Nye County

Esmeralda County White Pine County

Area Wide Plan

Inyo County Lincoln County

Coalition Assessment Grant funded through the US Environmental Protection Agency

[This page intentionally left blank.]

Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... i Executive Summary ...... 1 Acronyms ...... 3 1 Coalition ...... 5 1.1 Description/Overview ...... 5 1.1.1 History ...... 5 1.1.2 Demographics ...... 6 1.2 Renewable Energy Factors ...... 8 1.2.1 Clean Energy Resources and Technologies ...... 9 1.2.2 Energy Terms and Organization of the Power Industry ...... 10 1.2.3 State Energy Policies ...... 10 1.2.4 Industry Opportunities ...... 12 1.2.5 Planning Tools and Resources ...... 15 1.2.6 Utility Table ...... 16 1.2.7 Resource Maps ...... 18 1.3 Community Concerns and Brownfields Properties Assessed ...... 18 1.4 Program Benefits and Measures of Success ...... 23 2 Esmeralda ...... 28 2.1 Community Description/Overview ...... 28 2.1.1 History ...... 28 2.1.2 Demographics ...... 29 2.1.3 Physical Description ...... 32 2.1.4 Infrastructure ...... 33 2.1.5 Planning Initiatives ...... 35 2.1.6 Public Outreach ...... 35 2.2 Renewable Energy Factors ...... 36 2.2.1 Utility Table ...... 38 2.2.2 Renewable Energy Poster and Resource Maps ...... 38 2.3 Brownfields Properties Assessed and Next Steps ...... 39 2.4 Program Benefits and Measures of Success ...... 40 3 Inyo County ...... 43 3.1 Community Description/Overview ...... 43 3.1.1 History ...... 43 3.1.2 Demographics ...... 44 3.1.3 Physical Description ...... 47

i 0BTable of Contents | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

3.1.4 Infrastructure ...... 48 3.1.5 Planning Initiatives ...... 51 3.1.6 Community Outreach ...... 51 3.2 Renewable Energy Factors ...... 52 3.2.1 Utility Table ...... 55 3.2.2 Resource Maps ...... 55 3.3 Brownfields Properties Assessed and Next Steps ...... 57 3.4 Next Steps and Measures of Success ...... 58 4 Lincoln County ...... 60 4.1 Community Description/Overview ...... 60 4.1.1 History ...... 60 4.1.2 Demographics ...... 61 4.1.3 Physical Description ...... 65 4.1.4 Infrastructure ...... 66 4.1.5 Planning Initiatives ...... 70 4.1.6 Community Outreach ...... 70 4.2 Renewable Energy Factors ...... 71 4.2.1 Utility Table ...... 73 4.2.2 Resource Maps ...... 73 4.3 Brownfields Properties Assessed and Next Steps ...... 74 4.4 Program Benefits and Measures of Success ...... 75 5 Nye County ...... 77 5.1 Community Description/Overview ...... 77 5.1.1 History ...... 77 5.1.2 Demographics ...... 79 5.1.3 Physical Description ...... 83 5.1.4 Infrastructure ...... 85 5.1.5 Planning Initiatives ...... 88 5.1.6 Community Outreach ...... 88 5.2 Renewable Energy Factors ...... 88 5.2.1 Utility Table ...... 92 5.2.2 Resource Maps ...... 92 5.3 Brownfields Properties Assessed and Next Steps ...... 93 5.4 Program Benefits and Measures of Success ...... 96 6 White Pine County ...... 99 6.1 Community Description/Overview ...... 99

ii 0BTable of Contents | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

6.1.1 History ...... 99 6.1.2 Demographics ...... 101 6.1.3 Physical Description ...... 105 6.1.4 Infrastructure ...... 107 6.1.5 Planning Initiatives ...... 109 6.1.6 Community Outreach ...... 110 6.2 Renewable Energy Factors ...... 111 6.2.1 Utility Table ...... 116 6.2.2 Resource Maps ...... 116 6.3 Brownfields Properties Assessed and Next Steps ...... 118 6.4 Program Benefits and Measures of Success ...... 119 References ...... 121

Tables Table 1. Population ...... 6 Table 2. Unemployment ...... 6 Table 3. Income and Poverty ...... 7 Table 4. Sensitive Populations ...... 7 Table 5. Coalition Demographics ...... 8 Table 6. Coalition Load Serving Utility Information ...... 16 Table 7. Assessed Sites ...... 20 Table 8. RDSBC Measures of Success ...... 25 Table 9. Esmeralda County Demographics ...... 29 Table 10. Esmeralda County Population, 1930 to 2010 ...... 29 Table 11. Esmeralda County Population Projections, 2010 to 2030 ...... 30 Table 12. Esmeralda County Employment by Industry, 2011 ...... 30 Table 13. Esmeralda County Top Employers, Quarter 2, 2011 ...... 31 Table 14. Esmeralda County Labor Force Data, 1990 to 2011 ...... 32 Table 15. Esmeralda County Housing Characteristics ...... 32 Table 16. Esmeralda County Climate Information ...... 33 Table 17. Esmeralda County Water and Sewer Utilities ...... 34 Table 18. Esmeralda County Communications Providers ...... 35 Table 19. Esmeralda County Load Serving Utility Information ...... 38 Table 20. Esmeralda County Measures of Success ...... 41 Table 21. Inyo County Demographics ...... 44 Table 22. Inyo County Population, 1930 to 2010 ...... 44 Table 23. Inyo County Population Projections, 2010 to 2050 ...... 45 Table 24. Inyo County Employment by Industry, 2011...... 45 Table 25. Inyo County Top Employers, 2012 ...... 46 Table 26. Inyo County Labor Force Data, 1990 to 2011 ...... 47 Table 27. Inyo County Housing Characteristics ...... 47 Table 28. Inyo County Climate Information ...... 48 Table 29. Inyo County Water and Sewer Utilities ...... 49 Table 30. Inyo County Communications Providers ...... 50 Table 31. Inyo County Load Serving Utility Information ...... 55

iii 0BTable of Contents | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 32. Inyo County Measures of Success ...... 58 Table 33. Lincoln County Demographics ...... 61 Table 34. Lincoln County Population, 1930 to 2010 ...... 61 Table 35. Lincoln County Population Projections, 2010 to 2030 ...... 62 Table 36. Lincoln County Employment by Industry, 2011 ...... 63 Table 37. Lincoln County Top Employers, Quarter 2, 2011 ...... 64 Table 38. Lincoln County Labor Force Data, 1990 to 2011 ...... 65 Table 39. Lincoln County Housing Characteristics ...... 65 Table 40. Lincoln County Climate Information ...... 66 Table 41. Lincoln County Water and Sewer Utilities ...... 67 Table 42. Lincoln County Communications Providers ...... 68 Table 43. Lincoln County Load Serving Utility Information ...... 73 Table 44. Lincoln County Measures of Success ...... 75 Table 45. Nye County Demographics ...... 79 Table 46. Nye County Population, 1930 to 2010 ...... 79 Table 47. Nye County Population Projections, 2010 to 2030 ...... 80 Table 48. Nye County Employment by Industry, 2011 ...... 81 Table 49. Nye County Top Employers, Quarter 2, 2011 ...... 82 Table 50. Nye County Labor Force Data, 1990 to 2011 ...... 83 Table 51. Nye County Housing Characteristics ...... 83 Table 52. Nye County Water and Sewer Utilities ...... 85 Table 53. Nye County Communications Providers...... 87 Table 54. Nye County Load Serving Utility Information ...... 92 Table 55. Pahrump Utility Company Inc. Parcels ...... 94 Table 56. Previously Assessed Properties in Nye County ...... 95 Table 57. Nye County Measures of Success ...... 97 Table 58. White Pine County Demographics ...... 101 Table 59. White Pine County Population, 1930 to 2010 ...... 102 Table 60. White Pine County Population Projections, 2010 to 2030 ...... 103 Table 61. White County Employment by Industry, 2011 ...... 103 Table 62. White Pine County Top Employers, Quarter 2, 2011 ...... 104 Table 63. White Pine County Labor Force Data, 1990 to 2011 ...... 105 Table 64. White Pine County Housing Characteristics ...... 105 Table 65. White Pine County Water and Sewer Utilities ...... 108 Table 66. White Pine County Communications Providers ...... 109 Table 67. White Pine County Load Serving Utility Information ...... 116 Table 68. White Pine County Measures of Success ...... 120

Figures Figure 1. RDSBC Brownfield Sites ...... 21 Figure 2. RDSBC Pahrump Brownfield Sites ...... 22 Figure 3. Esmeralda County, NV Renewable Energy Resources Poster ...... 39 Figure 4. Inyo County Roadway Functional Classification ...... 51 Figure 5. Inyo County, CA Renewable Energy Resources Poster ...... 56 Figure 6. Lincoln County Roadway Functional Classification ...... 69 Figure 7. Union Pacific Rail Allowable Gross Weight Map ...... 70 Figure 8. Lincoln County Renewable Energy Resources Map ...... 74 Figure 9. Nye County, NV Renewable Energy Resources Poster ...... 93 Figure 10. White Pine County, NV Renewable Energy Resources Poster ...... 117

iv 0BTable of Contents | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Appendices Appendix A. Blank Measure of Success Table Appendix B. Area Wide Plan Hyperlinks Appendix C. Project Partner Participation Letters and Memorandum of Agreement Appendix D. Quarterly Agendas Appendix E. Resource Energy Posters, White Pine County Feasibility Study Maps Appendix F. Outreach Plan Appendix G. Media Coverage Appendix H. White Pine County Feasibility Study

v 0BTable of Contents | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Executive Summary According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2012): RDSBC EPA's Brownfields Program is designed to empower states, communities, and other stakeholders in economic Member redevelopment to work together in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse Counties brownfields. A brownfield is a property, the expansion, (hyperlinked): redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. EPA's Brownfields Program provides financial and technical assistance for brownfields activities through an approach based on four main goals: Esmeralda • Protecting the Environment: Addressing County, Nevada brownfields to ensure the health and well-being of America's people and environment. • Promoting Partnerships: Enhancing collaboration and communication essential to facilitate brownfields cleanup and reuse. • Strengthening the Marketplace: Providing financial and technical assistance to bolster the private Inyo County, market. California • Sustaining Reuse: Redeveloping brownfields to enhance a community's long-term quality of life.

The Rural Desert Southwest Brownfields Coalition (RDSBC), comprised of five counties across two states, was formed to address the environmental and economic Lincoln County, development needs of the member-counties. EPA awarded the RDSBC a $1,000,000 Brownfields Coalition Assessment Nevada grant in 2011 to identify and assess brownfields across the Coalition area and to conduct area wide planning to support brownfields redevelopment. The purpose of this Area Wide Plan is to evaluate renewable energy applications and other economic and community development opportunities at the brownfields sites and to establish a path towards achieving Nye County, the identified objectives. Nevada The Plan is divided in seven parts, which include the Coalition section, sections specific to each of the five RDSBC Counties, and a section on proposed next steps and measures of success for the RDSBC.

White Pine County, Nevada

1 1BExecutive Summary | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

The Coalition section:

• Describes the history, commonalities, and differences between the Coalition members. • Provides a description of key renewable energy terminology, clean energy policies, planning initiatives, developments pertinent to the Counties/Coalition, and potential market considerations. • Lists properties identified and assessed under the Brownfields Program and identifies proposed redevelopment opportunities.

The County sections serve to expand on the information included in the Coalition section and provide additional information pertinent to future development of the Brownfield sites in each County. The Esmeralda, Inyo, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine Counties sections are divided into four parts:

• Community Description/Overview provides information on the history, demographics, physical description, infrastructure, and planning initiatives. • Renewable Energy Factors provides a utility table and resource maps. • Brownfields Properties Assessed and Redevelopment Opportunities describes the sites assessed in each respective County and the redevelopment opportunities for those sites. • Next Steps and Measures of Success proposes planning recommendations specific to the County which can be acted upon to support redevelopment of the assessed properties as well as the measures of success specific to each County.

The final section of this plan includes Coalition-wide planning recommendations and measures of success. The measures of success included in this section, along with the County specific measures, are intended to be updated in order to evaluate progress over time. In Appendix A, a blank measures of success table is provided, and updated measures of success can be included as amendments to this Plan. It is recommended the measures of success tables be updated annually from the date of this document to record progress made with respect to brownfields redevelopment.

The red, underlined text throughout the Plan is hyperlinked, as in the list of RDSBC Member Counties on page 1. A list of the links used is included in Appendix B for reference.

2 1BExecutive Summary | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Acronyms AC Alternating Current ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern ACS American Community Survey BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis BLM Bureau of Land Management BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics CAISO California Independent System Operator CCA Community choice aggregators CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CHAT Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CSP Concentrating Solar Power CTPG California Transmission Planning Group DC Direct Current DETR Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation DG Distributed Generation DOE Department of Energy DSIRE Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control (California) EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Environmental Site Assessment FBO Fixed Base Operations FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FIT Feed-in Tariff FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact GWh Gigawatt-hour IOU Investor-Owned Utility kV Kilovolt kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt-hour LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power LAUS Local Area Unemployment Statistics

3 2BAcronyms | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

LCPD Lincoln County Power District NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory NRS Nevada Revised Statutes MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSLI Mine-Scarred Lands Initiative MW Megawatt MWh Megawatt-hour PC Portfolio Credit PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl POU Publicly-Owned Utility PPA Power Purchase Agreement PUCN Public Utilities Commission of Nevada PURPA Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act PV Photovoltaic PVC Polyvinyl Chloride QCEW Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages QF Qualifying Facility RDSBC Rural Desert Southwest Brownfields Coalition REC Renewable Energy Credit RFP Request for Proposals RLF Revolving Loan Fund ROW Right of Way RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard SB Senate Bill SCE Southern California Edison SEZ Solar Energy Zone TWh Terrawatt-hour VEA Valley Electric Association WECC Western Electricity Coordinating Council

4 2BAcronyms | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

1 Coalition 1.1 Description/Overview The Rural Desert Southwest Brownfields Coalition (RDSBC) is comprised of five counties in two states, including Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine Counties in Nevada and Inyo County in California. The Coalition area includes a total of 51,453.53 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012) square miles of land and has a total population of 78,650 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a).

1.1.1 History The formation of the RDSBC grew out of Nye County's participation in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Brownfields Assessment Pilot Program in 2002, and a subsequent award in 2005 when the County was awarded an assessment grant for hazardous substances and petroleum sites. Twenty-seven properties in Nye County were assessed under the cooperative agreements for these grants. The County leveraged its involvement in Brownfields to work closely with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) and the Nevada State Legislature to assist in developing state-wide regulations for regulatory oversight and cleanup of methamphetamine laboratories. Sites assessed included: three rural airports; a former commercial site which was redeveloped as the Nye County Administration offices in Pahrump, Nevada; a habitat trail area; and a former motel which was demolished and redeveloped as an Emergency Services Center and community park.

The initial assessment grant led to the identification of the former Barrick Bullfrog Gold Mine as a pilot site for the Mine-Scarred Lands Initiative (MSLI). Participation in the MSLI led to the characterization of solar resources in Nye County, and the targeting of renewable energy development as an economic diversification strategy for the County. Following the presentation of the Barrick Bullfrog Gold Mine at the National Brownfields Conference in 2006, Nye County began to receive increasing interest from solar developers. Since 2007, Nye County has incorporated renewable energy development into its economic planning documents, held seven renewable energy workshops, received congressionally directed funds to evaluate the feasibility of renewable energy in the County, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the four Bureau of Land Management (BLM) district offices to coordinate renewable energy-related rights of way across public lands in the County, and executed an agreement with Esmeralda and Inyo Counties to work cooperatively to support a regional renewable energy industry.

Nye, Esmeralda, and Inyo Counties expanded their partnership by inviting Lincoln and White Pine Counties to join in forming the RDSBC in Fall 2010. These five counties developed the RDSBC to apply for an EPA Brownfields Coalition Assessment grant, for which Nye County served as the lead applicant. Appendix C includes copies of the letters from the project partners to Nye County acknowledging participation in the RDSBC. The purpose of the coalition was to assess brownfields sites and engage in high-level planning activities to redevelop brownfields, particularly those along existing and potential renewable energy and transmission corridors. The EPA selected the Coalition’s application for funding in mid-2011. The Coalition members subsequently entered into a formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in August 2011 (see Appendix C).

The RDSBC held an initial planning meeting on September 16, 2011, to review the Brownfields Program, Nye County’s past involvement in the EPA and State Brownfields Programs, and the proposed RDSBC project activities. The RDSBC assessment and planning project officially commenced on October 1, 2011.

5 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

The Coalition meets on a quarterly basis to review completed activities and next steps. Quarterly meetings have been held on the following dates (agendas are included in Appendix D):

• January 20, 2012 • February 1, 2013 • January 17, 2014 • April 20, 2012 • April 19, 2013 • April 25, 2014 • July 20, 2012 • July 19, 2013 • October 19, 2012 • October 11, 2013

Additional quarterly meetings are anticipated after the publishing of this report through, at a minimum, the end of the grant award period.

1.1.2 Demographics Tables 1 through 4 were submitted to EPA as part of the Coalition’s application for a Brownfields Assessment grant. These tables are intended to provide background information for the baseline data presented in Table 5.

Table 1 shows the reported population estimates for the Coalition and member-counties by the U.S. Census Bureau for 2000, 2008, and 2009. The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2009 population estimate reported in the State and County Quickfacts was 887 higher than the 2010 Census count for the population in the Coalition area. The populations in Inyo, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties were underestimated, and Esmeralda and Nye Counties’ populations were overestimated, as shown in Tables 1 and 5. The 2008 population estimated in the 2006 to 2008 three-year American Community Survey (ACS), included in Table 1, was reported for Nye County but not the other RDSBC members. The 2006 to 2008 ACS estimate was much closer to the 2010 population count than the 2009 population estimate. The decade between the 2000 and 2010 Censuses was a period of growth for each of the Counties except Esmeralda, which had a population reduction from 971 to 783. Nye County experienced the largest growth of more than 11,000 residents, while the other three Counties’ growth ranged from 601 to 1,180.

Table 1. Population Year Esmeralda Inyo Lincoln Nye White Pine Coalition 20091 1,187 18,103 4,317 46,360 9,570 79,537 20082 - - - 43,555 - - 20003 971 17,945 4,165 32,485 9,181 75,817 1U.S. Census Bureau, State & County Quickfacts, 2009 Population Estimate, 2010. 2U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 ACS. Data only available for Nye County. 3U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

Table 2 reports the unemployment rate for the month of August in 2009 and 2010; whereas, Table 5 reports the 2011 annual rate. Both sets of data were collected from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS). The annual 2010 unemployment rate was not available at the time the Coalition’s Brownfields Assessment grant application was submitted to EPA.

Table 2. Unemployment1 Subject Esmeralda Inyo Lincoln Nye White Pine U.S. August 2010 7.9% 9.4% 12.8% 17.2% 8.6% 9.6% August 2009 7.0% 9.0% 10.0% 15.3% 7.5% 9.7% Percent Change 0.9% 0.4% 2.8% 1.9% 1.1% -0.1% 1BLS, Labor force data by county, not seasonally adjusted, July 2009-August 2010 (p).

6 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 3 presents information on individuals in poverty from the 2000 Census and per capita personal income from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for 2008. The poverty rates for individuals in Esmeralda, Inyo, and Lincoln Counties were projected to decrease from the rate in 2000 (see Table 3) according to the 2006 to 2010 ACS estimate (see Table 5). White Pine County, on the other hand, was expected to see an increase in the poverty rates from 11.0 percent to 15.5 percent. The 2006 to 2008 ACS for Nye County, which was not reported for the other Counties, also estimated a smaller percentage of individuals in poverty compared to the rate shown in the 2006 to 2010 ACS of 18.9 percent. The per capita personal income fell for all of the RDSBC according to the BEA data for 2010, with Esmeralda County experiencing the largest decrease of more than $13,000 per capita.

Table 3. Income and Poverty Subject Esmeralda Inyo Lincoln Nye White Pine U.S. Individuals in Poverty1 15.3% 12.6% 16.5% 16.5%2 11.0% 12.4% Per Capita Income3 $50,950 $37,883 $24,896 $33,086 $39,375 $40,673 1U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census. 2U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 ACS. Data only available for Nye County. The estimated percentage of individuals below poverty nationally was 13.2%, according to the 2006-2008 ACS. 3BEA, 2008 Bearfacts, 2010.

Table 4 presents the percentages of the population, according to the 2000 Census, age 65 and older, with a disability, and with a bachelor’s degree or higher. The percentage of Inyo County’s population age 65 and older was the same in 2000 and 2010. Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine Counties all experienced an increase in the percentage of people in this age group. Disability status has not been reported for the Counties for the 2010 Census and was only estimated for Nye County as part of the 2008 to 2010 ACS. The percentage of population in Nye County with a disability was projected to decrease from 28.3 percent in 2000 to 19.4 percent as of the 2008-2010 ACS. From the 2000 Census to the 2006 to 2010 ACS, the percentage of the population attaining a Bachelor’s degree or higher was expected to double for Esmeralda County, increase by less than a percentage point for Lincoln and Nye Counties, and increase between one and four percentage points for Inyo and White Pine Counties.

Table 4. Sensitive Populations1 Subject Esmeralda Inyo Lincoln Nye White Pine U.S. 65 years and older 17.2% 19.1% 16.2% 18.4% 13.5% 12.4% Disability Status 26.9% 19.1% 24.6% 28.3% 22.9% 19.3% Bachelor's degree or higher 9.6% 17.1% 15.1% 10.1% 11.8% 24.4% 1U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census.

As of the 2010 Census, the Coalition had a total land area 51,453.53 square miles spanning from the eastern Nevada border into California. Nye County was the largest of the RDSBC Counties by area and population. Nye County’s population of 43,946 people was greater than the combined total for Esmeralda (783), Inyo (18,546), Lincoln (5,345), and White Pine (10,030) totaling 34,704 people. Inyo County had the largest minority population at 25.9 percent of the Coalition, which was 10.3 percent more than Esmeralda County, the County with the second highest population classified as a minority at 15.6 percent. The average age of the Coalition population was 45.5 years, with an average household size of 2.32 people.

The national unemployment rate, according to the BLS for 2011, was 8.9 percent. In 2011, Nye (16.5%), Lincoln (13.7%), and Inyo (9.9%) had a higher unemployment rate than the national rate. The unemployment rate in August 2010 compared to the 2011 annual rate in Esmeralda, Nye, and White Pine Counties was higher by 1.7 percent, 0.7 percent, and 0.2 percent, respectively. The 2011 annual unemployment rate was greater than the August 2010 rate for both Inyo and Lincoln, which recorded

7 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan increases in unemployment by 0.5 and 0.9 percent, respectively. The average unemployment rate for the Coalition (10.9%) was also greater than the national rate for 2011.

Nye County (18.9%) and White Pine County (15.5%) had a greater poverty rate than the national average of 13.8 percent, according to the 2010 ACS 5-year Estimates. Each County’s population had at least an 81 percent high school or equivalent level of education, with Inyo County having the highest rate of high school graduates among the Coalition members and a higher rate than the national percentage. At least 20 percent of Esmeralda and Inyo Counties' population had a bachelor’s degree or higher, while only 10.5 percent of Nye County’s population had attained that level of education. Esmeralda ($34,571 per year) and Inyo ($26,762 per year) also had the highest per capita income, and Lincoln County ($21,310 per year) had the lowest.

Table 5. Coalition Demographics Subject Esmeralda Inyo Lincoln Nye White Pine Coalition Land Area (sq. mi.)1 3,581.88 10,180.88 10,633.20 18,181.92 8,875.65 51,453.53 Population1 783 18,546 5,345 43,946 10,030 78,650 Median Age (Yrs)1 52.9 45.6 39.9 48.4 40.8 45.5 16 Years and Older1 84.9% 81.6% 77.5% 82.1% 81.0% 81.4% 65 Years and Older1 25.8% 19.1% 18.1% 23.4% 14.9% 20.3% Percent Minority1 15.6% 25.9% 8.9% 14.1% 14.5% 15.8% Average Household 2.01 2.25 2.57 2.42 2.37 2.32 Size1 Unemployment2 6.20% 9.9% 13.7% 16.5% 8.4% 10.9% Per Capita Personal $37,683 $37,124 $21,310 $31,349 $36,940 $32,881 Income3 Median Household $27,500 $45,000 $39,293 $33,547 $39,150 $46,505 Income4 Poverty Rate 11.2% 11.9% 10.6% 18.9% 15.5% 13.6% (Persons) 5 High School 84.1% 88.6% 83.0% 81.7% 83.8% 84.2% Graduate6 Bachelor’s Degree 21.1% 20.9% 15.8% 10.5% 13.4% 16.3% or Higher6 1U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, 2010. 2BLS, LAUS, “Labor Force Data by County, 2011 Annual Average,” 2012. 3BEA, 2010 Bearfacts, 2012. 4U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Estimates. 5U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 ACS 5-year Estimates, 2006-2010b. 6U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 ACS 5-year Estimates, 2006-2010a.

1.2 Renewable Energy Factors The Nevada economic development plan, “Moving Nevada Forward,” identified the “New Clean Energy Frontier,” as a targeted industry because of its tremendous potential for growth in the following areas:

1. Manufacturing renewable components 2. Expanding transmission capacity 3. Advancing and internationalizing geothermal development 4. Upgrading energy efficiency technologies

The California plan, “An Economic Growth and Competitiveness Agenda for California,” also focused on the “Clean Economy” as a path for economic development. The “Clean Economy” encompasses “that sector that produces all goods and services with an environmental benefit” (State of California, 2011).

8 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

The RDSBC Counties have expressed an interest in the clean energy economy and have formed this partnership in order to identify opportunities to bolster their individual and collective economies to support redevelopment of blighted and/or potentially contaminated properties with renewable energy installations, energy efficient technologies, and other “clean economy” projects.

1.2.1 Clean Energy Resources and Technologies Several forms of renewable energy are abundant within the RDSBC footprint.

Solar energy comes in two common forms: Photovoltaic (PV) and solar thermal. PV technology utilizes specially designed materials to absorb light energy from the sun’s rays and convert it directly to electricity while consuming little water (to wash/maintain equipment). Solar thermal technologies capture and absorb heat energy from the sun and utilize the heat to create steam to run turbines, which generate electricity. Solar thermally produced energy is considered “clean” because it avoids combustion of fossil fuels which release green house gasses; however, most solar thermal technologies require large quantities of water.

Historically, wind energy captured by small wind mills powered water pumps to fill livestock tanks in remote locations. The new wind industry utilizes turbines of different sizes positioned at various heights to generate electricity for small and large scale applications.

Geothermal energy is produced when hot water and steam is pumped to the surface and used to run turbines to generate electricity. Heat stored in rock formations beneath the earth’s surface warms reservoirs of water. Geothermal energy is sought after by utilities and transmission operators because it provides dependable and consistent base load energy as opposed to intermittent energy like that produced by solar and wind resources. Alternatively, shallow pools of water of a consistent temperature may be used to heat and cool buildings equipped with energy-efficient ground-source heat pumps.

Water power in the form of hydroelectric generation may be available where streams can be tapped to run turbines. This type of energy is particularly useful as it can be quickly stopped and started again as demand fluctuates. Although large scale hydroelectric generation would entail extraordinarily robust permitting in the arid southwest making it a less feasible option, micro-hydroelectric generation may be a viable option for smaller scale needs.

Energy storage and regulation energy management technologies are necessary for the deployment of large amounts of intermittent energy. These technologies offer a means of regulating and balancing the electrical grid over which energy flows from point of generation to point of use. Utilities and regulators have not yet determined how to value the ancillary services these projects provide to transmission operators; however, the California Energy Commission has issued a mandate for the first 50 Megawatts (MW) of energy storage signaling the start of this new industry.

Biomass (plant materials and materials from animal, construction, and food industry waste) may be used to produce biofuel, a fuel considered cleaner than petroleum and diesel alternatives by advocates because it is carbon neutral. Some environmentalists argue that use of biofuels harms the environment when material is grown on plantations cleared for biofuel producing crops. White Pine County recently completed a review of the biomass resource potential available from the control of pinyon and juniper on federally managed land in the County. Not to be confused with the pinyon pine, pinyon and juniper are considered invasive species that have contributed to increased fire danger and decreased critical habitat for native species. A copy of the Pinyon-Juniper Biomass Assessment for White Pine County is available in the White Pine County Renewable Energy Resource Assessments and Feasibility Study Report on the RDSBC website.

9 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

1.2.2 Energy Terms and Organization of the Power Industry Electricity is measured in watts. A one hundred-watt light bulb requires an energy source capable of producing and delivering 100 watts of energy. If ten 100-watt bulbs remain lit for an hour, they use one kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity. Facility scale energy generation is typically measured in kilowatts (kW). Utility scale generation is measured in MW, where one MW equals one thousand kW. Electricity may be delivered at various capacities described as voltage. Distribution lines transmit electricity utilizing an Alternating Current (AC) at a lower voltage (less than 69 kilovolts - kV) than high voltage transmission lines. Higher voltages account for decreased energy loss or line loss over long distances. Very long distance transmission of electricity may utilize Direct Current (DC), which always flows in the same direction to further help reduce line loss. The electrical grid is made up of hundreds of lines, which interconnect with substations where switches and transformers adjust voltage up or down and distribute the energy where it is needed. Interconnecting with high voltage or DC lines is substantially more costly than interconnecting with lower voltage AC transmission lines, or even smaller distribution lines. Utilities refer to the point of energy use as the load. Utilities that deliver energy to customers are called load-serving utilities. Other entities who participate in the process include electricity generating companies and transmission owners and operators.

Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) are private companies like Southern California Edison (SCE) and NV Energy which are owned by stockholders. Municipal Utilities and Publicly-Owned Utilities (POUs) are owned and operated by a local jurisdiction like Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). A third type of load serving utility, a power district, is created and administered by a municipality or county through collection of special assessments. The Lincoln County Power District (LCPD) and irrigation districts are examples of this type of utility. Rural electric cooperatives form when individuals organize a non-profit utility for the purpose of distributing energy to its members. Co-op members determine policies and set prices. Valley Electric Association (VEA) and Mt. Wheeler Power are examples of rural electric cooperatives. Ten publicly-owned electric utilities comprise the Nevada Rural Electric Association which provides lobbying, education, information, and community outreach programs for its utility members. There are no publicly-owned electric distribution utilities in Inyo County.

The ownership of the utility determines how it is regulated and/or governed. For example, in Nevada, only NV Energy is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN). Rural electric cooperatives and power districts are not. IOUs operate in accordance with their tariff, a document which includes a rate schedule approved by the responsible regulatory agency.

1.2.3 State Energy Policies In the absence of a federal energy policy mandating a certain level of renewable energy procurement by load serving entities, some states have adopted their own renewable energy mandates called Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs).

California Senate Bill (SB) X1-2 codified California’s 33 percent RPS by 2020 goal and applied the mandate to all electricity retailers in the state including POUs, IOUs, electricity service providers and community choice aggregators (CCAs). California allows cities and counties or groups of cities and counties to supply electricity to customers within their borders; but unlike municipal utilities, CCAs do not own the transmission and delivery infrastructure. The California law sets interim goals of 20 percent by 2013 and 25 percent by 2016. In the state of California, RPS compliance is measured in terms of procurement as a percent of retail sales. SB X1-2 created the framework the California Energy Commission uses to determine if a specific electricity product is eligible as a renewable resource. SB X1- 2 defined three portfolio categories known as “buckets.” The buckets are distinguished from each other by geographic area, type of resource, and first point of interconnection. The percentage of resources from each bucket adjusts as the year 2020 approaches, giving preference to resources in “Bucket 1,” or those

10 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan that are located in California or near the California border. In order for out-of-state resources to be competitive with California products, they must be eligible for “Bucket 1,” having their first point of interconnection with a California balancing area or distribution facility serving California customers.

While California law requires all load-serving entities to comply with the State’s RPS, Nevada’s mandate only applies to the IOU, NV Energy. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 704.7808 defines the entities to which the RPS is and is not applicable. For calendar year 2011, Nevada RPS required not less than 15 percent of electricity sold to Nevada customers come from renewable energy resources and not less than five percent of that amount had to be acquired from solar resources. The utility could satisfy up to 50 percent of the mandate through energy efficiency measures installed by residential customers (NRS 704.7821 (2)(b)). Energy efficiency measures are sometimes referred to as Demand Side Management by the utility industry. The Nevada RPS is set to increase to 18 percent in 2013 and 2014, 20 percent for the years 2015 through 2019, 22 percent for the years 2020 through 2024, and 25 percent for 2025 and beyond. According to the Portfolio Standard Annual Report, Compliance Year 2011, NV Energy successfully met the 2011 RPS requirements (NV Energy, 2012). Additionally, during the 2013 Nevada Legislative session, Nevada passed SB 123 (Atkinson, 2013) which mandated the State’s only IOU, NV Energy (formerly Sierra Pacific Power Company and Nevada Power Company), purchase an additional 300 MW from renewable resources, although regulations have not yet been written and the interpretation of this new law is being debated in an Investigatory and Rule Making PUCN Docket (State of Nevada Public Utilities Commission , 2013). A National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report stated, “Historical trends in population, [gross domestic product] GDP, and per-unit electricity consumption suggest that retail sales (in Nevada) could rise 23 percent from 2011 to 2025, reaching a projected total of 43.6 [terrawatt-hours] TWh, taking into account energy efficiency improvement consistent with state requirements… suggests the demand for renewable energy related to the RPS will most likely be between 5.6 TWh and 6.6 TWh in 2025... and 2.1 TWh to 3.1 TWh will still be needed by 2025 to meet RPS requirements” (Hurlbut, 2013, pp. 55 - 58).

Nearly half of Nevada’s renewable energy comes from geothermal resources. The vast majority of the rest of Nevada’s in-service renewable energy comes from the Western Area Power Authority Hoover Dam hydroelectric plant which also supplies electricity to Arizona and California. Solar, wind, and biomass make up the balance of Nevada’s renewable portfolio. An NREL report advised Nevada had the country’s largest untapped geothermal resources, and estimated Nevada rural areas were capable of producing 8,614,454 Gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity from PV resources. This same report stated Nevada had potential wind resources along ridgelines across the state (Anthony Lopez, 2012). See Section 3 for more information about the renewable resources specific to White Pine County.

Eighty-seven percent of lands in Nevada are federally managed. Included in these lands are identified environmentally sensitive areas like Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), protected wilderness, designated wild and scenic rivers, and critical wildlife conservation areas closely protected by the responsible federal agencies. Permitting a project in one of these areas could be highly controversial, limited by law, or even prohibited.

The Natural Resources Defense Council maintains an interactive mapping tool on the Google Earth platform to enable renewable energy developers to identify areas where renewable energy sources may conflict with preserving wildlife and wildlands in the western United States (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2009).

In 2010, the Department of Energy (DOE) awarded a $3 Million grant to western state wildlife agencies to launch a regional pilot project to improve coordination across political jurisdiction, inventory data, improve data development and management, and increase data sharing to enable identification of crucial habitat and corridors across the West. The Western Governors’ Association Wildlife Council

11 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan subsequently created and launched the Western Wildlife Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) for public release in December 2013 (Western Governors' Association Wildlife Council, 2013). According to the CHAT Website, “While not intended for project-level approval, CHAT is designed to reduce conflicts and surprises while ensuring wildlife values are better incorporated into land use decision-making, as well as large-scale conservation projects.” Local government and developers alike, may find CHAT a useful screening tool.

Characteristic of western states, Nevada is a place where there are basically four markets for renewable generation:

1. Renewable generation purposefully procured (through investment in a capital project or a long- term power contract) for the resident utility’s resource portfolio. 2. Renewable generation purchased by a utility as required by federal law (Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act - PURPA) from non-utility merchant generators at Qualifying Facility (QF) avoided-cost rates. 3. Renewable generation sold and delivered to a remote utility, including an out-of-state utility, to meet its solar portfolio needs. 4. Renewable generation developed through a third party agreement or by the customer, for use directly on-site, according to regulated utility guidelines, usually including net metering and sometimes including a sale of renewable energy credits (RECs)—in Nevada, called Portfolio Credits (PCs).

1.2.4 Industry Opportunities Load-serving utilities obtain power from generation facilities they own and operate or through power purchase agreements (PPAs). A PPA is a contract between an independent power producer and an electric utility which sets forth the terms and conditions under which power is generated and purchased. Utilities may use a competitive bid process by periodically releasing a Request for Proposals (RFP). Many utilities use the RFP/PPA process to comply with a state RPS. Currently, the best market for new renewable energy products is southern California. Developers from as far away as Canada and Wyoming are proposing generation and transmission projects in hopes of obtaining a market share in the area. Projects in the RDSBC footprint must compete with these projects, but California law clearly sets precedence for preferring regionally produced power.

Concurrent with obtaining a PPA, a developer must apply for and be granted an interconnection agreement with a transmission provider. A common constraint to utility scale renewable energy development is lack of existing transmission capacity. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) facilitates development of transmission projects on a regional scale through its Order 1000, which mandates regional transmission planning and requires costs be allocated to entities benefitting from a transmission project. Regional transmission coordination groups, such as the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) will begin implementing planning measures in compliance with Order 1000 in the fall of 2012. NV Energy participates in two of WECC’s subregional transmission planning groups: Sierra Subregional Planning Group and Southwest Area Transmission. These and other subregional groups conduct transmission planning activities including scenario planning. These utilities may also participate in WestConnect, a regional planning and advocacy organization whose footprint includes all of Nevada and portions of northern and the extreme southern part of California. Results from the subregional transmission planning studies are fed to WECC’s Transmission Expansion Planning Policy Committee for analysis and interconnection-wide implications (reliability, cost, and emissions). Based on recommendations of Transmission Expansion Planning Policy Committee, WECC produces an annual planning list of high and medium importance proposed transmission projects. The California Transmission Planning Group (CTPG) was created to coordinate transmission planning conducted by

12 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) with other California utilities and regional planning groups.

