Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, November 12, 2024 (part 7 of 13)

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

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

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

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
JULY 2024 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Appendix C

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Attachment 1
AQ/GHG Emissions Summary
Maximum Daily Emissions by Phase (lbs/day)
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T Demolition 2.56 2.14 19.61 19.52 0.03 0.79 11.80 12.59 0.73 1.18 1.91 Site Preparation 2.00 1.55 15.91 18.96 0.05 0.51 13.18 13.69 0.47 1.46 1.93 Overhead Pole Installation 2.15 1.71 16.75 21.09 0.04 0.45 12.63 13.08 0.42 1.39 1.81 Underground Trenching 1.05 0.79 8.90 13.37 0.03 0.19 12.63 12.82 0.18 1.39 1.57 Underground Vault Instalation 2.15 1.71 16.75 21.09 0.04 0.45 12.63 13.08 0.42 1.39 1.81 Paving and Cleanup 1.55 5.95 11.67 16.21 0.03 0.39 0.85 1.25 0.36 0.22 0.58 Maximum Daily Emissions 2.56 5.95 19.61 21.09 0.05 0.79 13.18 13.69 0.73 1.46 1.93 Annual
GHG Emissions (MT/year)
NBCO₂ CO₂T CH₄ N₂O R CO₂e
2027 592.38 592.38 0.03 0.04 0.24 604.412028 35.32 35.32 0.00 0.00 0.02 36.15 Total 627.70 627.70 0.03 0.04 0.26 640.56
Attachment 2
AQ GHG Inputs
Equipment HHDT (one way
Phase Count Equipment Type Duration Employees trips/day) Demolition 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws 2 weeks 15 40
2 Rubber Tired Dozers
3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Site Preparation 5 Pickup truck 1 month 15 40
1 Aerial Lifts
1 Bore/Drill Rigs
2 Cement and Mortar Mixers
1 Cranes
1 Excavators
1 Graders
1 Plate Compactors
1 Pumps
1 Rollers
1 Skid Steer Loaders
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Overhead Pole Installation 2 Aerial Lifts 4 months 25 30 1 Bore/Drill Rigs
1 Cement and Mortar Mixers
1 Cranes
1 Excavators
1 Forklifts
1 Generator Sets
1 Other General Industrial Equipment
1 Rollers
1 Skid Steer Loaders
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 Welders
Underground Trenching 2 Excavators 3 months 25 30
2 Skid Steer Loaders
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 Aerial Lifts
1 Bore/Drill Rigs
1 Pumps
Underground Vault Instalation 2 Aerial Lifts 4 months 25 30 1 Bore/Drill Rigs
1 Cement and Mortar Mixers
1 Cranes
1 Excavators
1 Forklifts
1 Generator Sets
1 Other General Industrial Equipment
1 Rollers
1 Skid Steer Loaders
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
2 Welders
Paving and Cleanup 1 Cement and Mortar Mixers 6 weeks 25 40 1 Pavers
1 Paving Equipment
1 Rollers
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 Air Compressors
Attachment 3
CalEEMod Output
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
NRS-KRS Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2027) - Unmitigated

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

3.3. Site Preparation (2027) - Unmitigated

3.4. Site Preparation (2027) - Mitigated

3.5. Overhead Pole Installation (2027) - Unmitigated

3.6. Overhead Pole Installation (2027) - Mitigated

3.7. Underground Vault Instalation (2027) - Unmitigated

3.8. Underground Vault Instalation (2027) - Mitigated

3.9. Paving and Cleanup (2027) - Unmitigated

3.10. Paving and Cleanup (2027) - Mitigated

3.11. Paving and Cleanup (2028) - Unmitigated

3.12. Paving and Cleanup (2028) - Mitigated

3.13. Underground Trenching (2027) - Unmitigated

3.14. Underground Trenching (2027) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

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

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
3 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
4 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

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

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 6 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

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

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

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

1. Basic Project Information

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

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
9 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
General Heavy
Industry
1,098 1000sqft 25.2 1,098,000 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-2* Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
* Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.16 1.72 16.6 21.3 0.04 0.45 12.6 13.1 0.42 1.39 1.81 — 5,416 5,416 0.27 0.30 4.70 5,518 Mit. 2.16 1.72 16.6 21.3 0.04 0.45 12.6 13.1 0.42 1.39 1.81 — 5,416 5,416 0.27 0.30 4.70 5,518 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.86 5.95 22.6 21.8 0.05 0.82 13.2 13.7 0.76 1.46 2.16 — 6,164 6,164 0.34 0.41 0.14 6,294 Mit. 2.86 5.95 22.6 21.8 0.05 0.82 12.9 13.5 0.76 1.43 2.16 — 6,164 6,164 0.34 0.41 0.14 6,294 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 2% 2% — 2% — — — — — — — —
10 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.35 1.20 10.6 13.5 0.03 0.29 8.29 8.58 0.27 0.92 1.19 — 3,578 3,578 0.19 0.22 1.48 3,651 Mit. 1.35 1.20 10.6 13.5 0.03 0.29 8.27 8.56 0.27 0.92 1.19 — 3,578 3,578 0.19 0.22 1.48 3,651 %
Reduced
— — — — — — < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5% < 0.5% — — — — — — — Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.25 0.22 1.94 2.46 0.01 0.05 1.51 1.57 0.05 0.17 0.22 — 592 592 0.03 0.04 0.24 604 Mit. 0.25 0.22 1.94 2.46 0.01 0.05 1.51 1.56 0.05 0.17 0.22 — 592 592 0.03 0.04 0.24 604 %
Reduced
— — — — — — < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5% < 0.5% — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 2.16 1.72 16.6 21.3 0.04 0.45 12.6 13.1 0.42 1.39 1.81 — 5,416 5,416 0.27 0.30 4.70 5,518 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 2.86 5.95 22.6 21.8 0.05 0.82 13.2 13.7 0.76 1.46 2.16 — 6,164 6,164 0.34 0.41 0.14 6,294 2028 1.47 5.88 11.3 16.1 0.03 0.34 12.6 13.0 0.31 1.39 1.71 — 4,035 4,035 0.21 0.29 0.11 4,127 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.35 1.20 10.6 13.5 0.03 0.29 8.29 8.58 0.27 0.92 1.19 — 3,578 3,578 0.19 0.22 1.48 3,651 2028 0.08 0.31 0.59 0.85 < 0.005 0.02 0.61 0.63 0.02 0.07 0.08 — 213 213 0.01 0.02 0.10 218 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
11 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
2027 0.25 0.22 1.94 2.46 0.01 0.05 1.51 1.57 0.05 0.17 0.22 — 592 592 0.03 0.04 0.24 604 2028 0.01 0.06 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 35.3 35.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 36.1

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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
12 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Unmit. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 14 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3. Construction Emissions Details

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

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

0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.8 11.8 < 0.005 1.18 1.18 — 33.3 33.3 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 35.0 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
16 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
17 / 79
Off-Road 0.07 0.06 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 98.1 98.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 98.5 Equipment
Equipment
Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 0.91 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.96 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.2 16.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.3 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 229 229 0.01 0.01 0.02 232 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.01 272 Hauling 0.20 0.04 2.63 1.26 0.01 0.03 0.56 0.58 0.03 0.15 0.18 — 2,059 2,059 0.17 0.33 0.10 2,160 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.35 6.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.45 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.12 7.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.45 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 56.4 56.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 59.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.05 1.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.07 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.18 1.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.23 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.34 9.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.80 NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0.07 0.06 0.58 0.74 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 121 121 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 122 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.27 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
23 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.10 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 413 413 0.01 0.02 1.39 419 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.31 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.57 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.66 0.83 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 2.69 1,442 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.12 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 382 382 0.01 0.02 0.04 387 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.01 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.76 0.84 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 0.07 1,440 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 84.7 84.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 86.0 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 56.9 56.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 59.6 Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.38 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 301 301 0.02 0.05 0.25 316 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.43 9.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.87 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.8 49.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 52.3

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

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

0.07 0.06 0.58 0.74 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 121 121 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 122 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.27 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.10 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 413 413 0.01 0.02 1.39 419 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.31 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.57 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.66 0.83 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 2.69 1,442 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.12 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 382 382 0.01 0.02 0.04 387 25 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.01 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.76 0.84 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 0.07 1,440 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 84.7 84.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 86.0 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 56.9 56.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 59.6 Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.38 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 301 301 0.02 0.05 0.25 316 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.43 9.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.87 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.8 49.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 52.3

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

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

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

0.07 0.06 0.58 0.74 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 121 121 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 122 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.27 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.10 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 413 413 0.01 0.02 1.39 419 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.31 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.57 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.66 0.83 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 2.69 1,442 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.12 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 382 382 0.01 0.02 0.04 387 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.01 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.76 0.84 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 0.07 1,440 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 84.7 84.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 86.0 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 56.9 56.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 59.6 Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.38 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 301 301 0.02 0.05 0.25 316 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.2 27 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.43 9.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.87 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.8 49.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 52.3

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

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

0.07 0.06 0.58 0.74 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 121 121 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 122 Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.27 28 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.14 0.10 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 413 413 0.01 0.02 1.39 419 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.31 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.57 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.66 0.83 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 2.69 1,442 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 0.12 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 382 382 0.01 0.02 0.04 387 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.01 272 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.76 0.84 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,372 1,372 0.11 0.22 0.07 1,440 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 84.7 84.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 86.0 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 56.9 56.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 59.6 Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.38 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 301 301 0.02 0.05 0.25 316 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.43 9.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.87 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.8 49.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 52.3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 17.8 17.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.9 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving — 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.13 0.12 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 376 376 0.01 0.02 0.03 381 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.32 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 254 254 0.01 0.04 0.01 265 Hauling 0.13 0.03 1.69 0.81 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.39 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,337 1,337 0.10 0.22 0.06 1,404 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 20.1 20.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 20.4 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.4 13.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 14.0 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 70.6 70.6 0.01 0.01 0.06 74.2 34 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.32 3.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.37 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.22 2.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.32 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.7 11.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 12.3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Operations Emissions Details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
41 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 42 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

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

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

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

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

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
43 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
General
Heavy
Industry

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

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
44 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
45 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 46 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
47 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

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

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
49 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
General
Heavy
Industry
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00

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

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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

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

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

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

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

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
53 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

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

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
54 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

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

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

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

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

5. Activity Data

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

5.00 Work Days per Phase

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

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Site Preparation Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50 59 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Site Preparation Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Site Preparation Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Site Preparation Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Site Preparation Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74 Site Preparation Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Preparation Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Overhead Pole
Installation
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Overhead Pole
Installation
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Overhead Pole
Installation
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Overhead Pole
Installation
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Overhead Pole
Installation
Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Overhead Pole
Installation
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Overhead Pole
Installation
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Overhead Pole
Installation
Other General Industrial
Equipment
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 35.0 0.34
Overhead Pole
Installation
Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Overhead Pole
Installation
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
60 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Overhead Pole
Installation
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Overhead Pole
Installation
Welders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Underground Vault
Instalation
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Underground Vault
Instalation
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Underground Vault
Instalation
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Underground Vault
Instalation
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Underground Vault
Instalation
Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Underground Vault
Instalation
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Underground Vault
Instalation
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Underground Vault
Instalation
Other General Industrial
Equipment
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 35.0 0.34
Underground Vault
Instalation
Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Underground Vault
Instalation
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Underground Vault
Instalation
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Underground Vault
Instalation
Welders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Paving and Cleanup Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Paving and Cleanup Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving and Cleanup Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Paving and Cleanup Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
61 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Paving and Cleanup Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Paving and Cleanup Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Underground Trenching Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Underground Trenching Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Underground Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Underground Trenching Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Underground Trenching Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50 Underground Trenching Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74

