DOCSLIB.ORG

Existing and Natural Built Environment Technical Memorandum

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Existing and Natural Built Environment Technical Memorandum I‐11 and Intermountain West Corridor Study Existing and Natural Built Environment Technical Memorandum Prepared for and August 2013 Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... vii 1 Existing Natural and Built Environment ................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.1 Introduction and Overview .............................................................................................................. 1‐1 1.1.1 The I‐11 and Intermountain West Corridor ........................................................................ 1‐1 1.1.2 Why the Corridor is Needed ............................................................................................... 1‐1 1.1.3 Purpose of the Corridor Study ............................................................................................ 1‐4 1.1.4 Purpose of the Technical Memorandum ............................................................................ 1‐5 1.2 Planning and Environmental Linkages Process ................................................................................ 1‐5 1.3 Background and Foundational Data Resources ............................................................................... 1‐5 1.3.1 Sensitive Species and Wildlife Linkage Planning ................................................................ 1‐6 1.3.2 State Trust Lands – Arizona State Land Department .......................................................... 1‐6 1.3.3 Utility and Energy Planning ................................................................................................ 1‐6 1.3.4 Broadband Infrastructure Inventories ................................................................................ 1‐7 1.3.5 Bureau of Land Management Land Management Planning ............................................... 1‐8 1.4 Southern Arizona Future Connectivity Segment ............................................................................. 1‐8 1.4.1 Environmental Features ..................................................................................................... 1‐9 1.4.2 Topographic Features ....................................................................................................... 1‐11 1.4.3 Major Drainage Features .................................................................................................. 1‐14 1.4.4 Major Land Ownership ..................................................................................................... 1‐14 1.4.5 Utility and Energy ............................................................................................................. 1‐17 1.5 Priority Section 1: Phoenix Metropolitan Area .............................................................................. 1‐23 1.5.1 Environmental Features ................................................................................................... 1‐23 1.5.2 Topographic Features ....................................................................................................... 1‐25 1.5.3 Major Drainage Features .................................................................................................. 1‐27 1.5.4 Major Land Ownership ..................................................................................................... 1‐27 1.5.5 Utility and Energy ............................................................................................................. 1‐27 1.6 Priority Section 2: Northern Arizona/Southern Nevada ................................................................ 1‐31 1.6.1 Environmental Features ................................................................................................... 1‐31 1.6.2 Topographic Features ....................................................................................................... 1‐34 1.6.3 Major Drainage Features .................................................................................................. 1‐34 1.6.4 Major Land Ownership ..................................................................................................... 1‐34 1.6.5 Utility and Energy ............................................................................................................. 1‐34 1.7 Priority Section 3: Las Vegas Metropolitan Area ........................................................................... 1‐39 1.7.1 Environmental Features ................................................................................................... 1‐39 1.7.2 Topographic Features ....................................................................................................... 1‐39 1.7.3 Major Drainage Features .................................................................................................. 1‐42 1.7.4 Major Land Ownership ..................................................................................................... 1‐42 1.7.5 Utility and Energy ............................................................................................................. 1‐42 1.8 Northern Nevada Future Connectivity Segment ........................................................................... 1‐48 1.8.1 Environmental Features ................................................................................................... 1‐48 1.8.2 Topographic Features ....................................................................................................... 1‐50 1.8.3 Major Drainage Features .................................................................................................. 1‐50 1.8.4 Major Land Ownership ..................................................................................................... 1‐53 1.8.5 Utility and Energy ............................................................................................................. 1‐53 2 Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 2‐1 3 References ........................................................................................................................................... 3‐1 iii CONTENTS, CONTINUED Tables Table 1‐1 Critical Habitat Species – Southern Arizona ............................................................................................ 1‐11 Table 1‐2 Critical Habitat Species – Phoenix Metropolitan Area ............................................................................. 