Long distance, high voltage transmission lines take many years to permit and construct. In the interim, there may be a preference for smaller-scale (less than 20 MW) projects which use existing transmission capacity. Small-scale installations may either provide a source of distributed generation (DG) for the utility or they may be net-metered. A DG system is located on a utility’s distribution system and is capable of meeting local (substation level) peak loads. DG is attractive to utilities because this energy may displace the need to build additional local distribution lines. California energy policy mandates a significant percentage of the RPS be achieved through implementation of 12,000 MW of DG.

Net-metering enables customers to generate their own on-site renewable energy to offset their energy consumption and may be referred to as Behind the Meter generation. Energy consumers who produce their own energy may be able to take their facility “off the grid” for some or all of the day and avoid drawing power from the utility during peak times thus further reducing the power bill for the facility. At times when generation exceeds the energy demand of the facility, the electric meter turns backwards, enabling customers to receive retail prices for the excess electricity they generate. In some markets, a feed-in tariff (FIT) policy may require utilities to guarantee payments in dollars per kWh for the full output of a generation system for a guaranteed period of time—usually 15 to 20 years. The rate set by the FIT is meant to provide a reasonable rate of return over the duration of the contract. A FIT policy may enable developers to secure financing more readily since the rate of return is known. California and Nevada policies allow IOUs to use net-metering for systems of 1,000 kW or less (Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency - DSIRE). Los Angeles adopted a FIT policy, and LADWP has just completed its first procurement cycle using a FIT. Nevada law enables NV Energy to use net- metering agreements to comply with the Nevada State RPS (NRS 704.766 to 704.775, inclusive). According to FIT proponents, a FIT provides a strong incentive for small-scale installations like rooftop solar. Opponents of a FIT warn that ratepayers may become saddled with expensive power when the price of natural gas is low.

POUs set their own net-metering policies. In states or locations where there is no net-metering policy, a second meter may be installed to measure excess electricity that flows back to the utility which then purchases the power for less than the retail rate.

Increasing demand for electricity also increases the demand for renewable energy in areas where an RPS policy is in effect. One promising new technology, electric vehicles, could significantly increase demand for electricity and is being considered by electrical grid balancing entities as a future significant electrical grid resource because it would add energy storage capability and positively affect grid stability. Though the market share for electric vehicles is still small relative to traditional gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, the popularity and sales of these vehicles has been increasing in recent years. There are a number of types of electric cars, the most common types being fully electric and plug-in hybrid. Three major barriers prevent the broader acceptance of electric vehicles by consumers: 1) higher initial purchase cost; 2) lack of recharging infrastructure; and 3) the driver’s fear of running out of charge before reaching their destination (referred to as “range anxiety”). Because of the estimated positive affect this technology may have on the grid and for its potential to decrease greenhouse gases, many agencies are pursuing initiatives to address deployment barriers.

Electric vehicle charging stations in the U.S. are classified as follows:

• Level 1 charging stations are 120 volts AC and equivalent to a standard household outlet. • Level 2 charging stations are 240 volts AC.

13 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

• Level 3 charging uses DC from 300 to 600 volts charging and is often referred to as “DC fast charging.”

Level 1 charging stations have the lowest purchase and installation cost; while level 2 stations cost more, and level 3 stations are significantly higher in cost. Charging stations and current-model electric vehicles in the U.S. use a standard plug (SAE J1772) for compatibility among vehicles and charging stations. Electric vehicle charging occurs most often at home, with workplace charging the next most common, and charging at a commercial facility or public charging station being the least common.

Websites and mobile device applications allow electric vehicle drivers to locate publicly available electric vehicle charging stations. Electric vehicle charging stations can be included in a facility as a benefit to employees for workplace charging or as a marketing tool to have the facility included and “on the map” on electric vehicle charging station websites and mobile applications. For retrofitted installations, a large portion of the cost of installing a charging station is in the electrical and site work required, so if installation can take place during initial site construction or during major improvements or remodeling, the total cost of installation can be reduced.

Electric vehicles and charging stations are a rapidly changing technology. While there are currently only a handful of electric cars available to consumers, numerous car companies have electric vehicle models slated for production in the coming years. Additionally, advances in electric vehicle battery and recharging technology will likely continue to provide for ever longer battery range and faster charging. Tesla Motor Company recently announced plans to construct a nationwide network of rapid charging stations (Tesla Motors, 2014). GoE3 plans a west coast to east cost expansion network of its rapid charging stations to be added to existing fuel stations, shopping malls, hotel/motels, and other locations where a 20 to 45 minute recharge might be appealing to EV travelers (GoE3).

Expansion of the clean energy industry in the southwestern region also increases the need for industry supply chain components. Manufacturing opportunities exist in areas where there is sufficient infrastructure and access to transportation to support this type of activity.

14 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

1.2.5 Planning Tools and Resources EPA and partnering entities, such as NREL, have developed a variety of tools to allow property owners, Renewable communities, developers, and the public at large to evaluate the potential for renewable energy development at Energy Brownfields sites. These resources include screening/decision-making trees for solar and wind Redevelopment development that provide “a step-by-step decision process emphasizing redevelopment of potentially contaminated of Brownfields sites, underutilized sites, or rooftops.” EPA and NREL also developed two interactive mapping tools (one for the United States and one specifically for California) using the Google Earth platform that enables users to locate contaminated or potentially contaminated properties and Screening Tools mine sites that have been pre-screened for renewable (hyperlinked): energy technology utilization.

Other resources available to local governments to assist in the planning process for renewable energy developments Solar Photovoltaic and programs in their communities include (hyperlinked Decision Tree documents provide access to free download, all links to hyperlinked documents are included in Appendix B):

• Handbook on Siting Renewable Energy Projects Wind Energy Decision While Addressing Environmental Issues, EPA’s Tree Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response’s Center for Program Analysis.

• Cultivating Green Energy on Brownfields: A Nuts Google Earth and Bolts Primer for Local Government, National Association of Local Government Environmental Interactive Tools Professionals, January 2012. (hyperlinked):

• Solar Powering Your Community: A Guide for Local Governments, Second Edition, Solar RE-Powering America Communities, January 2011. America’s Land: Siting Renewable • Local CLEAN Program Guide. According to the Energy on Potentially Clean Coalition website, “The Clean Coalition Contaminated Land created the Guide to help communities and local and Mine Sites utilities evaluate, design, and enact CLEAN Programs based on best practices. The Guide is comprised of seven modules that will step readers Renewable Energy on through the process of designing and enacting Contaminated Lands in successful CLEAN Programs at the local level.” California: Renewable Energy Siting Tool

15 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

1.2.6 Utility Table Table 6. Coalition Load Serving Utility Information Subject Esmeralda Inyo Lincoln Nye White Pine Load NV Energy (Sierra LADWP - Owens LCPD NV Energy (Sierra Mt Wheeler Power Serving Pacific Power) Valley Pacific Power) - (Co-op) Utility (1) northern Nye County Allows Net- Yes. Yes, for residential Yes. Yes. Yes. metering customers who apply for and participate in the Solar Incentive Program. Purchases Yes, NV Energy is currently Yes, through FIT and large Peak demand is 20 MW. Yes, NV Energy is Portfolio includes 13% Renewable compliant with Nevada’s scale PPAs. Portfolio includes 92% currently compliant with hydro and 87% coal from Energy RPS and has said they have hydroelectric and 8% Nevada’s RPS and has said Utah. They state they met their mandate for the natural gas. they have met their have made a significant foreseeable future. With mandate for the foreseeable unrealized investment in passage of SB123, NV future. With passage of geothermal resources. Energy has the option of SB123, NV Energy has the soliciting 350 MW of option of soliciting 350 additional renewable energy. MW of additional renewable energy. Incentives for RenewableGenerations Solar Incentive Program Rebates for small scale RenewableGenerations Rebates for small wind Renewable Program is on hold at the participants receive an wind and solar Program, but the program and solar, and net Energy time of this writing pending upfront, lump sum installations, HVAC, and is on hold at the time of this metering PUCN review. incentive payment. heat pumps. writing pending PUCN review. Other 10MW FIT Program allows Information LADWP to purchase power produced by program participants. (FIT participants may not participate in Solar Incentive Program.)

Website www.nvenergy.com www.ladwp.com www.lcpd1.com www.nvenergy.com www.mwpower.net Transmission Transmission lines are Transmission lines are LCPD is working with Transmission lines are Transmission lines are Access owned and operated by NV owned and operated by Southern Nevada Water owned and operated by NV owned and operated by Energy. Transmission access LADWP. Transmission Authority to develop a 75 Energy. Transmission Mt. Wheeler Power. is gained through completion access is gained through mile, double circuit 230 kV access is gained through Transmission access is of an interconnect agreement. completion of an line. LCPD has a limited completion of an gained through interconnect agreement. capacity to wheel power to interconnect agreement. completion of an NV Energy. interconnect agreement.

16 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Load VEA - southwestern part SCE No other utility VEA - southwestern No other utility Serving of the county part of the county Utility (2) Allows Net- Yes, for 30 kW or smaller Yes, Net Energy Metering Yes, for 30 kW or smaller metering hydro, wind, or solar allows 10 kW or small hydro, wind, or solar systems. wind or solar systems. systems. Purchases No. Yes. SCE must comply No. Renewable with California's 33% RPS. Energy Currently, the energy SCE delivers is 21.1% from renewable resources. Incentives for Solar Water Heating Cash incentive from $0.40 Solar Water Heating Renewable Program - Zero Down and to $4.60 per watt for Program - Zero Down and Energy 100% financing plus a 30% qualifying electricity 100% financing plus a 30% Federal Tax Credit for those generating equipment Federal Tax Credit for who qualify. under SCE's Self those who qualify. Generation Incentive Program. Other SCE purchases mostly information wind and geothermal but has small amounts of solar, small hydro, and biomass in its renewable portfolio.

Website www.vea.coop http://www.sce.com/ www.vea.coop Transmission As of January 1, 2012, VEA Transmission lines are As of January 1, 2012, Access became a Participating owned and operated by VEA became a Transmission Operator SCE. Transmission access Participating Transmission member of the CAISO As of is gained through Operator member of the this writing, VEA is completion of an CAISO. As of this writing, conducting planning interconnect agreement. VEA is actively permitting activities for upgrading their a 500 kV line in southern transmission system. Nye County interconnecting with SCE in Eldorado.

17 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

1.2.7 Resource Maps Resource Maps, developed in June 2013 for each County, are divided into six sections: Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) resources; PV Solar resources; Geothermal resources; Wind resources; Biomass resources; and Transmission and Land Status. A summary is also included in each map which gives a brief description for each resource type. The Resource Maps were developed as part of the Area Wide Plan, which emphasizes renewable energy development in the RDSBC. The maps are available on the RDSBC website. Each County’s Resource Maps highlight areas of potential renewable energy, with gradients from low to high favorability. Resource Maps are shown in Appendix E.

The CSP map is based on Direct Normal Insolation and the PV on solar insulation when panels are facing the optimal direction for each County. The top right map provides an overview of geothermal resources throughout the County. The bottom left and bottom central maps provide an overview of wind power resources at a height of 50m and biomass resources, respectively. The last map, on the bottom right, provides a summary of existing transmission lines, proposed transmission lines, and land use in the County. The right portion of the Renewable Energy Poster provides a summary of the maps, by resource types, and additional information on the sources used for development of the maps.

As shown in the Resource Maps, Counties with a high potential for CSP resources include Inyo County, Nye County, Lincoln County, Esmeralda County, and the southern portion of White Pine County. Southern Nye County, Southern Lincoln County, Inyo County, and Esmeralda County have a mid-level potential for PV Solar Power. Geothermal Power resources are concentrated in Esmeralda County and portions of Inyo, Nye and White Pine Counties. Small sections in each County have potential for Wind Power development, mostly along topographic high points. Biomass Resource potential is present mostly in the form of pinyon and juniper woodlands. Lincoln County is pursuing Biomass resource development the most aggressively; however, Biomass potential is present in all five RDSBC member Counties. Transmission and Land Status maps show substations and transmission lines which are existing, under construction, or have been approved for construction. Land status is divided into private, local and state, federal and Indian, and excluded land. This map, when used in conjunction with the Resource Maps, may aid in preliminary siting and planning for renewable energy development.

1.3 Community Concerns and Brownfields Properties Assessed The RDSBC was formed to address the common concerns of Esmeralda, Inyo, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine Counties. While each County has its own strengths and weaknesses, they share a common history and vision for the future. Each of the Counties has historically based a significant portion of their economy on mining and has dealt firsthand with the cyclical nature of this industry. The ups and downs in their local economies have pushed them to pursue diversification, and the concentration of high quality renewable resources in the area have led them to target the energy industry. However, each County has to balance its desire to grow with the ever present fact that a majority of land within the County is managed by federal entities. These were the primary factors behind the decision to form the RDSBC in order to assess previously disturbed sites where the actual or suspected presence of contamination was hindering development to open up more non-federal land to development and to plan, on a regional scale, for attracting the renewable energy industry to the area.

The Coalition’s brownfields concerns center on the available supply and quality of natural resources to support community and economic development. While the RDSBC territory spans 51,453.53 square miles, only about two percent of the land is not federally managed; thereby, leaving only a small portion open to development. Groundwater quality and quantity remain a concern for all the counties, as they reside in the desert Southwest. Previous uses that present potential contamination concerns include industrial-related operations, such as mining, and agriculture. While modern mining activity must follow stringent environmental controls, remains of earlier mining activity may result in environmental issues

18 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan including hazardous materials and abandoned mine shafts. Additionally, the age of the public and private buildings in the RDSBC area present the potential for lead based paint, asbestos, and underground heating oil tanks. In Nye County, properties assessed under previous grant awards have included, but were not limited to, mining-related sites, a methamphetamine laboratory; property blighted by illegal dumping, and formerly utilized defense sites.

Table 7 provides a list of the properties that have undergone or are currently undergoing Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) under the RDSBC program. For background information on a site and associated redevelopment opportunities, see the respective County section. The 5,287.85 acres assessed include one parcel each in Esmeralda and Lincoln, two in Inyo, seven in White Pine, and 22 in Nye. Six of the seven parcels in White Pine County form two properties, each consisting of three adjacent parcels. Two adjacent parcels assessed in Nye County also form a single property. While 19 of the parcels assessed in Nye are not adjacent, they do share a single owner and are part of a water utility system. Of the 5,287.28 acres assessed, Phase I ESAs were conducted on 5,286.72 acres and Phase II ESAs were conducted on 5,213.32 acres. Maps of the RDSBC Brownfield sites are included as Figures 1 and 2.

Under the EPA Brownfields Grant, the RDSBC developed an Outreach Plan; the final Outreach Plan is expected to be completed mid-2014. This Plan provided strategies to be used in engaging the various communities in the Brownfields process through education and outreach. The Outreach Plan identified expectations, challenges, goals, objectives, and strategies for each County. Key media outlets in each County were identified along with Government and Chamber organizations, and organizations such as colleges, economic development groups, environmental organizations, and non-profits which could be collaborated with during the assessment and redevelopment of sites. Messaging for each County was developed in order to provide a list of clear and concise talking points that could be provided to the community when discussing Brownfields. A copy of the draft Outreach Plan has been provided in Appendix F. Media outlets in the member Counties are listed in the draft Outreach Plan and several newspaper articles from listed outlets have been included in Appendix G. The RDSBC plans to continue to work with area newspapers, radio stations, and websites to provide information for articles and stories on the RDSBC and program activity and successes.

19 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 7. Assessed Sites Site Name County Parcel Acreage Contaminant Phase Type II Coaldale Junction Truck Stop Esmeralda 006-161-09 5,068.00 Petroleum  Mt. Whitney Fish Hatchery Inyo 022-070-08- 40.00 Hazardous/  06 Petroleum PPG Industries Bartlett Plant Inyo 029-100-63 99.95 Hazardous  Pahranagat High School Multi- Lincoln 004-101-01 0.06 Hazardous  Use Building Mountain Falls Boulevard Nye 045-001-19 3.44 Hazardous/ Gateway Petroleum Mountain Falls Boulevard Nye 045-011-23 7.64 Hazardous/ Gateway Petroleum Manse Tank Nye 047-041-27 1.00 Hazardous Manse Well 1 Nye 047-021-27 0.23 Hazardous CAAS Well 2 Nye 047-021-21 0.12 Hazardous Well 3 Nye 045-101-62 0.23 Hazardous Well 3b Nye 045-101-61 0.31 Hazardous Artesia Water Tank Nye 043-121-11 0.46 Hazardous Well 4 Nye 043-121-13 0.29 Hazardous Well 5 Nye 043-062-12 0.22 Hazardous Well 6 Nye 045-151-30 0.38 Hazardous Bowman Well 7 Nye 045-101-57 0.23 Hazardous Bowman Well 8 Nye 045-101-58 0.23 Hazardous Bowman Well 9 Nye 045-101-54 0.23 Hazardous Pleasant Valley Well 1 Nye 044-561-29 0.11 Hazardous Pleasant Valley Tank & Well 2 Nye 044-561-26 0.46 Hazardous Sewer Plant 600 k Nye 045-171-72 4.48 Hazardous Future Sewer Site Nye 045-361-05 39.19 Hazardous Artesia Lift Station Nye 045-171-65 0.24 Hazardous Pleasant Valley Lift Station Nye 044-891-08 0.03 Hazardous Burson Ranch Lift Station Nye 045-551-09 0.01 Hazardous Tonopah Airport Fixed Base Nye 012-471-03 0.75 Hazardous  Operations (FBO) Building Lee Vacant Commercial White Pine 001-171-06 0.34 Petroleum  Property* Lee Vacant Commercial White Pine 001-171-07 0.11 Petroleum  Property* Lee Vacant Commercial White Pine 001-171-05 0.11 Petroleum  Property* McGill Ball Park White Pine 004-034-01 4.75 Hazardous  McGill Library White Pine 004-071-02 0.67 Hazardous  Ely Grade School Building White Pine 001-152-01 1.69 Hazardous TBD *The Phase I ESAs for the Lee Vacant Commercial Property were funded directly by White Pine County; however, the Phase II ESAs were completed under the RDSBC program and were funded by EPA.

20 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Figure 1. RDSBC Brownfield Sites

21 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Figure 2. RDSBC Pahrump Brownfield Sites

22 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

1.4 Program Benefits and Measures of Success The overarching mission of the RDSBC is to cultivate economic opportunities across the region to revitalize communities hard hit by the economic recession and to build financial security through industry diversification. The RDSBC built this partnership out of a common interest to develop a renewable energy sector and supply chain spanning the five-county region, but the Coalition is fully aware that a single industry will not sustain the local economies. Therefore, the region is pursuing a variety of complementary economically and environmentally sustainable opportunities that will enhance the livability of each community. Renewable energy serves as the cornerstone of the diversification efforts because initial interest in this sector has brought in investments that will help attract other business development opportunities. Among these investments have been upgrades to the local workforce, infrastructure, and community facilities to meet both short-term and long-term economic and community development demands.

The RDSBC's goal is to attract projects and stagger construction activities to utilize a single, trained workforce on multiple renewable energy and other construction projects. Construction activities, particularly in the solar industry, represent substantial employment opportunities, but they typically only last for up to two years. In order to prevent mass influxes of temporary workers into an area and/or spikes in unemployment once construction jobs on a single project are no longer needed, the Coalition is striving to cultivate spheres of development that will utilize a single workforce on projects commencing at various intervals. As part of the workforce planning process, Nye County applied for and was awarded an Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training Grant in 2012 to train residents of Pahrump for occupations in the environmental industry. Targeted employment opportunities for graduates of this program include work on brownfields, renewable energy, and mining projects. Nye County is also coordinating with the other Coalition members to identify opportunities to expand the workforce training program and apply for additional funding to provide training to residents of the other member-counties. Without this workforce planning, the communities will face shortages in resources and services, such as housing, education, healthcare, and food supplies for residents located in the Coalition's small, remote rural communities.

There are a number of projects, both inside and outside the renewable energy industry, in the queue that will support this long-term development approach. Several renewable energy-related projects have been proposed, have broken ground, and/or have completed construction in the Coalition territory. These projects are contributing to the cultivation of the regional renewable energy industry and creating sustainable employment opportunities. These projects include:

• Pattern Energy is operating the 152 MW Spring Valley Wind Project outside of Ely, White Pine County, Nevada that began service in August 2012 (Pattern Energy). The facility, which cost $225 million to construct, is anticipated to provide 13 long-term, full-time operations and maintenance jobs and generate tax revenue for White Pine County and the State of Nevada in excess of $20 million over 20 years (Bureau of Land Management). • The One Nevada Transmission Line (ON Line) is a 500 kV transmission project that began service in January 2014. It transects Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine Counties and was developed to connect Nevada's northern and southern transmission infrastructure and support increased capacity for renewable energy projects. The ON Line is part of a larger transmission construction upgrade that connects Idaho and Nevada, called the Southwest Intertie Project. • The 110 MW, SolarReserve Crescent Dunes Solar Thermal Project, located near Tonopah, Nye County, Nevada, is estimated to have construction costs of $900 million and over 4,000 direct and indirect jobs. The project was sited to enable use of existing transmission infrastructure formerly utilized by one of the County’s legacy mines, the former Anaconda mine. According to the project’s website (SolarReserve, LLC. ), “During operations, the project will expend more than

23 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

$10 million per year in salaries and operating costs, and is forecasted to generate $47 million in total tax revenues through the first 10 years of operation.” The project entered the commissioning phase in December 2013, the last step before the project begins delivering power to NV Energy later in 2014. • The Sunshine Valley Solar project, a 65 MW solar facility located on private land in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada, is proposed by First Solar. The project is expected to create 200 construction jobs with construction and operation planned for 2016. • Advanced Rail Energy Storage (ARES) has proposed a gravity-based energy storage project with a capacity of 50 MW. The project, located in Nye and Clark Counties in Nevada, will address intermittency issues and is currently in the Plan of Development stage.

Outside of the renewable energy industry, a number of projects have been proposed or are currently underway that can provide employment opportunities and infrastructure investment in the RDSBC communities. Some of these projects include:

• Electric vehicle recharging infrastructure is being proposed along major transportation corridors throughout California and Nevada. • The indoor agriculture industry is being targeted as a new market opportunity in Nevada by the Governor’s Office of Economic Development. • Research and development opportunities into unmanned aerial vehicles are being explored across the Nevada Counties. • A medical manufacturing facility is proposed in Inyo County. • Recent activity in Inyo County centered on renovating older structures and preserving local history and culture, specifically at the former Mt. Whitney Fish Hatchery and former PPG Industries Bartlett glass manufacturing plant.

Community facility and open space projects are another facet of the Coalition's long-range planning to establish strong, thriving communities. Under previous brownfields projects, Nye County set the stage for this type of community investment through the Beatty Habitat Trails project and the Tonopah Fire Station and Farmer's Market. A number of individuals and organizations were recognized by the U.S. Fish and Wild Service Region 8 for the Beatty Habitat Trails conservation efforts that led to the preservation of the Amargosa Toad (US Fish & Wildlife Service). Additionally, the Former Pink Motel, a dilapidated property along Tonopah's main street contaminated with asbestos containing materials, was torn down and now the site is home to the Town's fire station and emergency services facility, a pocket park, and farmer's market. Other planned and ongoing community facility projects for the brownfields sites under in the RDSBC Program include:

• McGill Ball Park, White Pine County, Nevada • Pahranagat High School Multi-Use Building, Lincoln County, Nevada • Mt. Whitney Fish Hatchery, Inyo County, California • PPG Industries Bartlett Plant, Inyo County, California - A portion of the plant is planned as an artists' colony and a mural has already been added to the site. • Pahrump Utilities Company Inc., Nye County Nevada - Assessment of Water Infrastructure in Pahrump, Nye County, Nevada

24 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

The following table shows the goals established for the RDSBC and the measures of success achieved under this grant award.

Table 8. RDSBC Measures of Success Measures FY2011 Goal FY2011 Actual Site lists 2 2 Site eligibility forms completed (by parcel) 20 31 ACRES Forms (by parcel) 20 31 Phase I ESAs (by parcel) 20 30 Property Fact Sheets (by parcel) 20 31 Sampling and Analysis Plans (by parcel) 5 10 Phase II ESAs (by parcel) 5 6 Parcels not requiring cleanup activity N/A 24 Proposed cleanup and redevelopment action (by parcel and 5 parcels 5 parcels, 111.43 acreage) acres Cleanup activities underway (acres) N/A 0 Cleanup activities complete (acres) N/A 4.81 Clean-up/Reuse plans 5 3 Redevelopment activities (by parcel) N/A 3 Area Wide Plan 1 1 Coalition/County Maps N/A 5 Public Outreach Plan 1 1 Institutional Controls 5 1 Additional funding leveraged as of 1/22/14 N/A $381,809.45 *The RDSBC is ahead of schedule and has recently begun cleanup/reuse planning for sites where Phase II ESAs have been completed. Sites undergoing cleanup are being funded by the property owner or other partners. Cleanup activities are being conducted in phases as funding becomes available.

Leveraging resources and building on past related activities are a critical component of the RDSBC Program. The RDSBC has leveraged various programs to support the assessment, remediation, and redevelopment of brownfields in the region. Leveraged resources have included but are not limited to: the Nevada State Brownfields Program, the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, the DOE Grant for the White Pine County Renewable Energy Feasibility Study, and local public and private funds (ex. Lincoln County School District funding to remove asbestos containing building materials at the Pahranagat High School Multi-Use Building, and Nye County’s District Attorney’s staffing assistance to promote a Brownfields ordinance). The RDSBC successes are not all directly quantifiable but demonstrate the benefits of the program to the communities. Some of the many benefits include:

Institution Controls - The RDSBC has prepared an institutional control to address potential contamination and blight of tax foreclosed properties. The institutional control is intended to provide a mechanism for assessing tax foreclosed properties suspected of blight and contamination with the aim of preventing the tax sale of properties hindered from redevelopment due to blight and contamination without the buyers understanding the potential barriers to redeveloping the property. Esmeralda County has recognized the problem, Nye County has provided resources to address the problem through the development of the draft institutional control, and each of Coalition members is considering implementation of the institutional control.

Renewable Energy Resource Maps - The initial map concept was sparked by Nye County's participation in the MSLI. Nye County subsequently used congressionally directed funds overseen by the DOE to prepare solar resource maps. The RDSBC recognized the benefit of the maps and expanded on them to create resource maps for each Coalition member documenting concentrating solar, solar PV, wind, biomass, and geothermal as well as layers showing land status, transmission, and brownfields site

25 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan locations. White Pine County expanded on the resource maps further under its renewable energy feasibility study funded by the DOE.

White Pine County Renewable Energy Feasibility Study - The renewable energy feasibility study prepared under White Pine County's DOE grant provided an assessment of concentrating solar, solar PV, wind, biomass, and geothermal development in White Pine County. The study includes resource assessments specific to White Pine County but also evaluates market opportunities that could influence renewable energy development considerations for projects in Esmeralda, Lincoln, and Nye Counties. The feasibility study is included in Appendix H; the complete feasibility study with appended resource assessments (White Pine County Renewable Energy Resource Assessments and Feasibility Study) is available on the RDSBC website.

Nevada Rural Brownfields Partnership - The Nevada Rural Brownfields Partnership grew out of the RDSBC Program. The Nevada members of the RDSBC joined together to start a brownfields cleanup revolving loan fund (RLF); Inyo County did not join the partnership because it is covered under the State of California's brownfields cleanup RLF. Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine Counties agreed to pursue an RLF because they wanted to ensure that sites assessed and found to be contaminated did not sit without further action due to the inability of property owners to access funding resources needed for cleanup.

RDSBC Six-County Application - The RDSBC member counties decided to apply for additional funding to continue the RDSBC Program and expand the Program to include Mineral County, Nevada. The RDSBC members recognized the need to assess additional properties that could not be included in the current program because there was not enough available funding for all known sites requiring assessment. Mineral County was included because the RDSBC's brownfields redevelopment goals were well-aligned with Mineral County initiatives, which included the expansion of the redevelopment plans to include the agricultural industry.

Future Workforce Development and Training Programs - Nye County is currently overseeing an Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training Program funded by the EPA. This program is focused on training individuals in the Pahrump area and was developed based on Nye County's former Brownfields Job Training Program. Nye County is working with the other RDSBC members to evaluate the potential for an expanded Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training program that can provide training opportunities to individuals across the six county region. This type of training program can support the region's plans to prepare a single workforce for job opportunities in brownfields assessment and remediation as well as targeted redevelopment sectors. This approach to workforce planning is intended to prevent widespread unemployment that the member counties experienced following the economic recession that began in 2008.

26 3BCoalition | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Section 2 – Esmeralda County

27 RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

2 Esmeralda 2.1 Community Description/Overview Esmeralda County comprises 3,581.88 square miles (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012) located along the Nevada-California border. According to the Esmeralda County Master Plan (2011), “Over 97% of the county’s total area, is controlled and managed by the federal government.” The County had a population of 783 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). Its three most populous towns accounted for over 80 percent of the population. Those town were: Dyer (259), Goldfield (268), and Silver Peak (107) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b).

2.1.1 History One of the nine original counties formed as part of the Nevada Territory on November 25, 1861, Esmeralda was originally the largest county in this newly formed territory, which along with Churchill and Humboldt Counties, comprised four-fifths of the Nevada Territory. Esmeralda County was named after the Esmeralda Mining District, which was named by an early Nevada miner, J. M. Corey. It is widely believed that Corey may have named the district after the character Esmeralda from the popular novel, The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Nevada Association of Counties). Esmeralda County has had three county seats: Aurora until 1883, Hawthorne from 1883 to 1907, and finally Goldfield, which became the county seat in 1907. The County has always been sparsely settled, except during the first decade of the 20th century when the population of Goldfield reached as many as 30,000 people (Bremer, 2003). In 2010, the once thriving population of Goldfield was reduced to some 268 residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b), with only 783 people living in the entire County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a).

Esmeralda County holds the distinction of creating an additional eight of Nevada’s seventeen counties. Three of these, Lander, Nye, and Mineral, were created directly from the original Esmeralda County. Additionally, Elko, White Pine, and Eureka counties were carved out of Lander County; Lincoln County was created out of Nye County; and Clark County was formed from the southern portion of Lincoln County (History: Esmeralda County, Nevada).

Esmeralda County’s history is closely tied to its mineral wealth, particularly gold. The County grew as a result of a gold mining boom in the early years of the 20th century (Esmeralda County Nevada gold production, 2007). In December 1902, gold ore was discovered in Goldfield, causing the area to flourish from 1903 to 1918. At one time Goldfield was the largest city in Nevada, although it originally began as a mining camp. In 1903 the Goldfield mining district boomed so suddenly that carpenters worked twenty-four hours a day to provide housing to between 25,000 and 30,000 people. That same year the mining camp was officially named Goldfield (History: Esmeralda County, Nevada).

Until the discoveries of gold in Goldfield in 1902, gold deposits in Esmeralda County were relatively insubstantial, as most of the gold had been produced as a byproduct of silver ores. In at least one instance, at Gold Mountain in the Divide district, the search for gold actually led to the discovery of rich silver deposits. The Gold Mountain district, founded in 1901, was primarily a silver camp. Between 1901 and 1917, there was only sporadic exploitation of the gold-bearing veins on Gold Mountain and the silver lodes in the Crown Divide property. Then, in 1917, a rich silver lode was discovered on Gold Mountain which immediately created a boom that lasted until 1919 (Bremer, 2003).

Throughout its history, Esmeralda County’s economic foundation has consisted of four primary areas: mining, agriculture, government, and tourism. The erosion of Esmeralda County’s economic base has been gradual and has impacted the local population. Increased rates of retiree immigration and out- migration of young people have raised concerns among community leaders about the survivability of the County’s economic centers. As the County’s economic base narrows, its growing elderly population requires greater levels of public services on which an ever-shrinking revenue base must be depended.

28 4BEsmeralda | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Leaders of the County have expressed continuing concern over the need to diversify and expand the regional economy. Chambers of Commerce or similar organizations have been established in principal communities within the County (Esmeralda County, 2001).

2.1.2 Demographics Current Population Characteristics: Esmeralda Table 9. Esmeralda County Demographics County had a population of 783, according to Subject Esmeralda the 2010 Census. The County had an aging Land Area (sq. mi.)1 3,581.88 population with the median age at 52.9 years, Population1 783 and over a quarter of the population was 65 Median Age (Years)1 52.9 years and older (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). 16 Years and Older1 84.90% Unemployment was at 6.2 percent for 2011, 65 Years and Older1 25.80% well below the State and national averages, Percent Minority1 15.60% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Average Household Size1 2.01 (BLS). The American Community Survey Unemployment2 6.20% (ACS) showed Esmeralda County’s poverty rate Per Capita Personal Income3 $37,683 also below the State and national averages at Poverty Rate4 11.20% 11.2 percent. The Bureau of Economic Analysis High School Graduate or Higher5 84.10% (BEA) recorded a per capita personal income for Bachelor’s Degree or Higher5 21.10% the County at $37,683, above the State but 1U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, 2010. below the national per capital personal incomes. 2BLS, LAUS, Labor Force Data by County, 2011 Annual Average, 2012. 3BEA, 2010 Bearfacts, 2012. The percent of high school graduates or higher 4U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 ACS 5-year Estimates, 2006-2010b. was on par with State and national rates, but the 5U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 ACS 5-year Estimates, 2006-2010a. percentage of the population obtaining a bachelor’s degree or higher was below the national rate and almost equivalent to the percentage of Nevada’s population.

Table 10. Esmeralda County Population, 1930 Historic Population Trends: During the boom years to 2010 of the early 1900s, Esmeralda County’s population was between 25,000 and 30,000 people, in Year Population Percent Annual Goldfield alone (History: Esmeralda County, Change Percent Nevada). However, the decline of the mining Change 1 industry in the area caused a significant decline in 1930 1,077 population size and by 1930 the County’s 19401 1,554 44.29% 4.43% 1 population was only 1,077 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1950 614 -60.49% -6.05% 1980). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 19601 619 0.81% 0.08% 1 Esmeralda County has seen substantial increases 1970 629 1.62% 0.16% and decreases in population size during each decade 19801 777 23.53% 2.35% 2 since 1930, except for the 20-year period between 1990 1,344 72.97% 7.30% 1950 and 1970, during which the population 20003 971 -27.75% -2.78% 4 increased by just 15 residents. During every other 2010 783 -19.36% -1.94% ten-year period during this timeframe, the 1U.S. Census Bureau, 1980. 2U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. population increased or decreased by at least 19 3U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. percent. From 1930 to 1940, almost 500 people 4 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. were added the County’s population rolls, yet during the next decade, the population decreased by 940 residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 1980). Between 1980 and 1990, the population increased by nearly 75 percent, but since then, it has been rapidly declining.

Population Projections: When the population projections were made, it was estimated the 2010 population in Esmeralda County would be 1,145; however, the U.S. Census Bureau recorded the County

29 4BEsmeralda | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

2010 population as 783, almost 50 percent less than the projected population. The State Demographer’s projections forecast a growth of 32 people over the 20-year period (Hardcastle & Mitchell, 2011).

Table 11. Esmeralda County Population Projections, 2010 to 20301 Year Population Forecast Percent Change Annual Percent Change 2010 1,145 2015 1,194 4.28% 0.86% 2020 1,180 -1.17% -0.23% 2025 1,173 -0.59% -0.12% 2030 1,177 0.34% 0.07% Total Change 32 2.79% Annual Average Change 2 0.14% 1Hardcastle & Mitchell, 2011, October 1.

Business Activity and Labor Force: In 2011, Esmeralda County had a total annual average employment of 269 individuals according to the BLS’s Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). Of the 269 employees reported, 116 worked in the Natural Resources and Mining industry. Due to disclosure requirements, data was suppressed for most of the industries reported by BLS.

Table 12. Esmeralda County Employment by Industry, 20111 Industry Annual Annual Employment Total Wage Average Average Location Location Employment Pay Quotient Quotient Relative to Relative to U.S. U.S. Total, all industries 269 42,993 Total, all industries (Federal Gov’t) 6 27,663 1.01 0.42 Total, all industries (Local Gov’t)* 0 0 0.00 0.00 Total, all industries (Private)* 0 0 0.00 0.00 Goods-Producing 144 55,499 3.63 4.00 Natural Resources and Mining 116 61,688 29.53 37.91 Construction* 0 0 0.00 0.00 Manufacturing* 0 0 0.00 0.00 Service-Providing* 0 0 0.00 0.00 Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 17 12,081 0.33 0.11 Information* 0 0 0.00 0.00 Professional and Business Services 9 53,727 0.25 0.25 Leisure and Hospitality* 0 0 0.00 0.00 Other Services* 0 0 0.00 0.00 1BLS, QCEW. *There were data reported to BLS tabulated for these records. However, the data did not meet BLS or the states disclosure requirements, and thus were not disclosed. In these records the numeric data fields for the data for the corresponding values contain zero values, not the data that was reported to BLS. There are occurrences of data being disclosed for one or more quarters or for the annual average and suppressed for some of the others.

The three largest employers in the County for the second quarter of 2011, as reported by the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR), were local government with 60 to 69 employees, a mining operation with 50 to 59 employees, and the school district with 20 to 29 employees. The other companies operating in the County during that period had fewer than 20 employees.

