Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP202200014 Plan - Submittal (First) 2022-09-20WOODRIDGE SOLAR NARRATIVE ATTACHMENTS INDEX A. Property Timber History and Drone Photographs B. Historic and Cultural Resources Study C. Visualizations D. Decommissioning Plan E. Glint and Glare Analysis F. Wildlife Study G. Real Estate Assessment H. Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics I. Heat Island Effect Analysis J. Traffic & Route Evaluation Study K. Vegetation Management Plan L. Economic & Fiscal Contribution Report JD Landholdings Properties Approximate Timber Tracts -All displayed tracts planted in managed loblolly pine -Corridors between tracts contain hardwoods -Tracts displayed are approximate, and all environmental setbacks and regulations are followed in timber harvesting procedures Tract Number: Last Cleared: Last Planted: Next Clear Date: Acreage: Notes 1 2012 2007 2026 97 Inspect for either thinning orclear-cut harvest 2025-2027 2 2005 2008 2027 48 Inspect for either Thinning orClear-cut harvest 2026-2028 3 2019 2022 2042 235 Site prep sprayed summer 2021 & loblolly pine reforestation 2022 3 2019 2022 2042 109 Site prep sprayed summer 2021 & loblolly pine reforestation 2022 3 12019 2022 2042 137 Site prep sprayed summer 2021 & loblolly pine reforestation 2022 4 12019 2022 2042 38 Site prep sprayed summer 2021 & loblolly pine reforestation 2022 5 2012 2015 2034 150 Inspect for either thinning orclear-cut harvest 2033-2035 7 2004 2007 2026 217 Inspect for Thinning orClear-Cut harvest 2025-2027 8 2003 2006 2025 130 Inspect for Thinning orClear-Cut harvest 2024_2026 9 1999 2002 2022 145 Inspect for either Thinning orClear-cut harvest 2022 10 2019 2022 2042 60 Site prep sprayed summer 2021 & loblolly pine reforestation 2022 11 2019 2022 2042 43 Site prep sprayed summer 2021 & loblolly pine reforestation 2022 12 2007 2010 2029 175 Inspect for either Thinning orClear-cut harvest 2028-2030 14 2019 2022 2042 108 Site prep sprayed summer 2021 & loblolly pine reforestation 2022 15 2015 2018 2037 150 Inspect for either Thinning orClear-cut harvest 2036-2038 Legend MProject Parcel Boundaries Forest Management Plan Forest Management Tracts = Tract 1 Tract 2 Tract 3 Tract 4 Tract 5 Tract 7 Tract 8 Tract 9 Tract 10 Tract 11 Tract 12 Tract 14 Tract 15 Tract 10 Last Cle; Tract 3 Last Cl( Tract Last ATTACHMENT A Tract 4 Last Cleared: 2019 Tract 8 Last Cleared: 2003 LO Tract 5 \_�_ Last Cleared: 201 Woodridge Solar Layout Approximate Timber Tracts -Solar panels to be placed almost exclusively in commercial timber tracts -• m -Total Parcel Area: -2,300 acres -Total Timber Tract Area: -1,900 acres -Total Proposed Fenced Solar Area: -650 acres N, Tract Number: Last Cleared: Last Planted: To Be Cleared Again: Tract Acreage: Fenced Solar Acreage: Ratio 1 2012 2007 2026 97 50.4 0.52 2 2005 2008 2027 48 38.2 0.8 3 2019 2022 2042 235 36.3 0.15 3 2019 2022 2042 109 54.1 0.5 3 2019 2022 2042 137 26.2 0.19 4 2019 2022 2042 38 8.9 0.23 5 2012 2015 2034 150 41 0.27 7 2004 2007 2026 217 150.6 0.69 8 2003 2006 2025 130 54.5 0.42 9 1999 2002 2022 145 0 0 10 2019 2022 2042 60 18.8 0.31 11 2019 2022 2042 43 20.8 0.48 12 2007 2010 2029 175 102.5 0.59 14 2019 2022 2042 108 0 0 15 2015 2018 2037 150 125.2 0.17 Legend - Approx Panel Location. ,. Approx Fenceline Forest Management Tracts 1 i� 2 3 4 ti 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 14 - 15 Project Parcel Boundary l Note: Acreages and dates are approximate and indicative. y e 1 f C dt ,ra a i �cr .%, s .%, s Imagery from 2006 Imagery from 2013 Imagery from 2021 Imagery between 2006 & 2009 Imagery from 2015 Imagery from 2011 1=� Im'Ogery from 2017 'd. X 4. View to the northwest of Tract 3 6c.. 1. Uiew to the south of Tract 3 5. View to the southwest of Tract 12 2. View to the northwest of Tract 3. View to the east of Tract 4 ATTACHMENT B ® Stantec Cultural Resources Assessment and Work Plan for Approximately 2,276.4 Acres for the Proposed Woodridge Solar Site in Albemarle County, Virginia February 14, 2020 Prepared for: Hexagon Energy 722 Preston Avenue, Suite 102 Charlottesville VA 22903 Prepared by: Aimee Leithoff, Principal Investigator and Brynn Stewart, Senior Principal Investigator Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1011 Boulder Springs Drive, Suite 225 Richmond VA 23225 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA This document entitled Cultural Resources Assessment and Work Plan for Approximately 2,276.4 Acres for the Proposed Woodridge Solar Site in Albemarle County, Virginia was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. ("Stantec") for the account oft 74 Power Global Corporation (the "Client"). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec's professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document. Prepared by (signature) Aimee Leithoff, Principal Investigator Reviewed by (signature) Brynn Stewart, Senior Principal Investigator Approved by (signature) Ellen Brady, Cultural Resources Practice Leader CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION.. 2.0 PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT........................................................... 2.1 2.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 2.1 2.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY.................................................................................... 2.1 2.3 HYDROLOGY..................................................................................................................2.1 2.4 SOIL MORPHOLOGY..................................................................................................... 2.1 2.5 NATURAL RESOURCES................................................................................................2.3 3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT...................................................................................................3.1 3.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 3.1 3.2 PRE-CLOVIS (?-13,000 BC).......................................................................................... 3.1 3.3 PALEOINDIAN (PRIOR TO 8000 BC)............................................................................ 3.2 3.4 ARCHAIC PERIOD (8000-1200 BC).............................................................................. 3.2 3.4.1 Early Archaic (8000-6500 BC)...................................................................... 3.3 3.4.2 Middle Archaic (6500-3000 BC)................................................................... 3.3 3.4.3 Late Archaic (3000-1200 BC)....................................................................... 3.4 3.5 WOODLAND PERIOD (1200 BC -AD 1606)................................................................... 3.4 3.5.1 Early Woodland (1200 BC -AD 300).............................................................. 3.5 3.5.2 Middle Woodland (AD 300-1000)................................................................. 3.6 3.5.3 Late Woodland (AD 1000-1606)................................................................... 3.7 3.6 SETTLEMENT TO SOCIETY (1607-1750).................................................................... 3.8 3.7 COLONY TO NATION(1751-1789)...............................................................................3.9 3.8 EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD (1790-1829)................................................................... 3.10 3.9 ANTEBELLUM PERIOD(1830-1860)..........................................................................3.10 3.10 CIVIL WAR(1861-1865)...............................................................................................3.11 3.11 RECONSTRUCTION AND GROWTH(1866-1916)..................................................... 3.12 3.12 WORLD WAR I AND WORLD WAR II (1917-1945).................................................... 3.13 3.13 THE NEW DOMINION (1946-PRESENT)....................................................................3.17 4.0 RESEARCH DESIGN......................................................................................................4.1 4.1 OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................... 4.1 4.2 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS.......................................................................................4.1 4.2.1 Previous Cultural Resource Surveys............................................................. 4.1 4.2.2 Archaeological Sites...................................................................................... 4.1 4.2.3 Architectural Resources................................................................................. 4.3 5.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS ................................................. 5.1 5.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 5.1 5.2 SHOVEL TESTING AND PHOTO DOCUMENTATION.................................................. 5.1 5.2.1 Location 1....................................................................................................... 5.1 5.2.2 Location 2....................................................................................................... 5.2 5.2.3 Location 3....................................................................................................... 5.2 5.2.4 Location 4....................................................................................................... 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA 5.2.5 Location 5....................................................................................................... 5.5 5.2.6 Location 6....................................................................................................... 5.5 5.2.7 Location 7....................................................................................................... 5.6 5.2.8 Location 8....................................................................................................... 5.7 5.2.9 Locations 9 & 10............................................................................................ 5.7 5.2.10 Location 11..................................................................................................... 5.9 5.2.11 Location 12..................................................................................................... 5.9 5.2.12 Location 13................................................................................................... 5.11 5.2.13 Location 14................................................................................................... 5.11 5.2.14 Location 15................................................................................................... 5.12 5.2.15 Location 16................................................................................................... 5.12 5.2.16 Location 17................................................................................................... 5.13 5.2.17 Location 18................................................................................................... 5.14 5.2.18 Location 19................................................................................................... 5.15 5.2.19 Location 21................................................................................................... 5.16 5.2.20 Location 22................................................................................................... 5.17 5.2.21 Location 23................................................................................................... 5.18 5.2.22 Location 25................................................................................................... 5.19 5.2.23 Location 26................................................................................................... 5.20 5.2.24 Location 27................................................................................................... 5.21 5.2.25 Location 28................................................................................................... 5.22 5.3 NEWLY OBSERVED ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES.............................................5.23 5.3.1 Architectural Complex 1............................................................................... 5.23 5.3.2 Cemetery ......................................................................................................5.24 6.0 PREDICTIVE MODEL.....................................................................................................6.1 6.1 SITE -SPECIFIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL PREDICTIVE MODEL ....................................... 6.2 6.1.1 Prehistoric Predictive Modeling..................................................................... 6.4 6.1.2 Historic Predictive Modeling.......................................................................... 6.4 6.1.3 Comparative Predictive Modeling.................................................................. 6.5 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................. 7.1 7.1 RESULTS OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT ................................... 7.1 7.2 RECOMMENDED PHASE I SURVEY METHODOLOGY..............................................7.2 7.2.1 Recommendations.........................................................................................7.2 8.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 8.1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Soils in the Study Area....................................................................................... Table 2 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites within a 1-Mile Radius of the Study Area................................................................................................................... Table 3 Previously Identified Architectural Resources Within a 1-Mile Radius of the StudyArea......................................................................................................... Table 4 STP 1 Soil Profile................................................................................................ Table 5 STP 2 Soil Profile................................................................................................ Table6 STP 3 Soil Profile................................................................................................ 2.3 4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Table 7 STP 4 Soil Profile ....................... Table 8 STP 5 Soil Profile ....................... Table 9 STP 6 Soil Profile ....................... Table 10 STP 7 Soil Profile ..................... Table 11 STP 8 Soil Profile ..................... Table 12 STP 11 Soil Profile .................. Table 13 STP 12 Soil Profile .................. Table 14 STP 13 Soil Profile .................. Table 15 STP 14 Soil Profile .................. Table 16 STP 15 Soil Profile .................. Table 17 STP 17 Soil Profile .................. Table 18 STP 18 Soil Profile .................. Table 19 STP 19 Soil Profile .................. Table 20 STP 21 Soil Profile .................. Table 21 STP 22 Soil Profile .................. Table 22 STP 23 Soil Profile .................. Table 23 STP 25 Soil Profile .................. Table 24 STP 26 Soil Profile .................. Table 25 STP 27 Soil Profile .................. Table 26 STP 28 Soil Profile .................. Table 27 Low Probability Attributes........ Table 28 Moderate Probability Attributes Table 29 High Probability Attributes....... LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Location of the Study Area............................................................................................ 1.2 Figure2 Soils Map....................................................................................................................... 2.2 Figure 3 Detail of Map of Albemarle: Made under the direction of Maj. A.H. Campbell Capt. Engs. In charge of Top. Dept. D.N.V. from surveys and reconnaissances Depicting the Study Area Vicinity (Chief Engineer's Office D.N.V. 1864; Library of Congress Geography and Map Division)............................................................... 3.12 Figure 4 Detail of Albemarle County, Virginia Depicting the Study Area Vicinity (Hotchkiss 1867; Library of Congress Geography and Map Division) ....................... 3.14 Figure 5 Detail of the 1891 Palmyra, Virginia Topographic Map Depicting the Study Area (USGS 1891; https://Iivingatias.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.html, accessed 2019)........................................................................................................................... 3.15 Figure 6 Detail of the 1943 Scottville, VA Topographic Map Depicting the Study Area (USGS 1943; https://Iivingatias.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.html, accessed 2019)........................................................................................................................... 3.16 Figure 7 Detail of the 1967 Simeon, VA (Top) and Scottville, VA (Bottom) Topographic Maps Depicting the Study Area (USGS 1967; https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.html, accessed 2019).................... 3.18 Figure 8 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites within a 1-Mile Radis of the Study Area............................................................................................................................... 4.2 Figure 9 Previously Recorded Architectural Resources within a 1-Mile Radius of the StudyArea..................................................................................................................... 4.5 Figure 10 General View of Location 1 with clear cut trees; View to the North ........................... 5.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Figure 11 View of Location 2 on a finger ridge; View to the North........ Figure 12 View of Location 3; View to the North .................................... Figure 13 General View of Location/STP 4; View to the North .............. Figure 14 General View of Location 5; View to the South ..................... Figure 15 General View of Location 6; View to the North ...................... Figure 16 General View of Location 7; View to the South ..................... Figure 17 General View of Location 8; View to the South ..................... Figure 18 General View of Location 10; View to the East ..................... Figure 19 Brick Fragment Dumped in Wetland Crossing ...................... Figure 20 General View of Location 11; View to the South ................... Figure 21 General View of Location/STP 12; View to the South........... Figure 22 General View of Location/STP 14; View to the East ............. Figure 23 General View of Location/STP 15; View to the North............ Figure 24 View towards Location/STP 17; View to the North ................ Figure 25 View of Location/STP 19; View to the North .......................... Figure 26 General View of Location/STP 21; View to the North............ Figure 27 General View of Location/STP 22; View to the North............ Figure 28 View of STP 23 and the Hunt Club; View to the North.......... Figure 29 View of Area near Location/STP 25; View to the South........ Figure 30 View of Area near Location/STP 26; View to the North......... Figure 31 View from Location/STP 27; View to the North ..................... Figure 32 View of Location/STP 28; View to the North .......................... Figure 33 Primary Structure and Fence Post at Architectural Complex . 5.3 . 5.3 . 5.4 . 5.5 . 5.6 . 5.7 . 5.8 . 5.8 . 5.9 5.10 5.10 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 .................................. 5.22 1; View to the North............................................................................................................................ 5.23 Figure 34 Barn and Primary Structure at Architectural Complex 1; View to the Southeast..... 5.24 Figure 35 Mullins-Cookenour-Wood Cemetery; View to the Northwest ................................... 5.25 Figure 36 Archaeological Predictive Model for the Project......................................................... 6.3 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A BASE MAPPING FOR FIELD ASSESSMENT.............................................A.1 APPENDIX B SUPPORTING DATA — PREDICTIVE MODEL......... APPENDIX C KEY PERSONNELL RESUMES ................... B.1 ....................... CA iv CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Executive Summary From January 13-16 of 2019, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) conducted a cultural resources assessment and work plan for approximately 2,276 acres associated with the proposed Woodridge Solar Site in Albemarle County, Virginia. The study area is located within a planted pine forest on either side of Route 708 (Secretary's Road). The entire study area is located within the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR)-listed Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District (Virginia Department of Historic Resources [VDHR] #002-5045). The work was conducted on behalf of Hexagon Energy, LLC (Hexagon), in accordance with the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Solar Permit by Rule (PBR) for solar projects (DEQ 2012). Stantec conducted the cultural resources assessment to determine the nature of the soils and topography in the study area as well as to provide information on previously identified cultural resources located within the bounds of the study area. The assessment also identified previously recorded cultural resources located within a 1-mile radius of the study area and developed a site -specific historic context. In addition, this effort created a predictive model that identifies areas of enhanced and low cultural resources potential within the study area, to serve as a planning tool for proposed development of the study area. Determinations of high, moderate, and low potential were based upon soil properties, drainage, topography, distance to water, historic landscape features and alterations, and a predictive model extrapolated from archaeological survey in similar environments. Documentary research was conducted via the VDHR's Virginia Cultural Resources Information System (V-CRIS) files for archaeological sites and historic structures. These files were examined, and information was retrieved on all sites or structures located within the study area. Information was also retrieved for cultural resources located within a 1-mile radius of the study area. Background research also focused on relevant sources of local historical information and available historical maps, which were examined to provide a historical context for the study area and to determine if any buildings and/or other cultural features were present within the study area. The processes of archival research and context development help to identify potentially undocumented historic properties such as domestic farmsteads, gravesites, and/or military encampment areas that may be associated with the vicinity of the study area, and to determine the most likely locations for earlier cultural resources such as prehistoric encampment sites. The archaeological predictive model was prepared for the entire acreage within the Project boundary but may be amended to focus on the area identified for potential development according to the preliminary solar farm layout, when available. Of the 2,276.4-acre study area, approximately 286.7 acres (12.6 percent) are defined as retaining a high potential for cultural resources, approximately 710.2 acres (31 percent) are defined as retaining a moderate potential for cultural resources, and approximately 1,279.5 acres (56 percent) are defined as retaining a low potential for containing cultural resources. One previously recorded archaeological site and one previously recorded architectural resource were identified within the study area. Site 44AB0571, a prehistoric lithic scatter of indeterminate age, was identified in a transmission line corridor and has been determined to be not eligible for NRHP inclusion. E CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA The proposed Woodridge Solar project is located entirely within the NRHP and VLR-listed Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District (VDHR #002-5045). In addition, one architectural complex and one cemetery were observed within the study area during this investigation. As such, the probability for the identification of historic resources within the study area is high, with resources likely dating from the nineteenth through the twentieth century. The predictive model development took into consideration both environmental factors significant to historic and prehistoric settlement patterns as well as a review of relevant historic contexts, historic maps, and aerial photographs in order to identify the three tiers of probability. This review coupled with an assessment of current conditions within the study area resulted in an assessment of the potential for previously undocumented historic and prehistoric cultural resources to exist within the Project boundary and potential development area for the solar facility. The comparison of historic maps to current available maps and aerial photographs suggests that the project vicinity retains some potential for the discovery of historic archaeological remains associated with these locations and occupations. For prehistoric resources, it is anticipated that sites may be located in proximity to Turkey Run and its tributaries. Large sites would not be expected as much of the area has been bulldozed and subsoil is present on the surface, however smaller, seasonal or temporary sites may be present in areas where A horizon is still present. The proposed Woodbridge solar site in Albemarle County falls under the purview of the Virginia DEQ PBR (DEQ 2012). For large acreage projects, a cultural resources assessment may be conducted to provide a means of quickly identifying the potential for historic resources within the larger study area. Following the cultural resources assessment, a Phase I cultural resources survey, including archaeological survey within areas of proposed ground disturbance and reconnaissance level architectural survey within a 0.5-mile radius of the project limits, is recommended and would be conducted in compliance with the regulations set forth by the DEQ and the VDHR. vl CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Abbreviations amsl above mean sea level APE Area of Potential Effect CRI Cultural Resources, Inc. DEQ Department of Environmental Quality GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System Hexagon Hexagon Energy, LLC n.d. no date NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places PBR Permit by Rule Stantec Stantec Consulting Services Inc. STP Shovel Test Pit USDI United States Department of the Interior USGS United States Geological Survey V-CRIS Virginia Cultural Resources Information System VDHR Virginia Department of Historic Resources VLR Virginia Landmarks Register vii CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA INTRODUCTION From January 13-16 of 2020, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) conducted a cultural resources assessment and work plan for approximately 2,276 acres associated with the proposed Woodridge Solar Site in Albemarle County, Virginia. The study area is located within a planted pine forest on either side of Route 708 (Secretary's Road) (Figure 1). The entire study area is located within the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR)-listed Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District (Virginia Department of Historic Resources [VDHR] #002-5045). The work was conducted on behalf of Hexagon, in accordance with the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Solar Permit by Rule (PBR) for solar projects (DEQ 2012). The cultural resources investigations described herein were conducted pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA-PL89-665), as amended, the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, Executive Order 11593, and relevant sections of 36 CFR 60 and 36 CFR 800. In addition, these investigations were conducted in accordance with the Virginia DEQ PBR and associated Solar PBR Guidance (effective July 18, 2012). The cultural resources investigations were conducted with reference to federal (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation [United States Department of the Interior (USDI) 1983]) and state (Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Investigations in Virginia [VDHR 2017]) guidelines for conducting archaeological investigations. Senior Principal Investigator Brynn Stewart oversaw the project. Principal Investigator Aimee Leithoff authored the report. Project Archaeologist Taft Kiser conducted the fieldwork. Cultural Resource Practice Leader Ellen M. Brady aided with project oversight, preparation of the report, and quality review. GIS Analyst Kate Meeks prepared the archaeological predictive model, report graphics, and project maps. Copies of all historical research materials are on file at Stantec's office in Richmond, Virginia. 