped with the following items: one water tank with a minimum capacity of 500 gallons; 250 feet of 0.75-inch heavy-duty rubber hosing; one pump with a discharge

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 13 Siebert Substation ROW

capacity of at least 20 gallons per minute (the pump would have fuel capacity to operate for at least a two-hour period; and one tool cache [for fire use only] containing a minimum of two long-handled round-point shovels, two axes or Pulaski fire tools and one chainsaw of 3.5 (or more) horsepower with a cutting bar of at least 20 inches in length. 2.10.5 Hazardous or Solid Wastes • Pursuant to 43 CFR 8365.1-1(b)(3), no sewage, petroleum products, or refuse would be dumped from any trailer or vehicle; • All regulated wastes would be removed from the Project Area and disposed of in a state, federal, or local designated area; • In the event that hazardous or regulated materials are spilled, measures would be taken to control the spill, and the BLM and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) would be notified as required; • If a spill of a petroleum constituent is considered to meet the reportable quantity per the NDEP’s guidelines (greater than 25 gallons or greater than three cubic yards of impacted material or any quantity if a water body is impacted), or a reportable quantity for hazardous waste is released based on the Federal Environmental Protection Agency guidelines established under Title III List of Lists (40 CFR Part 302), the NDEP would be notified within 24 hours, and the appropriate remedial actions and confirmation sampling would be conducted under direction of the NDEP; • No paint or permanent discoloring agents would be applied to rocks or vegetation to indicate limits of surveys or construction activities; • Portable chemical toilets would be utilized and all human waste would be hauled off site; • No debris of any kind would be deposited in the ROW; and • No biodegradable debris would be left in the ROW. 2.10.6 Migratory Birds • Powerlines and associated structures would be constructed to conform to those practices and standards described in the Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines (APLIC, 2006). These standards prevent electrocution through proper spacing between overhead transmission line features; and • If required by the BLM, a nest survey would be conducted by a BLM-approved biologist prior to any surface disturbance associated with project activities during the avian breeding season (March 1 through July 31 for raptors, and April 1 through July 31 for other avian species). Pre-disturbance surveys for migratory birds are only valid for 14 days. If the disturbance for the specific location does not occur within 14 days of the survey, another survey would be needed. If active nests are located, or if other evidence of nesting (i.e., mated pairs, territorial defense, carrying nest material, transporting food) is observed, a protective buffer (the size depending on the habitat requirements of the species) would be delineated after consultation with the BLM resource specialist, and the buffer area avoided to prevent destruction or disturbance to nests or birds until they are no longer actively breeding or rearing young. The site characteristics to be used to determine the size of the buffer area are as follows: a) topographic screening; b) distance from disturbance to nest; c) the size and quality of foraging habitat surrounding the nest; d) sensitivity of the species to nest disturbances; and e) the protection status of the species. Seasonal disturbance restrictions surrounding occupied nests would remain in place until the young have fledged or the nest fails.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 14 Siebert Substation ROW

2.10.7 Golden Eagles • To minimize impacts to golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) nests, project activities would not be conducted between January 1 and August 31 within one mile of a Golden Eagle nest. However, if that is not practicable, a survey would be conducted after March 21 at eagle nest sites that are within one mile of the project Area to determine occupancy. The timing of the surveys may be adjusted due to winter weather conditions and is subject to approval from the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). If a nest has a bird in an incubating/brooding posture, it would be assumed that the nest is active that year, and a one-mile disturbance buffer would be applied until August 31, or until it has been determined that 1) the nest has failed; or 2) the young have fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest. The buffer sizes may be reduced with approval from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). If the nest is not active at the time of the surveys, the one- mile buffer would not apply and project activities could commence. 2.10.8 Noxious Weeds, Invasive and Non-native Species • If required by the BLM, noxious weeds would be controlled through implementation of the following best management practices (BMPs): concurrent reclamation efforts; schedule weed management activities to maximize the effectiveness of control efforts on reclaimed areas; washing heavy equipment prior to entering the Project Area; and avoiding areas of known invasive, non-native, and noxious weeds during periods when the weeds could be spread by vehicles; and • Noxious weeds can readily invade disturbed areas. If required by the BLM, NVE could be responsible for the following: 1) identifying noxious weeds in the ROW and temporary disturbance area (noxious weed information would be provided by the BLM); 2) excluding noxious weeds from disturbed areas until reclamation has been accepted and released; and 3) ensuring that all equipment is “weed free” before traveling to and from the Project Area so that noxious weeds are not spread to new locations. All vehicles originating from outside southern Nevada would be cleaned in a power wash in Tonopah. When noxious weeds are encountered in the ROW and temporary disturbance area, documentation of their location and extent would be provided to the BLM as soon as possible. NVE would obtain approval from the BLM-authorized officer prior to any herbicide application. NVE would contact the BLM’s noxious weed program lead regarding any issues concerning noxious weeds. 2.10.9 Public Safety • Public safety would be maintained throughout the life of the Project. All equipment and other facilities would be maintained in a safe and orderly manner; • Activities would be restricted to frozen or dry ground conditions where feasible. Operations would be curtailed when saturated and soft soil conditions exist; and • In the event that any existing roads are severely damaged as a result of NVE activities, NVE would return them to their original condition. 2.10.10 Soil and Water Resources • Stormwater BMPs would be used at construction sites to minimize stormwater erosion; • In newly disturbed temporary work areas, the soil would be salvaged and would be distributed and contoured evenly over the surface of the disturbed area after construction completion. The soil surface would be left rough to help reduce potential wind erosion; and • Grading would be minimized by utilizing overland travel within work areas whenever possible.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 15 Siebert Substation ROW

2.10.11 Survey Monuments • Any survey monuments, witness corners, or reference monuments would be protected to the extent economically and technically feasible. 2.10.12 Vegetation and Wildlife • Following Project construction, areas of disturbed land no longer required for operations would be stabilized or reclaimed to promote the reestablishment of native plant and wildlife habitat. 2.11 Alternatives to the Proposed Action In accordance with BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1, Chapter 6, this EA evaluates a No Action Alternative which is a reasonable alternative to the Proposed Action. The objective of the No Action Alternative is to describe the environmental consequences that would result if the Proposed Action were not implemented. The No Action alternative forms the baseline from which the impacts of all other alternatives can be measured. 2.12 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be approved by the BLM. 3 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Proposed Mitigation or Avoidance Measures 3.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter of the EA is to describe the existing environment of the Project Area, as well as environmental consequences from implementation of the Proposed Action or the No Action Alternative. For the purposes of this analysis, the “Project Area” is defined as the Siebert Substation, the Access Route, the Temporary Disturbance Area, and the Centerline Travel Route which would be widened as shown on Figure 1. EPMs are incorporated, as necessary, in the relevant resource chapter and impact definitions are included in Appendix A. Supplemental Authorities are subject to requirements specified by statute or Executive Order which must be considered in all BLM environmental documents. The elements associated with the Supplemental Authorities listed in Appendix 1 of the NEPA Handbook and in the Nevada Instruction Memorandum NV-2009-030, Change 1. Table 3-1 lists the elements and the determination of whether the element is present in the Project Area and, if present, if the element would be affected by the Proposed Action. In addition to the elements listed under supplemental authorities, the BLM considers other resources and uses that occur on public lands and the issues that may result from the Proposed Action. Other resources or uses of the human environment considered for this EA are also listed in Table 3-1. Elements listed under the supplemental authorities or other resources which either do not occur in the Project Area or would not be affected are not discussed further in this EA based on the rationale provided. The elimination of non-relevant issues follows CEQ regulations, as stated in 40 CFR §1500.4. Table 3-1: Supplemental Authority Elements and Other Resources Present and Present and Not Affected Resource May Be Rationale or Not Affected Present Areas of Critical The Proposed Action is not within an Area of Critical Environmental X Environmental Concern. Concern

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 16 Siebert Substation ROW

Present and Present and Not Affected Resource May Be Rationale or Not Affected Present Air Quality X Carried forward for analysis. National Monument or The Proposed action is not within or near a National X Conservation Lands Monument or Conservation Lands. The Project Area was previously inventoried for another Cultural Resources X project. Historic properties were not present. Environmental Justice X Carried forward for analysis. and Socioeconomics Fish and Wildlife Excluding Federally X Carried forward for analysis. Listed Species There are no Federal Emergency Management Agency Floodplains X designated floodplains in the Project Area. Forest resources are not part of the vegetation types located Forestry X within the area. EPMs for fire prevention and response are described in Fuels and Fire X Chapter 2. This resource is potentially present but not Management impacted. Geology/Mineral X Carried forward for analysis. Resources Currently there are no emission limits for suspected Green Green House House Gas emissions, and no technically defensible method X Gas/Climate Change for predicting potential climate change from GHG emissions. Noxious Weeds, Invasive and Non- X Carried forward for analysis. native Species Lands and Access X Carried forward for analysis. Livestock Grazing X The Proposed Action would not impact livestock grazing. Migratory Birds X Carried forward for analysis. Native American X Carried forward for analysis. Concerns Paleontological Paleontological resources are not present within the Project X Resources Area. Recreation/Travel/Wild X Carried forward for analysis. and Scenic Rivers Soils X Carried forward for analysis. Threatened Endangered or X Carried forward for analysis. Candidate Animal Species Threatened Endangered or X Carried forward for analysis. Candidate Plant Species Vegetation X Carried forward for analysis. Visual Resources X Carried forward for analysis. Waste management would be handled according to site Wastes (hazardous or X EPMs. Spill contingency is discussed under Water solid) Resources. Water Resources X Carried forward for analysis.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 17 Siebert Substation ROW

Present and Present and Not Affected Resource May Be Rationale or Not Affected Present Wetlands and Riparian No permanent or perennial waterways are present in the X Areas vicinity of the Project Area. The Proposed Action would not impact wild horse and Wild Horse and Burros X burros. There are no wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, or Wilderness X lands with wilderness character in the vicinity of the Proposed Action. 3.2 Air Quality 3.2.1 Affected Environment The Project Area is located in a semiarid region, with a climate characterized by warm, dry summers and cool winters. The monthly average maximum and minimum temperatures and monthly total precipitation are listed in Table 3-2. Table 3-2: Summary of Tonopah, Nevada (268160) Climate Data (05/01/1902 to 06/09/2016) Average Total Average Maximum Average Minimum Precipitation Month Temperature1 (°F) Temperature1 (°F) (inches) January 38.4 0.32 0.32 February 43.4 26.2 0.35 March 50.8 30.2 0.56 April 60.3 37.7 0.62 May 69.1 44.6 0.32 June 78.9 52.2 0.21 July 87.4 61.3 0.34 August 85.0 59.3 0.52 September 76.8 52.1 0.28 October 63.4 41.6 0.56 November 49.8 31.3 0.33 December 40.0 25.2 0.41 Annual 61.9 40.4 4.18 Data Source: WRCC, 2020 The Project Area is located within the Big Smokey Valley hydrographic basin (137), as shown on Figure 2. The basin is designated by the NDEP Bureau of Air Pollution Control as an “unclassified” basin relative to attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all criteria pollutants (particulate matter less than 10 microns [PM10], carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and lead) (EPA, 2020). An unclassified area is one for which sufficient ambient air quality data are not available to determine attainment. 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, surface disturbance would increase by approximately 39.3 acres. Of this, 30.8 acres of disturbance would be reclaimed following the completion of construction. Post- reclamation vegetation establishment is anticipated to take an additional three years. A permanent disturbance area of 8.5 acres would remain as part of the ROW use area, as summarized in Table 2-2 .

