1. Site development issues, focusing on site acquisition Douglas Bock See also: Stephen’s “Visual Tour of the OVRO site” FASR Planning Meeting, AUI, August 16-17, 2007

2. OVRO site (not focusing on site comparables) Current staffing ~30: site and instrument maintenance, engineering, including high-level (PhD) Existing building partially vacated by OVRO can possible be used for FASR Construction & access relatively easy, some road improvements needed. Site acquisition is the main issue for now

3. Lease Current OVRO lease expires in 2013 Prototyping and early test array would be on existing lease, with permission for construction from DWP (informed by CEQA analysis) Expect to renew lease (expanded area for FASR) for 25 years in 2010 or 2011 Renewal of this lease (by DWP board/LA council) is the action that is informed by main CEQA document

4. Environmental Analysis Purpose is to inform decision-making by federal and state agencies Local governments often represent state in California Environmental documents can be joint state/federal or separate, but typically rely on one set of surveys (need to get survey requirements in place early). It is likely that the project (using consultants) would prepare & fund the state document under the direction of DWP. Federal analog unclear (to me!)

5. Terminology National Environmental Policy Act (federal) California Environmental Quality Act (state) More detailed analysis; potential for significant impacts Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Environmental Assessment (EA) -> FONSI or EIS Mitigated Negative Declaration No significant impactCategorical ExclusionNegative Declaration

6. Case study I - Allen Telescope Array (ATA) Lead state agency: UC Berkeley Lead federal agency: Forest Service EA and separate Mitigated Negative Declaration (main text similar in the two documents) Expansion of existing site Main issues: –Sensitive plants and animals (avoided in configuration design) –Visual (mitigated by sand-blasting of antenna surfaces) Timeline –Original application for Special Use Permit late 1999; moved slowly until… –Public scoping Aug 2002 –EA Dec 2002; Mit. Neg.Dec. Feb 2003 –Project approval *** tbc (Sep 2003) Cost ~ $100k + ~0.5 work-year staff

7. Case Study II: CARMA Lead State agency: UC Berkeley Lead Federal agency: Forest Service Joint EIS/EIR New site Main issues –Weeds/botanical –Impact to traditional tribal lands Timeline: –Earliest siting discussions 1996 –Candidate sites identified *** tbc (2002?) –Public scoping ***tba –Draft EIS/EIR March 2003 –Final EIS/EIR Oct 2003 –Approval May 2004 Cost $1.2m (1996-2004) + several work-years staff

8. FASR Project scope (from environmental perspective) much more like ATA Lead State agency: probably LA DWP (UC would be guided by DWP analysis should it determine its decision has any impact) Lead Federal agency: NSF? Expansion of existing site Main issues: –Visual (mitigate in configuration design and by painting, etc) –Likely biological/archaeological areas of concern can probably be avoided (no obvious site-wide issues) –Others? Public scoping…

9. Strategy Local DWP staff supportive so far General community expected to be supportive if access is maintained Avoid localized impacts in configuration design Mitigate visual impacts in antenna design Brief DWP HQ and County at time of request for first local installation (pref. 1 yr in advance) Engage community so that they understand local and global benefits of the project, and likely mitigations to their concerns. Start to learn of any new concerns at this time Get going early on surveys (biological/archaeological, especially if DWP has information on existing concerns). Start full project NEPA/CEQA analysis well in advance (at least 2 yrs).