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

1.00 Hours Per Day

8.00 Horsepower

33.0 Load Factor
Demolition 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Site Preparation Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50 Site Preparation Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Site Preparation Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Site Preparation Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Site Preparation Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74 Site Preparation Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Preparation Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 62 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Overhead Pole
Installation
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Overhead Pole
Installation
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Overhead Pole
Installation
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Overhead Pole
Installation
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Overhead Pole
Installation
Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Overhead Pole
Installation
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Overhead Pole
Installation
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Overhead Pole
Installation
Other General Industrial
Equipment
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 35.0 0.34
Overhead Pole
Installation
Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Overhead Pole
Installation
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Overhead Pole
Installation
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Overhead Pole
Installation
Welders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Underground Vault
Instalation
Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.31
Underground Vault
Instalation
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Underground Vault
Instalation
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Underground Vault
Instalation
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
63 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Underground Vault
Instalation
Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Underground Vault
Instalation
Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Underground Vault
Instalation
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Underground Vault
Instalation
Other General Industrial
Equipment
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 35.0 0.34
Underground Vault
Instalation
Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Underground Vault
Instalation
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37
Underground Vault
Instalation
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Underground Vault
Instalation
Welders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Paving and Cleanup Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Paving and Cleanup Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving and Cleanup Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Paving and Cleanup Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Paving and Cleanup Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving and Cleanup Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Underground Trenching Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Underground Trenching Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Underground Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Underground Trenching Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Underground Trenching Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50 Underground Trenching Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74 64 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

5.3. Construction Vehicles

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

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

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Paving and Cleanup 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26,136

5.6. Dust Mitigation

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

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

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

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

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

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

0.00 Trips/Saturday

0.00 Trips/Sunday

0.00 Trips/Year

0.00 VMT/Weekday

0.00 VMT/Saturday

0.00 VMT/Sunday

0.00 VMT/Year

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

0.00 Trips/Saturday

0.00 Trips/Sunday

0.00 Trips/Year

0.00 VMT/Weekday

0.00 VMT/Saturday

0.00 VMT/Sunday

0.00 VMT/Year

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

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

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

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

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) General Heavy Industry 0.00 387 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) 69 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) General Heavy Industry 0.00 387 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

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

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

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

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

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

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

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

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

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

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

5.16. Stationary Sources

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

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

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

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
72 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 12.2 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.50 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 10.5 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
73 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 1 1 2
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. 74 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 16.8
AQ-PM 19.6
AQ-DPM 73.9
Drinking Water 50.2
Lead Risk Housing 12.0
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 38.1
Traffic 88.8
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 99.3
Groundwater 93.5
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 96.1
Impaired Water Bodies 43.8
Solid Waste 75.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 17.8
Cardio-vascular 31.2
Low Birth Weights 62.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 26.9
Housing 25.3
Linguistic 48.7
Poverty 14.7
Unemployment 45.8
75 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024

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

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

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 44.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 81.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
78 / 79
NRS-KRS Detailed Report, 4/25/2024
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

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

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

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

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

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

Kramer Botanical
PO Box 1582
El Granada, CA 94018
September 20, 2024
Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS 115 kV T-line Project Arborist Report Kramer Botanical i September 2024
Arborist Report -
Silicon Valley Power – NRS to KRS 115 kV Transmission
Line Project
Table of Contents
Arborist Report ..........................................................................................................................................0 Project Overview...........................................................................................................................................1 Scope of Report.............................................................................................................................................1 City of Santa Clara Tree Policies....................................................................................................................1 Figure 1. Project Overview Map...................................................................................................................2 Survey Methods............................................................................................................................................3 Survey Results...............................................................................................................................................4 Tree Health/Condition ..................................................................................................................................4 Protected Trees.............................................................................................................................................4 Assessment of Project Impacts on Trees......................................................................................................5 Tree Protection for Retained Trees. .............................................................................................................7 Appendix A: Tree Survey Results – March 2024 Survey ..............................................................................9 Appendix B: Tree Location Maps...............................................................................................................10 Appendix C: Tree Protection “City of Santa Clara Arborist Notes”............................................................11 Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS 115 kV T-line Project Arborist Report Kramer Botanical ii September 2024
This page intentionally left blank
Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS 115kV T-line Project Arborist Report Kramer Botanical 1 September 2024
Project Overview
Silicon Valley Power (SVP) is proposing to construct approximately 2.24 miles of a new 115 kV transmission line (Project) within the City of Santa Clara (City) limits in Santa Clara County, California.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silicon Valley Power NRS-KRS 115 kV T-line Project Arborist Report Kramer Botanical 5 September 2024
Table 1: Tree species documented along the Project alignments, by descending order of abundance (September 2024)
Common Name Scientific Name
Trees
Documented
Native/
Nonnative
Olive Olea europea 28 NonShamel ash Fraxanus uhdei 17 NonChinese Elm Ulmus parvifolia 16 NonGlossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 13 NonGinkgo Ginkgo biloba 13 NonAmerican elm Ulmus americana 12 NonJacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 11 NonCrape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 11 NonCanary Island Pine Pinus canariensis 5 NonDeodar cedar Cedrus deodara 3 NonBradford pear Pyrus calleryana 3 NonEvergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 3 NonBlackwood acacia Acacia melanoxylon 2 NonRed ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 2 NonPurple-leaf plum Prunus cerasifera 'Atropurpurea' 2 NonEvergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 3 NonLinden Tillia sp. 2 NonRed Horse chestnut Aesculus x carnea 1 NonTree of heaven Ailanthus altissima 1 NonHorsetail tree Casuarina sp. 1 NonNichol's willow-leafed peppermint
Eucalyptus nicholii 1 NonEucalyptus Eucalyptus sp. 1 NonLiquidambar Liquidambar styraciflua 1 NonSouthern Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 1 NonItalian stone pine Pinus pinea 1 NonFremont cottonwood Populus fremontii 1 Native Holly oak Quercus ilex 1 NonSouthern live oak Quercus virginiana 1 NonWater gum Tristaniopsis laurina 1 NonAssessment of Project Impacts on Trees Some trees along the Project alignment will need to be removed for the placement of new transmission line structures, or for installation of underground lines, and some trees along the alignment will need to be trimmed to create minimum clearance distances around new structures and transmission lines.

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

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

Table 2: Impacts to Trees - Option 1 (All Overhead)
To be
Removed
May Require
Clearance
Pruning
No Impact
Expected Total
All trees 4 39 112 155
“Protected” trees 3 29 49 81
Table 3: Impacts to Trees - Option 2 (Underground and Overhead) To be
Removed
May Require
Clearance
Pruning
No Impact
Expected Total
All trees 3 38 114 155
“Protected” trees 2 28 51 81
Table 4 below lists trees that are projected to be removed for Project Alignment Option 1 vs. Alignment Option 2 by survey tree tag number.

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

Alignment Option 2
(City Protected trees shown in bold font)
Option 1 Option 2
Olive tree #132 -
Deodar cedar tree #177 tree #177
Ginkgo tree #236 tree #236
Horsetail tree tree #263 tree #263
Total 4 trees 3 trees
The above assessment of project impacts on individual trees is based on information available for this report on September 12, 2024. During Project development processes, in consultation with the City arborist or City designated arborist, it may be determined that additional trees will need to be removed for the Project. Or it could also be determined that with special protection measures, a tree listed to be removed can be retained. After the Project is completed, a post construction tree inventory is recommended to confirm the actual number of trees removed for the Project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pruning shall not be performed by construction personnel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 1 of 4 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
JULY 2024 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Appendix E

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Appendix E. Known and Potential Occurrences of Special-Status Species within the Project Area Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
Plants
alkali milk-vetch
Astragalus tener var. tener
1B.2, S1 Alkaline flats, vernally moist meadows, vernal pools Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. brittlescale
Atriplex depressa
1B.2, S2 Alkaline or clay soils in playas, vernal pools, vernally moist meadows, chenopod scrub, valley and foothill
grassland
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. lesser saltscale
Atriplex minuscula
1B.1, S2 Sandy, alkaline soils in playas, chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Congdon's tarplant
Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii
1B.1, S2 Terraces, swales in floodplains, and disturbed sites in valley and foothill grassland communities, and
disturbed sites containing alkaline soils, sometimes
heavy white clay. Occurs usually in wetlands,
occasionally in non-wetlands.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Point Reyes salty bird's-beak
Chloropyron maritimum ssp.
palustre
1B.2, S2 Coastal salt marsh Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. robust spineflower
Chorizanthe robusta var.
robusta
FE, 1B.1, S1 Sand or gravel in coastal dunes, coastal scrub, maritime chaparral, and openings in cismontane
woodlands
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

One 1882 historic CNDDB record, possibly extirpated, generally mapped to the San Jose area overlaps the Project area.

Hoover's button-celery
Eryngium aristulatum var.
hooveri
1B.1, S1 Vernal pools and seasonal wetlands, occasionally alkaline
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

One 1902 historic CNDDB record, possibly extirpated, generally mapped to the Santa Clara/North San Jose area overlaps the Project area.

San Joaquin spearscale
Extriplex joaquinana
1B.2, S2 Alkaline soils in playas, vernally moist meadows, chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Contra Costa goldfields
Lasthenia conjugens
FE, 1B.1, S1 Vernal pools, wet meadows, alkaline playas Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
Hall's bush-mallow
Malacothamnus hallii
1B.2, S2 Early-recovering post-burn woody vegetation, edges of openings in coastal scrub and chaparral
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. prostrate vernal pool
navarretia
Navarretia prostrata
1B.2, S2 Alkaline floodplains, vernal pools Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. hairless popcornflower
Plagiobothrys glaber
1A, SX Wet, saline, sometimes alkaline soils in valleys, coastal marshes. Presumed extinct
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

California alkali grass
Puccinellia simplex
1B.2, S2 Saline flats, mineral springs Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

California seablite
Suaeda californica
FE, 1B.1, S1 Margins of coastal salt marshes Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. saline clover
Trifolium hydrophilum
1B.2, S2 Salt marshes, open areas in alkaline soils Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Invertebrates
obscure bumble bee
Bombus caliginosus
S1S2 Grassy coastal prairies and Coast Range meadows in humid and foggy areas. Requires floral resources,
undisturbed nest sites, and overwintering sites.

Low (minimal). Study Area within current species range. Minimal potential to occur in or adjacent to proposed Project area at the following locations due to presence of limited marginal habitat:
utility right-of-way southeast adjacent to the NRS at proposed structures 1, 2, and 3, landscaped interchange at proposed structure 18, and ruderal road shoulder at proposed structure 19.