1.1 Figure No. 1 Title Location of the Study Area ,♦♦ *`R1k,♦ ChedgWrojed M3401407 Hexagon Energy • Woodridge Solar Site ' • ♦ • Fojeci Location PreparTRby on 1912-1 iR by TPS TGS onMW-02-12 ♦ ' - Nbemarle County, Virginu IR by 855 on 2019-12-02 N ♦ z,Doo a,aoo Feet . `, ♦` ♦ (Ad wginal aocu1:24of ttTJ .00D xt ``♦� —RR " '. ♦` RR. Project Limits Blen[iel'm - . , i owl � `♦ ads � ` W , 1 � I — w ♦ I � .� ♦ j .n .♦`r♦ r J .i:._r"" ♦ -. / Mate. 1. Cmnkneo System. NAD 1983 SlaiePlane Vagina Swih FIPS 4M2 Feed 2. P ogeet I-ts p—khad by Haaa3on Energy yG ' �350 __ S County boundary polled by VA DCR ♦ T ona aphk map a DSGS ].5 Mo. Series Topograplic Map 8F,c� Stantec Page 13 Dkdalmee TW Jmumera has been preps el baaed on iRamatim pmntled by Mee, as ciel in Me Nges seclun. Slanlec has mt .elfin Me accurary mdbr compntemss d IN, lMmmatim and sbal rod a reapenaible br a,. oromissurs wledI may be herein as a ra,.. S... assumes na reapcnsibfliry Mr dada suppled in ektlmnic Mond, and Me redp ega weega Nl realvro ibility In verifying Me accurxy and cdnpletem s of Me Man. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT 2.0 PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT 2.1 INTRODUCTION The study area is located in the eastern portion of Albemarle County, Virginia, southeast of Charlottesville. The study area is divided by Route 708 (Secretary's Road) and is predominately bounded by private property lines. Two cleared power line corridors bisect the study area, which is primarily comprised of planted pine forest. 2.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY The 2,276-acre study area is located within the Outer Piedmont subprovince of the Piedmont physiographic province of Virginia. The Outer Piedmont subprovince exhibits broad upland with low to moderate slopes (Roberts and Bailey 2000). A variety of predominantly Proterozoic and Paleozoic igneous and metamorphic rock constitute the bedrock in the Piedmont province and forms the core of the Appalachian mountain belt. A number of grabens (elongated depressions between geologic faults) and half -grabens contain Triassic sedimentary rocks, diabase dikes, and basalt flows (The College of William and Mary Department of Geology 2011 and DEQ n.d.). Elevations within the study area range from 383 to 590 feet above mean sea level (amsl). 2.3 HYDROLOGY The study area is drained by Turkey Run, a tributary of the Hardware River. The Hardware River is a tributary of the James River, which flows into the Chesapeake Bay and thence to the Atlantic Ocean. The main portion of Turkey Run extending through the study area is part of a riverine system classified as permanently flooded with an unconsolidated bottom. Along this portion of Turkey Run are both freshwater forested/shrub wetland and freshwater emergent wetland. The unnamed branches of Turkey Run which extend throughout the study area are also part of a riverine system; however, they are intermittent streambeds that are seasonally flooded (National Wetlands Inventory [NWI], accessed December 2019). 2.4 SOIL MORPHOLOGY Soils within the study area primarily include silt loams and range from poorly and somewhat poorly drained to moderately well and well drained and somewhat excessively drained. Table 1 presents the soil types found within the Woodridge Solar site and serves as a key to Figure 2. 2.1 o. F*v N ",0 618.E Map Unit Symbol Description 51B 1 16 Codorus silt loam, Oto 2 percent slopes, occa F� 1C 1B Meadowville silt loam, 2to 7 percent slopes Soils Map 51D 51D 32B OrendasiItloam, 2to7percent slopes 4 62B 51C 62B 32C Orenda silt loam, 7to 15 percent slopes c La c/ 2034m402 466 Grassland silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 51 D 16 51 C ♦ Hexagon Energy Woodridge Solar Site 51C • 51B Bugleychannerysiltloam,2to7percentslopes 62C Men Dale: 2019-12-11 Revise4Dale:2D2001-23 ApL¢C/Ldd/%O// Prepox] by JKM on 2019�12-11 TRI TPS on M19-12-12 510 80BI \� 62C 80C 51C 51C _ Bugley channery silt loam, 7to 15 percent slopes 62B 51D Bugleychannerysiltloam,15 to25percentslopes ``\ Albemarle County, Virgins IR by 855 on 2019-12-12 N ''51C 51C 51E Bugley channery silt loam, 25to 45 percent slopes 0 1,600 3,200 : 1, 51C 96B`\,• 62B Buffstatsilt loam,2to7percentslopes Feel 628 sic 51B 510%. 62C Buffstat silt loam, 7to 15percentslopes (N K1 original clymo enl size of 117) 1:19,2110 #.� 51D • 80B Littlejoe silt loam, 2to 7percentslopes ste : 80C Uttlejoesiltloam,7to15percentslopes 1�� Project Limits •51B 1C 51C 518 � 95 Hatboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded /51 p1 1 Soils Sic 51B 6YB 51B 95 �% 96B Del i IS loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes �� 51C v/ • 96B 51E 51D 51,Ca• \62B 62C • •"a62B i 966, •`�51B 51C 518 51C ♦♦ ♦�••51C r.. .�•• 51B ` i 62C,62C.��� ` 80B'1 762E 1I 62B,•62C 62B i`•. .•`. 62B 62C 62B ` 1 ♦ `� .96B � 8OB 62C�O 46B 51D 62B` ' •� ♦ 628`-. 32B 51C '� 62C . ♦ 62C 622C _ ~� 62B -...Vpsa,4 •., - 96B 51B � , 32C 62C 468 ^ B `• i 62G� tsy 51 51C 51D 518 _ ..4,98B N A "� 32B 826 Ili62C 62� • r ::; 328 B .808 511 i♦ 51 �r. ! 626 _ 62B 511 C �' 51C ` s �#62B 808 - 628 ♦ 51B 51C 466T_ �51B 'r 628 SiC 1i i VVV 51D6 ' ,, SOB `fl08 514110 62G- 806 ; 516 BZC ;82C �495 468 628 51 C 51 C 32B� \• s26 516 32B � �\ 32C a62C � 628 626 62B i ,•��D` 518 32B 2C 59D� 62; �51C 446 80B 51D 51D 62B 510 �6 .i 62C628. t"♦�'- f �62C 518 62C' ♦� /51C 51C 51C "!y iB �'•� - --� 62C -" 80B., fi4 62C 62B \�.V 62C 062B 51E a _ ,-; t, S1D 626 628 51D 51B .. .,: _. 808 ! 62B 46B 51D 626 ,`\ 62C 46B 80g' ` _ `.\ 51B 62B 51D T.Cwmiirele System: NAD 1983 SoUePlane Vigiru South FIP54502 Fret 2. RgectImis prerMe4 by Hosed —Eery, 62C 51C ♦ ♦♦ _ `. 62B 3� • \�; 1C `\1326 L, /, , Si • 3. Sob tlas from USDA NRCS SSURGO Sod Survey 4. OMounagaya Brg Maps S. Mems=-dumti= Surds) mend with pemision from Mcrmwfl Cmryoration \•`� 32C 32C i 808 63' •' �_ZB•' I ® Stantec Page 12 Dktlalmer: THs du' orient has been preps N based m ofamatian pmvined by Mh. as cial. Me N. sedan. 5tantec has not veif d Me accuracy aMbr complete ess d the Informatian and sMl rot a responsible for any errors or omissions whN may be mem a rate4 herein as a resod. Stantec assumes no responsibility for dap wppietl in ekcbmic format, and Me recipreM scoops MR reslvrrsibility for veMying Me accuracy and cenpleteress of Me chns. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT Table 1 Soils in the Study Area Symbol Map Unit Name Percent Slope Drainage Description 1 B Meadowville silt loam 2-7% Moderately Well Drained 16 Codorus silt loam, occasionally flooded 0-2% Somewhat Poorly Drained 32B Orenda silt loam 2-7% Well Drained 32C Orenda silt loam 7-15% Well Drained 46B Grassland silt loam 2-7% Moderately Well Drained 51B Bugley channery silt loam 2-7% Somewhat Excessively Drained 51 C Bugley channery silt loam 7-15% Somewhat Excessively Drained 51D Bugley channery silt loam 15-25% Somewhat Excessively Drained 51E Bugley channery silt loam 25-45% Somewhat Excessively Drained 62B Buffstat sift loam 2-7% Well Drained 62C Buffstat sift loam 7-15% Well Drained 80B Littlejoe silt loam 2-7% Well Drained 80C Littlejoe silt loam 7-15% Well Drained 95 Hotboro silt loam, occasionally flooded 0-2% Poorly Drained 96B Delia loam 2-7% Poorly Drained 2.5 NATURAL RESOURCES The character of the topography, the proximity of water resources, and the types of soils all have a direct effect on the variety of flora that is attracted to the setting and in turn, the fauna that relies on that ecological setting for sustenance. The quantity and variety of both plants and animals in an area has a direct influence on human habitation. Native American populations successfully utilized a wide variety of native flora and fauna whose seasonal availability was well-known to them. New settlers relied on available timber to build shelter and in part, on procurable plants and animals to augment their diet. It would be difficult for a Woodland Indian in AD 900, a colonial planter in 1750, or a farmer in 1870 to have prospered without certain key natural resources (Dent 1995). During the Holocene, prior to European contact, this region of Virginia supported a diverse biotic and floral community. The riverine area, dominated by hardwoods, provided shallow water environments beneficial to shellfish and baitfish, as well as a wide variety of amphibians, reptiles, and larger fishes. This habitat also supported numerous avian species, including raptors. The uplands of the interior supported numerous species of large game animals such as elk and whitetail deer, as well as predators including black bear, eastern gray wolf, and bobcat (Dent 1995). A wide variety of native wildlife species still prosper in the upland and riverine setting and are typical of the mid -Atlantic region. The most common terrestrial wildlife in the area today includes deer, turkey, fox, raccoon, opossum, squirrel, rabbit, weasel, and groundhog. Amphibians and reptiles such as snakes, 2.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT lizards, salamanders, frogs, and turtles are found throughout the area. Numerous species of wild songbirds nest in the area (Dent 1995). 2.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT 3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT 3.1 INTRODUCTION Virginia's Native American prehistory is typically divided into three main periods — Paleoindian, Archaic, and Woodland — based on changes in material culture and settlement systems. In recent decades, the possibility of human presence in the region that pre -dates the Paleoindian period has moved from remote to probable. For this reason, a Pre -Clovis discussion precedes the traditional tripartite division of Virginia's Native American history. The seventeenth -through twentieth-century historical overview follows the VDHR's guidelines (2017). The cultural context, as defined by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Chapter 3 of VDHR's 2017 guidelines, provides the historic, social, and environmental information required for evaluation of any cultural resources present within the proposed study area. 3.2 PRE-CLOVIS (?-13,000 BC) The 1927 discovery, at Folsom, New Mexico, of a fluted point in the ribs of an extinct species of bison proved that ancient North Americans had immigrated during the Pleistocene. It did not, however, establish the precise timing of the arrival of humans in the Americas, nor did it adequately resolve questions about the lifestyle of those societies (Meltzer 1988:2-3). Both the stratigraphic record and the radiocarbon assays from several sites, including the Cactus Hill site in Sussex County, Virginia, suggest the possibility of human occupation of Virginia before the fluted -point makers appeared on the scene (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). Buried strata at the Cactus Hill site have returned radiocarbon dates of 15,000 years ago from strata below levels containing fluted points (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997:165). McAvoy's team encountered artifacts and charcoal separated from the Paleoindian level by 3 to 4 inches (7.6 to 10.2 centimeters) of sterile sands. Subsequent fieldwork confirmed the presence of artifact -bearing strata located between 3 and 8 inches below the fluted -point levels. The artifacts recovered from the pre - fluted -point levels present a striking contrast with the tool kit typically used by Paleoindians. Rather than relying on extensively finished chert knives, scraping tools, and spear points, the pre -Clovis peoples used a different, but highly refined stone technology. Prismatic blade -like flakes of quartzite, chipped from specially prepared cobbles and lightly worked along one side to produce a sharp edge, constitute the majority of the stone cutting and scraping tools. Sandstone grinding and abrading tools, possibly indicating production of wood and bone tools or ornaments, also occurred in significant numbers in the deepest artifact -bearing strata. Because these tools do not possess unique characteristics which immediately identify them as dating to the Pleistocene, archaeologists must recognize the possibility that pre -Clovis sites have been overlooked for years. At present, only a handful of potential pre -Clovis sites have been identified in North America. The probability of discovering pre -Clovis remains within the proposed study area is, consequently, extremely low. 3.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT 3.3 PALEOINDIAN (PRIOR TO 8000 BC) In the decades following the discovery at Folsom, New Mexico, the association of fluted points with the bones of large, extinct mammals, in particular mastodons, on the western plains coupled with the scarcity of other Paleoindian sites, led to the inference that the Paleoindian subsistence strategy centered on the pursuit of big game. This picture, however, exaggerates the reliance of western Paleoindian groups on large game and appears to be of limited relevance to eastern Paleoindian life. The archaeological data from Virginia compiled by Dr. Ben McCary (1957) records numerous discoveries of fluted points, but no unambiguous association between extinct large game and fluted points (Boyd 1989:139). A similar situation occurs throughout the eastern United States. For this reason, many archaeologists now hold that eastern Paleoindians were generalized foragers (e.g., Grayson and Meltzer 2003; but see Fiedel and Haynes 2004). Most large Paleoindian sites in the southeastern United States are quarry or quarry -related (Meltzer 1988:21), though multiple band aggregation sites also occur (McAvoy 1992:145). Recognizable sites most often result from long-term habitation or repeated use of the same location. It follows from the presence of primarily quarry or quarry -related sites that stone outcrops were regularly revisited. Though the full range of available Iithic resources was used to manufacture fluted points (e.g., Phelps 1983), a number of studies have noted a focus on cryptocrystalline materials (e.g., chert, jasper, chalcedony) (Gardner 1974, 1989; Goodyear 1979). The recovery of cryptocrystalline materials at locations far removed from quarries indicates exchange, extensive group movement, or both characterized the Paleoindian era. In addition, the very limited differences between sites and within sites suggest that most people had access to all available resources, while the small size of most Paleoindian sites indicates group size generally was limited to extended families. 3.4 ARCHAIC PERIOD (8000-1200 BC) The beginning of the Archaic period coincided with the start of the Holocene period around 8,000 BC. The Holocene is a geological period that began with the recession of the ice sheets that covered large portions of North America. The start of the Archaic is marked by a shift from a moist, cool climate to a warmer, dryer climate within the region, more similar to the temperate ecosystem of today. This warming trend was gradual and somewhat continuous throughout the first 5,000 years of the Archaic period. The shift in climate allowed for the development of diverse plant and animal communities, as currently found throughout the Middle Atlantic region. These changes in flora and fauna had a marked impact on the hunter -forager subsistence base of the Archaic period (Dent 1995:147, 164-5). The retreat of the ice sheets also caused the sea levels to rise, leading to the gradual formation of the Chesapeake Bay. Prior to the Archaic period the Chesapeake Bay was merely an extension of the Susquehanna River, emptying into the Atlantic Ocean several miles east of Virginia Beach, Virginia. As with the earlier Paleoindian period, our understanding of the cultural chronology of the Archaic is based primarily upon Iithic artifacts: chipped -stone tools and the debris associated with their manufacture. More "biodegradable" forms of material culture have simply not survived in the region's archaeological record and the items recovered are biased towards Iithic materials (Geier 1990:82-83). The basic 3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT chronology of Archaic projectile points for the Mid -Atlantic region and the southeastern United States closely follows the sequence outlined by Joffre Coe (1964) for the North Carolina Piedmont, with regional variants. Coe's chronology has been modified over the past 40 years, but the basic typology remains intact (Broyles 1971; Dent 1995; Hranicky 2003; Justice 1995; Ward and Davis 1999). The Archaic period is often divided into three sub -periods (Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, and Late Archaic) based primarily on the point typology discussed previously. But the Archaic period can also be characterized by the development of more specialized resource procurement activities as well as the development of new technologies to accomplish these activities. These differences in the material culture are believed to reflect larger, more localized populations and changes in methods of food procurement and processing. 3.4.1 Early Archaic (8000-6500 BC) Corner- and side -notched points with serrated blades predominate at the beginning of the Early Archaic period, reflecting innovation in hafting technology and, possibly, the invention of the atlatl. Notched point forms include Palmer and Kirk Corner -Notched and, in localized areas, various side -notched types. Around 7000 BC, a variety of bifurcate base projectile point forms appeared in the Middle Atlantic region. In eastern Virginia, LeCroy points constitute the majority of bifurcate forms (Dent 1995; Justice 1995). Despite the shift in point form over time some researchers portray the Early Archaic as a continuation of the Paleoindian period, characterized by reliance on cryptocrystalline lithic material and similar settlement and subsistence patterns (Gardner 1989). 3.4.2 Middle Archaic (6500-3000 BC) The appearance of stemmed projectile points and a shift towards more expedient use of stone marks the beginning of the Middle Archaic across much of the Atlantic Slope and Southeast (Amick and Carr 1996:43-45; Justice 1995). In this area of Virginia, the most common Middle Archaic projectile point types are (from oldest to most recent) LeCroy, Stanly, Morrow Mountain, and Guilford, followed by the side - notched Halifax type sometime after 3500 BC. This latter type is generally one of the most abundant found in upland interior settings; however, it is possible that many riverine sites of the period are hidden under alluvial sediment. Informal modified flakes to some extent replaced formal unifacial tools, and local materials constitute a greater percentage of Middle Archaic assemblages than had been true of earlier time periods. Sites occur throughout the landscape area, including beneath the now -inundated Chesapeake Bay (Blanton 1996; Dent 1995:173-178). An analysis of components from relevant central Piedmont settings (Klein and Klatka 1991) indicates only slightly higher use of interior uplands over riverine settings during the Middle Archaic period and, within riverine settings such as the present study area, there is a fully equal use of both alluvial landforms (floodplains/low terraces) and upland landforms/bluffs adjacent to the rivers (Klein and Klatka 1991:155). However, a repetition of this pattern in the study area would be dependent on geomorphological conditions: i.e., artifacts indicating the entire span of the Middle Archaic could be present on all landforms, unless the alluvial bottoms are restricted to sediments of too recent an age to contain deposits of such 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT antiquity. Where sediments are too young, however, evidence of Middle Archaic presence should be concentrated on old, stable landforms lying as close as possible to the river and its small tributary. 3.4.3 late Archaic (3000-1200 BC) Stemmed and notched knife and spear point forms, including various large, broad -bladed stemmed knives and projectile points (e.g., Savannah River, Susquehanna, Perkiomen points), rank among the most distinctive and securely dated Late Archaic point forms (Coe 1964; Dent 1995; Justice 1995; Ritchie 1971). Marked increases in population, and, in some areas, decreased mobility appear to characterize the Late Archaic throughout eastern North America. Locally, the increase in the number of Halifax and Savannah River components and sites relative to the preceding periods suggests population rose in Virginia between about 3500 BC and c. 1200 BC. Mouer (1991 a:262) believes it likely that "at least intensive harvesting of wild seeds," if not the beginnings of domestication, characterized Transitional through Early Woodland times (c. 2000-500 BC) in the Chesapeake Bay region, as it did in the Midwest. The process, however, did not proceed at an even rate across the Eastern Woodlands or the Middle Atlantic Region (Stewart 1995:184-5). Yarnell (1976:268), for example, states that sunflower, sump weed, and possibly goosefoot may have been cultivated as early as 2000 BC. In the lower Little Tennessee River Valley, the remains of squash have been found in Late Archaic Savannah River contexts (c. 2400 BC), with both squash and gourd recovered from Iddins period contexts of slightly more recent date (Chapman and Shea 1981:70). Experiments with domestication in the Mid -Continent indicate the possibility, even the likelihood, that the inhabitants of the Middle Atlantic cultivated small grains and other plants (Hodges 1991:228-230; Mouer 1991 b:259- 263). "Scant" evidence for early cultivation appears in the archaeological record from Virginia, however (Mouer 1991a:259; Gallivan and McKnight 2006). Soapstone bowls are a well-known feature of Late Archaic exchange systems (McLearen 1991:107-8). In addition, Stewart (1989:52) argues for broad -based exchange of "artifacts made from jasper, argillite, rhyolite, ironstone, soapstone, Midwestern lithics, obsidian, marine shell and copper' throughout the Middle Atlantic region during the Late Archaic. Thus, Late Archaic society clearly differed from that of earlier times. The production and wide -spread exchange of utilitarian and ritually important, labor- intensive goods does not fit the expected archaeological signature of highly egalitarian foragers. Rather, a social order exhibiting some sort of status differences among individuals or groups (Mouer 1991 a:265) and somewhat restricted group movement (Stewart 1989:57) likely existed. Still, sites dating to the Late Archaic occur frequently throughout Virginia and the Middle Atlantic region. Late Archaic sites occur in greater numbers and in a wider range of environments than sites associated with the Early and Middle Archaic periods (Klein and Klatka 1991). 3.5 WOODLAND PERIOD (1200 BC -AD 1606) Increasing use of ceramic technology, a growing dependence upon horticulture, and a shift toward greater sedentism all characterize the Woodland period. Most researchers divide the Woodland period into three sub -periods (Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland), based primarily on stylistic and technological changes observed in ceramic wares and projectile points, as well as shifts in 3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT settlement patterning (e.g., Gardner 1982). Not all researchers agree with this tripartite subdivision, however (e.g., Custer 1989). The onset of the Woodland period traditionally correlates with the appearance of ceramics (Willey and Phillips 1958:118). Early theorists linked ceramics with agriculture, though few continue to support this position (cf. reviews in Egloff 1991; Hodges 1991). Rather, the evolution of subsistence and technological systems (e.g., Gardner 1982) and various aspects of pan -Eastern interaction (e.g., Egloff 1991; Klein 1997) currently are believed to underlie the evolution of ceramic containers. Popes Creek Net -impressed ceramics appear after roughly 500 BC, marking the beginning of the Middle Woodland I period (500 BC — AD 200) (Blanton 1992:72-3; Egloff and Potter 1982:99). However, cord -marked ceramics and stemmed points continued in use for some time after AD 500 (McLearen 1992:44-5). By the Late Woodland period (AD 900-1600), the use of domesticated plants had assumed a role of major importance in the prehistoric subsistence system. The adoption of agriculture represented a major change in the prehistoric subsistence economy and settlement patterns. With the development of a more sedentary settlement - subsistence system culminating in the Late Woodland Period, permanent habitation sites gradually replaced base camps, which were characteristic of earlier foragers and hunter -gatherers. 