1‐23 Table 1‐3 Critical Habitat Species – Northern Arizona/Southern Nevada ............................................................... 1‐31 Table 1‐4 Critical Habitat Species – Las Vegas Metropolitan Area .......................................................................... 1‐39 Table 1‐5 Critical Habitat Species – Northern Nevada ............................................................................................ 1‐50 Figures Figure 1‐1 Intermountain West Corridor Influence Area .......................................................................................... 1‐1 Figure 1‐2 Megapolitan Areas in the Continental United States and Southern Canada ........................................... 1‐2 Figure 1‐3 Expanding Southwest Megapolitans ........................................................................................................ 1‐3 Figure 1‐4 Study Area Segments ................................................................................................................................ 1‐4 Figure 1‐5 Environmental Features – Southern Arizona ......................................................................................... 1‐10 Figure 1‐6 HabiMap™ – Southern Arizona ............................................................................................................... 1‐12 Figure 1‐7 Major Topographic Features – Southern Arizona .................................................................................. 1‐13 Figure 1‐8 Drainage Features – Southern Arizona ................................................................................................... 1‐15 Figure 1‐9 Major Land Ownership – Southern Arizona ........................................................................................... 1‐16 Figure 1‐10 Utility Corridor Inventory – Arizona ..................................................................................................... 1‐18 Figure 1‐11 SunZia Southwest Transmission Project Alternate Routes .................................................................. 1‐19 Figure 1‐12 Southline Proposed and Alternate Transmission Routes ..................................................................... 1‐19 Figure 1‐13 Solar Energy Potential – Southern Arizona........................................................................................... 1‐21 Figure 1‐14 Renewable Energy Development Areas on Bureau of Land Management Land ................................. 1‐22 Figure 1‐15 Environmental Features – Phoenix Metropolitan Area ........................................................................ 1‐24 Figure 1‐16 HabiMap™ – Phoenix Metropolitan Area ............................................................................................. 1‐25 Figure 1‐17 Major Topographic Features – Phoenix Metropolitan Area ................................................................ 1‐26 Figure 1‐18 Drainage Features
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TRENDS in PHOTOVOLTAIC APPLICATIONS Survey Report of Selected IEA Countries Between 1992 and 2011
    TRENDS IN PHOTOVOLTAIC APPLICATIONS Survey report of selected IEA countries between 1992 and 2011 Report IEA-PVPS T1-21:2012 TRENDS IN PHOTOVOLTAIC APPLICATIONS Survey report of selected IEA countries between 1992 and 2011 Contents Introduction 2 1 Implementation of PV systems 3 2 The PV industry 24 3 Policy, regulatory and business framework for deployment 32 4 Summary of trends 39 PV technology note 44 Foreword This year’s 17th edition of the IEA PVPS international survey report on Trends in Photovoltaic (PV) Applications falls together with almost 20 years of global cooperation within the IEA PVPS The International Energy Agency (IEA), founded in 1974, Programme. The history of PV market deployment over this is an autonomous body within the framework of the decisive period for PV from its very first market developments to Organization for Economic Cooperation and the present large scale deployment, meanwhile accounting for Development (OECD). The IEA carries out a important shares of the newly installed capacity for electricity comprehensive programme of energy cooperation production, can uniquely be followed year by year in the series among its 28 member countries and with the of IEA PVPS trends reports. 2011 has been yet another year of unprecedented further market growth, continued massive participation of the European Commission. cost reduction and ongoing signs of industry and market consolidation. In total, about 28 GW of PV capacity were The IEA Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme installed in the IEA PVPS countries during 2011 (2010: 14,2 GW), (IEA PVPS) is one of the collaborative research and thus again doubling the installed capacity of the year before; this development agreements within the IEA and was raised the total installed capacity in IEA PVPS countries close to established in 1993.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.17 Indirect and Cumulative Effects
    FHWA-AZ-EIS-19-01-D Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement and Preliminary Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 3.17, Indirect and Cumulative Effects March 2019 Federal Aid No. 999-M(161)S ADOT Project No. 999 SW 0 M5180 01P This page intentionally left blank I-11 Corridor Draft Tier 1 EIS Section 3.17. Indirect and Cumulative Effects 1 3.17 Indirect and Cumulative Effects 2 This section identifies potential indirect and cumulative effects that would result from the 3 implementation of the Build Corridor Alternatives. 4 3.17.1 Regulatory Guidance 5 The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) states that indirect effects “are caused by the 6 action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. 7 Indirect effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced 8 changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air 9 and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems” (Code of Federal Regulations 10 Title 40, Sec. 1508.8[b]). Indirect effects are commonly categorized as effects that would not 11 occur “but for” the implementation of a project. Indirect effects also can be considered “ripple 12 effects” (Transportation Research Board 2002). 13 The CEQ states that cumulative effects result from the “incremental impact of an action when 14 added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of which 15 agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative effects can 16 result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of 17 time” (Code of Federal Regulations title 40, sec.