Marginal habitat at these locations consists of ruderal land cover containing primarily grasses and other herbaceous vegetation; Google Earth aerial and street view imagery suggests these areas are managed through periodic mowing and/or discing, and other disturbances. Study Area contains minimal floral resources dispersed amongst various urban landscaped areas. One historic 1954 CNDDB occurrence presumed extant generally mapped to San Jose overlaps Study Area with a 5-mile accuracy; no iNaturalist observations; multiple Bumble Bee Watch potential species sightings, nearest located along the Guadalupe River Trail ~0.9 miles ENE of proposed structure 18.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
Crotch's bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
SC, S1S2 Open grasslands and scrub. Requires floral
resources, undisturbed nest sites, and overwintering
sites.

Marginal habitat at these locations consists of ruderal land cover containing primarily grasses and other herbaceous vegetation; Google Earth aerial and street view imagery suggests these areas are managed through periodic mowing and/or discing, and other disturbances. Study Area contains minimal floral resources dispersed amongst various urban landscaped areas. One historic 1903 CNDDB occurrence presumed extant generally mapped to San Jose overlaps Study Area with a 5-mile accuracy; two recent iNaturalist observations within 5 miles, nearest ~2 miles NNW of NRS; one recent Bumble Bee Watch sighting north of downtown San Jose ~3.7 miles SE of KRS.
western bumble bee
Bombus occidentalis
SC, S1S2 Generalist forager in a wide range of flower-rich habitats. Requires floral resources, undisturbed nest
sites, and overwintering sites.

Low (minimal). Study Area within historic species range. Minimal potential to occur in or adjacent to proposed Project area at the following locations due to presence of limited marginal habitat:
utility right-of-way southeast adjacent to the NRS at proposed structures 1, 2, and 3, landscaped interchange at proposed structure 18, and ruderal road shoulder at proposed structure 19.

Conservancy fairy shrimp
Branchinecta conservatio
FE, S2 Large, turbid freshwater vernal pools called playa pools
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
monarch - California
overwintering population
Danaus plexippus plexippus
pop. 1
FC, S2 Occur in fields, roadside, open, and wet areas or urban gardens where milkweed and flowering plants
are present. Adult monarchs feed on the nectar of
many flowers during breeding and migration, but
they can only lay eggs on milkweed plants. Monarchs
living west of the Rocky Mountain range in North
America primarily overwinter in California at sites
along the Pacific Coast, roosting in eucalyptus,
Monterey pines, and Monterey cypress trees.

Not likely to occur (overwintering, breeding). Study Area outside the over-wintering range of species; lacks over-wintering habitat.

Study Area lacks suitable habitat that supports milkweed (Asclepias sp.) required for breeding.

Low (migration foraging). Study Area is within urban area containing various dispersed floral resources in landscaped areas that could support foraging monarchs migrating through the area.

No CNDDB records within 5 miles; numerous iNaturalist
observations, nearest is 2023 observation across San Tomas Aquino Creek from the NRS.
western ridged mussel
Gonidea angulata
S2 More often in streams than lakes and prefers
constant water flow and well-oxygenated stable
substrates in areas of low gradient
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any streams or lakes that could support this species. One 1908 historic CNDDB record, possibly extirpated, mapped to San Tomas Aquino Creek near the Project area. One undated CNDDB record, possibly extirpated, generally mapped to the San Jose area overlaps the Project area.

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
FE, S3 Ephemeral freshwater habitats, including alkaline pools, clay flats, vernal lakes, vernal pools, vernal
swales and other seasonal wetlands
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. mimic tryonia / California
brackishwater snail
Tryonia imitator
S2 Aquatic gastropod, occurs in coastal lagoons,
estuaries, sloughs, and marshes.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any lagoon, estuary, slough, or marsh habitat that could support this species.

Fish
longfin smelt
Spirinchus thaleichthys
FC, ST, S1 Pelagic fish (occurring mainly in open water habitats) that occur in bays and estuaries
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any marine habitat that could support this species.
white sturgeon
Acipenser transmontanus
SSC, S2 Anadromouos fish, occurs in estuaries and large rivers, migrates to freshwater to spawn, and travels
through the ocean between river systems.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any river or marine habitat that could support this species.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
coho salmon - central
California coast ESU
Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4
FE, SE, S2 Depending on life stage, can be found in freshwater rivers, streams, estuaries, and marine environments
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any river, stream, or marine habitat that could support this species.
steelhead - central California
coast DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
pop. 8
FT, SSC, S3 Depending on life stage, can be found in freshwater rivers, streams, estuaries, and marine environments
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any river, stream, or marine habitat that could support this species.

Amphibians
California tiger salamander -
central California DPS
Ambystoma californiense
pop. 1
FT, ST, WL, S3 Vernal pools or other seasonal water sources for breeding. Upland grasslands with underground
refuges (often ground squirrel burrows)
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any vernal pool or other seasonal wetlands that could support breeding habitat for this species. One 1895 historic CNDDB record, extirpated, generally mapped to the San Jose area overlaps the Project area.

California giant salamander
Dicamptodon ensatus
SSC, S2S3 Wet coastal forests in or near clear, cold permanent and semi-permanent streams and seepages
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any river or seep habitat that could support this species.
foothill yellow-legged frog -
central coast DPS
Rana boylii pop. 4
FT, SE, S2 Rocky streams in a variety of habitats, including valley-foothill hardwood, valley-foothill hardwoodconifer, valley-foothill riparian, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, and
wet meadow types.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any river or stream habitat that could support this species.

California red-legged frog
Rana draytonii
FT, SSC, S2S3 Quiet pools of streams, marshes and ponds, prefers shorelines with extensive vegetation
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any stream, marsh, or pond habitat that could support this species.
red-bellied newt
Taricha rivularis
SSC, S2 Streams and rivers in coastal woodlands and
redwood forest
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any river or stream habitat that could support this species.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
Coast Range newt
Taricha torosa
SSC, S4 Terrestrial habitats, primarily cismontane
woodlands, coastal scrub, and mixed chaparral; also
known from annual grassland and mixed conifer
types
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any aquatic features that could support breeding habitat for this this species.

Reptiles
western pond turtle
Actinemys = Emys
marmorata
FC, SSC, S3 Ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation. Need
basking sites and upland habitat up to ~0.3 miles
(1,640 feet) from water for egg laying.

Low (minimal). The project will not impact or cross over aquatic habitat that may support this species. Marginal upland habitat occurs adjacent to San Tomas Aquino Creek, which is at the edge or just outside the 500-ft Study Area buffer near the NRS work area.

Marginal upland habitat at this location consists of ruderal land cover containing primarily grasses and other herbaceous vegetation; Google Earth aerial and street view imagery suggests these areas are managed through periodic mowing and/or discing, and other disturbances. Soils at this location may be too compact for western pond turtle to excavate a nest or over-wintering burrow, but individuals may attempt to migrate into the area from the adjacent creek. Chainlink fencing present at the far west side of the utility right-of-way may present a barrier to the species moving into this area; unknown if burrows or other breaks in this fence exist. 13 CNDDB records within 5 miles; numerous iNaturalist observations; nearest is 2017 CNDDB record in San Tomas Aquino Creek ~0.75 miles NW of the NRS.

Northern California legless
lizard
Anniella pulchra
SSC, S2S3 Moist warm loose soil with plant cover. Sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak
woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream
terraces with sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

One 1949 historic CNDDB record, possibly extirpated, mapped generally to the San Jose area overlaps the Project area.

Alameda whipsnake
Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus
FT, ST, S2 Chaparral and scrub habitats. Will also use adjacent grassland, oak savanna and woodland habitats.

Mostly south-facing slopes and ravines, with rock
outcrops, deep crevices or abundant rodent
burrows.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
SSC, S4 Requires loose, fine soils with a high sand fraction, abundance of native ants or other insects, open
areas with limited overstory for basking and areas
with low, dense shrubs for refuge
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
Birds
Cooper’s hawk
Accipiter cooperii
WL, S4 Most common in forests and woodland habitats but can be found nesting and hunting in suburban parks
and neighborhoods; will nest in dense patches of
large pines, oaks, or Douglas-firs. Breeding resident
throughout most of the wooded portion of the state.

High potential to occur (nesting, foraging). The Study Area is developed/disturbed but provides suitable habitat that could support this urban-adapted species.

No CNDDB records within 5 miles; numerous eBird and iNaturalist observation within 5 miles, concentrated along the Guadalupe River, and in residential neighborhoods south of the Southern Pacific Railroad line, nearest is 2024 eBird observation at the Oracle Santa Clara Campus adjacent the Project.
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
ST, SSC, S2 Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley and vicinity. Requires open water, protected
nesting substrate, and foraging area with insect prey
within a few kilometers of the colony.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. golden eagle
Aquila chrysaetos
FP, WL, S3 Open and semi open country featuring native
vegetation across most of the Northern Hemisphere.

They avoid developed areas and uninterrupted
stretches of forest.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
SSC, BCC, S2 Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts and scrublands characterized by low growing
vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent on
burrowing mammals, most notably, the California
ground squirrel.

Moderate (nesting, foraging). Minimal potential to occur in or adjacent to proposed Project area at the following locations due to presence of marginal habitat: utility right-of-way southeast adjacent to the NRS and within or adjacent to work areas for proposed structures 2, 3, 18, and 19. Marginal habitat at these locations consists of ruderal land cover containing primarily grasses and other herbaceous vegetation; Google Earth aerial and street view imagery suggests these areas are managed through periodic mowing. 32 CNDDB records and numerous eBird and iNaturalist observations within 5 miles; one 2014 CNDDB record overlaps the NRS and northern-most part of the proposed Project alignment, however, almost entire occurrence area fully developed.

Potentially extant populations from 2004 CNDDB record located at the Santa Clara Golf and Tennis Club located ~0.50 mile north of the NRS; and 2009 CNDDB record at the San Jose International Airport located ~0.50 miles east of the KRS. One extirpated 1999 CNDDB record located along Lafayette Street north of the Palm Substation.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
ST, S4 Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, junipersage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, and agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. Requires
adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands,
or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent
populations.

Not likely to occur (nesting). Although the Study Area is within the historic breeding range of the species and contains some marginal nesting habitat at the Oracle Santa Clara campus, CDFW data (CNDDB, 2016 Status Review) show no evidence of current nesting efforts in the greater San Jose region. Nearest known breeding locations are between Gilroy, Santa Clara County, and Hollister, San Benito County, ~35 miles SE of the Study Area.

Low (minimal; foraging). Minimal potential to occur in or adjacent to proposed Project area at the following locations due to presence of marginal habitat: utility right-of-way southeast adjacent to the NRS and within or adjacent to work areas for proposed structures 2, 3, 18, and 19. Marginal habitat at these locations consists of ruderal land cover containing primarily grasses and other herbaceous vegetation; Google Earth aerial and street view imagery suggests these areas are managed through periodic mowing.