3.5.1 Early Woodland (1200 BC -AD 300) The steatite -tempered Marcey Creek type and variants containing other mineral inclusions appear to date between 1200 and 800 BC (Egloff 1991:244-5). Manson (1947) unearthed flat bottomed, plain sherds and cord -marked sherds with conoidal bases, both of which included soapstone -temper, in the uppermost of two distinct strata at the Marcey Creek Site. The lowermost level contained narrow variants of Savannah River points, termed Holmes Points by Gardner (1986), and soapstone bowls, suggesting that soapstone - tempered sherds post-date bowls of soapstone (but see Sassaman 1999). Earlier Slattery (1946) had identified similar sherds at a site on Seldon Island, along the Potomac River to the northeast of Leesburg, along with sand -and -grit tempered sherds. Though friable sand -and -grit -tempered Accokeek Creek and Elk Island ceramics appear subsequent to Marcey Creek, associated C-14 on stratified sites, dates range from 1100 through 500 BC. Klein and Stevens (1996) cite regional data to support the proposition that, while the thickness, amount of temper, and size of temper in quartztsand tempered, cord -marked ceramics shifted over time, similar pots continued in use into Middle Woodland times. Radiocarbon dates recommend placement of the Calvert and Fishtail points in the Early Woodland (Gleach 1985). Ovoid to lozenge -shaped points, classified as Teardrop Points, have been dated to 940- 50 BC in the Northeast (Mounier and Martin 1994). Nevertheless, similar points have been recovered from Middle Archaic through Middle Woodland I contexts in North Carolina and Virginia (Kirchen 2001:53- 69). The Potts Corner -Notched point type, the Vernon point type, and the Claggett point type have been dated only through stratigraphic context or association with early ceramics (Gleach 1985; Stephenson 1963). Similarly, a variety of small stemmed and side -notched forms of assumed association with the Early Woodland period lack definitive temporal assignment (Dent 1995:227-228). Small bifaces and expedient tools such as drills, perforators, scrapers, and utilized flakes regularly appear in Early Woodland assemblages. Other lithic artifacts reported on Early Woodland sites in the Chesapeake region include bipolar flakes, hammerstones, net sinkers, mortars, and pestles (McLearen 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT 1991). Also noted on sites in the region are tools of bone, and projectile points manufactured from antler, bone, turkey spurs, and shark's teeth (Waselkov 1982). The increased number of sites dating to the Early Woodland, coupled with the recognition of structures, features, and activity areas at some sites, suggests rising population size in the Chesapeake region (e.g., Mouer 1991 b:38-9; Stewart 1995:183). In contrast, noting that the addition of pottery to stone adds temporally diagnostic artifacts to the archaeological record, Fiedel (2001:106-7) observes that more sites are expected to appear in the archaeological record during Woodland times. Furthermore, the various Broadspears, dating to the Terminal Archaic (c. 2000-1000 BC), may represent a curated technology (Barber and Tolley 1984), while replication experiments suggest stemmed bifaces similar to Early Woodland types rank among the easiest forms to produce using quartz (Bourdeau 1981). Therefore, a shift from a curated, less commonly discarded biface form, to points easily produced from a ubiquitous material accompanied the appearance of ceramics. Thus, the absence of a dramatic swell in the number of sites, coupled with decreased representation of diagnostic point forms, indicates a demographic trough or at best a flat demographic curve characterized the period. 3.5.2 Middle Woodland (AD 300-1000) Popes Creek net -impressed ceramics appear after roughly 500 BC, marking the beginning of the Middle Woodland I period (500 BC -AD 200) (Blanton 1992:72-3; Egloff and Potter 1982:99). Cord -marked ceramics and stemmed points, however, continued in use for some time after AD 500 (McLearen 1992:44-5), for example, lumps the period between 3000 BC and AD 1000 under the rubric Woodland I based on the similarity in adaptation and the presence of considerable variation in the form of contemporaneous stemmed and notched points. Net -impressed surface treatments occur on a variety of ceramic types manufactured during Middle Woodland times. Pope's Creek ceramics first appear after 500 BC, with the start of the Middle Woodland (Blanton 1992:72-3; Egloff and Potter 1982:99). Early Woodland cord -marked ceramics and stemmed projectile points are found in Middle Woodland contexts, suggesting a continuation of Early Woodland technologies (McLearen 1992:44-5). The Prince George and Varina types appear to represent a continuum of development in the technology used to produced Popes Creek sherds, rather than dramatically different types (Mouer et al. 1986). After AD 200, shell -tempered, net -impressed, cord - marked, and plain pottery classified as the Mockley type becomes predominant in the outer Coastal Plain of Virginia and Maryland, though generally similar sherds tempered with grit continued in production as well (Johnson 2001:100). The appearance of assemblages containing significant amounts of durable ceramics after 500 BC indicates a shift in the organization of production occurred during the Middle Woodland periods (Brown 1986, 1989). In addition to the advantages of ceramic vessels as cooking pots, ceramic production contrasts with the manufacture of baskets and wooden bowls in its embrace of economies of scale. Rather than a start -and -stop process that fits well into odd bits of time, ceramic production required greater scheduling and continued attention over an extended period of time. Shifts in the scheduling of work, therefore, accompanied the transition from Early to Middle Woodland times. 3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT Broad-spectrum hunting -fishing -gathering continued to characterize the region as a whole throughout the Middle Woodland period. Shellfish, anadromous and resident fishes, deer, waterfowl, and turkey ranked high among the important fauna in the Middle Woodland diet. Various nuts, amaranth, and chenopod seeds also appear to be important resources during this period. After 300 BC, large shell middens containing dense concentrations of artifacts become increasingly common, indicating repeated use of at least one type of site. Middens and the presence of houses at a number of sites indicate longer stays, though populations remained far from sedentary (Gallivan 2003). People continued to reside for much of the year in relatively small settlements, and interior storage features rarely occur on Middle Woodland sites (Gallivan 2003:75-98). Around 500 BC, stone and earth burial cairns and cairn clusters in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia mark the first appearance of elaborate burial ceremonialism in Virginia, though not in the wider world of Eastern North America (McLearen 1992; Stewart 1992). The major upsurge in ceremonial activity occurred during the AD 500-1100 period, however. Sites containing elaborately decorated zoned -incised ceramics (Stewart 1998) and indications of extended mortuary ceremonies have been identified in the Chesapeake region. 3.5.3 Late Woodland (AD 1000-1606) Intensified use of cultivated plants, particularly maize, beans, and squash, distinguished the Late Woodland adaptation from that of earlier periods. European accounts describe a heavy reliance on slash - and -burn agricultural methods. In addition to cultigens and shellfish, Late Woodland peoples throughout the region continued to rely on various mammals, fish, and birds for sustenance (Dent 1995:251). Perhaps as a consequence of the greater importance of cultigens in the diet, access to expanses of arable land ranks among the most important factors influencing site selection (Dent 1995; Potter 1993). Heightened diversity characterizes ceramic assemblages recovered from Late Woodland sites in Virginia (Gallivan 2003:131-154). Ware include crushed -rock -tempered, fabric -and cord -marked ware which appear similar to that of the local late Middle Woodland pottery, as well as a sand -tempered, cord -marked pottery sequence that, in general appearance, is similar to the Vincent -Clements continuum of the North Carolina Piedmont. Small, triangular arrow points, generally believed to reflect the widespread use of the bow -and arrow, form the overwhelming majority of Late Woodland projectile points. Triangular points include the Levanna, Madison, Roanoke, and Clarksville types, which vary in size and base form. Point size may also decrease over time (Coe 1964; Potter 1993; Ritchie 1971). Shell beads and copper beads became important ornaments and symbols during the Late Woodland period, primarily in the last few centuries prior to the arrival of European colonists. Powhatan's Mantle, a deerskin cloak decorated with thousands of small marginella beads sewn into various patterns, reflects the use of shell beads as symbols of identity and status. Pendants and gorgets made of shell were also common. Of note, five engraved shell masks, decorated with a traditional Southeastern "forked/weeping eye' motif were found in a seventeenth -century burial on the floodplain of the Potomac River in Stafford County. Three of the five masks exhibit similarities to masks recovered from sites in the Southeastern U.S. (Smith and Smith 1989), possibly an indication of long-distance trade. Bone also was used to manufacture beads, as well as utilitarian items such as pins, fishhooks, and points. 3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT In addition to palisaded villages, Native American settlements included nucleated villages lacking palisades, dispersed hamlets, and temporary camps. Recent work by Potter (1993), Hodges and Hodges (1994), and Mouer et al. (1992) suggest that dispersed villages were common throughout Virginia. The difficulty in identifying them archaeologically may have contributed to the low number of archaeologically identified Contact -era settlements recorded by the Jamestown colonist John Smith. Housing varied throughout this region: some sites show evidence of longhouses located adjacent to the palisade, while elsewhere, short, oval structures have been unearthed (Dent 1995; Gallivan 2003; Hodges and Hodges 1994; Mouer et al. 1992; Potter 1993; Stephenson 1963). 3.6 SETTLEMENT TO SOCIETY (1607-1750) When the first English settlers arrived at Jamestown in 1607, the vicinity of the study area was inhabited by the Ontponeas (Saponi) and the Tutelo who resided in the village of Monasukapanough near Charlottesville. Until 1722, European settlement in Albemarle County was limited to exploration and sparse settlements. An agreement signed by the Five Nations of the Iroquois in 1722 stating that the Iroquioan people would not cross the Potomac River essentially ended the threat of Indian attack in the Virginia Piedmont. With this threat removed, settlement of the area increased rapidly. Originally encompassed by Goochland County, the western portion of what is now Albemarle was first settled by Europeans beginning in the early 1720s. The first land grants were based on the headright system, with 50 acres allotted for each planter, and additional land for each individual whose passage to Virginia they financed. During this period, settlement of "frontier" areas followed a predictable pattern, clustering initially along rivers and navigable creeks, then moving inland, as the most desirable land was exhausted (Moore 1976). As Virginians increasingly moved west to take advantage of the newly opened lands, the population of this area grew rapidly enough to warrant the creation of a new county of Albemarle, carved from the western part of Goochland in 1744. Prior to the County's incorporation, large land grants had been made by patent to several people including George Hoomes Jr. who received 3,100 acres in 1727, and Nicholas Meriwether who received 31,000 acres, also in 1727. Meriwether patented an additional 1,020 acres, which later became the eastern section of the City of Charlottesville. Abraham Lewis, by 1735, received approximately 800 acres, now the campus of the University of Virginia (Cooper 2007:26-27; Woods 1901:2-10). During the first decades of settlement in Albemarle, it was tobacco that determined the pattern of nearly every aspect of life, encompassing the economy, the cultural landscape, and social relations. Despite the overwhelming focus on tobacco, however, Albemarle planters did produce a variety of other crops, including corn, oats, barley, buckwheat, rye, broom, hemp, and cotton (Kulikoff 1986; Moore 1976). Despite the influx of settlers to the Albemarle County vicinity during the 1740s, historic maps from the period (Smith 1606, and Herrmann 1673) do not extend as far as modern Albemarle County. f CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT 3.7 COLONY TO NATION (1751-1789) The Piedmont population continued to grow during this period and in 1761, Albemarle County was subdivided into several counties. The county seat was moved to a central location and the town of Charlottesville was established in 1762 (Moore 1976). A frame courthouse was soon constructed and the small community on the Rivanna River began to thrive. The population of Albemarle County, at its division with Goochland, had reached almost 1,400 tithables. By 1761, with a further increase in population, it was decided to form the counties of Augusta and Buckingham out of lands belonging to Albemarle. With the realignment of the counties, the county seat was moved in 1762 to lands belonging to Colonel Richard Randolph and became the City of Charlottesville, named after the wife of King George III, Sophia Charlotte (Cooper 2007:27-28; Woods 1901:27). In the late 1770s, Major Thomas Anburey, a British officer, spent time in Albemarle. His shrewd, and often unflattering, observations provide at least some insight into the character of the county and its inhabitants. To his eye, this country appeared "an immense forest interspersed with various plantations four or five miles distant from each other." Describing a typical Albemarle plantation, he wrote: On these there is a dwelling house in the center, with kitchen, smoke house and other outhouses detached ... [having] the appearance of a small village .... Peach and apple orchards.... negroes' huts, and tobacco barns ... large and built of wood for the cure of that article. The houses, mostly of wood with shingle roofs, often go unlathed and unplastered within, only those of the better sort being painted, and many having not brick but wooden chimneys coated inside with clay and, except for special cases, the windows with no glass, only wooden shutters. Most of the planters consign the care of their plantations and Negroes to an overseer ... they are so abominably lazy. I'll give you a sketch of this man's way of living. He rises about eight o'clock, drinks what he calls a julep, which is a large glass of rum sweetened with sugar, then walks, or more generally rides, round his plantation, views his stock, inspects his crops, and returns about ten o'clock to breakfast on cold meat or ham, fried hominy, toast and cider; tea and coffee are seldom tasted but by the women. He then saunters about the house, sometimes amusing himself with the little negroes who are playing round the door, or else scraping on a fiddle. About twelve or one he drinks a toddy to create him an appetite for dinner, which he sits down to at two o'clock. After he has dined he generally lies down on the bed, rises about five ... [and] commonly drinks toddy till bed time; during all this time he is neither drunk nor sober, but in a state of stupefaction. When he leaves his plantation to attend the Courthouse on Court Days or some horse races or cockfight, he gets so egregiously drunk his wife sends a couple of Negroes to conduct him safe home (Moore 1969:35). In 1781, the state assembly fled Richmond and convened in Charlottesville to elect a new governor. With news of the approach of one of Cornwallis' detachments, the assembly again moved and adjourned in Staunton. The effects of the Revolutionary War in Charlottesville and Albemarle were felt only mildly 3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT though as Tarleton's troops entered town, they did take some prisoners and destroy public stores (Wyllie 1961). 3.8 EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD (1790-1829) By the 1790s, the exhaustion of agricultural land and the decline in tobacco markets overseas spelled the end of tobacco's economic dominance in Albemarle and throughout the Piedmont. Although Albemarle farmers continued to grow tobacco until the mid -nineteenth century, wheat and corn gradually emerged as the region's principal crops (Moore 1976). The transition to grain agriculture was accelerated by the development of improved modes of transportation that allowed more rapid and economical shipment of farm produce to urban seaboard markets. Albemarle County's economy in the early part of the nineteenth century was boosted by the construction of one of Virginia's most successful transportation projects, the James River and Kanawha Canal. As early as the 1780s, proponents of a canal linking the James River with the Ohio Valley - including George Washington -had lobbied the Virginia legislature to fund this project. An act to this effect was finally passed in 1785. By 1808 the James River Company had made improvements along a 220- mile stretch of the James from Richmond to Botetourt County. But consistent complaints about the condition of the route and financial difficulties prompted the Commonwealth to purchase the company's charter in 1820. Over the next 15 years, the state made extensive improvements to the system between Richmond and Goochland County. Virginia, in turn, had difficulty funding new construction, and the James River and Kanawha Canal Company, incorporated in 1832, took over operations in 1835. Overcoming serious flood damage in 1842, the canal reached its peak usage during the 1850s, with 195 boats, 867 employees, and 423 horses (Moore 1969; Agee 1962). With growing population and commerce, modes of transportation were particularly important during this period. The construction of roads and turnpikes became increasingly regulated due to an act passed by the General Assembly in 1817. The act provided guidelines for the construction of bridges, the width of the new roads, and for maintenance (Pawlett 1977). In addition to these guidelines, tollgates were erected, and tolls collected in order to maintain the new system of roads. By 1827, the first railroads had reached Virginia, and several were chartered in 1830 and 1831 and between 1832 and 1837, 35 railroad companies were chartered (Pawlett 1977). 3.9 ANTEBELLUM PERIOD (1830-1860) As the population of European American planters in the Upper South grew more and more dependent on the production of cash crops like tobacco, the demand for enslaved labor increased. This increased dependence on the system of slavery is reflected in the census records, which show that the enslaved population increased steadily throughout the nineteenth century as the population of free African Americans remained comparatively low, increasing from 171 in 1790 to 606 by 1860, while the enslaved population grew from 5,579 in 1790 to 13,960 in 1860. 3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT The enslaved population also outnumbered the free white population for most of the nineteenth century. Although population statistics registered 6,835 whites, 5,579 slaves, and 171 free blacks in 1790, by 1810, the enslaved population outnumbered whites by 584. In 1830, Albemarle County enumerated 10,455 whites and 11,679 enslaved men, women and children, in addition to 84 free African American families consisting of 484 individuals. 1860 population statistics included 12,103 whites, 13,916 enslaved African Americans, and 606 free African Americans (Cooper 2007:78; Irwin 1929:91). During this period, commerce and development of adequate transportation appears to be the predominant theme. In the early years of the nineteenth century, residents in the vicinity of the study area were served by a branch of Three Notched Road, which ran west from Charlottesville through Hillsboro, later known as Yancey's Mill. Construction of the first rail line in Albemarle began in the late 1840s with the inception of the Virginia Central Railroad. Beginning at Gordonsville, the line had reached the Blue Ridge Mountains by 1854, providing regular and economical rail service for the residents of western Albemarle (Moore 1976). A second rail line, the Orange and Alexandria, linked Charlottesville and Albemarle County to Gordonsville and Lynchburg. Traditionally the economy of Albemarle County was based in agriculture with a large number of enslaved people to plant and harvest crops (US Federal Slave Census, 1850 and 1860). The largest cash crop during the eighteenth century was tobacco, grown by small scale farms to large plantations. Though the concentration of resources was focused on tobacco, other crops such as corn and barley, among others were also produced. According to agricultural non -population schedules of the mid -nineteenth century, in spite of soil problems stemming from single crop production, tobacco production remained a staple crop with, in some cases, upwards of over 10,000 pounds grown per farm. Corn and oats followed in production (United States Non -Population Census, 1850 and 1860). With the advent of rail service through the county in the mid -nineteenth century, Albemarle County's agricultural crops were open to wider markets. 3.10 CIVIL WAR (1861-1865) Military operations in Albemarle County were extremely limited during the Civil War, and other than the Federal occupation of Charlottesville in 1864, activity was confined mainly to troop movements. No known military engagements occurred in the vicinity of the study area, though a number of battles were fought in surrounding counties. Charlottesville was known primarily for its military hospitals (Robertson 1982). In an 1864 map (Figure 3), Turkey Run is shown within the study area, though it is not named. A single farmstead is shown in the eastern portion of the study area; however, the remainder was uninhabited woodland. 3.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT Figure 3 Detail of Map of Albemarle: Made under the direction of Maj. A.H. Campbell Capt. Engs. In charge of Top. Dept. D.N.V. from surveys and reconnaissances Depicting the Study Area Vicinity (Chief Engineer's Office D.N.V. 1864; Library of Congress Geography and Map Division). 3.11 RECONSTRUCTION AND GROWTH (1866-1916) Four years of war had a devastating effect on Virginia, and Albemarle County was no exception. The combined loss of manpower and draft animals, the neglect of agricultural land, and the emancipation of the enslave population had a detrimental effect on the county's economic and social landscape in the postwar era. Over the following years, property values plummeted. Land that had sold for $10 per acre decreased in price and was now being sold for only a dollar or two per acre. In fact, the real estate market was so depressed that during their 1869-70 session the General Assembly enacted a law prohibiting the sale of land for less than 75.0 percent of its assessed value (Kaplan 1993). 3.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT In a pattern reminiscent of the early nineteenth century, postwar agricultural difficulties prompted Albemarle farmers to seek alternative sources of income. The solution for many was to turn to fruit production, and Albemarle rapidly became a center for the production of apples, peaches, cherries, and strawberries (Moore 1976). Lumbering was also a mainstay of the economy during this period. After the Civil War, thousands of acres were abandoned and reverted back to forest. This increase in wood resources resulted in the operation of four sawmills in Albemarle County by 1875. Three of the four mills were located in the western part of the county while the Rio Mill serviced the Charlottesville area and points eastward (Tice 1987). Lumbering eventually took its toll on the natural resources of the area. By 1875, the demand for forest conservation resulted in the establishment of the American Forestry Association. The United States Forest Service was formed in 1904 and was followed by the establishment of the Virginia Forest Service in 1907 (Tice 1987). At the turn of the century, transportation again became a major focus in Virginia. This renewed interest arose due to the increased popularity of motor cars and the demand for better and well -maintained roads. The interest in transportation resulted in the formation of the State Highway Commission in 1906 followed by the enactment of a law allowing federal participation in the construction of interstate highways in 1916 (Wallenstein 1991). Residents of the town of Charlottesville and Albemarle County wanted to assure that a major road would pass through the area and their efforts were rewarded as US 29 and US 250 intersect in Charlottesville. A map produced in 1867 (Figure 4) no longer shows evidence of structures within the study area, depicting it as open land with Turkey Run extending through the southern portion. Beginning the late nineteenth century, historic topographic maps depict the Woodridge Solar site primarily as uninhabited land. The 1891 Palmyra, Virginia topographic map (Figure 5) depicts Turkey Run and what is today Route 708 (Secretary's Road). Blenheim is shown to the northwest and Woodridge a short distance east of the study area. No evidence of structures is present interior to the study area. 3.12 WORLD WAR I AND WORLD WAR II (1917-1945) In the 1920s, tourism became a major factor in Albemarle County as Thomas Jefferson's home, Monticello, was acquired by the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation and was opened to the public (Moore 1976). In addition, the Michie Tavern was moved from its original location to Monticello Mountain and was also opened as a tourist attraction. Charlottesville also became home to an annual auto show and construction of a municipal airport was the buzz around town. The airport was constructed in 1929 to the northwest of Charlottesville (Moore 1976). By the mid -twentieth century, maps depict two structures within the study area. The 1943 Scottsville, Virginia topographic map (Figure 6) is similar to that from the late nineteenth century. However, this map also shows secondary roads or long driveways interior to the study area. Three residentials structures are also depicted within the study area at this time. 3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT 4y4)) Ci 1 1't 1''k' S ) i -_j •'I'i n 6e.Au 'IF N4 \ y North; Not to Scale 1 brntu� �JSt 1 /!s Figure 4 Detail of Albemarle County, Virginia Depicting the Study Area Vicinity (Hotchkiss 1867; Library of Congress Geography and Map Division). 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT Figure 5 Detail of the 1891 Palmyra, Virginia Topographic Map Depicting the Study Area (USGS 1891; https://Iivingatlas.arcqis.com/topoexplorer/index.htmi, accessed 2019). 3.15 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT North; Not to Scale �-_ Jo u M �1-V3 0 =� z°` s b. G°0 f -� Figure 6 Detail of the 1943 Scottville, VA Topographic Map Depicting the Study Area (USGS 1943; hftps://livingatias.arcais.com/topoexplorer/indox.htmi, accessed 2019). 3.16 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT 3.13 THE NEW DOMINION (1946-PRESENT) In the postwar decades, agriculture remained the mainstay of the Albemarle county economy until the mid -twentieth century when the fruit industry began to wane. At that point the University of Virginia grew and began to play a larger economic role in Charlottesville. The population has since increased significantly. More people meant more housing, and a significant amount of rural land was encompassed by suburban development on the fringes of the rapidly growing area. By 1967, Only one structure is shown within the study area (Figure 7). 3.17 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL CONTEXT ' r North; Not to Scale 1 Figure 7 Detail of the 1967 Simeon, VA (Top) and Scottvil/e, VA (Bottom) Topographic Maps Depicting the Study Area (USGS 1967; https://Iivingatias.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.htmi, accessed 2019). 