The gap inventory
Every gap this study names, with the record that would close it and where to send it.
This page collects every ask the study makes: 6 gaps named across 6 chapters. Each ask names a public record that an office could produce tomorrow. Each is the same ask the site's leads board already tracks, never a second copy of it. An absence on this page is a finding, not a locked door.
What this study cannot compute yet
A real impact study would report how much water this project consumes at buildout — monthly, against the receiving water's cited design low flows. [open]
Computing it requires a metered, contracted or permit-grounded water quantity — the cooling method is disclosed here, but no quantity is.
A real impact study would report how much heat the discharge adds to a reach screened against Ohio's numeric temperature criterion at its design low flows. [open]
Computing it requires a thermal characterization for this project — none exists on the record.
A real impact study would report the wells within the drawdown radius, and whether construction dewatering was permitted and where the water went. [open]
Computing it requires a well survey and any dewatering record — neither has been produced.
A real impact study would report the runoff a campus-scale impervious surface adds to the design storm, routed down the reach. [open]
Computing it requires the site grading and drainage plan — requested, not produced.
A real impact study would report the dispersion footprint of the campus's permitted backup-generator fleet. [open]
Computing it requires an air-permit application for this project — none is on the record.
A real impact study would report the campus's share of the serving utility's, balancing authority's, and state's annual load, from a grounded load figure. [open]
Computing it requires an instrument that grounds the IT load — an air permit or an interconnection filing; the load on the record is a screening bracket.
The site's open questions beyond these chapters
- [open] Urbana pre-committed to de-annex the data-center land on the developer's demand — and the executed agreement is not public Ordinance 4612-24 Exhibit A · data/documents/urbana/council/2024-11-19_regular_meeting_packet.pdf pp.182-188 · data/extracted/urbana/incentive-instruments.yaml
- [open] Resolve Urbana0624C, LLC — the City calls it "Highland", but no corporate filing has been read City of Urbana public notice + Ord. 4612-24 Exhibit A · data/extracted/urbana/incentive-instruments.yaml counterparty
- [open] The "office building" water claim is untestable by any state instrument — and the City holds the only record that could settle it data/extracted/urbana/cooling-water-account.md · data/reference/oepa/cooling-reconciliation.yaml (route_blind row) · data/reference/ohio-water-withdrawal/champaign.yaml · Ord. 4612-24 Exhibit A in data/documents/urbana/council/
- [open] No abatement exists — and most of the Thor assembly is outside the CRA it is associated with Ordinance 4631-25 + Exhibit B · data/documents/urbana/council/2025-11-04_regular_meeting_packet.pdf · data/extracted/urbana/incentive-instruments.md
- [open] Thor v. City of Urbana (S.D. Ohio 3:26-cv-00196) — federal suit over the data-center zoning reversal is live Complaint, Thor Equities et al. v. City of Urbana, No. 3:26-cv-00196-MJN-CHG (S.D. Ohio, 2026-06-19) · data/extracted/urbana/litigation-thor-v-urbana.yaml
- [open] Capture the Champaign County Common Pleas administrative appeal (the second Thor v. Urbana case) Complaint ¶¶71–72 (3:26-cv-00196) · data/extracted/urbana/litigation-thor-v-urbana.yaml companion_case
The full board, with lifecycle and filters, is at open leads and open questions.
Sections of the site still awaiting a source
Distinct from the study's gaps: these are whole sections of the record that have not opened yet — the needs board's asks, not the study's.