One likely extirpated historic (1889) CNDDB record of a nest located ~0.75 miles S of the KRS; one iNaturalist and few eBird observations during migration located within 5 miles.
western snowy plover
Charadrius nivosus nivosus
FT, SCC, S3 Coastal beaches, sand spits, dune-back beaches, sparsely-vegetated dunes, beaches at creek and river
mouths, and salt pans at lagoons and estuaries
Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Northern harrier
Circus hudsonius
SSC, BCC, S3 Prefer open country, grasslands, steppes, wetlands, meadows, agriculture fields; roost and nest on
ground in shrubby vegetation often at edge of
marshes. Permanent resident of coastal areas and
northeastern plateau.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT, SE, S1 Riparian habitat, cottonwood and willow trees. Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. yellow rail
Coturnicops noveboracensis
SSC, BCC, S2 Shallow marshes, and wet meadows; in winter, drier fresh-water and brackish marshes, as well as dense,
deep grass, and rice fields.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

One 1895 historic CNDDB record, presumed extant, mapped generally to the San Jose area overlaps the Project area.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
white-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
FP, S3S4 Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to
deciduous woodland. Open grasslands, meadows, or
marshes for foraging close to isolated, dense-topped
trees for nesting and perching.

Low (minimal; nesting, foraging). Minimal potential to occur within or adjacent to the proposed Project area. Limited suitable nesting habitat present within the Study Area, particularly along San Tomas Aquino Creek to the west of the NRS, Lick Mill Park near proposed structure 4, the Oracle Santa Clara Campus adjacent to the Palm Substation and proposed structures 14 through 17, and the landscaped interchange adjacent to proposed structure 18.

Limited marginal foraging habitat present at utility right-of-way southeast adjacent to the NRS and within or adjacent to work areas for proposed structures 2, 3, 18, and 19. Two CNDDB records and numerous eBird and iNaturalist observations; nearest is a 2022 eBird observation located at the Oracle Santa Clara campus adjacent to the Palm Substation and proposed structures 14 through 17.

American peregrine falcon
Falco peregrinus anatum
FD, SD, S3S4 Nests and roosts on protected ledges of high cliffs, buildings, and bridges, usually adjacent to lakes,
rivers, or marshes that support abundant avian prey.

Not likely to occur (nesting). The Study Area lacks suitable nesting habitat to support this species.

Moderate (foraging). The Study Area is developed/disturbed but provides suitable habitat that supports urban-adapted bird species that American peregrine falcon could prey upon.

One CNDDB record located within the San Jose West quadrangle; few iNaturalist and multiple eBird observations within 5 miles, concentrated along the bay.
saltmarsh common
yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
SSC, BCC, S3 Resident of the San Francisco Bay region, in fresh and salt water marshes. Requires thick, continuous
cover down to water surface for foraging; tall
grasses, tule patches, willows for nesting.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

California condor
Gymnogyps californianus
FE, SE, FP, S2 Nests in caves, crevices, behind rock slabs, or on large ledges on high sandstone cliffs; requires vast
expanses of open savannah, grasslands, and foothill
chaparral with cliffs, large trees and snags for
roosting.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
FD, SE, FP, S3 Habitat includes rivers and lakes with adjacent woodlands. Large bodies of water are always
associated with breeding populations. Nests on large
trees in the vicinity of large lakes, reservoirs, and
rivers. Wintering birds are most often found near
large concentrations of waterfowl or fish.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

California black rail
Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
ST, FP, S2 Saltwater marshes and shallow freshwater marshes, wet meadows, and flooded grassy vegetation.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Alameda song sparrow
Melospiza melodia pusillula
SSC, BCC, S2 Resident of salt marshes bordering south arm of San Francisco Bay. Inhabits Salicornia marshes; nests
low in Grindelia bushes (high enough to escape high
tides) and in Salicornia.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

One 1947 historic CNDDB record, presumed extant, mapped generally to the Santa Clara Golf and Tennis Club and Guadalupe River area north of the Project area.

American white pelican
Pelacanus erythrorhynchos
SCC, BCC, S1S2 Large freshwater and saltwater lakes, usually on small islands or remote dikes. Nest-sites are flat or
gently sloping, lacking shrubs or other obstructions,
free of human disturbance, and usually with loose
earth suitable for nest-mounds.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

California Ridgway's rail
Rallus obsoletus obsoletus
FE, SE, FP, S2 Saltwater marshes and freshwater marshes. Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. yellow warbler
Setophaga petechia
SSC, S3 Primarily in willows, riparian thickets, and riparian trees such as cottonwood, sycamore, ash, and alder,
especially near water, but also xeric montane shrub
fields and shrubby understory of mixed-conifer
forest.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

California least tern
Sternula antillarum browni
FE, SE, FP, S2 Colonies along marine and estuarine shores and near abandoned salt ponds. Feeds in nearby shallow,
estuarine waters.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
Mammals
Townsend's big-eared bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
SSC, S2 Habitat associations include conifer forests, deserts, grasslands, riparian, coastal habitats, active
agriculture; most commonly found in mesic sites.

Roosts on walls and ceilings of caves and mines, also
buildings, bridges, rock crevices, and hollow trees.

Extremely sensitive to human disturbance. Forages
in edge habitats along streams, adjacent to and
within a variety of wooded habitats.

Low (minimal; roosting, foraging). The Montague Expressway overpass bridge structure between proposed structures 19 and 20 provides limited suitable roosting habitat to support this species.

The Study Area provides limited suitable foraging habitat to support this species. One historic (1943) CNDDB record in the general area of San Jose ~3 miles SE of the KRS; no iNaturalist observations within 5 miles.
western red bat
Lasiurus frantzii
SSC, S3 Typically solitary, prefers riparian. Roosts primarily in shrub and tree foliage, especially cottonwoodwillow, mostly in edge habitats adjacent to streams or open fields but also orchards, sometimes urban
areas. May occasionally use caves.

Low (minimal; roosting, foraging). The Study Area contains limited trees and shrubs suitable to support roosting for this species, particularly along San Tomas Creek to the west of the NRS, Lick Mill Park near proposed structure 4 and the Oracle Santa Clara Campus adjacent to the Palm Substation and proposed structures 14 through 17, and the landscaped interchange adjacent to proposed structure 18. Study Area contains limited suitable foraging habitat.

No CNDDB records within 5 miles; one 2020 iNaturalist observation along Guadalupe River ~0.7 miles NE of the KRS.

San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrat
Neotoma fuscipes annectens
SSC, S2S3 Forest habitats of moderate canopy and moderate to dense understory. May prefer chaparral and
redwood habitats. Constructs nests of shredded
grass, leaves, and other material. May be limited by
availability of nest building materials.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. salt-marsh harvest mouse
Reithrodontomys raviventris
FE, SE, FP, S3 Salt marshes, diked and tidal wetlands, pickleweed Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. salt-marsh wandering shrew
Sorex vagrans halicoetes
SSC, S1 Salt marshes Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

American badger
Taxidea taxus
SSC, S3 Semi-fossorial mammal found most often in drier, open stages of shrubland, forest, and herbaceous
habitats with friable soils and rodent prey.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis mutica
FE, ST, S3 Resident of arid regions of the southern half of the state, living in annual grasslands or grassy open
stages of vegetation dominated by scattered bush,
shrubs and scrub. Dens dug in open, level areas with
loose-textured, sandy and loamy soils. Dens used
throughout the year.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Definitions Regarding Potential Occurrence:

Present: Species (or sign) was observed in the Study Area during recent surveys, or a population has been acknowledged by CDFW, USFWS, or local experts.

High: Habitat (including soils) for the species occurs in the Study Area and a known occurrence occurs within five miles within the past 20 years; however, the species was not detected during recent surveys.

Moderate: Habitat (including soils) for the species occurs in the Study Area and a known regional record has been documented, but not within five miles of the Project site or within the past 20 years; or there is a documented occurrence within five miles of the Study Area within the past 20 years and marginal or limited habitat occurs on site; or the species’ range includes the geographic area and suitable habitat exists in the Survey Area.

Low: Limited habitat for the species occurs in the Study Area and the species’ range includes the geographic area, but there are no documented occurrences within five miles of the Survey Area within the past 20 years.

Not likely to occur: Species or signs not observed in the Study Area, the Study Area is outside of the species’ known range, and conditions in the Study Area are not suitable for occurrence.

STATUS CODES:

FT Federally Threatened
FC Federal Candidate
SE State Endangered
SC State Candidate
SSC California Species of Special Concern
FP Fully Protected
CNPS California Native Plant Society Listing
1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2 Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3 Plants about which we need more information – a review list .1 Seriously threatened in California (high degree/immediacy of threat) .2 Fairly threatened in California (moderate degree/immediacy of threat) .3 Not very threatened in California (low degree/immediacy of threats or no current threats known) BCC Birds of Conservation Concern: USFWS-designated migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent highest conservation priorities and draw attention to species in need of conservation action.

STATE RANKING The state rank (S-rank) is assigned much the same way as the global rank, but state ranks refer to the imperilment status only within California’s state boundaries.

SX Presumed Extirpated – Species is believed to be extirpated from the state. Not located despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered.

S1 Critically Imperiled—Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations) or because of factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state.

S2 Imperiled—Imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state.

S3 Vulnerable – At moderate risk of extirpation in the state due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors.

S4 Apparently Secure – At a fairly low risk of extirpation in the state due to an extensive range and/or many populations or occurrences, but with possible cause for some concern as a result of local recent declines, threats, or other factors.

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
JULY 2024 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Appendix F

SCOPING REPORT

APPENDIX F

PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT
NRS-KRS 115 kV
Transmission Line Project
APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT
Prepared for
Silicon Valley Power
City of Santa Clara
Submitted by
July 2024
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTENTS
JULY 2024 i APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

CONTENTS

1. Overview of CEQA Scoping Process.................................................................................. 1

1.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Summary of CEQA Scoping Process .......................................................................................... 1

1.3. Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Providing Scoping Comments...................................... 2

1.4. Scoping Report Organization .................................................................................................... 4

2. Summary of the Proposed Project.................................................................................... 5

3. Summary of Scoping Comments....................................................................................... 6

3.1. Form Letter Summary ............................................................................................................... 6

3.1.1. Health Concerns – EMF ................................................................................................ 6

3.1.2. Increased Risk for Catastrophic Accidents and Fire Hazards ....................................... 6

3.1.3. Impact on Home Insurance Costs and Property Value ................................................ 7

3.1.4. Aesthetic Impact .......................................................................................................... 7

3.1.5. Complexity and Inconvenience .................................................................................... 7

3.1.6. Exploring Alternatives .................................................................................................. 8

3.1.7. Other ............................................................................................................................ 8

4. Summary of Future Steps in the Environmental review Process..................................... 10

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Comments Received During Public Scoping Period .................................................................. 2

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Project Review and Timeline................................................................................................... 10

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Public Scoping Meeting Notices
Attachment B Scoping Meeting Presentation
Attachment C Written Scoping Comments Received During Scoping Period NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT ACRONYMS
JULY 2024 ii APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

ACRONYMS
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMF Electromagnetic Fields
kV Kilovolt
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. OVERVIEW OF CEQA SCOPING PROCESS JULY 2024 1 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

1. OVERVIEW OF CEQA SCOPING PROCESS
The environmental review of the Silicon Valley Power (SVP) NRS-KRS 115 kV Transmission Line Project (Project) is being conducted by the City of Santa Clara (City) as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.). The City held a 50-day public scoping period. There are no CEQA requirements for a public scoping period for an MND, however, SVP chose to conduct public scoping to provide an opportunity for the public and agencies to comment on the scope of the environmental review of the Project.