3.18 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA RESEARCH DESIGN 4.0 RESEARCH DESIGN 4.1 OBJECTIVES The purpose of this project was to prepare an assessment of archaeological potential within the proposed Brookneal site boundary. The cultural resources assessment was intended to provide information on the soils and topography within the study area as well as on previously identified cultural resources located within the bounds of the study area and within a 1-mile radius of the study area. In addition, the assessment developed a site -specific predictive model that identified areas of enhanced and low cultural resource potential within the study area to serve as a planning tool for proposed development. While a cultural resources assessment and work plan report will not satisfy federal, state, or county regulatory requirements for a Phase I cultural resources identification survey, it does allow the client to quickly review the nature and scope of potential cultural resource issues associated with a specific study area. 4.2 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 4.2.1 Previous Cultural Resource Surveys One previously conducted cultural resources survey extended through a portion of the proposed Woodridge Solar site study area. In 2012, Cultural Resources, Inc. (CRI), now Stantec, conducted a Phase I cultural resources survey of approximately 30.58 miles in association with the proposed Dominion Virginia Power, now Dominion Energy Virginia, Transco Delivery point to Dooms Substation 230 kV transmission line project in Fluvanna, Albemarle, and Augusta counties, Virginia (Stewart et al. 2012). This project included survey of the transmission line which extends northwest to southeast through the southwestern portion of the Woodridge Solar study area. The 2012 survey identified one archaeological site interior to the study area. Site 44ABO571 represented a low -density lithic scatter of indeterminate temporal affiliation. CRI recommended the site as not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, but the resource has not been formally evaluated by the VDHR for potential eligibility. In addition, the 2012 survey extended through the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District (VDR #002- 5045), within which the entire Woodridge Solar study area is located. While the district is listed on the NRHP and the VLR, the portion of the district through which the transmission line extended was found to contain no historic structures contributing to the district. 4.2.2 Archaeological Sites One previously identified archaeological site is located within the study area. Three additional previously identified archaeological sites are located within a 1-mile radius of the study area (Figure 8; Table 2). One site is prehistoric and three are historic. One site has been determined not eligible for NRHP inclusion and the remaining three have not been formally evaluated for potential NRHP eligibility by the VDHR. 4.1 /gfi Na. 8 TAe Previously Identified Archaeological Sites within a 1-Mile Radius of the Study Area CA9&1P,g6Cl M3401407 Hexagon Energy Woodridge Solar Site HO�PC/Ldd/%O// Repar[d by JKM on M19-12-12 TR by TPS on M19-12-12 Albemarle County, Virgins IR by BSS on 2M1 12-12 N Feet (N orgilal tlo1:36. size of ttxt]) 1:36,Ofx) •�� p Project Limits = 1-Mile Buffer ® Archaeological Resource 1. Cmrtlirele System: NAD 1983 SafePlane Vighm Sou@ FIPS 4502 Feet 2. Ro)etl enis pmriletl by Hesa3on E .oyf 3. Hsbrc reswrce data foovitletl by Yryina Depatlment of History Resoumes, Vir,mia CJWral Resovices Infmmalon System (VCRIS) 4. County LcoanM.,hom Vignia OCR S.O tommagay a Birg Maps & Mic.-h pmtlutl srcen shops) rehanded with permission (rem Mi—eeft Coryoration ® Stantec Disclaimer, Ties, Jmument has been preps N based! m Mamatian provitletl by Mbess as cial to the N Wes section. Stantec has wtvaifi tl Me accuracy aMbr completeness of Ihs ofmmattan and sMl aft M mspcnsible he any ertors oromissurs wMN may be mwWrated basin as a resat. Stantec assumes no mspcnsibJiry for dsp suppletl in ekcbmic format, mM the recipreM acceps NA res,onsibility far verifying the accuracy and cornpleteress of Me data. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA RESEARCH DESIGN Table 2 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites within a f-Mile Radius of the Study Area Site # Resource Type Association Recorded By NRHP Recommendation 44AB0280 Limestone Quarry 19' c. & Mid- to Late 20" c. VDHR 1986 Not Evaluated 44AB0283 Limestone Quarry Mid- to Late 19' c. VDHR 1986 Not Evaluated 44ABO571 Lithic Scatter Prehistoric Unknown CRI 2012 Not Eligible(VDHR 2012 44ABO680 Artifact Scatter Late 19'h C. Stantec 2016 Not Evaluated 'Highlighted resources are located within the boundaries of the study area 4.2.3 Architectural Resources One previously identified architectural resource is located within the study area. Twenty-one additional previously identified architectural resources are located within a 1-mile radius of the study area (Table 3 Figure 9). These resources included the post 1730 Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District ,12 houses dating from between pre-1820 and c. 1990, two churches dating to c. 1855 and c. 1891, respectively, the Mount Air Church Site with no listed date, one c. 1830 farm, one farm with no listed date, a c. 1910 school (now house), the c. 1850 Gilmer saw mill site, and two bridges, one with no listed date and one dating to c. 1907. The Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District (VDHR #002-5045) has been listed to the NRHP and the VLR. Eight resources have been determined to be not eligible for NRHP inclusion and the remaining 13 have not been formally evaluated for potential NRHP eligibility. Table 3 Previously Identified Architectural Resources Within a f -Mile Radius of the Study Area Resource# Resource Type Association Recorded By NRHP Recommendation Church, 4899 Rolling 002-0393 Road/New Bethel United c. 1855 Arcadia Preservation Not Evaluated Methodist Church 2004 002-0394 House, 4672 Rolling Road/ c. 1990 Arcadia Preservation Not Evaluated Durham -Bunch House 2004 002-0395 House, 2852 Secretary's 1859 Arcadia Preservation Not Evaluated Road/Bisho Louc. . 2004 House, 4944 Rolling Road/ Stantec 2016; Not Eligible 002-0467 Weather Hill/Ellfton House c. 1890 Arcadia Preservation (VDHR 2017) 2004 002-0468 House, 1789 Ed Jones c. 1920 Unknown 2004 Not Evaluated Road/Schoolhouse 002-0469 House, Rolling Road (Route None Listed Arcadia Preservation Not Evaluated 620 /Strother LogHouse 2005 House, 4028-4030 Rolling Arcadia Preservation 002-0470 Road/ C. 1890 2004' O'Dell 1982 Not Evaluated Schwarzenboeck House UVA 1977 House, 3790 Rolling Road/Hart Arcadia Preservation 002-0471 House Pre-1820 2004; Not Evaluated UVA 1977 Farm, 510-538 Mount Pleasant Arcadia Preservation 002-0500 Farm/Mount Pleasant c. 1830 2005; Not Evaluated VDHR 1978 4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA RESEARCH DESIGN Resource# Resource Type Association Recorded By NRHP Recommendation 002-0904 Gilmer Saw Mill Site/George c. 1850 VDHR 1982 Not Evaluated Gilmer Mill Site Church, 4735 President's Stantec 2016; 002-1161 Road/Blenheim School/Middle c. 1891 Arcadia Preservation Not Eligible Oak Baptist Church 2004; (VDHR 2017) VDHR 1984 002-1545 Former School/House, 2787 c. 1910 Dutton 2019; Not Evaluated Campbell Farm Lane VDHR n.d. 002-1548 Mount Air Church Site None Listed VDHR n.d. Not Evaluated 002-1640 Buck Island Creek Bridge None Listed VDHR 1987 Not Evaluated Bridge #6244, Blenheim Road Arcadia Preservation Not Eligible 002-2134 c. 1907 2005; (VDHR 2016 & (Route 795), Hardware River VDOT 1995 & 1974 1996 002-5014 Moon Farm None Listed Unknown n.d. Not Evaluated Jefferson -Carter Rural Historic VDOT 2017; NRHP Listed (200 (200 7) 002-5045 District/Southern Albemarle Post 1730 CRI 2012; Rural Historic District New South n.d. VLR Listed (2007) 002-5260 House, 395 Bruchs Creek Road 1961 Stantec 2016 Not Eligible (VDHR 2017 002-5266 House, 5345 Rolling Road 1960 Stantec 2016 Not Eligible (VDHR 2017 002-5267 House, 5110 Rolling Road 1950 Stantec 2016 Not Eligible (VDHR 2017 002-5268 House, 1950 Martin Kings Road 1950 Stantec 2016 Not Eligible DYR 2017 002-5282 House, 5051 Rolling Road c. 1930 Stantec 2016 Not Eligible (VDHR 2017) *Highlighted resources are located within the boundaries of the study area 4.2.3.1 SOUTHERN ALBEMARLE RURAL HISTORIC DISTRICT (VDHR #002-5045) The entirety of the Woodridge Solar study area is located within the bounds of the NRHP and VLR listed Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District (VDHR #002-5045). The district encompasses 83,627 acres and includes 2,169 contributing resources (buildings, sites, structures, and objects), including Thomas Jefferson's Monticello, and 2,215 non-contributing resources. The district's period of significance extends between 1729 and c. 1955. The district was found to be eligible for NRHP inclusion under all four NRHP criteria; Criterion A for its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, Criterion B for its association with the lives of persons of significance in our past, Criterion C for its embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or being representative of the work of a master or possessing high artistic values, or representing a significant and distinguishable entity whose components slack individual distinction, and Criterion D for yielding information important to prehistory or history (NRHP Nomination Form, Accessed 2019). 4.4 F*u Na. 9 FA Previously Recorded Architectural Resources within a 1-Mile Radius of the CA9&1P,q-1 M3401407 Hexagon Energy Woodridge Solar Site HO�PC/Ldd/%O// Repared by JKM on M19-12-12 TR by TPS on M19-12-12 Albemarle County, Virgins IR by BSS on 2M1 12-12 N Feel (N orgilal tlo1:36. size of ttxt]) 1:36,Ofx) •�� p Project Limits = 1-Mile Buffer QArchitectural Resource InRural Historic District (VDHR #002-5045) 1. Cmrtlirele System: NAD 1983 SafePlane Vighm Sou@ FIPS 4502 Feet 2. Rgetl enis pmriletl by Hesa3on E .oyf 3. Hsbrc resod ce data foovitletl by Yryina Depatlment of Historic Resoumes, Vir,mia CJWral Resovices Infemalon System (VCRIS) 4. County IcoanM.,hom Vignia OCR 5. OMoimagay a Birg Maps & Mic.-h pmtlutl srcen shops) rehanded with permission (rem Mi—eeft Coryoration ® Stantec Disclaimer: Ties, Jmument has been preps N based! od Mamatian provitletl by others as cial to the N Wes section. Stantec has wtvaif tl Me accuracy aMbr completeness of the ofmmattan and sMl hat M mspcnsible he any errors oromissurs wMN may be motaWrated basin as a resat. Stantec assumes no mspcnsibJiry for dsp wpp§e! in ekcbmic format, anet the recipreM acceps NA res,onsibility for verifying the accuracy and cornpleteress of Me data. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA RESEARCH DESIGN While the proposed Woodridge Solar site is located within the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District (VDHR #002-5045), the study area is situated along the northeast edge of the district, where few contributing resources are located. Despite this, this portion of the district retains its rural flavor, a key element associated with the district's significance. The study area is situated within privately owned planted pine forest, and while this is not an original part of the landscape associated with the earliest period of significance for the district, it does appear, through review of historic aerial photographs, that the area was planted in pine as early as the 1930s, which falls within the district's larger period of significance. The loblolly pine has been timbered periodically and in different sections, creating different clear cut areas over time. 4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS 5.0 CULIURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS 5.1 INTRODUCTION The cultural resources assessment field effort examined all portions of the approximately 2,276.4-acre study area through visual inspection of exposed ground surfaces and shovel testing. The study area was further subject to photo documentation to document current field conditions. Stantec field archaeologists conducted pedestrian survey across the entire study area. This pedestrian survey was supplemented with the excavation of judgmentally placed shovel tests and photo documentation. Shovel tests were excavated to determine the nature of the soils and topography in the study area. In addition, this effort was used to create a predictive model that identifies areas of enhanced and low cultural resources potential within the study area to serve as a planning tool for proposed development. Determinations of potential were based upon soil properties, drainage, topography, and other factors. All shovel tests measured approximately 1.25 feet (15 inches) in diameter and were excavated to sterile subsoil. Soil from all shovel tests was passed through 1/4-inch mesh screen. For each excavated shovel test, the stratigraphic profile was recorded with complete descriptions using Munsell color designators (Munsell Color 1994) and US Department of Agriculture soil texture terminology (Elder 1989). 5.2 SHOVEL TESTING AND PHOTO DOCUMENTATION A total of 29 locations were subject to photo -documentation and shovel testing. Shovel test locations were selected to examine data addressing spatial and topographic variation within the study area, as well as stratigraphic integrity, soil quality, and soil types across the property. No shovel tests were positive for cultural material. Modern debris and a piece of historic brick in a wetlands crossing were observed and are discussed below. 5.2.1 Location 1 Location 1 was placed in the central portion of study area, approximately 380 feet west of an unnamed tributary of Turkey Run. The location was situated atop a knoll that has been clear cut and was bulldozed approximately 30 years ago (Figure 10; Appendix A). Due to previous bulldozing, subsoil is present on the surface in this area. Subsoil consisted of 10YR6/6 brownish yellow silty clay with 5% gravel inclusions (Table 4). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Table 4 STP 1 Soil Profile Stratum Depth R Color Soil Type/Texture Interpretation I Surface 1 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Silty Clay w/ 5% Gravel Subsoil 5.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS Figure 10 General View of Location 1 with clear cut trees; View to the North. 5.2.2 Location 2 Location 2 was placed to the south of Location 1, approximately 330 feet west of an unnamed tributary of Turkey Run. The location was situated atop a knoll that has been clear cut and was bulldozed approximately 30 years ago (Figure 11; Appendix A). Due to previous bulldozing subsoil is present on the surface in this area. Subsoil consisted of 10YR6/6 brownish yellow silty clay with 5% gravel inclusions (Table 5). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Table 5 STP 2 Soil Profile Stratum Depth R Color Soil T e/Texture Interpretation I Surface 1 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Silty Clay w/ 5% Gravel Subsoil 5.2.3 Location 3 Location 3 was placed in the south of Location 2, approximately 300 feet west of an unnamed tributary of Turkey Run. The location was situated in a low, poorly drained area that has been clear cut and was bulldozed approximately 30 years ago (Figure 12; Appendix A). Due to previous bulldozing subsoil is present on the surface in this area. Subsoil consisted of 10YR6/6 brownish yellow clayey silt (Table 6). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. 5.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS [ iv r 4 Figure 11 View of Location 2 on a finger ridge; View to the North. 4 1 � ,. tts'+fi�� , ',i�i`?i.�•� knO •.,+�w�r�y� Sx+� �' Figure 12 View of Location 3; View to the North. 5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS Table 6 STP 3 Soil Profile Stratum Depth R Color Soil Type/Texture Interpretation I Surface 1 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Clayey Silt Subsoil 5.2.4 Location 4 Location/Shovel Test Pit (STP) 4 was placed west of Location 3 (Appendix A). The location was situated on a narrow finger between two springs (Figure 13). STP 4 contained two strata in profile. Stratum I was characterized as a layer of 10YR6/3 pale brown loam with 40% gravel inclusions (A Horizon) that extended in depth from approximately 0 to 0.3 feet below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum II, a layer of 10YR6/6 brownish yellow clay (Subsoil). Stratum II was excavated from approximately 0.3 to 0.7 feet below ground surface (Table 7). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Figure 13 General View of Location/STP 4; View to the North. Table 7 STP 4 Soil Profile Stratum I Depth ft Color Soil Type/Texture Interpretation I 1 0-0.3 1 10YR6/3 Pale Brown I Loam w/ 40% Gravel A Horizon II 0.3-0.7 1 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow I Clay Subsoil 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS 5.2.5 Location 5 was placed northwest of Location/STP 4, approximately 740 feet north of Turkey Run (Appendix A). The location was situated on a broad ridge that has been previously bulldozed (Figure 14). Due to previous bulldozing subsoil is present on the surface in this vicinity. Subsoil consisted of 10YR616 brownish yellow clay with 40% gravel inclusions (Table 8). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Figure 14 General View of Location 5; View to the South. Table 8 STP 5 Soil Profile Stratum Depth ff. Color I Soil Type/Texture Interpretation I Surface 1 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow I Clay w/ 40% Gravel Subsoil 5.2.6 Location 6 Location 6 was placed north of Location 5 and approximately 250 feet east of an unnamed tributary of Turkey Run (Appendix A). The location was situated on a sloping hillside that has been previously bulldozed (Figure 15). Due to previous bulldozing subsoil is present on the surface in this vicinity. Subsoil consisted of 10YR6/6 brownish yellow clay with 40% gravel inclusions (Table 9). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS Figure 15 General View of Location 6; View to the North. Table 9 STP 6 Soil Profile Stratum Depth ft. Color I Soil Type/Texture Interpretation I Surface 1 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow I Clay w/ 40% Gravel Subsoil 5.2.7 Location 7 Location 7 was placed north of Location 1, approximately 2,565 feet west of Turkey Run (Appendix A). The location was situated on a broad, flat finger ridge that has been previously bulldozed (Figure 16). Due to previous bulldozing subsoil is present on the surface in this area. Subsoil consisted of 10YR6/6 brownish yellow silty clay with 10% gravel inclusions (Table 9). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Table 10 STP 7 Soil Profile Stratum Depth fL Color I Soil Type/Texture Interpretation I Surface 1 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow I Silty Clay w/ 10% Gravel Subsoil 5.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS Figure 16 General View of Location 7; View to the South. 5.2.8 Location 8 Location 8 was placed north of Location 6, near the western limits of the study area (Appendix A). The location was situated on a broad, flat finger ridge that has been previously bulldozed (Figure 17). Due to previous bulldozing subsoil is present on the surface in this area. Subsoil consisted of 10YR6/6 brownish yellow silty clay with 10% gravel inclusions (Table 11). No artifacts were recovered; however, modern debris was noted on the surface. No surface features were observed. Table 11 STP 8 Soil Profile Stratum Depth it. Color I Soil T e/Texture Interpretation I Surface 1 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow I Silty Clay w/ 10% Gravel Subsoil 5.2.9 Locations 9 & 10 Locations 9 & 10 were located south of Turkey Run in the transmission line corridor (Appendix A). The locations were situated on a marshy, poorly drained bottomland (Figure 18). No shovel tests were excavated due to the presence of wetlands. No artifacts were recovered though a few fragments of brick were observed in the wetland crossing (location 10) (Figure 19). These brick fragments appear to have been redeposited and do not represent an intact archaeological site. No surface features were observed. 5.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS Figure 17 General View of Location 8; View to the South. Figure 18 General View of Location 10; View to the East. 5.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS Figure 19 Brick Fragment Dumped in Wetland Crossing. 5.2.10 Location 11 Location 11 was placed east of Locations 9 R 10 and approximately 350 feet north of a tributary of Turkey Run (Appendix A). The location was situated on a ridge tip that has been previously bulldozed (Figure 20). Due to previous bulldozing subsoil is present on the surface in this area. Subsoil consisted of 10YR616 brownish yellow silty clay with 10% gravel inclusions (Table 12). No artifacts were recovered; however, modern debris was noted on the surface. No surface features were observed. Table 12 STP 11 Soil Profile Stratum Depth R Color I Soil T e/Texture I Interpretation I Surface 1 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow I Clay w/50% Quartz Gravel I Subsoil 5.2.11 Location 12 Location/STP 12 was placed northeast of Location 11, approximately 400 feet south of Turkey Run (Appendix A). The location was situated on a ridge tip that has been recently logged and partially bulldozed (Figure 21). STP 12 contained two strata in profile. Stratum I was characterized as a layer of 10YR3/3 dark brown loam with 10% quartz gravel inclusions (A Horizon) that extended in depth from approximately 0 to 0.2 feet below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum II, a layer of 10YR6/6 brownish yellow clay (Subsoil). Stratum II was excavated from approximately 0.2 to 0.6 feet below ground surface (Table 13). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. 5.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS Figure 20 General View of Location 11; View to the South. Figure 21 General View of Location/STP 12; View to the South. 5.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS Table 13 STP 12 Soil Profile Stratum I Depth ft. Color Soil Type/Texture Interpretation I 1 0-0.2 1 10YR3/3 Dark Brown I Loam w/10% Quartz Gravel A Horizon II 0.2-0.6 1 10YR6/6Brownish Yellow I Clay Subsoil 5.2.12 Location 13 Location/STP 13 was placed in the southern portion of the study area, approximately 1,400 feet south of Turkey Run (Appendix A). The location was situated on a broad, flat ridge with 15-year-old pine trees. STP 13 contained two strata in profile. Stratum I was characterized as a layer of 10YR4/4 dark yellowish - brown sandy loam (A Horizon) that extended in depth from approximately 0 to 0.8 feet below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum II, a layer of 10YR6/6 brownish yellow clay with gravel inclusions (Subsoil). Stratum II was excavated from approximately 0.8 to 1.2 feet below ground surface (Table 14). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Table 14 STP 13 Soil Profile Stratum Depth ft. Color Soil Type/Texture Interpretation 1 0-0.8 1 10YR4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Sand Loam A Horizon 11 0.8-1.2 1 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow I Clay w/ Gravel Subsoil 5.2.13 Location 14 Location/STP 14 was placed south of Location/STP 13 in the southern portion of the study area (Appendix A). The location was situated on a gentle slope covered in 15-year-old pine (Figure 22). STP 14 contained two strata in profile. Stratum I was characterized as a layer of 10YR6/2 light brownish gray sandy loam (A Horizon) that extended in depth from approximately 0 to 0.3 feet below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum II, a layer of 10YR6/6 brownish yellow clay with gravel inclusions (Subsoil). Stratum II was excavated from approximately 0.3 to 0.7 feet below ground surface (Table 15). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Table 15 STP 14 Soil Profile Stratum 1 Depth ft. Color Soil Type/Texture Interpretation I 1 0-0.3 1 10YR6/2 Light Brownish Gray Sand Loam A Horizon 11 0.3-0.7 1 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow I Clay w/ Gravel Subsoil 5.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS Figure 22 General View of Location/STP 14; View to the East. 5.2.I4 LOcatiOn I - Location/STP 15 was placed south of Location/STP 13 in the southern portion of the study area (Appendix A). The location was situated on steep slope covered in hardwoods (Figure 23). STP 15 contained two strata in profile. Stratum I was characterized as a layer of 10YR6/2 light brownish gray sandy loam (A Horizon) that extended in depth from approximately 0 to 0.4 feet below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum II, a layer of 10YR6/6 brownish yellow clay (Subsoil). Stratum II was excavated from approximately 0.4 to 0.8 feet below ground surface (Table 16). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Table 16 STP 15 Soil Profile Stratum I Depth(R) Color Soil T pelrexture Interpretation I 1 0-0.4 1 10YR6/2 Light Brownish Gray Sand Loam A Horizon II 0.4-0.8 1 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow I Clay Subsoil 5.2.15 Location 16 Location 16 was placed at the southeastern limits of the study area (Appendix A). The location was situated on a ridge with 40-year old hardwoods. A shovel test was not excavated; however, surface deposits indicate soils with a high potential for intact deposits in this area. No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. 5.12 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS Figure 23 General View of Location/STP 15; View to the North. 5.2.16 Location 17 Location/STP 17 was placed in the north central portion of the study area (Appendix A). The location was situated on a ridgetop covered in dense 10-year old pine trees (Figure 24). STP 17 contained two strata in profile. Stratum I was characterized as a layer of 7.5YR5/6 strong brown silty loam (A Horizon) that extended in depth from approximately 0 to 0.4 feet below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum II, a layer of 7.5YR5/8 strong brown Gay with quartz gravel inclusions (Subsoil). Stratum II was excavated from approximately 0.4 to 0.8 feet below ground surface (Table 17). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Table 17 STP 17 Soil Profile Stratum Depth ff. Color Soil Type/Texture Interpretation 1 0-0.4 1 7.5YR5/6 Strong Brown Silty Loam A Horizon 11 0.4-0.8 1 7.5YR5/8 Strong Brown Clay w/ quartz gravel Subsoil 5.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS Figure 24 View towards Location/STP 17; View to the North. 5.2.17 Location 18 Location/STP 18 was placed in the north central portion of the study area, northeast of Location/STP 17 (Appendix A). The location was situated on a ridgetop covered in dense 15-year old pine trees. STP 18 contained two strata in profile. Stratum I was characterized as a layer of 7.5YR5/6 strong brown silty loam (A Horizon) that extended in depth from approximately 0 to 0.4 feet below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum II, a layer of 7.5YR5/8 strong brown clay with 10% quartz gravel inclusions (Subsoil). Stratum II was excavated from approximately 0.4 to 0.8 feet below ground surface (Table 18). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Table 18 STP 18 Soil Profile Stratum 1 Depth ft. Color Soil Type/Texture Interpretation I 1 0-0.4 1 7.5YR5/6 Strong Brown I Silty Loam A Horizon 11 0.4-0.8 1 7.5YR5/8 Strong Brown I Clay w/ 10% Quartz Gravel Subsoil 5.