30 4BEsmeralda | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 13. Esmeralda County Top Employers, Quarter 2, 20111 Industry NAICS Sizeclass Trade Name City Executive & Legislative 921140 60 to 69 Esmeralda County- Offices Combined employees Goldfield & Silver Peak Other Chemical/Fertilizer 212393 50 to 59 Chemetall Foote Corp Silver Mineral Mining employees Peak Elementary and Secondary 611110 20 to 29 Esmeralda County School Goldfield Schools employees District Highway, Street, and Bridge 237310 10 to 19 Sanroc Inc Silver Construction employees Peak Hay Farming 111940 10 to 19 Triple D Ranches LLC Dyer employees Support Activities for Metal 213114 10 to 19 Mineral Ridge Silver Mining employees Peak Gold Ore Mining 212221 10 to 19 Scorpio Gold US Silver employees Corporation Peak All Other Nonmetallic 212399 5 to 9 Grefco Minerals Inc Basalt Mineral Mining employees Recyclable Material Merchant 423930 5 to 9 Arden Salvage Company Dyer Wholesalers employees All Other Nonmetallic 212399 5 to 9 Columbus S M LLC Mineral Mining employees Nonresidential 238222 5 to 9 Central Nevada Supply Dyer Plumbing/HVAC Contractors employees Potash, Soda, and Borate 212391 5 to 9 D C Minerals Inc Silver Mineral Mining employees Peak Gasoline Stations w/ 447110 5 to 9 Esmeralda Market & RV, Dyer Convenience Stores employees The Gold Ore Mining 212221 5 to 9 Mineral Ridge Mine Silver employees Peak Testing Laboratories 541380 5 to 9 Western Anallytical employees Consultants New Single-Family Housing 236115 5 to 9 GFC Sales & Gary Fedor Dyer Construction employees Construction Other Technical Consulting 541690 1 to 4 DFI Systems Dyer Services employees Drinking Places (Alcoholic 722410 1 to 4 Sante Fe Club Goldfield Beverages) employees Supermarkets and Other 445110 1 to 4 General Store, The Goldfield Grocery Stores employees Other Animal Food 311119 1 to 4 Alfalfa King Dyer Manufacturing employees 1DETR, Nevada Workforce Informer, Nevada's Largest Employers 2nd Quarter 2011.

Table 14 details labor force, employment, and unemployment information from the BLS Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) from 1990 to 2011. The number of unemployed persons in Esmeralda County has remained roughly the same since 1990, with a difference of only nine individuals between the highest and lowest points in 2000 and 2011, respectively. The highest unemployment in the County for the period identified was 44 people and 8.60 percent of the labor force. In 2011, a time when many communities were facing excessive unemployment, as well as in 1990, Esmeralda County had its lowest

31 4BEsmeralda | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan period of unemployment at a rate of 6.20 percent of the labor force. Additionally, the number of people in the labor force declined between 1990 and 2011 by 52 individuals, and it was at its lowest in 2000 when the number of people in the labor force was 102 fewer than the prior decade.

In 2011, the total employment of 526 presented in Table 14 was almost half the total annual average employment by industry shown in Table 12 compiled from the BLS QCEW. The QCEW reportedly provides data on “99.7% of all wage and salary civilian employment in the country” (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012b); thereby, suggesting the employees not accounted for in the QCEW compared to the LAUS are non-civilian, employed outside of the County, or seasonal.

Table 14. Esmeralda County Labor Force Data, 1990 to 20111 Subject 1990 2000 2010 2011 Total Labor Force 613 511 553 561 Unemployment 38 44 39 35 Unemployment Rate 6.20% 8.60% 7.10% 6.20% Total Employment 575 467 514 526 1BLS, LAUS, Labor Force Data by County, Annual Averages.

Housing: According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010a), over half of the 850 housing units in Esmeralda County were vacant. Of the occupied housing units, about a quarter were renter-occupied and 74.6 percent were owner-occupied. Of the vacant housing units, 86 were for rent, 17 were for sale, and 119 were for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. About half of the vacant housing units were classified as all other vacancies. The table below provides a breakdown of housing units, occupancies, and vacancies.

Table 15. Esmeralda County Housing Characteristics1 Subject Number Percent Total housing units 850 100.0% Occupied housing units 389 45.8% Owner-occupied 290 74.6% Renter-occupied 99 25.4% Vacant housing units 461 54.2% For rent 86 10.1% Rented, not occupied 3 0.4% For sale only 17 2.0% Sold, not occupied 6 0.7% For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 119 14.0% All other vacants 230 27.1% 1U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.

2.1.3 Physical Description Location: Esmeralda County roughly forms a diamond shape north to southeast. Northwest Esmeralda is bordered by Mineral County, to the east/northeast by Nye County, and to the southwest by Mono and Inyo Counties in California. Goldfield, the county seat, is 25 miles south of Tonopah, 191 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and 264 miles southeast of Reno.

Topography: Esmeralda County is approximately 3,581.88 square miles (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012) and has a diverse geography. Northern Esmeralda County has physiographic characteristics common to the Basin and Range province, defined by the numerous steep north-south, relatively parallel, mountain ranges separated by vast low lying flat valleys throughout the province. However, southern Esmeralda

32 4BEsmeralda | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

County has several west-east mountain ranges unique to the area (Esmeralda County, 2011). The highest point in Esmeralda County, and the State of Nevada, is Boundary Peak at 13,140 feet above sea level, located just east of the Mono-Esmeralda County border in northwest Esmeralda County.

Climate: Esmeralda County’s climate is greatly influenced by the County’s geography. The rain shadow produced by the Sierra Nevada and the White Mountains to the west of Esmeralda County create the arid climate throughout Esmeralda County. Temperatures in the County are relatively low in comparison to other Rural Desert Southwest Brownfields Coalition (RDSBC) counties ranging from the upper 60s during the peak summer months (end of July through end of September) with lows in mid 30s during the winter months (December and January). Most areas in Esmeralda County are considered deserts, receiving less than 10 inches of precipitation annually, and may receive a couple of inches of snow every month during the winter months. The portion of the White Mountains range, in Esmeralda County, may see 10 or more inches of snow fall, per month, during peak winter months. Table 16 was compiled using data available from the Western Regional Climate Center. The Tonopah, Basalt, and Sarcobatus National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Cooperative stations, while not in Esmeralda County, were included in Table 16 due to their close proximity to Esmeralda County.

Table 16. Esmeralda County Climate Information Average Average Average Average Cooperative Period of Record Max. Temp. Min. Temp. Total Prec. Total Station (F) (F) (in.) Snowfall (in.) Coaldale 10/1/1941 - 1/13/1970 71.9 37.7 3.35 7.7 (261755) Goldfield 2/1/1906 - 11/30/2009 64.8 38 6.06 17.8 (263285) Silver Peak 10/16/1967 - 8/26/2012 71.6 39.4 4.4 2.4 (267463) Dyer (262431) 2/1/1903 - 8/26/2012 69.1 33.3 4.99 12.8 Tonopah 5/1/1902 - 8/27/2012 61.9 40.4 4.78 14.2 (261755) Basalt 10/1/1941 - 11/30/1957 63.7 33.5 5.46 33.7 (260668) Sarcobatus 10/1/1941 - 6/30/1961 74.5 38.3 3.36 5.5 (267319) 1Western Regional Climate Center, NOAA Cooperative Stations.

2.1.4 Infrastructure Esmeralda County has a population of just under 800 people, of which 88 percent reside in the communities of Silver Peak, Goldfield, and Dyer. Esmeralda County’s power is provided by two large entities whose infrastructure traverses multiple counties. Water and sewer infrastructure varies by community with some communities using centralized utilities and others using well and septic systems. Communication services are primarily provided by satellite and wireless technologies. Esmeralda County has two general aviation airports and numerous federal, state, and county roadways providing access to various locations and adjacent counties.

Electric and Gas: Esmeralda County receives power through Sierra Pacific Power Company (doing business as NV Energy) and Valley Electric Association (VEA). NV Energy services north/northeast Esmeralda County, which includes Goldfield and the Silver Peak area (NV Energy). Southern and western Esmeralda County, which includes the communities of Dyer and Lida, resides in district 4 of VEA’s service territory (Valley Electric Association, Inc.).

33 4BEsmeralda | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Water and Sewer: Esmeralda communities receive water and sewer through town utilities or well and septic systems. The towns of Goldfield and Silver Peak are the only communities serviced by water utilities. Goldfield and outlying populations are supplied water by Goldfield Utilities serving over 350 customers. Goldfield Utilities’ system consists of their distribution system, two booster stations, an arsenic reduction system, a chlorinator, two wells, two booster primer tanks, a 200,000 gallon storage tank, and a 366,000 gallon storage tank (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2012). The two wells produced water with arsenic concentrations above the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) 2006 regulations regarding arsenic. In August 2011, Goldfield’s arsenic reduction system was brought on line (Nevada Division of Enrivonrmental Protection, 2010). The Silver Peak area is supplied water by Silver Peak Utilities serving over 138 people in the Silver Peak area. The Silver Peak water system consists of their distribution system, a chlorinator, three wells of which one is inactive, and a 260,000 gallon storage tank (Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2012). The community of Dyer uses well and septic systems. Table 17 lists water and sewer utilities for each community and their contact information.

Table 17. Esmeralda County Water and Sewer Utilities1 Location System Contact Phone Goldfield Goldfield Town Water Mike Anderson 775-485-3483 Silver Peak Silver Peak Water System Rich Ray 775-937-2245 1Drinking Water Watch. Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 2012.

Communications: Esmeralda County receives television, telephone, and internet services through a variety of providers. Television, telephone, and internet are generally available through satellite and wireless services, though cellular phones may not work in the more mountainous areas (Esmeralda County, 2011). Most of the service providers own and operate separate equipment and infrastructure. Larger service providers, like Frontier Communications, provide bundled services in which multiple service providers participate. Wireless companies in Esmeralda County may also use roaming or partner networks in order to provide services to their clients in areas where they do not have infrastructure; however, these agreements usually entail additional contractual restrictions and/or obligations.

Table 18 was compiled using Connect Nevada, a non-profit subsidiary of Connected Nation. Information was further verified through each provider’s website. Table 18 was compiled in order to provide at least one service provider per service type and may not include all service providers in any given community. Providers were not marked as offering services which are provided through partnerships or roaming.

34 4BEsmeralda | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 18. Esmeralda County Communications Providers Location Provider Television Telephone Internet DISH Network Corporation   Hughes Network Systems  Dyer Verizon Wireless  ViaSat, Inc.  Verizon  Atomsplash  Frontier Communications Corporation   DISH Network Corporation   Goldfield Hughes Network Systems  Verizon Wireless   ViaSat, Inc.  DISH Network Corporation   Hughes Network Systems  Silver Peak ViaSat, Inc.  Verizon Wireless  Coverage check. Sprint, 2012. Coverage viewer. AT&T, 2012. Coverage locator. Verizon, 2012 Frontier Communication, 2012.

Transportation: Esmeralda County roadways consist of federal and state highways and county roads. U.S. Route 96 and U.S. Route 6 are the only arterials traversing Esmeralda County and are the primary roadways providing access to west and northern Esmeralda County. State Route 265 provides access to the Silver Peak community located in central Esmeralda. State Route 266 interconnects with U.S. Route 95 and traverses southern Esmeralda County providing access to Inyo County. State Route 264 interconnects with U.S Route 6 and traverses western Esmeralda County providing access to Dyer and Inyo County. Other areas of Esmeralda County can be accessed through the approximately 3,500 miles of country roads (Esmeralda County, 2011). Esmeralda roadways also require regular maintenance as a result of local climate and considerable trucking. Esmeralda County has three airports of which the Dyer and Lida Junction airports are general aviation airports (GCR Inc., 2012). There are no railways or mass transit systems in Esmeralda County (Esmeralda County Road Department, 2012).

2.1.5 Planning Initiatives Over the past few years, Esmeralda County has been working to establish new plans to support growth and development across the County. On December 7, 2011, the Master Plan was adopted and is intended to “guide the County’s growth, management of natural resources, provision of public services and facilities, and the protection of the public’s health, safety, and welfare” (Esmeralda County, 2011). The County has also prepared the Esmeralda County Public Land Policy Plan, which was completed in 2013 (Esmeralda County, 2013). The purpose of this plan is to provide a framework for coordination with the federal agencies managing public lands in Esmeralda County based on a defined vision for community and economic growth.

2.1.6 Public Outreach An Outreach Plan was drafted in late 2013 to early 2014 and is expected to be finalized in mid-2014. The Outreach Plan identified communication outlets which could be utilized in order to share RDSBC information and updates with community members. The Outreach Plan is expected to be finalized in mid-2014. The Outreach Plan identified challenges faced in the assessment and redevelopment of Brownfields sites within the community. Challenges identified include difficulty identifying funding to

35 4BEsmeralda | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan complete projects after assessment activities are complete; poor public attendance at meetings; limited media outlets; and general public concern regarding EPA involvement in sites. Goals and strategies identified in the Outreach Plan include using scheduled Town Board and County Commissioner meetings to provide information on the Brownfields program benefits and the RDSBC progress; using scheduled Town Board and County Commissioner meetings to allow for public input; and providing RDSBC updates to area media outlets.

The Outreach Plan outlines key messages which should be delivered to media outlets and the public. These messages highlight the benefits of the Brownfields program and discussed sites which have successfully undergone assessment and redevelopment through the program. The importance of sharing the RDSBC site in publications and notices as well as utilizing national Brownfields and economic development websites for marketing purposes was noted.

2.2 Renewable Energy Factors Esmeralda County possesses ample geothermal and solar energy potential. Strategically located in a state where there is no income tax, no inventory tax, minimal employer tax, and opportunities for tax abatement and other incentives, the County has significant, positive attributes that may attract developers to the area. Additionally, Esmeralda County does not have zoning requirements and affords developers potential transmission access to California through the NV Energy and Southern California Edison (SCE) interconnect in Clayton Valley if the transmission line were to be upgraded.

Biomass: Esmeralda County has potential biomass in the form of evergreen forest and deciduous forest (White Mountain only) at higher elevations located on the White Mountains, the Silver Peak Range, Palmetto Mountains, Montezuma Range, and Magruder Mountain (Renewable Energy Maps of Nevada, 2007).

Geothermal: Esmeralda County has varying levels of geothermal potential. Portions of central and west- central Esmeralda County are known or suspected of having excellent geothermal resources primarily at lower lying elevations. Geothermal exploration in Esmeralda County has been conducted by Ormat, Terra-Gen, Magma, Ram Power, Inc. (who acquired Sierra Geothermal Power Corp. in September of 2010), and the University of Kansas. At a minimum, potential for 208 megawatts (MW) of geothermal reserves has been documented (Renewable Energy Maps of Nevada, 2007). Proposed projects have included:

• The Clayton Valley project (Ram Power, Inc.) would be located approximately 25 miles southwest of Tonopah. The plant would be an air cooled binary type power plant, which would reduce water needs and emissions. The project would be spread over approximately 82,496 acres of leased land and would have the potential to produce up to 160 MW of power through the use of multiple plants. The project would also have the ability to tie into the Millers Substation through use of an 11 mile generator tie line. The Clayton Valley project has a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Nevada Power Company, but as of December 12, 2012, Ram Power canceled the PPA (Ram Power, Inc.) to refocus its capital resources on its operating project in San Jacinto, Nicaragua. (Ram Power, Inc.). • The ALUM project included by Ram Power, Inc. in their Clayton Valley geothermal project portfolio, was located in Big Smokey Valley (Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology). Exploration indicated the presence of an estimated 33 to 68 MW resource. Current plans for the project were not available, but since Ram Power reported they were canceling their Clayton Valley projects, this project may also have been canceled. • An Environmental Assessment for geothermal exploration for a potential geothermal power plant by the Rockwood Lithium mine near Silver Peak Project, in Esmeralda County resulted in a

36 4BEsmeralda | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in October 2012. The status of development of a geothermal power plant to support operations at the mine was unknown..

Solar: Esmeralda County has several valleys, which have been identified as having a high solar power potential. The valley southeast of the Monte Cristo Range, the Salt Marsh directly West of the Monte Cristo Range, Fish Lake Valley, and Clayton Valley are rated as having 7 to 7.5 kilowatt hours per meter squared per day (kWh/M^2 per day). The valley just south of the Montezuma Range and Lida Valley are rated as having 7 to 8 kWh/M^2 per day (Renewable Energy Maps of Nevada, 2007).

Esmeralda County possesses two solar energy zones (SEZs) as identified in the Final Solar Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Millers solar energy zone (SEZ), located approximately 15 miles west of Tonopah, consists of 16,534 acres of developable land and is traversed by a 120 kilovolt (kV) transmission line (Bureau of Land Managment, 2012). The Gold Point SEZ located approximately 50 miles south of Tonopah consists of 4,596 acres of developable land. The Gold Point SEZ is approximately 3 miles west of a 345 kV line (Bureau of Land Managment, 2012).

Two SEZs identified in the Final Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS are located in Esmeralda County: Millers and Gold Point. (information hyperlinked)

Wind: Esmeralda County has many possible locations, usually located in higher elevations, for wind turbines. These areas are generally associated with the County’s larger mountain ranges, though the densest areas of identified wind resources are located in southern Esmeralda County along Gold Mountain, Mount Dunfee, Magruder Mountain, Palmetto Mountains, and the Montezuma Range. Most wind energy developments with wind turbines 200 feet above ground level will be required to coordinate with Nellis Air Force Base (Renewable Energy Maps of Nevada, 2007).

Transmission: Esmeralda County is traversed by a 120 kV line and six 55 kV lines. The 120 kV line runs from Tonopah to the Millers Substation and continues northwest into Mineral County. The first 55 kV line runs from the Tonopah Substation through Alkali Spring Valley to the Alkali Substation and a second 55 kV line continues to the Silver Peak Substation where it joins the with the third 55 kV Line which runs through Smoky Valley from the Millers Substation to the Silver Peak Substation. The fourth 55 kV line runs from Alkali Substation to the Goldfield Substation and the fifth 55 kV line runs from the Silver Peak Substation into California. The sixth 55 kV line runs from the Millers substation to the Anaconda Substation in Nye County. With upgrades to existing transmission infrastructure it may be possible to interconnect with California Edison (Boland).

37 4BEsmeralda | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

2.2.1 Utility Table Table 19. Esmeralda County Load Serving Utility Information Subject Esmeralda Load Serving Utility (1) NV Energy (Sierra Pacific Power)

Allows Net-metering Yes. Purchases Renewable Energy Yes, NV Energy is currently compliant with Nevada’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and has said they have met their mandate for the foreseeable future. Incentives for Renewable Energy RenewableGenerations Program is on hold at the time of this writing pending Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) review. Other Information

Website www.nvenergy.com Transmission Access

Load Serving Utility (2) VEA - southwestern part of the county Allows Net-metering Yes, for 30 kilowatts (kW) or smaller hydro, wind, or solar systems. Purchases Renewable Energy No. Incentives for Renewable Energy Solar Water Heating Program - Zero Down and 100% financing plus a 30% Federal Tax Credit for those who qualify. Other information

Website www.vea.coop Transmission Access VEA plans to become a Participating Transmission Operator member of the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) as of January 1, 2012, and is conducting planning activities for an upgraded transmission line that could serve geothermal developers in Esmeralda County.

2.2.2 Renewable Energy Poster and Resource Maps Solar energy potential in Esmeralda County has already begun to be utilized. SEZs have been identified in the County and consist of over 21,000 acres of land which could be developed. As shown in the Resource Maps, solar energy is above average across the majority of the County.

Esmeralda County currently has two geothermal plants which started production in 2013; the ALUM project and the Silver Peak project. Another potential site, the Clayton Valley site, is located near Silver Peak, Nevada.

Wind resources have potential along the County’s mountain ranges at higher elevations. While no wind power resources have been developed to date, private companies have installed meteorological towers to determine the potential for development.

Evergreen and deciduous forests throughout the higher elevations of Esmeralda County have the potential to provide biomass resources. However, the County is not actively pursuing the development of this resource at this time.

A 55 kV transmission line running from Esmeralda County into Inyo County is the only transmission line running from the Nevada Coalition Counties to Inyo County, California. The majority of the County is federal and Indian land with local, state, and private land interspersed throughout.

38 4BEsmeralda | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Figure 3. Esmeralda County, NV Renewable Energy Resources Poster

2.3 Brownfields Properties Assessed and Next Steps Coaldale Junction Truck Stop (006-161-09): The site consists of 40 acres of predominantly vacant land. The portion of the subject site used as the former Coaldale truck stop is approximately 10 acres of the total 40 acres. The site is located in Esmeralda County near the intersection of U.S. Route 95 and U.S. Route 6, approximately 50 miles west of Tonopah, Nevada. The site includes the remnant structures of a former cafe, motel, and diesel/gasoline retail facilities, which belonged to the former truck stop. Although the exact opening date of the truck stop is unknown, records indicate the site became operational in the 1960s. The site has been abandoned since the mid 1990s and has never been operated by Esmeralda County or the current owner.

The site underwent a Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). The Phase II investigation found asbestos, lead-based paint, and total petroleum hydrocarbons concentrations above regulatory action levels in samples in and near the former truck stop that make up the 10-acre assessed portion of the property. Remediation and redevelopment plans are centered on removing potential hazards and blighted structures in order to protect the public and improve the aesthetic character of the property and surrounding area. The following are the proposed next steps for the Coaldale Junction Truck Stop:

• Prepare a site-specific cleanup and reuse plan. • Evaluate use of the Nevada Rural Brownfields Partnership Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) or other financial mechanisms for remediation activities. • Maintain coordination with the property owner, potential developers, and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP).

39 4BEsmeralda | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

• Utilize existing County planning documents to guide reuse and redevelopment initiatives.

2.4 Program Benefits and Measures of Success The RDSBC has completed Phase I and II ESAs for one site in Esmeralda County comprised of 40 acres, with assessment activities focused on the 10-acre former truck stop. The identification and assessment of this site led the Coalition to identifying the need for an institutional control to prevent the sale of tax- foreclosed properties with suspected contamination without prior assessment. The proposed control will implement a mechanism by which the County's can assess properties suspected of contamination, recover the costs for assessment when the property is sold at auction, and place restrictions on redevelopment actions to protect public health and safety. The institutional control is intended to prevent the sale of properties that may face significant development challenges. The sale of such properties will likely limit redevelopment prospects, causing the properties to continue to deteriorate as they sit idle and may potentially lead to their return to the County's treasurer where they will be put up for sale again. The member-counties each recognized the potential consequences of this issue and decided to work together to find a solution. Nye County took the lead in drafting the prescribed control due to the lack of resources in Esmeralda County to dedicate to the project. This commitment to sharing resources is the overarching theme and success of the RDSBC and is continuing to expand.

Esmeralda County joined Lincoln, Nye (lead applicant), and White Pine Counties in applying for a Brownfields RLF coalition grant. This RLF coalition, the Nevada Rural Brownfields Partnership, was awarded $1,000,000 by the EPA to establish an RLF to remediate brownfields in the four-county region. The RDSBC also submitted a new application to EPA for additional assessment funding. This application expanded the Coalition to include Esmeralda County's northern neighbor, Mineral County, and to look into additional economic diversification opportunities including innovative agricultural projects.

Esmeralda County intends to continue active participation in the RDSBC and the Nevada Rural Brownfields Partnership, including designation of a champion in the community for Brownfields redevelopment projects. The County proposes to work with community members and stakeholders to identify additional sites for assessment and clean up action. The County may also consider applying for additional brownfields or other funding sources alone or in partnership with the other Coalition members, such as a regional Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training Grant. Other planning activities the County working towards include upgrades to housing infrastructure and community facilities.

Through participation in the RDSBC Program, Esmeralda County has undergone planning for community and economic development, assessed a priority site, and engaged in regional coordination towards a sustainable future. Under the EPA grant, the RDSBC dedicated $154,385.05 directly to Esmeralda County activities and accomplished the following successes as depicted in Table 20.

40 4BEsmeralda | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 20. Esmeralda County Measures of Success Measures FY2011 Actual Site lists 2 Site eligibility forms completed (by parcel) 1 ACRES Forms (by parcel) 1 Phase I ESAs (by parcel) 1 Property Fact Sheets (by parcel) 1 Sampling and Analysis Plans (by parcel) 1 Phase II ESAs (by parcel) 1 Parcels not requiring cleanup activity 0 Proposed cleanup and redevelopment action (by parcel and acreage) 1 parcel, 10 acres Cleanup activities underway (acres) 0 Cleanup activities complete (acres) 0 Clean-up/Reuse plans In progress Redevelopment activities (by parcel) 0 Area Wide Plan 1 Coalition/County Maps 1 Public Outreach Plan 1 Institutional Controls 0 Additional funding leveraged as of 1/22/14 0

41 4BEsmeralda | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Section 3 – Inyo County

42 RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

3 Inyo County 3.1 Community Description/Overview Inyo County is located in south central California along the California-Nevada border. Inyo County is 10,180.88 square miles (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012), 92 percent of which is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (Inyo County Planning Department, 2001). As of 2010, Inyo County had 18,546 residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). There are many communities spread throughout Inyo County ranging in size from several people to several thousand people. The largest communities based on population, as of the 2010 Census, in descending order are Bishop (3,879), Lone Pine (2,035), Big Pine (1,756), and Independence (669) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b).

3.1.1 History Formed in 1866 from Mono and Tulare Counties, Inyo County derives its name from the Indian name for its mountains, "Dwelling Place of the Great Spirit" (California State Association of Counties). Inyo County boasts diverse contrasts in topography and climate, encompassing Mount Whitney, the highest peak in the lower 48 states; Death Valley National Park, including Badwater, the lowest point in the United States; and the Great Basin bristlecone pines, the oldest living life forms on earth (Harthill). The Owens Valley and Death Valley areas of Inyo County have historically been inhabited by bands of Paiute and Shoshone Indians. Nomadic, these tribes moved throughout the region harvesting native vegetation, fishing, and following the migration of game animals. Today, Inyo County is home to four Paiute and Shoshone Indian reservations: Lone Pine, Independence, Big Pine, and the Bishop Paiute Reservation, which is the largest of the four (Eastern sierra native americans, 2006).

Early prospectors, drawn west to the Eastern Sierra as part of the great California gold rush, quickly discovered rich silver deposits in Inyo County, which created a rush of its own. In the 1850s the greatest bullion strike in California was made in the town of Cerro Gordo, and by 1868 the mining town of Cerro Grande was yielding such high volumes of silver that it was compared to the silver strike of the nearby Comstock Lode in Carson City, Nevada. Cerro Gordo was the first significant silver strike in the Owens Valley of Inyo County, and eventually became the largest producer of lead and silver in California, producing 4.5 million ounces of silver (Inyo county mines, 2006).

Mining in the California Desert in the nineteenth century concerned itself mainly with metallic minerals such as gold, silver, copper, lead and zinc. However, in the twentieth century an increasingly important role has been played by non-metallic minerals, which have become Inyo County's most plentiful mineral resources. In addition to the borax discoveries near the town of Ryan, salt, sulphur, and talc were discovered in very large quantities (Shumway, 1980).

The economy of Inyo County today is driven predominantly by three economic segments: tourism, local spending, and mining (Inyo County Planning Department, 2001). The economy of Inyo County relies heavily on tourism, with visitor spending accounting for 70 percent of all retail and lodging purchases in the County. The majority of this activity takes place during the summer months at popular destinations such as the Sierras and Mt. Whitney, Death Valley, hot springs in southeastern Inyo, and the Owens River. Leading recreational activities include fishing, hiking, mountain climbing, horseback riding, backcountry skiing, biking, sightseeing, and photography (Inyo County Planning Department, 2001). In addition, Inyo County has an 80-year history with Hollywood, serving as a favorite film location since the 1920s for feature movies, independent films, television, and commercials. Offering a landscape which lends itself to a variety of creative possibilities, the Alabama Hills and Movie Road of Inyo County are some of the County’s most sought after locations for filming. Inyo County has provided the backdrop for television and film depicting locales such as the American west, India, the Himalayas, and even other planets (Inyo county film history, 2006).

43 5BInyo County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

3.1.2 Demographics Current Population Characteristics: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2010 population in Inyo County was 18,546. One-fifth of that population (3,879 people) resided in the City of Bishop. The Greater Bishop Area has an estimated population of 12,000 representing approximately two-thirds of the County’s population. The Greater Bishop Area includes small communities surrounding Bishop from Big Table 21. Inyo County Demographics Pine (1,756 residents) located 15 miles south on U.S. Route 395 to the northern Inyo border Subject Inyo with Mono County. Lone Pine has the second Land Area (sq. mi.)1 10,180.88 largest population in Inyo County at 2,035 Population1 18,546 residents. Independence, the county seat, Median Age (Years)1 45.6 comprises less than four percent of the 16 Years and Older1 81.60% County’s population at 669 residents as of the 65 Years and Older1 19.10% 2010 Census. Minorities make up a quarter of Percent Minority1 25.90% the population in Inyo County. The minority Average Household Size1 2.25 population is primarily comprised of Unemployment2 9.90% individuals of Native American or Hispanic Per Capita Personal Income3 $37,124 origin. Nearly 20 percent of the population is Poverty Rate4 11.90% 65 years or older, compared to 13.0 percent High School Graduate or Higher5 88.60% nationally (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). Just Bachelor’s Degree or Higher5 20.90% over 20 percent of those 25 and older hold a 1U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, 2010. bachelor’s degree or higher compared to 27.9 2BLS, Labor Force Data by County, 2011 Annual Average, 2012. 3BEA, 2010 Bearfacts, 2012. percent nationally (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006- 4U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 ACS 5-year Estimates, 2006-2010b. 2010a). 5U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 ACS 5-year Estimates, 2006-2010b.

Historic Population Trends: Table 22. Inyo County Population, 1930 to 2010 Inyo County saw a significant spike in Year Population Percent Annual Percent population between 1940 and 1950, with the Change Change population increasing by more than 4,000 19301 6,555 people—over half the population in 1940. 19401 7,625 16.32% 1.63% Between 1950 and 1960, the population 19501 11,658 52.89% 5.29% remained stagnant, but the following decade, 19601 11,684 0.22% 0.02% the population saw another spike of almost 19701 15,571 33.27% 3.33% 4,000 residents. More than 2,000 residents 19801 17,895 14.93% 1.49% moved to Inyo County in the 1970s. From 19902 18,281 2.16% 0.22% 1980 to 2010, the population saw little change, 20003 17,945 -1.84% -0.18% growing by about 650 residents in a span of 30 20104 18,546 3.35% 0.33% years. 1U.S. Census Bureau, 1980. 2U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. 3U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. 4U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. Population Projections: The California Department of Finance’s Demographic Research Unit projected a population growth for Inyo County of approximately 11 percent, or almost 5,000 residents, over a 40 year period through 2050. Over the last 40 years, from 1970 to 2010, the County only saw a growth of 2,975 residents (Schwarm, 2012).

44 5BInyo County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 23. Inyo County Population Projections, 2010 to 20501 Year Population Forecast Percent Change Annual Percent Change 2010 18,624 2015 18,921 1.59% 0.32% 2020 19,388 2.47% 0.49% 2025 20,049 3.41% 0.68% 2030 20,657 3.03% 0.61% 2035 21,360 3.40% 0.68% 2040 22,091 3.42% 0.68% 2045 22,827 3.33% 0.67% 2050 23,618 3.46% 0.69% Total Change 4,994 10.92% Annual Average Change 125 0.53% 1Schwarm, 2012, May 7.

Business Activity and Labor Force: Business activity in Inyo County has historically been, and continues to be, dominated by natural resource-related industries and sectors, including agriculture, mining, energy, and leisure. Additionally, government services make up more than 40 percent of the industry employment as shown in Table 24. The percent of employment supported by federal, state, and local government as well as leisure and hospitality is above the percentage those industries make up of the national economy (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012b). In addition to those industries, education, medical, and retail sectors also represent some of the largest employers in the County as shown in Table 24. The County’s largest employer is a bottled water firm near Olancha with more than 500 employees (California Employment Development Department, 2012).

Table 24. Inyo County Employment by Industry, 20111 Industry Annual Annual Employment Total Wage Average Average Location Location Employment Pay Quotient Quotient Relative to U.S. Relative to U.S. Total, all industries 7,431 37,237 Total, all industries (Federal Gov’t) 401 52,477 2.44 2.26 Total, all industries (State Gov’t) 330 49,186 1.26 1.60 Total, all industries (Local Gov’t) 2,347 46,056 2.96 4.00 Total, all industries (Private) 4,353 30,171 0.70 0.57 Goods-Producing 504 40,802 0.46 0.43 Natural Resources and Mining 95 54,373 0.88 1.15 Construction 154 35,892 0.49 0.45 Manufacturing 255 38,696 0.38 0.32 Service-Providing 3,848 28,777 0.75 0.61 Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 1,234 34,757 0.87 0.97 Information 73 33,256 0.48 0.26 Financial Activities 151 31,680 0.35 0.19 Professional and Business Services 262 36,525 0.26 0.20 Education and Health Services 447 35,802 0.41 0.43 Leisure and Hospitality 1,449 19,368 1.90 2.40 Other Services 217 27,916 0.86 1.03 Unclassified 15 62,505 1.46 2.27 1BLS, QCEW.

45 5BInyo County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 25. Inyo County Top Employers, 20121 Industry NAICS Size class Trade Name City Nursing & Convalescent 623110 50-99 employees Bishop Care Ctr Bishop Homes Government Ofcs- 921120 100-249 employees Bishop Paiute Bishop Authorities/Commissions Gaming Water Companies-Bottled, 445299 100-249 employees C G Roxane Water Olancha Bulk, Etc Co Government Offices-County 921120 100-249 employees County Courthouse Independence Parks 712190 250-499 employees Death Valley Ntl Death Valley Park Svc Government Offices-City, 921120 100-249 employees Department of Water Independence Village & Twp & Power Schools 611110 100-249 employees Elm Street Bishop Elementary School Resort/Hotel 712110 250-499 employees Furnace Creek Ranch Death Valley Sheriff 922120 50-99 employees Inyo County Sheriff Independence Department Stores 452111 50-99 employees Kmart Bishop Schools 611110 50-99 employees Lone Pine School Lone Pine District Ofc Government Offices-City, 921120 50-99 employees Los Angeles Independence Village & Twp Operation & Mntnc Government Offices-City, 921120 50-99 employees Los Angeles Water Bishop Village & Twp & Power Dept Hospitals 622110 50-99 employees Mammoth Hospital Bishop Hospitals 622110 50-99 employees Mammoth Hospital Bishop Limited-Service Restaurant 722211 50-99 employees Mc Donald's Bishop Hospitals 622110 50-99 employees Northern Inyo Bishop Hospital Hospitals 622110 250-499 employees Northern Inyo Bishop Hospital Hospitals 622110 100-249 employees Southern Inyo Lone Pine Hospital Hotels & Motels 721110 50-99 employees Stovepipe Wells Death Valley Village Physicians & Surgeons 621111 100-249 employees Toiyabe Indian Bishop Health Project State Government- 926120 100-249 employees Transportation Bishop Transportation Programs Department Government-Forestry 115310 100-249 employees US Forestry Dept Bishop Services Grocers-Retail 445110 100-249 employees Vons Bishop Full-Service Restaurant 722110 50-99 employees Whiskey Creek Inc Bishop 1California Employment Development Department, 2012.

The number of people unemployed in Inyo County essentially doubled in 2010 (958) and 2011 (940) compared to 1990 (503) and 2000 (412) as shown in Table 26. In 2000, the County experienced very low unemployment at less than five percent, but following the economic downturn, the rate of unemployment has been at or about ten percent. Between 2010 and 2011, the total number of individuals in the labor force dropped by 78, but only 18 fewer people were unemployed (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012a).

46 5BInyo County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 26. Inyo County Labor Force Data, 1990 to 20111 Subject 1990 2000 2010 2011 Total Labor Force 7,015 8,853 9,566 9,488 Unemployment 503 412 958 940 Unemployment Rate 7.20% 4.70% 10.00% 9.90% Total Employment 6,517 8,441 8,608 8,548 1BLS, LAUS, Labor Force Data by County, Annual Averages.

Housing: According to the 2010 Census, there were 9,478 housing units in Inyo County, of which 182 were available for rent and 90 were for sale as shown in Table 27. In 2009, the County projected a need of 457 additional housing units, of which 40 percent were needed for low-income households, as reported in the Housing Element of the Inyo County General Plan. The County’s projections accounted for a 14.81 percent vacancy rate calculated by the California Department of Finance in 2008 for the County, which was only 0.3 percent less than the 2010 vacancy rate reported by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 27. Inyo County Housing Characteristics1 Subject Number Percent Total housing units 9,478 100.0% Occupied housing units 8,049 84.9% Owner-occupied 5121 63.6% Renter-occupied 2928 36.4% Vacant housing units 1,429 15.1% For rent 182 1.9% Rented, not occupied 21 0.2% For sale only 90 0.9% Sold, not occupied 20 0.2% For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 716 7.6% All other vacant 400 4.2% 1U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.

3.1.3 Physical Description Location: Inyo County is located in south central California along the California-Nevada border. Inyo County is bordered by the California counties of San Bernardino, Kern, Tulare, Fresno, and Mono and the Nevada counties of Esmeralda, Nye, and Clark. The County is 10,180.88 square miles (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Many of Inyo County’s communities are located near the western border of the County along U.S. Route 395, including Bishop, Big Pine, Independence, and Lone Pine (north to south).

Topography: Inyo County primarily resides within the Basin and Range province. To the west, the Sierra Nevada Mountains define the border between Inyo County and Tulare and Fresno Counties. Common to the Basin and Range province, Inyo County has north-south mountain ranges which drop steeply into large flat valleys. The lowest place in Inyo County is Death Valley and the highest is Mt. Whitney. Death Valley sits at 282 feet below sea level and is lowest location in the United States. Mt. Whitney is the highest location in the lower 48 states, sitting at approximately 14,494 feet above sea level (National Park Service, 2012).