This Scoping Report documents the scoping process and summarizes the scoping comments received for the Project. Specifically, this report describes the scoping events and activities, and summarizes written comments submitted in response to the City’s notice of a public scoping meeting for the Project. This report provides the issues presented in public comments that will be considered in the preparation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The lead agency will use the comments received during the scoping period to:

1. Identify key issues to focus the analysis in the environmental document.

2. Analyze environmental impacts of the Project and alternatives.

3. Identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental impacts.

1.1. Introduction
SVP is proposing to construct the NRS to KRS 115 kV Transmission Line Project, which would include constructing a new, 2.24 mile long overhead and/or underground 115 Kilovolt (kV) transmission line between two existing facilities, Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS), in the City of Santa Clara. The City has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project.

The Project would be located in Santa Clara County in a fully developed urban area and includes several existing transmission lines, including lines owned by SVP and PG&E. The proposed Project would be located in Section 27, Township 6S, Range 1W, Mount Diablo Meridian.

The NRS is located south of the intersection of Bill Walsh Way and Stars and Stripes Drive, immediately adjacent to the southeast corner of Levi’s Stadium. The KRS is located approximately 0.1 miles northwest of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Central Expressway. The NRS and KRS are approximately 2 miles away from each other.

1.2. Summary of CEQA Scoping Process
The CEQA scoping process provides government agencies, Tribal agencies, organizations, and members of the public the opportunity to identify environmental issues and alternatives for consideration in the IS/MND. The scoping process and results are an initial step in the environmental review process.

There are no requirements included in the CEQA Guidelines pertaining to scoping for an IS/MND. The City modeled the scoping process required for EIRs as outlined in Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). The City issued a notice of a public scoping meeting on April 10, 2024, that summarized the Project, stated the City’s intention to prepare an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and requested comments from interested parties. The notice was mailed to 3,626 people, using a list compiled with GIS data for a 1,000+ foot radius around the entire Project route. Prior to the scoping meeting on April 25, 2024, SVP’s project manager was notified that some residents near the project did not receive the notice. The decision was made to extend the scoping period an additional three weeks, re-send the notices, and electronically notify people as well.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. OVERVIEW OF CEQA SCOPING PROCESS JULY 2024 2 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT
The second notice was mailed out on May 7, 2024 to 3,626 addresses. The second notification also included electronic notification, which sent out notices to SVP’s (8,177 subscribers) and the City’s (7,552 subscribers) news blast email lists, plus social media accounts on Facebook (2,400 followers), and Nextdoor (52,860) members. Additionally, as part of the AB 52 process, two tribes on the City’s tribal consultation list were contacted. Attachment A includes a copy of the notices that were sent out.

The notice was also posted on the Silicon Valley Power’s webpage:
www.siliconvalleypower.com/115kv
During the comment period, the City held two virtual public scoping meetings from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Thursday April 25, and Thursday May 23, 2024. Remote participation was made available through the online web-based platform, Zoom. SVP and their environmental and engineering consultants provided a presentation explaining the Project, CEQA process, the City’s role throughout this process, and public participation opportunities (Attachment B).

The first meeting was attended by 8 people, and the second meeting was attended by 18 people.

The comment period began on April 8, 2024 and originally ended 30 days later, on May 8, 2024. However, the comment period was extended to conduct an expanded outreach effort. Therefore, the 50-day comment period began on April 8, 2024 and ended on May 29, 2024.

In total, 87 comment letters were received during the scoping period. Most of these comments (83 out of 87) were identical “form” letters, which include the same text in the body of the comment but are signed individually by the sender. Eleven individuals sent in more than one comment letter, and several comments were received from the same physical address, resulting in 50 comments from unique properties. 86 comments were received from residents, and one comment was received from a nearby business (see Table 1-1). No comments were received from tribes.

These letters have been included in this Scoping Report in Attachment C. The comments identified in these letters and the comments presented at the scoping meeting were considered in the drafting of this IS/MND.

1.3. Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Providing Scoping Comments The majority of public comments received were from members of the public. Table 1-1 presents the residents and business that provided written comments during the scoping process, in chronological order.

Contact information was collected from commentors, and their information was added to the mailing list to be notified about the Project in the future.

Table 1-1. Comments Received During Public Scoping Period Commenter Date Commenter Date
Organizations and Businesses
BiCMOS/Peter Liljegren 5/28/2024
Individuals
Xiaoling Huang 4/14/2024 Gane Sugali 5/27/2024
Cipson Jose 5/27/2024 Preetika Tiwari 5/27/2024
Anu Alex 5/27/2024 Mehul Suresh Kumar Jain 5/27/2024
Preetika Tiwari 5/27/2024 Vishaka Sutrave 5/27/2024
Aman Sharma 5/27/2024 Mehul Suresh Kumar Jain 5/27/2024 Neelam Dabholkar 5/27/2024 Nikhil Mungre 5/27/2024
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. OVERVIEW OF CEQA SCOPING PROCESS JULY 2024 3 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT
Commenter Date Commenter Date
Derek Fong 5/27/2024 Punnya Ann Joy 5/29/2024
Suneet Bisht 5/27/2024 Satya Gandreddi 5/29/2024
Ruchika Sarna 5/27/2024 Satya Gandreddi 5/29/2024
Vijay Srinivasan 5/27/2024 Neethu Cherian 5/29/2024
Adnan Hemani 5/27/2024 Leonard Le 5/29/2024
Amit Chandak 5/27/2024 Diem Nguyen 5/29/2024
Saurabh Sharma 5/28/2024 Yuri Kleban 5/29/2024
Pratima Hans 5/28/2024 Niaz Khan 5/29/2024
Manali Desai 5/28/2024 Gayathri Chebrolu 5/29/2024
Dr. Vinay Iyer 5/28/2024 Anupama Swaminath 5/29/2024
Dr. Vinay Iyer 5/28/2024 Shaheen Khan 5/29/2024
Shankar Pandravada 5/28/2024 Rahul Khona 5/29/2024
Shankar Pandravada 5/28/2024 Himasree Chundi 5/29/2024
Harini Tadinada 5/28/2024 Sushil Gote 5/29/2024
Harini Tadinada 5/28/2024 Aswini Kumbavath 5/29/2024
Pankaj Sinha 5/28/2024 Kanupriya Kabra 5/29/2024
Darshna Siva 5/28/2024 Emily Le 5/29/2024
Preetika Tiwari 5/28/2024 Unnikrishnan Udinoor 5/29/2024 Amit Thakkar 5/28/2024 Simple Yadav 5/29/2024
Dr. Vinay Iyer 5/28/2024 Hima Kalapatapu 5/29/2024
Amit Thakkar 5/28/2024 Sandeep Jain 5/29/2024
Prithvi Arun 5/28/2024 Paddy Subbian 5/29/2024
Gane Sugali 5/28/2024 Aparna Raman 5/29/2024
Lini Kuriyan 5/28/2024 Praveen Vutukuru 5/29/2024
Ramya Venkatachalam 5/29/2024 Pavan Batchu 5/29/2024
Mehul Suresh Kumar Jain 5/29/2024 Ruhi Batchu 5/29/2024 Bharathi Narayanan 5/29/2024 Ravi Krishna Adusumalli 5/29/2024 Manu Bharathi 5/29/2024 Srinivas Dangeti 5/29/2024
Sathiya Narayanan 5/29/2024 Ravi Krishna Adusumalli 5/29/2024 Cipson Jose 5/29/2024 Hasitha Dangeti 5/29/2024
Mukil Narayanan 5/29/2024 Swapna Dangeti 5/29/2024
Nandakumar Gopalakrishnan 5/29/2024 Shashi Devaraju 5/29/2024 Swati Sinha 5/29/2024 Srinivas Reddy 5/29/2024
Dr. Prashant Tiwari 5/29/2024 Vasanti 5/29/2024
Radhakrishna Yeluri 5/29/2024 Vishnu Vardhan Hari 5/29/2024 Radhakrishna Yeluri 5/29/2024 Srividya Hari 5/29/2024
Jerin Joy 5/29/2024 Vijaya Divakaruni 5/29/2024
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. OVERVIEW OF CEQA SCOPING PROCESS JULY 2024 4 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

1.4. Scoping Report Organization
This Scoping Report summarizes the comments and issues identified during the scoping period. The City reviewed and considered all of the scoping comments received in preparing the IS/MND for the Project.  Section 2 provides a summary of the Project.
 Section 3 provides a summary of all comments received and issues raised during the Project’s scoping period.
 Section 4 provides a summary of future steps in the planning process and indicates opportunities for public participation in the environmental review process.  Attachments that follow Section 4 include the mailed notice, scoping presentation, and scoping comment summary and letters.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 2. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT JULY 2024 5 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

2. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
SVP is proposing to construct approximately 2.24 miles of a new overhead and/or underground 115 kV transmission line. The NRS to KRS 115 kV Transmission Line Project would be built to accommodate energization at 230 kV, however it would initially be operated at 115 kV.

The transmission line would start at the Northern Receiving Station, south of the intersection of Bill Walsh Way and Stars and Stripes Drive, just southeast of Levi’s Stadium. The transmission line would travel approximately 2.24 miles south and end at the Kifer Receiving Station, approximately 0.1 miles northwest of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Central Expressway.

Two options are being considered for the northern segment of this project: overhead and underground.

The northern segment that contains both overhead and underground options would start at NRS, follow Lafayette Street, and end approximately 300 feet south of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Agnew Road, covering approximately 0.74 miles.

Depending on the option selected, the transmission line would be built either completely overhead (Option 1), or as a combination of underground and overhead (Option 2). The underground segment, if chosen, would place the transmission line underground after a portion of overhead alignment where the line would leave NRS and enter the median of Lafayette and transition underground. The overall northern segment is approximately 0.74 miles long. The underground segment would transition to overhead approximately 300 feet south of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Agnew Road, then continue overhead south of Agnew Road to connect to the KRS. South of Agnew Road, the route would be overhead, regardless of the Option chosen.

The proposed Project is comprised of the following components/facilities:
 115 kV Transmission Line: The majority of the new 115 kV transmission line would be constructed along the following streets: Lafayette Street, Bassett Street and Duane Avenue. The new route would require approximately 39 poles (if overhead). The transmission line would be built to support a 230 kV transmission line, but would be initially energized at 115 kV, allowing for future capacity expansion.