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 18 Siebert Substation ROW

Road improvements, earthworks, and construction would create fugitive dust emissions in the form of PM10 and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). For activities within the Temporary Disturbance Area, these impacts would last until the completion of reclamation and revegetation success has been established. Fugitive dust emissions would persist on the permanent disturbance areas in perpetuity, resulting from exposure to wind, vehicle travel, and intermittent maintenance. With consideration for the listed EPMs, the level of activity at the site, and the disturbance area size, impacts to air resources related to fugitive dust are determined to be negligible, long-term, and localized. No stationary emission sources are proposed. Impacts related to mobile combustion emissions would be negligible and have not been quantified for this analysis. 3.2.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to air quality would not occur beyond those previously analyzed and disclosed under other actions. Pollutant concentrations under the No Action Alternative would remain below NAAQS or the Nevada ambient air quality standards. 3.3 Environmental Justice and Socioeconomics 3.3.1 Affected Environment The Assessment Area defined for Socioeconomics is the entirety of Esmeralda County and Nye County Census Tract 9602 (Figure 3). This assessment area has been chosen to capture impacts to Tonopah and surrounding areas related to employment, environmental justice (EJ) populations, and electrical infrastructure. 3.3.1.1 Population and Demography Populations within the Assessment Area are shown in Table 3-3. The population in Esmeralda County increased by 5.5% between 2010 and 2018, while the population in the entire State of Nevada increased by 12.4%. There are no 2018 data for Nye County Census Tract 9602. Table 3-3: Population Data for the Assessment Area Location Population Percent Change Year 2010 2018 2010-2018 Esmeralda County 783 826 5.5 Nye County Census Tract 96021 2,545 - - State of Nevada 2,700,5512 3,034,392 12.4 Data Sources: US Census, 2010 and US Census 2020 Age distributions within the Assessment Area are comparable to those for the state of Nevada, with a slightly higher percentage of persons over the age of 65 residing within Esmeralda County (26% of the population) as compared to the State of Nevada (12%) (US Census, 2020). Racial composition information for the Assessment Area indicates that there is a higher percentage of persons identifying as White within Esmeralda County and Nye County Census Tract 9602 (67.1% and 85.0% respectively) as compared to the State of Nevada (48.7%). The State of Nevada has a higher concentration of Black or African American persons, Asian persons, Hispanic persons, and persons identifying with two or more races as compared to the Assessment Area (US Census, 2010 and 2020). The largest industries in Esmeralda County are mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction, representing 46.6% of the employment in the county. These high numbers result primarily from the Silver Peak lithium mine. The second largest industry in the county is public administration at 21.5% of the county’s employment. The largest industry in Nye County Census Tract 9602 is public administration within 48.5% of the county’s employment. These industry numbers do not coincide with

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 19 Siebert Substation ROW the largest industries in the state, which include accommodation and food services at 24.4% and retail trade at 11.1% (US Census, 2017). 3.3.1.2 Environmental Justice Population Neither a minority nor American Indian EJ population is present within the assessment area. However, a low income EJ population is present within Nye County Census Tract 9602 of the assessment area. The percentage of the population classified as low income is not equal to or greater than 50%, but it is more than ten percentage points higher than the state of Nevada. A low income EJ population, therefore, is present (Headwater Economics, 2020; EPA EJ Screen, 2020). 3.3.1.3 Electrical Infrastructure Two electric companies provide electricity within Esmeralda County: Valley Electric Association, which serves the Dyer/Fish Lake Valley area and Sierra Pacific Power Company (dba NVE), which serves the remainder of Esmeralda County. NV Energy provides electrical service within Census Tract 9602 of Nye County. Industrial users of the 120kv and 55kV electrical lines which transect the assessment area include the Gemfield Mine, the Three Hills Mine, and the Hasbrouck Mine. 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action Construction of the project facilities is anticipated to last for approximately one year. The facilities would remain in perpetuity. Construction labor would be provided by NV Energy. Employees or contractors would most likely be residents of Reno who would stay in Tonopah during their work shifts. The Project may contribute to the Tonopah economy through the use of hotels, restaurants, and retail stores for the duration of construction. Impacts to the Tonopah economy are anticipated to be negligible, short-term, and localized. Even though there is a low income EJ population present within the assessment area, it is not anticipated that there would be any disproportionate impacts to this population resulting from the Proposed Action due to the Project’s location and size. 3.3.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative No adverse consequences to socioeconomics or EJ populations associated with the No Action Alternative would occur beyond the impacts related to already approved or existing activities. However, the electrical needs of nearby industrial projects may not be met with the existing electrical system configuration. 3.4 Lands and Access 3.4.1 Affected Environment The Project Area is located on public lands administered by the BLM, as shown on Figure 4. Current land uses in the Project Area and vicinity consist primarily of mineral exploration, wildlife habitat, power transmission facilities, mining operations, and dispersed recreation. The Project Area is located partially within the pending Hasbrouck Mine Project Area and the Three Hills Mine Project Area, as shown on Figure 4. Pending ROWs associated with the Hasbrouck Mine Project which overlap the Project Area are NVN-96243 (short-term transmission line work area) and NVN-95909 (long-term transmission line ROW). Authorized ROWs in the Project Area primarily consist of roads, powerlines, and a fiber optic line, as summarized in Table 3-4. Table 3-4: ROWs within the Project Area Serial Number Type of ROW ROW Width ROW Holder Nev 043264 55kV 100 Sierra Pacific Power Company

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 20 Siebert Substation ROW

Serial Number Type of ROW ROW Width ROW Holder Transmission Line N-03324 120Kv 75 Sierra Pacific Power Company Transmission Line 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action Existing land uses in the Project Area may be permanently altered due to establishment of the Siebert Substation, which will be fenced to prevent public access. However, reclamation activities would help minimize long-term impacts to changes in land use within the Temporary Disturbance Area, which will remain open to public access. Impacts to lands and realty would be minor, long-term, and localized. 3.4.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to land use and access would not occur beyond those previously analyzed and disclosed under other actions. 3.5 Minerals 3.5.1 Affected Environment The study area is located on the Tertiary-aged Siebert and Fraction tuffs. Historic mining activity in the area occurred as part of the Tonopah and Divide mining districts (Graney, 1985). Precious metal mining continues at present day, with the authorized Three Hills Mine and the proposed Hasbrouck Mine being the closest. One abandoned mine land (AML) site is located just outside of the study area as shown on Figure 4. This AML site has been documented as a vertical shaft over 100 feet in depth with a timbered top. The site has been closed and secured using polyfill. It is also fenced with t-posts and barbed wire (BLM, 2020b). 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action No direct impacts to geology or minerals resources would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Indirect impacts may result from altered access to minerals resources just below the permanent ROW area. However, because powerlines already exist at this location, the Proposed Action would not measurably change access. Indirect impacts related to mineral resource access would be negligible, long- term, and localized. Since the AML site is located outside of the temporary disturbance area, and because the site has been fenced off and closed, impacts to this feature would not occur. 3.5.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to geology and mineral resources would not occur beyond those previously analyzed and disclosed under other actions. 3.6 Noxious Weeds, Invasive and Non-native Species Noxious weeds, invasive, and non-native species are species that are highly competitive, aggressive, and spread easily. They typically establish and infest disturbed sites, along roadsides, and along waterways. Changes in plant community composition from native species to non-native species can change fire regimes, negatively affect habitat quality, biodiversity, and ecosystem structure and function. The BLM defines a noxious weed as “a plant that interferes with management objectives for a given area of land at a given point in time.” The BLM recognizes the noxious weed list designated by the State

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 21 Siebert Substation ROW of Nevada Department of Agriculture statute, found in Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 555.010. Currently the list contains 47 noxious weed species. The BLM’s policy relating to the management and coordination of noxious weed and invasive plant species is set forth in the BLM Manual 9015 – Integrated Weed Management (BLM, 1992). The BLM’s primary focus is providing adequate capability to detect and treat smaller weed infestations before they have a chance to spread. Noxious weed control is based on a program of prevention, early detection, and rapid response. 3.6.1 Affected Environment Baseline biological surveys have been conducted for other projects which, when combined, cover the Project Area as shown on Figure 5. The biological baseline surveys referenced herein include the: • Hasbrouck Mine Project 2015 Baseline Biological Survey Report (Hasbrouck 2015) (EM Strategies, 2015) • Hasbrouck Mine Project 2017 Baseline Biological Survey Report (Hasbrouck 2017) (EM Strategies, 2017); and • Three Hill Mine Project 2017 Baseline Biological Survey Report (Three Hills 2017) (EM Strategies, 2019). No noxious weeds were identified with the referenced baseline biological surveys. The following invasive and non-native plant species, which are not classified as noxious weeds in the State of Nevada, were, however, present (EM Strategies, 2015, 2017, and 2019). These species may or may not be present within the Project Area, but do occur within the general vicinity: • Desert madwort (Alyssum desertorum); • Herb sophia (Descurainia sophia); • Saltlover (Halogeton glomeratus); • Prickly Russian thistle (Salsola tragus); and • Arabian schismus (Schismus arabicus).

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, approximately 39.3 additional acres of land would be disturbed, creating favorable conditions for the potential establishment of invasive and non-native plant species. The establishment of invasive and non-native species could change the plant community from complex to simpler over time, competing with native plants for pollinators, nutrients, water, and space. The invasive and non-native plant species’ establishment opportunity would remain on 30.8 acres until the temporary disturbance areas have been reclaimed and vegetation has established. The invasive and non-native plant species’ establishment opportunity would remain on 8.5 acres of permanent disturbance areas into perpetuity. Considering the size of the proposed disturbance, the absence of noxious weeds as defined by NAC 555.010, and the applicant committed EPMs, impacts related to noxious weeds would be negligible, long-term, and localized. Impacts related to other invasive and non-native species would be minor, long- term, and localized.

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no additional impacts related to noxious weeds, invasive, and non- native species would occur beyond those impacts related to authorized and unauthorized activities in the area.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 22 Siebert Substation ROW

3.7 Native American Cultural Concerns 3.7.1 Affected Environment The Analysis Area lies within the traditional territory of the Western Shoshone Tribes. Sites and resources considered sacred or necessary to the continuation of tribal traditions include, but are not limited to: prehistoric and historic village sites; pine nut gathering locations; sites of ceremony and prayer; archaeological sites; burial locations; “rock art” sites; medicinal/edible plant gathering locations; areas associated with creation stories; or any other tribally designated Traditional Cultural Property. Tribal ethnographic resources are associated with the cultural practices, beliefs, and traditional history of a community. In general, ethnographic resources include: places in oral histories or traditional places, such as particular rock formations, the oil and gas water sources, or a rock cairn; large areas, such as landscapes and viewscapes; sacred sites and places used for religious practices; social or traditional gathering areas, such as racing grounds; natural resources, such as plant materials or clay deposits used for arts, crafts, or ceremonies; and places and natural resources traditionally used for non-ceremonial uses, such as trails or camping locations. Future Native American consultations in the area may reveal such sites, activities, or resources. The NEPA process does not require a separate analysis of impacts to religion, spirituality, or sacredness. References to such beliefs or practices convey only the terminology used by participants involved in current and historic ethnographic studies and tribal consultation and coordination, and does not reflect any BLM evaluation, conclusion, or determination that something is or is not religious, sacred, or spiritual. 3.7.1.1 Tribal Consultation and Information Sharing The BLM TFO has an ongoing invitation for consultation and information sharing with the tribes. Consultation and communication with these tribal/band governments have included letters, phone calls, e-mails, and visits with individual tribal/band Environmental Coordinators or other representatives. Consultation and information sharing will continue throughout the life of the project. The majority of lands in the Analysis Area have not been analyzed for ethnographic resources or Native American cultural concerns. The BLM contacted the Duckwater, Timbisha, and Yomba Shoshone Tribes to identify areas of concern, mitigation measures, operating procedures or alternatives that may eliminate or reduce impacts to any existing tribal resources. 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action Project related ground-disturbing activities have the potential to impact Native American spiritual, cultural, or traditional sites. Such effects can be difficult to effectively mitigate; however, impacts can be minimized and/or mitigated when affected Tribes provide input and actively and fully participate in the decision-making process. BLM will not approve any ground-disturbing activities until it conducts its tribal consultation obligations. None of the tribes contacted in early consultation and coordination have expressed concerns with the Project activities. If tribal concerns were brought forward in a timely manner, BLM would work with Project operators to avoid, minimize, or mitigate if possible. 3.7.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no additional impacts related to Native American Cultural Concerns would occur beyond those impacts related to authorized and unauthorized activities in the area.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 23 Siebert Substation ROW

3.8 Recreation 3.8.1 Affected Environment No wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, or lands with wilderness characteristics occur within or near the Project Area. The Project Area is also not located within an area designated as a special BLM recreation management area. Recreation within the Project Area is dispersed and may include motorized use (motorcycles, off- highway vehicles (OHVs)], mountain biking, historical touring, horseback riding, sightseeing, outdoor photography, nature study, wildlife viewing, hiking, rock collecting, and hunting. Motorized recreation on BLM-administered lands within and around the Project Area is limited to existing roads and trails (BLM, 1997). The Project Area is also located along the Best in the Desert 2020 Maxxis tires “Casey Folks” Las Vegas to Reno OHV race (BITD). This annual three-day event was analyzed under NEPA in 2009 and is located along routes which have been used previously for desert racing events. From Tonopah, the route runs south along the 55 kV powerline road through the Project Area and south of the Project Area and around Mt Butte and then through the Project Area going east along the 120 kV powerline route. The width of the course shall be no greater than the existing disturbance area it is located on (BLM, 2009). In the case of the Project Area, this would be the existing dirt roads running alongside the existing powerlines. The Project Area is located within Hunt Unit 212. For the 2020-2021 season, 14 tags will be issued for bighorn sheep and 102 tags will be issued for mule deer (NDOW, 2020a). Small mammal, upland birds, and migratory game bird hunting also occurs in this area. 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action The presence of equipment, vehicles, facilities, and personnel could indirectly affect the recreational experience in the immediate area. The greatest effects would last for the duration of the construction period. Longer-term impacts would result from the permanent presence of the permanent ROW facilities and disturbance area (8.5 acres). Impacts to general recreation would be minor, long-term, and localized. Specific impacts to the BITD race may occur due the presence of equipment, vehicles, and personnel in the area. Because the Temporary Disturbance Area and the Centerline Travel Route overlap with the actual race route, potential direct impacts may occur related to the increased width of the roads which define the race route, and racer and project personnel safety (i.e., temporary route obstructions during construction and/or collisions). Direct impacts related to the BITD race and the Project construction period may be moderate, long-term, and localized. Given the small area of occupation on an otherwise long route (819 miles), impacts to recreation occurring after the construction period are anticipated to be minor, long-term, and localized. 3.8.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative No impacts to recreation would occur beyond those associated with other authorized and unauthorized activities. 3.9 Soils 3.9.1 Affected Environment Soil survey data for the Project Area is described in the Esmeralda County Area, Nevada (NV796) soil survey (National Resource Conservation Service [NRCS], 2019). Soil survey data is summarized in Table 3-5 and illustrated on Figure 6 along with soils characteristics regarding erosion, dust, and seeding potential. Soils within the Project Area are generally a mixture of materials from volcanic or granitic colluvium and alluvium.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 24 Siebert Substation ROW