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS 5.2.16 LQGU]1o11 17 Location/STP 19 was placed on the western portion of the study area (Appendix A). The location was situated on a broad ridge covered in broom straw and stumps from logged trees (Figure 25). STP 19 contained two strata in profile. Stratum I was characterized as a layer of 10YR4/4 dark yellowish -brown sandy loam (A Horizon) that extended in depth from approximately 0 to 0.4 feet below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum II, a layer of 10YR6/4 light yellowish -brown clay with 30% gravel inclusions (Subsoil). Stratum II was excavated from approximately 0.4 to 0.8 feet below ground surface (Table 19). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Figure 25 Vii Table 19 STP 19 Soil Profile Stratum Depth fL Color Soil Type/Texture Interpretation 1 0-0.4 1 10YR4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown _—Sandy Loam A Horizon 11 0.4-0.8 1 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown Clay w/ 30% Gravel Subsoil 5.15 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS 5.2. I Y LUUO(1011 L I Location/STP 21 was placed on the northwestern portion of the study area (Appendix A). The location was situated on a slope that had been recently logged and the area had been previously bulldozed (Figure 26). STP 21 contained two strata in profile. Stratum I was characterized as a layer of 10YR4/4 dark yellowish -brown clay loam (disturbed A Horizon) that extended in depth from approximately 0 to 0.4 feet below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum 11, a layer of 10YR6/4 light yellowish -brown clay with 30% gravel inclusions (Subsoil). Stratum 11 was excavated from approximately 0.4 to 0.8 feet below ground surface (Table 20). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Figure 26 Gt Table 20 STP 21 Soil Profile Stratum I Depth ft. Color Soil Type/Texture 1 Interpretation I 1 0-0.4 10YR4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Cla Loam I Disturbed A Horizon 11 0.4-0.8 1 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown I Clay w/ 30% Gravel I Subsoil 5.16 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS 5.2.26 LUU0(10II LL Location/STP 22 was placed in the northwestern portion of the study area (Appendix A). The location was situated on a ridge with dense pine trees. The area had been previously bulldozed (Figure 27). STP 22 contained two strata in profile. Stratum I was characterized as a layer of 10YR4/4 dark yellowish -brown clay loam (disturbed A Horizon) that extended in depth from approximately 0 to 0.4 feet below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum II, a layer of 10YR6/4 light yellowish -brown clay with 30% gravel inclusions (Subsoil). Stratum II was excavated from approximately 0.4 to 0.8 feet below ground surface (Table 21). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Figure 27 General View of Location/STP 22; View to the North. Table 21 STP 22 Soil Profile Stratum 1 Depth fL Color Soil Type/Texture 1 Interpretation I 1 0-0.4 10YR4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Cla Loam I Disturbed A Horizon 11 0.4-0.8 1 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown I Clay w/ 30% Gravel I Subsoil 5.17 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS 5.2.21 LU(.a(1011 /J Location/STP 23 was placed on the northern portion of the study area (Appendix A). The location was situated on a broad ridge finger near the existing Hunt Club compound (Figure 28). STP 23 contained two strata in profile. Stratum I was characterized as a layer of 10YR6/4 light yellowish -brown clayey loam (disturbed A Horizon) that extended in depth from approximately 0 to 0.4 feet below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum 11, a layer of 10YR6/6 brownish yellow clay (Subsoil). Stratum 11 was excavated from approximately 0.4 to 0.8 feet below ground surface (Table 22). No artifacts were recovered. The observed structures are discussed collectively as Architectural Complex 1 below. Figure 28 Vii Table 22 STP 23 Soil Profile Stratum I Depth ft. Color Soil Type/Texture 1 Interpretation I 1 0-0.4 1 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown LCla ey Loam I Disturbed A Horizon 11 0.4-0.8 1 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow I Clay I Subsoil 5.18 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS 5.2.2E LUUO(1011 LJ Location/STP 25 was placed in the northeastern portion of the study area (Appendix A). The location was situated on a broad ridge covered in dense pine trees, approximately 600 feet north of Turkey Run (Figure 29). STP 25 contained two strata in profile. Stratum I was characterized as a layer of 7.5YR5/6 strong brown silty loam (A Horizon) that extended in depth from approximately 0 to 0.4 feet below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum 11, a layer of 7.5YR5/8 strong brown clay with 10% quartz gravel inclusions (Subsoil). Stratum 11 was excavated from approximately 0.4 to 0.8 feet below ground surface (Table 23). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Figure 29 Vii Table 23 STP 25 Soil Profile Stratum I Depth ft. Color Soil T e/Texture Interpretation I 1 0-0.4 1 7.5YR5/6 Strong Brown Silty Loam A Horizon 11 0.4-0.8 1 7.5YR5/8 Strong Brown Clay w/ 10% Quartz Gravel Subsoil 5.19 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS 5.2.2.i LUL.0 i1011 LU Location/STP 26 was placed in the southeastern portion of the study area (Appendix A). The location was situated on a ridge with 25-year old pine trees (Figure 30). STP 25 contained two strata in profile. Stratum I was characterized as a layer of 10YR4/6 dark yellowish -brown silty loam (A Horizon) that extended in depth from approximately 0 to 0.4 feet below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum 11, a layer of 10YR6/6 brownish yellow clay (Subsoil). Stratum 11 was excavated from approximately 0.4 to 0.8 feet below ground surface (Table 24). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Figure 30 View of Area near Location/STP 26; View to the North. Table 24 STP 26 Soil Profile Stratum 1 Depth R Color Soil Type/Texture interpretation I 1 0-0.4 1 10YR4/6 Dark Yellowish Brown LSil Loam A Horizon 11 0.4-0.8 1 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow I Clay Subsoil 5.20 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS 5.2.24 LUUO(1011 41 Location/STP 27 was placed south of Location/STP 25 in the northern portion of the study area (Appendix A). The location was situated on a ridge between Turkey Run and a tributary of Turkey Run with dense 10-year-old pines (Figure 31). STP 27 contained two strata in profile. Stratum I was characterized as a layer of 7.5YR5/6 strong brown silty loam (A Horizon) that extended in depth from approximately 0 to 0.4 feet below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum II, a layer of 7.5YR5/8 strong brown clay with 10% quartz gravel inclusions (Subsoil). Stratum II was excavated from approximately 0.4 to 0.8 feet below ground surface (Table 25). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Figure 31 Vii Table 25 STP 27 Soil Profile Stratum 1 Depth R. Color Soil Type/Texture Interpretation I 1 0-0.4 1 7.5YR5/6 Strong Brown I Silty Loam A Horizon 11 0.4-0.8 1 7.5YR5/8 Strong Brown I Clay w/ 10% Quartz Gravel Subsoil 5.21 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS 5.2.2�) LUUO(1011 40 Location/STP 28 was placed southeast of Location/STP 27 in the eastern portion of the study area (Appendix A). The location was situated on a ridge between Turkey Run and a tributary of Turkey Run with dense 10-year-old pines (Figure 32). STP 27 contained two strata in profile. Stratum I was characterized as a layer of 7.5YR5/6 strong brown silty loam (A Horizon) that extended in depth from approximately 0 to 0.4 feet below ground surface. Underlying Stratum I was Stratum 11, a layer of 7.5YR5/8 strong brown clay with 10% quartz gravel inclusions (Subsoil). Stratum 11 was excavated from approximately 0.4 to 0.8 feet below ground surface (Table 26). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Figure 32 View of Location/STP 28; View to the North. Table 26 STP 28 Soil Profile Stratum I Depth it. Color Soil Type/Texture Interpretation I 1 0-0.4 1 7.5YR5/6 Strong Brown Silty Loam A Horizon II 0.4-0.8 1 7.5YR5/8 Strong Brown Clay w/ 10% Quartz Gravel Subsoil 5.22 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS 5.3 NEWLY OBSERVED ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES Two newly identified architectural resources were observed within the study area during the course of the assessment (Appendix A) and include a frame former dwelling with a barn and a cemetery. The architectural complex included an individual structure with one additional secondary structure. The architectural complex and the cemetery were not formally recorded as architectural resources during this assessment. 5.3.1 Architectural Complex 1 Architecture Complex 1 is situated in a small clearing with several large trees in the vicinity of the building. The area surrounding the building was fenced in. At least one wood fence post was visible. The fence location is more easily discernable by the hedges now present. The building, although most recently functioning as a hunt club, appears to have originally been a residence dating to the early to mid - nineteenth century. The original dwelling has been added onto several times and obscures the one -and - a -half -story main block. The barn behind is a frame structure with weatherboard exterior and is likely contemporary with the original dwelling (Figures 33 and 34). The location of the primary resource appears to be depicted on the 1943 Scottsville, VA and the 1967 Simeon, VA USGS Topographic maps (see Figures 6 and 7). Figure 33 Primary Structure and Fence Post at Architectural Complex 1; View to the North. 5.23 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS Figure 34 Barn and Primary Structure at Architectural Complex 1; View to the Southeast. 5.3.2 Cemetery The cemetery observed during this assessment was located approximately 380 feet west of Architectural Complex 1. The cemetery contains the graves of members from the Mullins, Cookenour, and Wood families. Five marked graves are present with the likelihood of unmarked burials present as well (Figure 35). The earliest grave, which belongs to Walter Mullins, dates to 1890 with the most recent interment belonging to William Cookenour, who died in 1960. The cemetery is bounded by an early twentieth century iron fence, which dates to around 1910. One of the marked graves is located outside the fence line suggesting that additional unmarked burials may also lay beyond the limits of the fence. The cemetery does not appear on any historical topographic maps. 5.24 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT RESULTS Figure 35 Mullins-Cookenour-Wood Cemetery; View to the Northwest. 5.25 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA PREDICTIVE MODEL 6.0 PREDICTIVE MODEL A predictive model was developed to define areas of high, moderate, low, and no cultural resources potential located within the limits of the overall study area because a solar panel layout has not yet been completed. The following section provides an overview of the environmental and cultural landscape attributes incorporated into the model, which was developed with ArcGIS software. Environmental landscape attributes included topography, soil class and type, wetland class, and distance to viable water sources. These attributes were examined to assist with predicting the potential for both prehistoric and historic cultural resources within the study area (Appendix B). Cultural landscape attributes were primarily utilized in predicting the potential for historic cultural resources within the study area; however, cultural attributes did have some bearing on prehistoric predictive modeling. Cultural landscape attributes included the presence of primary roads and crossroads, historic structures and/or cemeteries, and the presence of previously identified prehistoric and historic cultural resources in the vicinity of the study area. Information on previously recorded archaeological sites in the study area vicinity were examined in an effort to identify patterning in the locations of previously identified prehistoric and historic sites in the area. Current study area conditions were also factored into the overall assessment of site probability. Taking into consideration the numerous environmental and landscape attributes discussed previously, three tiers of probability have been identified for identification of prehistoric and historic cultural resources. In addition, a no survey required category has been applied for those areas with no potential for cultural resources. The three levels of probability for the study area: Low Probability, Moderate Probability, and High Probability. Low probability areas were defined by the presence of at least one of the following attributes/conditions (Table 27). Moderate probability areas were defined utilizing an assessment of the following attributes/conditions (Table 28). High probability areas were defined utilizing an assessment of the following attributes/conditions (Table 29). Table 27 Low Probability Attributes Attribute Definition Slope Greater than 15 percent Soils Poorly drained, severely eroded, or Class V and up soil rating. Soils may be greater than 15 percent for some of these Wetlands Presence of wetlands Disturbance Significant observable ground disturbance 6.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA PREDICTIVE MODEL Table 28 Moderate Probability Attributes Attribute Definition Slope Between 7 and 15 percent Soils Class III -IV soil rating Wetlands Limited presence of wetlands Proximity to Water 750 feet or more from viable water sources Disturbance Moderate to low observable ground disturbance Table 29 High Probability Attributes Attribute Definition Slope Between 0 and 6 percent Soils Class 1-11 soil rating and generally well drained or very well drained Wetlands Absence of wetlands Proximity to Water 0-750 feet from viable water sources Disturbance Little to no observable ground disturbance The above attributes have been applied in the development of a model designed to predict the presence or absence of both prehistoric and historic sites within the study area. In addition to these attributes, the model also included an examination of historic maps, topographic maps, and aerial imagery to identify potential historic sites as well as the application of field observations. This examination paid particular attention to the presence or absence of major roads or crossroads within or adjacent to the study area, railroads within or adjacent to the study area, and/or the documented presence of cemeteries within or adjacent to the study area. Portions of the study area exhibiting such landscape features were identified as retaining a moderate to high probability for historic sites depending on distance to said features. In the absence of any such features, historic site prediction was based solely on the abovementioned attributes. 6.1 SITE -SPECIFIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL PREDICTIVE MODEL The overall study area containing the proposed Woodridge Solar site comprises approximately 2,276.4 acres; no panel plan has yet been developed for the project. The predictive model and cultural resources assessment cover the entirety of the study area but may be amended to focus primarily on the area identified for potential development according to the preliminary panel layout, when said layout is available. Of the 2,276.4-acre study area, approximately 286.7 acres (12.6 percent) are defined as retaining a high potential for cultural resources, approximately 710.2 acres (31 percent) are defined as retaining a moderate potential for cultural resources, and approximately 1,279.5 acres (56 percent) are defined as retaining a low potential for containing cultural resources (Figure 36). The study area consists of rolling topography with some areas of steep slope in the vicinity of Turkey Run. The study area is predominately comprised of rolling pine forest some of which has been recently and historically logged and bulldozed. It appears that the study area has historically been utilized for tree farming, much as it is today. M / I � I I / I f I ♦i ,I IL i. sM FVVA, Na. 36 rArchaeological Predictive Model for the Project CAPN/Igi M3401407 Hexagon Energy Woodridge Solar Site HO�POLdd//O// Repined by JKM on M20-0i-23 TR by TPS an M20-01-29 Nbematle Count,, Virginia IR by BSS on 2W2 01-30 N D 1 500 3,000 © Fee ze otllxllJ (At original document si 1:19,200 •.� 1. p Project Limits = High Probability Area (286.7 Acres) Moderate Probability Area (710.2 Acres) Low Probability Area(1,279.5 Acres) 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 Saaleplane Vignu South FIRS 4502 Feel 2. Pn IYninn pmri reunited by Heh dater Eneryy 3.italru natmotleleeaRtlwl an rrom USDA ARCS SSVRGD Sell Survey,NWI, NHD, and dgilal aavatiar matlel . d W fide VGIN USMAR. (W 4. The a and s e, Aar limimM Watds s Me VS (WOVS), irclJtlYng vretlaMs, Mve rot been fiHtl bcaLN mtl are Aar Bin, mg pdposes mly S. OMoimagdy a -n Maps 6. Mcrosoft protlud ssreen shol(s) repnnaetl wi1M1 permission rrom Microwfl Lo,poratim ® Stantec Dkderner: TFrstlm,ment hasbeen prepared! baser! re nrdmatianpurvired by MM1dsas cial an 1M Notes sedum. Stare has rotvd dMeaccuracyaMtl Tcompktdiessdtheido,matian antlsalt am Mnes,rnsiblebranyertorsmonnissurs wMN maybe h,co,parated herein as a res,la. Stantec assumes no respcnsibJiry br asp suppiretl inekdrmicfAmes,analaMreciprenl acceps NA res,candbilityadveMying 1M accuracyanticdnpleteressoa Metlsaa. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA PREDICTIVE MODEL 6.1.1 renistoric Predictive Modeling Native American occupation of the region began more than 13,000 years ago (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). Early historic maps have depicted Native American settlement along major waterways throughout the region since the arrival of Europeans in the New World in the early seventeenth century. Though no documentation for pre -Contact settlement exists within the study area, Native American occupation throughout the region in which the solar site is located has been documented archaeologically. Native American sites in Virginia have generally been found within 1,000 to 1,500 feet of a significant water source, on moderately well- to well -drained soils on low relief landforms. However, sites may appear in a variety of environmental settings depending on site function and temporal affiliation. Archaic period sites, for instance, have been frequently identified in upland settings; however, other sites are located in riverine settings, and may be present beneath modern waterways (Blanton 1996; Dent 1995). In Virginia's Central Piedmont, Archaic sites appear to be spread nearly equally amidst alluvial landforms (floodplains/low terraces) and upland landforms or bluffs adjacent to rivers (Klein and Klatka 1991). For the purposes of predictive modeling for the study area, it was necessary to examine the study area's topography, soils types, presence or absence of established wetlands, and proximity to water. In addition, previously conducted cultural resources surveys in the vicinity of the study area were examined to determine whether patterning in prehistoric site location had been identified in the region. No prehistoric artifacts were observed during the field visit. 6.1.2 Historic Predictive Modeling Early European settlement in Virginia and the region relied heavily on the production of tobacco. As a result, settlement, which was initially restricted to the Jamestown Island area, began spreading to landscapes suitable for the cultivation of tobacco. Such areas exhibited gently sloping landscapes with well drained soils. Over time, settlement spread into the Piedmont region, where soil erosion due to heavy tobacco cultivation had not yet depleted agricultural soils (Farmer 1993). As time went on, overland transportation routes began to improve, and settlement began to cluster around major roadways and crossroads. For the purposes of predictive modeling for the study area, it was necessary to examine the study area's topography, soil types, presence or absence of established wetlands, and proximity to water. In addition, previously conducted cultural resources surveys in the vicinity of the study area were examined to determine whether known historic sites were recorded in the area. Historic maps, topographic maps, and aerial photographs were also examined to identify historic structures which may have once stood within or adjacent to the study area, major roadways in the vicinity, and/or the presence of cemeteries. Historic map review was conducted during the historic context development for the Woodridge Solar site detailed in Chapter 3. Historic map review served to assist in the development of the predictive model for the identification of historic sites within the study area. Review of historic maps focused on the presence or absence of structures, major roadways, railroads, 6.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA PREDICTIVE MODEL and crossroads, as indicators of potential historic occupation within or adjacent to the study area. Prior to the mid -twentieth century, historic maps provided little to no detail of the study area vicinity. Beginning the late nineteenth century, historic topographic maps depict the Woodridge Solar site primarily as uninhabited land. The 1891 Palmyra, Virginia topographic map depicts Turkey Run and what is today Route 708 (Secretary's Road). Blenheim is shown to the northwest and Woodridge a short distance east of the study area. No evidence of structures is present interior to the study area. By the mid -twentieth century, though, two structures are shown within the study area. The 1943 Scottsville, Virginia topographic map is similar to that from the late nineteenth century. However, this map also shows secondary roads or long driveways interior to the study area. Three residentials structures are also depicted within the study area at this time. By 1967, Only one structure is shown within the study area. 6.1.3 Comparative Predictive Modeling One cultural resources survey has been conducted within the Woodridge Solar site. This survey was conducted in association with improvements to the Dominion Virginia Power, now Dominion Energy Virginia, Transco Delivery point to Dooms Substation 230 kV transmission line. In the immediate vicinity of the study area, this survey resulted in the recordation of one archaeological site. The site represented a prehistoric lithic scatter of indeterminate temporal affiliation. The lack of documented archaeological sites, however, is not necessarily a reflection of a lack of potential, but more likely the result of limited archaeological survey efforts in the study area vicinity. In the wider region, prehistoric and historic sites alike have been identified along the floodplains of the Hardware River and the James River, and along their tributaries. Prehistoric sites, including lithic scatters and camps, have also been identified in the vicinity of secondary waterways. Survey efforts in proximity to the study area are limited to the above referenced study and the recording of quarries in the area by the VDHR. Previously identified archaeological sites, both prehistoric and historic, are located in the general vicinity of the proposed Woodridge Solar site. The single prehistoric site identified by CRI was situated in a wooded setting adjacent to an upland tributary of Turkey Run. The historic resources were primarily representative of a historic scatter and limestone quarries dating from the nineteenth to the twentieth century. 6.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From January 13-16 of 2020, Stantec conducted a cultural resources assessment and work plan for approximately 2,276 acres associated with the proposed Woodridge Solar Site in Albemarle County, Virginia. The study area is located within a planted pine forest on either side of Route 708 (Secretary's Road). The work was conducted on behalf of Hexagon Energy, LLC (Hexagon)., in accordance with the Commonwealth of Virginia DEQ Solar PBR for solar projects (DEQ 2012). 7.1 RESULTS OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT One previously recorded archaeological site is located within the study area. Site 44AB0571, a prehistoric lithic scatter of indeterminate age, has been determined not eligible for listing on the NRHP. Three previously recorded archaeological sites are located within a 1-mile radius of the study area, each dating from the nineteenth through the twentieth centuries. The study area is located entirely within the bounds of architectural resource VDHR #002-5045, the NRHP and VLR-listed Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. Twenty-one previously recorded architectural resources are located within a 1-mile radius of the study area. These 21 additional resources included houses, churches, farms, bridges, a school, and a saw mill site, each of which was nineteenth or early twentieth century in date. In addition to these previously recorded architectural resources, one architectural complex and one cemetery were observed within the study area. Architectural Complex 1, comprised of two structures, and the cemetery both also date from the nineteenth to twentieth century. Architectural Complex 1 appears on early to mid -twentieth century topographic maps; however, the cemetery is not documented on these maps. The archaeological predictive model was prepared for the entire acreage within the Project boundary but may be amended to focus primarily on the area identified for potential development according to the preliminary solar farm layout, when available. Of the 2,276.4-acre study area, approximately 286.7 acres (12.6 percent) are defined as retaining a high potential for cultural resources, approximately 710.2 acres (31 percent) are defined as retaining a moderate potential for cultural resources, and approximately 1,279.5 acres (56 percent) are defined as retaining a low potential for containing cultural resources. The predictive model development took into consideration both environmental factors significant to historic and prehistoric settlement patterns as well as a review of relevant historic contexts, historic maps, and aerial photographs in order to identify the three tiers of probability. This review coupled with an assessment of current conditions within the study area resulted in an assessment of the potential for previously undocumented historic and prehistoric cultural resources to exist within the Project boundary and potential development area for the solar facility. The comparison of historic maps to current available maps and aerial photographs suggests that the project vicinity retains some potential for the discovery of historic archaeological remains associated with these locations and occupations. For prehistoric resources, it is anticipated that sites may be located in proximity to Turkey Run. Large sites would not be expected; however, smaller seasonal or temporary sites may be present. la \\us0265- ppfssOt lshared—projeds\203401407\05_report_de liv\de I ivera ble\repods\cu IWral_resources\rpt_hexagon_woodridge_solar_phia_dfl_202002 13.docx 7.