New poles would consist of tubular steel monopoles, which are anticipated to range from 85 to 150 feet tall (average height of 115 feet), with a diameter of approximately 2 to 4 feet. At some locations the poles will support the new 115 kV circuit as well as an existing 60 kV circuit and distribution and communication lines.
 Replacement of Existing Distribution and Telecommunication Lines. Some existing distribution lines and/or telecommunication lines along the proposed route would be transferred to the new poles to be underbuilt on the new poles. Some existing poles will be removed.  Substation Modifications. No substation modifications would occur as part of the proposed Project.

Both receiving stations are existing and would be rebuilt or expanded prior to the proposed Project.

New poles would be placed within the NRS and KRS substations to bring the new 115 kV circuit to the appropriate substation rack.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 3. SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS JULY 2024 6 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

3. SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS
This section of the report summarizes the comments received from the public during the scoping process.

Table 1-1 provides a list of commenters who provided comments. A number of environmental concerns were raised during the scoping process that focused on the Project’s potential effects to environmental resources and issue areas.

3.1. Form Letter Summary

3.1.1. Health Concerns – EMF
Commentors expressed concern related to electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by transmission lines.

They expressed concern about the health risks correlated with EMF exposure, especially due to the proximity of the line to residential communities along Lafayette Street. The commentors state that even a small risk should not be ignored.

Impacts from electromagnetic fields are not analyzed under CEQA. However, due to the concern from the public, SVP has conducted an EMF study. This study is included in the IS/MND as Appendix G, EMF Report.

The EMF Report broke up the Proposed Project into 19 segments and presents calculations for the current year, 2024, and for the anticipated construction year, 2028, for normal and peak loads. The EMF discussion in the IS/MND is focused on the EMF measurements 60 feet to the east of the Project’s centerline, for Segments 1 through 6, which are located adjacent to the residential community where the majority of comments were sent from. The IS/MND also includes proposed EMF Design Guidelines to be considered during final engineering. Please see Section 4.15, Electric and Magnetic Fields Summary for a summary of EMFs, and a discussion of impacts due to EMF.

One commentor specifically stated that the project would create a problem for the residential community near the Project, who already have to deal with road, train, and airplane noise. Construction of the Project would create temporary noise, but once operational, there would be no additional noise created by the Project. The public health-related impacts of the project, aside from EMF, are considered in the IS/MND’s analysis of impacts related to various environmental resources environmental resources, such as air (Section 5.3), noise (Section 5.13), and water (Section 5.10), that may, in turn, affect public health. For example, Section 5.3 (Air Quality) addresses attainment of air quality standards and includes dust control measures to protect human health.

3.1.2. Increased Risk for Catastrophic Accidents and Fire Hazards Commentors expressed concern about placing the transmission line in an already congested utility zone because of the heightened risk of accidents and fire hazards due to the proximity to railway lines, residential buildings, and heavy traffic.

As stated in Section 4.10, the objective of the Project is to increase SVP’s system capacity and reliability, which should result in less power outages and service interruptions after construction is completed. As stated in Section 5.20, Wildfire, the Project would update and install new electrical line equipment, which would reduce the risk of a system failure or line fault due to aging equipment. Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials includes a discussion of accident conditions that could cause impacts, and the mitigation measures proposed to be implemented to reduce these impacts to less than significant level.

Impacts related to traffic and safety are discussed in Section 5.17, Transportation, which includes a mitigation measure to protect emergency access throughout the City and ensure the safety of the nearby roadways.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 3. SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS JULY 2024 7 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

3.1.3. Impact on Home Insurance Costs and Property Value Commentors expressed concern that their home insurance costs may increase, and their property values decrease, due to the proximity of the Project to residents.

CEQA focuses on the potential physical impacts of a project. Economic and social effects may be considered under CEQA, but by themselves, are not treated as significant effects on the environment. The economic effects of a project need only be considered if those effects themselves would cause significant physical impacts on the environment. Such secondary effects are typically difficult to predict (it is unknown whether or not home insurance costs would increase, or property values decrease), and an IS/MND is not required to speculate about such secondary impacts. However, if the insurance costs increased or the property values decreased, neither of these are, nor would cause, a significant physical impact on the environment. Therefore, given the CEQA guidance regarding social and economic impacts, this would not be considered a significant effect on the environment.

3.1.4. Aesthetic Impact
Commentors expressed concern about the addition of poles for the transmission line, and their impact on the visual appeal of the neighborhood. The commentor stated that the additional poles would spoil the aesthetic beauty of the residential area.

The Project is in a highly urbanized area, with the majority of residents located near the northern portion of the Project, where, depending on the option chosen, would be constructed either overhead within the median of Lafayette Street, or underground in Lafayette Street. Both options run parallel to Lafayette Street and an existing rail road right of way. The median includes trees which will be preserved to the extent possible (see Appendix D, Arborist Report) which will minimize the visual impact of any overhead poles. Both to the east and west of Lafayette Street are neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are geographically separated by Lafayette Street, which has four lanes and is approximately 75 feet wide, plus the railroad right of way, which is approximately 50 feet wide and fenced off. Additionally, there is a large wall that separates the neighborhood to the west from Lafayette Street and the railroad right of way. The transmission line was sited in this corridor, among other reasons, because of the existing visual setting, which includes structures similar to what is being proposed for this Project, and that it is partially screened from the adjacent neighborhoods. Because of consistency of the proposed Project’s components with the existing setting and the location of the Project near other utilities or right of ways, makes this impact less than significant. See Section 5.1, Aesthetics, for a full discussion of the aesthetic impacts of the project.

3.1.5. Complexity and Inconvenience
Commentors expressed concerns about the disruption to their daily lives, citing noise pollution, road closures, and restricted access to homes as potential disruptions. Commentors also expressed concerns about the possibility of power outages and service interruptions from ongoing maintenance activities.

One commentor, a representative of the company BiCMOS, specifically expressed concerns about the potential service disruptions due to construction of the Project that may affect the underground utilities that serve their company.

It is acknowledged in the IS/MND that construction of the Project would create impacts related to environmental resources such as aesthetics, air quality, noise, transportation, and hazards. Impacts from construction are typically considered less than significant due to their intermittent and temporary nature, especially for a transmission line project, which requires the construction work to move along the Project route. See Section 5 for a discussion of construction impacts for each environmental resource.

While power outages and service interruptions may be needed during construction to safely connect or disconnect elements from the transmission system, these would be temporary and rare. Any service NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 3. SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS JULY 2024 8 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT
interruptions due to relocation of utilities would be coordinated with the utility owner, and nearby residents and businesses would be notified in advance of this work, to reduce impacts. As stated in Section

4.10, the objective of the Project is to increase SVP’s system capacity and reliability, which should result in less power outages and service interruptions after construction is completed.

The IS/MND also acknowledges that the underground construction efforts for Option 2 would result in more intense, and longer, construction impacts when compared to the overhead construction of Option 1, due to the greater amount of ground disturbance, and the multitude of existing underground utilities in the area. Additionally, Option 2 could cause greater disruptions in the future, as its location underground makes it more difficult to reach for maintenance or emergency work.

3.1.6. Exploring Alternatives
Commentors suggested exploring alternatives such as upgrading existing power lines or implementing underground power lines. They recommended this due to potential benefits such as safety, reliability, and aesthetic impact. The commentors also suggested investigating advanced technologies or alternative routing options. The commentors suggested considering alternative options that prioritize public safety and minimize impacts to residents.

SVP conducted an Alternatives Analysis as part of the project development process. Several routes were considered, and three were analyzed in the alternatives analysis. The proposed Project route was chosen because, among other reasons, it had fewer impacts, fewer engineering design challenges, fewer permitting challenges, and it met the project objectives the best when compared to the other options.

See Section 4.16, Alternatives, and Appendix G.

Upgrading existing power lines This alternative was not analyzed in detail because this alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed Project. The Project seeks to increase SVP’s system capacity and reliability by installing a 115 kV transmission line between NRS and KRS, which would create a new connection between these substations, increasing the redundancy and reliability of SVP’s electrical grid.

Additionally, as stated in Section 4.11, some existing distribution lines would be transferred onto the new poles, which consolidates the energy corridor and increases the reliability by placing components on newly built poles.

Underground power lines. This “alternative” is explored as Option 2 of the IS/MND, and the impacts of Option 2 are discussed under each environmental resource in Section 5.

Alternative locations. This alternative was already explored as part of the Alternatives Analysis, and the proposed Project location was chosen because it had fewer impacts than other locations, and best met SVP’s objectives.

Priority for public safety. SVP prioritized public safety in the design of the Project. As stated in Section

4.11, the transmission line would be designed to adhere to National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order 95, which define separation of structures from adjacent buildings or other utility facilities. Section 4.12.5.1 describes safety measures implemented during construction of the project, designed to protect public safety. See section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials for a discussion of safety in relation to accidental spills of hazardous materials, the presence of existing subsurface contamination, the risk of wildfire, and aircraft safety. Section 5.17, Transportation discusses safety in relation to the transportation system.

3.1.7. Other
The commentors requested a meeting with city officials and representatives from the utility company to discuss the commentors concerns. The commentors expressed opposition of the installation of the power line.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 3. SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS JULY 2024 9 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT
SVP has scheduled an in person public meeting on August 22, 2024, to discuss the commentors concerns during the IS/MND comment period. This meeting will be attended by SVP/City staff, and by industry professionals who can answer questions about the transmission line.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. SUMMARY OF FUTURE STEPS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS JULY 2024 10 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

4. SUMMARY OF FUTURE STEPS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

PROCESS
An important part of the environmental review process is engaging the public and relevant agencies from the earliest stages of and throughout the process to identify issues, comments, and concerns. Figure 4-1 illustrates the steps in the CEQA review process and where the City’s decision falls within this process.

The public scoping period, when the comments in this report were received, is highlighted with an orange outline. The next opportunity for public involvement is the 30-day review process of the IS/MND.

Figure 4-1. Project Review and Timeline
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
JULY 2024 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT
Attachment A

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING NOTICES
NOTICE

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING FOR
SVP NRS-KRS 115 kV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
Thursday, April 25, 2024
Project Background: Silicon Valley Power (SVP) is proposing to construct approximately 2.24 miles of new 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line within the northeastern area of the City of Santa Clara. SVP’s primary objective of the new 115kV transmission line (Proposed Project) is to connect the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS). By connecting these two receiving stations, it will allow energy to be balanced and redistributed within SVP's transmission receiving stations and allow SVP to serve new load growth projected based on the SVP Resource Load Forecast.

The new power line would begin at the Northern Receiving Station, located south of the intersection of Bill Walsh Way and Lafayette Street, and would continue to the Kifer Receiving Station, which is located on Lafayette Street. Most of the new 115kV transmission line would be constructed along the following city streets: Lafayette Street, Bassett Street and Duane Avenue. The transmission line would be built to support a 230kV transmission line, but would be initially energized at 115kV, allowing for future capacity expansion.

Construction is estimated to take approximately 14 months and be completed by early 2028.

Information Available: SVP is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), describing the project and its potential environmental effects. The IS/MND will be posted on the project website after publication.