Table 3-5: Study Area Soils Erosion Fugitive Rangeland NRCS Depth to Landscape Association Hazard Dust Seeding, Map Soil General Textures Bedrock Position/% Name (Off-Road, Resistance2 Great Basin Unit (inches) Slope Off-Trail)1 Ecoregion3 Gravelly coarse Moderate sandy loam to resistance to Advokay >80 Slight Poorly suited Hills / 4 to 15 gravelly sandy clay dust Advokay-Itme loam propagation 220 association Moderate Gravelly loamy resistance to Inset fans / 2 Itme sand to very >80 Slight Poorly suited dust to 8 gravelly loamy sand propagation Gravelly coarse Moderate sandy loam to resistance to Advokay >80 Slight Poorly suited Hills / 4 to 15 gravelly sandy clay dust loam propagation Moderate Advokay- Very gravelly sandy resistance to Hillsides / 8 221 Blacktop-Itme Blacktop >80 Slight Poorly suited loam dust to 30 association propagation Moderate Gravelly loamy resistance to Inset fans / 2 Itme sand to very >80 Slight Poorly suited dust to 8 gravelly loamy sand propagation Very gravelly sandy Moderate loam, clay loam, resistance to Fan remnants Lathrop >80 Slight Poorly suited extremely cobbly dust / 4 to 15 loamy sand propagation Lathrop-Leo Gravelly sandy/fine Moderate 270 association sandy loam, very resistance to gravelly loamy fine dust Inset fans / 4 Leo >80 Slight Poorly suited sand, extremely propagation to 15 gravelly sand, very gravelly coarse sand 1A rating of "slight" indicates that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions 2"Moderate resistance" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for dust formation 3"Poorly suited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for this use and that a successful seeding can be expected in 4 or 5 years out of 10. Only a few plant species are adapted to seeding on these soils and a fairly low potential forage production level can be anticipated. Benefit/cost ratios will be poor. These sites have a low seeding potential, and it's recommended that they only be considered for restoration seeding if they occur in a mapping unit complex with more favorable soils. Emergency seeding after fire for erosion control may be justified though. 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, approximately 39.3 acres would be disturbed, most of which is previously undisturbed. Soils would be salvaged, where possible, and used during reclamation, as described in the applicant committed EPMs. Soil disturbance would impede maturation of soil development, degrade soil structure, and hinder soil biological activity. Additionally, exposed soils would be susceptible to wind and water erosion. Potential impacts to disturbed soils would be reduced by the applicant committed EPMs, and reclamation would occur within the temporary disturbance areas. Impacts to soils within the reclaimed

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 25 Siebert Substation ROW areas would be reduced by the establishment of post-reclamation vegetation. The permanent disturbance areas would remain un-reclaimed and susceptible to wind and water erosion. Based on the size of the disturbance areas and the proposed EPMs, impacts to soils are anticipated to be existing level of activity at the site and the proposed environmental protection measures, impacts to soils are expected to be moderate, long-term, and localized. 3.9.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative No adverse consequences to soils associated with the No Action Alternative would occur beyond the impacts related to already approved or existing activities. 3.10 Special Status Wildlife Species and Migratory Birds The BLM’s policy for management of special status species is addressed in BLM Manual Handbook Section 6840 (BLM, 2008). Special status species include the following: • Federally Threatened or Endangered Species: Any species the USFWS has listed as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) throughout all or a significant portion of its range; • Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species: Any species the USFWS has proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened species under the ESA; • Candidate Species: Plant and animal taxa under consideration for possible listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA; • Delisted Species: Any species in the five years following their delisting; • BLM Sensitive Species: Native species found on BLM-administered lands for which the BLM has the capability to significantly affect the conservation status of the species through management, and either: 1) there is information that a species has undergone, is undergoing, or is predicted to undergo a downward t rend such that the viability of the species or a distinct population segment of the species is at risk across all or a significant portion of the species range; or 2) the species depends on ecological refugia or specialized or unique habitats on BLM-administered lands, and there is evidence that such areas are threatened with alteration such that the continued viability of the species in that area would be at risk (BLM, 2008); and • State of Nevada Listed Species: State-protected plants and animals that have been determined to meet BLM’s Manual Handbook 6840 policy definition. "Migratory bird" means any bird listed in 50 CFR 10.13. All native birds found commonly in the U.S., with the exception of native resident game birds that do not migrate, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). The MBTA prohibits the taking of migratory birds, their parts, nests, eggs, and nestlings. Executive Order 13186, signed January 10, 2001, directs federal agencies to protect migratory birds by integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into projects. Additional direction comes from a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the BLM and USFWS, signed January 17, 2010. The purpose of this MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration between the BLM and USFWS, in coordination with state, tribal, and local governments. The MOU identifies management practices that impact populations of high priority migratory bird species, including nesting, migration, or over-wintering habitats, on public lands, and develops management objectives or recommendations that avoid or minimize these impacts. 3.10.1 Affected Environment Baseline biological surveys have been conducted for other projects which, when combined, cover the Project Area, as shown on Figure 5. While the baseline biological survey areas referenced herein are larger than the Proposed Action study area, it has been conservatively assumed that their results may be used for analysis of this Project.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 26 Siebert Substation ROW

The Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP) and the NDOW have been queried for the Project Area to obtain up-to-date data. NNHP and NDOW queries did not result in the addition of any species which were not already addressed as part of the baseline biological surveys (NNHP, 2020 and NDOW, 2020b). 3.10.1.1 Reptiles and Amphibians The following species were found to have potential habitat within the Hasbrouck 2015, Hasbrouck 2017, and/or Three Hills 2017 biological baseline study areas, as indicated by agency queries and pre-field survey analysis 3 (EM Strategies, 2015, 2017, and 2019): • Banded gila monster (Heloderma suspectum cinctum); • Desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos); • Great Basin collared lizard (Crotaphytus bicinctores); • Long‐nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia wislizenii); • Northern desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos platyrhinos); • Pygmi short‐horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglasii); and • Western red‐tailed skink (Plestiodon [Eumeces] gilberti rubricaudatus). The only species observed during the biological baseline surveys were the desert horned lizard and the Great Basin collared lizard. 3.10.1.2 Raptors including Migratory Raptors The following species were found to have potential habitat within the Hasbrouck 2015, Hasbrouck 2017, and/or Three Hills biological baseline study areas, as indicated by agency queries and pre-field survey analysis (EM Strategies, 2015, 2017, and 2019): • American kestrel (Falco sparverius); • Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus); • Barn owl (Tyto alba); • Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia); • California condor (Gymnogyps californianus); • Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii); • Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis); • Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos); • Great horned owl (Bubo virginianus); • Long-eared owl (Asio otus); • Merlin (Falco columbarius); • Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis); • Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus); • Northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus); • Osprey (Pandion haliaetus); • Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus); • Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus); • Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis); • Rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus); • Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus); • Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni); • Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura); and • Western screech-owl (Megascops kennicottii).

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 27 Siebert Substation ROW

The Cooper’s hawk, great horned owl, golden eagle, merlin, northern harrier, prairie falcon, and red- tailed hawk have been directly observed in the vicinity of the Hasbrouck 2015, Hasbrouck 2017, and/or the Three Hills 2017 biological baseline survey areas (EM Strategies, 2015, 2017, and 2019). No burrowing owls, their scatt, or burrows were identified during the referenced biological baseline surveys (EM Strategies, 2015, 2017, and 2019). The NDOW indicates that 29 known raptor nests are located within 10 miles of the Project Area (NDOW, 2020b). No eagle nests are known to be located within one mile of the Project Area (Wildlife Resource Consultants LLC, 2019) 3.10.1.3 Other Birds including Migratory Birds The following sensitive status species were found to have potential habitat within the Hasbrouck 2015, Hasbrouck 2017, and/or Three Hills 2017 biological baseline study areas, as indicated by agency queries and pre-field survey analysis (EM Strategies, 2015, 2017, and 2019): • Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri); • Common raven (Corvus corax); • Gray vireo (Vireo vicinor); • Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis); • Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus); • Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus); • Vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus); and • Yellow‐breasted chat (Icteria virens). The common raven and brewer’s sparrow were observed during baseline surveys (EM Strategies 2015, 2017, and 2019). In addition to the list above, many migratory birds have the potential to occur within the biological baseline study areas. The following other migratory birds were observed during baseline surveys (EM Strategies 2015, 2017, and 2019): • Black‐throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata); • Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris); • Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura); • Rock wren (Salpinctes obsoletus); and • Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya). The NDOW reported that no known greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat or leks occur within the vicinity of the Project Area (NDOW, 2020b). 3.10.1.4 Bats The following sensitive bat species were found to have potential habitat within the Hasbrouck 2015, Hasbrouck 2017, and/or Three Hills 2017 biological baseline study areas, as indicated by agency queries and pre-field survey analysis (EM Strategies, 2015, 2017, and 2019): • Allen’s lappet‐browed bat (Idionycteris phyllotis); • Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus); • Big free‐tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis); • Brazilian free‐tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis); • California leaf‐nosed bat (Macrotus californicus); • California myotis (Myotis californicus); • Canyon bat (Pipistrellus hesperus); • Cave bat (Myotis velifer);

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 28 Siebert Substation ROW

• Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes); • Greater western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus); • Hoary bat (Lasiutrus cinereus); • Little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus); • Long‐eared myotis (Myotis evotis); • Long‐legged myotis (Myotis volans); • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus); • Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum); • Townsend’s big‐eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii); • Western small‐footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum); and • Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). The following eight species of bats were recorded during baseline acoustic surveys, all of which are BLM Sensitive Species (EM Strategies, 2017): • Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus); • Brazilian free‐tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis); • California myotis (Myotis californicus); • Long‐eared myotis (Myotis evotis); • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus); • Silver‐haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans); • Small‐footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum); and • Townsend's big‐eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). 3.10.1.5 Other Mammals The following special status species were found to have potential habitat within the Hasbrouck 2015, Hasbrouck 2017, and/or Three Hills 2017 biological baseline study areas, as indicated by agency queries and pre-field survey analysis (EM Strategies, 2015, 2017, and 2019): • Bobcat (Lynx rufus); • Dark kangaroo mouse (Microdipodops megacephalus); • Merriam’s shrew (Sorex merriami); • North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus); • Pale kangaroo mouse (Microdipodops pallidus); • Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana); and • Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis). Pale kangaroo mice are typically associated with very sandy soils, none of which were found in the Project Area. However, potentially suitable habitat is present for dark kangaroo mice (EM Strategies 2017 and 2019). No critical North American wolverine habitats or potential pygmy rabbit habitats were identified within the baseline biological survey areas (EM Strategies 2017 and 2019). 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action Indirect impacts to special status species within the Project Area would consist of habitat loss and disturbance from human activity and noise. Human activity and noise would persist for the duration of the construction period which would last approximately one year. During this time, most sensitive status animal species would relocate to adjacent habitats. Indirect impacts to special status species resulting from human activity and noise is anticipated to be negligible, short-term, and localized.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 29 Siebert Substation ROW