Climate: Inyo County is relatively dry with the majority of the County’s valleys receiving less than 15 inches of rain per year. Southeast Inyo County, from Death Valley into the Mojave Desert, receives less than 5 inches of rain per year (National Atlas, 2009). According to Desert Research Institute data, portions of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and White Mountains lying in Inyo County may receive over 15 inches of precipitation per year and more than 100 inches of snowfall annually, over the winter and spring

47 5BInyo County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan months. Inyo County valleys have modest to hot summers, with temperatures in the low 70s in the north, and in excess of 90 degrees Fahrenheit in the southeast; most areas in Inyo County see an average drop of 30 degrees at night. Death Valley, which resides in Inyo County, is one of the hottest places in the United States, often sees temperatures in excess of 120 degrees Fahrenheit during summer months (National Park Service). West-northwest Inyo County has colder winters with temperatures as low as the upper 20s with some areas seeing snow, primarily on the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range bordering western Inyo County. Southern Inyo County’s winter temperatures drop as low as the low 40s with no snowfall (Desert Research Institute, 2012)

Table 28. Inyo County Climate Information Cooperative Station Period of Record Average Average Average Average Max. Min. Total Total Temp. Temp. Prec. Snowfall (F) (F) (in.) (in.) Bishop WSO Airport 7/ 1/1948 to 8/22/2012 74.5 37.6 5.28 8.1 (040822) White Mountain 1 (049632) 10/1/1955 to 12/20/1977 46.6 20.7 13.13 105.6 Lake Sabrina (044705) 1/ 1/1925 to 9/30/2009 55.3 28.4 17.05 140.4 Independence (044232) 1/ 1/1893 to 8/22/2012 75.2 44.6 5.21 3.2 Haiwee (043710) 5/ 1/1923 to 8/22/2012 73.2 46.1 6.50 4.9 Wildrose Ranger Stn. 1/ 1/1969 to 1/31/2000 72.2 45.3 6.90 2.4 (049671) Death Valley (042319) 4/ 1/1961 to 8/23/2012 90.9 62.5 2.23 0 Shoshone (0408200) 12/1/1972 to 3/14/2011 83.1 56.3 4.79 0.2 Trona (049035) 1/ 1/1920 to 8/23/2012 81.4 52.0 3.94 0 1Western Regional Climate Center, NOAA Cooperative Stations.

3.1.4 Infrastructure Inyo County communities are provided power, water, sewer, television, telephone, internet, and transportation through a variety of entities. Inyo County’s power is provided by large entities whose infrastructure traverses multiple California counties. Water and sewer infrastructure is primarily community based, though wells and septic are used in more rural areas. Communication infrastructure is also community based, though many communities are serviced by the same entities. Inyo County has several general aviation airports and numerous private, county, state, and federal roadways providing accesses to Inyo County communities and adjacent counties.

Electric and Gas: Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) provide power to the Inyo County communities. SCE services coastal, central, and southern California with almost 14 million users across 180 cities (Edison International). The LADWP was established in the 1900s and provides power services to approximately 1.4 million people (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power). SCE and LADWP each own and operate a transmission line which runs north-south along U.S Highway 395. SCE’s transmission line consists of 100 to 161 kilovolt (kV) cables, and heads east at Bishop continuing towards southern Esmeralda County. The LADWP transmission line, also known as the Pacific Direct Current (DC) Intertie, is a 500 kV line and continues to head north past Bishop, through Mono County, California, and into Mineral County, Nevada. There are no natural gas pipelines in Inyo County (California Energy Commission, 2011).

Water and Sewer: Inyo County communities receive water and sewer through town or city utilities, service districts, water associations, or through the use of well and septic systems. The City of Bishop owns and operates a water and sewer system within city boundaries. The community of Independence

48 5BInyo County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan receives water service from Owenyo Services, and sewer service is provided by the LADWP. Lone Pine also receives water service from Owenyo Services; sewer is provided by the Lone Pine Community Service District. Big Pine receives water and sewer from the Big Pine Community Service District. The Rolling Green community, outside of Big Pine, is serviced by the Rolling Green Community Service District. Other water and sewer providers present in Inyo County include Aspendell Mutual Water, Owens Valley Indian Water Commission, Indian Creek Mutual Water Association, Meadow Creek Water Association, Bishop Creek Water Association, Starlite Community Services District, Westridge Community Services District, and Eastern Sierra Community Service District (Inyo County Public Works, 2012).

Table 29. Inyo County Water and Sewer Utilities Location System Type Contact Phone Water/ Bishop City of Bishop Public Works 760-873-8458 Sewer Aspendell Mutual Water Water Lewis McConnell 760-873-6429 Starlite Community Services Water 760-872-2137 District Westridge Community Water Vern Mclean 760-872-2480 Services District Indian Creek Mutual Water Bishop Dave Water 760-937-8881 Association Oldenburg Bishop Area Meadow Creek Water Water Dan Totheroh 760-872-2137 Association Owens Valley Indian Water Water 760-873-3300 Commission Bishop Creek Water Water Miles Maillet 760-920-8264 Association Eastern Sierra Community Sewer 760-872-1415 Services District Lone Pine Community Sewer Vick Jackson 760-876-5312 Lone Pine Service District Owenyo Services Water Anisa Eaton 760-876-4700 Big Pine Community Big Pine 760-938-2660 Service District Rolling Green Community Big Pine Area 760-938-3311 Service District Owenyo Services Water Anisa Eaton 760-876-4700 Independence LADWP Sewer Charlotte Rodriguez 760-878-3031

Communications: Inyo County has a variety of communication service providers. Smaller communities without land lines can receive television, telephone, and internet though satellite or wireless service providers. Table 30 lists service providers and the services they provide, by community. The companies listed in Table 30 were compiled from the service provider lists for other Rural Desert Southwest Brownfields Coalition (RDSBC) counties. Each provider’s services and service territory was verified through interviews with sales representatives or through the provider’s website. Table 30 is intended to provide at least one service provider for television, telephone, and internet for each community.

49 5BInyo County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 30. Inyo County Communications Providers Location Provider Television Telephone Internet AT&T Mobility LLC   Verizon Wireless   Bishop Hughes Network Systems  DISH Network Corporation   AT&T Mobility LLC   AT&T Mobility LLC   Verizon Wireless   Lone Pine Hughes Network Systems  DISH Network Corporation   ViaSat, Inc.  AT&T Mobility LLC   Verizon Wireless   Big Pine Hughes Network Systems  Sprint   DISH Network Corporation   Hughes Network Systems  AT&T Mobility LLC   Independence Verizon Wireless   DISH Network Corporation  

Transportation: The backbone of Inyo County’s roadways consists of U.S. and State Routes which include U.S. Route 395 and 6, and State Routes 168, 136, 190, 127, and 178. These routes connect to private, city, county, and federal roadways. The U.S. and state routes, which traverse Inyo County, are classified as arterials or collectors. Arterials interconnect to form a network of interstate roadways which may traverse multiple counties or states. Furthermore, collectors act as intra-county roadways which feed into arterials. Figure 4 displays the principal arterials, minor arterials, and major collectors which form the backbone of Inyo County’s roadway network.

50 5BInyo County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Figure 4. Inyo County Roadway Functional Classification

There are currently no active railways in Inyo County (Smith, 2012). The only mass transit provider in Inyo County is Eastern Sierra Transit Authority formerly “Inyo Mono Transit.” The Eastern Sierra Transit Authority has several Inyo County routes including: (1) Reno, Nevada to Lancaster, California; (2) Benton, California to Bishop, California; and (3) Tecopa, California to Pahrump, Nevada. The Reno to Lancaster route is the Eastern Sierra Transit Authority’s longest route and has stops in several Inyo County communities including Lone Pine and Independence. Inyo County has a total of nine airports of which eight are general aviation airports. Bishop, Lone Pine, and Independence each have a general aviation airport.

3.1.5 Planning Initiatives Inyo County developed its General Plan in 2001 and prepares annual updates to the plan. In 2011, the County amended the General Plan to include provisions for Solar and Wind Renewable Energy development (Inyo County, 2011). In addition to the Renewable Energy provisions included in the General Plan, the County also adopted Title 21 to the Inyo County Code, known as the Renewable Energy Ordinance. These resources are intended to encourage development while establishing guidelines to address and limit adverse impacts.

Other planning documents include, but are not limited to (for more information visit Inyo County Plans, Laws, Ordinances and Studies):

• Hazardous Materials Area Plan (2008) • Housing Element of the General Plan (2009)

3.1.6 Community Outreach The RDSBC draft Outreach Plan identified program goals and strategies for the County including providing information to the public to improve understanding of the Brownfields program and the RDSBC accomplishments; to provide increased opportunities for public input; sharing RDSBC

51 5BInyo County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan information with the public through power bill inserts, emails, and website content; and to provide updates at City Council and County Supervisor meetings. Challenges expected in the County include public concern regarding the involvement of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in projects, and the cost of cleanup being more than the value of the property.

3.2 Renewable Energy Factors Text in this section is hyperlinked to provide more information. For a list of the links see Appendix B.

Inyo County has a long history of energy development, beginning with the construction of the Los Angeles aqueduct. In 1908, the Division Creek power plant was constructed followed by the Cottonwood Creek power plant. Both were built for the purpose of providing the electricity needed in the construction of the aqueduct. Subsequent dams and power plants were built along the aqueduct system and are still producing electricity today. SCE also has several dams and power plants along Bishop Creek that produce hydroelectricity.

Inyo County added Title 19 to its Code in 1973 to guide the development of geothermal resources within its borders (Geothermal Ordinance of the County of Inyo). The County also has language in its General Plan encouraging the development of geothermal resources (Inyo County, 2001). These geothermal resources were tapped in 1987, when the Coso Geothermal field was built. It consists of four power plants that have produced up to 273 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Recently, the BLM distributed the “Haiwee Geothermal Leasing Area Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Proposed Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan” (2012) which assesses amending the California Desert Conservation Area boundary to support additional geothermal exploration and development in the Haiwee Geothermal Leasing Area, increasing the potential for geothermal development in the County.

County elected officials and staff have maintained an interest in renewable energy development as it has changed over the years. In 2010, the County adopted Title 21: the Inyo County Renewable Energy Ordinance. This ordinance was developed to encourage and guide the development of solar and wind resources in the County. Also in 2010, the County wrote and adopted the Renewable Energy General Plan Amendment (Inyo County, 2011). It was challenged by environmental groups, though, and the County did not have the funds necessary to try to defend it in court; it was subsequently rescinded.

In 2002, the State of California passed Senate Bill (SB) 1078 the California RPS. Originally, the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) required Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs), electric service providers, and community choice aggregators procure 20 percent of electricity from eligible renewable resources by 2017. In 2006 the RPS was accelerated under Senate Bill 107 to meet the 20 percent standard by 2010, and in 2011, it was expanded under Senate Bill 2 to require 33 percent by 2020. It is one of the most ambitious renewable energy standards in the country, and recently, Governor Jerry Brown stated that he thought it was possible to reach a 40 percent RPS, opening the possibility to make it even more ambitious. In light of the RPS, utility companies have been actively looking for renewable resources to meet this obligation, including the two electricity providers in Inyo County, LADWP and SCE.

LADWP is a municipally owned utility and is exempt from SB 1078. The legislation, however, requires municipal utilities to develop their own renewables program consistent with the intent of SB 1078. In June 2005, the Los Angeles City Council approved LADWP’s RPS policy that called for providing 20 percent of its energy sales to retail customers from renewable energy resources by 2017, with an interim goal of 13 percent by 2010. In December 2005, the Board of Water and Power Commissioners recommended LADWP accelerate the RPS goal to obtain 20 percent of eligible renewable resources by 2010. LADWP has updated its RPS to generating 35 percent of its retail electric energy sales from renewable resources by the year 2020. In 2011, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced that

52 5BInyo County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan the LADWP had reached its RPS goal of 20 percent. To help meet the 35 percent goal, LADWP runs the Solar Incentive Program for its customers. The Solar Incentive Program provides a lump sum payment to customers that purchase or lease solar photovoltaic (PV) systems to offset traditional energy consumption at their site. Customers who qualify and complete a PV installation are provided with a “net meter.” If the PV system produces more energy than is used at the site, the excess energy is calculated as a credit on their bill. In April 2012, LADWP began a Feed-in Tariff (FIT) demonstration program for distributed generation (DG) called the Solar FIT Program. It provides customers located within LADWP service area, including portions of the Owens Valley, the opportunity to sell energy by using their property as a DG site. The purpose of the demonstration program is to test and make improvements prior to launching the full FIT Program.

SCE is an IOU and is required to meet California’s RPS requirements. As of 2011, SCE met the 20 percent goal. SCE has been authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to operate a five-year solar PV program to develop up to 500 MW of solar PV facilities in SCE’s service area (this includes portions of the Owens Valley). Under the program, SCE is authorized to build and own 250 MW of utility-owned solar PV capacity and to execute contracts up to 250 MW for generation from similar facilities owned and maintained by independent power producers. As part of the renewable and alternative power generation promotion, SCE offers information for distributed energy developers that includes transmission availability maps. SCE also runs a net metering program similar to LADWP’s Solar Incentive Program. If a consumer’s PV system produces more energy than is used at the site, the excess energy is calculated as a credit on the consumer’s bill. There are also incentives for the PV installation. In addition to the net metering program, SCE offers the Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing program. The Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing program offers incentives for installing eligible PV systems on qualifying multifamily affordable housing. It is designed to subsidize PV systems in multifamily housing that will offset electricity loads and provide economic benefits for housing property owners, managers, and tenants.

Inyo County has also been active in the large-scale planning for renewable energy development throughout the desert southwest by involvement in the California Transmission Planning Group (CTPG), Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative, and Renewable Energy Development Institute. The County’s involvement in these groups and initiatives is to promote better land use and transmission opportunities for renewable energy development in Inyo County.

The CTPG was formed in 2009 by California transmission owners and operators to identify transmission infrastructure upgrades that are necessary to meet the State’s RPS requirements. The CTPG completed the California Transmission Plan in 2011 and now seeks to improve its joint transmission planning and coordination process. Steps are being taken to increase stakeholder participation so that impacted communities and industries are more engaged in the process.

The Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan is intended to provide for the protection and conservation of desert ecosystems, while allowing for the development of renewable energy projects. The planning area includes the desert regions of seven California counties: Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego. This area incorporates approximately 22.5 million acres of land. The plan is being created by a collaboration of agencies including: the California Energy Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, the BLM, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A primary objective of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan is to provide an efficient biological mitigation and conservation program that will provide renewable energy developers reliable permit timing and cost certainty under the federal and California Endangered Species Acts.

The Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative is a statewide initiative that was created to help identify the transmission projects needed to accommodate the State’s RPS goals, as well as, support future energy

53 5BInyo County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan policy, and facilitate transmission corridor designation and transmission and generation siting and permitting. The Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative will assess all competitive renewable energy zones in California and possibly also in neighboring states that can provide significant electricity to California consumers by the year 2020. The effort to support this initiative is being supervised by the CPUC, California Energy Commission, California Independent System Operator (CAISO), and Publicly- Owned Utilities (POUs).

The Renewable Energy Development Institute was formed to help encourage the development of renewable energy. The Renewable Energy Development Institute has held numerous events to inform the public, businesses, and governments on renewable technologies. Through many partnerships, the Renewable Energy Development Institute has helped develop policies to encourage the widespread use of renewables and has developed marketing programs and materials to increase consumer awareness and purchases of renewable energy systems.

In keeping with its interest in renewable energy development, Inyo County joined a coalition of Nevada counties consisting of Nye, Esmeralda, Lincoln, and White Pine. The Coalition received a Brownfield grant from the EPA. The grant provides $1,000,000 for assessment and redevelopment planning of brownfield sites in the Coalition counties, including sites for renewable energy development.

The County joined the Southwest Solar Transformation Initiative in 2012. This initiative is part of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Rooftop Solar Challenge and is designed to help local jurisdictions streamline and standardize permitting, zoning, metering, connection processes and improve finance options for residential and commercial rooftop solar systems.

As of July 2012, several solar and wind energy projects were currently in various stages of exploration and development within Inyo County including:

• Little Lake North and South meteorological towers to test for the viability of wind energy resources. • Inyo County’s rooftop solar project for County buildings. • LADWP exploration of feasibility of solar development on Owens Lake. • LADWP Southern Owens Valley Solar Ranch Project (this project is intended to help LADWP meet their RPS goals). • BightSource Energy’s Hidden Hills Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Project. • Death Valley National Park installed PV for use at all the park’s facilities and was in the process of connecting to California’s electric grid. • Xanterra’s Furnace Creek Resort located in Death Valley installed a PV system that provides the electricity for all of its facilities, including the historic Inn at Furnace Creek, the Ranch at Furnace Creek, Furnace Creek Golf Course, employee offices and housing.

Inyo County offers a variety of information on renewable energy development through the Inyo County Planning website. Inyo County’s geography allows for excellent renewable resource potential and its history illustrates a consistent interest in its development. Elected officials and staff will remain open to opportunities to explore the County’s renewable resources and will continue to find ways to encourage its development.

54 5BInyo County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

3.2.1 Utility Table Table 31. Inyo County Load Serving Utility Information Subject Inyo Load Serving Utility (1) LADWP - Owens Valley Allows Net-metering Yes, for residential customers who apply for and participate in the Solar Incentive Program. Purchases Renewable Energy Yes, through FIT and large scale Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). Incentives for Renewable Energy Solar Incentive Program participants receive an upfront, lump sum incentive payment.

Other Information 10MW FIT Program allows LADWP to purchase power produced by program participants. (FIT participants may not participate in Solar Incentive Program.)

Website www.ladwp.com Transmission Access Load Serving Utility (2) SCE Allows Net-metering Yes, Net Energy Metering allows 10 kilowatts (kW) or small wind or solar systems. Purchases Renewable Energy Yes. SCE must comply with California's 33% RPS. Currently, the energy SCE delivers is 21.1% from renewable resources. Incentives for Renewable Energy Cash incentive from $0.40 to $4.60 per watt for qualifying electricity generating equipment under SCE's Self Generation Incentive Program. Other information SCE purchases mostly wind and geothermal but has small amounts of solar, small hydro, and biomass in its renewable portfolio.

Website http://www.sce.com/ Transmission Access

3.2.2 Resource Maps Inyo County possesses excellent concentrating solar power and PV resources, both are among the highest in the nation. The County has addressed the need to develop renewable energy in their Renewable Energy General Plan Amendment, published in February 2014. The Plan identifies sites in Inyo County that should undergo further review due to their potential to be developed for renewable energy (Inyo County, California Planning).

Inyo County has already begun tapping their geothermal resources with the construction of the Coso Geothermal Field in 1984. Further geothermal leases are under review by the BLM with resources available along the eastern border of the County.

The potential for wind resources in Inyo County is being researched at several sites by energy developers. Wind resources are located along the larger mountain ranges in the County.

Biomass resources are located through the center of Inyo County. However, the County is not actively pursuing the use of biomass as an energy source at this time.

Transmission lines running through Inyo County are owned by SCE and LADWP, with lines running north to south. Currently no new lines are under construction. Land status throughout the County is a mix of federal and Indian, local and state, and private lands.

55 5BInyo County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Figure 5. Inyo County, CA Renewable Energy Resources Poster

56 5BInyo County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

3.3 Brownfields Properties Assessed and Next Steps PPG Industries Bartlett Plant (029-100-63): The site consists of 11 acres of predominantly vacant land. The site is located on the west bank of Owens Dry Lake, approximately ten miles south of Lone Pine, California. Originally, the site was used by PPG Industries Bartlett Plant (PPG) as a salt extraction facility until it ceased operation in 1958. Salts were extracted from water collected in Owens Lake and processed to form soda ash. EPA records list the PPG site as a Superfund site; however, preliminary assessments stated the PPG site did not qualify for Superfund status under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The site includes facilities from the former PPG salt extraction facility.

The RDSBC conducted Phase I and II site assessments, which uncovered contaminants above regulatory action levels and recommended remediation. The proposed next steps for the PPG Bartlett Industries Plan in order to pursue redevelopment for community and economic development purposes include:

• Prepare a site-specific cleanup and reuse plan. • Evaluate use of California's Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) or other financial mechanisms for remediation and redevelopment activities. • Maintain coordination with the property owner, potential developers, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). • Utilize existing County planning documents to guide reuse and redevelopment initiatives.

Mt. Whitney Fish Hatchery (022-070-08-06): The 40 acre site was purchased by the citizens of Inyo County in 1915 and donated to the California Department of Fish and Game for the construction of the Mt. Whitney Fish Hatchery, which was completed in 1917. The site was scheduled for closure on June 30, 1996; however, due to local and statewide opposition, the California Department of Fish and Game recognized the need to preserve the hatchery. The Hatchery is no longer maintained by the California Department of Fish and Game and is under the stewardship of the Friends of Mt. Whitney Fish Hatchery. The site consists of the primary structure, nine small residences, and six commercial buildings.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted, which recommended a limited asbestos survey and a Phase II assessment for petroleum hydrocarbons and metals in subsurface soils. A Sampling and Analysis Plan was prepared in order to move forward with subsequent assessment activities, but the project has been put on hold as the property owner and DTSC evaluate next steps.

The redevelopment vision for the Mt. Whitney Fish Hatchery is to preserve the historical significance of the hatchery facility and its place in the history of Inyo County and California while making the site a center for economic and civic activity. Redevelopment goals also include use of the site for seasonal housing as well as commercial facilities. The goal is to provide the contemporary uses while informing the public of the historical significance of the hatchery, knowledge of the hatchery's function and an understanding of the property’s distinctive natural resources.

The RDSBC recommends the following next steps to advance the redevelopment vision for the Mt. Whitney Fish Hatchery:

• Conduct a limited asbestos survey and a Phase II ESA. • Prepare a site-specific cleanup and reuse plan. • Evaluate use of California's Brownfields RLF or other financial mechanisms for remediation and redevelopment activities. • Maintain coordination with the property owner, DTSC, California Department of Fish and Game, and other potential stakeholders.

57 5BInyo County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

• Utilize a community based process to guide reuse and redevelopment initiatives.

3.4 Next Steps and Measures of Success Inyo County has successfully assessed two sites, with one planned for Phase II assessment. Table 32 depicts the Measures of Success for Inyo County under the RDSBC grant award. These measures have been achieved through the investment of $123,566.92 from the RDSBC award.

Table 32. Inyo County Measures of Success Measures FY2011 Actual Site lists 2 Site eligibility forms completed (by parcel) 2 ACRES Forms (by parcel) 2 Phase I ESAs (by parcel) 2 Property Fact Sheets (by parcel) 2 Sampling and Analysis Plans (by parcel) 2 Phase II ESAs (by parcel) 1 Parcels not requiring cleanup activity 0 Proposed cleanup and redevelopment action (by parcel and acreage) 1 parcel, 99.95 acres Cleanup activities underway (acres) 0 Cleanup activities complete (acres) 0 Clean-up/Reuse plans 1 Redevelopment activities (by parcel) 1 Area Wide Plan 1 Coalition/County Maps 1 Public Outreach Plan 1 Institutional Controls 1 Additional funding leveraged as of 1/22/14 0

Inyo County intends to continue collaborative efforts to identify and assess brownfields sites in the County and to promote the regional redevelopment concept promulgated by the RDSBC. Inyo County signed onto an application for additional funding to continue RDSBC program activities in the original five-county area and Mineral County, Nevada. Inyo County did not join the partnership to create an RLF for cleaning up brownfields in the RDSBC region because Inyo County has access to funding through the California RLF. Inyo County has been exploring the use of the RLF administered by the California DTSC for site cleanup activities. Inyo County is also interested in future initiatives to support workforce and economic development across the region.

58 5BInyo County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Section 4 – Lincoln County

59 RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

4 Lincoln County 4.1 Community Description/Overview Lincoln County is located along the Nevada border adjacent to Utah and Arizona. Lincoln has a total square mileage of 10,633.20 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Of this land, more than 97 percent is managed by the federal agencies (Lincoln County, 2010). Lincoln County’s 2010 population of 5,345 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a) is dispersed primarily among Alamo (1,080), Caliente (1,130), Panaca (963), and Pioche (1,002).

4.1.1 History One of Nevada's largest counties, Lincoln contains a broad range of landscapes and wildlife. When first settled by religious missionaries in 1864, the area was still a part of Utah Territory. It was not until 1866, when Nevada’s state line moved eastward following a request by the Nevada State Legislature that Lincoln County was established. In 1908, another act of the State Legislature split Lincoln County into two parts; the southern half then became Clark County. Crystal Springs was the original county seat, but was later changed to Hiko in 1867, and then moved to Pioche in 1871 following the abandonment of the mines in Pahranagat Valley (History of Lincoln County, 2012).

Lincoln County includes the county seat of Pioche, Panaca, Castleton, Alamo, Rachel, and Ursine and Lincoln County’s only city, Caliente. U.S. Route 93 traverses the region and the County is also served by the railroad between Salt Lake City and Las Vegas.

Historically, Lincoln County's economy has been based on mining and agriculture, which are typically subject to cycles of surges and downturns. Many of Lincoln’s small towns were founded following silver strikes in the area. Castleton, founded in the 1920s by the Combined Metals Reduction Company, sits on the eastern slope of Ely Mountain near a prolific silver mine. Pioche became one of the biggest silver producers in Nevada by the early 1870s, and during World War II it became the second largest producer of lead and zinc in America (Lincoln County). Caliente was a booming railroad town following the 1905 completion of the rail line to Pioche, and by 1910 Caliente boasted 1,755 residents, making it the largest town in Lincoln County. Caliente was one of the major division points on the railroad by the late 1920s; however, in the 1940s that changed when diesel trains replaced steam locomotives and the main stop was moved to Las Vegas (Caliente, Nevada).

Today, occupations within the service industry and government employment are replacing agriculture and cattle ranching, railroad, and small-scale mining as primary sources of household income (Nevada Rural Development Council, 2010). Currently, the government sector employs 41 percent of the labor force in the County, and the service industry, which shows a very good potential for growth in the future, employs 30 percent (Lincoln County, 2007).

Possessing a vibrant and wide-ranging history, tourism continues to play an important role in the County’s economy. Home to Native American tribes, including the nomadic Southern Paiute, for thousands of years before European exploration, Lincoln has over a hundred sites containing petroglyphs. The County also contains a number of ghost towns that were established in mining rush years, as well as historic sites demonstrating how daily pioneer life was lived in the area. The railroad also played a large part in the history of the County and there are several historic sites devoted to the history of the railroad including Caliente’s Railroad Depot Boxcar Museum (Lincoln County).

Tourists come to Lincoln County to explore what is considered some of the most diverse terrain in Nevada. Lincoln County’s recreational opportunities include mountain biking, ATV trekking, four- wheeling, motorcycle racing, and in the winter, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, and snowmobiling. There are 16 official wilderness areas in Lincoln County that are part of the National Wilderness

60 6BLincoln County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Preservation System, all of which are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Lincoln County is home to five of Nevada's 23 state parks: Beaver Dam, Cathedral Gorge, Echo Canyon, Kershaw-Ryan, and Spring Valley. Additionally, the Key Pittman Wildlife Management Area lies in the central part of the County in the Pahranagat Valley.

4.1.2 Demographics Current Population Characteristics: Table 33. Lincoln County Demographics According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), Lincoln County had a population of 5,345 Subject Lincoln 1 spread over a land area of 10,633.20 square Land Area (sq. mi.) 10,633.20 1 miles. Minority groups only made up 8.90 Population 5,345 1 percent of the population. Lincoln County Median Age (Years) 39.9 1 had the youngest population of the Rural 16 Years and Older 77.50% 1 Desert Southwest Brownfields Coalition 65 Years and Older 18.10% 1 (RDSBC) Counties with a median age of 39.9 Percent Minority 8.90% 1 years (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). While Average Household Size 2.57 2 Lincoln County had a relatively low per Unemployment 13.70% 3 capita income at $18,148 compared to the Per Capita Personal Income $21,310 4 United States which had a per capita income Poverty Rate 10.60% 5 of $27,334, the poverty rate in Lincoln High School Graduate or Higher 83.00% 5 County was relatively low at 10.60 percent Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 15.80% 1 compared to the nationwide poverty rate of U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, 2010. 2BLS, Labor force data by county, 2011 annual averages, 2012. 13.70 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006- 3BEA, 2010 Bearfacts, 2012. 4U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 ACS 5-year estimates, 2006-2010b. 2010). Only 15.80 percent of the population 5 25 and older had a Bachelor’s degree or U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 ACS 5-year estimates, 2006-2010a. higher, which was 12.10 percent less than the rate for the United States.

Historic Population Trends: Between 1930 and 2010, the population in Lincoln County increased by 1,744. From 1930 to 1940, more than 500 residents moved to the County; however, over the next two decades, the County’s population decreased by 1,699 residents. Between 1960 and 2000, the population rebounded to more than what it was in 1940, with the decade from 1960 to 1970 having the fastest growth rate of 45.95 percent. The ten years from 2000 to 2010 continued the growth trend with an increase of 28.33 percent or more than 1,000 people.

Table 34. Lincoln County Population, 1930 to 2010 Year Population Percent Change Annual Percent Change 19301 3,601 19401 4,130 14.69% 1.47% 19501 3,837 -7.09% -0.71% 19601 2,431 -36.64% -3.66% 19701 2,557 5.18% 0.52% 19801 3,732 45.95% 4.60% 19902 3,775 1.15% 0.12% 20003 4,165 10.33% 1.03% 20104 5,345 28.33% 2.83% 1U.S. Census Bureau, 1980. 2U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. 3U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. 4U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.

61 6BLincoln County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Population Projections: The population projections prepared by the Nevada State Demographer’s Office underestimated the 2010 population (including Group Quarters) by 714 according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s count. The State Demographer’s projection through 2030 showed an increase of 1,051; however, the State’s projection represents a growth of only 337 above the 2010 Census population count. The Nevada State Demographer’s Office also broke out the projected population of Lincoln County without those living in group quarters, estimating a constant population living in group quarters at 351 people. The U.S. Census Bureau’s estimate for total population in group quarters for 2010 was 239 people.

Table 35. Lincoln County Population Projections, 2010 to 20301 Excluding Group Quarters Including Group Quarters Annual Annual Year Population Percent Population Percent Percent Percent Forecast Change Forecast Change Change Change 2010 4,280 4,631 2015 4,551 6.33% 1.27% 4,902 5.85% 1.17% 2020 4,831 6.15% 1.23% 5,182 5.71% 1.14% 2025 5,113 5.84% 1.17% 5,464 5.44% 1.09% 2030 5,331 4.26% 0.85% 5,682 3.99% 0.80% Total Change 1,051 24.56% 1,051 22.69% Annual Average Change 53 1.13% 53 1.05% 1Hardcastle & Mitchell, 2011, October 1.

Business Activity and Labor Force: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Natural Resources and Mining as well as Government (local, state, and federal) industries make up a significantly larger share of employment sources in Lincoln County than they do nationwide. Other industry sectors that make up the largest share of Lincoln County employers include Trade, Transportation, Utilities and Leisure and Hospitality. Information on employment and wages by industry is in included in Table 36.

Table 37 provides a list of the largest employers in Lincoln County by size class. The Lincoln County School District and Lincoln County government are the largest employers in the County, each with 100 to 199 employees. The next largest employers in the County include the Caliente Youth Center, a juvenile mental health facility run by the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, and the Grover C. Dils Medical Center.

62 6BLincoln County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 36. Lincoln County Employment by Industry, 20111 Industry Annual Annual Employment Total Wage Average Average Location Location Employment Pay Quotient Quotient Relative to Relative to U.S. U.S. Total, all industries 1,216 32,563 Total, all industries (Federal Gov’t) 48 50,391 1.78 1.82 Total, all industries (State Gov’t) 134 50,719 3.13 4.66 Total, all industries (Local Gov’t) 439 35,303 3.38 4.01 Total, all industries (Private) 595 25,017 0.59 0.45 Goods-Producing 103 34,764 0.58 0.53 Natural Resources and Mining 58 29,271 3.27 2.62 Construction* 0 0 0.00 0.00 Manufacturing* 0 0 0.00 0.00 Service-Providing 491 22,965 0.59 0.43 Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 207 18,546 0.89 0.60 Information* 0 0 0.00 0.00 Financial Activities 42 34,856 0.60 0.40 Professional and Business Services 30 34,132 0.18 0.15 Education and Health Services 61 27,005 0.34 0.31 Leisure and Hospitality 110 15,139 0.88 1.00 Other Services* 0 0 0.00 0.00 Unclassified 0 0 0.00 0.00 1BLS, QCEW *There were data reported to BLS tabulated for this record. However, the data did not meet BLS or the states disclosure requirements, and thus were not disclosed. In these records the numeric data fields for the data for the corresponding values contain zero values, not the data that was reported to BLS. There are occurrences of data being disclosed for one or more quarters or for the annual average and suppressed for some of the others.

63 6BLincoln County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 37. Lincoln County Top Employers, Quarter 2, 20111 Industry NAICS Size class Trade Name City Elementary and Secondary 611110 100 to 199 Lincoln County School Panaca Schools employees District Executive & Legislative 921140 100 to 199 Lincoln County Pioche Offices Combined employees Residential Mental & 623220 90 to 99 employees Child and Family Caliente Substance Abuse Care Division General Medical and Surgical 622110 70 to 79 employees Grover C Dils Medical Caliente Hospitals Center Supermarkets and Other 445110 30 to 39 employees Great Basin Alamo Grocery Stores Foods/Alamo Chevron Residential Mental & 623220 30 to 39 employees Narcanon Southern Caliente Substance Abuse Care California Administration of 924120 30 to 39 employees Bureau of Land Mgmt Caliente Conservation Programs Full-Service Restaurants 722511 20 to 29 employees Windmill Ridge LLC Alamo Ready-Mix Concrete 327320 20 to 29 employees Jim Wilkin Trucking Caliente Manufacturing LLC Wired Telecommunications 517110 20 to 29 employees Lincoln County Pioche Carriers Telephone Sys Executive & Legislative 921140 20 to 29 employees City of Caliente Offices Combined Hay Farming 111940 20 to 29 employees Atlanta Farms Pioche Gasoline Stations w/ 447110 10 to 19 employees "R" Place Hiko Convenience Stores Gasoline Stations w/ 447110 10 to 19 employees Jerry Services Inc Caliente Convenience Stores Gasoline Stations w/ 447110 10 to 19 employees McCroskys "Y" Panaca Convenience Stores Service Inc Supermarkets and Other 445110 10 to 19 employees Great Basin Foods Caliente Grocery Stores Electric Power Distribution 221122 10 to 19 employees Lincoln County Power Pioche District Commercial Banking 522110 10 to 19 employees Nevada Bank & Trust Caliente Company Correctional Institutions 922140 10 to 19 employees Department of Pioche Corrections Full-Service Restaurants 722511 10 to 19 employees Knotty Pine Casino Caliente 1DETR, Nevada Workforce Informer, Nevada's Largest Employers 2nd Quarter 2011.

Lincoln County has seen a steady rise in the labor force since 1990. The number of people unemployed more than doubled in 2010 and 2011 compared to 1990 and 2000. In 2000, the County had a low unemployment rate of only five percent, less than the rate ten years prior when the labor force was smaller, yet the economic downturn seriously impacted local employment causing the unemployment rate to reach 12.60 and 13.70 percent in 2010 and 2011, respectively.

Comparing the total employment of the labor force residing in Lincoln County (Table 38) to the annual average employment by industry operating in the County (Table 36) for 2011, there was a difference of 348 employees recorded in the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) and the Local Area

64 6BLincoln County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) employment counts. This difference is likely made up of individuals employed in non-civilian occupations, those that work outside of the County, or those employed on a seasonal basis, as the QCEW records cover the annual average civilian employment in a specified area.

Table 38. Lincoln County Labor Force Data, 1990 to 20111 Subject 1990 2000 2010 2011 Total Labor Force 1,464 1,655 1,790 1,812 Unemployment 105 82 225 248 Unemployment Rate 7.20% 5.00% 12.60% 13.70% Total Employment 1,359 1,573 1,565 1,564 1BLS, LAUS, Labor Force Data by County, Annual Averages.

Housing: According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Census, the total number of housing units in Lincoln County was 2,730, of which more than 70 percent were either owner- or renter-occupied. Over half of the vacant housing units in Lincoln County were categorized for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use according to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010). Only 63 vacant housing units were available for rent and 38 were for sale, accounting for less than four percent of the vacant housing units recorded in the 2010 Census.

Table 39. Lincoln County Housing Characteristics1 Subject Number Percent Total housing units 2,730 100.0% Occupied housing units 1,988 72.8% Owner-occupied 1444 72.6% Renter-occupied 544 27.4% Vacant housing units 742 27.2% For rent 63 2.3% Rented, not occupied 12 0.4% For sale only 38 1.4% Sold, not occupied 17 0.6% For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 409 15.0% All other vacants 203 7.4% 1U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.

4.1.3 Physical Description Location: Lincoln County is located in southeast Nevada. Lincoln County is bordered by White Pine County to the north, to the east by Nye County, to the south by Clark County, and to the west by Utah and a small portion of Arizona. The county seat is Pioche, located in north east Lincoln County.

Topography: Lincoln County is the third largest county in Nevada at 10,650 square miles (Lincoln County, 2007). Lincoln County is approximately 30 miles north to south and 100 miles west to east. The County has physiographic characteristics common to the Basin and Range province, defined by the numerous steep north-south, relatively parallel, mountain ranges separated by vast low lying flat valleys throughout the province. The lowest location in Lincoln County is the Tull Wash at 1,900 feet and the highest location is on the White Pine County border at 10,640 feet (Lincoln County, 2007).

Climate: The stations in Table 40 are roughly organized from north to south located at varying elevations. The Geyser Ranch, Sunny Side, and Mesquite stations are directly adjacent to Lincoln County and have been included to illustrate the surrounding climate. Lincoln County has an increasing temperature gradient from north to south with highs ranging from the low 60 to upper 70 degrees and

65 6BLincoln County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan lows from the low 30s to upper 40s. Northern Lincoln County is primarily semi-arid receiving at least 10 inches of annual precipitation, but no more than 20 inches. The semi-arid portions of Lincoln County also receive 30 or more inches of snow over the winter and early spring months (the bulk of snowfall is approximately from November to March). Most of central and southern Lincoln County sees less than 10 inches of annual precipitation and are considered arid deserts. Snowfall is drastically less in these arid regions with many areas receiving, at most, 12 inches of snow during the winter and early spring months.