Project Website: Scoping materials and information about the Proposed Project are available at:
www.siliconvalleypower.com/115kv
Informal Scoping Meeting: In order to help the affected community understand the Proposed Project and to explain how the public can participate in SVP’s decision-making process, SVP will hold a virtual informational scoping meeting on April 25, 2024. This informal workshop is an opportunity for agencies and the public to ask questions about the project being proposed and the scope of the environmental document and provide input on the scope and content of the environmental document. Written and oral comments may be submitted during the workshop, via US Mail, or email until May 8, 2024.

Thursday, April 25, 2024, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Please register in advance of the webinar at:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_7L0n1KI7RFKFTFI43STN-Q Scoping Period: The public scoping period will be held from April 8 through May 8, 2024. Written or emailed comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on May 8, 2024, at the following mailing address or email address:

Allie Jackman
Principal Electric Utility Engineer
Silicon Valley Power
c/o Aspen Environmental Group
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 967
San Francisco, CA 94104-3002
[email protected]
NOTICE

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING FOR
SVP NRS-KRS 115 kV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
Thursday, May 23, 2024
Project Background: Silicon Valley Power (SVP) is proposing to construct approximately 2.24 miles of new 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line within the northeastern area of the City of Santa Clara. SVP’s primary objective of the new 115kV transmission line (Proposed Project) is to connect the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS). By connecting these two receiving stations, it will allow energy to be balanced and redistributed within SVP's transmission receiving stations and allow SVP to serve new load growth projected based on the SVP Resource Load Forecast.

Construction is estimated to take approximately 14 months and be completed by early 2028.

Project Website: Scoping materials, a recording of the previous scoping meeting, and information about the Proposed Project are available at: www.siliconvalleypower.com/115kv Informal Scoping Meeting: In order to help the affected community understand the Proposed Project and to explain how the public can participate in SVP’s decision-making process, SVP will hold a second virtual informational scoping meeting on May 23, 2024. This informal workshop is an opportunity for agencies and the public to ask questions about the project being proposed and the scope of the environmental document and provide input on the scope and content of the environmental document. Written and oral comments may be submitted during the workshop, via US Mail, or email until May 29, 2024.

Thursday, May 23, 2024, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Please register in advance of the webinar at:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_wW0QfYKBSp25hI6vIknzsA Scoping Period: The public scoping period was extended an additional three weeks to conduct an expanded outreach effort. The scoping period will be held from April 8 through May 29, 2024. Written or emailed comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on May 29, 2024, at the following mailing address or email address:

Allie Jackman
Principal Electric Utility Engineer
Silicon Valley Power
c/o Aspen Environmental Group
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 967
San Francisco, CA 94104-3002
[email protected]
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
JULY 2024 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT
Attachment B

SCOPING MEETING PRESENTATION
1 SVP Public Scoping
Meeting #2
NRS-KRS 115 kV
Transmission Line Project
May 23, 2024
Key Players and their Roles in the
CEQA Process
• Silicon Valley Power (SVP): Lead Agency under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Project Proponent
– AECOM: Program and Project Managers for SVP
– ECI: Engineer of Record for SVP
– Aspen Environmental Group: Environmental contractor for SVP
1 2
2 Meeting Agenda
• Welcome and Introduction
• Purpose of this Meeting: Scoping
• Description of Proposed Project and Need
• Route Options Considered
• CEQA Process
• Project Schedule
• Q&A
• Public Comments
Purpose of This Meeting: Scoping
• To inform the public and responsible agencies about an upcoming project for which an Initial Study (IS) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) will be prepared
• To inform the public about the environmental review process • To solicit input regarding the appropriate scope of issues to be studied in the IS/MND
• To identify issues of concern and areas of potential controversy 3 4
3 Project Overview:
115kV Transmission Line
Northern to Kifer Receiving Station
• Construct a new 115kV overhead transmission line of
approximately 2.24 miles between Northern
Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station
(KRS)
• The transmission line would be built to support a
230kV transmission line, but would be initially
energized at 115kV, allowing for future capacity
expansion.
• Construction is estimated to take approximately 14
months and be completed by early 2028.

Project Need
• Needed to accommodate approved and under construction load growth and reliability
• Balance and redistribute loads throughout the City
• System Operating Limit will be limited to ~819MW if
transmission line is not constructed
• Key Items: constructability, existing utilities, power delivery, potential growth, aesthetics, tree removals, maintenance considerations, construction costs, and schedule
5 6
4 Three Route Options Considered
• An assessment was prepared to determine the preferred route for the Proposed Project.
• Key consideration – feasibility and schedule (2028 completion date) – Route A (Proposed Project)– Being analyzed as the Proposed Project in CEQA document
• Along Lafayette Street to Bassett Street and Duane Avenue – Route B (considered and eliminated)
• Follows Route A on Lafayette Street until diverging at Bassett and George Street to the UPRR ROW and then crosses several private parcels to KRS.
– Route C (considered and eliminated)
• West side of San Tomas Aquino Creek
Routes
• Route A (Proposed Project)
• Route B (considered and eliminated)
• UPRR right of way is too narrow (concerns with induced current on the rail lines and additional permitting and design review)
• Properties surrounding UPPR do not have sufficient space to place structures
• Require extensive easement costs and coordination
• UPRR permits
• Route C (considered and eliminated)
• Majority within Creek boundaries
• Replace existing 60kV line where available
• Easements and permitting - unknown if permits would even be feasible and if feasible would not meet schedule due to extensive permitting schedules
• Longest route

7 8
5 Proposed Project – Route A
• Northern Segment (NRS to Agnew)
• 0.74 miles
• Overhead and underground options
• Lafayette Street
• Southern Segment (Agnew to KRS)
• 1.5 miles
• Replaces existing transmission lines where available
• Lafayette Street, Bassett Street, Duane Avenue

Total Route Spans 2.24 miles
• Nine new poles within center median of Lafayette Street • No existing overhead transmission
• Residential development on both sides of Lafayette Street • Poles spaced every 250-500 feet on average and ~85-140 feet in height • Located within existing ROW or easements
• Minimal utility relocation
• Would minimize landscape/tree removal as part of design • An overhead transmission line can deliver more power and accommodate future growth with the option for a future underbuilt 60kV or 115kV transmission line Northern Segment (0.74 Miles)
Route A, Option 1:

Overhead Northern Segment (Preferred)
9 10
6 Route A, Option 1:

Overhead Northern Segment (Preferred)
Proposed Project Rendering Looking North
on Lafayette Street just south of Hope Drive
Looking South on Lafayette Street at
Hogan Drive
Route A, Option 2:

Underground Northern Segment (Not Preferred)
• Constraints with constructability, schedule,
power deliverability, and aesthetics
• 25 existing utilities crossing or conflicts with
underground alignment in Lafayette
• Requires relocation of 300 feet of two
transmission gas mains for PG&E and DVR
• The DVR shutdown can only occur twice a year
• PG&E work would be on PG&E schedule – will
not meet 2028 date
• Would also need to cross multiple utility lines
• Could require not meeting minimum spacing
requirements or significant excavation up to
20’ deep
11 12
7 Route A, Option 2:

Underground Northern
Segment (Not Preferred)
• Power Delivery:
• Can deliver up to 83% of the power of overhead
at 115kV due to heat dissipation requirements.
• Further declines at the 230kV level to 79.9%.
• Underground option will limit future
load growth and our ability to serve
currently entitled customers.
• Aesthetics:
• Overhead alignment from NRS to riser pole in
median of Lafayette
• Additional riser pole just south of Agnew on east
side of Lafayette
Typical Underground
Riser Pole
Comparison of Options for Northern Segment
Route A, Option 1 – Overhead (Preferred) Route A, Option 2 – Underground (Not Preferred) Can not meet 2028 schedule
• Relying on PG&E for utility relocation
• DVR shut-down
Ability to meet 2028 schedule.

Maximum transmission capacity Reduced transmission capacity Ability to accommodate future growth Lack of provisions for future growth Extended construction timelines with extended lane
closures and traffic control
Minimize utility relocations and reduce construction
disruption to the public
Ease of maintaining the system Longer restoration times in emergency situations Northern Segment Costs: ~$19 Million
Total Project Costs: ~$45.5 Million
Northern Segment Costs: ~$9.5 Million
Total Project Costs: ~$36 Million
13 14
8 Why Option 1 is Preferred
• Ability to meet the 2028 energization date
• Can accommodate future additional growth
• Maximum transmission capacity - Can accommodate
~20% more power than underground options for
already approved projects
• Reduced construction disruption to the public in
comparison to underground options
• Pole space provisions for future additional growth
along new transmission segments
• Ease of maintaining the system/restoration in
emergency conditions
Route A – Southern Segment
• Two existing 60kV overhead transmission lines. Between Agnew and Montague, existing 60kV at the following
locations would be replaced

1. East side of Lafayette Street

2. West side of Bassett Street
• At Montague Expressway, continue on west side of Bassett Street and replace 1,120 feet of 60kV where existing and install 2,980 feet of new overhead
• Final 980 feet of transmission line from just north of Bayshore to KRS along Duane Avenue would replace an
existing 60kV transmission line
Southern Segment (1.5 Miles)

15 16
9 Proposed Project
Southern Segment (1.5 Miles)
From To Alignment Consideration Poles Installed Poles Removed East side of Lafayette and 7 9
west side of Bassett
Montague
Expressway
Agnew Road
Bassett and George West side of Bassett 11 11*
Street
Montague Expressway
East side of Bassett and 7 3
Duane Street
Kifer Receiving
Station
Bassett and George
Street
*Distribution and transmission
Looking South on Lafayette Street just
south of Agnew
Looking South on Bassett Street just
south of Montague
Looking South on Duane Avenue just
south of Bayshore
Existing Poles
Examples of varying existing
poles ranging in heights from
65 to 90 feet in residential
neighborhoods.
17 18
10 CEQA Process

Schedule
Task Timeframe
Design Feb. 2023 – May 2026
CEQA Process
Identify Project Need Jan. 2024
Preparation of conceptual design and start of CEQA Jan. 2024 – Mar. 2024 CEQA Community Outreach (Scoping) April 8 – May 29, 2024 Publication of Draft IS/MND and 20-day Public Jun. 2024 – Jul. 2024 Review Period
Consider Comments and Finalize IS/MND Aug. 2024 – Sep. 2024 City Council Consideration Oct. 2024 - Nov. 2024
Anticipated Construction Nov. 2026 – Mar. 2028
19 20
11 Initial Study Analysis
Environmental Issue Areas
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology & Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards & Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology & Water Quality
• Land Use & Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population & Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation/Traffic
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities & Service Systems
• Wildfire
Next Steps
• Public Scoping Period: April 8 – May 29, 2024
• All public comments submitted during the public scoping period will be reviewed • Environmental issues raised will be addressed in the environmental document • Publication of Draft CEQA IS/MND: ~ June 2024*
• After publication, the IS/MND will be available for public review and comment • All comments on the IS/MND will be reviewed, and changes to the IS/MND will be made, if necessary
• City Council Consideration: ~ November 2024*
• After the Final IS/MND is published, the City Council will decide to approve or deny the Project
*dates subject to change, assumes no identification of significant impacts 21 22
12 Questions?
Scoping Comments
• The most useful scoping comments:
– Identify the location and extent of environmental impacts of the proposed project
– Recommend modifications that would avoid or reduce impacts of the proposed project
– Are as specific as possible
23 24
13 Comments
• Mailing address:

Allie Jackman
Principal Electric Utility Engineer
Silicon Valley Power
c/o Aspen Environmental Group
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 967
San Francisco, CA 94104-3002
• Email:

[email protected]
Please be sure to include your name, address, and email or phone number on all comments.