Vegetation removal associated with surface disturbing activities would result in a reduction of approximately 39.3 acres of foraging and breeding habitat, most of which is undisturbed at this time. Approximately 8.5 acres would remain disturbed as part of the permanent ROW area, and approximately 30.8 acres would be reclaimed and revegetated. The resulting post-reclamation vegetation community may differ from the existing, and disturbance areas may provide establishment opportunities for noxious weeds, invasive, and non-native species. These changes to the post-reclamation vegetation regime may affect special status species and migratory bird habitat and forage values. Undisturbed, suitable habitat exists outside of the Project Area so it is anticipated that special status species and migratory birds would be able to redistribute themselves temporarily. Indirect impacts related to habitat loss would be minor, long-term, and localized. Direct impacts to small special status species may result from the taking of animals due to vehicular collisions, vegetation clearing, and ground disturbance during the construction period. Implementation of the EPMs would ensure that direct impacts to migratory birds would be unlikely to occur and that the likelihood of vehicular collisions with larger species would be reduced. Direct impacts to special status species would be minor, short-term, and localized. 3.10.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative No adverse consequences to special status wildlife species would occur under the No Action Alternative beyond those impacts related to already approved or existing activities. 3.11 Special Status Plant Species The BLM’s policy for management of special status species is in BLM Manual Handbook Section 6840 (BLM, 2008). Guidelines applicable to special status wildlife species are also applicable for special status plant species. While the baseline biological survey areas referenced herein are larger than the Project Area, it has been conservatively assumed that their results may be used for analysis of this Project. The NNHP has been queried for the Proposed Action to obtain up-to-date data. The NNHP query did not result in the addition of any species which were not already addressed as part of the baseline biological surveys (NNHP, 2020). All Christmas trees, cacti (i.e., any member of the Cactaceae family), and yucca (i.e., any member of the genus Yucca) are protected by Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 527.060 through 527.120. NRS 527.100 prevents the cutting, destruction, mutilation, removal, or possession of any cacti or yucca species without prior written consent from the landowner. 3.11.1 Affected Environment The following species were found to have potential habitat within the Hasbrouck 2015, Hasbrouck 2017, and/or Three Hills 2017 biological baseline study areas, as indicated by agency queries and pre-field survey analysis 3 (EM Strategies, 2015, 2017, and 2019): • Beatley buckwheat (Eriogonum rosense var. beatleyae); • Black woollypod (Astragalus funereus); • Blaine pincushion (Sclerocactus spinosior ssp. blainei); • Candelaria blazingstar (Mentzelia candelariae); • Cima milkvetch (Astragalus cimae var. cimae); • Clokey pincushion (Coryptantha vivipara var. rosea); • Currant milkvetch (Astragalus uncialis); • Eastwood milkweed (Asclepias uncialis ssp. ruthiae); • Elko rockcress (Boechera falcifructa); • Holmgren lupine (Lupinus holmgrenianus);

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 30 Siebert Substation ROW

• Needle Mountains milkvetch (Astragalus eurylobus); • Oryctes (Oryctes nevadensis); • Rock purpusia (Ivesia arizonica var. saxosa) ; • Sand cholla (Grusonia pulchella); • Tonopah milkvetch (Astragalus pseudiodanthus) ; • Tonopah pincushion (Sclerocactus nyensis); • Toquima milkvetch (Astragalus toquimanus); • Tiehm buckwheat (Eriogonum tiehmii); • Pahute Mesa beardtongue (Penstemon pahutensis); and • Railroad Valley globemallow (Sphaeralcea caespitosa var. williamsiae). None of the above species were observed during biological baseline surveys (EM Strategies 2015, 2017, and 2019). The following cacti species have been observed within the Hasbrouck 2015, Hasbrouck 2017, and/or Three Hills 2019 biological baseline study areas (EM Strategies 2015, 2017, and 2019): • Hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus engelmannii); • Plains prickly pear cactus (Opuntia polyacantha); • Redspined fishhook cactus (Sclerocactus polyancistrus); • Spinystar (Escobaria vivipara); and • Wiggins’ cholla (Cylindropuntia echinocarpa). 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action Because no special status plant species other than cacti have been observed within the Project Area, no direct impacts to special status plant species are anticipated to occur and no special status species individuals would be removed during blading or earthworks. Indirect impacts would include the alteration of potential habitat through the establishment of permanent ROW disturbance on 8.5 acres. Indirect impacts to special status plant species would be negligible, long-term, and localized. Impacts to cactus are unknown at this time. While cactus are known to occur within the referenced baseline study areas, their presence within the Project Area is unknown. 3.11.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative No adverse consequences to special status plant species or cactus would occur under the No Alternative beyond those impacts related to already approved or existing activities. 3.12 Vegetation 3.12.1 Affected Environment Baseline vegetation information for the Project Area has been obtained from biological baseline surveys conducted for other projects which, when combined, cover the Project Area, as shown on Figure 7. The Project Area is located within the Loamy 5-8” P.Z. (R029ZY017NV) ecological site. According to the ecological site description (ESD), soils within the Loamy 5-8” P.Z. ecological site are typically very deep and may have a restrictive layer below the main plant rooting depth at soil depths greater than 14 inches. The ESD also states that the surface soils are usually gravelly or very gravelly (NRCS, 2016). Field references confirm that the soils at each reference location generally matched those described by the ESD (EM Strategies 2017 and 2019). Dominant species at the reference locations include: • Spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa); • Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides);

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 31 Siebert Substation ROW

• Bud sagebrush (Picrothamnus desertorum); • James’ galleta (Pleuraphis jamesii); • Shadscale saltbush (Atriplex confertifolia); • Winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata); • Whitestem blazing star (Mentzelia albicaulis); and • Saltlover (Halogeton glomeratus). According to the ESD, the plant community within the Loamy 5-8” P.Z. ecological site is dominated by shadscale saltbush, bud sagebrush, and Indian ricegrass with James’ galleta, winterfat, and squirreltail (Elymus elymoides) classified as other important plant species (NRCS, 2016). The entire Project Area is located within the Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Shrub SWReGAP vegetation community. The Inter‐Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub vegetation community is comprised of several co‐dominant shrub species, including spiny hopsage, bud sagebrush, winterfat, and shadscale saltbush. Other shrub species commonly observed within this community include yellow rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus ssp. puberulus), Nevada jointfir (Ephedra nevadensis), and spiny menodora (Menodora spinescens). The herb layer within this community is very sparse, consisting mostly of James' galleta, Indian ricegrass, and saltlover. 3.12.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action Vegetation removal associated with surface disturbing activities would result in vegetation loss or disturbance on 39.3 acres, most of which is undisturbed at this time. Approximately 8.5 acres would remain disturbed as part of the permanent ROW area, and approximately 30.8 acres would be reclaimed and revegetated. All of the disturbance would occur within the Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Shrub SWReGAP vegetation community and the Loamy 5-8” P.Z. (R029ZY017NV) ecological sites. While individual plants would be removed, the vegetation community in the surrounding area would remain intact. As vegetation reestablishes within the temporary disturbance area after reclamation, the vegetation community may be altered in composition, slowly returning to a composition matching the surrounding area over time. Direct and indirect impacts to vegetation resources would be minor, long- term, and localized. 3.12.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative No adverse consequences to vegetation would occur under the No Alternative beyond those impacts related to already approved or existing activities. 3.13 Visual Resources 3.13.1 Affected Environment The Project Area is located within a Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class IV area. The VRM Class IV objective is “to provide for management activities which require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements” (BLM, 1986). A Key Observation Point (KOP) has been established for the Proposed Action, located along Highway 95 with a view of the Proposed Action to the northwest as shown on Figure 8. From this KOP, the land feature is described as having a flat to rolling form, dominated by horizontal lines with light tan and brown colors and a smooth texture. The vegetation feature is dominated by simple forms with undulating and simple lines. The color is light green with a mostly smooth texture.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 32 Siebert Substation ROW

3.13.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action As shown on the contrast rating worksheet and visual simulation for the KOP included as Appendix B, the long-term effects of the Proposed Action would result in irregular to square land features with vertical, horizontal, and angular lines created by structures. Vegetation features would be geometric to linear, with irregular lines created by cleared areas. The contrast rating worksheet indicates that changes to the elements of form, line, and color for land features and structural features would be weak and changes to the texture of land features would also be weak. No other contrasts were determined to occur. Impacts to visual resources would be moderate and long-term. The Proposed Action would meet the VRM Class IV objectives. 3.13.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative No impacts to visual resources would occur beyond those associated with other authorized and unauthorized activities. 3.14 Water Resources 3.14.1 Affected Environment The Project Area is located on the southeastern edge of the Big Smokey Valley hydrographic basin, as shown on Figure 2, and in the southwest area of the Great Basin Carbonate Rock Aquifer System. Numerous exploration borings and several wells have been drilled and/or constructed within the Hasbrouck Mine Project Area, located around and to the south of the Project Area, as shown on Figure 4, and at the Klondike Flats area located to the east. Hole depths have ranged from approximately 100 feet to over 1,700 feet below ground surface (bgs). Groundwater has generally been encountered between approximately 800 and 1,700 bgs (BLM, 2020c). The Project Area is generally dry, with no perennial streams or springs in the vicinity although ephemeral drainages are present, as shown on Figure 2. The area is unmapped by the Federal Emergency Management Administration for floodplains (FEMA, 2020); flood risks are not anticipated in this area due to the existing climate. 3.14.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action Because no perennial waterways are present within the Project Area, impacts related to sedimentation would be restricted to ephemeral channels and overland flows. The Project design and environmental protection measures would minimize these impacts. Impacts to ephemeral drainages would be negligible, localized, and long-term. The Proposed Action has the potential for the discharge of small amounts of chemicals related to construction, construction equipment, and facility maintenance. Chemicals would handled in accordance with the applicant committed EPMs. Potential impacts to groundwater resources resulting from spills would be negligible, long-term, and localized. 3.14.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative As result of the No Action Alternative, no impacts to ground or surface water resources would occur beyond those related to other activities in the area. 3.15 Wildlife Baseline biological surveys have been conducted for other projects which, when combined, cover the Project Area, as shown on Figure 5. While the baseline biological survey areas referenced herein are larger than the Proposed Action study area, it has been conservatively assumed that their results may be used for the analysis of this Project.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 33 Siebert Substation ROW

The NNHP and NDOW have been queried for the Proposed Action to obtain up-to-date data (NNHP, 2020 and NDOW, 2020b). 3.15.1 Affected Environment Baseline surveys and agencies queries indicated that the following non-special status wildlife species may be present within the baseline biological surveys (EM Strategies 2015, 2017, and 2019; NDOW, 2020b). • Band-tailed pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata); • Chisel-toothed kangaroo rat (Dipodomys microps); • Common sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus); • Common side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana); • Crawford’s gray shrew (Notiosorex crawfordi); • Desert glossy snake (Arizona elegans); • Desert pocket mouse (Chaetodipus penicillatus); • Desert kangaroo rat (Dipodomys deserti); • Gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer); • Great Basin fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes); • Great Basin gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer deserticola); • Long-tailed pocket mouse (Chaetodipus formosus); • Northern desert nightsnake (Hypsiglena chlorophaea deserticola); • Panamint rattlesnake (Crotalus mitchellii stephensi); • Sagebrush vole (Lemiscus curtatus); • Southwestern speckled rattlesnake (Crotalus pyrrhus); • Speckled rattlesnake (Crotalus mitchellii); • Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis); • Yellow-backed spiny lizard (Sceloporus uniformis); • Zebra-tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides); In addition, NDOW reported that occupied pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) distributions exists within the entire Project Area and four-mile buffer area. No known occupied elk (Cervus canadensis) or mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) distribution exists in the vicinity of the Project Area (NDOW, 2020b). The following wildlife species and/or their sign were observed during baseline wildlife surveys in the vicinity (EM Strategies 2015, 2017, and 2019): • Black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus); • Coyote (Canis latrans); • Desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii); • Wild burro (Equius asinus); • Kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spp.); • Pronghorn antelope; • Side‐blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana); • White-tailed antelope ground squirrel (Ammnospermophilus ieucurus); • Woodrat (Neotoma spp); • Western fence lizard; and • Zebra-tailed lizard.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 34 Siebert Substation ROW

3.15.2 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action Indirect impacts to wildlife within the Project Area would consist of habitat loss and disturbance from human activity and noise. Human activity and noise would persist for the duration of the construction period which would last approximately one year. During this time, most wildlife species would relocate to adjacent habitats. Indirect impacts to wildlife resulting from human activity and noise is anticipated to be negligible, short-term, and localized. Vegetation removal associated with surface disturbing activities would result in a reduction of approximately 39.3 acres of foraging and breeding habitat, most of which is undisturbed at this time. Approximately 8.5 acres would remain disturbed as part of the permanent ROW area, and approximately 30.8 acres would be reclaimed and revegetated. The resulting post-reclamation vegetation community may differ from the existing, and disturbance areas may provide establishment opportunities for noxious weeds, invasive, and non-native species. These changes to the post-reclamation vegetation regime may affect wildlife habitat and forage values. Undisturbed, suitable habitat exists outside of the Project Area so it is anticipated that wildlife would be able to redistribute themselves temporarily. Indirect impacts related to habitat loss would be minor, long-term, and localized. Direct impacts to wildlife may result from the taking of animals due to vehicular collisions, vegetation clearing, and ground disturbance during the construction period. Implementation of the EPMs would ensure that the likelihood of vehicular collisions with larger wildlife species would be reduced. Direct impacts to wildlife would be minor, short-term, and localized. 3.15.3 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative No adverse consequences to wildlife would occur under the No Action Alternative beyond those impacts related to already approved or existing activities. 4 Cumulative Impacts For the purposes of this EA, the cumulative impacts are the sum of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs). The purpose of the cumulative analysis in the EA is to evaluate the significance of the Proposed Action’s contributions to cumulative impacts. A cumulative impact is defined under federal regulations as follows: "...the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time" (40 CFR 1508.7). As required under the NEPA and the regulations implementing NEPA, this chapter addresses those cumulative effects on environmental resources within the Cumulative Effects Study Areas (CESAs) which could result from the implementation of the Proposed Action, past actions, present actions, and RFFAs. CESAs vary by each resource, based on the geographic or biological parameters of each resource. As a result, the past, present, and RFFAs considered under the cumulative analysis may vary according to the resource being considered. For the purposes of this analysis and under federal regulations, ‘impacts’ and ‘effects’ are assumed to have the same meaning and are interchangeable. The cumulative impacts analysis was accomplished through the following three steps: Step 1: Identify, describe, and map the CESA for each resource to be evaluated. Step 2: Define timeframes, scenarios, acreage, and activity estimates for cumulative impact analysis. Step 3: Identify and quantify the location of possible specific impacts from the Proposed Action and judge the significance of these contributions to the overall impacts.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 35 Siebert Substation ROW

Based on the preceding analysis, the Proposed Action would not impact or would negligibly impact the following resources which would therefore not have cumulative impacts: air quality, environmental justice and socioeconomics, minerals, and water resources. These resources have not been carried forward for cumulative impact analysis. In addition, consultation between the BLM Native American Coordinator and the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, the Yomba Shoshone Tribe, and the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe has determined that the Tribes have not identified any issues with the Project. Because of this, it has been determined the Project would not contribute to Native American cumulative effects. Native American Concerns are not further analyzed in the EA. The following elements or resources have been brought forward for cumulative impact analysis: • Lands and Realty; • Noxious Weeds, Invasive and Non-native Species; • Recreation; • Soils; • Special Status Wildlife Species and Migratory Birds; • Special Status Plant Species; • Vegetation; and • Wildlife. 4.1 Description of Cumulative Effects Study Area Boundaries The geographic areas considered for cumulative effects analysis vary in size and shape to reflect each evaluated environmental resource. For consistency, the CESA boundaries chosen for each resource are the same as those used for the Hasbrouck Mine Project EA, currently under NEPA review (BLM, 2020d). 4.2 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts 4.2.1 Lands and Access The CESA for lands and realty is a one-mile rectangle around the Hasbrouck Project Area and other projects in the area. This CESA encompasses approximately 25,013 acres, as shown on Figure 9. 4.2.1.1 Past and Present Actions Wildland Fires There were no wildland fires reported within the CESA between 1910 and 2018. Dispersed Recreation Past and present recreational activities which have occurred and/or are occurring within the CESA include primarily dispersed recreation activities such as: hunting, biking, primitive camping, rock hounding, and OHV travel. There are several organized OHV events which sporadically receive BLM authorizations to travel through the CESA. These events include the Rebelle Rally Race, the Zero1 Odyssey Tour, the BITD race, and the Tonopah 250. Rights-of-Way The BLM's Legacy Rehost System, called LR2000, was used to query the various types of ROWs which have been authorized within the CESA. The exact acreage of surface disturbance associated with these ROWs cannot be quantified; however, it is assumed that these types of ROWs and the construction and maintenance associated with them would create a level of surface disturbance which would contribute to cumulative impacts to various resources. The ROW types and approximate total acreages within the CESA are included in Table 4-1.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 36 Siebert Substation ROW

Table 4-1: Past and Present Rights-of-Way Actions in the Lands CESA ROW Type1 Acres Roads and Highways 711 Power Transmission 456 Communication Sites 12 Telecommunications 25 Total 1,204 Data source: BLM, 2020e 1 LR2000 query date of January 31, 2020. ROWs registered after this date are not included. Mining and Mineral Exploration LR2000 was used to find the past and present mineral exploration or mining activities (i.e., authorized and expired Notices and authorized Plans of Operation) which have been issued within the CESA. Action types, status, and approximate total acreages are included in Table 4-2. Table 4-2: Past and Present Minerals Actions in the Lands CESA Authorization Status Total Acres of Disturbance Authorized and Expired Notices 8 Authorized Plans of Operations 633 Total 641 Data source: BLM, 2020e 1 LR2000 query date of January 31, 2020. Projects registered after this date are not included. 4.2.1.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions RFFAs in the CESA include dispersed recreation, potential wildland fires, ROW construction and maintenance, and mineral exploration and mining. 4.2.1.3 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts Past and Present Actions: Past and present actions that could have impacted or may be currently impacting lands and realty include ROWs, such as roads and highways, powerlines, communication sites, telecommunications, and water facilities, and mineral mining and exploration activities. Quantifiable past and present actions in the CESA which could have restricted access or changed land uses total approximately 1,845 acres. RFFAs: Potential impacts to lands and realty from ROWs and mineral exploration and mining activities are expected to continue. There are approximately 673 acres of pending minerals projects and approximately 430 acres of pending ROW projects identified in the CESA. These activities may impact land use and/or access (BLM, 2020e). 4.2.1.3.1 Proposed Action Quantifiable land-related past and present actions and RFFAs in the CESA total approximately 1,845 acres, or approximately 7.4% of the CESA. This is a conservative estimate of lands which may experience use alterations due to the establishment of ROWs. The establishment of ROWs may or may not restrict or alter public access or use. The Proposed Action would result in an incremental increase of land-related changes within the CESA of 39.3 acres or 0.16% of the CESA. Based on the above analysis and findings, incremental impacts to lands and access as a result of the Proposed Action, when combined with the impacts from the past and present actions and RFFAs, are expected to be minor.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 37 Siebert Substation ROW

4.2.1.3.2 No Action Alternative A total of the quantifiable past and present actions and RFFA disturbance within the CESA is approximately 1,845 acres, or approximately 7.4% of the CESA. No additional changes to lands and access would occur under the No Action Alternative. Hasbrouck Impacts to lands and access from this alternative, in combination with past and present actions and RFFAs, would be negligible. 4.2.2 Noxious Weeds, Invasive and Non-native Species The CESA for noxious weeds, invasive and non-native species is a ten-mile radius around the Hasbrouck Mine Project Area. This CESA encompasses approximately 305,341 acres as shown on Figure 10. 4.2.2.1 Past and Present Actions Livestock Grazing Portions of the following grazing allotments are located within the CESA: Montezuma; Silver King; Sheep Mountain; San Antone; Ralston; and Monte Cristo. Wild Horse and Burro Usage Approximately 28,069 acres, or approximately nine percent of the CESA, is located within the Paymaster Herd Management Area (HMA). The remaining portion of the CESA is not located in any HMA. Wildland Fires There were no wildland fires reported within the CESA between 1910 and 2018. Dispersed Recreation Historical and present recreational activities which have occurred and are occurring within the CESA include primarily dispersed recreation activities such as hunting, biking, primitive camping, rock hounding, and OHV travel. There are several organized OHV events that sporadically receive BLM authorizations to travel through the CESA. These events include: the Rebelle Rally Race; the Zero1 Odyssey Tour; the BITD race; and the Tonopah 250. Rights-of-Way LR2000 was used to query the various types of ROWs which have been authorized or constructed within the CESA. The exact acreage of surface disturbance associated with these ROWs cannot be quantified; however, it is assumed that these types of ROWs and the construction and maintenance associated with them would create a level of surface disturbance which would contribute to cumulative impacts to various resources. The approximate total acreages of existing and authorized ROWs within the CESA are included in Table 4-3. Table 4-3: Past and Present Rights-of-Way Actions in the Weed CESA ROW Type1 Acres Roads and Highways 4,892 Power Transmission 3,674 Communication Sites 28 Telecommunications 875 Water and Irrigation Facilities 303 Total 9,772 Data source: BLM, 2020f 1 LR2000 query date of January 31, 2020. ROWs registered after this date are not included.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 38 Siebert Substation ROW

Mining and Mineral Exploration LR2000 was used to find the past and present mineral exploration or mining activities (i.e., authorized and expired Notices and authorized Plans of Operation) which have been issued within the CESA. Past and present mineral exploration and mining activities in the CESA include historic and current mineral exploration and mining operations. The ROW types and approximate total acreages of existing and authorized ROWs within the CESA are included in Table 4-4. Table 4-4: Past and Present Minerals Actions in the Weed CESA Authorization Status Total Acres of Disturbance Authorized and Expired Notices 25 Authorized Plans of Operations 637 Mineral Material Disposal Sites 650 Total 1,312 Data source: BLM, 2020f 1 LR2000 query date of January 31, 2020. Projects registered after this date are not included. 4.2.2.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions RFFAs in the CESA include livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, dispersed recreation, potential wildland fires, ROW construction and maintenance, and mineral exploration and mining. 4.2.2.3 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts Past and Present Actions: Past and present actions with impacts related to noxious weeds, invasive and non-native species include livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, ROW construction and maintenance, mineral exploration and mining, and dispersed recreation. These actions could have disturbed vegetation and soils creating an opportunity for invasive plant colonization and the introduction of noxious weeds, invasive or non-native species seeds. Quantifiable past and present disturbance areas equal about 11,084 acres, or 3.6% of the CESA. There are no specific data to quantify impacts related to noxious weeds, invasive or non-native species from livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, and dispersed recreation. Past and present activities may also impact noxious weeds, invasive and non-native species through spreading seed. Such activities may include grazing, wild horse and burro usage, hunting activities and associated off-road vehicular traffic, and transportation along designated roads or ROWs. RFFAs: Potential impacts related to noxious weeds, invasive or non-native species as a result of livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, ROW construction and maintenance, mineral exploration, mining, dispersed recreation, and potential wildland fires are expected to continue. There are no specific data to quantify impacts related to noxious weeds, invasive and non-native species resulting from these activities. There are approximately 853 acres of pending minerals projects and approximately 1,050 acres of pending ROW projects identified in the CESA. These projects may result in disturbance areas within which the establishment of noxious weeds, invasive and non-native species may increase (BLM, 2020f). 4.2.2.3.1 Proposed Action Quantifiable past and present actions and RFFA disturbance in the CESA is approximately 12,987 acres, or approximately 4.3% of the CESA. The Proposed Action would result in an incremental disturbance increase within the CESA of 39.3 acres or less than 0.01% of the CESA. Project-related impacts would be minimized due to implementation of the EPMs and reclamation. Based on the above analysis and findings, incremental impacts to noxious weeds, invasive and non-native species as a result of the Proposed Action, when combined with the impacts from the past and present actions and RFFAs, are expected to be minor.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 39 Siebert Substation ROW

4.2.2.3.2 No Action Alternative The total quantifiable past and present actions and RFFA disturbance within the CESA is approximately 12,987 acres, or approximately 4.3% of the CESA. No additional disturbance would be created under the No Action Alternative. Impacts related to noxious weeds, invasive and non-native species from this alternative, in combination with past and present actions and RFFAs, would be negligible. 4.2.3 Recreation The CESA for recreation encompasses townships 1 through 3 North, and Ranges 41 through 43 East, and is truncated at the Tonopah Airport. This CESA encompasses approximately 205,387 acres as shown on Figure 11. 4.2.3.1 Past and Present Actions Livestock Grazing The CESA is located in portions of the following grazing allotments: Montezuma; Ralston; Monte Cristo; San Antone; Sheep Mountain; and Silver King. Wild Horse and Burro Usage Approximately 34,892 acres, or 17% of the CESA, is located within the Paymaster HMA. The remaining portion of the CESA is not located in any HMA. Wildland Fires There were no wildland fires reported within the CESA between 1910 and 2018. Dispersed Recreation Historical and present recreational activities that have occurred and are occurring within the CESA include primarily dispersed recreation activities such as hunting, biking, primitive camping, rock hounding, and OHV travel. There are several organized OHV events that sporadically receive BLM authorizations to travel through the CESA. These events include: the Rebelle Rally Race; the Zero1 Odyssey Tour; the BITD race; and the Tonopah 250. Rights-of-Way LR2000 was used to query the various types of ROWs which have been authorized or constructed within the CESA. The exact acreage of surface disturbance associated with these ROWs cannot be quantified; however, it is assumed that these types of ROWs and the construction and maintenance associated with them would create a level of surface disturbance which would contribute to cumulative impacts to various resources. The ROW types and approximate total acreages of existing and authorized ROWs within the CESA are included in Table 4-5. Table 4-5: Past and Present Rights-of-Way Actions in the Recreation CESA ROW Type Acres Roads and Highways 1,958 Power Transmission 1,031 Communication Sites 28 Telecommunications 875 Total 3,892 Data source: BLM, 2020g 1 LR2000 query date of January 31, 2020. ROWs registered after this date are not included.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 40 Siebert Substation ROW

Mining and Mineral Exploration LR2000 was used to find the past and present mineral exploration or mining activities (i.e., authorized and expired Notices and authorized Plans of Operation) which have been issued within the CESA. Past and present mineral exploration and mining activities in the CESA include historic and current mineral exploration and mining operations. Action types, status, and approximate total acreages are included in Table 4-6. Table 4-6: Past and Present Minerals Actions in the Recreation CESA Type and Authorization Status Total Acres of Disturbance Authorized and Expired Notices 8 Authorized Plans of Operations 633 Total 641 Data source: BLM, 2020g 1 LR2000 query date of January 31, 2020. Projects registered after this date are not included.

4.2.3.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions RFFAs in the CESA include dispersed recreation, potential wildland fires, ROW construction and maintenance, and mineral exploration and mining. 4.2.3.3 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts Past and Present Actions: Past and present actions which may have impacted or may be currently impacting recreation include ROW construction and maintenance, such as roads and highways, powerlines, communication sites, and telecommunications, and mining and mineral exploration activities. Impacts to recreation from these activities may include access restrictions, noise, alterations to visual characteristics and impacts to night skies, and loss or displacement of wildlife. Quantifiable past and present actions in the CESA that may have restricted or altered recreation total approximately 4,533 acres or 2.2% of the CESA. RFFAs: Potential impacts to recreation from ROW construction and maintenance, mineral exploration and mining activities, or loss of native vegetation associated with potential wildland fires are expected to continue. There are approximately 853 acres of pending minerals projects and approximately 1,051 acres of pending ROW projects identified in the CESA. These projects would create surface disturbance and potentially cause access, noise, and visual impacts to recreation (BLM, 2020g). 4.2.3.3.1 Proposed Action Quantifiable past and present actions and RFFA disturbance in the CESA total approximately 6,436 acres, or approximately 3.1% of the CESA. The Proposed Action would result in an incremental increase of land-related changes within the CESA of 39.3 acres or less than 0.1% of the CESA. Based on the above analysis and findings, incremental impacts to recreation as a result of the Proposed Action, when combined with the impacts from the past and present actions and RFFAs, are expected to be minor. 4.2.3.3.2 No Action Alternative A total of the quantifiable past and present actions and RFFA disturbance within the CESA is approximately 3.1% of the CESA. No additional impacts to recreation would occur under the No Action Alternative. Impacts to recreation from this alternative, in combination with past and present actions and RFFAs, would be negligible.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 41 Siebert Substation ROW

4.2.4 Soils The CESA for soils is a ten-mile radius around the Hasbrouck Mine Project Area. This CESA encompasses approximately 305,341 acres, as shown on Figure 10. Past and Present Action, as well as RFFAs for this CESA, are described in Chapter 4.2.2. 4.2.4.1 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts Past and Present Actions: Past and present actions which may have or may be currently impacting soils include livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, ROW construction and maintenance, mineral mining and exploration, dispersed recreation, and soil compaction due to travel by heavy equipment on unpaved roads. These actions may have directly disturbed or impacted soils, or increased erosion or sedimentation potential. Impacts from these activities include loss of soil productivity due to changes in soil physical properties, soil fertility, soil movement in response to water and wind erosion, and loss of soil structure due to compaction. Quantifiable past and present disturbance areas equal about 11,084 acres, or 3.6% of the CESA. There are no specific data to quantify impacts to soils from livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, and dispersed recreation. RFFAs: Potential impacts to soils as a result of livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, ROW construction and maintenance, mineral exploration, mining, dispersed recreation and potential wildland fires are expected to continue. There are no specific data to quantify impacts to soils as a result of livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, dispersed recreation, or potential wildland fires. There are approximately 853 acres of pending minerals projects and approximately 1,050 acres of pending ROW projects identified in the CESA. These projects may result in disturbance areas which may impact soils through compaction, erosion, and soil loss. 4.2.4.1.1 Proposed Action Quantifiable past and present actions and RFFA disturbance in the CESA is approximately 12,987 acres, or approximately 4.3% of the CESA. The Proposed Action would result in an incremental disturbance increase within the CESA of 39.3 acres or less than 0.01% of the CESA. Project-related impacts would be minimized due to implementation of the EPMs and reclamation. Based on the above analysis and findings, incremental impacts to soils as a result of the Proposed Action, when combined with the impacts from the past and present actions and RFFAs, are expected to be minor. 4.2.4.1.2 No Action Alternative The total quantifiable past and present actions and RFFA disturbance within the CESA is approximately 12,987 acres, or approximately 4.3% of the CESA. No additional disturbance would be created under the No Action Alternative. Impacts to soils resulting from this alternative, in combination with past and present actions and RFFAs, would be negligible. 4.2.5 Special Status Wildlife Species and Migratory Birds The CESA for special status wildlife and migratory birds is a ten-mile radius around the Hasbrouck Mine Project Area. This CESA encompasses approximately 305,341 acres and is shown on Figure 10. Past and present actions and RFFAs are discussed in in Chapter 4.2.2. 4.2.5.1 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts Past and Present Actions: Past and present actions which may have or may be currently impacting special status wildlife species, migratory birds, and their habitat include livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, dispersed recreation, ROW construction and maintenance, and mining and mineral exploration. These activities have the potential to impact special status wildlife species habitat or result in the loss of forage, cover, and habitat, the disturbance of mating and brood rearing practices, and changes to vegetation regimes and their associated habitat and forage values. These activities may also

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 42 Siebert Substation ROW result in the taking of small animals during land clearing activities and vehicle collisions. Quantifiable past and present disturbance areas equal about 11,084 acres, or 3.6% of the CESA. The CESA is also comprised of portions of NDOW Hunt Units 162, 171, 173, 212, 213, and 251, which have the potential to create noise and disturbance to special status wildlife species and migratory birds from hunting activities. The CESA is also comprised of portions of the Montezuma, Silver King, Sheep Mountain, San Antone, Ralston, and Monte Cristo grazing allotments, and Paymaster HMA. Livestock grazing and wild horse and burro usage and associated management may contribute to the establishment and spread of noxious weeds, invasive and non-native species, which could have had an indirect effect on special status wildlife species, migratory birds, and their habitat. RFFAs: Potential impacts to special status wildlife species and their habitat from livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, dispersed recreation, potential wildland fires, ROW construction and maintenance, and mineral exploration and mining could occur. There are no specific data to quantify impacts to special status wildlife species or their habitat within the CESA as a result of livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, dispersed recreation, or potential wildland fires. There are approximately 853 acres of pending minerals projects identified in the CESA approximately 1,050 acres of pending ROW projects. These projects may result in indirect impacts to special status wildlife species through habitat loss, alteration, and the presence of humans and noise. Direct impacts may result from the taking of animals through disturbance and vehicle collisions. 4.2.5.1.1 Proposed Action Quantifiable past and present actions and RFFA disturbance in the CESA is approximately 12,987 acres, or approximately 4.3% of the CESA. The Proposed Action would result in an incremental disturbance increase within the CESA of 39.3 acres or less than 0.01% of the CESA. Project-related impacts would be minimized due to implementation of the EPMs and reclamation. Based on the above analysis and findings, incremental impacts to special status wildlife species as a result of the Proposed Action, when combined with the impacts from the past and present actions and RFFAs, are expected to be minor. 4.2.5.1.2 No Action Alternative The total quantifiable past and present actions and RFFA disturbance within the CESA is approximately 12,987 acres, or approximately 4.3% of the CESA. No additional disturbance would be created under the No Action Alternative. Impacts to special status wildlife species resulting from this alternative, in combination with past and present actions and RFFAs, would be negligible. 4.2.6 Special Status Plant Species The CESA for special status plant species is a ten-mile radius around the Hasbrouck Mine Project Area. This CESA encompasses approximately 305,341 acres as shown on Figure 10. Past and present actions and RFFAs within this CESA are discussed in Chapter 4.2.2. 4.2.6.1 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts Past and Present Actions: Past and present actions that could have impacted and may be currently impacting vegetation include livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, ROW construction and maintenance, mineral exploration and mining, and dispersed recreation. These activities may have resulted in the disturbance, removal, or alteration of vegetation including special status plant species. Quantifiable past and present disturbance areas equal about 11,084 acres, or 3.6% of the CESA. The CESA is comprised of portions of the Montezuma, Silver King, Sheep Mountain, San Antone, Ralston, and Monte Cristo grazing allotments, Paymaster HMA, and NDOW Hunt Units 162, 171, 173, 212, 213, and 251. Impacts caused by grazing, wild horse and burro usage, and hunting activities and associated off-road vehicular traffic include the introduction of weeds, invasive or non-native species and trampled vegetation.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 43 Siebert Substation ROW

RFFAs: Potential impacts to special status plant species as a result of livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, ROW construction and maintenance, mineral exploration, mining, dispersed recreation and potential wildland fires are expected to continue. There are no specific data to quantify impacts to special status plant species as a result of livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, dispersed recreation, or potential wildland fires. There are approximately 853 acres of pending minerals projects and approximately 1,050 acres of pending ROW projects identified in the CESA. 4.2.6.1.1 Proposed Action Quantifiable past and present actions and RFFA disturbance in the CESA is approximately 12,987 acres, or approximately 4.3% of the CESA. The Proposed Action would result in an incremental disturbance increase within the CESA of 39.3 acres or less than 0.01% of the CESA. Project-related impacts would be minimized due to implementation of the EPMs and reclamation. Based on the above analysis and findings, incremental impacts to special status plant species as a result of the Proposed Action, when combined with the impacts from the past and present actions and RFFAs, are expected to be minor. 4.2.6.1.2 No Action Alternative The total quantifiable past and present actions and RFFA disturbance within the CESA is approximately 12,987 acres, or approximately 4.3% of the CESA. No additional disturbance would be created under the No Action Alternative. Impacts related to special status plant species from this alternative, in combination with past and present actions and RFFAs, would be negligible. 4.2.7 Vegetation The CESA for vegetation is a ten-mile radius around the Hasbrouck Mine Project Area. This CESA encompasses approximately 305,341 acres as shown on Figure 10. Past and present actions and RFFAs are discussed in Chapter 4.2.2. 4.2.7.1 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts Past and Present Actions: Past and present actions that could have impacted and may be currently impacting vegetation include livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, ROW construction and maintenance, mineral exploration and mining, and dispersed recreation. These activities may have resulted in the disturbance, removal, or alternation of vegetation. Quantifiable past and present disturbance areas equal about 11,084 acres, or 3.6% of the CESA. The CESA is comprised of portions of the Montezuma, Silver King, Sheep Mountain, San Antone, Ralston, and Monte Cristo grazing allotments, Paymaster HMA, and NDOW Hunt Units 162, 171, 173, 212, 213, and 251. Impacts caused by grazing, wild horse and burro usage, and hunting activities and associated off-road vehicular traffic include the introduction of noxious weeds, invasive or non-native species and trampled vegetation. RFFAs: Potential impacts to vegetation as a result of livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, ROW construction and maintenance, mineral exploration, mining, dispersed recreation and potential wildland fires are expected to continue. There are no specific data to quantify impacts to vegetation as a result of livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, dispersed recreation, or potential wildland fires. There are approximately 853 acres of pending minerals projects and approximately 1,050 acres of pending ROW projects identified in the CESA. 4.2.7.1.1 Proposed Action Quantifiable past and present actions and RFFA disturbance in the CESA is approximately 12,987 acres, or approximately 4.3% of the CESA. The Proposed Action would result in an incremental disturbance increase within the CESA of 39.3 acres or less than 0.01% of the CESA. Project-related impacts would be minimized due to implementation of the EPMs and reclamation. Based on the above analysis and

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 44 Siebert Substation ROW findings, incremental impacts to vegetation as a result of the Proposed Action, when combined with the impacts from the past and present actions and RFFAs, are expected to be minor. 4.2.7.1.2 No Action Alternative The total quantifiable past and present actions and RFFA disturbance within the CESA is approximately 12,987 acres, or approximately 4.3% of the CESA. No additional disturbance would be created under the No Action Alternative. Impacts related to vegetation from this alternative, in combination with past and present actions and RFFAs, would be negligible. 4.2.8 Visual Resources The CESA for visual resources is a ten-mile radius around the Hasbrouck Mine Project Area. This CESA encompasses approximately 305,341 acres, as shown on Figure 10. Past and present actions and RFFAs are discussed in Chapter 4.2.2. 4.2.8.1 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts Past and Present Actions: Past and present actions which may have impacted or may be currently impacting visual resources include ROW construction, mineral exploration, and mining. Impacts to visual resources include any surface disturbing activity that affects the form, line, color, and texture of the characteristic landscape within the CESA. The authorized Three Hills Mine has not been constructed to date, so has not impacted the existing viewshed. RFFAs: Potential impacts from ROW construction, mineral exploration, mining, and potential wildland fires are expected to continue. There are no specific data to quantify impacts from potential wildland fires. There are proposed powerlines and mining projects, including the Hasbrouck Project, in the CESA that would impact the form, line, color, and texture of the characteristic landscape, in a similar manner to the Proposed Action. 4.2.8.1.1 Proposed Action The Proposed Action would create a weak contrast in the form, line, color, and texture between the existing landscape and the post-mining/post-reclamation background landscape. The changes, in combination with past and present actions and RFFAs would conform to the area’s VRM Class IV designation. 4.2.8.1.2 No Action Alternative No disturbance related to the Proposed Action would be created under the No Action Alternative. Impacts to visual resources resulting from this alternative, in combination with past and present actions and RFFAs, would be moderate. 4.2.9 Wildlife The CESA for wildlife is a ten-mile radius around the Hasbrouck Mine Project Area. This CESA encompasses approximately 305,341 acres, as shown on Figure 10. Past and present actions and RFFAs are discussed in Chapter 4.2.2. 4.2.9.1 Evaluation of Potential Cumulative Impacts Past and Present Actions: Past and present actions which may have or may be currently impacting wildlife and their habitat include livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, dispersed recreation, ROW construction and maintenance, and mineral exploration. These activities have the potential to impact wildlife habitat or result in the loss of forage, cover, and habitat, the disturbance of mating and brood rearing practices, and changes to vegetation regimes and their associated habitat and forage values. These activities may also result in the taking of small animals during land clearing activities and

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 45 Siebert Substation ROW vehicle collisions. Quantifiable past and present disturbance areas equal about 11,084 acres, or 3.6% of the CESA. The CESA is also comprised of portions of NDOW Hunt Units 162, 171, 173, 212, 213, and 251, which have the potential to create noise and disturbance to wildlife from hunting activities. The CESA is also comprised of portions of the Montezuma, Silver King, Sheep Mountain, San Antone, Ralston, and Monte Cristo grazing allotments, and Paymaster HMA. Livestock grazing and wild horse and burro usage and associated management may contribute to the establishment and spread of noxious weeds, invasive and non-native species, which could have had an indirect effect on wildlife and their habitat. RFFAs: Potential impacts to wildlife and their habitat from livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, dispersed recreation, potential wildland fires, ROW construction and maintenance, and mineral exploration and mining could occur. There are no specific data to quantify impacts to wildlife or their habitat within the CESA as a result of livestock grazing, wild horse and burro usage, dispersed recreation, or potential wildland fires. There are approximately 853 acres of pending minerals projects identified in the CESA approximately 1,050 acres of pending ROW projects. These projects may result in indirect impacts to wildlife through habitat loss, alternation, and the presence of humans and noise. Direct impacts may result from the taking of animals through disturbance and vehicle collisions. 4.2.9.1.1 Proposed Action Quantifiable past and present actions and RFFA disturbance in the CESA is approximately 12,987 acres, or approximately 4.3% of the CESA. The Proposed Action would result in an incremental disturbance increase within the CESA of 39.3 acres or less than 0.01% of the CESA. Project-related impacts would be minimized due to implementation of the EPMs and reclamation. Based on the above analysis and findings, incremental impacts to wildlife a result of the Proposed Action, when combined with the impacts from the past and present actions and RFFAs, are expected to be minor. 4.2.9.1.2 No Action Alternative The total quantifiable past and present actions and RFFA disturbance within the CESA is approximately 12,987 acres, or approximately 4.3% of the CESA. No additional disturbance would be created under the No Action Alternative. Impacts to wildlife resulting from this alternative, in combination with past and present actions and RFFAs, would be negligible. 5 Consultation and Coordination This EA was prepared at the direction of the BLM Tonopah Field Office. The following is a list of persons, groups, and agencies consulted, as well as a list of individuals responsible for the preparation of this EA. BLM Melissa Jennings Planning and Environmental Coordinator/Project Manager Cassandra Albush Cultural Resources and Paleontology Alexandra Bettinger Recreation, lands with Wilderness Characteristics, and Wilderness Study Areas, Visual Resources Brandon Crosby Wildlife, Special Status Wildlife Species, and Migratory Birds Thomas Gibbons Water Resources Franklin Giles Air Resources Kristin Reid Minerals and Geology Julie Suhr-Pierce Environmental Justice, Socioeconomics Wendy Seley Lands and Realty Brian Truax Noxious Weeds, Invasive, and Non-Native Species, Soils, Vegetation

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 46 Siebert Substation ROW

SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. Carrie Schultz Document Preparation Mark Willow Project Principal Geoff Klemens GIS Data Management and Figure Preparation 5.1.1 Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted NNHP NDOW 6 References APLIC. 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. 227 pp. BLM. 1992. Integrated Weed Management. BLM Manual 9015. BLM. 1997. Approved Tonopah Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. Tonopah Field Station, Tonopah, Nevada. October 1997. BLM. 1986. Manual 8431 – Visual Resource Contrast Rating. January 17, 1986. BLM. 2008. Special Status Species Management. BLM Manual Handbook 6840. BLM. 2009. Environmental Assessment: Best In The Desert Vegas To Reno. DOI-BLM-NV-S030- 2009-1001-EA. BLM. 2020a. Hasbrouck Mine Project and Hasbrouck 55 Kilovolt Reroute and 120 Kilovolt Transmission Line Project Surface and Groundwater Resources Supplemental Environmental Report. July, 2020. BLM. 2020b. Email from Kristin Reid (BLM) to Carrie Schultz (SRK). Re: Question for Kristin Reid. July 9, 2020. BLM. 2020c. Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-B020-2017-0012-EA Hasbrouck Mine Project and Hasbrouck 55 Kilovolt Reroute and 120 Kilovolt Transmission Line Project Surface and Groundwater Resources Supplemental Environmental Report. July 2020. BLM. 2020d. Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-B020-2017-0012-EA Hasbrouck Mine Project and Hasbrouck 55 Kilovolt Reroute and 120 Kilovolt Transmission Line Project. July 2020. BLM. 2020e. Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-B020-2017-0012-EA Hasbrouck Mine Project and Hasbrouck 55 Kilovolt Reroute and 120 Kilovolt Transmission Line Project Lands and Realty Supplemental Environmental Report. July 2020. BLM. 2020f. Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-B020-2017-0012-EA Hasbrouck Mine Project and Hasbrouck 55 Kilovolt Reroute and 120 Kilovolt Transmission Line Project Noxious Weeds, Invasive, and Non-native Species Supplemental Environmental Report. July 2020. BLM. 2020g. Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-B020-2017-0012-EA Hasbrouck Mine Project and Hasbrouck 55 Kilovolt Reroute and 120 Kilovolt Transmission Line Project Recreation Supplemental Environmental Report. July 2020. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020. EPA Region 9 Air Quality Maps and Goographic Information. https://www3.epa.gov/region9/air/maps/index.html. Updated January 7, 2020. Accessed January 23, 2020. EPA EJ Screen. 2020. Tract 32023960200, Nevada, EPA Region 9. May 12, 2020.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 47 Siebert Substation ROW

Esmeralda County, 2011. Esmeralda County Master Plan. Adopted December 7, 2011. https://www.accessesmeralda.com/document_center/Es__Co___Master_Plan_adopted_Dec__ 7__2011.pdf Esmeralda County, 2013. Esmeralda County Public Lands Policy Plan. https://www.accessesmeralda.com/document_center/Es__Co__Public_Land_Policy_Plan_201 3.pdf FEMA. 2020. FEMA Floodplains Portal. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=tonopah%2C%20NV#searchresultsanchor. Accessed June 24, 2020. Graney, J.R. 1985. Geology, Alteration, and Mineralization at Hasbrouck Mountain, Divide District, Esmeralda County, Nevada. MSc Thesis, University of Nevada Reno. Headwaters Economics. 2020. A Demographic Profile: Esmeralda County, NV. May 12, 2020. NRCS. 2016. Ecological Site Description. Available online at: https://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov/Welcome/pgESDWelcome.aspx. Accessed July, 2020. NDOW. 2020a. 2020-2021 Nevada Big Game Seasons and Applications. NDOW. 2020b. Letter from NDOW to Carrie Schultz (SRK). Re: Siebert Substation. July 20, 2020. NNHP. 2020. Letter from Eric Miskow (NNHP) to Carrie Schultz (SRK). Re: Data request received 22 June 2020. June 24, 2020. NRCS. 2016. Ecological Site Description. Available online at: https://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov/Welcome/pgESDWelcome.aspx. NRCS. 2019. Soil Survey Area: Esmeralda County Area, Nevada Survey Area Data: Version 13, Sep 17, 2019. Web Soil Survey. Accessed June 16, 2020. NVE. 2020. Sierra Pacific Power Company d/b/a NV Energy Siebert Substation Plan of Development. April 2020. US Census. 2010. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DE C_10_DP_DPDP1&prodType=table. US Census. 2017. OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics: Work Area Profile Report. https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/. US Census. 2020. QuickFacts: Nevada; Esmeralda County, Nevada. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/NV,esmeraldacountynevada/PST045219. Accessed February 24, 2020. Wildlife Resource Consultants. 2019. Hasbrouck Project 2019 Golden Eagle and Raptor Nesting Surveys. August 1, 2019. WRCC. 2020. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nv8160. Accessed June 1, 2020.

CAS/MW 359500_300_SiebertEA_NVEnergy_20201001.docx Page 48 Siebert Substation ROW

Figures Siebert Substation ROW

Appendix A- Impact Definitions

Air Resources Effect Intensity Level Definitions Negligible: Air emissions of proposed activities would be so small as to not be detectable. Emissions would not result in a perceptible change in ambient conditions. Minor: Air emissions of proposed activities would show an increase in ambient conditions but would be well below the NAAQS and Nevada AAQS. Moderate: Air emissions of proposed activities would show a larger increase in ambient concentrations but would still be below the NAAQS and Nevada AAQS. Major: Air emissions of proposed activities would be detectable at a regional scale. Air emissions of proposed activities would show a very large increase in ambient concentrations, and controls would be required to achieve the NAAQS and Nevada AAQS. The source may meet the Significant Emission Rates as defined by regulation. Duration Definitions Short-term: Changes in ambient air quality occur at a site associated with a specific activity, for the duration of that activity. Long-term: Changes in ambient air quality would remain beyond the end of a specific activity. Context Definitions Localized: Changes are perceived at the location of the activity but dissipate within a specified extent. Regional: Changes are perceived throughout the airshed

Environmental Justice and Socioeconomics Effects Intensity Level Definitions Negligible: The Project would have a very small effect, adverse or beneficial, on the local economy. The consequences of the action would have no measurable effect on the socioeconomic environment. Minor: The Project would result in a minor change, adverse or beneficial, to the local economy. The Project would affect only a small sector of the economy and would require a significant effort to measure. The consequences of the Project would not be readily apparent. Moderate: The Project would measurably impact a relatively small sector of the socioeconomic environment or would alter the relationship between sectors of the economy. Adverse impacts would not prove significant enough to threaten any economic sector, and beneficial impacts would not result in major structural shifts. Major: The Project would have major impacts to the regional and local economy and would become readily apparent in the form of beneficial or adverse shifts in the socioeconomic structure. In certain cases, entirely new economic sectors would be created, or established sectors eliminated. Major Siebert Substation ROW impacts would reverberate throughout the socioeconomic environment, significantly altering existing conditions, in beneficial or adverse ways. Duration Definitions Short-term: The impact is transitory and would largely disappear in six months or less. Long-term: The impact would last longer than six months. Context Definitions Localized: Impacts would be limited to the Project Area and local economy. Regional: Impacts would extend beyond the Project Area and local economy.

Lands and Access Effects Intensity Level Definitions Negligible: There may be temporary disturbances to authorized and existing land uses, but the disturbances would be so inconsequential and short-term that coordination with local governments and landowners may range from none to a phone call or notice letter; there would be no changes of existing land uses or designations and no changes of ownership or ROWs. Minor: There would be temporary disturbances to authorized and existing land uses, and disturbances would be minimal and short-term and coordination with local governments and land owners would require a phone call or notice letter; there would be no changes of existing land uses or designations and no changes of ownership or ROWs. Moderate: There would be temporary or perhaps permanent disturbances to authorized and existing land uses, and disturbances could be long-term; coordination with local governments and landowners would require formal consultation; there could be changes of existing land uses or designations and changes of ownership or ROWs. Major: There would be permanent disturbances to authorized and existing land uses; coordination with local governments and landowners would require formal consultation and coordination; there would be changes of existing land uses or designations and changes of ownership or ROWs. Duration Definitions Short-term: Three months or less Long-term: Greater than three months Context Definitions Localized: Limited to the project area Regional: Affecting areas beyond the project area

Minerals and Geology Effects Intensity Level Definitions Negligible: Impacts to geologic resources would occur, but they would be so slight as to not be detectable. Minor: Impacts to geologic resources would occur; they would be permanent but small and limited to resources within the Project Area. Siebert Substation ROW

Moderate: Impacts to geologic resources would occur and would be readily detectable, permanent, and limited to the Project Area. Major: Impacts to geologic resources would occur and would be extensive, permanent, and would exceed the Project Area. Duration Definitions Short-term: Impacts lasting up to the duration of construction through reclamation. Long-term: Impacts extend after the reclamation of the Project is completed and could be permanent. Context Definitions Localized: Impacts would be limited to the project area. Regional: Impacts would extend beyond the project area.

Noxious Weeds, Invasive, and Non-Native Species Effect Intensity Level Definitions Negligible: Effects on noxious weeds, invasive, and non-native species would not be perceptible and would be within the range of variability for that species. Annual monitoring would not be able to detect trend changes. Minor: Effects on noxious weeds, invasive, and non-native species would be detectable, measurable, and outside the normal range of variability but not readily apparent without detailed monitoring. With mitigation, impacts would become imperceptible. Major: Effects on noxious weeds, invasive, and non-native species would be readily apparent to even a casual observer. Extensive eradication and restoration efforts would be required if the intent is to return to pre-disturbance conditions. Duration Definitions Short-term: One year or less for herbaceous species, and one to five years for woody species Long-term: Greater than one year. Context Definitions Localized: Impacts are limited to work sites, areas immediately adjacent, and do not alter overall species composition and diversity within the Assessment Area. Regional: Impacts could incorporate an entire vegetative community, or experience measurable changes in noxious weeds, invasive, and non-native species populations within the Assessment Area or greater than one-half mile from the disturbance area.

Recreation Effect Intensity Level Definitions Negligible: The majority of recreationists would not notice any effects or changes in recreation patterns and levels and the effects would not change their experience of recreation resources and values. Mitigation would not be necessary. Minor: Recreationists might be able to detect the effects of changes in recreation patterns and levels, and the changes might have a slight but detectable effect on their experience of recreation resources Siebert Substation ROW and values. If mitigation was needed to offset adverse effects to the recreation experience, it would be relatively simple to implement and would likely be successful. Moderate: Recreationists would be aware of the effects of changes in recreation patterns and levels, as well as the effects on their experience of recreation resources and values. Some recreationists might feel displaced and need to pursue their desired activity in another recreation area. Mitigation measures would probably be necessary to offset adverse effects and would likely be successful. Major: The majority of recreationists would be highly aware of the effects associated with changes in recreation patterns and levels, as well as the effects on their experience of recreation resources and values. Many recreationists would feel displaced and need to pursue their desired activity in other areas. Mitigation measures to offset adverse effects would be needed, they would have to be extensive, and their success could not be guaranteed. Duration Definitions Short-term: The effect is transitory or that largely disappears over a period of months. Long-term: The effect lasts more than six months. Context Definitions Localized: Effects would be limited to the Assessment Area. Regional: Effects would extend beyond the Assessment Area.

Soils Effects Intensity Level Definitions Negligible: Adverse impacts to soils, including BSCs, would not be perceptible or measurable. Beneficial impacts would improve the condition of soils at minute levels. Any changes to soil productivity, integrity, stability, or fertility would be imperceptible. Minor: Beneficial or adverse impacts to soils and BSCs would be barely perceptible or measurable. Any adverse impacts to soil productivity, integrity, stability, or fertility would be small and reversible. Beneficial impacts would improve the condition of soils slightly. If mitigation was needed to offset adverse impacts, it would be relatively simple to implement and would likely be successful. A beneficial impact would slightly reduce the level of mitigation needed. Moderate: Beneficial or adverse impacts to soils and BSCs would be readily perceptible and measurable. Impacts to soil productivity, integrity, stability, or fertility would be readily apparent and they would result in a change to the soil character. Mitigation measures would be necessary to offset adverse impacts and would likely be successful. Beneficial impacts would substantially improve the condition of soils, greatly reducing the amount of necessary mitigation. Major: Adverse impacts to soils and BSCs would be readily perceptible, measurable, and constitute a substantial change from natural conditions. Impacts to soil productivity, integrity, stability, or fertility would be readily apparent and would substantially change the character of the soils. Mitigation measures to offset adverse impacts would be needed, they would be extensive, and their success would not be guaranteed. Beneficial impacts would return soils back to natural conditions, and mitigation would not be necessary. Duration Definitions Short-term: One year or less, and soils return to pre-disturbance condition the next year. Long-term: Greater than one year. Siebert Substation ROW

Context Definitions Localized: A single site or within the Assessment Area. Regional: Beyond the Assessment Area.

Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species and Migratory Birds Effect Intensity Level Definitions for Special Status Species Negligible: Special status species would not be affected, or effects would be at or below level of detection. A negligible effect would equate with a “no effect” determination under Section 7 of the ESA regulations for threatened and endangered species. Minor: Effects to special status species would be perceptible or measurable, but severity and timing of changes to parameter measurements are not expected to be outside natural variability and are not expected to have effects on populations of special status species. Impacts would be outside critical periods. A minor effect would equate with a determination of “not likely to adversely affect” or “likely to adversely affect” under Section 7 of the ESA regulations. Moderate: Effects to special status species would be perceptible and measurable, and severity and timing of changes to parameter measurements are expected to be sometimes outside natural variability, and changes within natural variability might be long term. Populations of special status species might have small to moderate declines but are expected to rebound to pre-impact numbers. No species would be at risk of being extirpated from the area. Some impacts might occur during key time periods. A moderate effect would in most cases equate with a determination of “likely to adversely affect” under Section 7 of the ESA regulations. Major: Effects to special status species would be measurable, and severity and timing of changes to parameter measurements are expected to be outside natural variability for long periods of time or even be permanent; changes within natural variability might be long term or permanent. Populations of special status species might have large declines, with population numbers significantly d epressed. In extreme cases, a species might be at risk of being extirpated from the area, key ecosystem processes like nutrient cycling might be disrupted, or habitat for any species might be rendered not functional. Substantive impacts would occur during key time periods. Impacts would be long term to permanent. A major effect would equate with an “adverse effect with/without a jeopardy opinion” under Section 7 of the ESA regulations. Duration Definitions Short-term: One year or less for individual or habitat; five years or less for a population. Long-term: Greater than one year for individual or habitat; greater than five years for a population. Context Definitions Localized: Impacts are confined to a small part of the population, habitat, or range. Regional: Impacts would affect a widespread area of suitable habitat or the range of the population or species. If species only occur in one area and that entire area is affected, impact is considered regional since it impacts the entire population of the special status species.

Vegetation Effect Intensity Level Definitions for General Vegetation Siebert Substation ROW

Negligible: Effects on native vegetation - beneficial or adverse - would be so small it would not be measurable or perceptible. Minor: Effects on native vegetation - beneficial or adverse - would be detectable, measurable and perceptible but small, localized, and of little consequence. Adverse effects can be minimized or fully mitigated and would be relatively simple to implement and would have a high probability of success. Moderate: Effects on native vegetation - beneficial or adverse - would be readily apparent, measurable, large and of consequence, but localized. Adverse effects would require mitigation and restoration. Mitigation could be extensive, but likely to be effective. Major: Effects on native vegetation - beneficial or adverse - would be readily apparent and would substantially change the biological value of the native plant community in the context of the project area or region. Changes would be widespread and could have permanent consequences for the resource. Restoration would be necessary to reduce or rectify adverse effects, and its success could not be guaranteed. Duration Definitions for General Vegetation Short-term: One year or less for herbaceous species, and one to five years for woody species. Long-term: Greater than one year for herbaceous species, and greater than five years for woody species. Context Definitions for General Vegetation Localized: Impacts are limited to work sites, areas immediately adjacent and do not alter overall species composition and diversity within the Assessment Area (Proposed Plan Area). Regional: Impacts to vegetation communities could incorporate an entire vegetative community or experience measurable composition and diversity changes within the Assessment Area or greater than one-half mile from the disturbance area.

Visuals Resources Effects Intensity Level Definitions Negligible: Effects would not result in any perceptible changes to existing viewsheds; Class I and II areas would retain their classifications. Minor: Effects would result in slightly detectable changes to a viewshed or in a small area or would introduce a compatible human-made feature to an existing developed area; Class II and III areas would retain their classifications with mitigation; but a Class I area may not. Moderate: Effects would be readily apparent and would change the character of visual resources in the area; Class III areas could retain their classifications with careful mitigation; but Class I and II areas may not. Major: Effects would be highly noticeable or would change the character of visual resources by adding human-made features into a mostly undeveloped area or by removing most human-made features from a developed area. Adverse effects to Class I and II areas would not be able to be mitigated and they would lose their classification. A Class III are a may be reclassified to Class IV. Duration Short-term: Would be temporary and removable. Long-term: Would be continual or permanent. Siebert Substation ROW

Water Resources Effect Intensity Level Definitions Negligible: Effects to the aquatic resources would not result in detectable effects. Chemical, physical, or biological changes to water quality would not be detectable. Hydrology of the area would not be affected, or impacts would not be measurable. Impacts to the hydrologic regime would be slight and short-term. Minor: Effects to aquatic resources would result in detectable effects. These changes would be temporary and the resource would return to pre-impact condition within a few days. Chemical, physical, or biological changes to water quality would be detectable, but would be within historical baseline or desired water quality conditions. Impacts on hydrology, such as an increase or decrease in surface water or groundwater flow, would be detectable. If mitigation were needed to offset adverse effects, it would be relatively simple to implement. Moderate: Effects to aquatic resources would result in detectable effects; these changes would not be permanent, and the resource would rebound to pre-impact conditions after one season. Chemical, physical, or biological changes to water quality would be detectable, but historical baseline or desired water quality conditions would only be temporarily altered. Impacts on hydrology would be readily apparent. Mitigation would probably be necessary to offset adverse effects. Major: Effects to aquatic resources would result in detectable effects which would likely result in long-term to permanent changes. In extreme cases, species may be extirpated due to loss of habitat. Chemical, physical, and biological changes to water quality would represent a major degradation from historical baseline water quality conditions. Alternations could be long-term. Impacts on hydrology would be readily apparent and would substantially change the hydrologic regime over the area. Duration Definitions Short-term: One day or less for water quality; one year or less for aquatic resources. Long-term: Greater than one day for water quality; greater than one year for aquatic resources. Context Definitions Localized: A single seep, spring, wetland, or tributary for surface water resources or within the hydrographic unit for groundwater resources. Regional: Aquatic and water resources covering several seeps, springs, wetlands and tributaries for surface water resources or across more than one hydrographic unit for groundwater resources.

Wildlife, General Effect Intensity Level Definitions for General Wildlife Negligible: Wildlife would not be affected, or effects would not result in a loss of individuals or habitat. Minor: Effects on wildlife would be measurable or perceptible. However, the overall viability of the population or sub-population would not be affected and without further adverse effects the population would recover. Impacts on wildlife, such as displacement of nests or dens or obstruction of corridors, would be detectable. If mitigation is needed to reduce or rectify adverse effects, it would be relatively simple to implement. Siebert Substation ROW

Moderate: Effects would be sufficient to cause a change in the population or sub-population (e.g., abundance, distribution, quantity, or viability); however, the effect would remain local. The change would be measurable and perceptible, but the negative effects could be reversed. Mitigation would probably be necessary to reduce or rectify adverse effects. Major: Effects would be substantial, highly noticeable, and could be permanent in their effect on population or subpopulation survival without active management. Extensive mitigation would likely be necessary to reduce or rectify adverse impacts, and its success could not be guaranteed. Duration Definitions for General Wildlife Short-term: One year or less for individual or habitat; five years or less for a population. Long-term: Greater than one year for individual or habitat; greater than five years for a population. Context Definitions for General Wildlife Localized: Impacts are confined to a small part of the population, habitat, or range. Regional: Impacts would affect a widespread area of suitable habitat or the range of the population or species. Siebert Substation ROW

Appendix B – Visual Simulation and Contrast Rating Siebert Substation ROW

Photo 1: View to the northwest from the KOP.

Photo 2: Simulation of the Proposed Action from the KOP.