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.2 RECOMMENDED PHASE I SURVEY METHODOLOGY The proposed Woodridge Solar site in Albemarle County falls under the purview of the Virginia DEQ PBR (DEQ 2012). For large acreage projects, a cultural resources assessment may be conducted to provide a means of quickly identifying the potential for historic resources within the larger study area. Following the cultural resources assessment, a Phase I survey would be conducted in compliance with the regulations set forth by the DEQ and the VDHR, and also in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, Executive Order 11593, and relevant sections of 36CFR60 and 36CFR800. Phase I survey would be conducted in reference to state and federal guidelines to ensure that each project meets the criteria specified in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (Federal Register 48:44716- 44742, September 29, 1983) and the VDHR's Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resource Survey in Virginia (VDHR 2017). To meet PBR requirements, the Phase I study must include a compilation of known historic resources within the proposed area of potential effects (APE), or disturbance zone, and within a 0.5-mile radius of the proposed APE boundary. This information must be depicted on a map and be presented in tabular format. In addition, field survey of all architectural resources, including cultural landscapes, 50 years of age or older within the APE and within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE boundary to evaluate the eligibility of any identified resource for listing to the VLR must be completed. Finally, an archaeological survey of the APE must be conducted, and any identified archaeological sites must be evaluated for listing to the VLR. This survey requirement may be waived if the applicant can demonstrate to the DEQ that the project will utilize non -penetrating footings technology and that any necessary grading of the site prior to construction does not have the potential to adversely impact any archaeological resource (DEQ 2012). 7.2.1 Recommendations Pursuant to the requirements of the PBR, Stantec recommends Phase I level archaeological survey within the proposed limits of the solar development area, and according to a proposed panel layout plan when such a plan is developed. Based on the 2,276.4-acre study area utilized for this assessment, Stantec recommends a Phase I cultural resources survey of approximately 592.2 acres of the overall study area pursuant to the predictive model results to include historic architectural survey within a 0.5- mile radius of the project limits. In addition to the traditional Phase I level survey, a formal assessment of potential effects to the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District is recommended. This assessment should include both an assessment of direct effects should significant archaeological sites be identified within the project footprint and an assessment of potential visual effects to the district and contributing resources identified within the 0.5-mile Phase I survey area. Of the 2,276.4-acre study area, approximately 286.7 acres (12.6 percent) are defined as retaining a high potential for cultural resources, approximately 710.2 acres (31 percent) are defined as retaining a moderate potential for cultural resources, and approximately 1,279.5 acres (56 percent) are defined as retaining a low potential for containing cultural resources. The 592.2 acres recommended archaeological survey area encompasses areas of high, moderate, and low probability for the identification of cultural la \\us0265- ppfssOl lshared—projects\203401407105_report_deliv\deliverable\reportsku IWral_resources\rpt_hexagon_woodridge_solar_phia_dfl_202002 13.docx 7.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS resources. A typical survey strategy may include 100 percent survey of the high probability areas (286.7 acres), 25 percent of the moderate probability areas (177.6 acres), and 10 percent of the low probability areas (127.9 acres). Areas retaining no probability for the identification of cultural resources will not be subject to subsurface testing. Pedestrian reconnaissance of the entire project footprint would also be recommended to account for those types of resources (i.e. battlefield resources, earthworks, landscape features) that may not be identified or sufficiently assessed through shovel test survey. The methodology implemented to complete the survey would follow the guidance of the VDHR and include systematic shovel testing (50-foot intervals) of 100 percent of all acres defined as retaining high probability for the identification of cultural resources, systematic shovel testing (50-foot intervals) of 25 percent of the acres defined as retaining a moderate probability for the identification of cultural resources, and a 10 percent sample of the low potential areas (50-foot interval shovel testing). Shovel testing within moderate and low probability areas would be restricted to landforms likely to contain cultural resources. Judgmentally placed shovel tests may also be excavated within the moderate and low probability locations to achieve an appropriate assessment of the model and conditions within these locations. Where prudent and possible, surface reconnaissance will be employed should ground surface visibility be greater than 50 percent and soils freshly turned or plowed. In addition to the archaeological survey, and pursuant to the PBR, an architectural reconnaissance survey would take place within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. This effort would be conducted according to the guidelines of the VDHR and take into account resources 50 years of age or older as of 2020. la \\us0265- ppfssOt lshared—projeds\203401407\05_report_de liv\de I ivera ble\reports\cu IWral_resources\rpt_hexagon_woodridge_solar_phia_dfl_202002 13.docx 7.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA REFERENCES 8.0 REFERENCES Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP) 2000 36 CFR 800: Part 800- Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties. Federal Register, September 2, Washington, D.C. Agee, Helene Barret 1962 Facets of Goochland County's History. Dietz Press, Inc. Richmond, Virginia. Amick, Daniel S. and Phillip J. Carr 1996 Changing Strategies of Lithic Technological Organization. In Archaeology of the Mid -Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 41-56. The University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Barber, Michael B., and George A. Tolley 1984 The Savannah River Broadspear: A View from the Blue Ridge. In Upland Archaeology in the East: Symposium 2, ed. C. R. Geier, M. B. Barber, and G. A. Tolley, pp. 25-43. USDA, Forest Service, Southern Region. Blanton, Dennis B. 1992 Middle Woodland Settlement Systems in Virginia. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 65-96. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archaeological Society of Virginia. The Diez Press, Richmond. 1996 Accounting for Submerged Mid -Holocene Archaeological Sites in the Southeast: A Case from the Chesapeake Bay Estuary, Virginia. In Archaeology of the Mid Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 200-217. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Bourdeau, J. 1981 Replicating Quartz Squibnocket Small Stemmed and Triangular Projectile Points. In Quartz Technology in Prehistoric New England, ed. R. Barber. Institute for Conservation Archaeology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University: Cambridge, Mass. Boyd, C.C., Jr. 1989 Paleoindian Paleoecology and Subsistence in Virginia. In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. M. Wittkofski and T. R. Reinhart, pp. 53-70. Special Publication No. 19 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz, Richmond Brown, James A. 1986 Early Ceramics and Culture: A Review of Interpretations. In Early Woodland Archaeology, ed. K. B. Farnsworth and T. E. Emerson, pp. 598-608. Center for American Archaeology, Kampsville Seminars in Archaeology No. 2, Kampsville, IL. 1989 The Origins of Pottery as an Economic Process. In What's New: A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation, ed. S. E. van der Leeuw and R. Torrence, pp. 203-224. Unwin-Hyman: London, UK. OR CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA REFERENCES Broyles, Bettye J. 1971 The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. Report of Archaeological Investigations No. 3. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey. Chapman, Jefferson, and Andrea Brewer Shea 1981 The Archaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley. In Tennessee AnthropologistVl(1):61-84. Chief Engineer's Office, D.N.V. 1864 Map of Albemarle: Made under the direction of Maj. A.H. Campbell Capt. Engs. In charge of Top. Dept. D.N.V. from surveys and reconnaissances. Library of Congress Geography and Map Division. Coe, Joffrey L. 1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. In Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, N.S. 54(4), Philadelphia. College of William and Mary Department of Geology 2011 Piedmont Province. Available from: htto://web.wm.edu/geology/virginia/provinces/i)iedmont/i)iedmont.htmi. Accessed July 2019. Cooper, Jean L. 2007 A Guide to Historic Charlottesville & Albemarle County, Virginia. Charleston, SC: History Press. Custer, Jay F. 1989 Early and Middle Archaic Cultures of Virginia: Cultural Change and Continuity. In Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 1-60. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond. Dent, Richard J., Jr. 1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New York. Egloff, Keith T. 1991 Development and Impact of Ceramics in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges ed., pp. 243-253. The Dietz Press: Richmond, Virginia. Egloff, Keith T. and Stephen R. Potter 1982 Indian Ceramics from Coastal Plan Virginia. In Archaeology of Eastern North America 10:95-117. Elder, John H., Jr. 1989 Soil Survey of Stafford County, Virginia. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Washington, D.C. Farmer, Charles J. 1993 In the Absence of Towns: Settlement and Country Trade in Southside Virginia, 1730 1800. Roman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc: Lanham, MD. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA REFERENCES Fiedel, S. J. 2001 What Happened in the Early Woodland? In Archaeology of Eastern North America 29:101-142. Fiedel, Stuart, and Gary Haynes 2004 A Premature Burial: Comments on Grayson and Meltzer's'Requiem for Overkill." In Journal of Archaeological Science 31:121-131. Gallivan, Martin D. 2003 James River Chiefdoms: Thee Rise of Social Inequality in the Chesapeake. University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln. Gallivan, M. D., and J. McKnight 2006 Archaeobotanical Assessment of Chesapeake Horticulture: The View from Werowocomoco. Paper Presented at the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Gardner, William M. 1974 The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: Preliminary Report 1971-73 Seasons. Occasional Publication No. 1, Department of Anthropology, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C. 1982 Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An Overview. In Practicing Environmental Archaeology: Methods and Interpretations, edited by Roger W. Moeller, pp. 53-86. American Indian Archaeological Institute Occasional Paper No. 3. 1986 Lost Arrowheads and Broken Pottery. Thunderbird Publications, Manassas, Virginia. 1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (Circa 9200 to 6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark Wittkofski and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 5-51. Dietz Press, Richmond. Geier, Clarence R. 1990 The Early and Middle Archaic Periods; Material Culture and Technology. In Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 81-98. Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 22. The Dietz Press, Richmond. Gleach, Frederic 1985 A Compilation of Radiocarbon Dates with Applicability to Central Virginia. In Quarterly Bulletin, Archeological Society of Virginia 40(4):180-200. Goodyear, A. C. 1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials among Paleoindian Groups of North America. Research Manuscript Series No. 156. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Grayson, Donald K., and David J. Meltzer 2003 A Requiem for North American Overkill. In Journal of Archaeological Science 30:585-593. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA REFERENCES Herrmann, Augustine 1673 Virginia and Maryland as it is planted and inhabited this present year 1670/surveyed and exactly drawne by the only labour & endeavour of Augustin Herrmann bohemiensis; W. Faithome Sculpt. The Geography and Map Division of the Library of Congress, Online Map Collection. Hodges, Mary Ellen N. 1991 The Late Archaic and Early Woodland Periods in Virginia: Interpretation and Explanation within an Eastern Context. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia, ed. T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 221-242. The Dietz Press: Richmond, Virginia. Hodges, Mary Ellen N., and Charles T. Hodges, editors 1994 Paspahegh Archaeology: Data Recovery Investigations of Site 44JC308 at The Governor's Land at Two Rivers, James City County, Virginia. Prepared by James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc. Prepared for Governor's Land Associates, Inc. Hotchkiss, Jedediah 1867 Albemarle County, Virginia. Library of Congress Geography and Map Division. Hranicky, William J. 2003 Projectile Point Typology for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia Academic Press, Alexandria, Virginia. Irwin, Marjorie Felice 1929 The Negro in Charlottesville and Albemarle County, an Explanatory Study. Thesis, University of Virginia. Johnson, Michael F. 2001 Gulf Branch (44AR5): Prehistoric Interaction at the Potomac Fall Line. In Quarterly Bulletin, Archeological Society of Virginia 56(3):77-114. Justice, Noel D. 1995 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Kaplan, Barbara Beigun Ph.D. 1993 Land and Heritage in the Virginia Tidewater: A History of King and Queen County. Richmond, VA: Cadmus Fine Books. Kirchen, Roger 2001 The E. Davis Site: Technological Change at the Archaic -Woodland Transition. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC. Klein, Michael J. 1997 The Transition from Soapstone Bowls to Marcey Creek Ceramics in the Middle Atlantic Region: Vessel Technology, Ethnographic Data, and Regional Exchange. In Archaeology of Eastern North America 25:143-158. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA REFERENCES Klein, Michael J. and Thomas Klatka 1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Demography and Settlement. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synopsis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 139-184. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond. Klein, Mike, and J. Sanderson Stevens 1996 Ceramic Attributes and Accokeek Creek Chronology: An Analysis of Sherds from the Falcon's Landing (18Pr131) and Accotink Meander (44FX1908) Sites. In North American Archaeologist 17 (2):113-142. Kulikoff, Allan 1986 Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake, 1680-1800. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. McAvoy, Joseph M. 1992 Nottaway River Survey, Part L Clovis Settlement Patters: The 30-Year Study of a Late Ice Age Hunting Culture on the Southern Interior Coastal Plain of Virginia. Special Publication No. 28 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond. McAvoy, Joseph M., and Lynn D. McAvoy 1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Research Report Series No. 8. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond. McCary, Ben C. 1957 Indians in Seventeenth Century Virginia. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, Virginia. McLearen, Douglas C. 1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Material Culture in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 89-138. Archeological Society of Virginia Special Publication No. 23. Dietz Press, Richmond. 1992 Virginia's Middle Woodland Period: A Regional Perspective. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 39-64. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond. Manson, Carl 1947 Marcey Creek Site: An Early Manifestation in the Potomac Valley. In American Antiquity 13:223- 227. Moore, John Hammond 1976 Albemarle: Jefferson's County, 1727-1976. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. Moore, Virginia 1969 Scottsville on the James. The Jarman Press, Charlottesville, Virginia. .19 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA REFERENCES Mouer, L. Daniel 1991 a The Formative Transition in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges. Special Publication No. 23. The Dietz Press, Richmond. 1991 b The Formative Transition in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 1-88. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond. Mouer, L. Daniel, Frederic W. Gleach, and Douglas C. McLearen 1986 A Ceramics Temporal Typology in Progress for Central Virginia. In Archaeology in Henrico, Volume 2: Introduction to Phase 2 and Phase 3 Archaeological Investigations of the Henrico County Regional Wastewater System, edited by L.D. Mouer, pp. 119-149. Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center, Richmond. Submitted to Henrico County, Virginia. On file at the VDHR, Richmond. Mouer, L. Daniel, Douglas C. McLearen, R. Taft Kiser, C. P. Egghard, B. J. Binns, and Dane T. Magoon 1992 Jordan's Journey. Virginia Commonwealth Archaeological Research Center, Richmond, Virginia. Mounier and Martin 1994 For Crying Out Loud!: News About Teardrops. In Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 10:125- 140. Munsell Color 1994 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation, New Windsor, NY. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) n.d. Accessed 2019. Pawlett, N. 1977 A Brief History of the Roads of Virginia, 1607-1840. Virginia Highway and Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville. Phelps, David Sutton 1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and Hypotheses. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 1-51. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh. Potter, Stephen R. 1993 Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the Potomac Valley. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville. Ritchie, W. A. 1971 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York State Museum and Science Service, Bulletin 384, Albany. 2-2 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA REFERENCES Roberts, C. and C. M. Bailey 2000 Physiographic Map of Virginia Counties. Modified from Virginia Division of Mineral Resources/U.S. Geological Survey Map of Mineral Producing Localities. Available from: https://training.fws.gov/courses/CSP/CSP3200/resources/documents/Physiographic Map of Virginia Accessed July 2019. Robertson, J.I., Jr. 1982 Civil War Sites in Virginia: A Tour Guide. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville. Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1999 A Southeastern Perspective on Soapstone Vessel Technology in the Northeast. In The Archaeological Northeast, ed. M. A. Levine, K. E. Sassaman, and M. S. Nassaney, pp. 75- 98. Bergin & Garvey: Westport, CT. Slattery, Richard C. 1946 A Prehistoric Indian Site on Selden Island, Montgomery County, Maryland. In Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 36:262-266. Smith, John 1610 Virginia Discovered and Discribed [sic]. Library of Congress Geography and Map Division. Smith, Marvin T. and Julie Barnes Smith 1989 Engraved Shell Masks in North America. In Southeastern Archaeology 8(1):9-18. Stephenson, Robert L. 1963 The Accokeek Creek Site: A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 20, Ann Arbor. Stewart, Brynn, Sandra DeChard, and Dane Magoon 2012 A Phase/ Cultural Resources Survey of Approximately 30.58 Miles of the Dominion Virginia Power Transco Road to Dooms 230 kV Transmission Line, Fluvanna, Albemarle, and Augusta County, Virginia. Stewart, T. Dale 1989 Archeological Exploration of Patawomeke: The Indian Town Site (44ST2) Ancestral to the One (44Stl) Visited in 1608 by Captain John Smith. In Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology Number 36. Stewart, R. Michael 1995 The Status of Woodland Prehistory in the Middle Atlantic Region. In Archaeology of Eastern North America 23:177-206. 1998 Unraveling the Mystery of Zoned Decorated Pottery: Implications for Middle Woodland Society. Dietz Press, Richmond. Tice, D. 1987 A History of Albemarle's Forests. Magazine of Albemarle County History 45:19-60. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA REFERENCES United States Department of the Interior (USDI) 1981 Department of the Interior's Regulations, 36 CFR Part 60: National Register of Historic Places. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1983 Department of the Interior, Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1991 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. In National Register Bulletin 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, Interagency Resources Division, Washington D.C. United States Federal Slave Census 1850 and 1860. United States Non -Population Census (Industry) 1850, and 1860. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1967 Scottsville, Virginia 7.5 Minute Quadrangle. 1976 Simeon, Virginia 7.5 Minute Quadrangle. 1943 Scottsville, Virginia 15 Minute Quadrangle. 1891 Palmyra, Virginia 30 Minute Quadrangle. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) n.d. Physiographic Provinces of Virginia. Available from: htti)://www.deg.state. va.us/Programs/Water/WaterSuoolvWaterQuantity/Grou ndwaterProtectionSt eeringCommittee/Physiog raphicProvi ncesofVirg in ia. aspx Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) 2017 Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia. VDHR, Richmond. 2019 Archaeological and Architectural Site Files. Ward, H. Trawick and R.P. Stephen Davis Jr. 1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Wallenstein, P. 1991 Case of the Laborer from Louisa: Three Central Virginians and the Origins of the Virginia Highway System. In Magazine of Albemarle County History49:19-48. Waselkov, Gregory A. 1982 Shellfish Gathering and Shell Midden Archaeology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Willey, Gordon R. and Phillip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Wyllie, J.C. 1961 Daniel Boone's Adventures in Charlottesville 1781: Some Incidents Connected with Tarleton's Raid. Magazine of Albemarle County History 19:5-18. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA REFERENCES Woods, Reverend Edgar 1901 Albemarle Countyin Virginia. Bowie, MD: Heritage Books, Inc., 1989. Yarnell, Richard A. 1976 Early Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America. In Cultural Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by Charles E. Cleland, Academic Press, New York. [E CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA APPENDICES CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Appendix A Appendix A BASE MAPPING FOR FIELD ASSESSMENT A.1 E J,SA 13 14 23 16 rVva, Na. Appendix A rA/e Base Mapping for Field Assessment CA9&1P, /6Cl M3401407 Hexagon Energy Woodridge Solar Site HO�POLdd//O// Prepared! by JKM on 2020.02-11 TR by MGS an 2020-02-12 Nbematle County, Virginia IR by Iii on 20 C,02-12 N © 0 1.500 3.11)D0 Feet (Al original document srze Dt iix1T) 119,200 •.Ri 1..p Project Limits - Approximate Architectural Complex Location - Approximate Cemetery Location o Reference Point dam, 1. Coartlirad. System: NAD 1983 SIaloPlane Virgins Sou,b FIpS 4M2 Fee, 2. Rgect loin, Prevented] by Healm Imeagy Moi 3. Omagay a "Rog Maps 4. Microsoft pmtluci ssrcen doods) mounted with permissim from Microwfl Coronation ® Stantec 0%dalmer: Tlestlm�ment M1as beenpreps Nbasetlmnlama vnprovitletl by MM1rs as cialnlMNolen sectun.Stan,ec M1as ro,vaif tlMe accuracyaNpr compl+teie55IXIHsImo�mafsn antl sM1SA m,Mrespcnsibk br anyertors oromissurswMm�may be nco�poraletl M1aein asaresort S,antecassumesnomsp sibJiyMrdId imprietl in electronic Monet, anal tire moment scoop, MR reSlarroibility for verifying the accuracy and cdnpleteress of Me dims. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Appendix B Appendix B SUPPORTING DATA - PREDICTIVE MODEL B.1 Fyuie Na. Appendix B rA/e Predictive Model Data CA2LAP1q-1 M3401407 Hexagon Energy Woodridge Solar Site "lJoVL.I. Neparel by JKM on 2020-02-11 TR by MGS on 2020-02-12 Nbematle Lounry, Virgins IR by BSS on 2020-02-12 N © 0 3s00 3,000 Feet (N wigilal clomonent size of TTxt]) 1:19.2 1:i9,200 •�� Project Limits Q Soils - Approximate Wetlands - Approximate Waters 0 Low Probability Soils ® Moderate Probability Soils ® High Probability Soils 7 - 15% Slope - >15% Slope _ 750-Foot Perennial Stream Buffer Approximate Intermittent Streams — Approximate Perennial Streams 5-Foot Contours 1. CnjeC Rlesystem:d by W83Sd, erne Vignu South Firs 4502 Fre, 2. Rgett Id USDA NRtl by SURDHodon Energy M n V trdn IBOA NRLS SSORGO Sell Survey, NWI, NAND, and zbpes and ccnlmrs tlerivetl Man a d, tiDAR. 4. Thel andM An lariung Walssof sMe 115(WOIIS),ircAutlYng vretlaMz,Mm not been fiHtl Yvatd and are br Bin Ma puposes mly S. OMoimagay. Birg Maps 6. McrosuX pmtluci ssrcen shol(s) repnnRtl wi1M1 pamissim from Microwfl Loeporalim ® Stantec 01 do, EAdalmer: Ties du -limed has been peeped! basetl on nlamatim pmAded by MM1rs as cxal n Me Notes sadden.Stan,ec has ro,VaiSad Me accuracy added uenplateness d Ois lMmmaun and shol m, be responsible for drhe rs momissurs wNdb may be hmaUpanded herein as a nsed,S,an,ec assumes no respcnsibJiry Mr dap supp§etl in decnronic Mond, a. AMredpleN scceps Nl res,nsibilily In Verifying AM accuracy and onnhideness of Me Mod. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Appendix C Appendix C KEY PERSONNELL RESUMES C.1 Aimee Leithoff MA RPA Principal Investigator ® Stantec Aimee is an Archaeologist and one of Stantec's Principal Investigators. She has over 19 years of experience in cultural resources management. She has experience in prehistoric and historical archaeology and she meets the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines for a professional archaeologist. Aimee is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) since 2001. Aimee has served as project manager and principal investigator for 10 years on numerous transportation, water, telecommunication and energy -related projects. She manages in-house technical staff, supervises technical document preparation, and provides quality control and peer review for cultural resources studies. Her expertise includes archaeological identification, evaluation, and data recovery projects in compliance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations. She has extensive experience developing implementation programs in compliance with state and federal regulations, including the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) compliance projects. Aimee has experience managing curatorial processes, as well as experience conducting outreach, and public involvement for cultural resources. Aimee also has experience in NAGRPA consultation, GIS, and database management. EDUCATION Dominion Virginia Power -Archaeological Survey M.A., Anthropology, Wichita State University, and Evaluation, Proposed Dominion Virginia Power Wichita, Kansas, 2001 Northeast Substation Expansion, Henrico County, B.S., Anthropology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, 1999 CERTIFICATIONS & TRAINING OSHA- 10HR Certification, National, US, 2014 REGISTRATIONS Registered Professional Archaeologist #12404, Association of Professional Archaeologists MEMBERSHIPS Member, Plains Anthropological Society Member, Society for American Archaeology PROJECT EXPERIENCE Transmission & Distribution, Distribution Dominion Virginia Power - Cultural Resources Support for Transmission Lines, Multiple sites, Virginia As part of an annual services contract, Aimee provides Phase I Archaeological and Cultural Resources Surveys and Phase11 Evaluationsfor multiple miles of transmission lines throughout the Commonwealth. Virginia Aimee assisted with the completion of a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of a proposed substation expansion in Henrico County. Additional intensive testing was also completed as part of the Phase I survey effort. Work included archaeological survey for the substation expansion as well as artifact analysis andfinal reporting. Responsibilities included day to day coordination and management offield staff, budget and project management, interpretation of results and reporting. Dominion Virginia Power -Cultural Resources Survey and Support for the 20-mile Suffolk to Thrasher 230 kV Transmission Line Project', Cities of Suffolk and Chesapeake, Virginia Aimee assisted with a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of a proposed Dominion Power 23okV utility line in the City of Suffolk and City of Chesapeake, Virginia. The proposed route of the Suffolk -Thrasher 23o kV line, with 155 tower structures, covers a distance of approximately zo miles. Work included archaeological and architectural survey for the APE defined by the projectfor the entire - 60 mile corridor. Responsibilities included day to day coordination and management offield staff, budget and project management, interpretation of results and reporting. ' denotes projects completed with other firms Design with community in mind Aimee Leithoff MA RPA Principal Investigator Dominion Virginia Power - Cultural Resources Survey and Support for the 60-mile Carson to Suffolk 500 kV Transmission Line Project*, Dinwiddie, Prince George, Southampton, Sussex, Isle of Wight Counties, City of Suffolk, Virginia Aimee assisted with the completion of a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of a proposed Dominion Power Soo kV transmission line in Dinwiddie, Prince George, Sussex, Southampton and Isle of Wight Counties and the City of Suffolk, Virginia. The proposed route of the Carson -Suffolk Soo kV transmission line, with 308 tower structures, covers a distance of approximately 6o3 miles. Work included archaeological and architectural survey for the APE defined by the projectfor the entire - 6o mile corridor. Responsibilities included day to day coordination and management offield staff, budget and project management, interpretation of results and reporting. Roadways Archaeological Survey for the Proposed ND 17 Grade Raise Borrow Pits, Pierce County, North Dakota Aimee provided Class III Cultural Resources Survey of approximately 74 acresfor the proposed borrow pits. Aimee was Principal Investigator and work was conducted under the ND Stantec zm6 Cultural Resources Permit. Aimee conducted the background research, thefieldwork and wrote the report. Archaeological Survey for Proposed Improvements to 52nd Street NW, Williams County, North Dakota Aimeeprovided Class III Cultural Resources Survey of approximately 53 acres for the proposed road improvements. Aimee was Principal Investigator and work was conducted under the ND Stantec 2015 Cultural Resources Permit. Aimee conducted the background research, the fieldwork and wrote the report. Regional / Suburban Planning Archaeological Survey`, Dawes County, Nebraska Aimee provided archaeological survey for approximately 16.71 acres associated with a proposed Chadron State College Rangeland Center. As Principal Investigator, Aimee conducted background research, field work, and authored the report. ' denotes projects completed with other firms Class III Archaeological Survey', Lawrence County, South Dakota Aimeeprovidedarchaeologica(survey for approximately 26.4 acres associated with aproposed Powder House Pass water treatmentplant, water main line, and water treatment plant and booster station. As Principal Investigator, Aimee conducted background research, field work, and authored the report. Class III Archaeological Survey', Lawrence County, South Dakota Aimee provided archaeological survey for approximately 43.74 acres associated with a proposed Powder House Pass Utility Corridors and Community Center. As Principal Investigator, Aimee conducted background research, field work, and authored the report. Archaeological Survey and Monitoring`, Lawrence County, South Dakota Aimee provided archaeological survey and archaeological monitoring for a historic domestic site associated with a proposed First Gold Parking Lot Expansion within the Deadwood National Historic Landmark. As Principal Investigator, Aimee conducted background research, field work and monitoring, and authored the report. Archaeology Archaeological Pedestrian Survey', Kirwin and Webster Counties, Kansas Aimee provided archaeological survey of z34.8 acres of open ditch laterals within the Kirwin Webster Irrigation Districts, Kirwin and Webster Units, Salomon Division Pick -Sloan Missouri River Basin Project, Bureau of Reclamation. As Principal Investigator, Aimee conducted background research, field work, and authored the report. Archaeological Pedestrian Survey', Jewel and Republic Counties, Kansas Aimee provided archaeological survey of open ditch laterals within the Kansas Bostwick Irrigation Districts, Courtland Unit, Bostwick Division Pick -Sloan Missouri River Basin Project, Bureau of Reclamation. As Principal Investigator, Aimee conducted background research, field work, and authored the report. Brynn Stewart, MA Program Manager/Senior Principal Investigator ® Stantec Brynn is the Program Manager/Senior Principal Investigator for Cultural Resources in Stantec's Williamsburg, Virginia, office. She has over 14 years of experience in cultural resources management. Brynn meets the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines for a professional archaeologist. She has served as a Principal Investigator and Project Archaeologist on numerous transportation and energy -related projects as well as private development projects. Brynn manages in-house technical staff, supervises technical document preparation, and provides quality control and peer review for cultural resources studies. Her expertise includes all phases of cultural resource management (archaeological assessments and Phase I, II, and III excavations) in compliance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations. Brynn's experience includes managerial tasks associated with all aspects of cultural resource management projects such as consultation with and representation of clients before state and national review agencies, writing and editing technical reports, preparing and managing project budgets, and developing and implementing archaeological research designs. Brynn also has experience in the processing and analysis of artifact collections with special interest in Colonial -era ceramics and lithic analysis and the development and production of interpretive materials including pamphlets and exhibits. EDUCATION Master of Arts, Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2009 Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, Washington College, Chestertown, Maryland, 2004 CERTIFICATIONS & TRAINING OSHA Excavation Safety: Satisfies 29 CFR 1926.650 OSHA Confined Space Safety: Satisfies 29 CFR 1910.246, 29 CFR 1926.1001, 29 CFR 1915.1001 PROJECT EXPERIENCE Ore Bank Undergrounding Project, Rockingham County, Virginia Brynn served as Principal Investigator, developing a proposed scope of work and budget prior to the awarding of the pmject. Brynn directed pre -fieldwork planning and managed field personnel. She was responsible for coordinating with the Civil War Trust and will author the technical report upon completion of on -going investigations. ' denotes projects completed with other Firms Abberly at South Campus Development, Stafford County, Virginia (Principal Investigator) Brynn served as Principal Investigator, developing a proposed scope of work and budget prior to the awarding of the project. She directed pre -fieldwork planning, managed field personnel, and participated in Phase 11 evaluation of Site 44STI 141. Brynn synthesized data collected during evaluation and served as the lead author of the resulting technical report. Data Recovery of Sites 44PW1305 and 44PW1306 for the Eagles Pointe Landbay A Section 2 Development Project, Prince William County, Virginia Brynn is serving as Principal Investigator for this on -going project. She developed the scope of work and budget prior to the awarding of the project. Brynn coordinated with the client and the County Archaeologist on the Data Recovery Plan she developed. She has managed field personnel and coordinated with the VDHR to procure both an Anticipatory Permit and a Burial Permit for the excavation of a single burial identified within Site 44PW1306. Brynn coordinated the placement of public notice as part of the Burial Permit and gave a presentation concerning the burial feature to the Prince William County Historical Commission, which served as a public meeting as a result of responses received for the said public notice. Brynn is currently coordinating the reburial of the recovered remains with a local cemetery and will author the resulting technical report. Brynn Stewart, MA Program Manager/Senior Principal Investigator Data Recovery of Site 44JC0662, James City County, Virginia Brynn served as Principal Investigator, directing pre -fieldwork planning and overseeing the field effort. Brynn participated in feature excavation. She coordinated the field effort with the client as well as site inspectors and was responsible for coordinating with local Native American tribal representatives with an interest in the project. Brynn participated in shovel testing and monitoring activities, synthesized the data collected during the project, and served as lead author on the resulting technical report. Poplar Grove National Cemetery Archaeological Investigations and Monitoring, Dinwiddie County, Virginia Brynn served as Principal Investigator, coordinating with the NPS and field staff. The NPS conducted rehabilitation at the cemetery, including the replacement of 5,700 headstones, rehabilitation of the Superintendent's lodge, restoration of site furniture and signs, replacement of the Flagpole and site utilities, preservation of the cemetery wall, and rehabilitation of the landscape. Brynn participated in shovel testing and monitoring activities, synthesized the data collected during the project, and served as lead author on the resulting technical report. Berkmar Data Recovery, Charlottesville, Virginia Brynn served as Principal Investigator, assisting in the development of a scope of work and budget prior to the awarding of the project. Brynn directed pre -fieldwork planning and managed field personnel. She was responsible for coordinating with client representatives, conducting excavations, compiling and interpreting fieldwork results, on- going lithic analysis, and is in the process of co-authoring the resulting technical report. Trowbridge-Pantego Transmission Line Project, Washington and Beaufort Counties, North Carolina Brynn served as Principal Investigator, coordinating with Project Managers and field personnel. Brynn directed pre - fieldwork planning and was responsible for compiling and interpreting fieldwork results. She is currently in the process of co-authored the resulting technical report. ' denotes projects completed with other firms ® Stantec Fredericksburg Courthouse Project, City of Fredericksburg, Virginia Brynn served as Principal Investigator, directing pre -fieldwork planning and managing field personnel during Phase I, Phase 11, and Phase III investigations of eighteenth - century through nineteenth-century deposits. She also participated in fieldwork, synthesized data collected during all three phases of work, and served as the lead author of the resulting technical report. She helped develop and produce a public exhibit of artifacts on display in the new Courthouse. Dominion Virginia Power Splice Pit within the Colonial National Historic Park, James City County, Virginia Brynn served as Principal Investigator, leading the field effort and interpreting data post -field effort. She also authored the resulting technical report. Mosby Substation (Laydown Yard and Storm Water Management Basin Area) Project, Loudoun County, Virginia Brynn served as Principal Investigator, managing the field effort and interpreting data post -field effort. She also authored the resulting technical report. Goose Creek to Loudoun 500kV Transmission Line Improvement Project, Loudoun County, Virginia Brynn served as Principal Investigator, developing a proposed scope of work and budget prior to the awarding of the project. Brynn directed pre -fieldwork planning and managed field personnel. She was responsible for coordinating with client representatives, compiling fieldwork results, interpreting sites, entering site data into V-CRIS, and co-authoring the resulting technical report. Warren County Power Station Proposed Auxiliary Parking Lot, Warren County, Virginia Brynn served as Principal Investigator, developing a proposed scope of work and budget prior to the awarding of the project. Brynn directed pre -fieldwork planning and managed field personnel. She was responsible for compiling fieldwork results and authoring the resulting technical report. r Sibgg A 00040 i 04 ■� T I x;' HEXAGON i7 Photo View Point Woodridge Solar PropertyENERGY Visualization is for discussion purposes only. Final design is subject to change pending public, engineering, and regulatory review. m VP1 Existing Conditions VP1 Proposed Conditions Ski - i �.i� �i Fit '- \ lr _ •. _- 1r i.n � A r� �� _ �•� M{I 'fib � _ _ .. . :Tl 10,3 Im OF-* It �Fl VPJ Existing Conditions VPJ Existing Conditions k JAM � " VP2 Existing Conditions \ VP2 Proposed Conditions x _ �t�r� r v/ F A'•%vvt t r i to • • , (�C / \ � _ Woodridge SOLAR PV PROJECT -Mp�� f _,.. 4 4126, Ap- - Date: 3/3/2022 Time: 2:42 pm Direction: Southeast Aim IW\ VP2 5 Year Planting Aim O:LAA HE)(AGON ENERGY Aerial Imagery Source: Google Maps LIDAR Data Source: USGS Contours Derived from LIDAR data Visualization is for discussion purposes only. Final design is subject to change pending public, engineering, and regulatory review. .1947-W. i1 VP2 Existing Conditions VP2 Mature Height _ Y y� ,•; VP3 Existing Conditions e c • r � '..� d -Di 14t ��� 1r.. � _ � I r J v f . �qp pp ''y�II�' jCI I a. + i r. 71. r :,1'si11?�1 ay. 7 AW Am ✓'I 1 Objects displayed in yellow represent project Infrastructure and ® Solar Arrays vegetation that are obscured by foreground vegetation. Project Infrastructure and Vegetation Woodridge SOLAR PV PROJECT Time: 9:30 am Direction: South `'� ��� ,. ♦ i' � ,f AliT'rd' `J �.: y 1 '�,►Mj11C1� I r -r� MMt I I p K �['�fy 'i'n,�T yy^t`Y`yYL Aj'. s. is w�' i>�i.r' r t s �'... e �, - ,� _ Y r -" � •. y,. AC' i .b S6'�'�;�de•r<Fe� {. b�'sipyP iW u - � / L ;_i t } r f 'i!!..". <<„7,Fv 'ti.. / s:.'.. r`.+.• f �'.ti'>7a.` �Ai y,,�'f J��^y ti7�.'yi!? Oil y,W #'rA' v 1 '` l�'.afr �` er" 4 ~ ,.�; f r k r r � � i �.'w•y x' " � � / Fdp to }Y,.y ' .e[ "t/ .tr //^r. 3. `Fi :c4 � � d .S s � � d i � ii; s' j4 Yt i r`�,fW ��',l fi < ri h} •tr! f r :�.�r I HE AGON t, s - ENERGY Aerial Imagery Source: Google Maps LIDAR Data Source: USGS Contours Derived from LIDAR data Visualization is for discussion purposes only. Final design is subject to change pending public, engineering, and regulatory review. .+I 41 W Woodridge SOLAR PV PROJECT Time: 9:30 am Direction: South HE (AGON ENERGY Aerial Imagery Source: Goggle Maps LIDAR Data Source: USGS Contours Derived from LIDAR data Visualization is for discussion purposes only. Final design is subject to change pending public, engineering, and regulatory review. V Woodridge SOLAR PV PROJECT Time: 9:30 am Direction: South HE (AGON ENERGY Aerial Imagery Source: Google Maps LIDAR Data Source: USGS Contours Derived from LIDAR data Visualization is for discussion purposes only. Final design is subject to change pending public, engineering, and regulatory review. Woodridge SOLAR PV PROJECT i Time: 9:30 am • V T Direction: South g� f '4� � � 1•lm�J! HE (AGON ENERGY Aerial Imagery Source: Google Maps LIDAR Data Source: USGS Contours Derived from LIDAR data Visualization is for discussion purposes only. Final design is subject to change pending public, engineering, and regulatory review. TYPICAL VIEW FROM SECRETARYS ROAD 5 Year Planting TYPICAL VIEW FROM SECRETARYS ROAD Mature Height 4 _ * �A f V kwA i m : ' r1r J op. �-4 'A Prepared By: sre�s�� TIMMONS GROUP ENGINEERING I DESIGN I TECHNOLOGY Woodridge Solar, LLC Decommissioning Plan Albemarle County, VA Date: 9/19/2022 This cost estimate is based on high-level permitting Site Plans and drawings and is typical for a project of this scope and type. Final design drawings will be prepared prior to construction and this plan will be updated accordingly. Prepared For: HE)(AGON ENERGY HF)(AGON ENERGY Woodridge Solar Decommissioning Plan Woodridge Solar Decommissioning Plan CLIENT NAME Woodridge Solar, I.I.C. PROJECT NAME Woodridge Solar LOCATION Albemarle County, Virginia PROJECT Solar Electric Generating Facility Rev. Date Description Prepared Checked Approved 0 4/22/2022 Released for Client Use NBF JD DJ 1 9/12/2022 Revised per County Comments RT LW RT TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION.ONIEVED THROUGH OGRE. REV 1 21 Page HE)(AGON ENERGY Woodridge Solar Decommissioning Plan Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................4 2 PROJECT COMPONENTS..............................................................................................4 3 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE........................................................................................5 4 DECOMMISSIONING............................................................................................................5 5 MATERIALS, RECYCLING, AND DISPOSAL.....................................................................6 6 SITE RESTORATION.......................................................................................................6 7 DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE..........................................................................6 7.1 OPINION OF PROBABLE DECOMMISSIONING COST..............................................................6 7.2 OPINION OF PROBABLE SALVAGE VALUE COST..................................................................8 7.3 NET DECOMMISSIONING COST................................................................................................9 7.4 DECOMMISSIONING ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................................10 8 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE.............................................................................................12 TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION PCXIEVSD TN0.000N OURS. REV 1 31 Page HF)(AGON ENERGY Introduction Woodridge Solar Decommissioning Plan Woodridge Solar (the" Project") is a solar electric generation facility ("Facility') up to 138 MWac proposed by Woodridge Solar, LLC the ("Project Owner"). The Project will be located in Albemarle County, Virginia. The project area will span approximately 650 acres and will connect to the existing 115kV transmission line owned by Dominion that crosses the property. This Decommissioning and Restoration Plan ("Plan") has been prepared to address the requirements of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The Project will also comply with any applicable municipal, state and federal regulations. The Plan assumes decommissioning and restoration will occur at the end of the Project's expected useful life of thirty-five (35) years. Pending landowner consent through lease agreement, the project life may be extended beyond its current 35-year lifespan. An overview of all activities related to the removal of the Project's equipment and panels, appurtenant structures, and for restoration of the site to its previous condition (as much as reasonably practicable) can be found in the Plan. Within 12 months of initiating the decommissioning, the Project Owner will safely have the relevant components from the land removed and will then restore the site as described below. This plan lays out the procedures for restoring the site to its near -original condition, suitable for whatever land use is desired by the relevant landowner at the end of the Facility's operational life. The Plan describes procedures for the removal of Facility components. The components of the Facility are described in detail in the project Exhibit and the preliminary layout is presented in Exhibit to the SUP application ("Conceptual Plan"). As shown in the following analysis, the anticipated salvage value of the project significantly exceeds the anticipated decommissioning costs. However, as a condition of the Special Use permit, Woodridge Solar will post a surety bond or similar financial instrument before construction equivalent to the estimated decommissioning costs without taking salvage value into account. This surety bond or similar instrument is to be reviewed with the county and updated to reflect recent decommissioning estimates every five (5) years. 2 Project Components The Conceptual Plan provides detailed information regarding the anticipated location and description of the Facility components. The Facility generally consists of the equipment and infrastructure listed below: Steel Piers and Racking; • PV Panels; • Inverters; • Electrical Collection Lines; Access Roads; • Fencing, Gating, and Safety Features; • Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Building (TBD); • Weather Stations. Fencing, Gating, and Safety Features; and TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION. HIEVED THROUGH OGRE. REV 1 41 Page H F )(AGO N Woodridge Solar ENERGY Decommissioning Plan • Project Collection Substation. 3 Regulatory Compliance Prior to the commencement of decommissioning, the Owner will perform the appropriate due diligence requirements and obtain the necessary Albemarle County, state, and federal approvals to complete decommissioning activities. To mitigate any environmental impact from decommissioning, the Owner will assess the necessary permits and approvals in the future regulatory environment to maintain regulatory compliance. Anticipated types of evaluations may include the following: IT Review of on -site jurisdictional status and potential impacts to wetlands and waterbodies to comply with the Clean Water Act; • Consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate compliance with the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and any other relevant regulations at the time of decommissioning; • Consultation with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality for compliance with any pertinent state regulatory requirements; • Completion of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in support of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) protection; IT Development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); IT Albemarle County building, road, discharge, or erosion control permits (as necessary); and IT Special state or local hauling permits (as necessary). 4 Decommission The Project will be decommissioned at the end of its useful life. The Project is presumed to be at the end of its useful life if the facility generates no electricity for a continuous period of 24 months. At least 60 days prior to the commencement of decommissioning activities, the Owner will notify the appropriate Albemarle County officials. The following general decommissioning activities will occur: Decommissioning Sequence a. Obtain required site permits from Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) b. Disconnect all utility grid power c. Move all disconnects to the off position d. Disconnect all above ground wirings, cables, and electrical connections e. Remove all PV Modules f. Remove Inverters, mounting equipment, and posts g. Remove all electrical switchgear, transformers, and their foundations h. Remove DAS equipment, feeders, and conduit i. Remove all above ground mounting equipment components and posts j. Excavate and remove Underground feeders and conduit TIMMONS GROUP REV 1 51 Page YOUR VISION PCXIEVSD TN0.000N OURS. HF)(AGON ENERGY Woodridge Solar Decommissioning Plan k. Remove all MV feeders and utility poles I. Removal of Collector Substation (unless Dominion requires that the Collector Substation remain in place and acquires or already has ownership of the property on which the station sits) m. Removal of weather station n. Remove access road o. Remove all fencing p. Fill/Grade/De-compact and Amend Soil, and Seed as needed Some components may be left in place under certain circumstances. Electrical lines that will not impact future use of the Project Area (at least 3 feet below grade) may be left in place per renewable industry practices. Steel piles, where full removal is unattainable, may be cut and left in place at a depth of 3 feet or greater below the ground surface. Additionally, landowners may desire that private access roads remain in place for their use. The Owner will obtain a written request from the landowner for a road or structure (such as the O&M building) to remain in place. Specific means and methods for the removal of the access roads will be determined at the time of decommissioning, with the goal of stabilizing and re -vegetating the area of the access road limits. The general sequence includes removal of gravel, de -compaction of sub -soil, add or amend topsoil as needed, seed and maintain to achieve stabilization. 5 Materials, Recycling, and Disposal Many components of the Facility, such as racking, wiring, piles, and panels, retain value over time. Panels, while slightly less efficient —having lost about 0.5% efficiency per year, or 17.5% total efficiency —may be reused elsewhere, or components may be broken down and recycled. Recycling of solar panels and equipment is rapidly evolving and can be handled through a combination of sources such as certain manufacturers, PV Cycle (an international waste program founded by and for the PV industry), or waste management companies. More than 90 percent of the semiconductor material and glass can be reused in new modules and products. Other waste materials that hold no value will be recycled or disposed of via a licensed solid waste disposal facility. 6 Site Restoration Following the completion of decommissioning activities, it is anticipated that the site will primarily be converted back to the pre -construction land uses. The land will be graded as necessary, though minimal grading is expected to be required, and decompacted to allow for productive agricultural use. Decommissioning of the Facility, including the removal of materials followed by site restoration, should be completed in approximately 12 months. 