Table 40. Lincoln County Climate Information Cooperative Station Period of Record Average Average Average Average Max. Min. Total Total Temp. Temp. Prec. Snowfall (F) (F) (in.) (in.) Geyser Ranch (263101) 2/ 1/1904 to 1/31/2002 63.7 27.0 8.47 30.4 Sunny Side (267908) 6/ 1/1891 to 8/23/2012 67.0 32.8 9.06 14.9 Lake Valley Steward 1/ 1/1971 to 11/30/1998 60.3 36.9 15.69 61.6 (264384) Adaven (260046) 4/ 1/1914 to 2/28/1982 63.4 34.0 12.75 47.0 Pioche (266252) 1/ 1/1888 to 8/26/2012 64.0 37.8 13.60 35.2 Ursine (268538) 5/ 1/1964 to 4/30/1972 66.6 33.8 11.38 30.8 Penoyer Vly Castleton 3/ 1/1967 to 9/30/2006 68.6 32.6 5.47 6.3 (266130) Diablo (262276) 9/ 1/1959 to 3/22/1979 68.7 36.6 6.53 4.1 Hiko (263671) 9/ 1/1989 to 8/26/2012 72.8 41.1 6.96 2.6 Alamo (260099) 9/27/1921 to 9/30/1962 75.5 37.9 6.27 7.4 Caliente (261358) 4/ 1/1903 to 8/26/2012 70.9 36.0 8.74 11.2 Elgin (262557) 3/ 1/1951 to 10/31/2011 74.8 43.0 11.88 0.9 Mesquite (265085) 1/ 1/1942 to 6/30/2006 84.4 48.7 5.85 0 1Western Regional Climate Center, NOAA Cooperative Stations.

4.1.4 Infrastructure Lincoln County utilities are primarily community based. The largest communities in Lincoln County are Alamo, Pioche, Panaca, and Caliente which account for over 90 percent of Lincoln County’s population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b). All of Lincoln County is supplied power by the Lincoln County Power District #1; however, select communities own and operate their local distribution systems which buy power wholesale from the Lincoln County Power District #1. Water and sewer infrastructure is primarily community based with more rural areas using wells and septic. Landline, satellite, and wireless communication service providers in Lincoln County are either county wide or service large areas of the County. Lincoln County has a pair of general aviation airports and numerous federal, state, and county roadways providing access to Utah and adjacent Nevada counties.

Electric and Gas: The Lincoln County Power District #1 serves all of Lincoln County excluding the areas of Alamo, Pioche, Rachel, Caliente, and Coyote Springs. The power district was created in 1935 in order to service the mining industry, and has grown over the last 75 years. Under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 318 Lincoln County Power District #1 is considered a General Improvement District. The Alamo Power District, City of Caliente, Pioche Public Utilities, and Penoyer Valley Electric Cooperative are power distribution companies for their respective communities which buy wholesale power from Lincoln County Power District #1 (Lincoln County Power District #1). Furthermore each company owns and operates the infrastructure in their service territories. There are no gas pipelines in Lincoln County however; propane is provided by several private entities.

66 6BLincoln County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Water and Sewer: Lincoln County water systems are community based. Areas not serviced by utilities use well and septic systems.

The Town of Alamo is supplied water and sewer by Alamo Sewer and Water General Improvement District serving over 900 people. Alamo Sewer and Water General Improvement District’s system consists of their distribution system; six wells, of which four are inactive; and a 450,000 gallon water storage tank (Safe Drinking Water Information System). As of 2009, Alamo’s water system exceeded 30 parts per billion of arsenic; three times higher than the ten parts per billion of arsenic set forth in Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2006 drinking water standard. Through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Lincoln County is looking for alternative water sources in order to comply with the EPA’s 2006 drinking water standard (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection).

The Town of Pioche is supplied water and sewer by Pioche Public Utilities serving over 800 people. Pioche Public Utilities’ system consists of their distribution system; four wells, of which one is inactive; a 1.2 million gallon storage tank; and a 230,000 gallon storage tank (Safe Drinking Water Information System).

The town of Panaca is supplied water and sewer by Panaca Farm Stead Association serving over 800 people. Panaca Farm Stead Association’s system consists of their distribution system; five wells, of which three are inactive and one is for emergency; a 500,000 gallon storage tank; and a 50, 000 gallon storage tank (Safe Drinking Water Information System).

The City of Caliente and surrounding areas are supplied water and sewer by Caliente Public Utilities serving over 1500 people. Caliente Public Utilities’ system consists of their distribution system; six wells, of which three are inactive; a 400,000 gallon storage tank; a 500,000 gallon storage tank, and a 650,000 gallon storage tank (Safe Drinking Water Information System). Caliente Public Utilities also services outlying areas which accounts for the difference in the city’s population of 1,130 and the population they serve (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b).

Table 41 contains contact information for the Alamo, Caliente, Panaca, and Pioche water utilities. The information present in Table 41 was obtained from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Drinking Water Watch.

Table 41. Lincoln County Water and Sewer Utilities1 Location System Contact Phone Alamo Alamo Sewer and Water James Poulsen 775-725-3377 Caliente City of Caliente Keith Larson 775-726-3131 Panaca Panaca Farm Stead Association Larene Rogers 775-728-4282 Pioche Pioche Public Utilities Nathan Adams 775-962-5840 1Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Drinking Water Watch.

Communications: Lincoln County has wired, wireless, and satellite communication providers. Large Lincoln County communities like Alamo, Caliente, Panaca, and Pioche have access to wired technologies, more specifically, cable television and digital subscriber lines. Areas without wired technologies can access the internet through wireless or satellite services. Wireless providers in Lincoln County may also use roaming or partner networks in order to provide services to their clients in areas where they do not have infrastructure; however, these agreements usually entail additional contractual restrictions and/or obligations.

67 6BLincoln County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 42 was compiled using Connect Nevada, a non-profit subsidiary of Connected Nation. Information was further verified through each provider’s website. Table 42 was compiled in order to provide at least one service provider per service type and may not include all service providers in any given community.

Table 42. Lincoln County Communications Providers Location Provider Television Telephone Internet  AT&T Mobility LLC   DISH Network Corporation  Hughes Network Systems   Caliente Lincoln County Telephone System  Rainbow Cable  Verizon Wireless  ViaSat, Inc.  AT&T Mobility LLC   DISH Network Corporation  Hughes Network Systems Alamo   Lincoln County Telephone System  Rainbow Cable  ViaSat, Inc.   AT&T Mobility LLC   DISH Network Corporation  Hughes Network Systems   Pioche Lincoln County Telephone System  Rainbow Cable  Verizon Wireless  ViaSat, Inc.   AT&T Mobility LLC   DISH Network Corporation  Hughes Network Systems   Panaca Lincoln County Telephone System  Rainbow Cable  Verizon Wireless ViaSat, Inc.  1 Connect Nevada. (2012). Interactive Map. 2Sprint. (2012). Coverage Check. 3Verizon Wireless. (2012). Coverage Locator. 4AT&T. (2012). AT&T Coverage Viewer. 5Lincoln County Telephone System. (2012).

Transportation: Lincoln County is traversed by two arterials, U.S. Route 93 and State Route 318, and eight state highways. Lincoln County roadways consist of federal, state, and county roads. U.S. Route 93 traverses Lincoln County providing access between the counties of Clark and White Pine. Furthermore, U.S. Route 93 provides accesses between Alamo, Caliente, Panaca, and Pioche. U.S. State Route 318 begins just south of the community of Hiko, where U.S. Route 93 deviates east to Caliente, and continues north providing access to northeast Nye County along the Nye County and Lincoln County line. Figure 4 shows the major roadways in Lincoln County and how they are classified by the Nevada Department of Transportation.

68 6BLincoln County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Figure 6. Lincoln County Roadway Functional Classification Source: Nevada Department of Transpiration, 2003

The Las Vegas, Nevada to Salt Lake City, Utah Union Pacific Rail line traverses southeast Lincoln County. The rail line enters along the Lincoln and Clark County border approximately 36 miles west of Utah, and heads north to Caliente before heading west into Utah. The line is rated for 158 tons and allows for gross weight cars and unit trains (Union Pacific, 2012) as shown in Figure 7.

69 6BLincoln County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Figure 7. Union Pacific Rail Allowable Gross Weight Map Source: Union Pacific, 2012

4.1.5 Planning Initiatives Lincoln County has in place a variety of planning documents intended to help guide development and use of natural resources, including:

• Open Space and Community Lands Plan (2011) • Lincoln County Public Lands Policy Plan (2010) • Eastern Lincoln County, Nevada Community Assessment (2010) • Master Plan for Lincoln County, Nevada (2007)

Additionally, Lincoln amended the County Code in 2010 to address renewable energy development and supporting facilities in the Toquop Planning Area and has been actively promoting the renewable energy industry as an economic diversification pathway.

4.1.6 Community Outreach Lincoln County completed a draft Outreach Plan as part of their activities in the RDSBC. In that plan, challenges were identified along with goals and strategies to promote the redevelopment of brownfields within the County. Challenges identified within Lincoln County included high costs of redevelopment; a lack of knowledge about the Brownfields program; challenges in redeveloping projects that span both public and private lands; and public concern regarding involving EPA in projects. Lincoln County identified strategies and goals to combat these challenges.

The County’s goals include educating the public on the Brownfields program and how it can benefit the community, and providing opportunities for the public to provide input on designated sites. Lincoln County plans to utilize the RDSBC website to provide information to the public and other interested

70 6BLincoln County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan parties; use email, flyers inserted in power bills, and use websites to consistently provide information on project, community, and program status; and use public meetings such as Town Board and County Commissioner meetings to update communities on the program.

4.2 Renewable Energy Factors Lincoln County has some of the highest solar energy potential in the nation. The County has also attracted the interest of wind energy developers. Strategically located in a state where there is no income tax, no inventory tax, minimal employer payroll tax, and opportunities for tax abatement and other incentives, the County is poised to become a renewable energy industry hub for the 11-state western region.

Transmission: Lincoln County is a gateway to existing electrical demand centers in Las Vegas and southern California. Existing and planned high voltage electrical transmission facilities transect the County along with supporting distribution lines providing opportunities for access to the local utility, Lincoln County Power District (LCPD), and the State Investor-Owned Utility (IOU), NV Energy. While the LCPD is well supplied with inexpensive hydroelectric power from Hoover Dam, the utility is not adverse to wheeling energy to NV Energy’s system which interconnects with the Western Grid. Dr. Michael Baughman, Director of the Lincoln County Regional Development Authority, estimated capacity for moving 10 megawatts (MW) from the northern part of the County near Pioche and 20 MW from the southern part of the County near Coyote Springs into the Las Vegas area. Dr. Baughman stated the opportunity to wheel power could benefit LCPD because it could reduce line loss (currently about 6 to 8 percent) on the existing 69 kilovolt (kV) lines. Interest in Lincoln County’s renewable energy potential is on the rise, partly because of the following transmission development activities:

• The Southwest Inter-tie Transmission Project was identified by the Western Regional Corridor Study as a major transmission corridor. • NV Energy is constructing ON Line, a 500 kV transmission line through Lincoln County running 250 miles. The line will initiate north of Las Vegas to an area near Ely, Nevada. However, NV Energy has reported the line was fully subscribed, and if there was capacity, interconnection would cost in excess of $50 million. • The Southern Nevada Water Authority is permitting a 238 kV line paralleling the NV Energy 500 kV line to primarily serve ground water importation. • LCPD No. 1 is upgrading its existing 69 kV lines to 138 kV. • Great Basin Transmission Project has permitted its proposed 500 kV transmission line from Twin Falls, Idaho to Las Vegas.

Wind: Wind resources are favorable in the northeastern part of the County; however, much of the County falls within the Department of Defense Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Special Use Airspace area. The Air Force restricts wind development in this area because it would interfere with radar and impact mission activities. For this reason, the Department of Defense recommends potential wind developers contact their Director of Public Partnerships at Nellis Air Force Base early in the siting process. Many wind projects have been proposed within the County and nearby region. Some of these include:

• Spring Valley Wind proposed a 150 MW project about 30 miles east of Ely, Nevada. • Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC, affiliated with Duke Energy, proposed a 370 MW project near Searchlight. • Wilson Creek Wind Company, LLC, proposed a 990 MW project on 31,000 acres of public lands in the Wilson Creek Range, including Mt. Wilson, Table and White Rock mountains, and Atlanta Summit; however, BLM rejected the right of way (ROW) application because the project proponent had not provided the required documents including an updated Plan of Development.

71 6BLincoln County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

According to Dr. Baughman, the County opposed this particular development due to impacts to some of the last vestiges of alpine recreation area in the County. He said the County would support a wind project on the alluvial fan in Lake Valley below Wilson Creek. • Invenergy, LLC submitted an application for anemometers in the North Spring Valley. • Enexco was granted a ROW by the BLM for anemometers in the North Egan Range. • Power Partners, LLC had a ROW for anemometers in the Diamond Range.

Solar: Lincoln County, Nevada is strategically located in the southwestern United States in the heart of active solar energy development within a multi-state region including Utah, Arizona, and California. Within the County are more than 6.7 million acres of public land. The Supplemental Draft Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) proposed 28,726 acres within Dry Lake Valley North as a Solar Energy Zone (SEZ); however, the Final Programmatic EIS is expected to reduce the SEZ to approximately 25,000 acres. Lincoln County participated as a cooperating agency in the development of the Solar Programmatic EIS and supported designating 12,000 acres within the SEZ. The potential SEZ is adjacent to NV Energy’s 500 kV transmission line (under construction) and 2,000 acre feet of water rights. Vidler Water Company, the owner of the only private property within Dry Lake Valley (a site of approximately 800 acres with 2,000 acre feet of permitted groundwater rights which sits within the proposed SEZ), supports development of the SEZ. Due to the County’s proximity to Department of Defense installations, photovoltaic (PV) technologies (as opposed to solar thermal tower technology) may be most appropriate for development within the Dry Lake Valley SEZ. Solar projects proposed within the County and nearby region have included the following:

• Bright Source has leased 8,300 acres of privately owned land at Coyote Springs in southwestern Lincoln County. The site has access to a 69 kV transmission line and upgrades are planned to bring a 138 kV line to the site. The site is also proximate to NV Energy’s 500 kV On Line project which is currently under construction. Discussions with NV Energy may result in additional interconnection opportunities for at least two potential solar developers. • Recurrent Energy explored a solar PV project on private land near the community of Rachel in western Lincoln County. • Sithe Global proposed a 50 MW PV project on 1,000 acres of private land in southeastern Lincoln County within the 13,500 acre Lincoln County Land Act land sale area. The project proposes utilizing an existing 138 kV transmission line.

Biomass: Lincoln County is actively seeking industrial users for 25 to 30 years of potential biomass resulting from BLM proposed landscape treatment projects to curtail pinyon and juniper encroachment into the sage brush steppe, particularly in the northern and eastern parts of the County. The steppe provides critical habitat to the threatened Greater Sage-grouse, and preservation actions are being considered including thinning of the invasive pinyon and juniper. The Ely District Office of the BLM’s Ely Resource Management Plan identified one million acres in Lincoln County that needed to be thinned of pinyon and juniper to not only restore habitat but also to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires. The BLM completed a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of the area and designated the area for landscape restoration. Dr. Baughman stated 722,000 acres are readily accessible making mechanized clearing possible. He estimated a resource stream of 35,000 acres/year for 20 years, but BLM can only clear a few thousand acres a year due to budget constraints. The County has sought industrial developers of the biomass, with whom BLM could contract under a stewardship pilot program. The agreement would allow the BLM to pay for thinning but recover cost from the value of the biomass harvested by the developer. Biomass refining, char, and power generation have development potential but are currently constrained because the BLM may only enter into ten-year contracts while longer contracts are considered necessary to recover costs. Lincoln County is working with the BLM to change this policy.

72 6BLincoln County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Geothermal: Geothermal resources have been identified near Caliente for more than 25 years. One well in particular has been characterized as having 185° Fahrenheit water near the surface. Down gradient testing is needed to determine the potential for utility scale development of the resource. The city of Caliente, served by its own utility’s electric distribution system, is interested in developing the resource for electrical energy generation or community space heating.

Additional information can be obtained at: Lincoln County Regional Development Authority Lincoln County

Interested parties may also contact Dr. Michael Baughman (Lincoln County Regional Development Authority) at (775) 883-2051

4.2.1 Utility Table Table 43. Lincoln County Load Serving Utility Information Subject Lincoln Load Serving Utility (1) LCPD Allows Net-metering Yes. Purchases Renewable Energy Peak demand is 20 MW. Portfolio includes 92% hydroelectric and 8% natural gas. Incentives forRenewable Energy Rebates for small scale wind and solar installations, HVAC, and heat pumps. Other Information

Website www.lcpd1.com Transmission Access LCPD is working with Southern Nevada Water Authority to develop a 75 mile, double circuit 230 kV line. LCPD has a limited capacity to wheel power to NV Energy.

4.2.2 Resource Maps Lincoln County has high potential for concentrating solar power resources, especially in the southwestern area; levels here are in the 8.0 – 8.5 average annual kilowatt hours per meter squared per day (kWh/M^2 per day) range with the majority of the remaining area ranging from 7.0 – 8.0 average annual kWh/M^2 per day. PV resources within the County average 6.0 – 7.0 average annual (kWh/M^2 per day).

While the majority of the County does not have geothermal potential higher than favorable, Caliente does have geothermal resources which were identified up to 25 years ago. The city of Caliente has expressed interest in developing this resource.

The wind resources in Lincoln County are scattered and generally do not rise above moderate to fair potential. Several wind leases have been sought in the County; however, none have come to fruition.

Lincoln County is actively seeking to develop its biomass resources and has estimated an available resource with 25 - 30 years production potential. Information related to development opportunities associated with biomass are available on the Lincoln County Regional Development Authority website, www.lcrda.com.

73 6BLincoln County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

As in other areas of Nevada, large portions of Lincoln County are comprised of federal and Indian lands. The NV Energy ON Line project, a 230 kV line traveling 235 miles travels from the south of Lincoln County north to exit into Nye County. Development of this transmission line is expected to attract potential renewable energy developers to the area.

Figure 8. Lincoln County Renewable Energy Resources Map

4.3 Brownfields Properties Assessed and Next Steps Pahranagat High School Multi-Use Building (004-101-01): The site consists of 7.5 acres in which the Pahranagat High School Multi-Use Building (Alamo Building) resides. The parcel and building are owned by the Lincoln County School District and are located in Alamo, Nevada. The Multi-Use Building was originally used as a military barracks at Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas, Nevada. The building was acquired through donation by the United States Air Force and transported from Nellis Air Force Base to its existing location during the 1963-1964 school years.

A Phase I was completed by the RDSBC, which recommended a Phase II investigation. The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed in October 2012, which identified lead-based paint and asbestos in the building. The Multi-Use Building has undergone asbestos and lead-based paint abatement, which was funded by the Lincoln County School District. The School District plans to winterize the building by installing new windows and slowly renovating the building as funds become available. The Multi-Use Building is currently in use by the maintenance department and for storage of physical education equipment.

74 6BLincoln County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

4.4 Program Benefits and Measures of Success The RDSBC completed Phase I and II Assessments for an important community asset in Lincoln County, the Pahranagat High School Multi-Use Building. The Lincoln County School District, which owns and operates the facility, funded the asbestos and lead-based paint abatement activities, and is working towards winterizing and renovating the building to increase efficiency and usability. This project would not have been completed without the coordination and cooperation of Lincoln County, the Lincoln County School District, and the RDSBC. The assessment and abatement of the site has led to the return of the building to safe conditions for students and staff of the high school to use. The achievements of the RDSBC program in Lincoln County are documented Table 44 below. In addition to measures of success reported in the table, the RDSBC program has also invested $39,507.16 directly in Lincoln County through program activities, including site identification, assessment, planning, and public outreach. The Lincoln County School District leveraged $40,920 for asbestos and lead-based paint abatement and related activities at the Pahranagat High School Multi-Use Building.

Table 44. Lincoln County Measures of Success Measures FY2011 Actual Site lists 2 Site eligibility forms completed (by parcel) 1 ACRES Forms (by parcel) 1 Phase I ESAs (by parcel) 1 Property Fact Sheets (by parcel) 1 Sampling and Analysis Plans (by parcel) 1 Phase II ESAs (by parcel) 1 Parcels not requiring cleanup activity 0 Proposed cleanup and redevelopment action (by parcel and acreage) 1 parcel, 0.06 acres Cleanup activities underway (acres) 0 Cleanup activities complete (acres) 0.06 Clean-up/Reuse plans 1 Redevelopment activities (by parcel) 1 Area Wide Plan 1 Coalition/County Maps 1 Public Outreach Plan 1 Institutional Controls 0 Additional funding leveraged as of 1/22/14 $40,920

Lincoln County has built on its regional partnership developed under the RDSBC to include membership in the Nevada Rural Brownfields Partnership, which established a brownfields cleanup revolving loan fund (RLF) with a $1,000,000 grant awarded by the EPA. Lincoln also supported the continuation of the RDSBC program and the inclusion of Mineral County in the Coalition. The RDSBC submitted an application to the EPA for additional funding to continue program activities following the expiration of the current grant award. Lincoln County is committed to continuing its support for brownfields assessment, clean up and redevelopment activities.

75 6BLincoln County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Section 5 - Nye County

76 RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

5 Nye County 5.1 Community Description/Overview Nye is the third largest county in the United States based on land area, covering 18,182.92 square miles (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). The six main communities in Nye County, based on population, include the towns of Amargosa Valley (1,456), Beatty (1,032), Gabbs (525), Pahrump (36,583), Round Mountain/Smoky Valley (1,577), and Tonopah (2,497) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b). The County’s 2010 population of 43,946 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a) was heavily concentrated in the Pahrump Valley with more than 80 percent of the residents living in the County’s southern-most town.

5.1.1 History According to P.E. Keeler (1912) in The History of Nevada, Nye County was formed in 1864 by the Nevada Legislature as a result of mineral discoveries in what is present-day northern Nye. The Nye territory was created out of land originally in Esmeralda County (Keeler, 1912). Its boundaries have changed numerous times over the years through the ceding and taking of land in adjacent counties (Keeler, 1912). The original county seat was Ione, now a near-ghost town, located approximately 25 miles east of the Town of Gabbs. The county seat was moved to the Town of Belmont by 1867 due to the heavy mining speculation and business development taking place in the area (Keeler, 1912). In 1905, the Town of Tonopah became the county seat and remains the seat of County government to this day.

The discovery of Tonopah’s abundant mineral deposits by Jim Butler in 1900 led to the second largest silver strike in Nevada’s history and contributed to Nye County becoming one on the most prosperous mining areas in the State (Keeler, 1912). When Nye County was first organized, the reported population was between 1,000 and 1,500. By 1912, the population in Tonopah alone was 7,000 (Keeler, 1912). The early 1900s saw the development of a number of other successful mining districts, including Goldfield, Bullfrog, Manhattan, and Round Mountain. However, a number of the County’s early mining communities deteriorated over its first 50 years of existence, including the Belmont mining settlement which at its peak had an estimated population of 2,000 (Keeler, 1912). While the Bullfrog Mining District, which includes present day Beatty, thrived during the early 1900s, it also experienced ups and downs. For instance, the Town of Rhyolite, which was the center of commerce during the early formation of the District with an estimated population of 5,000, was abandoned after the discovery of ore deposits slowed, and the Town of Beatty became the center of activity for the area (Keeler, 1912).

The success of Nye County and its mining industry was due in part to the development of railroads serving the area, which enabled goods, services, and people to travel to and from the isolated mining communities. According to the Goldfield Historical Society, the Tonopah and Goldfield Railroads merged in 1905 and continued operation until 1947. Tonopah, Beatty, Bullfrog, Rhyolite, and Goldfield were connected to Las Vegas via the Las Vegas & Tonopah Railroad, which began construction in 1906 and operated until 1918 (The Goldfield Historical Society). The Tonopah & Tidewater Railroad connected Nye County mining towns to southern California via the Death Valley Junction. The Tonopah & Tidewater Railroad began operation in 1907, after two years of construction, and ceased operations in 1940 (The Goldfield Historical Society). The Bullfrog Goldfield Railroad ran for just over two decades between 1907 and 1928 (Beatty Museum & Historical Society in Beatty, Nevada). Much of the railroad infrastructure that was developed in conjunction with the mining industry has been removed.

The local agricultural industry grew alongside the mining developments. According to the Nye County Water Resources Plan (2004), “Ranching and farming have been important sectors of Nye County’s economy since the Homestead Act of 1862 opened up western lands for development. By 1964, about 446,000 acres of farmland had been developed in Nye County and irrigated pasture and harvested cropland peaked at 47,270 acres in 1965. Since that time, irrigated agriculture has ranged between 24,000 and 34,000 acres in the County” (Buqo, 2004). Like mining, the agricultural industry remains an integral 77 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan part of Nye County’s economy, and major agricultural staples in the County include alfalfa, cattle, and dairy.

Nye County’s history is also tied to federal installations and projects operated by the Department of Defense and Department of Energy (DOE). In the 1940s, the Tonopah Army Air Field was constructed as a training facility for P-39, B-24, and B-25 pilots during World War II. In 1943, the Tonopah Army Air Field was the largest military installation in Nevada. By 1945, the site was placed on inactive status, and in 1949, a majority of the Tonopah Army Air Field was transferred to Nye County and it was renamed the Tonopah Airport. In 1950, the Nevada Test Site, originally called the Nevada Proving Grounds, was established on a portion of the Nellis Air Force Range with a primary mission of testing nuclear weapons technologies. In 2010, the site was renamed the Nevada National Security Site to reflect a move to expand the site’s mission. According to the 2010 “Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada,” the Nevada National Security Site is comprised of approximately 1,360 square miles of land and is surrounded by approximately 6,500 square miles of federally managed land consisting of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge and the Nevada Test and Training Range (Department of Energy, 2010). The Nevada Test and Training Range, which was previously called the Nellis Air Force Range, oversees the operations of the Tonopah Test Range. The Tonopah Test Range is a 280 square mile site, originally commissioned by DOE in 1957 for weapons testing (Department of Energy, 2010). It has been used as a nuclear test site, a bombing range, and as a base of operations for the development of the F-117 Nighthawk. Other federal facilities located in Nye County include the Central Nevada Testing Area, which was initially identified as an alternative site to the present-day Nevada National Security Site, as well as the Yucca Mountain Project. The Yucca Mountain Project is a proposed 58,000 acre geologic storage facility for high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel; however, the project is on indefinite suspension as a result of defunding by the federal government (Department of Energy, 2010).

For a significant portion of the County’s history, mining, agriculture, and government employment (both local and federal) have influenced the economic prosperity of the area. Mining, however, is cyclical and highly dependent on fluctuating market prices. Additionally, revenues associated with federal government employment and funding have seen a reduction in recent years due to federal opposition to the Yucca Mountain Project. These issues have led the County to pursue different industries to diversify the local economy in order make the County solvent, should significant changes occur in any one industry. One of the primary industries Nye County has been attempting to cultivate is renewable energy.

The clean energy industry has been a target area for the County for the past decade and has resulted in more than 30 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Right of Way (ROW) filings for potential developments. One of these projects located on public land northwest of Tonopah, the 110 megawatt (MW) SolarReserve Crescent Dunes Project, is currently under construction and will generate approximately 45 permanent jobs and up to 600 peak construction jobs (SolarReserve). Nye County has also entered into lease and lease option agreements with four solar developers for County-owned property in Tonopah. Nye County has been directly responsible for attracting these developments through its involvement in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Brownfields Program (the program that initiated the County’s support for renewable energy development), by obtaining DOE funding to study the County’s clean energy potential, by facilitating seven renewable energy developer technical workshops, and through coordination with the Nevada State Office of Energy and Governor’s Office of Economic Development.

78 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

5.1.2 Demographics Current Population Characteristics: According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), Table 45. Nye County Demographics Nye County’s population was 43,946. The Subject Nye population in Pahrump (36,583) accounted for Land Area (sq. mi.)1 18,181.92 83.2 percent of the County’s population (U.S. Population1 43,946 Census Bureau, 2010a). Nye County has a Median Age (Years)1 48.4 population density of about 2.4 people per square 16 Years and Older1 82.10% mile (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). However, 65 Years and Older1 23.40% taking into account that approximately 98 Percent Minority1 14.10% percent of the land is managed by the federal Average Household Size1 2.42 government, the actual population density may Unemployment2 16.50% be as high as 121.7 people per square mile of Per Capita Personal Income3 $31,349 non-federally managed land (approximately 364 Poverty Rate4 18.90% square miles). Nye County has an aging High School Graduate or Higher5 81.70% population with a median age of 48.4 years and Bachelor’s Degree or Higher5 10.50% almost a quarter of the population (23.4 percent) Disability6 19.40% is 65 years and older (U.S. Census Bureau, 1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, 2010. 2010a). Disabled citizens comprise 19.4 percent 2BLS, LAUS, Labor Force Data by County, 2011 Annual Average, 2012. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010) of the 3BEA, 2010 Bearfacts, 2012. 4U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 ACS 5-year Estimates, 2006-2010b. population and individuals age 25 and over 5U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 ACS 5-year Estimates, 2006-2010a. without a bachelor’s degree or higher only equals 6U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 ACS 3-year Estimates, 2008-2010. 10.5 percent of the population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010a). The percentage of elderly and disabled individuals in Nye County significantly exceeds the national rates of 13.0 percent and 12.0 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a), respectively, and the percent of the population with a bachelor’s degree or higher is less than half the national rate of 27.9 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010a). Table 45 provides a snapshot of Nye County demographic characteristics.

Historic Population Trends: Table 46 illustrates changes in population in Nye Table 46. Nye County Population, 1930 to 2010 County between 1930 and 2010. During the first Year Population Percent Annual half century after Nye County formed, the County Change Percent had a spike in population as a result of the mining Change booms at the time, as noted in section 5.1.1. 19301 3,989 According to Keeler, the population in Tonopah in 19401 3,606 -9.60% -0.96% 1912 was estimated to be 7,000, which was more 19501 3,101 -14.00% -1.40% than double the population for the entire County in 19601 4,374 41.05% 4.11% 1950 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1980). During its early 19701 5,599 28.01% 2.80% history, the County’s population grew quickly with 19801 9,048 61.60% 6.16% the development of mines but quickly decreased 19902 17,781 96.52% 9.65% with mine closures. Between 1930 and 1950, Nye 20003 32,485 82.70% 8.27% County experienced a steady decline in population; 20104 43,946 35.28% 3.53% however, the development and use of the present 1U.S. Census Bureau, 1980. day Nevada National Security Site in the mid- 2U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. 3U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. 1900s contributed to the shift in population trends. 4U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. Other factors included the rebirth of the mining industry and growth of the Town of Pahrump.

Between 1970 and 2010, the population in the Town of Pahrump increased from 963 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1980) to 36,441 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). The population increase in the Town of Pahrump 79 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan accounted for up to 92.51 percent of the population change in Nye County during that time period. Pahrump grew as a bedroom community to Las Vegas, located approximately 65 miles away. According to the 2000 Census, 28.10 percent of workers who did not work at home traveled 60 or more minutes to work, likely in Las Vegas.

Population Projections: Table 47. Nye County Population Projections, 2010 to Table 47 depicts the annual projected 20301 population growth for Nye County according to the Nevada State Year Population Percent Annual Demographer’s Nevada County Age, Sex, Forecast Change Percent Race, and Hispanic Origin Estimates and Change Projections 2010 to 2030. The estimates 2010 45,459 show a population increase of 10,000 at an 2015 49,328 8.51% 1.70% average annual rate of 1.02 percent for the 2020 51,163 3.72% 0.74% time period evaluated. The annual average 2025 53,017 3.62% 0.72% percent change estimated by the Nevada 2030 55,432 4.56% 0.91% State Demographer’s Office is significantly Total Change 9,973 21.94% lower than the historical annual percentage Annual Average 499 1.02% increases since the period between 1950 and Change 1960 shown in Table 46. 1Hardcastle & Mitchell, 2011, October 1.

Business Activity and Labor Force: Business activity and labor force information is partially excerpted from the July 2012 Nye County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy.

Nye County has a varied economic base which includes Natural Resources (agriculture) and Mining; Government; Leisure and Hospitality; Professional and Business Services, and Trade, Transportation and Utilities. Additional sectors influencing Nye County’s economy include Health and Education Services and Construction. Table 48 provides a breakdown of employment by industry for 2011, including the annual average employment and compensation and relation to national averages. The percentage of Nye County’s workforce involved in Natural Resources and Mining is significantly larger than the percentage of the national workforce employed in related industries. Additionally, Leisure and Hospitality, Professional and Business Services, and Local Government accounts for a larger percentage of County employment than these industries do nationally.

Top employers in Nye County as of the second quarter of 2011, for the most part, fell into the categories identified above and in Table 49. The top employer in the County was in the Professional and Business Services Sector—National Securities Technologies (NSTec), a government contractor for the Nevada National Security Site. Amargosa Valley’s top employer was in the agriculture sector (Natural Resources). Beatty’s top employer was in the Leisure and Hospitality industry. Gabbs and Round Mountain’s top employers were mining companies. The majority of Pahrump’s top employers were Leisure and Hospitality and Trade related. Local government and education services made up Tonopah’s top employers.

Employment in Nye County has historically been driven by Natural Resources (agriculture) and Mining, Leisure and Hospitality, Government Employment, and Professional and Business Services. The Trade, Transportation, and Utilities sector has become a primary industry in the County rising from 632 to 1,600 employees between 1990 and 2010. Recently, the Education and Health Services sector has been expanding with just over 900 employees in 2010 compared to 292 employees in 2000.

80 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 48. Nye County Employment by Industry, 20111 Industry Annual Annual Employment Total Wage Average Average Location Location Employment Pay Quotient Quotient Relative to Relative to U.S. U.S. Total, all industries 10,634 46,202 Total, all industries (Federal Gov’t) 138 59,163 0.59 0.49 Total, all industries (State Gov’t) 164 46,770 0.44 0.42 Total, all industries (Local Gov’t) 1,471 44,459 1.30 1.36 Total, all industries (Private) 8,860 46,279 1.00 1.00 Goods-Producing 1,707 56,895 1.09 1.15 Natural Resources and Mining 1,216 63,974 7.83 9.70 Construction 393 40,484 0.87 0.73 Manufacturing 98 34,739 0.10 0.06 Service-Providing 7,154 43,747 0.98 0.97 Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 1,601 31,028 0.79 0.63 Information 68 41,085 0.31 0.17 Financial Activities 226 25,793 0.37 0.13 Professional and Business Services 2,230 81,565 1.57 2.15 Education and Health Services 915 35,138 0.59 0.48 Leisure and Hospitality 1,900 18,255 1.74 1.67 Other Services 205 27,902 0.57 0.55 Unclassified 8 26,942 0.54 0.30 1BLS, QCEW.

81 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 49. Nye County Top Employers, Quarter 2, 20111 Industry NAICS Size class Trade Name City Research and Development in 541712 1000 to 1499 National Securities the Physical, Eng employees Technologies Elementary and Secondary 611110 800 to 899 Nye County School Tonopah Schools employees District Gold Ore Mining 212221 800 to 899 Round Mountain Gold Round employees Corp Mountain Executive & Legislative 921140 600 to 699 Nye County Tonopah Offices Combined employees Security Guards and Patrol 561612 300 to 399 Wackenhut Services, Services employees Inc. Warehouse Clubs and 452910 300 to 399 Wal-Mart Supercenter Pahrump Supercenters employees Casino Hotels 721120 300 to 399 Pahrump Nugget Hotel Pahrump employees & Gambling Facilities Support Services 561210 200 to 299 Nevada Southern Pahrump employees Detention Center General Medical and Surgical 622110 100 to 199 Desert View Medical Pahrump Hospitals employees Center Casino Hotels 721120 100 to 199 Saddle West Hotel Pahrump employees Casino & RV Dairy Cattle and Milk 112120 100 to 199 Ponderosa Dairy Amargosa Production employees Valley Home Centers 444110 100 to 199 The Home Depot Pahrump employees Casinos (except Casino Hotels) 713210 100 to 199 Terrible Town Pahrump employees Supermarkets and Other 445110 100 to 199 Smith's Pahrump Grocery Stores employees Miscellaneous Schools and 611699 90 to 99 Front Sight Firearms Pahrump Instruction employees Training Clay and Ceramic and 212325 90 to 99 Premier Magnesia LLC Gabbs Refractory Minerals employees Casinos (except Casino Hotels) 713210 90 to 99 Terrible Lakeside Pahrump employees Casino Research and Development in 541712 80 to 89 Lockheed Martin Corp the Physical, Eng employees Casino Hotels 721120 70 to 79 Stagecoach Hotel & Beatty employees Casino Electric Power Distribution 221122 60 to 69 Valley Electric Pahrump employees Association* 1DETR, Nevada Workforce Informer, Nevada's Largest Employers 2nd Quarter 2011 *According to Valley Electric Association, recent trends in hiring would place the company in the 100-199 category for number of employees.

As of 2010, approximately 40 percent of Nye County’s population was in the labor force (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012a), which was about half of the population 16 years and older (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). The 2011 annual unemployment rate in the County (16.5 percent) was three percentage points higher than the State rate and nearly twice the national rate. While Nye County’s population accounts for 1.6 percent of the State’s population, the County labor force only makes up 1.3 percent. The table below provides a snapshot of labor force, employment, and unemployment in Nye County and Nevada between 82 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

1990 and 2011. Unemployment in Nye County began to rapidly increase between 2007 and 2010, jumping from 6.8 percent in 2007 to 10.2 percent in 2008, 14.3 percent in 2009, and 16.5 percent in 2010. However, this trend may have slowed/stopped with unemployment remaining constant between 2010 and 2011 at an average rate of 16.5 percent (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012a).

Table 50. Nye County Labor Force Data, 1990 to 20111 Subject 1990 2000 2010 2011 Total Labor Force 8,945 14,062 18,113 18,138 Unemployment 329 958 2,982 2,991 Unemployment Rate 3.7% 6.8% 16.5% 16.5% Total Employment 8,616 13,104 15,131 15,147 1BLS, LAUS, Labor Force Data by County, Annual Averages.

Housing: Housing information is largely excerpted from the July 2012 Nye County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy.