    [Show full text]
  • Solar Is Driving a Global Shift in Electricity Markets
    SOLAR IS DRIVING A GLOBAL SHIFT IN ELECTRICITY MARKETS Rapid Cost Deflation and Broad Gains in Scale May 2018 Tim Buckley, Director of Energy Finance Studies, Australasia ([email protected]) and Kashish Shah, Research Associate ([email protected]) Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 2 1. World’s Largest Operational Utility-Scale Solar Projects ........................................... 4 1.1 World’s Largest Utility-Scale Solar Projects Under Construction ............................ 8 1.2 India’s Largest Utility-Scale Solar Projects Under Development .......................... 13 2. World’s Largest Concentrated Solar Power Projects ............................................... 18 3. Floating Solar Projects ................................................................................................ 23 4. Rooftop Solar Projects ................................................................................................ 27 5. Solar PV With Storage ................................................................................................. 31 6. Corporate PPAs .......................................................................................................... 39 7. Top Renewable Energy Utilities ................................................................................. 44 8. Top Solar Module Manufacturers .............................................................................. 49 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • BC-TES-TMP-2443.Pdf (5.514Mb)
    UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL “PEDRO RUIZ GALLO” Facultad de Ingeniería Mecánica y Eléctrica TESIS Para Optar el Título Profesional de INGENIERO MECÁNICO ELECTRICISTA “UTILIZACIÓN DE LA ENERGÍA EÓLICA Y SOLAR COMO FUENTE PARA EL SUMINISTRO DE ENERGÍA ELÉCTRICA AL CASERÍO ALTO PONGOYA EN CHIMBAN PROVINCIA DE CHOTA DEPARTAMENTO DE CAJAMARCA” Presentado Por: Bach. KEVIN ARNOLD TARRILLO VÁSQUEZ Asesor: Msc. Ing. JONY VILLALOBOS CABRERA LAMBAYEQUE – PERÚ Enero del 2019 UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL “PEDRO RUIZ GALLO” Facultad de Ingeniería Mecánica y Eléctrica TESIS Para Optar el Título Profesional de INGENIERO MECÁNICO ELECTRICISTA “UTILIZACIÓN DE LA ENERGÍA EÓLICA Y SOLAR COMO FUENTE PARA EL SUMINISTRO DE ENERGÍA ELÉCTRICA ALELECTRICISTA CASERÍO ALTO PONGOYA EN CHIMBAN PROVINCIA DE CHOTA DEPARTAMENTO DE CAJAMARCA” Presentado Por: Bach. KEVIN ARNOLD TARRILLO VÁSQUEZ Aprobado por el Jurado Examinador PRESIDENTE: Dr. DANIEL CARRANZA MONTENEGRO. SECRETARIO: ING. CARLOS JAVIER COTRINA SAAVEDRA. MIEMBRO: ING. TEOBALDO EDGAR JULCA OROZCO. ASESOR: M.Sc. JONY VILLALOBOS CABRERA. LAMBAYEQUE – PERÚ Enero del 2019 UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL “PEDRO RUIZ GALLO” Facultad de Ingeniería Mecánica y Eléctrica TESIS TITULO “UTILIZACIÓN DE LA ENERGÍA EÓLICA Y SOLAR COMO FUENTE PARA EL SUMINISTRO DE ENERGÍA ELÉCTRICA AL CASERÍO ALTO PONGOYA EN CHIMBAN PROVINCIA DE CHOTA DEPARTAMENTO DE CAJAMARCA” CONTENIDOS CAPITULO I: PROBLEMA DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN. CAPITULO II: MARCO TEÓRICO. CAPITULO III: MARCO METODOLÓGICO. CAPITULO IV: PROPUESTA DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN. CAPITULO V: ANÁLISIS E INTERPRETACIÓN DE LOS RESULTADOS. CAPITULO VI: CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIONES. AUTOR: Bach. KEVIN ARNOLD TARRILLO VÁSQUEZ --------------------------------- --------------------------------------- PRESIDENTE SECRETARIO ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------- MIEMBRO ASESOR LAMBAYEQUE – PERÚ Enero del 2019 DEDICATORIA Dedico éste Proyecto de Tesis a: Dios ya que gracias a Él he llegado a concluir una de mis metas la cual es concluir con mi carrera.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground Water - Surface Water Interactions in the Lower Virgin River Area, Arizona and Nevada
    UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations 1-1-1995 Ground water - surface water interactions in the lower Virgin River area, Arizona and Nevada Lynn Metcalf University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds Repository Citation Metcalf, Lynn, "Ground water - surface water interactions in the lower Virgin River area, Arizona and Nevada" (1995). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 502. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/z90f-mtsv This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.
