Appendix L: Comparison Of Data Sources - Energize Eastside EIS
LAppendix L:Comparison of Data Sources
APPENDIX L. COMPARISON OF EIS DATASOURCESPSE continued to refine the design of the proposed project from when the Phase 2 Draft EIS waspublished (in May 2017) and as the analysis was being conducted for the Final EIS. In particular, PSEsubmitted two permit applications to the Cities of Bellevue and Newcastle for the initial phase of projectconstruction; the permit applications included more detailed, site-specific information for portions of theproject alignment (namely, the Bellevue South Segment, the Richards Creek substation site, that portionof the Bellevue Central Segment that contains the Lakeside substation, and the Newcastle Segment). Thepermit applications include refined, site-specific information for project components such as proposedpole types and locations, as well as vegetation survey and clearing data. The Partner Cities decided thatthe analysis in the Final EIS should reflect the most up-to-date data and information, which because of thepermit applications differs in level of detail from segment to segment.Appendix L was prepared to assist the reader and reviewer understand the relationship between the datasources used in the Phase 2 Draft EIS and the Final EIS documents. It summarizes and compares thesource material and results, organized by element of the environment and project segment. Because thedata sources used for the Redmond, Bellevue North, Bellevue Central (excluding the Lakesidesubstation), and Renton Segments are substantively the same as those used for the Phase 2 Draft EIS, thematerial in Appendix L focuses on the segments associated with the permit applications. It focuses on thefollowing project components and analyses: pole location data, critical areas data, construction accessdata, and tree clearing data.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐1MARCH 2018
Scenic Views & Aesthetic EnvironmentPhase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Richards Creek SubstationData Source(s) The Watershed Company, 2016 and accompanying GIS data.Pole DataN/AData Source(s)Tree DataNo trees were inventoried oridentified for removal adjacent tothe Lakeside substation. The Watershed Company, 2017 and accompanying GISdata. Energize Eastside Vegetation Management Plan, August30, 2017.Pole DataN/ATree DataNear the Lakeside substation,approximately 43 trees would beremoved.Notes: Tree removal next to the Lakeside substation results in the Richards Creek substation being more noticeable from the northeastthan was evident in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐2MARCH 2018
Scenic Views & the Aesthetic EnvironmentPhase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Bellevue Central SegmentData Source(s)Data Source(s) Strauch, B. 2016. Email (with attachment) from Bradley Strauch, Sr.Land Planner/Environmental Scientist, PSE, to Claire Hoffman andReema Shakra, ESA, regarding information and data for the EnergizeEastside Project. August 16, 2016. PSE. 2017. Emails from Bradley Strauch, Energize EastsideProject Manager, PSE, to Reema Shakra and Mark Johnson,ESA. August 23, 2017, and December 1, 2017. The Watershed Company, 2017 and accompanying GIS data.The Watershed Company, 2016 and accompanying GIS data. Energize Eastside Vegetation Management Plan, August 30,2017.Pole Data95’-115’ tall double-circuit steelmonopolesTree DataNo trees were inventoried oridentified for removal adjacent tothe Lakeside substation.Pole Data94’-113’ tall double-circuit steelmonopoles.Tree DataNear the Lakeside substation,approximately 43 trees would beremoved, including trees nearChestnut Hill Academy.Notes: The Bellevue Central Segment is not in the permit application, except for the area near the Lakeside substation. Pole types have notchanged substantively. An additional 43 trees would be removed adjacent to the Lakeside substation.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐3MARCH 2018