Of the 22,350 housing units in Nye County, 18,032 are occupied and 4,318 are vacant (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). Additional information on housing characteristics is provided in Table 51 below:

Table 51. Nye County Housing Characteristics1 Subject Number Percent Total housing units 22,350 100.0% Occupied housing units 18,032 80.7% Owner-occupied 577 72.0% Renter-occupied 476 28.0% Vacant housing units 4,318 19.3% For rent 1,001 4.5% Rented, not occupied 39 0.2% For sale only 597 2.7% Sold, not occupied 216 1.0% For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 795 3.6% All other vacants 1,670 7.5% 1U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.

5.1.3 Physical Description Location: Nye County is located in south central Nevada with the most southern portion bordering California. Nye County is bordered to the north by Churchill, Lander, Eureka, and White Pine Counties; to the west by Mineral and Esmeralda Counties; to the east by Lincoln and Clark Counties; and to the south by Inyo County, California.

Topography: Nye County is the third largest county in the nation at 18,181.92 square miles, approximately 16.6 percent of Nevada’s total area (U.S. Census, 2012). Nye County has physiographic characteristics common to the Basin and Range province in which Nevada is centered. The Basin and Range province is defined by the numerous steep north-south, relatively parallel, mountain ranges separated by vast low lying flat valleys throughout the province, like those found throughout Nye County. Nye County elevation ranges from 2,300 feet above sea level at its lowest point, in Armargosa Valley, to the highest elevation at the peak of Mt. Jefferson, 11,949 feet above sea level (Nye County Water Resources Plan, 2004).

83 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Climate: Nye County’s climate ranges from hot, dry, and arid in the summer to cold with some precipitation and snow in the winter. The northern portions of Nye County are at a relativity higher elevation than southern Nye County. Northern Nye County is mountainous with cold winters, some precipitation and on rare occasions, snow. Valleys residing in north and central Nye County have hot (90+ degrees Fahrenheit) and semi-arid summers with cold winters (Desert Research Institute, 2012). Southern Nye County has the standard desert climate with hot (100+ degrees Fahrenheit) and arid summers, and moderate winters (Desert Research Institute, 2012).

Land Use: Almost 98 percent of Nye County falls under one form or another of federal land management practices – a major issue for the County, its taxing districts, and private users of public lands. The County is host to the Nevada Test and Training Range, the Nevada National Security Site (formerly the Nevada Test Site), the National Wild Horse Management Area, the Railroad Valley Wildlife Management Area, a portion of Death Valley National Park (principally located in California), the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and over 6,697,875 acres of BLM managed lands. The County also contains portions of three Indian homelands, including the Duckwater, Yomba and Timbisha Shoshone Tribes.

The Nye County Comprehensive/Master Plan provides a guide for development in Nye County. It incorporates the Pahrump Regional Planning District 2003 Master Plan Update. The Town of Pahrump is the only area in Nye County with zoning requirements, which are governed by the Pahrump Regional Planning District. Regulations pertaining to land use and zoning in Nye County are set forth by Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 278 and Chapters 16 and 17 of the Nye County Code (Nye County).

Water Resources: Water resource information is largely excerpted from the June 2012 draft of the Community Source Water Protection Plan for Public Water Systems in Nye County, Nevada.

The Nevada State Water Plan and the Nye County Water Resources Plan estimated the total water use of Nye County in 2000 was approximately 101,000 acre feet annually. Public Water Systems in Nye County supplied 68 percent of the population with an average use rate of 347.7 gallons per day per person in 1995, which totaled 6,127 acre feet annually. Based on data from the State Demographer, Public Water System water consumption was believed to have risen to approximately 10,500 acre feet annually by 2000, according to the Nevada State Water Plan. While some communities rely almost entirely on Public Water Systems (PWSs) for their drinking water, other communities are supplied by a combination of PWSs and domestic wells.

Other than Public Water Systems, there are four primary users of water in the County: agriculture, mining, domestic wells, and federal agencies. According to the Nye County Water Resources Plan, agriculture was the single largest consumer of water resources in the County as of 1995, with an estimated usage of 60,000 acre feet annually, 48,000 of which was from ground water. The next largest consumer was the mining industry, which had an estimated demand of 8,000 acre feet annually in 1995. While the mining industry is inherently unstable, the opening of new mines is expected to keep pace with mine closures and the 8,000 acre feet annually is expected to hold true for the foreseeable future. Domestic water uses were estimated to account for 6.8 percent of the water consumption in the County in 1995 for about 5,000 acre feet annually. The total number of domestic wells and their associated pumping rates are not known; however, it is estimated over 9,000 domestic wells existed in 2004 throughout the County, with pumping rates estimated between 542 gallons per day (Nevada State Water Plan) and 893 gallons per day (Nevada Division of Water Resources). This results in a range of 5,500 to 9,000 acre feet annually of consumption through small domestic wells. Finally, the federal government, which is estimated to consume less than 4,000 acre feet annually by the Nye County Water Resources Plan, holds the rights to over 17,000 acre feet annually in the County; 12,573 acre feet annually of which are used as a buffer for the Devils Hole system in the Amargosa basin and go unused each year.

84 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

5.1.4 Infrastructure Nye County communities are provided power, water, sewer, television, telephone, internet, and transportation through a variety of entities. Nye County’s power is provided by large entities whose infrastructure traverses multiple counties. Water and sewer infrastructure is primarily community based with more rural areas using wells and septic systems. Communication infrastructure is also community specific, though many communities are serviced by the same communication service entities. Nye County has several general aviation airports and numerous private, county, state, and federal roadways providing accesses to Inyo County, California and various Nevada counties. The railways that expanded mining-related operations during the first half of the twentieth century, have since been removed in favor of road-based transportation.

Electric and Gas: Nye County is provided power by three entities: Mt. Wheeler Power, Valley Electric Association (VEA), and NV Energy. Each power provider owns, maintains, and operates their individual infrastructures. Mt. Wheeler Power services Currant and other northeast Nye County communities. VEA services the southern Nye County communities of Pahrump, Crystal, Amargosa Valley, and Beatty. NV Energy services northwest, central, and a small portion of southeast Nye County, which includes the communities of Gabbs, Round Mountain, and Tonopah. The only natural gas pipeline in Nye County is owned by the Paiute Pipeline Company, a subsidiary of Southwest Gas, and is used by the Premier Chemical’s plant in Gabbs. A natural gas pipeline is planned as part of the Hidden Hills Solar Electric Generating System, located in Inyo County, California. The pipeline would travel from the Hidden Hills Solar Electric Generating System facility into Nevada along Tecopa Road, then to State Route 160 where the pipeline would split and head north to Pahrump for future use and south to tap into the Kern River Gas Transmission Pipeline (Califonia Energy Comission, 2012).

Water and Sewer: Industrial and population growth led to the development of water and sewer utilities throughout Nye County communities. There are a total of nine public utilities in Nye County located in Pahrump, Beatty, Round Mountain, Tonopah, Manhattan, and Gabbs. Manhattan’s utility is the only system that does not provide sewer; instead, the community of Manhattan uses septic systems. Communities not serviced by public utilities access water through private wells or community water systems and sewage is handled through septic systems. The limited availability of surface water has led to more than 10,000 well systems throughout Nye County. Nye County wells are susceptible to naturally occurring arsenic and fluoride deposits throughout the County. Beatty currently treats their water for fluoride and Tonopah is reviewing alternative well sites with lower arsenic concentrations (Tonopah Public Utilities, 2010). Table 52 lists the water and sewer options available in each community.

Table 52. Nye County Water and Sewer Utilities1 Location System Contact Phone Pahrump Utility Company Inc. Greg Hafen 775-727-1629 Pahrump* Utilities Inc. Jose Nunez 775-727-5575 Desert Utilities Inc. Terry Dean Capron 775-209-0552 Beatty Beatty Water and Sanitation Frederick Willis 775-553-2931 Round Round Mountain PUC Dan Sweeney 775-377-2508 Mountain1 Shoshone Estates Water Company Ronald L. Berg 775-377-2360 Tonopah Tonopah Public Utilities Chris Mulkerns 775-482-6336 Manhattan Manhattan Town Water David Fanning 775-209-4134 Gabbs Gabbs Water System David Fanning 775-751-6843 1 (Kansas Department of Health and Environment) *Portions of the community use well and septic systems.

85 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Communications: Nye County receives television, telephone, and internet services through a variety of providers. Most of the service providers own and operate separate equipment and infrastructure. Larger communities like Tonopah and Pahrump, have the option of using wired technologies; however, much of Nye County is serviced by satellite and wireless technologies. Larger service providers, like Frontier Communications, provide bundled services in which multiple service providers participate. Many wireless companies in Nye County also use roaming or partner networks in order to provide services to their clients in areas where they do not have infrastructure; however, these agreements usually entail additional contractual restrictions and/or obligations.

Table 53 below lists service providers by community and the services they provided. The services listed for each provider are based on their infrastructure capabilities and not by the services they may provide through packages or partnerships not including subsidiary companies. Table 53 was compiled using Connect Nevada, a non-profit subsidiary of Connected Nation. Information was further verified through interviews with each provider’s sales representatives or website. Table 53 was compiled in order to provide at least one service provider per service type and may not include all service providers in any given community.

86 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 53. Nye County Communications Providers Location Provider Television Telephone Internet AT&T Mobility LLC    CMA Communications    DISH Network Corporation   EzzNet    Hughes Network Systems    Pahrump KeyOn Communication, Inc.    Sprint    T-Mobile    Vegas WIFI Communications    Frontier Communications Corporation    ViaSat, Inc.    Atomsplash      DISH Network Corporation Amargosa Valley Hughes Network Systems    Verizon Wireless    ViaSat, Inc.      DISH Network Corporation Hughes Network Systems    Beatty Sprint    Verizon Wireless    ViaSat, Inc.      DISH Network Corporation Hughes Network Systems    Round Mountain Verizon Wireless    ViaSat, Inc.      DISH Network Corporation Frontier Communications Corporation    Hughes Network Systems    Tonopah Sprint    Verizon Wireless    ViaSat, Inc.     WestNet   DISH Network Corporation Hughes Network Systems    Gabbs ViaSat, Inc.      Verizon Wireless 1Connect Nevada. (2012). Interactive Map. Retrieved on July 27, 2012, from http://www.connectnv.org/interactive-map 2Dish Network sales representative, James, retrieved July 30, 2012. 3Sprint. (2012). Coverage Check. Retrieved on July 30, 2012, from http://coverage.sprint.com/IMPACT.jsp 4Verizon Wireless. (2012). Coverage Locator. Retrieved on July 30, 2012, from http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/support/coverage-locator 5CMA Communications. (2012). Retrieved on July 30, 2012, from http://www.cmaaccess.com/pahrump/ 6AT&T. (2012). Accounts Rep for AT&T 1-888-944-0447. 7Frontier Communication. (2012). Business Customer Representative 1-800-921-8102. 8AT&T. (2012). AT&T Coverage Viewer. Retrieved on August 10, 2012, from http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/

87 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Transportation: The backbone of Nye County’s roadways consists of arterials and collectors (distributor roads) which are predominantly U.S. routes, State routes, and several rural and town roads. Nye County has five arterials: U.S. Route 95, State Route 378, and State Route 318 which are principal arterials and U.S. Route 6 and State Route 372 which are minor arterials. These arterials are interstate roadways which connect communities, counties, and states. U.S. Route 95 is the primary roadway through southern Nye County and the Town of Tonopah. Nye County has a total of 19 airports of which the Beatty, Currant Ranch, Gabbs, and Tonopah airport are general aviation airports (GCR Inc., 2012). Nye County currently has no active railroads or mass transit.

5.1.5 Planning Initiatives Nye County has undertaken a series of planning initiatives over the last couple of years including updating its Comprehensive Master Plan and preparing the 2012 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. The Comprehensive Master Plan Update (2011) provides a framework for future land use in Nye County. The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy summarizes industries targeted by the County and its most populated towns and identifies steps to expanding development. This Area-Wide Plan extends these planning initiatives by focusing development priorities on previously used sites and identifying corridors for clean energy development, one of the County’s targeted industries, across Nye County and the Rural Desert Southwest Brownfields Coalition (RDSBC) area. Other studies linked to the area-wide planning initiative include the efforts by the Nye County Water District to assess water quantity and quality in order to better understand how projected growth and potential developments may be supported or inhibited by the County’s water supply.

5.1.6 Community Outreach As part of their Community Outreach plan, drafted in early 2014, Nye County identified main challenges to redevelopment of Brownfields sites as involving the public in the entire process, and not just the outcome due to potential lack of interest; community reluctance to involve the EPA in local projects; developers concerns that they would be held liable for contamination that may be found during the assessment process; and difficulties in reaching all areas of the County due to geographic distribution and varied community size. In order to overcome these challenges, the County planned to use print and internet media outlets to provide information on RDSBC program updates to the public; to host community “meet and greet” events during which information on Brownfields and the RDSBC could be provided; present updates at Town Board and County Commission meetings; and post signage on long- term projects. Messages were also developed which could be used when developing material for updates and media coverage.

5.2 Renewable Energy Factors Nye County received a grant to participate in the Mine-Scarred Lands Initiative (MSLI) in 2004 and obtained technical assistance from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). In 2005, NREL published its study of the economic impacts of developing a 10 MW wind or Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) facility in the vicinity of the former Barrick Bullfrog Mine site, an EPA Brownfield. Although the potential economic impacts measured as Gross State Product for a wind facility were small, the NREL model estimated development of a CSP trough facility would result in $114 million annually in Gross State Product. Nye County presented NREL’s findings at the National EPA Brownfields Conference in Boston in 2006, where news of the quality of the solar resource in the Nye County area spread quickly to developers.

By the end of 2007, developers applied for ROWs for more than 140 sections of federal land managed by the BLM in Nye County. Four different BLM District Offices had jurisdiction in Nye County, and developers reported variations among the BLM offices in the way developer applications were processed. Stepping into the role of coordinator, facilitator and negotiator of the issues encountered by both private

88 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan and public sectors, Nye County conducted its first of seven renewable energy developer workshops during the summer of 2007. Through this inaugural event, Nye County introduced public and private entities to each other and provided a forum for technical presentations by permitting agencies.

By reaching out to developers, Nye County became aware of certain development obstacles, and in the spring of 2008, the County conducted its second workshop which brought together stakeholders to discuss the roles of state and federal agencies in the permitting process. This was a crucial step forward for the renewable energy industry in Nye County because 98 percent of County lands are federally managed or controlled.

Since most of the lands being tapped for renewable energy development were within rural areas where land use plans were absent, Nye County convened a committee to explore ways to reduce or manage potential negative impacts to the County. During the third Nye County workshop, held in the spring of 2009, developers met with members of the Nye County committee, and together they explored ways Nye County could help developers reach development and construction milestones while mitigating impacts to the County. In response, the committee created a voluntary development agreement which could give assurances to both the County and developer. For example, provisions suggested in the development agreement template included commitment by Nye County to provide certain emergency response services while the developer would provide monetary support for the additional emergency response capacity. Dr. Hatice Gecol, then Director of the Nevada Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Authority, requested a copy of the agreement template for possible use statewide. Nye County has negotiated agreements with two utility scale developers, one of which (SolarReserve Crescent Dunes) successfully submitted the Nye County Agreement as part of its justification for receiving State tax abatements.

The DOE Washington, D.C. office became aware of Nye County’s efforts to establish a renewable energy industry and sent a representative to the workshop to gain the “boots-on-the-ground” perspective of the grassroots effort. DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy advised attendees Nye County was in the lead for designation as the nation’s first Concentrating Solar Demonstration Zone. DOE subsequently awarded the project to Area 25 of the Nevada National Security Site located in Nye County. The project, now known as the CSP Validation Project, has not yet been funded.

By 2009, Nye County recognized the potential solar generation capacity in Nye County alone would exceed the Nevada Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Utilizing funds from a Congressionally Directed Project Grant, Nye County began its own transmission initiative by investigating and participating in newly formed regional transmission planning processes. Nye County also reached out to merchant and utility transmission developers to facilitate development of interconnecting transmission infrastructure in the area. Collaboration among developers seemed to be one way to mitigate transmission development expenses, so during the fall of 2009, Nye County held its fourth developer workshop to encourage collaboration among developers clustering in Amargosa Valley and southern Nye County.

In 2009, by order of Secretary Ken Salazar (Department of the Interior), the BLM launched its Renewable Energy Coordination Offices. Three BLM Districts with authority over land in Nye County participated in Nye County’s fourth developer workshop and presented the new “Fast Track” permitting process meant to improve the efficiency and timeliness of permitting for certain renewable energy projects. During the Question and Answer session, many developers posed questions to the new Renewable Energy Coordination Office Directors and it became clear inconsistencies among BLM office policies persisted. In December 2009, Nye County entered into a first-of-its-kind-in-the-Nation Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with each of the four BLM District Offices having jurisdiction in the County. This MOU enabled Nye County to facilitate the permitting process for renewable energy generation and transmission projects through information sharing and coordination.

89 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Jim Groth, then Director of the Nevada State Office of Energy, asked two members of the Nye County Renewable Energy Team to serve on the Nevada Energy Economy Strike Force dedicated to fostering energy industry in the State. The Strike Force met over the course of a year and explored opportunities for Nevada to become engaged in regional energy planning and development. These discussions gave rise to the topic of the fifth developer workshop, which focused on transmission development solutions. During this meeting in the spring of 2010, workshop participants heard from five transmission developers pursuing transmission development in response to projected demand by renewable generators. One of the merchant developers announced he would be conducting an “open season” for potential subscribers of a proposed 500 kilovolt (kV) line that would connect Amargosa Valley with the southern California market.

In a show of support for its developers, Nye County officials met with then Governor Jim Gibbons (Nevada) and requested he coordinate with then California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on transmission development to improve electrical transmission between Nevada and California. Governor Gibbons subsequently sent a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger; copies of which were subsequently attached by developers to transmission development Letters of Intent. Through participation in regional transmission planning groups, Nye County provided project information to California Transmission Planning Group (CTPG), California Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative, and the Subregional Coordination Group of Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC). Nye County also participated in the Western Governors’ Association meeting on regional sustainability initiatives in December of 2010.

Understanding the benefits of regional collaboration, Nye County entered into MOUs with Esmeralda County (Nevada) and Inyo County (California) to coordinate transmission development activities. This group provided input into the Nevada Statewide Transmission Corridor Initiative report, which identified five new energy corridors for exporting renewable power generated in Nevada. Building upon these relationships, a consortium of counties was formed in 2011 to seek EPA funding for identification, assessment and redevelopment of brownfields for renewable energy applications. The Rural Desert RDSBC included the original three counties plus Lincoln and White Pine Counties (Nevada). The Counties were successful in their proposal to EPA and subsequently entered into a Coalition MOU signed by each of the member-Counties.

To provide better access to development information and resources, Nye County launched a renewable energy website. The County’s Renewable Energy Team identified five key components to development: land, water, transmission, workforce, and permitting. The County’s website addresses each of these and was intended as a clearinghouse for developers.

Before the conclusion of 2010, two utility scale developers in Nye County received their respective Records of Decision: SolarReserve’s Crescent Dunes 110 MW solar thermal project near Tonopah and Solar Millennium’s 500 MW CSP Farm Road project in Amargosa Valley. While the Solar Millennium project failed to move forward, its Record of Decision was acquired in a record 15 months and demonstrates progress made in the permitting process.

Another measure of success for Nye County’s efforts was the leasing of lands at the Tonopah Airport, a former brownfield, to four solar developers proposing solar photovoltaic (PV) projects totaling 70 MW. One developer, Indeck Energy, began permitting a gen-tie line for interconnection with an existing Sierra Pacific Power Company (doing business as NV Energy) 69 kV line for their proposed 17 MW generation facility. Indeck ultimately abandoned the lease when it lost financing for the project. The remaining projects were prevented from moving forward due to constrained transmission capacity in the vicinity requiring significant and expensive upgrades to transmission for their projects to be able to deliver power

90 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan to the grid. Currently, First Solar holds a lease for ___acres and plans to develop a __ MW facility utilizing existing transmission capacity.

Nye County successfully applied for an EPA Region 9 Technical Assistance grant to study the feasibility of net-metered solar projects on County Brownfields. The study, completed in 2011, provided a tool for evaluating economic metrics for net-metered solar projects at such sites and found that without incentives, these projects were economically infeasible. Nye County submitted applications for NV Energy SolarGenerations Program rebates for three County buildings but was unsuccessful in the lottery selection process. The future of the SolarGenerations Program was uncertain as of May 2012 and was under review by the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN). Nye County intends to reapply for incentives for its distributed generation (DG) projects in the future, subject to availability.

Following the election of Governor Brian Sandoval (Nevada) in 2011, a delegation from Nye County met with the new Nevada State Office of Energy Director at that time, Stacey Crowley, and asked the State to adopt an energy policy to provide stability and direction to the State’s renewable energy developers. In an effort to widen the discussion and prepare the way for development of a regional renewable energy marketplace, a sixth workshop for developers was held in the spring of 2011. Director Crowley addressed the more than 100 participants and stated she was engaged in discussions with the Governor of California and his energy advisors. Commissioner Rebecca Wagner (PUCN) presented activities of her office which supported an emerging Nevada energy policy. Presentations by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), DOE (Washington, D.C. Office), U.S. Senator Harry Reid’s Office, and Congressman Dean Heller’s Office each presented information supporting a regional planning approach for renewable energy. Regional transmission developers provided project updates, and VEA announced a new 500 kV transmission project which would serve developers in southern Nye County who wanted to sell power in California. Procurement officers of three California utilities and NV Energy discussed their respective application/bid procedures.

In the ensuing months, California passed renewable energy legislation (SBX1 2) which would establish procurement guidelines for resources that would count toward California’s new 33 percent RPS. Developers requested Nye County conduct another workshop focused on export to help them understand the opportunities for, and challenges of, selling Nevada-generated renewable energy into the California market. In response, Nye County held its seventh developer workshop for an audience of public and private stakeholders. A FERC representative spoke about the new FERC Order 1000 which required utilities to participate in regional transmission planning. Regional planning groups provided updates of their efforts to implement the Order. An attorney from “Sustainable Energy Futures,” a California-based firm, chaired the “California Issues Panel” and presented the “Role for Out-of-State Resources in Helping to Meet California’s Energy Policies.” Participating on this panel were representatives from the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), Southern California Edison (SCE), and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). These presentations supported the growing understanding that, in the future, California would likely need to purchase power from out-of-state and would look to its closer neighbors for that power. A VEA representative took the opportunity to present the status of the Association’s pending membership in the CAISO, which would enable VEA transmission customers to connect directly to a California balancing area, thus qualifying those resources as if they were produced in-state. New to the agenda for these workshops was a panel discussion focused on workforce and supply chain development, signaling a movement within the industry toward construction and operation.

SolarReserve was the first developer to reach the construction milestone when they broke ground in September of 2011. SolarReserve, Nye County, and the Town of Tonopah held a workshop in Tonopah to introduce SolarReserve’s Engineering, Procurement and Construction contractor to local and area contractors and suppliers. More than 80 people from the community participated in the event which also featured local government officials who discussed both the opportunities and the challenges of a

91 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan construction project as massive as SolarReserve would undertake. The Crescent Dunes project entered the commissioning phase in February 2014. Generation is expected to begin later in 2014.

Nye County continues to coordinate with solar developers, engineering, procurement and construction contractors, local businesses, residents, employment agencies, State business and industry agencies, the Nevada Governor’s Office of Economic Development, and a myriad of additional stakeholders to expand the clean energy industry dialogue and implement measures to bring opportunity and benefit to Nye County and its regional partners’ constituencies.

5.2.1 Utility Table Table 54. Nye County Load Serving Utility Information Subject Nye Load Serving Utility (1) NV Energy (Sierra Pacific Power) - northern part of the county Allows Net-metering Yes. Purchases Renewable Energy Yes, NV Energy is currently compliant with State RPS and has said they have met their mandate for the foreseeable future. Incentives for Renewable Energy Yes, RenewableGenerations Program, but the program is on hold at the time of this writing pending PUCN review. Other Information

Website www.nvenergy.com Transmission Access Load Serving Utility (2) VEA - southwestern part of the county Allows Net-metering Yes, for 30 kilowatts (kW) or smaller hydro, wind, or solar systems. Purchases Renewable Energy No. Incentives for Renewable Energy Solar Water Heating Program - Zero Down and 100% financing plus a 30% Federal Tax Credit for those who qualify. Other information

Website www.vea.coop Transmission Access VEA plans to become a Participating Transmission Operator member of the CAISO as of January 1, 2012, and is actively permitting a 500 kV line in southern Nye County interconnecting with SCE in Eldorado.

5.2.2 Resource Maps The majority of Nye County has average to high potential for solar resource development in the form of concentrating solar power resources. The potential for this resource ranges from approximately 7.0 – 8.5 annual average kilowatt hours per meter squared per day (kWh/M^2 per day). The potential for PV solar resources ranges from approximately 6.0 – 7.0 annual average kWh/M^2 per day. Higher potential for both types of solar resources are focused in the southern portion of the County while the slightly lower potentials are in the northern portion.

Geothermal resources are scattered throughout Nye County, with the largest area of “most favorable” being located in the north-west region, near the border to Churchill County, Nevada. Several potential geothermal leases are located in the County and information on competitive lease sales are available on the BLM website (Bureau of Land Management)

Wind power resources were studied at the 50 meter height, and are generally absent from Nye County. However, the wind resources present have been identified as viable for utility scale production.

92 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Nye County has areas of biomass resources scattered through the northern half of the County. Studies indicate approximately 1.55 million acres of pinyon and juniper are available for use (Nye County, Nevada).

Due to the recent inclusion of VEA in the CAISO system, interest in renewable energy development in Nye County has increased. NV Energy has also begun construction on ON Line, a 235 mile long 500 kV transmission line which will run through eastern Nye County. Land status throughout the County is mixed, but does consist of large portions of Federal and Excluded lands.

Figure 9. Nye County, NV Renewable Energy Resources Poster

5.3 Brownfields Properties Assessed and Next Steps Under the RDSBC project, 22 parcels were assessed in the Pahrump area. The assessed properties included two parcels comprising the Mountain Falls Boulevard Gateway site, which was formerly used for agricultural activities, 19 adjacent and non-adjacent parcels owned by Pahrump Utility Company Inc., which include water and wastewater utility infrastructure, and the Tonopah Airport Fixed Base Operations (FBO) Building, which is used for County and airport operations.

Mountain Falls Boulevard Gateway (045-011-19 and 045-011-23): The site consists of two parcels totaling 11.08 acres of vacant property acquired by the current owner on June 24, 2004. Parcel number 045-011-19 is 3.44 acres, and parcel number 045-011-23 is a 7.64 acres. Although vacant and unused for a number of years, the property is located in an area of Pahrump Valley with a history of agricultural use and is adjacent to currently active and/or recently active agricultural uses. A Phase I Assessment was

93 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan completed and a Phase II was not recommended. The Mountain Falls property is intended to be marketed as a mixed use development with retail and hotel space. Proposed next steps include: • Prepare a reuse plan. • Develop marketing strategy through the Nye County Regional Economic Development Authority (NCREDA). • Include the site in the Property Transaction Forum at future National Brownfields Conferences.

Pahrump Utility Company Inc. Parcels: Table 55. Pahrump Utility Company Inc. Parcels The 19 Pahrump Utility Company Inc. Parcel Name APN parcels assessed under the RDSBC grant are Manse Tank 047-041-27 located throughout the Pahrump Valley. Manse Well 1 047-021-27 These parcels include lift stations, active CAAS Well 2 047-021-21 and backup well stations, and above ground Well 3 045-101-62 water holding tanks currently owned and Well 3b 045-101-61 operated by the Pahrump Utility Company Artesia Water Tank 043-121-11 Inc. The parcels range in size from 0.01 Well 4 043-121-13 acres to 40 acres; however, the average site Well 5 043-062-12 size is approximately 0.5 acres. Founded in Well 6 045-151-30 1995, the Pahrump Utility Company Inc. Bowman Well 7 045-101-57 originally operated a sewer treatment plant Bowman Well 8 045-101-58 for two local subdivisions. The utility Bowman Well 9 045-101-54 subsequently expanded and in 2002 was Pleasant Vly Well 1 044-561-29 certified for water service. However, the Pleasant Vly Tank & Well 2 044-561-26 economic downturn reduced expected Sewer Plant 600 k 045-171-72 demand of the Pahrump Utility Company Future Sewer Site 045-361-05 Inc. facilities, and the utility is struggling to Artesia Lift Station 045-171-65 maintain basic operations. The RDSBC Pleasant Vly Lift Station 044-891-08 conducted a Phase I Assessment and Burson Ranch Lift Station 045-551-09 determined subsequent assessment was unnecessary. The County, at the time, was considering acquiring the utility for use as a municipal facility pending due diligence investigations. The County decided against pursuing purchase of the utility during a subsequent public hearing.

Tonopah FBO Building: The Tonopah FBO Building serves as the operations base for the Tonopah Airport and is owned and maintained by Nye County. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) has been completed, and a Phase II ESA was completed May 2014. The area of the site being assessed consists of a 0.75 acre portion which houses the FBO Building, Federal Aviation Administration support buildings and structures, a storage shed, and the land immediately adjacent to these structures. Contaminants included lead-based paint, asbestos, total petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, and RCRA Heavy Metals. The County plans to demolish the current buildings and reconstruct the facilities using steel pre-fabricated structures. The proposed next steps include: • Prepare a cleanup and reuse plan. • Apply for cleanup funding through the Nevada Rural Brownfields Coalition Revolving Loan Fund. • Move forward with demolition and reconstruction activities.

The properties below were assessed under previous Brownfields Cooperative Agreements. Properties which have undergone redevelopment as a result of assessment activities conducted under these agreements include the Former Gabbs Recreation Hall which has been reconstructed and is open for public use; the Silver Strike Motel (also known as the Pink Motel) which has been demolished and 94 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan replaced with a Farmer’s Market and Emergency Services facilities; the Beatty Habitat Trails which are now a recreational area for the public; and the Calvada Eye which has been redeveloped as the Nye County Administrative Center in Pahrump, Nevada. The Calvada Eye was Nye County's first brownfields redevelopment site to include a renewable energy component with the installation of PV panels as a net-metering application.

Table 56. Previously Assessed Properties in Nye County Property Name APN Acreage Contaminant Work Completed Type Former Sandy Bottom Golf 001-151-01 400 Hazardous Phase I: 2009 Course Gabbs Airport 001-161-01 1121.3 Hazardous Phase I: 2009 Former Gabbs Recreation 001-232-07 20.46 Hazardous Phase I: 2003 Center Abatement: 2007 Redevelopment: 2014 Carver’s Rodeo Grounds 010-201-02 40 None Phase I: 2003 Air Force Road 008-261-19 2.7 None Phase I: 2009 Central Street 008-061-02 0.21 Hazardous Phase I: 2007 Former Military Housing 008-261-18 0.73 None Phase I: 2009 Knapp & Central 008-061-04 & 0.39 None Phase I: 2007 008-061-05 Former Tonopah Landfill 008-271-25 40 Hazardous Phase I: 2007 Logan Field Road 008-261-45 5.5 None Phase I: 2009 Ray Tenant Lane East 008-271-16 35.71 None Phase I: 2009 Ray Tenant Lane West 008-271-15 13.63 Hazardous Phase I: 2009 Victor Avenue 002-421-05 20 None Phase I: 2007 Tonopah Aeronautics & 012-471-02 3820 Hazardous Phase I Technology Park Silver Strike Motel AKA Pink 008-063-03 & 1.54 Hazardous Phase I: 2004 Motel 008-064-01 Abatement: 2005 Beatty Municipal Airport 018-021-02 & 460 Petroleum & Phase I: 2009 018-021-07 Hazardous Abatement: 2012 Beatty Habitat Trails --- 7080 None Phase I: 2004 Former Beatty Barrick 018-621-02 & 81.11 None Phase I Bullfrog Mine 018-621-03 Bombo’s Pond 018-361-03 310 Hazardous Phase I: 2005 40-Acres in Amargosa Valley 019-131-02 40 None Phase I: 2003 Baradonna Road 036-351-25 4.48 None Phase I: 2009 East Charleston Park Avenue 035-271-53 18.87 None Phase I: 2007 North Stephanie Street 028-251-18 5 Hazardous Phase I: 2008 Phase II: 2009 Calvada Eye 042-071-07 33.04 Hazardous Phase I: 2004, Abatement: 2009 Redevelopment: 2010 Proposed Nevada State 047-011-01 320 None Phase I: 2004 College Site

95 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

5.4 Program Benefits and Measures of Success Three properties, comprised of 22 parcels, have been assessed in Nye County. These properties included: 1) two vacant parcels adjacent to agricultural sites proposed for a mixed use development, 2) 19 parcels making up the infrastructure of a public water system in Nye County's largest town, and 3) one office building housing the FBO at the Tonopah Airport. The Tonopah FBO site is the only property in Nye County that required a Phase II ESA under the current grant. The inclusion of the Tonopah FBO property in the RDSBC site list came out of RDSBC reuse planning efforts for the Tonopah Airport, a site assessed under Nye County's former Brownfields Program. Under the RDSCP grant, Nye County has continued its monitoring and redevelopment initiatives for previously assessed properties.

Nye County's history in the Brownfields Program shaped the formation of the RDSBC. Nye County became aware of and was subsequently included in the MSLI because of its first Brownfields Assessment Grant. The MSLI project at the former Beatty Bullfrog Mine uncovered the solar resource development potential in the County and sparked a renewable energy diversification movement. The renewable energy development initiative led to mapping the solar resources across the County; hosting seven renewable energy workshops that brought together state and federal agencies and regulators, renewable and transmission developers, and neighboring counties; and entering into an MOU with the four BLM District Offices responsible for renewable energy ROW approvals in the County and with Esmeralda and Inyo Counties to coordinate on renewable energy development. Nye, Esmeralda, and Inyo Counties expanded their partnership to support regional issues impacting the development of the renewable energy industry in the area to include Lincoln and White Pine Counties and led to the creation of the RDSBC. Furthermore, one of Nye County's first sites assessed under the Brownfields Program in 2004 underwent redevelopment to become the center for Nye County Administration. The redevelopment included the installation of solar PV array, making it the first brownfield site in the region to include a renewable energy application and a test case for other sites in the Coalition area.

Nye County has a history of building on singular initiatives and establishing partnerships to create a region that can thrive and become self-sustaining. Leading the RDSBC is one aspect of this model for sustainable development. Nye County has also demonstrated this in its support for the institutional control under consideration by the RDSBC members. The inclusion of Esmeralda County's priority site in the RDSBC Program demonstrated the need for an institutional control that would prevent a cycle of tax foreclosures on potential brownfields. By making properties hindered from redevelopment available for tax sale without conducting an assessment, the Counties may be selling properties that will be left undeveloped due to the perceptions of contamination and blight and open up the potential for future tax foreclosure. In order to address this issue, Nye County enlisted the services of the District Attorney's Office to evaluate what steps could be taken to prevent such a situation from occurring in the future. Nye County had the resources to undertake the research and development of this institutional control, whereas Esmeralda County did not. This sharing of resources is a cornerstone of the RDSBC's success.

96 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

The quantifiable measures of success for Nye County under the RDSBC Program are shown in Table 57 below. The RDSBC has provided $113,030.33 to accomplish these assessment and planning activities in Nye County. Nye County leveraged $89,620 to support reuse goals for the Pahrump Utility Company Inc. properties.

Table 57. Nye County Measures of Success Measures FY2011 Actual Site lists 2 Site eligibility forms completed (by parcel) 4 forms (22 parcels) ACRES Forms (by parcel) 21 Phase I ESAs (by parcel) 22 Property Fact Sheets (by parcel) 22 Sampling and Analysis Plans (by parcel) 1 Phase II ESAs (by parcel) 1 Parcels not requiring cleanup activity 21 Proposed cleanup and redevelopment action (by parcel and acreage) 1 parcel, 0.75 acres Cleanup activities underway (acres) 0 Cleanup activities complete (acres) 0 Clean-up/Reuse plans 0 Redevelopment activities (by parcel) 0 Area Wide Plan 1 Coalition/County Maps 1 Public Outreach Plan 1 Institutional Controls 1 Additional funding leveraged as of 1/22/14 $89,620

Nye County plans to continue its regional coordination to support sustainable redevelopment of brownfields through the Nevada Rural Brownfields Partnership, the expansion of the RDSBC, and future efforts to develop a regional training program focused on brownfields and development opportunities. Nye County, as the lead applicant and grantee, is currently implementing a Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) for the areas of Esmeralda, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine Counties. Nye County is also overseeing an Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training Grant focused on brownfields assessment and cleanup activities and workforce opportunities in the renewable energy sector. Nye County is working to expand its workforce training initiative to include regional partners. Furthermore, the RDSBC submitted a new application in January 2014 to continue the RDSBC Program, including Mineral County, Nevada in the region, and expanding the redevelopment considerations to include indoor and other innovative agriculture initiatives.

97 7BNye County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

White Pine County

Section 6 – White Pine County

98 RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

6 White Pine County 6.1 Community Description/Overview White Pine County is the fifth largest county in Nevada by land area (8,875.65 square feet) and tenth largest by population (10,030 people). More than 95 percent of the land in the County is federally managed. The largest White Pine County communities, in descending order, are Ely, Ruth, and McGill comprising over 90 percent of White Pine County’s population. Ely is the largest community in the County at 4,255 people and is the county seat. White Pine County is directly adjacent to Utah and four other Nevada counties, two of which are members of the Rural Desert Southwest Brownfields Coalition (RDSBC), Nye and Lincoln Counties.

6.1.1 History White Pine County’s history is deeply rooted in the exploration, ranching, and mining tradition of the Great Basin, and its economic prosperity has been tied directly to the fortunes of the mining industry. The first settlements were established in 1859 and served as stations for Pony Express riders and military posts to protect prospectors on their way to the Comstock Lode. As gold, silver, and copper were discovered in eastern Nevada, mining boom towns and agricultural settlements developed.