    [Show full text]
  • Kane County, Utah Resource Management Plan
    Kane County Resource Management Plan Adopted 28 November 2011 KANE COUNTY, UTAH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN For the Physical Development of the Unincorporated Area Pursuant to Section 17-27-301 of the Utah Code ADOPTED 28 NOVEMBER 2011 Should any part of the Kane County Resource Management Plan be determined invalid, no longer applicable or need modification, those changes shall affect only those parts of the Plan that are deleted, invalidated or modified and shall have no effect on the remainder of the Resource Management Plan. This document was prepared by the Division of Community and Economic Development of the Five County Association of Governments under the guidance and direction of the Kane County Resource Development Committee, Kane County Land Use Authority and the Board of County Commissioners. Funding used to prepare this document came from Kane County contributions, a Regional Planning grant from the Utah Permanent Community Impact Board and a Planning and Technical Assistance Grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration. - 1 - Kane County Resource Management Plan Adopted 28 November 2011 Acknowledgments Every effective planning process includes a multitude of individuals if it is to be successful. This effort is no different. Many individuals have had an impact upon the preparation and adoption of this Plan. However, most important are the residents of Kane County, who have responded to surveys, interviews, and attended public meetings and hearings. All who did so should be commended for their desire to be a participant in determining the future of Kane County. Some specific individuals and groups have had intensive involvement in the Kane County planning process, and are acknowledged below: Kane County Commission Kane County Land Use Authority Doug Heaton, Chairman Shannon McBride, Land Use Administrator Dirk Clayson Tony Chelewski, Chairman Jim Matson Roger Chamberlain Wade Heaton Kane County Staff Robert Houston Verjean Caruso, Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Canyon Council Oa Where to Go Camping Guide
    GRAND CANYON COUNCIL OA WHERE TO GO CAMPING GUIDE GRAND CANYON COUNCIL, BSA OA WHERE TO GO CAMPING GUIDE Table of Contents Introduction to The Order of the Arrow ....................................................................... 1 Wipala Wiki, The Man .................................................................................................. 1 General Information ...................................................................................................... 3 Desert Survival Safety Tips ........................................................................................... 4 Further Information ....................................................................................................... 4 Contact Agencies and Organizations ............................................................................. 5 National Forests ............................................................................................................. 5 U. S. Department Of The Interior - Bureau Of Land Management ................................ 7 Maricopa County Parks And Recreation System: .......................................................... 8 Arizona State Parks: .................................................................................................... 10 National Parks & National Monuments: ...................................................................... 11 Tribal Jurisdictions: ..................................................................................................... 13 On the Road: National
    [Show full text]
  • Paiute & Beaver Dam Mountains