Phase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Scenic Views and the Aesthetic EnvironmentBellevue South SegmentData Source(s)Data Source(s) Strauch, B. 2016. Email (with attachment) from Bradley Strauch, Sr.Land Planner/Environmental Scientist, PSE, to Claire Hoffman andReema Shakra, ESA, regarding information and data for the EnergizeEastside Project. August 16, 2016. The Watershed Company, 2016 and accompanying GIS data.Pole DataRemove 2 existing 60-foot HFrame poles. Replace with 1-285-100’ tall monopoles at eachlocation (total 2-4). PSE. 2017. Emails from Bradley Strauch, Energize EastsideProject Manager, PSE, to Reema Shakra and MarkJohnson, ESA. December 1, 2017. The Watershed Company, 2017 and accompanying GISdata. Energize Eastside Vegetation Management Plan, August 30,2017.Tree DataPole DataTree DataApproximately 20 trees would beremoved near the Coal Creek toSE 60th Street segment of theLower Coal Creek Trail.Pole types, heights, and sizesare more detailed than in thePhase 2 Draft EIS but generallythe same as described for Phase2.Approximately 20 trees would beremoved north of where theLower Coal Creek Trail crossesthe transmission corridor.Typical pole height 65’ to 100’.General pole types, heights, andlocations in permit applicationare the same as the informationprovided by PSE in August 2017.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐4MARCH 2018
Scenic Views and the Aesthetic EnvironmentPhase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Newcastle Segment (No Code Variance)Data Source(s) Data Source(s)Strauch, B. 2016. Email (with attachment) from Bradley Strauch, Sr.Land Planner/Environmental Scientist, PSE, to Claire Hoffman andReema Shakra, ESA, regarding information and data for the EnergizeEastside Project. August 16, 2016.The Watershed Company, 2016 and accompanying GIS data.Pole Data100’ tall single circuit steelmonopoles.Tree Data301 trees removed. The Watershed Company, 2017 and accompanying GISdata. PSE. 2017. Emails from Bradley Strauch, EnergizeEastside Project Manager, PSE, to Reema Shakra andMark Johnson, ESA. December 1, 2017.Pole DataGeneral pole types, heights, andlocations were the same basedon updated information providedby PSE in August 2017.Tree Data244 trees removed.Notes: Discussion of tree removal is qualitative in the Phase 2 Draft EIS and Final EIS and is based on a spatial analysis of tree removalwithin the corridor. Reduction in tree removal did not result in new findings for the Final EIS.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐5MARCH 2018
Phase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Richards Creek SubstationData Source(s)Water Resources Data Source(s)The Watershed Company. 2016. City ofBellevue Critical Areas Delineation Report.Prepared for Puget Sound Energy –Energize Eastside Project. May 2016.Pole DataTwo poles wouldbe in wetlandJB01 or its buffer.Wetlands andStreams DataStreams--EastCreek, Stream C,Stream JB01,unnamed tribs. ofRichards Creek.Wetlands—BC,FG, JB01. The Watershed Company. May 2016. City of Bellevue. Critical Areas DelineationReport: Puget Sound Energy –Energize Eastside Project. Prepared for PSE. The Watershed Company. 2017. Richards Creek Substation Property, Wetland andStream Delineation Report. The Watershed Company Reference Number: 111103.6.Submitted to Molly Reed, PSE. June 22, 2017. The Watershed Company. August 2017. City of Bellevue Critical Areas Report: PugetSound Energy – Energize Eastside Project South Bellevue Segment. Prepared for PSE. PSE. 2017. Emails from Bradley Strauch, Energize Eastside Project Manager, PSE, toReema Shakra and Mark Johnson, ESA. December 1, 2017.Construction AccessDataUsed generalassumptions sincepreliminary access roaddata provided did notindicate whetherwetlands would be filledor not. Assumed all newroads in wetlands,streams, and bufferswere temporary, andwould be restored perBellevue Coderequirements.Pole DataWetlands and Streams DataTen poles wouldbe in Wetland Aor its buffer, andapprox. six poleswould be inWetland H or itsbuffer.More specific information onstream and wetland impacts.Streams A & C.Wetlands: New wetlandnaming system.Wetland A (named BC inDraft EIS), Wetland B,Wetland C, Wetland D(named FG in Draft EIS),Wetland H (named JB01 inDraft EIS).ConstructionAccess DataTemporaryaccess roadswould beconstructed inWetlands A andH, and stringingsites would beconstructed inWetland A.Notes: Information in the Richards Creek delineation report and in the permit application identified two wetlands not shown in the Phase 2Draft EIS, provides greater detail on wetland locations and impacts, and renames some wetlands. Information in the Richards Creekdelineation report and permit application also provides greater detail on stream classifications and impacts.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐6MARCH 2018