Early mining activity began in the mid-1860s. The five stamp mill built at Cherry Creek in 1864 was the first milling operation in eastern Nevada and was quickly followed by the formation of the White Pine Mining District in 1865. By 1868, the area became the center of intense mining activity and rapid growth. Wild, unruly mining camps and boomtowns sprang up throughout the County. Prospectors, eager to strike it rich, lived in tents, shacks, and even caves. Hamilton, the first county seat, had a population of 10,000 between 1869 and 1875. Cherry Creek grew to 6,000 by 1883. Ward and Taylor each housed 1,500 miners, and Taylor was the County’s center of social activity with seven saloons, three general stores, an opera house, and a Wells Fargo office. The old Mineral City site later became present- day Ely, renamed for John Ely, a speculator who made millions from mining interests in Pioche and financed gold speculation in the White Pine County area.

In 1869, White Pine County separated from Lander County to avoid the travel time to Austin to file mining claims. When Hamilton was destroyed by fire in 1875, the county seat was moved to Ely. By the mid-1870s, the gold and silver mines began to give out, miners left, and the boomtowns became ghost towns. By 1899, miners turned their attention to copper mining. The Ruth Mine, established in 1900, was so successful that M.L. Requa from Oakland, California, invested in the area, formed the Consolidated Copper Company through the merger of the Ruth area Nevada Copper Company and the White Pine Copper Company, and built the Nevada Northern Railway to haul copper ore 150 miles north to the Southern Pacific Railway line. The ability to transport ore to copper markets made it possible for the copper industry in White Pine to prosper. Between 1907 and 1914, investors shifted the pattern of ownership back and forth until Kennecott Copper and Consolidated Copper Mines became the local leaders in the industry. These two companies reigned for 44 years until Kennecott Copper purchased all of the Consolidated Copper Mines holdings in White Pine County in the late 1950s. The Town of Ruth, located at the copper mine, housed the workforce and support services for the Kennecott mine. The smelter was located 20 miles away on property owned by Billy McGill to access water resources. The Town of McGill housed the smelter workforce and administrative offices for Kennecott. East Ely was established to support the Nevada Northern Railroad, and Ely remained the center for commercial, residential, and government services.

Because Ely, Ruth, and McGill were company towns, they managed more orderly growth and had better services than most other mining communities in the State. The net proceeds of mines taxes generated by the copper mine provided major tax revenues to the County and 20 percent of the State’s total net proceeds revenues. During its heyday, between 1908 and 1978, the Robinson Copper mine produced four 99 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan billion pounds of copper. It continues to produce 125 million pounds of copper per year since it was reopened in 2004 (The Mining Record).

The first agricultural settlements were also established in the mid-1860s. The Town of Lund was established in 1898 as an agricultural community and Mormon settlement. Truck farming in Steptoe Valley and orchards in the Baker area supplied residents with fresh produce Cattle ranches and sheepherding operations developed near water sources in White River, Butte, Steptoe, Spring, and Snake Valleys. Wool was transported to woolen mills via the Nevada Northern Railroad. As irrigation techniques improved, ranchers began to produce hay and alfalfa to support local livestock operations as well as for export. Ranching continues to support cattle, sheep, and alfalfa production and remains an important part of the County’s economy and culture.

Two important elements in the development of White Pine County’s towns in the early 1900s were the area’s isolation and its cultural diversity. Without modern transportation and communication systems, White Pine County communities were too distant from surrounding urban areas for frequent travel. Residents depended on the mining companies for their housing, products, and local services. Community organizations and events provided most of the area’s entertainment. The Nevada Northern Railway supplied a critical link between communities as well as to the outside world. It hauled out the copper ore and agricultural produce, and on return trips, it brought in freight to support area needs. Residents traveled between Ely, Ruth, and McGill by train, Santa Claus brought gifts on the Christmas train, and children from McGill rode the school train to Ely each day. Greek, eastern European, Asian, Hispanic, and Italian immigrants came to work in the mines and on the railroad. French and Spanish Basques came to the area as sheepherders. Additionally, the native Shoshone population remained an important element of the area’s culture.

The copper companies provided more than jobs. They operated as a self-contained industry providing transportation, repair, maintenance, and training programs. They also provided housing and operated a daily, subsidized freight service. Furthermore, their employees provided the backbone of community organizations and leadership. The decades between 1906 and 1978 were marked by prosperity and confidence that mining would support the County’s economy indefinitely.

In 1978, falling copper prices, the competition from foreign copper producers, and increased operating costs due to air quality control measures imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), forced Kennecott to close the copper mine and cut its smelter workforce drastically. In 1983, Kennecott closed the smelter and stopped freight service by the Nevada Northern Railway. The impact of the Kennecott closure was devastating for the community. The County suffered a total loss of over 1,800 primary sector jobs, 25 percent of its population and school enrollment, and 25 percent of its annual tax revenue. Businesses closed, homes sat vacant, and families struggled. Community leadership was faced with insufficient revenue to provide basic services and facilities as well as the need to take an active role in efforts to attract new business activity and diversify the area’s economy.

From 1980 to the present, fluctuations in gold and copper markets have played a major role in the County’s economy and have been reflected in the fluctuations in the County’s population, employment patterns, and public revenues. The area’s economy declined steadily from 1983 through 1986. Following the Kennecott closure, the County’s primary economic activity was oil and gas exploration at the Silver King Taylor site, but the site closed in 1985 due to steadily declining silver prices and changes in the world oil market. By late 1986, the County began to recover from the economic decline it suffered for almost a decade. Gold exploration and mining increased and the County reported 23 active mines and mining employment at 1,100. The largest mining company in the County, Alta Gold, hired over 600 workers to operate the East Robinson site. However, by 1990 the gold mining activity declined again, and by 1992, the East Robinson site was closed. Alta Gold merged with Magma Copper and began

100 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan permitting processes to reinstate copper mining activity. Permitting for the new construction needed to support modern copper mining and milling was completed and construction was initiated in early 1995. By 1996, copper mining was reinstated. Broken Hill Properties from Australia bought Magma’s holdings and took over operation of the mine and leased operation of the railroad to haul copper ore.

By 1998, concerns about the stability of the copper market were beginning to surface and, in June 1999, BHP announced it was closing the mining operation. At the same time, Alta Gold announced it was filing for bankruptcy. The County braced itself for a second major economic dislocation, which extended from 1999 to 2004. In April 2004, the Quadra Mining Company from Canada purchased the Robinson mine and began to reinstate copper mining activity. The operation of the copper mine and Barrick’s Bald Mountain mine in northern White Pine County provided the primary mining activity from 2004 through 2010. With gold prices increasing steadily and the copper market strengthening, mining exploration, development, and production have increased. The current mining activity, including the Robinson North American Copper Mine, expansion of the Barrick Bald Mountain mine, development activity by Midway Gold at the Pan site, and exploration activity throughout the County, supports jobs, business activity, and public sector development through net proceeds of mines.

The “boom and bust” cycle of mining activity influences White Pine County’s ability to maintain stable economic prosperity, support long-term development of public facilities and services, and encourage new business development. The County’s initial response to the Kennecott closure was to establish a development corporation to recruit new business activity. Early efforts to diversify the economy included siting a new State-run medium security prison and a 1,500 megawatt (MW) coal-fired power plant in the area. The location of the State’s maximum security prison in White Pine County, which opened in 1989, created over 370 jobs and provided much needed stability for the County’s economy. While the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) decided not to construct a coal-fired power plant in the County, energy development continues to be a primary focus for local economic diversification. Additionally, the County turned to its outdoor recreation and historic attractions to increase the tourism industry. The designation of Great Basin National Park in 1987, the donation of the historic rail yards and rolling stock in Ely for the Nevada Northern Historic Railroad museum and train rides, and the development of special events increased tourist traffic and supported new business activity.

6.1.2 Demographics Current Population Characteristics: Based on the Table 58. White Pine County Demographics 2010 Census, the County’s total population is 10,030. The population in Ely and the Subject White Pine surrounding area is 5,941 (representing 59 Land Area (sq. mi.)1 8,875.65 percent of the County’s population) and 90 Population1 10,030 percent of the population is concentrated in Ely, Median Age (Years)1 40.8 Ruth, and McGill areas. The County has a total 16 Years and Older1 81.00% of 1,229 residents or 12.3 percent of the total 65 Years and Older1 14.90% population in institutional settings compared to Percent Minority1 14.50% the national average of 2.6 percent. A small Average Household Size1 2.37 number are residents of the White Pine Care Unemployment2 8.40% Center but the large number of institutionalized Per Capita Personal Income3 $36,940 adults is due primarily to the inmate populations Poverty Rate4 15.50% in the Ely State Maximum Security Prison and High School Graduate or Higher5 83.80% the Ely Minimum Security Conservation Camp. Bachelor’s Degree or Higher5 13.40% The average household size is 2.42 persons. The 1U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, 2010. 2BLS, LAUS, Labor Force Data by County, 2011 Annual Average, 2012. 2010 Census reports the female population is 3BEA, 2010 Bearfacts, 2012. 43.5 percent of the County’s population and the 4U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 ACS 5-year Estimates, 2006-2010b. 5 male population of 56.5 percent includes the U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 ACS 5-year Estimates, 2006-2010a. 101 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan inmate populations for the two state men’s correctional facilities in the County.

White Pine County’s population 16 years and older represents 81.0 percent of the population. Senior citizens 65 years and older account for 14.9 percent of County residents, whereas the State of Nevada has a senior citizen population of 12 percent and nationwide the rate is 13 percent. The percentage of the population age 65 years and older provides some context for the higher median age of the population in the County at 40.8 years, compared to the state at 36.3years and the nation's 37.2 years.

The population by racial composition shows that the County has a lower minority population (14.5 percent) than Nevada (33.8 percent) and the nation (27 percent). The County’s population of American Indian/Alaska Native residents is 4.2 percent, which is higher than the state at 1.2 percent and the nation at 0.9 percent. Hispanic residents represent 13.2 percent of the County’s population compared with 26.5 percent in Nevada and 16.3 percent nationwide.

While the American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates show the County’s per capita income at $21,615, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reports the 2010 per capita personal income for the County was $36,940 compared to $36,938 for the state and $39,937 for the United States. According to BEA, the County saw a growth of more than $11,000 in per capita personal income from 2000 to 2010, rising from $25,577 to $36,940.

According the 2006-2010 ACS, 16.2 percent of the County’s population 25 years of age or older did not have a high school degree or equivalent and only 13.4 percent of the population had attained a bachelor’s degree or higher. The ACS five-year estimates also reported 15.5 percent of the County’s population at or below the poverty level. Additionally, there are 325 female heads of households in the County with 183 reporting children under the age of 18 as well as 2,227 senior citizens, 65 or older, with 415 living alone.

Table 59. White Pine County Population, 1930 Historic Population Trends: to 2010 Table 59 shows the County’s population recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau from 1930 through Year Population Percent Annual Percent 2010. The data show the County’s population Change Change 1 grew rapidly as the copper mine, smelter, and 1930 11,771 railroad were established and reached a peak 19401 12,377 5.15% 0.51% 1 population of 12,377 in 1940 and then fell to 1950 9,424 -23.86% -2.39% 9,424 by 1950. Since that time, the population has 19601 9,808 4.07% 0.41% 1 fluctuated with mine closures dropping from 1970 10,150 3.49% 0.35% 10,150 in 1970 to 8,167 in 1980 after the 19801 8,167 -19.54% -1.95% 2 Kennecott closure in 1978. The opening of the 1990 9,264 13.43% 1.34% Ely State Prison in 1989 resulted in a steep rise in 20003 9,181 -0.90% -0.09% 4 population between the 1980 to 1990 decennial 2010 10,030 9.25% 0.92% censuses, which also impacted the gender and 1U.S. Census Bureau, 1980. 2U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. racial composition of the population. 3U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. 4U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.

Population Projections: The Nevada State Demographer’s projections are based on an estimated 2010 population of 9,503 which was calculated prior to the release of the 2010 Census data. The projections are based on a regression analysis of past population growth modified by reported projections of mining activity and expansion in the region. The State Demographer predicted a steady increase in the County’s population over the next twenty years from 9,503 to 11,436 by 2030, with a constant population living in group quarters of 1,241.

102 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 60. White Pine County Population Projections, 2010 to 20301 Excluding Group Quarters Including Group Quarters Population Percent Annual Population Percent Annual Year Forecast Change Percent Forecast Change Percent Change Change 2010 8,262 9,503 2015 9,223 11.63% 2.33% 10,464 10.11% 2.02% 2020 9,624 4.35% 0.87% 10,865 3.83% 0.77% 2025 9,976 3.66% 0.73% 11,217 3.24% 0.65% 2030 10,195 2.20% 0.44% 11,436 1.95% 0.39% Total Change 1,933 23.40% 1,933 20.34% Annual Average Change 97 1.09% 97 0.96% 1Hardcastle & Mitchell, 2011, October 1.

Business Activity and Labor Force: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) for 2011, the largest share of employment in the County was in the following industry sectors: Government (local, state, and federal); Natural Resources and Mining; Trade, Transportation, and Utilities; and Leisure and Hospitality. Of those industry sectors, all except Trade, Transportation, and Utilities comprise a larger share of the County’s economy than they do for the United States and employees in those fields are paid higher annual salaries, on average, relative to employees throughout the nation. According to Nevada Workforce Informer’s report on Nevada's largest employers for the second quarter of 2011, the Robinson Nevada Mining Company was the largest source of employment in the County with 600 to 699 employees. The next two largest employers were also mining companies each with 300 to 399 employees.

Table 61. White County Employment by Industry, 2011 Industry Annual Annual Employment Total Wage Average Average Location Location Employment Pay Quotient Quotient Relative to U.S. Relative to U.S. Total, all industries 4,346 46,206 Total, all industries (Federal Gov’t) 225 51,143 2.34 1.70 Total, all industries (State Gov’t) 498 49,811 3.25 3.35 Total, all industries (Local Gov’t) 675 47,977 1.45 1.65 Total, all industries (Private) 2,949 44,817 0.81 0.79 Goods-Producing 1,387 65,319 2.17 2.62 Natural Resources and Mining 1,222 69,097 19.25 25.76 Construction 140 37,584 0.76 0.59 Manufacturing 24 35,289 0.06 0.04 Service-Providing 1,563 26,625 0.52 0.31 Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 540 32,079 0.65 0.54 Information 28 28,675 0.31 0.12 Financial Activities 89 30,092 0.36 0.14 Professional and Business Services 113 41,548 0.19 0.14 Education and Health Services 190 25,645 0.30 0.18 Leisure and Hospitality 535 17,571 1.20 1.11 Other Services 67 26,966 0.45 0.42 Unclassified 0 58,843 0.00 0.08 1BLS, QCEW.

103 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 62. White Pine County Top Employers, Quarter 2, 20111 Industry NAICS Size class Trade Name City Copper Ore and Nickel Ore 212234 600 to 699 Robinson Nevada Mining Ruth Mining employees Company Gold Ore Mining 212221 300 to 399 Bald Mountain Mine Ely employees Gold Ore Mining 212221 300 to 399 N.A. Degerstrom, Inc. employees Correctional Institutions 922140 200 to 299 Department of Corrections Ely employees Elementary and Secondary 611110 200 to 299 White Pine County School Ely Schools employees District General Medical and Surgical 622110 100 to 199 William Bee Ririe Hospital Ely Hospitals employees Executive & Legislative Offices 921140 100 to 199 White Pine County Ely Combined employees Administration of Conservation 924120 100 to 199 Bureau of Land Management Ely Programs employees Casino Hotels 721120 90 to 99 Hotel Nevada & Gambling Ely employees Hall Supermarkets and Other Grocery 445110 70 to 79 Ridleys Family Markets #1154 Ely Stores employees Casino Hotels 721120 70 to 79 Prospector Hotel & Gambling Ely employees Hall Nature Parks & Other Similar 712190 70 to 79 National Park Service Baker Institution employees Casino Hotels 721120 70 to 79 Jailhouse Motel & Casino Ely employees Junior Colleges 611210 60 to 69 Great Basin College Ely employees Transportation Program 926120 60 to 69 Department of Transportation Ely Administration employees Casino Hotels 721120 50 to 59 Ramada Inn & Copper Queen Ely employees Casino

Administration of Conservation 924120 40 to 49 Natural Resources Ely Programs employees Conservation Service Nursing Care Facilities 623110 40 to 49 White Pine Care Center Ely employees Executive & Legislative Offices 921140 40 to 49 City of Ely Ely Combined employees Child Day Care Services 624410 40 to 49 Little Peoples Head Start Ely employees 1DETR, Nevada Workforce Informer, Nevada's Largest Employers 2nd Quarter 2011.

Based on reports from the BLS’s Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), White Pine County’s total labor force in 2011 of 5,859 represented 5,367 employed and 492 unemployed, with an unemployment rate of 8.4 percent. Between 1990 and 2011, the total labor force and number employed have all grown steadily while unemployment has fluctuated. The decade from 1990 to 2000 saw a 2.7 percent reduction in the unemployment rate, but the rate of unemployment more than doubled over the

104 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan next ten-year period. In 2011, despite a growth of more than 600 people in the labor force and an increase of 30 people unemployed, the County experienced a decrease in the unemployment rate by 0.4 percent.

Table 63. White Pine County Labor Force Data, 1990 to 20111 Subject 1990 2000 2010 2011 Total Labor Force 3,961 3,769 5,237 5,859 Unemployment 274 158 462 492 Unemployment Rate 6.90% 4.20% 8.80% 8.40% Total Employment 3,687 3,611 4,775 5,367 1BLS, LAUS, Labor Force Data by County, Annual Averages.

Housing: The 2010 Census reports there were 4,498 housing units in the County of which 3,707 were occupied and 1,092 were vacant. Of the occupied housing units, 2,615 were owner occupied and 1,092 were renter occupied. The White Pine Table 64. White Pine County Housing Characteristics County Housing Needs Assessment (2012) shows there are 3,152 single Subject Number Percent family dwellings, 914 manufactured Total housing units 4,498 100.0% homes, and 364 multi-family units for a Occupied housing units 3,707 82.4% total of 4,430. According to the White Owner-occupied 2,615 70.5% Pine County Housing Gap Analysis Renter-occupied 1,092 29.5% (2008) and the ACS (2006-2010), over 50 Vacant housing units 791 17.6% percent of the housing stock in the County For rent 108 2.4% was constructed prior to 1970 and 273 Rented, not occupied 8 0.2% housing units were identified as For sale only 69 1.5% uninhabitable due to lack of basic Sold, not occupied 68 1.5% facilities and inadequate heating systems. For seasonal, recreational, or 231 5.1% The White Pine County Housing Needs occasional use All other vacants 307 6.8% Assessment projects a need for 1 approximately 780 new housing units to U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. meet current housing need, replace uninhabitable housing units, and provide for anticipated increases in demand. According to the Assessment, reports by multi-family complex managers and property owners renting single family homes and apartments showed that rental units are full, with waiting lists, and there is a critical need for additional housing units for rent as well as for purchase.

6.1.3 Physical Description Location: White Pine County is located in east, central Nevada. It is bordered by Utah on the east, Elko County on the north, Eureka County to the west, and Lincoln and Nye Counties on the South. White Pine County is roughly square in shape, measuring approximately 104 miles north to south and 96 miles east to west. White Pine is the fifth largest county in Nevada, covering 8,941 square miles, making it larger than the state of Massachusetts. Ely, the county seat, is located at the crossroads of U.S. Routes 50 and 93. It is 320 miles from Reno, Nevada, and 250 miles from Las Vegas, Nevada, and Salt Lake City, Utah. Over 75 percent of the County’s population lives and works within the Ely, Ruth, and McGill area. In addition to these population centers, White Pine County has a number of outlying communities. The Lund and Preston agricultural areas in White River Valley are 35 miles south of Ely. Baker, which is located 68 miles east of Ely near the Utah border, has historically supported mining and ranching and is now the gateway to Great Basin National Park. The small community of Cherry Creek is located 30 miles north of Ely in Steptoe Valley, and the Cold Springs residential area on the County’s northern border provides housing for employees of the Barrick Bald Mountain gold mine.

105 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Topography: White Pine County is typical of the Basin and Range topography. The landscape is dominated by north-south mountain ranges from 8,000 to 12,000 feet in elevation. Between the mountain ranges are long, narrow valleys which range from 5,000 to 7,000 feet in elevation and provide transportation corridors, agricultural activity, industrial development and urban centers.

Climate: White Pine County’s high desert climate is characterized by sunny, clear days, low humidity, and a wide variation between night and day time temperatures. Its weather is a result of its elevation, night time radiation, cold air drainage from the mountain slopes, and western storm patterns. Annual precipitation averages 10.1 inches per year with mountainous areas recording 12 to 22 inches per year. Annual snowfall in the mountains averages 50 inches per year with the heaviest snowfall from January through March. Five aspects of the County’s weather have a bearing on development potential:

1) The County’s cold winters, low precipitation, and short frost-free growing season limit the types of agricultural activities that are economically viable. 2) White Pine County does not contend with any catastrophic weather conditions that severely damage property and endanger lives. 3) The constant south-southwest wind, averaging ten miles per hours, presents development potential for wind energy resources. 4) Ely ranks in the top 25 percent of the nation for solar development potential during the winter months, comparable to Phoenix, Arizona, and Los Angeles, California, which makes solar heating in the winter an economically viable alternative to traditional heating sources and may provide cost savings for industrial, residential, and public facilities. 5) The high desert climate with cool summer temperatures is an attraction for residents of southern Nevada and Utah.

Land Use: Ninety-three percent of the land in White Pine County is administered by four federal agencies including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Approximately five percent of the land base in the County is privately owned and is divided among urban areas, agricultural lands, and privately owned industrial and mining developments. Agricultural lands comprise the majority of private land in the County. According to the Census of Agriculture, there are 121 farms and ranches in the County accounting for 247,446 acres of farmland. Primary agricultural activities include livestock grazing (cattle and sheep) and alfalfa. The County’s 2008 Land Use Plan identifies Steptoe Valley as the County’s primary commercial and industrial corridor based on the location of the County’s primary transportation and transmission corridors, community development, and commercial and industrial activity. The County’s 2006 Water Resources Plan identifies Steptoe, Spring, Snake, Butte, and White River Valleys as primary basins that provide water resources to support commercial, industrial, residential, agricultural, and recreational development.

The White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2006 designated over 500,000 acres in the County as Wilderness Areas. It transferred 1,500 acres of land to the County for expansion of the County’s airport and 200 acres for expansion of the County’s Industrial Park. Additional transfers included expansion of the Ely Shoshone Tribal lands for housing and energy development and transfers to the State of Nevada for expansion of the Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management Area and Cave Lake State Park. The Act included a provision allowing up to 45,000 acres of land administered by the BLM to be transferred to private ownership following appropriate environmental clearances. Because much of the land resources available for potential mining, energy, and industrial activity in the County are under federal administration, the cost and time involved in environmental processes may impact the ability to utilize the land for economic development.

106 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Water Resources: Water is considered one of the County’s most precious resources and a key to its development potential. Seven valleys in White Pine County have substantial water resources and water is the most visible and critical environmental issue facing the community. In 1989, the Southern Nevada Water District filed applications for water rights in three rural counties, including substantial water resources in Spring and Snake Valleys in eastern White Pine County. The State Engineer has ruled on the applications in Spring Valley and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the right of way (ROW) for a pipeline to convey water to the Las Vegas area is in process. The concern over the water filings stems from the potential for environmental damage due to large scale pumping of water resources in the County and the loss of those resources for future economic growth.

The County’s largest single employer, the Robinson Mine, is currently conducting a mine dewatering program to facilitate copper mining activity. The dewatering activity has eliminated the City of Ely’s ability to rely on Murry Springs as its primary water source and in cooperation with the mining company, the City has converted to wells to support water needs in the Ely area.

Pinyon and Juniper Encroachment: The heavy canopy created by thick stands of pinyon and juniper throughout the County and especially on the foothills surrounding Ely presents serious fire danger, reduces productivity of the range for wildlife and livestock, and increases potential of serious damage due to erosion following a fire. The County continues to work with federal agencies on projects to thin pinyon and juniper from critical areas and to identify cost effective means for utilization of the resource. A more extensive evaluation of the biomass resource and feasibility was prepared for the White Pine County Renewable Energy Resources and Feasibility Study Report and is available on the RDSBC website.

6.1.4 Infrastructure White Pine County communities are provided power, water, sewer, television, telephone, and internet, through a variety of entities. Electric and road infrastructure is county wide; water, sewer, television, telephone, internet, and airport infrastructure is community specific. Though each community has separate water, sewer, and communication infrastructure, much of the infrastructure is owned and operated by the same entities.

Electric and Gas: Mt. Wheeler Power maintains 200 miles of transmission line and more than 1,800 miles of distribution line serving over 4, 600 people (Mt. Wheeler Power, 2012). Portions of Mt. Wheeler Power’s infrastructure were installed as part of the Ely Light and Eureka Power systems post 1930s. This infrastructure was then transferred to Mt. Wheeler Power in the 1970s during the formation of Mt. Wheeler Power. Mt. Wheeler Power transmission infrastructure has been updated on an as needed basis through regular maintenance; although, parts of the infrastructure are greater than forty years old. Though Mt. Wheeler Power’s infrastructure is currently sufficient, increased power demands are straining the older portions of infrastructure (S&B Christ Consulting, LLC, 2012). White Pine County does not have a natural gas pipeline. Suburban Propane provides propane throughout White Pine County.

Water and Sewer: Water and Sewer information is largely excerpted from the White Pine County Housing Value Needs Assessment (2012).

The communities of Ely, Ruth, and McGill rely on groundwater which does not require additional treatment. Each of the aforementioned communities uses a set of wells which supply water to their respective communities. The City of Ely is provided water and sewer by the Ely Municipal Water Department serving over 5,000 people. The Ely Municipal Water Department’s system consists of their distribution system, seven wells, two booster stations, a 500,000 gallon storage tank, two 1,000,000 gallon storage tanks, two 1,500,000 gallon storage tanks, a 2,000,000 gallon storage tank, and a chlorinator. The chlorinator is for the RW-6P and RW-7P wells which provide the majority Ely’s water 107 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

(Kansas Department of Health and Environment). The water system dates back to the 1930s and is composed of various pipe materials. The cast iron and ductile iron piping has had several failures in recent years, and is being repaired on an as needed basis. Portions of Ely’s Water Infrastructure may also limit development as a result of pipe size and flow rate limitations. Ely’s wastewater system dates back to the 1900s and is primarily gravity based, feeding into Ely’s wastewater treatment plant. The older infrastructure has experienced several failures in recent years and is being upgraded on an as needed basis.

The McGill Ruth Consolidated Sewer and Water General Improvement District provides water and sewer services to McGill and Ruth through the McGill Water and Sewer District, and the Ruth Water District. The McGill Water and Sewer District’s system consists of their distributions system, two wells, two 750,000 gallon storage tanks, and a chlorinator. The Ruth Water District’s system consists of their distribution system, two springs, a chlorinator, a 750,000 gallon storage tank, and two interties. The Robinson Intertie receives water from wells used for dewatering at the Robinson mine and is the primary water source for the Ruth distribution system. The two springs are available as backup water sources. McGill and Ruth’s water systems are in good condition. McGill and Ruth’s wastewater infrastructure has been upgraded over the last decade and in large part uses polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes. Both McGill and Ruth’s wastewater systems are gravity based except for one portion of McGill’s which uses a lift station. McGill and Ruth each use a waste treatment plant consisting of treatment ponds and rapid infiltration basins. Both communities waste water systems, while currently sufficient, will be limited by their wastewater treatment facilities’ capacities in the future. Table 65 provides contact information for each water utility in Ely, Ruth, and McGill.

Table 65. White Pine County Water and Sewer Utilities Location System Contact Phone Ely Ely Municipal Water Department Ron Jenkins 775-289-2150 Ruth* Ruth Water District Robert Cummings 775-235-7701 McGill* McGill Water and Sewer District Robert Cummings 775-235-7701 Source: Kansas Department of Health and Water. Drinking Water Watch, 2012. * Portions of the community use domestic wells or community water systems, and septic systems.

Communications: White Pine County has access to various communication providers, with most areas of White Pine County having at least limited access to internet and telephone through satellite or wired technologies. Wireless companies in White Pine County may also use roaming or partner networks in order to provide services to their clients in areas where they do not have infrastructure; however, these agreements usually entail additional contractual restrictions and/or obligations. Mt. Wheeler Power is one of the largest internet service providers in the County providing digital subscriber lines, wireless, and satellite services. Increasing demands for broadband internet have led to strains on the Mt. Wheeler Power wireless system leading to reduced speeds in more rural areas. Furthermore, Mt. Wheeler Power’s current wireless infrastructure also limits service territory based on the distance to service towers.

Table 66 was compiled using Connect Nevada, a non-profit subsidiary of Connected Nation. Information was further verified through each provider’s website. Table 66 was compiled in order to provide at least one service provider per service type and may not include all service providers in any given community. Providers were not marked as offering services which are provided through partnerships or roaming.

108 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 66. White Pine County Communications Providers Location Provider Television Telephone Internet   AT&T Inc.   DISH Network Corporation  Hughes Network Systems Ely  Mt. Wheeler Power   Verizon Wireless  ViaSat, Inc.   AT&T Mobility LLC   DISH Network Corporation  Hughes Network Systems Ruth  Mt. Wheeler Power   Verizon Wireless  ViaSat, Inc.   AT&T Inc.   DISH Network Corporation  Express Internet McGill  Hughes Network Systems   Verizon Wireless  ViaSat, Inc.

Transportation: White Pine County roadways consist of federal and state highways, and county roads. White Pine County is traversed by four arterials U.S. Route 6, 50, and 93, and state route 318. These arterials head west to east and north to south primarily interconnecting at Ely, and provide access to Nye, Eureka, and Elko Counties, and Utah. A multitude of minor arterials, major collectors, and minor collectors interconnect with these arterials providing access to White Pine Communities and additional access routes to adjacent counties and Utah. Furthermore, private and county roads interconnect with arterials and collectors forming the White Pine county Roadway network.

The Nevada Northern Railway runs from Ely north into Elko County until reaching U.S. Route 60. The railway is a tourist attraction and provides a variety of tourist based rides and activities. White Pine County does not have a mass transit system; however, there is a shuttle service within Ely. Great Lake Airlines also has flights between the Ely Airport, Las Vegas, and Denver. The Ely airport is the only White Pine County airport and is classified as a general aviation airport (GCR Inc., 2012).

6.1.5 Planning Initiatives

The County continues to support current mining activity while actively pursuing new industrial activity independent of mining to strengthen and stabilize the area’s economy. Current diversification efforts are concentrated in the renewable energy and aerospace industries, which are consistent with the Nevada Governor’s Office of Economic Development State Plan entitled, “"Moving Nevada Forward: A Plan for Excellence in Economic Development, 2012-2014.”

The goals and objectives of the RDSBC are consistent with the long term goals and priorities identified through White Pine County’s recent planning processes. The 2011 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy places strong emphasis on economic diversification and generating sustainable jobs, improving and utilizing existing sites and buildings, and maintaining environmental quality.

The Preamble to the 2011 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Priorities includes concerns for the need to monitor the County’s natural resources and environmental quality including water

109 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan resources, wildlife, and public lands to preserve quality of life and economic development opportunities. The Preamble also places emphasis on the need to strengthen and diversify the County’s economy by supporting existing business and industry and encouraging new development to provide primary sector jobs.

The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy priorities on Natural Resource Planning include the need to develop mitigation strategies including critical resource levels and the steps to prevent deterioration of water resources and environmental quality. This reflects the County’s Water Resources Plan (2006, including the 2010 and 2012 Revisions to the Water Resources Action Plan).

The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Long Term Goal for Economic Development is to capitalize on the County’s natural resources, location, and infrastructure to strengthen and diversify the area’s economy. The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Priorities for Economic Development identify the need to develop industrial sites and building space as well as the need to upgrade and fill existing commercial buildings throughout the County. In addition, two of the primary objectives from the 2010 Community Assessment were the need to generate sustainable jobs and to use existing buildings to meet current and future needs for development.

The RDSBC goals and objectives will assist White Pine County to mitigate environmental issues so that previous industrial sites and existing buildings can serve the community’s needs for economic development, housing, and public facilities.

In addition to economic development planning, White Pine County’s other recent planning initiatives have included completion of the Housing Value Needs Assessment to assess the short-term and long-term need for housing in the County’s largest towns. Additionally, the County approved a two-year planning effort to manage and protect its water resources through the “Community Source Water Protection Plan for Public Water Systems in White Pine County, Nevada” (2012).

For more information on renewable energy development in White Pine County contact the Community & Economic Development Office: 957 Campton St., Suite 11 Ely, NV 89301 Phone:(775) 293-6592

(information hyperlinked)

6.1.6 Community Outreach As part of the draft Outreach Plan developed by the RDSBC in early 2014, White Pine County assessed ways in which to educate the community on Brownfields and the RDSBC, the preservation and creation of jobs in the renewable energy sector of the County’s economy, and redeveloping buildings along main corridors which are currently unable to be used due to potential contamination issues. White Pine County expected to encounter challenges when promoting assessment and redevelopment of Brownfields sites including overcoming the stigma associated with Brownfields sites and with involving the EPA in community development; limited internet service and media outlets within the County; and the assumption of property owners that identification of a property as a Brownfields site may limit the redevelopment options. In order to overcome these perceptions, White Pine County developed goals and objectives. These actions include educating the public on the RDSBC and Brownfields programs and

110 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan allowing for public input on projects; providing program updates at Town Council and County Commissioner meetings; using consistent messaging when discussing Brownfields; and using available media outlets to promote program successes, such as the McGill Ball Park, and to direct traffic to the RDSBC website.

6.2 Renewable Energy Factors Renewable energy development is emerging as a new industrial cluster and will continue to grow as transmission capacity increases and technology improves. The County is working to develop additional industrial sectors based on biomass and utilization of pinyon and juniper resources.

The BLM’s 2008 Ely District Resource Management Plan shows the primary wind energy resources are located in Spring Valley and along the ridges in the Egan and Schell Creek ranges, and the entire County has moderate to high solar potential with the highest levels in the western portion of the County (Bureau of Land Management, Ely District, 2008). The White Pine County Land Use Plan (2008) identifies the wind energy potential of Spring Valley and solar potential in the western portion of the County as areas for potential renewable energy development. The County has warm geothermal springs but no geothermal resources capable of supporting energy development with current technology. Its water resources provide opportunities through low-level hydro generation as creeks flow from the mountains to the valley floor. Applications for water rights for energy production have been filed with the Nevada State Engineer’s office, and this resource has been considered primarily to support energy needs for outlying ranches (White Pine County, 2006a and 2006b). In addition, there has been interest in using the County’s water resources for pumped storage and nuclear energy projects. There is potential for development of biomass for power generation through utilization of the pinyon and juniper material thinned from public lands as a part of the landscape restoration effort. The Resource Management Plan (2008) identifies an excess of one million acres of pinyon and juniper woodland in White Pine County that requires treatment through thinning to improve watershed and wildlife habitat and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. The challenge facing utilization of pinyon and juniper for energy development and other industrial applications is the costs of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, thinning projects, and transportation of the material to sites for industrial activity (Pinyon Juniper Partnership).

White Pine County’s efforts to diversify and strengthen its economy through energy development began in 1978 with the development phase for the White Pine Power Project north of Ely, a proposed 1,500 MW coal-fired power project to provide energy to southern Nevada and California markets. The White Pine Power Project development phase continued through 1997 when deregulation and reduced demand for new power generation prompted California utilities to withdraw. During the same period, the County participated in the permitting processes for the Southwest Intertie Project, a transmission corridor from Midpoint, Idaho to Las Vegas, Nevada to transfer energy north and south during peak demand periods. The BLM issued a Record of Decision approving the ROW in 1993. Interest in locating a coal plant in White Pine County resumed with California’s energy shortages in 2000 and 2001. Development began in earnest in 2003 with LS Power’s applications for ROWs for the White Pine Energy Station, a 1,500 MW coal plant to be located twenty miles north of Ely and NV Energy’s 2006 proposal to develop the Ely Energy Center in the same vicinity. Both projects proposed combining renewable energy projects with the infrastructure developed for the coal plants. As national policy shifted to renewable energy in 2008, both companies continued their development activity but eventually placed their projects on indefinite hold. In addition to development of the coal-fired plant, LS Power purchased Idaho Power’s permitted ROW for a 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission line in the Southwest Intertie Project corridor and began a supplemental EIS to permit the Great Basin Transmission line. NV Energy initiated a similar effort to permit the On Line transmission project in the same corridor (White Pine County, 2010). In January 2010, the two companies came to an agreement on ownership, development and use of one 500 kV line between the Harry Allen substation and the new Thirtymile substation to be built in White Pine County 111 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan near Ely (NV Energy and Great Basin Transmission to Pursue Jointly Owned Transmission Line, 2010). The Notices to Proceed for the substation near Ely (Thirtymile site) and the 235 mile 500 kV transmission line between the substation and the Harry Allen substation near Las Vegas were issued in August 2010 (Bureau of Land Management, Ely District, 2011). Once approved by the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN), the project was financed through the Western Area Power Administration under the federal borrowing authority granted by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The new transmission will be used by NV Energy to connect their northern and southern service areas and to add renewable energy resources to meet their portfolio requirements (NV Energy, 2012). The transmission line is now under construction (Bath, 2012). LS Power completed the permitting for the northern portion of the Great Basin Transmission line from Ely to Twin Falls and will begin construction on the northern portion of the line once it is fully subscribed and financed. The northern portion will provide transmission capacity for renewable energy projects throughout northeastern Nevada and LS Power has pursued development of transmission corridors to extend the capacity beyond southern Idaho and Las Vegas (Bath, 2012).

The efforts to develop coal-fired plants provided valuable resources to continue to explore potential for renewable energy projects.