    The Virgin River Gorge along Interstate 15 from dirt roads that surrounhd the areas (see Wilderness displays 500 million years of geologic history. map on reverse). Trailheads for the Paiute area at Cougar Springs on Black Rock Road and the The Paiute and Beaver Dam Mountains Tilted layers of sandstone and limestone form Paiute & Wilderness Areas are special places where nature vertical cliffs and rugged side canyons. Virgin River Canyon Recreation Area. Other comes first and humans are just visitors. The Recrentionists enjoy sightseeing, hiking and access points occur along the boundiy roads of early settlers in this region rarely entered these backpacking, photography, hunting, technical both areas. areas because of their wild and rugged nature. rockclimbing and river running during certain Beaver Dam Today, visitors enjoy the opportunities for times of the year. Leave No Trace solitude and unconfined, non-mechanized recreation. Access People enter wilderness to escape civilization Mountains The Paiute Wilderness, located in and commune with nature. The Bureau of Land northwestern Arizona, contains 84,700 acres. Travel in the wilderness areas is on foot or Management (BLM) requires your help as a The Virgin Mountains dominate the Paiute, horseback only. Motorized vehicles and wilderness visitor to maintain an untrammeled WlMerness Areas producing a wide range of climatic zones and mechanized equipment are prohibited. Permits setting and preserve the wilderness ecological communities. are not required for non-commerical hiking, characteristics. The 19,600-acre Beaver Dam Mountains horse packing or overnight trips. Arizona Strip Field Office wilderness lies in northwestern Arizona and Portions of both wilderness areas may be seen For Your Safety southwestern Utah.
    [Show full text]
  • Andres Meesak Päikeseelekter TE2018.Pdf
    Päikeseenergeetika Eestis aprill 2018 Andres Meesak Eesti Päikeseelektri Assotsiatsioon Motivaatorid taastuvenergia lahenduste kasutuselevõtuks • Regulatiivsed – ma pean – (hoonete energiatõhususe nõuded, nõue piirata KHG emissiooni, ...) • Majanduslikud – see on mulle kasulik – (sääst igakuistelt energiakuludelt) • Maailmavaatelised – ma tahan säästa keskkonda Juba aastaid näitavad Eurobaromeetri uuringud (2008., 2009., 2011. ja 2014. aasta küsitlusvoorud), et eestlased on eurooplaste seas üks kliimamuutusi kõige vähem tähtsustavaid rahvaid. Justkui elaksime siin Euroopa perifeerias metsade varjus vanajumala selja taga puutumatuna globaalselt üha kriitilisemaks muutuvast magevee probleemist, põudadest, sagenevatest kuumalainetest ja üleujutustest. Kati Orru, Tartu Ülikooli keskkonnasotsioloog EPL 10.12.2015 Euroopa Liidu Hoonete energiatõhususe direktiiv (2010/31/EL): 01.01.2019 kõik riigi poolt kasutatavad uusehitised 01.01.2021 KÕIK uusehitised KAS LIGINULL VÕI NULLENERGIA HOONED Alates 2021 lisandub aastas ~ 25MW tootmisvõimsust uusehitiste näol, mis toodavad aastas ~ 20-25 GWh elektrit Euroopa Liidu Hoonete energiatõhususe direktiiv (2010/31/EL): Päikeseenergeetika Eestis 2018 Päikeseenergeetika Eestis 2017 - Installeeritud koguvõimsus ca. 19MW - Installeeritud 2017 ca. 7MW +50% +27% +45% +51% +59% +60% - Kokku tootjaid ca. 1100 - Suurimad jaamad 1MW (Kärdla, Kareda) - Valdavalt kuni 15kW erapaigaldised - Fortum Eesti kavandab Tartusse Raadile 50MW võimsusega jaama Aasta keskmine juurdekasv 48% ETEK Taastuvenergia aastaraamat 2017
    [Show full text]
  • Photovoltaics Outlook for Minnesota
    Photovoltaics Outlook for Minnesota Saving dollars, not polar bears Steve Campbell [email protected] University of Minnesota Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Outline • Why solar? • Solar technologies and how they work • Utility versus distributed generation • On the horizon Types of Solar Power Photovoltaics Concentrated Solar Power The Lede We are rapidly approaching an era when the choice to install solar energy will be primarily driven by cost, even without subsidies. One can expect to see significant distributed and utility-scale deployment over the next decade. Large-scale energy storage is an unsolved problem. There’s Power and There’s Power • A solar installation is rated in the power it would produce in watts at a standard level of illumination: AM1.5. • To compare different technologies, one uses the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) must take into account many factors – Availability – Operating costs – Depreciation Cost of Electricity in the US • Grid Parity depends of location – Hawaii – West Texas – Parts of CA depending on usage Trends for PV Modules • Price drops as efficiency and manufacturing improve • They will be free in three more years 04/03/13 Solar Cell Module Spot prices High ($/Wp) Low($/Wp) Si Module 0.99 0.55 Thin Film Module 0.94 0.52 Jelle et al. Solar Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 100, 69-96 (2012). The Result of Falling Costs PV production doubles every ~ 2.5 years At the current rate, we will have 1 TW of capacity in 10 years and ~4 TW in 20 years. The later would be about 15% of the total energy supply.