Thank You for
Your Input!
25 26
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
JULY 2024 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT
Attachment C

WRITTEN SCOPING COMMENTS RECEIVED

DURING SCOPING PERIOD
Opposition to SVP NRS-KRS 115KV transmission line project XIAOLING HUANG <[email protected]>
Sun 4/14/2024 5:30 PM
To:NRS-KRS Project <[email protected]>
Hi,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed high voltage transmission line project near our community. As a resident deeply concerned about the well-being of our neighborhood, I believe that this project poses significant risks to our health, safety, and environment.

The electromagnetic fields generated by high voltage transmission lines have been linked to various adverse health effects, including increased risk of cancer, neurological disorders, and reproductive issues.

Placing such infrastructure in close proximity to residential areas puts our families and children at unnecessary risk.

I urge you to reconsider the placement of this project and explore alternative routes or technologies that minimize the negative impacts on our community. Our health, safety, and quality of life should not be sacrificed for the sake of energy infrastructure.

Thank you for considering my concerns. I look forward to hearing from you and participating in the decision-making process regarding this important issue.

Sincerely,
Shownie
Mission Terrace resident
Concerns Regarding new 115 kV power lines.

Cipson Jose <[email protected]>
Wed 5/29/2024 11:13 AM
To:NRS-KRS Project <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> To Whomsoever it may concern,
As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, I am writing to express our apprehensions regarding the proposed installation route for high-power electric transmission lines and poles by Silicon Valley Power (SVP). This initiative is part of the project aimed at connecting the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS).

Having reviewed the materials provided by your office and attended the recent public scoping meeting on May 23, 2024, I have delved into the details of the project. After careful consideration, I must voice my complete opposition to options A and B.

While acknowledging the necessity of upgrading the city’s power infrastructure, there are several significant concerns that demand attention:

1. Health Concerns: The potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure to unsafe levels of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by these high-power

2. Increased Risk for Catastrophic Accidents and Fire Hazards: The proposed route intersects with an already congested utility zone along Lafayette Street, he

3. Impact on Home Insurance Costs: The addition of high-power transmission lines in front of residences introduces additional risk factors that could prompt insu

4. Property Value Concerns: The aesthetic and health-related concerns associated with the proposed power lines could adversely affect property values in our co

5. Aesthetic Impact: The installation of large electric poles and wires would detract from the visual appeal of our neighborhood, undermining the pride we take in o

6. Complexity and Inconvenience: The construction and maintenance of these power lines could disrupt our daily lives, leading to noise pollution, road closures,

7. Exploring Alternatives: We urge the city to explore alternative solutions such as upgrading existing lines or implementing underground power lines, despite pot As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, and a member of a community directly affected by this proposal, I strongly oppose the installation of power lines in options A and B. I implore Silicon Valley Power to consider alternative options that prioritize public health and safety and minimize adverse impacts on Santa Clara residents.

Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter, and eagerly await your response.

Sincerely
Cipson Jose
2142 Payne Pl, Santa Clara
[email protected]
Payne Place Community
Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community( Mission Gardens) for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS).

Anu Alex <[email protected]>
Mon 5/27/2024 1:45 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> To Whomsoever it may concern,
As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, I am writing to express our apprehensions regarding the proposed installation route for high-power electric transmission lines and poles by Silicon Valley Power (SVP). This initiative is part of the project aimed at connecting the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS).

While acknowledging the necessity of upgrading the city’s power infrastructure, there are several significant concerns that demand attention:

1. Health Concerns: The potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure to unsafe levels of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by these high-power electric lines are paramount. Numerous studies have indicated a possible correlation between EMF exposure and various health issues, including heightened risks of certain cancers and neurological disorders, especially in children and the elderly. I have extensively researched this topic and found compelling evidence supporting these concerns. For instance, there is extensive research supporting that magnetic fields generated by the proposed power lines far exceed safe levels for human exposure, posing significant risks to residents, particularly those living within close proximity to the installation site.

Residents living in close proximity to these high power lines are at greater risk. I have gone through several medical and scientific research papers published on this matter that support our concern on this matter.

Here are a few links for reference to some such research articles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10590107/
https://www.hydroone.com/poweroutagesandsafety_/corporatehealthandsafety_/EMFs/Transmission_Line_EMF_Fields.pdf https://www.emrss.com/blogs/emr-shielding-solutions-blogs/what-are-safe-levels-of-emf As a quick overview from these please see below:

The magnetic field generated by the high power lines is way beyond safe levels for humans. Here is a break up:
· 115kV power transmission line has a Mean Magnetic Field (mG) of 6.5 at a distance of <50 feet. · 230kV power transmission line has a Mean Magnetic Field (mG) of 19.5 at a distance of <50 feet. ( ref. Link2) As the project stands today, the first row of houses in Mission Gardens on Lafayette Street will be less than 50 feet from the proposed installation point per Route A of these poles.The safe value of magnetic field around humans is 0.7mg (ref. Link3) per numbers listed above, it's evident that residents in close proximity will be exposed to very high unsafe levels of EMF. This will have a significant impact to all the residents within 50-75 feet. As mentioned ,more reference to various NIH research articles on Pubmed can also be provided if needed to reinforce the concerns.

While I am speaking up as a resident of Mission Gardens, there are many other houses and apartment complexes along and near Lafayette St. whose residents will also be impacted by the unsafe levels of EMF.

Even a small risk is substantial for public health safety and can and should not be ignored by authorities; we need to err on the side of caution.

3. Impact on Home Insurance Costs: The addition of high-power transmission lines in front of residences introduces additional risk factors that could prompt insurance companies to raise premiums further, exacerbating the already soaring home insurance costs in the Bay Area.

4. Property Value Concerns: The aesthetic and health-related concerns associated with the proposed power lines could adversely affect property values in our community, posing a significant concern for homeowners who have invested substantially in their properties.

5. Aesthetic Impact: The installation of large electric poles and wires would detract from the visual appeal of our neighborhood, undermining the pride we take in our well-maintained homes and attractive streetscapes.

6. Complexity and Inconvenience: The construction and maintenance of these power lines could disrupt our daily lives, leading to noise pollution, road closures, and restricted access to homes. Moreover, frequent power outages and service interruptions may result from ongoing maintenance activities.

7. Exploring Alternatives: We urge the city to explore alternative solutions such as upgrading existing lines or implementing underground power lines, despite potentially higher upfront costs. These alternatives offer long-term benefits in terms of safety, reliability, and minimal aesthetic impact. Additionally, investigating advanced technologies and alternative routing options could help mitigate the adverse effects on our community.

I respectfully request a meeting with relevant city officials and representatives from the utility company to discuss these concerns in detail and explore viable solutions. Finding a balance between necessary infrastructure upgrades and safeguarding the health, safety, and aesthetic integrity of our community is imperative.

As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, and a member of a community directly affected by this proposal, I strongly oppose the installation of power lines in options A and B. I implore Silicon Valley Power to consider alternative options that prioritize public health and safety and minimize adverse impacts on Santa Clara residents.

Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter. I eagerly await your response and the opportunity to collaborate on finding a satisfactory resolution.

Thankfully,
Anu Alex
4457 Lafayette St, Santa Clara, CA 95054
(408)836-8153
Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community( Mission Gardens) for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS)
Prashant Tiwari <[email protected]>
Wed 5/29/2024 11:40 AM
To:NRS-KRS Project <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
To Whomsoever it may concern,
As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, I am writing to express our apprehensions regarding the proposed installation route for high-power electric transmission lines and poles by Silicon Valley Power (SVP). This initiative is part of the project aimed at connecting the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS).

While acknowledging the necessity of upgrading the city’s power infrastructure, there are several significant concerns that demand attention:

1. Health Concerns: The potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure to unsafe levels of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by these high-power electric lines are paramount.

Numerous studies have indicated a possible correlation between EMF exposure and various health issues, including heightened risks of certain cancers and neurological disorders, especially in children and the elderly. I have extensively researched this topic and found compelling evidence supporting these concerns. For instance, there is extensive research supporting that magnetic fields generated by the proposed power lines far exceed safe levels for human exposure, posing significant risks to residents, particularly those living within close proximity to the installation site.

Here are a few links for reference to some such research articles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10590107/
https://www.hydroone.com/poweroutagesandsafety_/corporatehealthandsafety_/EMFs/Transmissi on_Line_EMF_Fields.pdf
https://www.emrss.com/blogs/emr-shielding-solutions-blogs/what-are-safe-levels-of-emf As a quick overview from these please see below:

The magnetic field generated by the high power lines is way beyond safe levels for humans.

Here is a break up:
· 115kV power transmission line has a Mean Magnetic Field (mG) of 6.5 at a distance of <50 feet.
· 230kV power transmission line has a Mean Magnetic Field (mG) of 19.5 at a distance of <50 feet. ( ref. Link2)
As the project stands today, the first row of houses in Mission Gardens on Lafayette Street will be less than 50 feet from the proposed installation point per Route A of these poles.The safe value of magnetic field around humans is 0.7mg (ref. Link3) per numbers listed above, it's evident that residents in close proximity will be exposed to very high unsafe levels of EMF. This will have a significant impact to all the residents within 50-75 feet. As mentioned ,more reference to various NIH research articles on Pubmed can also be provided if needed to reinforce the concerns.

Even a small risk is substantial for public health safety and can and should not be ignored by authorities; we need to err on the side of caution.

6. Complexity and Inconvenience: The construction and maintenance of these power lines could disrupt our daily lives, leading to noise pollution, road closures, and restricted access to homes.

Moreover, frequent power outages and service interruptions may result from ongoing maintenance activities.

7. Exploring Alternatives: We urge the city to explore alternative solutions such as upgrading existing lines or implementing underground power lines, despite potentially higher upfront costs.

These alternatives offer long-term benefits in terms of safety, reliability, and minimal aesthetic impact. Additionally, investigating advanced technologies and alternative routing options could help mitigate the adverse effects on our community.

Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter. I eagerly await your response and the opportunity to collaborate on finding a satisfactory resolution.

Dr. Prashant Tiwari
4489 Lafayette St, Santa Clara, CA 95054
Cell: 518-892-1551
Mission Gardens Community (Santa Clara Rivermark)
Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community (Mission Gardens) for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS)
Aman S <[email protected]>
Mon 5/27/2024 2:52 PM
To:NRS-KRS Project <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]> To Whomsoever it may concern,
As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, I am writing to express our apprehensions regarding the proposed installation route for high-power electric transmission lines and poles by Silicon Valley Power (SVP). This initiative is part of the project aimed at connecting the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS).