ENV-04 · Data center siting analysis

Produce a siting analysis for a hypothetical or proposed regional facility: water, power, land, transmission.

Public documents only: zoning/planning filings if any, utility integrated resource or load materials, EIA energy context (https://www.eia.gov/), water-system public reports, land-cover or parcel layers the teacher approves. Hypothetical facility allowed if labeled. No trespass, no insider tours required.

Inventing water gallons. Ignoring transmission. Declaring environmental justice harm from one map layer without care. Site photos from a fence line as primary evidence.

Siting memo a planning board could argue with: power, water, land, transmission sections; citation list; uncertainty register; recommendation with conditions; compute footprint note for any analysis tools used; refusal list.

CT: multi-factor siting vs. single-metric theater. CR: public-doc trail. CO: peer finds a missing factor. CM: board packet. CZ: neighbors and ratepayers.

Environmental studies teacher or planning-aware mentor reviews the uncertainty register. Standing instruction: reject trespass evidence and reject uncited water/power figures. School-supervised.

R1: one facility context, four factors. R2: every figure cited. R3: no-build / status quo named. R4: data gaps listed. R5: board-readable. R6: refusal list present.

(a) A confident gallons number with no source. (b) A field trip over the fence sold as research.

• Week 1–2: Facility context and public source list approved; no-trespass reminder signed.
• Week 4–5: Power/water/land/transmission drafts; uncertainty register started.
• Week 7–8: Board memo; compute footprint note; mentor review.

Lane A immediately (env studies, sustainability senior research). Lane B only with a real host and division Internship wrapper — the brief alone is not HQWBL. No verified credit claim.