    [Show full text]
  • The Muddy Creek Formation at Colorado River in Grand Wash: the Dilemma of the Immovable Object
    Arizona Geological Society Digest, Volume XII, 1980 177 The Muddy Creek Formation at Colorado River in Grand Wash: The Dilemma of the Immovable Object by Earl M. P. Lovejoy1 Abstract It has previously been noted that the Colorado River could not have flowed west through Grand Wash contemporaneously with deposition of the Muddy Creek fanglomerates. This paper suggests that the Colorado River turned sharply south in Grand Wash and flowed into Red Lake Valley in "Muddy Creek time." Sandstones in Grand Wash at the mouth of Grand Canyon are considered here to be gravel-deficient river sands, gradational with the contemporaneous fanglomerate laterally and with the younger and higher Hualapai limestone vertically . If this is correct, then the earlier course of the Colorado River could have been through Grand Canyon to Grand Wash throughout Cenozoic time, following its Paleogene origin as an obsequent stream; thus, the Muddy Creek Formation in Grand Wash need not be considered the "immovable object" that Hunt considered it to represent, and the evi­ dence upstream of an early origin for the river system, Hunt's "irresistible force," becomes compatible with the evidence at Grand Wash. Introduction Solution of this problem would throw a flood of light on regional Tertiary events Hunt (1956) summarized evidence from the and relationships that are now obscure Colorado Plateau that indicates a great span [po 817]. [And] it is not possible to out­ for the period of post-uplift erosion, Hunt's line a full history of the Colorado River "irresistible force." The Muddy Creek Forma­ without resort to speculation [p.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Impact Analysis Psc Ref#:409444
    PSC REF#:409444 Public Service Commission of Wisconsin RECEIVED: 04/15/2021 2:05:23 PM MARKET IMPACT ANALYSIS KOSHKONONG SOLAR ENERGY CENTER DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN April 13, 2021 Koshkonong Solar Energy Center LLC c/o Invenergy LLC One South Wacker Drive – Suite 1800 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Attention: Aidan O’Connor, Associate - Renewable Development Subject: Market Impact Analysis Koshkonong Solar Energy Center Dane County, Wisconsin Dear Mr. O’Connor, In accordance with your request, the proposed development of the Koshkonong Solar Energy Center in Dane County, Wisconsin, has been analyzed and this market impact analysis has been prepared. MaRous & Company has conducted similar market impact studies for a variety of clients and for a number of different proposed developments over the last 39 years. Clients have ranged from municipalities, counties, and school districts, to corporations, developers, and citizen’s groups. The types of proposals analyzed include commercial developments such as shopping centers and big-box retail facilities; religious facilities such as mosques and mega-churches; residential developments such as high- density multifamily and congregate-care buildings and large single-family subdivisions; recreational uses such as skate parks and lighted high school athletic fields; and industrial uses such as waste transfer stations, landfills, and quarries. We also have analyzed the impact of transmission lines on adjacent residential uses and a number of proposed natural gas-fired electric plants in various locations. MaRous & Company has conducted numerous market studies of energy-related projects. The solar- related projects include the following by state: ⁘ Wisconsin - Badger Hollow Solar Farm in Iowa County, Paris Solar Energy Center in Kenosha County, Darien Solar Energy Center in Rock County and Walworth County, and Grant County Solar in Grant County.
    [Show full text]