1. The transmission capacity being developed through the Great Basin Transmission Line (north and south) will provide capacity for renewable energy projects throughout eastern Nevada. 2. The substation is located at the Thirty Mile Site on U.S. Route 50 west of Ely providing renewable energy projects in White Pine County access to the transmission system. 3. The permitting processes from the initial White Pine Power Project through the more recent NEPA processes for the coal plants and transmission systems provided an extensive library of information about the County and its resources including the detailed wind speed and direction data collected for the air quality permit applications. 4. The community’s participation in years of Advisory Committee efforts, acting as a Cooperating Agency during NEPA processes, assistance in development of the socioeconomic portions of the EIS, and public hearings educated community leadership and residents in energy development opportunities and needs as well as the permitting processes. 5. The 25,000 acre-feet of water rights for energy development for the White Pine Power Project were permitted in White Pine County’s name and the County retains the permits.

As interest in renewable energy projects gained momentum in the period from 2008 through 2010, the transmission capacity in combination with potential for wind development generated substantial interest from potential renewable energy developers. The Ely District of the BLM received several applications for wind energy projects in White Pine County. The County’s Economic Diversification Program worked closely with potential developers and the BLM to provide information and support for the projects. The year of wind data from the White Pine Power Project collected in 1981 proved to be very useful for the companies because it offered a way to verify current wind data with the twenty year old data and several companies asked for copies of the daily readings and detailed reports from the initial White Pine Power Project files.

Pattern Energy Group’s Spring Valley Wind Project is a 151.8 MW plant located 30 miles east of Ely and consists of 66 Siemens 2.3 MW turbines and a substation on 7,673 acres of BLM land and will connect to the existing 230 kV line that is adjacent to the project site. It will be the first utility size wind energy project in Nevada, and the power will be provided to NV Energy under a power purchase agreement (PPA) to help the utility meet its portfolio standards. The project generated an estimated 225 construction jobs and is anticipated to sustain 12 full time jobs during operation (NV Energy, 2012).

112 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

In processing the application for the project, the BLM made the determination it would fall within the programmatic EIS for wind energy and permitting could be accomplished through an Environmental Assessment. As the Spring Valley Wind Project progressed with its Environmental Assessment, it faced opposition from environmental groups regarding potential impact on bat populations, tribal groups concerned the Environmental Assessment process did not provide adequate analysis of cultural resources, and from the National Park Service and affiliated groups regarding the potential light pollution produced by lighting on the towers (Bureau of Land Management, 2010). The Record of Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Spring Valley Wind Project was issued on October 15, 2011 (Bureau of Land Management, Ely District, 2011). White Pine County worked closely with the project throughout the development phase and assisted with permitting processes, and background information about the community. The County processed the Special Use Permit for the project required under the County’s zoning ordinance.

When Pattern Energy Group applied for a renewable energy tax abatement available through the Nevada State Office of Energy, the County worked with the company and the Commission on Economic Development to use the IMPLAN input/output model to evaluate community impact and provide an accurate picture of the direct, indirect, and induced economic and tax benefits the project would provide. The analysis showed that with the abatement of all of the County’s portion of sales tax revenue for three years including all of the construction activity and equipment as well as abatement of 50 percent of the property taxes on the project site for twenty years, the Project would not generate tax revenues to offset the impacts to County services during construction. The County worked with Pattern Energy to negotiate a Development Agreement to help address the anticipated impacts to the County’s law enforcement and emergency services during construction. The company also agreed to provide funding through a one-time contribution and a twenty year endowment to Great Basin College Foundation to support a renewable energy science and engineering program to train area residents in operations and maintenance of wind energy and other renewable energy technologies. With the Development Agreement in place, the County provided its support for the renewable energy tax abatements which have been granted to the project. The Spring Valley Wind tax abatement application was followed by applications for the abatements by NV Energy on the southern portion of the transmission line and LS Power for the northern portion. The County negotiated a Development Agreement with LS Power with terms similar to the Spring Valley Wind provisions for assistance with law enforcement, emergency services, and training programs.

While other wind energy projects have been proposed, applied for ROWs, and installed anemometers to collect data on wind resources, they are dependent on the availability of additional transmission and market capacity. According to the Ely District BLM’s Tri-County Update (November 2011), some of these proposed wind projects have included:

• Ely Wind Mountain Project was proposed as a 700 MW plant to be sited on 14,000 acres of land for the northern portion of White Pine County and southern Elko. • The 250 MW Black Horse Wind project was proposed by NextEra Energy Resources to be located north of the Spring Valley Wind project on 25,000 to 40,000 acres of public land; however, the application was withdrawn. • The Wasatch Wind Intermountain project was proposed for Hamblin Valley on the eastern border of the White Pine County approximately ten miles south of Baker and would involve over 43,000 acres of public land in both Nevada and Utah.

Additionally, the White Pine Pumped Storage Project was proposed by Gridflex Energy, LLC and White Pine Water Power, LLC. The proposed project would be located north of Ely near the Gondor Substation and would generate 919,800 megawatt-hours (MWh) annually. The project has a long term permitting process through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) which has given its initial approvals to begin working through the BLM NEPA process (Bureau of Land Management, Ely District, 2011).

113 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Other potential renewable energy projects that have been explored include solar, nuclear and biomass. The White Pine County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act (Public Lands Bill) process began in 2003 and 2004 with coordination between the County, BLM, Congressional staff, and wilderness groups. The initial proposal included a request from the Ely Shoshone Tribe for several thousand acres of land on the west side of Ward Mountain for a renewable energy park. The final bill was passed in December 2006 and included transfer of 660 acres of land 23 miles north of Ely (adjacent to the proposed White Pine Energy Station site) to the Ely Shoshone Tribe for economic development (White Pine County, 2006b). The tribe has pursued development of the site as a solar plant and has received interest from a company in a potential development (Walker, 2012).

In addition, the County approved a zone change for 200 acres of private land in North Steptoe Valley so the owner could pursue the potential of a solar project on the property, but progress has not been made on developing the site. In 2009, the Mayor of Ely was approached by the U.S. Nuclear Energy Foundation regarding a potential nuclear plant in White Pine County to use the County’s water rights permitted for energy production. The Mayor organized a public meeting and the discussion met with support from the community, but the effort did not progress beyond the first public meeting (U.S. Nuclear Energy Foundation, 2010).

White Pine County is served by Mt. Wheeler Power, a rural electric cooperative. Mt. Wheeler, as a member of Deseret Power, draws its power from coal-fired plants in Utah. Under its contract with Deseret, Mt. Wheeler is not able to directly access power generated by utility scale renewable energy generated within White Pine County (Mt. Wheeler Power, 2012; Deseret Power Electric Cooperative, 2012). Wheeler Power’s Member Services Director reported there were nine customers in White Pine County using their net metering program for small scale wind and solar projects (Robison, 2012). Mt. Wheeler maintains a demonstration solar project on their grounds and provides a rebate program for wind and solar projects that is independent of, and in addition to, governmental incentives available. Mt. Wheeler has offered the Greenway program since 2006 allowing its customers to elect to use energy produced through renewable energy projects and twenty-eight customers are currently participating in the program. Additionally, Mt. Wheeler Power supports energy conservation through a loan program for energy conservation improvements, rebates on Energy Star appliances, and assistance to property owners using ground source heat pumps (Robison, 2012). Public entities utilizing renewable energy and conservation programs include the White Pine County School District with a Fuels for Schools project using pinyon and juniper material to heat the David E. Norman Elementary School, the Ely Campus of Great Basin College uses a ground source heat pump, and White Pine County converted its coal-fired boilers to a ground source heat pump system using water from the City of Ely’s municipal water system.

White Pine County has included energy development and renewable energy in its economic development strategies for over 30 years as a means to reduce the area’s dependence on mining and stabilize its economy. The County initially pursued coal-fired power projects because each proposed plant promised to provide over 200 full time operations jobs, renovate the Nevada Northern Railway providing a means for cost effective transportation to support other areas of industrial development, provide substantial business opportunities for the community, and generate over $50 million in annual tax revenues to support the area’s needs for facilities and services. With the inventory of older coal-fired power plants in use in the western states, the opportunity to construct modern coal-fired plants would allow the older plants to be retired and reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Both the LS Power and NV Energy projects signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) agreeing to reserve required water resources and implement carbon capture systems when the technology was economically feasible. The County viewed the coal-fired plants as a “bridge” to support energy needs in the west until adequate renewable resources could be developed.

114 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Opportunities for additional renewable energy projects were dependent on transmission capacity, NEPA processes for use of public lands, and market demand for these projects. Wind, solar, biomass, and water resources can be developed using existing technology, and as the renewable energy field advances, additional opportunities may develop. Constraints to renewable energy projects include available resources, transmission capacity, development costs, and opposition and court proceedings as a result of the NEPA process.

Over 90 percent of the land in White Pine County is administered by federal agencies including the t, U.S. Forest Service, and the National Park Service (White Pine County, 2006a). Over 500,000 acres are designated as Wilderness Areas (White Pine County, 2006b). It is difficult to identify large tracts of private land for utility scale renewable energy projects. Most utility scale projects will be sited on public land and will require NEPA analysis. The NEPA process is costly and time consuming. The Department of Interior has attempted to “fast track” the procedures for renewable energy projects, but there is little guidance on what can be done to speed up the process. The programmatic EIS for renewable energy and transmission are designed to address issues common to all projects and provide the opportunity for individual projects to be processed quickly through Environmental Assessments. Environmental groups are challenging the Environmental Assessment process on individual projects as inadequate. Section 3 of Appendix A from the Ely District Resource Management Plan lists eighteen pages of Policies and Best Management Practices for wind energy projects and provides an indication of the complexities and wide range of environmental concerns renewable energy projects must address (Bureau of Land Management, Ely District, 2008). Additionally, substantial areas within White Pine County support Sage Grouse habitat. Recent concerns have been raised over the impact of listing the Greater Sage Grouse as a candidate species could severely limit areas that can be considered for renewable energy projects (Mayer, 2011).

White Pine County’s local governments and the majority of the community have been supportive of energy development projects. Opposition to the coal plants historically came from urban areas outside the County. National and regional groups orchestrated protests and appeals of NEPA, water use, and air quality permitting processes demanding that renewable energy projects be developed instead. As the coal-fired projects were put on hold and renewable energy projects were proposed, many of the same groups opposed individual renewable projects based on environmental concerns about specific sites, wildlife, night sky, and visual impacts. Community support for renewable energy projects has been mixed. Area sportsmen have expressed concerns about wind energy projects they feel may negatively impact wildlife and hunting opportunities. Support is balanced with the community’s disappointment over the loss of the jobs and revenue anticipated from the coal-fired power plants. Pattern Energy has expressed the desire to be a good corporate citizen and, to date, their willingness to work with the County on the Development Agreement demonstrates their commitment. A successful experience with the Spring Valley Wind Project may help to increase community support for future projects.

White Pine County’s primary wind energy resources are located in Spring Valley and along the ridges of the mountain ranges in the eastern portion of the County. There is a limit to the number of wind projects that can be housed in Spring Valley. Once those have been permitted the remaining resources on the ridges will be more costly to develop. The County’s solar energy is in the moderate to high range. The primary benefit for White Pine County is the high number of sunny, clear days in the winter, making solar energy additions a viable option for energy intensive industrial activity locating in White Pine County. The County’s water and biomass resources can contribute to the potential for renewable energy projects. Cost, public processes, and the need to improve available technology may slow the development of these types of projects.

The County recently completed a comprehensive evaluation of its renewable energy resources, transmission infrastructure, and economic impacts and opportunities under a Department of Energy

115 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

(DOE) Grant (DOE Award Number DE-EE0003139). The grant award, along with local match funds and in-kind contributions totaled $747,500. The grant was to enable the County to provide a more complete picture of the County’s renewable energy resources and infrastructure, assist with the development of training programs, and provide financial assistance to renewable energy pilot projects. The resulting Feasibility Study (see Appendix H for a copy of the Feasibility Study or the RDSBC website for the complete Feasibility Study with Resource Assessments) identified existing and anticipated renewable energy markets, available transmission and distribution resources for renewable energy, maps showing location of renewable energy and other resources, and costs and socio-economic impacts of renewable energy development. The County is looking beyond the development of specific projects to create business and employment opportunities within the renewable energy industry. The community has identified the opportunity for training, business activity, and employment in maintenance and services to renewable energy projects that may develop along the eastern Nevada corridor. The Great Basin College Foundation funding through Development Agreements with Pattern Energy, LS Power, and hopefully other projects seeking renewable energy tax abatements will help establish a Great Basin College training center.

Energy transmission and generation facilities located on the Open Range areas of the County require a Special Use Permit. Applications are filed with the White Pine County Building and Planning Department, reviewed by the County Planning Commission, and the final approval is contingent on a public hearing and vote by the County Commission.

6.2.1 Utility Table Table 67. White Pine County Load Serving Utility Information Subject White Pine Load Serving Utility (1) Mt Wheeler Power (Co-op) Allows Net-metering Yes. Purchases Renewable Energy Portfolio includes 13% hydro and 87% coal from Utah. They state they have made a significant unrealized investment in geothermal resources. Incentives for Renewable Energy Rebates for small wind and solar, and net metering Other Information

Website www.mwpower.net Transmission Access

6.2.2 Resource Maps Concentrating solar power resources in White Pine County are mostly located in the southern and south- west portion of the County, with the northern portion ranging from only less than 6.0 – 7.0 annual average kilowatt hours per meter squared per day (kWh/M^2 per day). Photovoltaic (PV) resources range from less than 6.0 – 6.5 average annual kWh/M^2 per day throughout the County.

Geothermal resources are present mostly at permissible levels and are not likely to be efficacious for supporting energy development at this time.

White Pine County wind resources have been utilized, with the Spring Valley Wind Farm in Ely, Nevada opening for energy production in 2012 (Pattern Energy). Several other projects have been proposed, but are dependent on available energy transmission infrastructure.

Biomass resources range north to south throughout the County and have been identified as a potential for energy development.

116 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

The development of the Great Basin Transmission line has generated interest in energy development in White Pine County. As shown in the Resource Map, a line has already been constructed north to south in the southern portion of the County, with the northern portion being planned for construction. The vast majority of White Pine County is federal and Indian lands, and the appropriate departments must be coordinated with when planning renewable energy development.

Figure 10. White Pine County, NV Renewable Energy Resources Poster 117 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

6.3 Brownfields Properties Assessed and Next Steps McGill Ball Park (004-034-01): The site consists of 4.75 acres and is an abandoned ball field and park facility situated adjacent to the McGill Elementary School. The park was constructed by Nevada Consolidated Copper in the early 1900s, providing its employees with a place for recreational activities. Over the years, Nevada Consolidated Copper performed construction renovations to make the ball field more modern, including the installation of lighted poles and a roof for the bleachers. The building materials used during these renovations may have contained asbestos and lead based paint. In addition, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) may be present within the eight dilapidated lighting transformers that were installed on poles at the facility prior to White Pine County obtaining the property. It is unknown what year the transformers were installed. Assessment on the Ball Park was completed in 2012 using RDSBC grant funding and State of Nevada Brownfields funding. Through the leveraging of Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act funds, the site was remediated. The County plans to have the site redeveloped and available for use by the community by the summer of 2015. Once the site redevelopment is complete, the McGill Ball Park will stand as a symbol of the benefits the brownfields program can produce for community facility projects and an example of an integrated funding approach to brownfields reuse.

Lee Vacant Commercial Property (001-171-05, 001-171-06, and 001-171-07): The site is located at the northeast corner of Aultman Street (U.S. Route 50) and 2nd Street in Ely, Nevada. The subject site consists of 0.56 acres of undeveloped commercial property and is predominantly asphalt paved. One approximate 10 x 10 foot on-site structure is located on the southeast corner of the site. The last previous use of the subject site was as a car dealership sales office. The earliest known use of the site dates back to 1912. Previous site uses include Evans Blacksmithing and Welding Shop, Hyland Motor Company, Al’s Radiator Shop, Al’s Gun Shop, and the Lincoln Highway Garage, which later became the E-Lee Ford & Mercury dealership and service center located across Aultman Street. White Pine County intends to purchase the subject site to construct its new administration building, and ordered a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) which was completed in June 2012. The Phase I recommended a Phase II Subsurface Investigation be conducted due to the lengthy use of the site as an automotive site and gasoline retail location. RDSBC funding was then utilized to complete a Sampling and Analysis Plan in November 2012. Phase II activities were put on hold due to concerns from the property owner. Redevelopment of the site, subsequent to further assessment and applicable remediation, could provide the foundation for encouraging other development in the downtown Ely area and revitalizing this section of the city, which has struggled for many years to attract investment and new businesses. Proposed next steps to move forward with site reuse include:

• Reinitiate discussions with the property owner regarding the benefits of the brownfields program, assessment, and remediation. • Conduct a Phase II ESA. • Prepare a cleanup and reuse plan.

McGill Library (004-071-02): The site consists of 0.67 acres and contains a vacant, one-story building, which was previously used as the library in McGill, Nevada. A Phase I ESA was completed on the property in April 2013. Findings in the Phase I suggest the possible presence of lead-based paint and asbestos containing building materials, and further assessments were recommended prior to any renovations or demolition. The Phase II ESA confirmed the presence of lead-based paint, asbestos containing material, and mold. The McGill Town Council would like to renovate the building for use as a Town Hall and is exploring funding options, which would support such a project. Steps for completing the brownfields reuse process for the McGill Library include:

• Conduct cleanup and reuse planning.

118 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

• Determining funding options for conducting cleanup and reuse activities.

Ely Grade School Building (001-152-01): The site is located on High Street in Ely, Nevada and consists of a three-story brick building, vacant lot, former play area, and paved parking and alley areas on a 1.69 acre lot. A Phase I ESA was completed in June 2014 and identified the potential for lead-based paint, asbestos containing material, mold, dioxins, and an undergournd storage tank with remaining fluid. The site owner plans to redevelop the property for use as a senior assisted living facility. Due to the proposed use and the identification of recognized environmental conditions, further assessment, and cleanup and reuse planning will be carried out under the RDSBC. Completion of the brownfields reuse process will include the following steps:

• Conduct a Phase II ESA. • Conduct cleanup and reuse planning. • Identify funding mechanisms for site cleanup.

6.4 Program Benefits and Measures of Success White Pine County's participation in the RDSBC is demonstrative of the Coalition's integrated approach to community and economic revitalization and the benefits that come from a regional partnership where each member contributes and collaborates for the success of the whole. White Pine County utilized a DOE grant to conduct a renewable energy feasibility study and resource assessment. Resource maps prepared under the DOE project expanded on the mapping completed by the RDSBC. The market analysis completed under the DOE project for White Pine County is a tool that can be used by all of the Nevada counties within the Coalition and provides critical information for decision-makers and stakeholders in evaluating the market for renewable energy. This a prime example of the Coalition's commitment to leveraging multiple projects to advance the goal of establishing a renewable energy industry in the region.

The assessment and remediation process also demonstrates how diverse funding sources can be used to see a project site through the assessment phase to remediation and reuse. White Pine County used their own funding to complete the Phase I for the Lee Vacant Commercial Property and then approached the RDSBC to include the site under the Coalition Program for further assessment and remediation. The McGill Ball Park underwent Phase I Assessment through the Nevada Brownfields Program, Phase II Assessment under the RDSBC grant, and remediation with SNPLMA funds. Furthermore, the remediation and reuse of this site will enable the return of the oldest ball park in Nevada to beneficial use by the public.

Dedicated White Pine County projects have resulted in an investment by EPA and the RDSBC of $74,012.01 in the County. White Pine County has leveraged $190,000 in DOE funding, $9,930 of County funds for the Lee Vacant Commercial Property Phase I, and $25,594.10 in technical assistance from the Nevada Brownfields Program and $25,745.35 in SNPLMA funding for remediation and renovations at the McGill Ball Park. Through the RDSBC Program alone, White Pine County has been able to achieve the following measures of success.

119 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Table 68. White Pine County Measures of Success Measures FY2011 Actual Site lists 2 Site eligibility forms completed (by parcel) 5 ACRES Forms (by parcel) 5 Phase I ESAs (by parcel) 5 Property Fact Sheets (by parcel) 5 Sampling and Analysis Plans (by parcel) 5 Phase II ESAs (by parcel) 2 Parcels not requiring cleanup activity 3 Proposed cleanup and redevelopment action (by parcel and acreage) 1 parcel 0.67 acres Cleanup activities underway (acres) 0 Cleanup activities complete (acres) 4.75 Clean-up/Reuse plans 1 Redevelopment activities (by parcel) 1 Area Wide Plan 1 Coalition/County Maps 1 Public Outreach Plan 1 Institutional Controls 0 Additional funding leveraged as of 1/22/14 $251,269.45

White Pine County has been an active participant in the Brownfields Program since joining the RDSBC. White Pine County recognized the benefits of the Brownfields Program and its impacts on the County and decided to the join the Nevada Rural Brownfields Partnership and continue/expand the RDSBC Program. White Pine County is committed to continuing its role in the brownfields coalitions to which it is a member and contributing resources, where possible, to advance regional objectives. The County is particularly excited by the new opportunities the expansion of the RDSBC program elicits with respect to the potential for new and innovative agricultural developments, such as the growth of the water-efficient indoor agriculture projects.

120 8BWhite Pine County | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

References Anthony Lopez, B. R. (2012). U.S. Renewable Energy Technical Potentials: A GIS-Based Analysis. Golden: NREL/TP-6A20-51946.

Atkinson, B. K. (2013, June 11). Senate Bill 123 as Enrolled June 11, 2013. Retrieved December 23, 2013, from Nevada Legislature: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Reports/history.cfm?billname=SB123

Bath, D. (2012, July). LS Power, White Pine County Liaison. (K. Rajala, Interviewer)

Beatty Museum & Historical Society in Beatty, Nevada. (n.d.). Beatty, Nevada History. Retrieved July 17, 2012, from http://www.beattymuseum.org/beatty_nevada_history.html

Boland, N. Esmeralda County Renewable Energy.

Bremer, R. (2003, March 15). Genealogy and local history in esmeralda county, nevada. Retrieved from http://www.nvgenweb.org/esmeralda/

Buqo, T. S. (2004). Nye County Water Resources Plan.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. (n.d.). Bearfacts. Retrieved from http://www.bea.gov/regional/bearfacts/

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012a). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/lau/

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012b). Quarterly Census of Employment Wages. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cew/

Bureau of Land Management. (n.d.). Nevada Geothermal Leasing. Retrieved April 2014, from Bureau of Land Management: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/minerals/leasable_minerals/geothermal0/ggeothermal_leasing.html

Bureau of Land Management. (2010, October). Spring Valley Wind Final Environmental Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/ely_field_office/blm_programs/energy/spring_valley_wind/spring_valley _wind.html

Bureau of Land Management. (n.d.). Spring Valley Wind Project. Retrieved April 2014, from Bureau of Land Management: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/ely_field_office/blm_programs/energy/spring_valley_wind.html

Bureau of Land Management, Ely District. (2008). Resource Management Plan.

Bureau of Land Management, Ely District. (2011, November). Tri-County Update.

Bureau of Land Managment. (2012, May). Gold Point. Retrieved September 18, 2012, from Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS Inforomation Center: http://solareis.anl.gov/sez/gold_point/index.cfm

121 9BReferences | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Bureau of Land Managment. (2012, May). Millers. Retrieved September 18, 2012, from Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS: http://solareis.anl.gov/sez/millers/index.cfm

Caliente, Nevada. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.sangres.com/nevada/places/lincoln/caliente.htm

Califonia Energy Comission. (2012, May 15). Hidden Hills Solar Electric Generating System Preliminary Staff Assessment. California, United States. Retrieved August 2, 2012, from http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-700-2012-003/CEC-700-2012-003-PSA.pdf

California Employment Development Department. (2012). Major Employers in Inyo County. Retrieved August 1, 2012, from http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/majorer/countymajorer.asp?CountyCode=000027

California Energy Commission. (2011, October 25). California Energy Maps. Retrieved October 5, 2012, from CA: http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/infrastructure/natural_gas.html

California State Association of Counties. (n.d.). How did our 58 counties get their names? Retrieved from http://www.counties.org/default.asp?id=56

Clean Coalition. (n.d.). Local CLEAN Program Guide. Retrieved from http://www.clean- coalition.org/local-action/

Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency - DSIRE. (n.d.). Incentives/Policies for Renewables & Efficiency. Retrieved from http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?EE=1&RE=1&SPV=0&ST=0&searchtype=Net&sh=1

Department of Energy. (2010). Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of 200Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada.

Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. (2011, January). Solar Powering Your Community: A Guide for Local Governments, Second Edition. Retrieved from http://www4.eere.energy.gov/solar/sunshot/resource_center/sites/default/files/solar-powering-your- community-guide-for-local-governments.pdf

Deseret Power Electric Cooperative. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.deseretgt.com/

Desert Research Institute. (2012). Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. Retrieved August 2, 2012, from http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html

Eastern sierra native americans. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.theothersideofcalifornia.com/index.php?page=paiute-shoshone-native-americans

Edison International. (n.d.). Southern California Edison. Retrieved August2 2012, from Edison International: http://www.edison.com/ourcompany/sce.asp

Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, July 16). Brownfields and Land Revitalization: Basic Information. Retrieved October 2, 2012, from http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/index.html

122 9BReferences | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Environmental Protection Agency; National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (n.d.). Renewable Energy Interactive Mapping Tool. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/renewableenergyland/mapping_tool.htm

Environmental Protection Agency; National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (n.d.). Renewable Energy on Contaminated Lands in California. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/region9/climatechange/renewcontlands/index.html

Environmental Protection Agency; National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (n.d.). Screening Sites for Solar PV Potential. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/renewableenergyland/docs/solar_decision_tree.pdf

Environmental Protection Agency; National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (n.d.). Screening Sites for Wind Energy Potential. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/renewableenergyland/docs/wind_decision_tree.pdf

Esmeralda County. (2001). Esmeralda County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 2001- 2002. Retrieved from http://esmeraldanvnuke.com/documents/CEDSEsCo_4-30_.pdf

Esmeralda County. (2013). Esmeralda County Public Land Policy Plan.

Esmeralda County. (2011, December 7). Master Plan. Retrieved August 30, 2012, from http://www.accessesmeralda.com/document_center/Es__Co___Master_Plan_adopted_Dec__7__2011.pdf

Esmeralda County Nevada gold production. (2007, September 15). Retrieved from http://www.westernmininghistory.com/articles/122/page1/

GCR Inc. (2012). AirportIQ 5010. Retrieved August 2, 2012, from http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/

GoE3. (n.d.). Home. Retrieved April 4, 2014, from GoE3: http://goe3.org/index.html

Hardcastle, J., & Mitchell, A. (2011, October 1). Nevada County Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin Estimates and Projections 2010 to 2030. Retrieved from The Nevada State Demographer's Office: http://nvdemography.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Nevada-Summary-Workbook-2010-to-2030- attachment-FIX-04232012.pdf

Harthill, R. (n.d.). Inyo county. Retrieved from http://mojavedesert.net/desert-fever/inyo-county.html

History of Lincoln County. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.lincolncountynevada.com/Lincoln- County-Nevada-history.html

History: Esmeralda County, Nevada. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.esmeralda.k12.nv.us/area.html

Hurlbut, D. J. (2013). Beyond Renewable Portfolio Standards. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Golden, Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Inyo county film history. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.theothersideofcalifornia.com/index.php?page=film-industry

123 9BReferences | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Inyo county mines. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.theothersideofcalifornia.com/index.php?page=goldrush-mining

Inyo County Planning Department. (2001, December 11). Inyo County General Plan. Retrieved from http://www.inyoplanning.org/general_plan/index.htm

Inyo County Public Works. (2012, June 30). Inyo County Community Services Districts.

Inyo County. (2011, April 26). Solar and Wind Renewable Energy, General Plan Amendment No. 2010- 03. Retrieved from http://inyoplanning.org/documents/REGPA-F.SolarWindGPA.pdf

Inyo County, California Planning. (n.d.). Renewable Energy General Plan . Retrieved April 2014, from Inyo County Planning: http://www.inyoplanning.org/projects/documents/PCStaffReportwithattachments.pdf

Kansas Department of Health and Environment. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2012, from Drinking Water Watch: https://ndwis.ndep.nv.gov/KS_DWW/index.jsp

Kansas Department of Health and Environment. (2012, July 31). Drinking Water Watch. Retrieved August 27, 2012, from Safe Drinking Water Information System: https://ndwis.ndep.nv.gov/KS_DWW/JSP/Fact.jsp?tinwsys_is_number=295876&tinwsys_st_code=NV& begin_date=&end_date=&counter=

Kansas Department of Health and Environment. (2012, July 31). Drinking Water Watch. Retrieved August 17, 2012, from Safe Drinking Water Information System: https://ndwis.ndep.nv.gov/KS_DWW/JSP/Fact.jsp?tinwsys_is_number=296130&tinwsys_st_code=NV& begin_date=&end_date=&counter=

Keeler, P. (1912). The History of Nevada: Nye County. Retrieved from http://www.nevadaobserver.com/History%20Of%20Nye%20County%20%281912%29.htm

Lincoln County. (n.d.). About Lincoln County. Retrieved from http://www.lincolncountynv.org/about/county.htm

Lincoln County. (2007, September 4). Master Plan for Lincoln County. Nevada, United States.

Lincoln County. (2011). Open Space & Community Lands Plan.

Lincoln County Power District #1. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved August 23, 2012, from http://www.lcpd1.com/aboutus.html

Lincoln County. (2010). The Lincoln County Public Lands Policy Plan.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. (n.d.). Who We Are. Retrieved August 2, 2012, from https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/ladwp/aboutus/a-whoweare/a-wwa-ourhistory?_adf.ctrl- state=1882pb0d4x_38&_afrLoop=978045124350000

Mayer, K. (2011, September 12). Director of Nevada Department of Wildlife. (K. Rajala, Interviewer)

124 9BReferences | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

Mt. Wheeler Power. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.mwpower.net/

National Atlas. (2009). Map Maker. Retrieved August 15, 2012, from NationalAtlas.gov: http://www.nationalatlas.gov/mapmaker

National Park Service. (2012, July 26). Climbing Mount Whitney. Retrieved August 15, 2012, from http://www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/whitney.htm

National Park Service. (n.d.). Death Valley National Park Weather and Climate. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/deva/naturescience/weather-and-climate.htm.

Natural Resources Defense Council. (2009, May 27). Clean Energy and Conservation. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from NRDC: http://www.nrdc.org/land/sitingrenewables/default.asp

Nevada Association of Counties. (n.d.). Creation of Nevada's Counties. Retrieved from http://nvnaco.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=13

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology. (n.d.). Retrieved April 14, 2014, from Curent Geothermal Projects/Exploration Activity: http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/Geothermal/Exploration.html

Nevada Deparment of Transportation. (2003, January 15). Functional Classification Maps. Retrieved August 21, 2012, from https://www.nevadadot.com/uploadedFiles/NDOT/About_NDOT/NDOT_Divisions/Planning/Roadway_ Systems/FCM_Lincoln.pdf

Nevada Department of Employment Training and Rehabilitation, Nevada Workforce Informer. (n.d.). Nevada's Largest Employers 2nd Quarter 2011. Retrieved from http://www.nevadaworkforce.com/?pageId=169

Nevada Division of Enrivonrmental Protection. (2010, July 8). Alamo - Arsenic Mitigation. Retrieved August 27, 2012, from http://ndep.nv.gov/recovery/alamo_arra.html

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. (n.d.). Nevada Division of Environmental Protection American Recovery & Reinvestment Act -2009. Retrieved August 24, 2012, from http://ndep.nv.gov/recovery/alamo_arra.html

Nevada Governor's Office of Economic Development. (2012). Moving Nevada Forward: A Plan for Excellence in Economic Development 2012-2014. Retrieved from http://nvsos.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2298

Nevada Rural Development Council. (2010). Eastern Lincoln County Community Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.unce.unr.edu%2Fpublications%2Fassessments%2Freports%2FLincolnCountyAssessment201 0.pdf

NV Energy. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.nvenergy.com

NV Energy and Great Basin Transmission to Pursue Jointly Owned Transmission Line. (2010, January 13). Transmission and Distribution World . 125 9BReferences | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

NV Energy. (2012, April 1). Portfolio Standard Annual Report, Compliance Year 2011. Retrieved from https://www.nvenergy.com/renewablesenvironment/renewables/images/2011_Compliance_Report.pdf

NV Energy. (n.d.). Service Territory. Retrieved August 2, 2012, from https://www.nvenergy.com/company/territory.cfm

Nye County. (n.d.). Nye County Code Related to Planning. Retrieved from http://www.nyecounty.net/index.aspx?NID=462

Nye County. (2012). Nye County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy.

Nye County. (2011). Nye County Comprehensive/Master Plan.

Nye County, Nevada. (n.d.). Biomass. Retrieved April 2014, from Nye County Renewable Energy Resource Development: http://www.nye-renewables.com/biomass.htm

Pattern Energy. (n.d.). Spring Valley Wind Farm. Retrieved April 2014, from Pattern Energy : http://www.patternenergy.com/en/operations/projects/spring_valley/

Pinyon Juniper Partnership. (n.d.). Utilization Steering Committee.

Ram Power, Inc. (n.d.). Early Stage Exploration Properties. Retrieved September 18, 2012, from Ram Power: http://ram-power.com/current-projects/south-meager#Clayton%20Valley

Renewable Energy Maps of Nevada. (2007, July). Retrieved from University of Nevada Reno: http://www.unr.edu/Geothermal/Renewables.htm

Robison, K. (2012, July 5). Mt. Wheeler Power Member Services Director. (K. Rajala, Interviewer)

S&B Christ Consulting, LLC. (2012, May 8). White Pine County Housing Value Needs Assessment.

Safe Drinking Water Information System. (n.d.). Water System Detail Information. Retrieved August 24, 2012, from https://ndwis.ndep.nv.gov/KS_DWW/JSP/Fact.jsp?tinwsys_is_number=295809&tinwsys_st_code=NV& begin_date=&end_date=&counter=

Safe Drinking Water Information System. (n.d.). Water System Detail Information. Retrieved August 24, 2012, from https://ndwis.ndep.nv.gov/KS_DWW/JSP/Fact.jsp?tinwsys_is_number=295983&tinwsys_st_code=NV& begin_date=&end_date=&counter=

Safe Drinking Water Information System. (n.d.). Water System Detail Information. Retrieved August 24, 2012, from https://ndwis.ndep.nv.gov/KS_DWW/JSP/Fact.jsp?tinwsys_is_number=295982&tinwsys_st_code=NV& begin_date=&end_date=&counter=

Safe Drinking Water Information System. (n.d.). Water System Detail Information. Retrieved August 24, 2012, from

126 9BReferences | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan https://ndwis.ndep.nv.gov/KS_DWW/JSP/Fact.jsp?tinwsys_is_number=295817&tinwsys_st_code=NV& begin_date=&end_date=&counter=

Schwarm, W. (2012, May 7). Interim Projections of Population for California: State and County, July 1, 2015 to 2050 (in 5-year increments). Retrieved August 15, 2012, from California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit: http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/interim/view.php.

Shumway, G. (1980, February). Desert fever: An overview of mining in the california desert conservation area. Retrieved from http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/cdd/aml.Par.54155.File.dat/Desert Fever - History of Mining in the CDCA.pdf

Smith, C. (2012, August 3).

SolarReserve. (n.d.). Crescent Dunes. Retrieved July 18, 2012, from http://www.solarreserve.com/what- we-do/csp-projects/crescent-dunes/

SolarReserve, LLC. . (n.d.). Crescent Dunes. Retrieved April 2014, from SolarReserve: http://www.solarreserve.com/what-we-do/csp-projects/crescent-dunes/

State of California. (2011). An Economic Growth and Competitiveness Agenda for California. Retrieved from http://ltg.ca.gov/docs/LGN_Econ_Agenda.pdf

State of Nevada Public Utilities Commission . (2013). Renewable Energy Statutes & Regulations. Retrieved December 20 2013, 2013, from PUC.NV: http://puc.nv.gov/Renewable_Energy/RPS/Statutes_Regulations/

Tesla Motors, I. (2014). Supercharger. Retrieved April 4, 2014, from Tesla Motors Supercharger: http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger

The Goldfield Historical Society. (n.d.). The Tonopah and Goldfield Railroad. Retrieved July 17, 2012, from http://www.goldfieldhistoricalsociety.com/railroad.html

Tonopah Public Utilities. (2010). 2010 Water Quality Report.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1980). 1980 Census of Population. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/

U.S. Census Bureau. (1990). 1990 Census of Population. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000a). 2000 Summary File 1, SF-1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics. Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov/

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000b). 2000 Summary File 3, SF-3 Journey to Work. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. (2006-2008). 2006-2008 American Community Survey.

127 9BReferences | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008-2010). 2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, DP02 Selected Social Characteristics in the United States: 2010. Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. (2006-2010a). 2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, DP02 Selected Social Characteristics. Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. (2006-2010b). 2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, DP03 Selected Economic Characteristics. Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010a). 2010 Demographic Profile Data, DP-1 Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics. Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010b). 2010 Population Finder. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/popfinder/

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010c). State & County Quickfacts. Retrieved 2010, from http://quickfacts.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). State & County Quickfacts. Retrieved July 5, 2012, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/

U.S. Nuclear Energy Foundation. (2010, October 18). Retrieved from http://www.usnuclearenergy.org

Union Pacific. (2012, March). Allowable Gross Weight. Retrieved August 24, 2012, from http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/maps/grossweight.shtml

US Fish & Wildlife Service. (n.d.). Nevada Partners Recognized for Conservation. Retrieved April 2014, from US Fish & Wildlife Service: http://www.fws.gov/fieldnotes/regmap.cfm?arskey=32776

Valley Electric Association, Inc. (n.d.). Service Territory. Retrieved August 2, 2012, from http://www.vea.coop/content/service-territory

Walker, A. (2012, July 5). Ely Shoshone Tribal Economic Development Program. (K. Rajala, Interviewer)

Western Governors' Association Wildlife Council. (2013, December). Crucial Habitat Assessment Tools. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from Westgov: http://www.westgov.org/initiatives/wildlife/380-chat

White Pine County. (2006a). Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy.

White Pine County. (2010). Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Annual Report.

White Pine County. (2006b). Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act.

White Pine County. (2008). Land Use Plan.

White Pine County. (2006c). Water Resources Plan.

128 9BReferences | RDSBC Area-Wide Plan