Phase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Bellevue Central SegmentData Source(s)Water Resources Data Source(s)The Watershed Company. 2016. City of Bellevue Critical AreasDelineation Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy – EnergizeEastside Project. May 2016.Pole DataPoles in wetlandsreduced from 3 to 2.Poles in buffersreduced from 14 to 6.Wetlands andStreams DataKelsey Creek, EastCreek and varioustribs to Kelsey, East,and Richards creeks.23 Category II and IVwetlands.ConstructionAccess DataUsed generalassumptions basedon narrative;preliminary accessroad data provideddid not indicatewhether wetlandswould be filled ornot. The Watershed Company. 2016. City of Bellevue Critical AreasDelineation Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy –Energize Eastside Project. May 2016. (No new information wasprovided for this segment.) PSE. 2017. Emails from Bradley Strauch, Energize EastsideProject Manager, PSE, to Reema Shakra and Mark Johnson,ESA. December 1, 2017.Pole DataPoles in wetlandswould be reduced to0; no poles instreams or streambuffers.Wetlands andStreams DataNo change towetlands or streams.ConstructionAccess DataUsed generalassumptions sinceno data provided,except as noted forRichards Creekabove.Notes: Bellevue Central Segment is not in the permit application, except for the area near the Lakeside substation. The permit applicationdid not show any change in wetland and stream impacts in that area.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐7MARCH 2018
Phase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Bellevue South SegmentData Source(s)Water Resources Data Source(s)The Watershed Company. 2016. City of Bellevue Critical AreasDelineation Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy – EnergizeEastside Project. May 2016.Pole DataPoles in wetlandbuffers woulddecrease from 7to 3.Wetlands andStreams Data3 unnamedtributaries of EastCreek, Sunset, andCoal creeks.14 Category II and IVwetlands.ConstructionAccess DataUsed generalassumptions basedon narrative;preliminary accessroad data provideddid not indicatewhether wetlandswould be filled ornot. The Watershed Company. 2016. City of Bellevue Critical AreasDelineation Report: Puget Sound Energy Energize EastsideProject. May 2016. The Watershed Company. 2017. City of Bellevue Critical AreasReport: Puget Sound Energy – Energize Eastside ProjectSouth Bellevue Segment. August 2017. PSE. 2017. Emails from Bradley Strauch, Energize EastsideProject Manager, PSE, to Reema Shakra and Mark Johnson,ESA. December 1, 2017.Pole DataPoles in wetlandbuffers woulddecrease from 7 to1.Wetlands andStreams Data7 tributaries,different namingsystem in permitdata.ConstructionAccess DataNo access roads inwetlands, streams,or buffers.13 Category III andIV wetlands.Notes: Stream and wetland information was revised for the Final EIS based on additional detail in the permit application. Information in thepermit application was used for access road locations.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐8MARCH 2018
Phase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Newcastle Segment (No Code Variance)Data Source(s)Water Resources Data Source(s)The Watershed Company. 2016. City of Newcastle Critical AreasDelineation Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy – EnergizeEastside Project. May 2016.Pole DataNo poles in criticalareas or buffers.Wetlands andStreams Data2 unnamed streamsand May Creek.One Category IV andone Category IIIwetland.ConstructionAccess DataUsed generalassumptions basedon narrative;preliminary accessroad data provideddid not indicatewhether wetlandswould be filled ornot. The Watershed Company. 2016. City of Newcastle CriticalAreas Delineation Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy –Energize Eastside Project. May 2016. PSE. 2017. Emails from Bradley Strauch, Energize EastsideProject Manager, PSE, to Reema Shakra and Mark Johnson,ESA. December 1, 2017.Pole DataNo poles would beplaced in streams orstream buffers.Number of poles inwetland bufferswould be reduced.Wetlands andStreams Data3 unnamed streams(one withheadwaters inBellevue wasadded), May Creek.ConstructionAccess DataNo access roads inwetlands, streams,or buffers.Two Category IIIwetlands.Notes: In the Newcastle permit application, the wetlands were reclassified using revised Newcastle Critical Areas regulations. Informationin the permit application was used for access road locations.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐9MARCH 2018
Phase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Data Source(s)Data Source(s)Richards Creek SubstationPlants and Animals The Watershed Company. 2016a. Tree Inventory: Energize Eastside Project.Includes the following separate reports: City of Bellevue Tree Inventory Report; King The Watershed Company, 2017 and accompanyingGIS data.County Tree Inventory Report; City of Newcastle Tree Inventory Report; City of RedmondTree Inventory Report; Segment O Tree Inventory Report; Segment P Tree InventoryReport; and Bypass Routes 1 and 2 Tree Inventory and Analysis Report. Prepared forPuget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA. Prepared by the Watershed Company, Kirkland, WA.May and July 2016. The Watershed Company. 2017. City of BellevueCritical Areas Report: Puget Sound Energy –Energize Eastside Project South Bellevue Segment.August 2017.The Watershed Company. 2016b. Tree Inventory: Energize Eastside Project.Includes the following separate reports: City of Bellevue Critical Areas DelineationReport; King County Critical Areas Delineation Report; City of Newcastle Critical AreasDelineation Report; City of Redmond Critical Areas Delineation Report; City of RentonCritical Areas Delineation Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA.Prepared by the Watershed Company, Kirkland, WA. May and July 2016. The Watershed Company. 2016c. GIS Dataset labeled astwc ee veg impact results 20160914. September 14, 2016.Tree Data173 removed (109significant, 0 CA,29 CA buffers).Construction AccessWetland/Stream HabitatUsed general assumptions2.8 acres ofsince preliminary access road habitat woulddata provided did not indicate be removed.whether existing habitat wouldbe impacted. Assumed all newroads were temporary, andwould be restored perBellevue Code requirements.Tree Data178 removed (108significant, 23 trees incritical areas, 76 tress incritical area buffers)ConstructionAccessNo additionalinformation added.Wetland/StreamHabitat2.8 acres of habitatwould be removed.More specificinformation onimpacts fromrealigning Stream C.(see Water section)Notes: Tree removal numbers in the Phase 2 Draft EIS column reflect corrected numbers (see Chapter 3, Errata, of the Final EIS). Therefore,they are slightly different than what was presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐10MARCH 2018
Phase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Data Source(s)Data Source(s)Bellevue Central Segment The Watershed Company. 2016a. Tree Inventory: Energize Eastside Project.Includes the following separate reports: City of Bellevue Tree Inventory Report; King The Watershed Company, 2017 andaccompanying GIS data.County Tree Inventory Report; City of Newcastle Tree Inventory Report; City of RedmondTree Inventory Report; Segment O Tree Inventory Report; Segment P Tree Inventory Report;and Bypass Routes 1 and 2 Tree Inventory and Analysis Report. Prepared for Puget SoundEnergy, Bellevue, WA. Prepared by the Watershed Company, Kirkland, WA. May and July2016.Plants and Animals The Watershed Company. 2016b. Tree Inventory: Energize Eastside Project.Includes the following separate reports: City of Bellevue Critical Areas DelineationReport; King County Critical Areas Delineation Report; City of Newcastle Critical AreasDelineation Report; City of Redmond Critical Areas Delineation Report; City of RentonCritical Areas Delineation Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA.Prepared by the Watershed Company, Kirkland, WA. May and July 2016. The Watershed Company. 2016c. GIS Dataset labeled astwc ee veg impact results 20160914. September 14, 2016.Tree Data599 removed (232significant, 50 CA,152 CA buffer).Construction AccessUsed generalassumptions based onnarrative; preliminaryaccess road dataprovided did notindicate whetherwetland habitat wouldbe filled or not.Wetland/StreamHabitatNo impacts toterrestrial speciesare expected andstream habitatwould not besubstantiallyaffected.Tree Data642 removed (234significant, 68 CA,172 CA buffer).ConstructionAccessNo additionalinformation added.Wetland/StreamHabitatNo additionalinformation added.Notes: Tree removal numbers changed primarily due to an increase in tree removal near the Lakeside substation. Additional trees would beremoved from critical areas and critical area buffers. Tree removal numbers in the Phase 2 Draft EIS column reflect corrected numbers (seeChapter 3, Errata, of the Final EIS). Therefore, they are slightly different than what was presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐11MARCH 2018
Phase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Data Source(s)Data Source(s)Bellevue South Segment The Watershed Company. 2016a. Tree Inventory: Energize EastsideProject. Includes the following separate reports: City of Bellevue TreeEnergize Eastside Vegetation Management Plan,August 30, 2017.Plants and AnimalsInventory Report; King County Tree Inventory Report; City of Newcastle TreeInventory Report; City of Redmond Tree Inventory Report; Segment O TreeInventory Report; Segment P Tree Inventory Report; and Bypass Routes 1 and 2Tree Inventory and Analysis Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue,WA. Prepared by the Watershed Company, Kirkland, WA. May and July 2016. The Watershed Company. 2016b. Tree Inventory: Energize EastsideProject. Includes the following separate reports: City of Bellevue CriticalAreas Delineation Report; King County Critical Areas Delineation Report; City ofNewcastle Critical Areas Delineation Report; City of Redmond Critical AreasDelineation Report; City of Renton Critical Areas Delineation Report. Prepared forPuget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA. Prepared by the Watershed Company,Kirkland, WA. May and July 2016. The Watershed Company. 2016c. GIS Dataset labeled astwc ee veg impact results 20160914. September 14, 2016.Tree Data1,032 removed (449significant, 4 in CA,76 in CA buffers).ConstructionAccessUsed generalassumptions basedon narrative;preliminary accessroad data provideddid not indicatewhether wetlandswould be filled or not.Wetland/StreamHabitatNo impacts toterrestrial speciesare expected andstream habitatwould not besubstantiallyaffected.Tree Data1,030 trees removed(442 significant, 3 inCA, 69 in CA buffers)ConstructionAccessNo changes.Wetland/StreamHabitatNo changes in thischapter.Notes: Tree removal numbers in the Phase 2 Draft EIS column reflect corrected numbers (see Chapter 3, Errata, of the Final EIS).Therefore, they are slightly different than what was presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐12MARCH 2018
Phase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Newcastle Segment (No Code Variance)Data Source(s) Plants and Animals Data Source(s)The Watershed Company. 2016a. Tree Inventory: Energize EastsideProject. Includes the following separate reports: City of Bellevue Tree The Watershed Company, 2017 and accompanyingGIS data.Inventory Report; King County Tree Inventory Report; City of Newcastle TreeInventory Report; City of Redmond Tree Inventory Report; Segment O TreeInventory Report; Segment P Tree Inventory Report; and Bypass Routes 1 and 2Tree Inventory and Analysis Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue,WA. Prepared by the Watershed Company, Kirkland, WA. May and July 2016. Newcastle CUP No Variance (C-2), Significant TreeInventory. The Watershed Company. 2017. City of NewcastleCritical Areas Report: Puget Sound Energy – EnergizeEastside Project South Bellevue Segment. November2017. The Watershed Company. November 8, 2017.Addendum to the Newcastle Critical Areas Report forthe Puget Sound Energy Energize Eastside Project.The Watershed Company. 2016b. Tree Inventory: Energize EastsideProject. Includes the following separate reports: City of Bellevue CriticalAreas Delineation Report; King County Critical Areas Delineation Report; City ofNewcastle Critical Areas Delineation Report; City of Redmond Critical AreasDelineation Report; City of Renton Critical Areas Delineation Report. Prepared forPuget Sound Energy, Bellevue, WA. Prepared by the Watershed Company,Kirkland, WA. May and July 2016. The Watershed Company. 2016c. GIS Dataset labeled astwc ee veg impact results 20160914. September 14, 2016.Tree Data301 removed (33significant, two inCA, 57 in CA buffer).ConstructionAccessUsed generalassumptions basedon narrative;preliminary accessroad data provideddid not indicatewhether wetlandswould be filled or not.Wetland/StreamHabitatNo impacts toterrestrial speciesare expected andstream habitatwould not besubstantiallyaffected.Tree Data244 removed (30significant, 0 in CA,21 in CA buffer)ConstructionAccessNo changesWetland/StreamHabitatNo changes.Notes: Tree removal numbers in the Phase 2 Draft EIS column reflect corrected numbers (see Chapter 3, Errata, of the Final EIS).Therefore, they are slightly different than what was presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐13MARCH 2018
Phase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Richards Creek SubstationData Source(s)Greenhouse Gases The Watershed Company, 2016. GIS Dataset labeled astwc ee veg impact results 20160914. September 14, 2016.Data Source(s) Energize Eastside Vegetation Management Plan, August 30,2017. The Watershed Company, 2017 and accompanying GIS data.GHG Emissions GHG Emissions 173 trees for removal.178 trees for removal.Notes: Tree removal numbers only increased slightly.Bellevue Central SegmentData Source(s) The Watershed Company, 2016. GIS Dataset labeled astwc ee veg impact results 20160914. September 14, 2016.Data Source(s) Energize Eastside Vegetation Management Plan, August 30,2017. The Watershed Company, 2017 and accompanying GIS data.GHG Emissions 599 trees for removalGHG Emissions 642 trees for removalNotes: Tree removal numbers increased somewhat.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐14MARCH 2018
Phase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Bellevue South SegmentData Source(s)Greenhouse Gases The Watershed Company. 2016. Tree Inventory Excel Databasetitled Willow, Oak, Richards, Bypass EIS Segments w VIAResult. Dated September 9, 2016.Data Source(s) Energize Eastside Vegetation Management Plan, August 30,2017. The Watershed Company, 2017 and accompanying GIS data.GHG Emissions 1,032 trees for removal.GHG Emissions 1,030 trees for removal.Notes: Tree removal numbers only decreased slightly.Newcastle Segment (No Code Variance)Data Source(s) The Watershed Company, 2016. GIS Dataset labeled astwc ee veg impact results 20160914. September 14, 2016.Data Source(s) Energize Eastside Vegetation Management Plan, August 30,2017. The Watershed Company, 2017 and accompanying GIS data.GHG Emissions301 trees for removal.GHG Emissions244 trees for removal.Notes: Tree removal numbers decreased somewhat.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐15MARCH 2018
Phase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Richards Creek SubstationRecreationData Source(s) Data Source(s)The Watershed Company. 2016c. GIS Dataset labeled astwc ee veg impact results 20160914. September 14, 2016. Energize Eastside Vegetation Management Plan, August 30,2017. The Watershed Company, 2017 and accompanying GIS data.Pole DataTree DataPole DataTree DataChestnut Hill Academy: No polesexisting or proposed on theschool site.Trees would be removed on theadjacent substation site, but theywould not be visible from theschool.Chestnut Hill Academy: No polesexisting or proposed on theschool site.Trees would be removed on theadjacent Lakeside and RichardsCreek substations that may bevisible from the school.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐16MARCH 2018
Phase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Bellevue South SegmentData Source(s)Recreation The Watershed Company. 2016c. GIS Dataset labeled astwc ee veg impact results 20160914. September 14, 2016.Data Source(s) Energize Eastside Vegetation Management Plan, August 30,2017. The Watershed Company, 2017 and accompanying GIS data.Pole DataTree DataPole DataTree DataSummary: 32 poles would be removed andreplaced with 17 poles in recreation areas(number in Coal Creek Natural Area notspecified).Summary: 77-87 treesremoved in specific recreationareas.Summary: 32 poles would be removed andreplaced with 16 poles in recreation areas.Summary: 60-75 trees forremoval in specificrecreation areas.Tyee Middle School: 2 60-foot H-framesreplaced with a 100-monopole.Somerset North Slope Open Space: Noexisting poles, one 85-foot pole placedwithin park and 1 to the adjacent parcel (2total).Tyee Middle School: 17removed.Somerset North Slope OpenSpace: One tree removed.Somerset Recreation Club: 510 removed.Somerset Recreation Club: 2 new taller polesin place of existing 2.Forest Hill Neighborhood Park& Open Space: 14 treesremoved.Forest Hill Neighborhood Park & OpenSpace: 2 60-foot H-frame poles replacedwith 2 85-foot tall monopoles.Coal Creek Natural Area: 35trees removed.Coal Creek Natural Area: existing pairs of 60foot H-frames would be replaced with 100foot monopoles or 2 85-foot tall poles(number not specified).Newport Hills Mini Park: 2 sets of 3 poleswould be replaced with 2 85-foot tall poles.Newport Hills Mini Park: 5-10trees removed.Tyee Middle School: The more northern 60foot H-frame replaced with a 100-footmonopole, the other replaced with 2 110foot monopoles.Somerset North Slope Open Space: Nopoles existing, and none would be placedwithin or adjacent to.Tyee Middle School: 12trees for removal.Somerset North SlopeOpen Space: One tree forremoval.Somerset Recreation Club: 2 90-foot polesin place of existing 2.Somerset RecreationClub: 4-8 trees forremoval.Forest Hill Neighborhood Park & OpenSpace: 2 60-foot H-frame poles replacedwith 2 90-foot tall monopoles.Forest Hill NeighborhoodPark & Open Space: 13trees for removal.Coal Creek Natural Area: Ten e pairs of 60foot H-frames would be replaced with 100foot monopoles or 2 110-foot tall poles (20poles would be replaced with 7 poles total).Coal Creek Natural Area:25 – 30 trees for removal.Newport Hills Mini Park:5-10 trees for removal.Newport Hills Mini Park: 2 sets of 3 poleswould be replaced with 2 110-foot tall poles.Notes: Limited changes to pole numbers, pole heights, and tree removal numbers.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐17MARCH 2018
Phase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Newcastle Segment (No Code Variance)Data Source(s) The Watershed Company. 2016c. GIS Dataset labeled astwc ee veg impact results 20160914. September 14, 2016.Pole DataRecreationData Source(s)Summary: There would beapproximately half the number ofpoles.Waterline, Cross Town, ChinaCreek (proposed), and OlympusTrails: Existing pairs of 60-foot Hframes would be replaced with 285-foot monopoles (number notspecified). Energize Eastside Vegetation Management Plan, August 30,2017. The Watershed Company, 2017 and accompanying GIS data.Tree DataPole DataSummary: Approximately 280trees for removal.Summary: There would beapproximately half the numberof poles.Waterline, Cross Town, ChinaCreek (proposed), andOlympus Trails: Approximately185 trees for removal.May Creek Natural Area: 94trees for removal.May Creek Natural Area: Two pairsof 60-foot H-frames replaced with 285-foot monopoles.Waterline, Cross Town, ChinaCreek (proposed), andOlympus Trails: Existing pairsof 60-foot H-frames would bereplaced with 2 95-footmonopoles (number notspecified).Tree DataSummary: Approximately 215trees for removal.Waterline, Cross Town, ChinaCreek (proposed), and OlympusTrails: Approximately 170 trees forremoval.May Creek Natural Area:Approximately 45 trees forremoval.May Creek Natural Area: Thetwo pairs of 60-foot H-frameswould be replaced with 2 95foot monopoles.Notes: Fewer trees would be removed in the May Creek Natural Area.FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESPAGE L‐18MARCH 2018
Phase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Richards Creek SubstationData Source(s)Ecosystem Services The Watershed Company. 2016c. GIS Dataset labeled astwc ee veg impact results 20160914. September 14, 2016.Data Source(s) Energize Eastside Vegetation Management Plan, August 30, 2017. The Watershed Company, 2017 and accompanying GIS data.Trees RemovedTrees Removed173178Bellevue Central SegmentData Source(s) The Watershed Company. 2016c. GIS Dataset labeled astwc ee veg impact results 20160914. September 14, 2016.Trees Removed599FINAL EISAPPENDIX L COMPARISON OF EIS DATA SOURCESData Source(s) Energize Eastside Vegetation Management Plan, August 30, 2017. The Watershed Company, 2017 and accompanying GIS data.Trees Removed642PAGE L‐19MARCH 2018
Phase 2 Draft EISFinal EIS (Permit Application)Bellevue South SegmentData Source(s
Sound Energy – Energize Eastside Project South Bellevue Segment. Prepared for PSE. PSE. 2017. Emails from Bradley Strauch, Energize Eastside Project Manager, PSE, to Reema Shakra and Mark Johnson, ESA. December 1, 2017. Pole Data Wetlands and Streams Data Construction Access Data Pole Data Wetlands and Streams Data Construction Access Data
Issue of orders 69 : Publication of misleading information 69 : Attending Committees, etc. 69 : Responsibility 69-71 : APPENDICES : Appendix I : 72-74 Appendix II : 75 Appendix III : 76 Appendix IV-A : 77-78 Appendix IV-B : 79 Appendix VI : 79-80 Appendix VII : 80 Appendix VIII-A : 80-81 Appendix VIII-B : 81-82 Appendix IX : 82-83 Appendix X .
Appendix G Children's Response Log 45 Appendix H Teacher's Journal 46 Appendix I Thought Tree 47 Appendix J Venn Diagram 48 Appendix K Mind Map 49. Appendix L WEB. 50. Appendix M Time Line. 51. Appendix N KWL. 52. Appendix 0 Life Cycle. 53. Appendix P Parent Social Studies Survey (Form B) 54
APPENDIX B: Harmonized comparison of Green Globes and LEED 29 APPENDIX C: Harmonized point comparison of Green Globes v.0 and LEED 2.2 46 APPENDIX D: Comparison of Green Globes versus Green Globes v.0 Design v.1 - Post Construction Assessment 47 APPENDIX E: GSA courthouse case study - LEED 2.1 rating and corresponding Green
Appendix H Forklift Operator Daily Checklist Appendix I Office Safety Inspection Appendix J Refusal of Workers Compensation Appendix K Warehouse/Yard Inspection Checklist Appendix L Incident Investigation Report Appendix M Incident Investigation Tips Appendix N Employee Disciplinary Warning Notice Appendix O Hazardous Substance List
APPENDIX B: Harmonized comparison of Green Globes and LEED 29 APPENDIX C: Harmonized point comparison of Green Globes v.0 and LEED 2.2 46 APPENDIX D: Comparison of Green Globes versus Green Globes v.0 Design v.1 - Post Construction Assessment 47 APPENDIX E: GSA courthouse case study - LEED 2.1 rating and corresponding Green
The Need for Adult High School Programs 1 G.E.D.: The High School Equivalency Alternative 9 An Emerging Alternative: The Adult High School Ciploma 12 Conclusion 23 Appendix A -- Virginia 25 Appendix B -- North Carolina 35 Appendix C -- Texas 42 Appendix 0 -- Kansas 45 Appendix E -- Wyoming 48 Appendix F -- Idaho 56 Appendix G -- New Hampshire .
Appendix 4 . Clarification of MRSA-Specific Antibiotic Therapy . 43 Appendix 5 . MRSA SSI . 44 Appendix 6 . VRE SSI . 62 Appendix 7 . SABSI related to SSI . 74 Appendix 8 . CLABSI – Definition of a Bloodstream Infection . 86 Appendix 9 . CLABSI – Definition of a MBI -related BSI . 89 Appendix 10 . Examples relating to definition of .
Appendix E: DD Form 577 for Appointing a Certifying Officer 57 Appendix F: Sample GPC Appointment Letters 58 Appendix G: Formal Reporting Requirements 66 Appendix H: Semi-Annual Surveillance Report Template 70 Appendix I: GPC Thresholds 73 Appendix J: Glossary – Sections I and II 75 Chapter 1: The Government Purchase Card Program 1-1. Purpose a.