7 Decommissioninq Cost Estimate 7.1 OPINION OF PROBABLE DECOMMISSIONING COST Detailed Project Description: The Project is a single -axis tracking solar electric generating facility, consisting of 27 modules per string, that will be in Albemarle County, VA. Coordinate: 37.8870N, TIMMONS GROUP REV 1 61 Page YOUR VISION PCXIEVSD TN0.000N OURS. HE)(AGON ENERGY Woodridge Solar Decommissioning Plan TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION. HIEVED THROUGH OGRE. REV 1 71 Page HE)(AGON ENERGY Table 7-1: Estimated Decommissioning Cost: Woodridge Solar Decommissioning Plan ModulePV # Solar Panels 360W 517,776 EA $5 $2,588,880 Disassembly, Haul off -site SUBTOTAL $2,588,880 FoundationsQUANTITY # Panel Support Steel Piles 67,804 EA $10 $678,040 Disassembly, Haul off -site # Panel Racks 6,164 EA $50 $308,200 Disassembly, Haul off -site SUBTOTAL $986,240 EquipmentElectrical Inverter, 3.43 MW QUANTITY 45 EA $1,000 $45,000 Disassembly, Haul off -site MV Transformers, 3,430 kVA 45 EA $3,000 $135,000 Disassembly, Haul off -site Tracker Motor 250 EA $15 $3,750 Disassembly, Haul off -site SUBTOTAL Electrical Wires Removal MV Conductor (10% removal) QUANTITY 145,478 UNITS FT Unit Cost $20 $183,750 Total $290,957 Comment Removal, Excavation DC/LC Conductor 231,036 FT $2 $462,072 Removal, Non -Excavation SUBTOTAL $753,029 Collector Substation Removal Circuit Breakers 34.5 kV QUANTITY 4 UNITS EA Unit Cost $7,500 Total $30,000 Comment Disassembly, Haul off -site HV Circuit Breakers 115 kV 1 EA $10,000 $10,000 Disassembly, Haul off -site Substation Steel 1 LOT $200,000 $200,000 Disassembly, Haul off -site Foundation/Fence 1 LOT $75,000 $75,000 Disassembly, Haul off -site Main Power Transformers 115 - 34.5 kV 90/120/150 1 EA $45,000 $45,000 Disassembly, Haul off -site Substation Control House 1 EA $15,000 $15,000 Disassembly, Haul off -site Capacitor Bank (Size TBD) 1 EA $40,000 $40,000 Disassembly, Haul off -site SUBTOTAL $415,000 Fencelland, Removal/Restoration Fence Perimeter QUANTITY 122,030 UNITS FT Unit Cost $1 Total $122,030 Comment Disassembly, Haul off -site Civil Site Remediation (disturbed area) 450 Acre $2,000 $900,000 Disassembly, Haul off -site Storm Water Management Ponds 161 EA $3,000 $483,000 Restoration Mobilization, Engineering & Permitting $175,000 Budgeted SUBTOTAL $1,680,030 Summary of Estimate PV Module Removal $2,588,880 Foundations Structural Removal $986,240 Electrical Equipment Removal $183,750 Electrical Wires Removal $753,029 Collector Substation Removal $415,000 TIMMONS GROUP REV 1 81 Page YOUR VISION P<NIEVEL TN0.000N OURS. HE)(AGON ENERGY Fence/land, Removal/Restoration $1,680,030 ESTIMATED GRAND TOTAL $6,606,929 Data Sources: Woodridge Solar Decommissioning Plan 1. Material List and Quantities: Based on schematic design. 2. Unit Price Values: Based on R.S. Means and typical quantities for various components. 7.2 OPINION OF PROBABLE SALVAGE VALUE COST There should be opportunity to reclaim metal scrap value from electrical equipment. Yard equipment such as bus work, circuit breakers, and power transformers contain a significant amount of conductive material such as copper and aluminum. Dead-end and other steel structures contain a significant amount of steel. Rubble from the foundation demolition and all other materials would be sent to landfill at cost. The scrap value of the substation is presented in Table 7-2. Timmons Group considers that there is a resale market for substation transformers. Therefore, the transformer could be sold as operational second-hand equipment instead of being scrapped. This scenario has been considered. Table 7-2 Estimated Salvage Value: Estimated Estimated Estimated PV Module (At: $.33/W before Removal and Hauling) QUANTITY UNITS New Cost/Unit New Total Cost 10%Salvage Value of New # Solar Panels Cost Cos �, �� net • E Foundations Structural (at:$ .20/11-13 after Removal and Hauling) QUANTITY UNITS Estimated Weight LB. Estimated Salvage Value Estimated Salvage Value Support# Panel :r• rr r r r:r rr # Panel Racks .• rrr r :rr rr Estimated Electrical Equipment QUANTITY UNITS Estimated New Cost/Unit Estimated New Total Cost Salvage Value Cos of New Cost 1111111MR, rrr •, �• ��� Estimated Electrical Collector Substation QUANTITY UNITS Estimated New Cost/Unit Estimated New Total Cost Salvage Value Cos of New Cost �� ', rrr •, •r rrr •, :rrr HV Circuit Breakers 115 kV �� r rrr r rrr rrr Substation�� ', rr rrr rr rrr r rrr 0 • TIMMONS GROUP REV 1 91 Page YOUR VISION PCXIEVSD TN0.000N OURS. HE)(AGON ENERGY Woodridge Solar Decommissioning Plan Foundation/Trench/Conduit/Cable` 1 LOT $200,000 $200,000 $40,000 Main Power Transformers 115 - 34.5 kV 1 EA $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $300,000 60/80/100 Substation Control House 1 EA $400,000 $400,000 $80,000 Capacitor Bank (Size TBD) 1 EA $250,000 $250,000 $50,000 SUBTOTAL $3,810,000 $762,000 Estimated Electrical Wires/cables QUANTITY UNITS Now CosVUnit Estimated New Total Cost SalvageEstimated Value 10% of Now Cost MV Conductor (only 10% of total) 145,478 FT $35 $5,091,739 $509,174 DC/LC Conductor 231,036 FT $3 $693,108 $691,311 SUBTOTAL $578,485 Estimated Fence QUANTITY UNITS Estimated Weight LB. Estimated Salva go Value Salvage Value/including Fence Perimeter (1.3 lb. per square ft, 6ft FT 951,834 $0.45 Removal $214,162.65 height) 122,030 Fence Post every 10 ft (9 ft length, 2.3 lb./Ft) 12,203 FT 142,644 $0.45 $32,094.90 SUBTOTAL $246,257.55 Summary of SValues Estimate alvage PV Module $4,659,984 Foundations Structural $2,588,880 Electrical Equipment $704,000 Electrical Wires $762,000 Electrical Collector Substation $578,485 Fence $246,258 ESTIMATED GRAND TOTAL $9,539,606 7.3 NET DECOMMISSIONING COST The net decommissioning cost for the Project is calculated by subtracting the salvage value from the total of the disassembly and removal costs. As noted in Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 the total estimated decommissioning costs will be $6,606,929 and Table 7-2 the total estimated salvage value of Project components will be $9,539,606. The estimated net decommissioning cost will be a ($2,932,678) positive return. Note: Negative values, in parenthesis, is positive returns to the Project. TIMMONS GROUP REV 1 10 1 Page YOUR VISION PCXIEVSD TN0.000N OURS. H F )(AGO N Woodridge Solar ENERGY Decommissioning Plan 7.4 DECOMMISSIONING ASSUMPTIONS To develop a cost estimate for the decommissioning of the Project, Timmons Group made the following assumptions and costs were estimated based on current pricing, technology, and regulatory requirements. The assumptions are listed in order from top to bottom of the estimate spreadsheet. We developed time and materials -based estimates considering composition of work crews. When materials have a salvage value at the end of the project life, the construction activity costs, and the hauling/freight cost are separated from the disposal costs or salvage value to make revisions to salvage values more transparent. 1. Decommissioning year is based on a 10-year initial period for the financial security. The projected life of the project is 35 years. 2. This Cost Estimate is based on the Timmons Group data request forwarded April2022. 3. Common labor will be used for the majority of the tasks except for heavy equipment operation. Pricing is based on local Southeast US labor rates. 4. Permit applications required include the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) and a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. 5. Road gravel removal was estimated on a time and material basis using a 16 foot width and an 8 inch thickness for the access roads. Substation aggregate is included in the substation quantities. Since the material will not remain on site, a hauling cost is added to the removal cost. Road aggregate can often be disposed of by giving to landowners for use on driveways and parking areas. Many landfills will accept clean aggregate for use as "daily cover" and do not charge for the disposal. 6. Grade Road Corridor reflects the cost of mobilizing and operating light equipment to spread and smooth the topsoil stockpiled on site to replace the aggregate removed from the road. 7. Erosion and sediment control along road reflects the cost of silt fence on the downhill side of the road and surrounding all on -site wetlands. 8. Subsoiling cost to de -compact roadway areas is estimated as $350 per acre (based on previous bid prices), and revegetation on removed road area, which includes seed, fertilizer, lime, and care until vegetation is established is $2,300 per acre. The majority of the project area is 'over- seeded" since the decommissioning activities are not expected to eliminate the existing grasses and vegetation under the arrays or heavily compact the soils. Over -seeding does not include fertilizer and lime, and is estimated at $350 per acre. 9. Fence removal includes loading, hauling, and recycling or disposal. Fences and posts weigh approximately 2.3 pounds per foot. 10. Array support posts are generally lightweight "I" beam sections installed with a piece of specialized tracked equipment. Crew productivity is approximately 240 posts per day, and the same crew and equipment should have a similar productivity removing the posts, resulting in a per post cost of approximately $15. We assume a cost of $15.00 per post to include hauling fees and contingencies. TIMMONS GROUP REV 1 111 Page YOUR VISION PCXIEVSD TN0.000N OURS. HF)(AGON ENERGY Woodridge Solar Decommissioning Plan 11. A metal recycling facility (FEA Salvage and Recycling) is located in Orange, Virginia and is relatively close to the project site. Steel scrap pricing was acquired from www. s c ra o m o n s t e r. co m. 12. The solar panels rated 360 watts can easily be disconnected, removed, and packed by a three -person crew at a rate we estimate at 12 panels per hour. 13. No topsoil is planned to be removed from the site during decommissioning and most of the site will not have been compacted by heavy truck or equipment traffic so the site turf establishment cost is based on RS Means unit prices for applying lime, fertilizer, and seed at the price of per acre plus an allowance for some areas to be decompacted. 14. There is an active market for reselling and recycling electrical transformers and inverters with several national companies specializing in recycling. We have assumed a 20% recovery of these units based on field experience with used transformers as opposed to trying to break them down into raw material components. 15. The underground collection lines are assumed to be aluminum conductor. 16. Care to prevent damage and breakage of equipment, PV modules, inverters, capacitors, and SCADA must be exercised, but removal assumes unskilled common labor under supervision. The estimated salvage values are derived from years of experience decommissioning and uprating electric substations, overhead transmission and distribution hardware and underground distribution hardware that would include but not be limited to substation and pad mounted transformers, overhead and underground conductors, poles, fencing, ground grid conductors, control housings, circuit breakers (high and medium voltage), protective relaying, and other hardware items. These individual items have high salvage value either as stand-alone components to be reused or recycled and sold as used items. These items also have a relatively high salvage value as pure scrap for steel, copper and other commodities. For all medium voltage transformers, breakers and other items, Southeastern Transformer Company in Dunn, NC provides complete repair, upgrading and recycling and resale for all items mentioned above. Their website is: httos://www.setransformer.com. They have a national presence. For any and all recycling and upgrading, Solomon Corporation offers the same set of services for transformer repair and recycling and complete substation decommissioning services. With seven different locations, Solomon is one of several vendors that can decommission and recycle the components as noted above. Their website is: https://www.solomoncorp.com/. Solomon Corporation is only one of many transmission and distribution recycle and decommissioning shops that do this mainly to harvest the components. For recycling conductor, General Cable and Southwire both utilize extensive scrap procurement programs to reuse copper and aluminum conductor harvested from projects such as this one to supplement and reduce their raw material costs. TIMMONS GROUP REV 1 121 Page YOUR VISION P<NIEVEL TN0.000N OURS. HF)(AGON ENERGY Woodridge Solar Decommissioning Plan Here is the link to the General Cable program which only increases the salvage values found in this Plan: General Cable Recycling httl)s://es.generalcable.com/na/us- can/socialresoonsibility/sustainability/recycling As for solar panels, they are in demand as salvageable items either in whole or for their raw material. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), more than 90% of all the materials are high grade silicon, aluminum and glass and are typically harvested to produce new panels. This is far less expensive than buying unprocessed raw materials for production. The base industry assumption is that since solar panels are expected to retain about 75% of their production capability after 35 years of use, a salvage value of 10% of original cost is a low estimate of their expected value and as we note in assumption. This considers possible technology improvements and undervalues the anticipated salvage value of the panel's raw materials. The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) has an approved set of PV recycling vendors that specialize in doing this today and they can be found at: httos://www.se ia. org/initiatives/seia-national-r)v-recycling-prop ra m. First Solar, which has been active in the solar industry since its inception, takes solar modules and recycles 90% of the semiconductor material which is then reused in new modules. 90% of the glass product can be reused as new glass products, including panels and fiber optic cable. We can conclude that realistically the estimated 10% salvage value is low and reflects a conservative figure. Information about First Solar's recycling program is at: htto://www.firstsolar. com/en/Modules/Recycling. 8 Financial Assurance The Owner will post a financial surety per Condition of its Special Use Permit. Based on industry trends, the projected and actual costs of decommissioning are expected to go down over time based on improvements both to best practices in calculating these costs and the decommissioning process itself. The Owner will reevaluate decommissioning costs with a qualified engineering consultant every five years during the life of the Project. As stated in the Introduction of this report, the Owner will place a surety bond or similar instrument equivalent to the decommissioning costs estimated in this report without taking any salvage value of the materials into account. The amount of the bond is to be reviewed and updated with the appropriate county staff every five (5) years. TIMMONS GROUP REV 1 131 Page YOUR VISION P<NIEVEL TN0.000N OURS. ® Special Use Permit Area - 1,515 Acres Tax Map Parcel Boundaries - 2,259.5 Acres 200' Property Setbacks Proposed Features (Conceptual) r LOD DD 1 Limits of Disturbance - 1,000 Acres Potential Access Location �E Point of Interconnection Internal Roads ^X Fence � X J Solar Arrays - Inverters Project Substation/Collection Yard Dominion Substation Parking Area Stormwater Basin Existing Features Transmission Line Delineated Wetland Delineated Stream & Open Water Steep Slopes Overlay Critical Slopes - Critical Slopes within Limits of Disturbance - 8.55 Acres NOTES: 1. PROPERTY LIMITS ARE APPROXIMATE FROM ALBEMARLE COUNTY GIS. 2. SITE LAYOUT IS CONCEPTUALAND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. 3. STREAMS, WETLANDS, AND OPEN WATER FEATURES HAVE BEEN FIELD DELINEATED BY WILD GINGER FIELD SERVICESAND VERIFIED BY THE USACE 4. PERIMETER FENCING WILL BE SIX FEET IN HEIGHT. THERE WILL BE A SIX—INCH GAP BETWEEN THE FENCE AND GROUND TO ALLOW FOR WILDLIFE PASSAGE y 5. PER 17 600, THE WATER PROTECTION ORDINANCE BUFFER EXTENDS 100 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF ANY PERENNIAL OR INTERMITTENT STREAM AND CONTIGUOUS NONTIDAL WETLANDS, MEASURED HORIZONTALLY FROM THE EDGE OF THE CONTIGUOUS NONTIDAL WETLANDS, OR FROM THE TOP OF THE STREAM BANK IF NO WETLANDS EXIST; OR THE LIMITS OF THE FLOOD PLAIN, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. 6. ACCESS ROADS, ELECTRICAL AND STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS ARE NECESSARY FOR JOINING SUBARRAYS AND HANDLING STORMWATER WILL BE + DESIGNED TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE ENCROACHMENTS TO STREAMS, STREAM BUFFERS, WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS TO THE GREATEST EXTENT PRACTICABLE WHERE UNAVOIDABLE, APPROPRIATE COUNTY STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORIZATIONS WILL BE OBTAINED 7. ENTRANCE LOCATIONS AND INTERNAL DRIVEWAYS SHOWN ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE ANY NOTABLE CHANGES WILL BE SUBJECT TO COUNTYL APPROVAL BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. 8. EACH ENTRANCE LOCATION WILL HAVE A KNOX BOX THAT COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES WILL BE ABLE TO ACCESS. 9. ALL PROPOSED SITE ENTRANCES WILL REQUIRE A VDOT LAND USE PERMIT FOR LOW VOLUME COMMERCIAL SITE ENTRANCES. PROPOSED ENTRANCES WILL BE DESIGNED IN ' COMPLIANCE WITH VDOT STANDARDS AND REVIEWED BY VDOT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE LAND USE PERMIT. SPECIFIC TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, SAFETY MEASURES INCLUDING SIGNAGE, FLAGGING, MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC AND OTHER MEASURES S ' WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PROJECT. 10. PARKING AREAS ARE NOT PROPOSED EXCEPT IN THE SUBSTATION AREA. 11. APPROXIMATE CEMETERY LOCATION IDENTIFIED BY STANTEC CONSULTING > SERVICES. 12. FLOODPLAIN DATA FROM FEMA'S NATIONAL FLOOD HAZARD LAYER. 13. STEEP SLOPES DATA FROM ALBEMARLE COUNTY GIS. — 14. CONTOURS MADE FROM DEM DATA SOURCED FROM USGS. 15. AERIAL IMAGERY FROM 2021 MICROSOFT BING. r ,r x t 1.r f � 1, III�II •\ w • : !< k + 1\ ;YI ems. f-, ✓ir ,, III. - � ":3"• ., oul , ''kllli° I 1 1 iliillllu I -, I I , T_-I & r f 4 f f'x t '. e - t r ' • �`�`4. lJill 4 - �%, { ai / ! l ♦ 1 f >, I '•`� I '� 1 r , ��' .� ) - � �° �����.-''-mod"'_ _ � - �� � -_,.- { t Y 0 mi It e►'^r. v'X pp x.ftir �g r Y 71 r a� >> 0 O= � o 0 • O M C « • `^ 3 N • v •kXN OE C N N N u N 10 O ZW I a o E Q atW O u � UJ •z 3 2 ~ O to � o z PROJECT NAME 8 LOCATION 0 ::) CO 0Q LU U LUI Z_ Op �J/ C(�D// LQL L.L Q C / J Q DATE 05/16/2022 PROJECT NUMBER 50445 PROJECT NAME WOODRIDGE SOLAR DESIGNED BY / DRAWN BY L. WHEELER These exhibits and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express writlen consent of REVISIONS # MM/DDNY DESCRIPTION 1 W/12/2022 Rawasoper County comments. DRAWING DESCRIPTION CONCEPTUAL PLAN SCALE FEET 0 800 1,600 PLANS PRINTED AS 11X11 ARE HALF SCALE SCALE SHEETNUMBER H:1 "=800 1 ATTACHMENT E ■. ForgeSolar ■ram■ FORGESOLAR GLARE ANALYSIS Project: Woodridge Solar 138MW project Site configuration: Woodridge R1 Analysis conducted by Nicholas Ford (nford@hexagon-energy.com) at 17:20 on 21 Mar, 2022. U.S. FAA 2013 Policy Adherence The following table summarizes the policy adherence of the glare analysis based on the 2013 U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Interim Policy 78 FR 63276. This policy requires the following criteria be met for solar energy systems on airport property: • No "yellow" glare (potential for after -image) for any flight path from threshold to 2 miles • No glare of any kind for Air Traffic Control Tower(s) ("ATCT") at cab height. • Default analysis and observer characteristics (see list below) ForgeSolar does not represent or speak officially for the FAA and cannot approve or deny projects. Results are informational only. COMPONENT STATUS DESCRIPTION Analysis parameters PASS Analysis time interval and eye characteristics used are acceptable 2-mile flight path(s) N/A No flight paths analyzed ATCT(s) N/A No ATCT receptors designated Default glare analysis parameters and observer eye characteristics (for reference only): • Analysis time interval: 1 minute • Ocular transmission coefficient 0.5 • Pupil diameter: 0.002 meters • Eye focal length: 0.017 meters • Sun subtended angle: 9.3 milliradians FAA Policy 78 FR 63276 can be read at https://www.federalregisteLgov/d/2013-24729 SITE CONFIGURATION Analysis Parameters DNI: peaks at 1,000.0 W/m^2 Time interval: 1 min Ocular transmission coefficient 0.5 Pupil diameter: 0.002 m Eye focal length: 0.017 m Sun subtended angle: 9.3 mrad Site Confg ID: 66434.11733 Methodology: V2 PV Array(s) Name: PV1 Axis tracking: Single -axis rotation Backtracking: Shade -slope Tracking axis orientation: 180.00 Max tracking angle: 52.00 Resting angle: O.Oo Ground Coverage Ratio: 0.4 Rated power: 84.0 kW Panel material: Light textured glass without AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (o) Longitude (o) Ground elevation (H) Height above ground (1t) Total elevation (h) 1 37.884465 -78.455846 541.93 10.00 551.93 2 37.889465 -78.453249 484.62 10.00 494.62 3 37.888275 -78.464827 422.02 10.00 432.02 4 37.885536 -78-477296 418.32 10.00 428.32 5 37.883238 -78.480284 379.82 10.00 389.82 6 37.883371 -78.480769 372.22 10.00 382.22 7 37.884808 -78.480088 392.22 10.00 402.22 8 37.885604 -78.480254 395.62 10.00 405.62 9 37.886266 -78.481527 425.12 10.00 435.12 10 37.888473 -78.482355 441.52 10.00 451.52 11 37.891767 -78.481224 478.32 10.00 488.32 12 37.892066 -78.482410 479.82 10.00 489.82 13 37.892449 -78.482027 480.82 10.00 490.82 14 37.893488 -78.481020 472.42 10.00 482.42 15 37.894107 -78-480430 430.02 10.00 440.02 16 37.895717 -78.479021 496.52 10.00 506.52 17 37.896263 -78-478565 500.82 10.00 510.82 18 37.897378 -78.477511 492.82 10.00 502.82 19 37.898088 -78-475569 483.72 10.00 493.72 20 37.897355 -78.473793 497.62 10.00 507.62 21 37.895821 -78.471438 457.42 10.00 467.42 22 37.895387 -78-470740 445.02 10.00 455.02 23 37.894972 -78.470094 436.72 10.00 446.72 24 37.894562 -78.469408 438.92 10.00 448.92 25 37.892334 -78.465764 464.62 10.00 474.62 26 37.895526 -78.463929 497.62 10.00 507.62 27 37.895589 -78.463680 491.42 10.00 501.42 28 37.895634 -78.463520 485.82 10.00 495.82 29 37.895709 -78.463249 481.02 10.00 491.02 30 37.895738 -78.463154 480.72 10.00 490.72 31 37.895785 -78-463000 480.72 10.00 490.72 32 37.895843 -78.462809 480.92 10.00 490.92 33 37.895897 -78-462632 481.32 10.00 491.32 34 37.895955 -78.462447 482.12 10.00 492.12 35 37.896019 -78-462253 480.92 10.00 490.92 36 37.896042 -78.462165 480.02 10.00 490.02 37 37.896188 -78.461740 475.42 10.00 485.42 38 37.896321 -78.461348 474.52 10.00 484.52 39 37.896411 -78.461089 476.72 10.00 486.72 40 37.896447 -78-460959 478.12 10.00 488.12 41 37.896504 -78.460774 479.22 10.00 489.22 42 37.896551 -78.460650 479.52 10.00 489.52 43 37.896598 -78.460510 479.42 10.00 489.42 44 37.896686 -78.460258 479.12 10.00 489.12 45 37.896788 -78.459967 479.12 10.00 489.12 46 37.896887 -78.459682 480.22 10.00 490.22 47 37.896930 -78.459561 480.72 10.00 490.72 48 37.896982 -78.459443 480.92 10.00 490.92 49 37.897070 -78-459277 481.02 10.00 491.02 50 37.897122 -78.459066 480.62 10.00 490.62 51 37.898660 -78-456511 497.92 10.00 507.92 52 37.898781 -78.456202 499.22 10.00 509.22 53 37.898841 -78-455842 496.52 10.00 506.52 54 37.898841 -78.455662 494.12 10.00 504.12 55 37.898825 -78.455533 492.32 10.00 502.32 56 37.898574 -78.453907 476.32 10.00 486.32 57 37.898717 -78.452012 483.62 10.00 493.62 Name: PV2 Axis tracking: Single -axis rotation Backtracking: Shade -slope Tracking axis orientation: 180.0* Max tracking angle: 52.Oo Resting angle: O.Oo Ground Coverage Ratio: 0.4 Rated power: 28000.0 kW Panel material: Light textured glass without AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material Vertex Latitude (') Longitude (') Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (tt) Total elevation (it) 1 37.880455 -78-482212 350.72 10.00 360.72 2 37.884115 -78.477750 384.12 10.00 394.12 3 37.885031 -78-472685 426.12 10.00 436.12 4 37.883642 -78.469961 395.22 10.00 405.22 5 37.880589 -78.466077 482.42 10.00 492.42 6 37.877711 -78A64424 540.33 10.00 550.33 7 37.877099 -78.465047 528.93 10.00 538.93 8 37.876759 -78-465427 515.23 10.00 525.23 9 37.876776 -78.465734 503.72 10.00 513.73 10 37.877503 -78.466677 496.22 10.00 506.22 11 37.878486 -78.466832 503.12 10.00 513.13 12 37.878956 -78-467659 480.02 10.00 490.02 13 37.878398 -78.468930 462.62 10.00 472.62 14 37.878038 -78.469507 451.62 10.00 461.62 15 37.876052 -78A72384 457.02 10.00 467.02 16 37.878503 -78.478000 441.52 10.00 451.52 Name: PV3 Axis tracking: Single -axis rotation Backtracking: Shade -slope Tracking axis orientation: 180.00 Max tracking angle: 52.00 Resting angle: 0.00 Ground Coverage Ratio: 0.4 Rated power: 26000.0 kW Panel material: Light textured glass without AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material vertex Latitude (') Longitude (o) Ground elevation (tt) Height above ground (tt) Total elevation (tt) 1 37.900052 -78.455249 519.33 10.00 529.33 2 37.900014 -78.456189 509.12 10.00 519.13 3 37.899736 -78A57215 492.72 10.00 502.72 4 37.898341 -78.459498 480.32 10.00 490.32 5 37.899420 -78-462649 451.02 10.00 461.02 6 37.900529 -78.465176 437.62 10.00 447.62 7 37.901841 -78-467932 438.92 10.00 448.92 8 37.902673 -78.469697 430.72 10.00 440.72 9 37.902026 -78-472192 451.92 10.00 461.92 10 37.901629 -78-472992 459.82 10.00 469.82 11 37.900863 -78.473923 463.12 10.00 473.12 12 37.900876 -78A74656 471.72 10.00 481.72 13 37.899446 -78.475482 490.42 10.00 500.42 14 37.899790 -78-476221 501.52 10.00 511.52 15 37.900165 -78.477059 516.13 10.00 526.13 16 37.901247 -78-475776 494.62 10.00 504.62 17 37.904636 -78.472058 480.92 10.00 490.92 18 37.905052 -78-470616 468.32 10.00 478.32 19 37.905816 -78-469215 462.52 10.00 472.52 20 37.908884 -78.465356 455.52 10.00 465.52 21 37.909227 -78A65111 450.92 10.00 460.92 22 37.906979 -78.459858 412.22 10.00 422.22 Discrete Observation Receptors Name ID Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Elevation (it) Height (tt) OP 1 1 37.873220 -78.483600 444A2 0.00 OP 2 2 37-931640 -78.499000 682.93 0.00 OP 3 3 38.0t0320 -78.452300 871.24 0.00 Route Receptor(s) Name: Jefferson Mill Rd Path type: Two-way Observer view angle: 50.0° Note: Route receptors are excluded from this FAA policy review. Use the 2-mile flight path receptor to simulate flight paths according to FAA guidelines. Vertex Latitude (') Longitude (') Ground elevation (H) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (h) 1 37.902320 -78.436700 554.23 0.00 554.23 2 37.901970 -78.436700 555.03 0.00 555.03 3 37.901050 -78.436200 543.23 0.00 543.23 4 37.900850 -78.436200 543.63 0.00 543.63 5 37.900640 -78.436100 553.33 0.00 553.33 6 37.900430 -78.436100 554.73 0.00 554.73 7 37.900200 -78.436200 557.63 0.00 557.63 8 37.899340 -78.436700 572.53 0.00 572.53 9 37.899100 -78.436700 573.13 0.00 573.13 10 37.898890 -78.436800 571.03 0.00 571.03 11 37.898530 -78.436700 567.23 0.00 567.23 12 37.898320 -78.436600 568.43 0.00 568.43 13 37.893930 -78-434900 553.73 0.00 553.73 14 37.893700 -78.434900 551.83 0.00 551.83 15 37.893380 -78-435200 558.43 0.00 558.43 16 37.890680 -78.439500 564.53 0.00 564.53 17 37.889780 -78-441200 560.23 0.00 560.23 18 37.889370 -78.441700 565.83 0.00 565.83 19 37.888890 -78.442200 564.53 0.00 564.53 20 37.888570 -78.442500 562.13 0.00 562.13 21 37.888190 -78.442700 571.93 0.00 571.93 22 37.886020 -78-443600 563.33 0.00 563.33 23 37.885690 -78.443700 562.93 0.00 562.93 24 37.885450 -78.443900 555.03 0.00 555.03 25 37.885270 -78.444100 553.13 0.00 553.13 26 37.884380 -78.445100 563.23 0.00 563.23 27 37.883370 -78.446800 567.93 0.00 567.93 28 37.882980 -78.447300 574.33 0.00 574.33 29 37.882760 -78.447700 572.13 0.00 572.13 30 37.882590 -78.448000 568.43 0.00 568.43 31 37.882350 -78-448500 564.53 0.00 564.53 32 37.882120 -78.449100 562.83 0.00 562.83 33 37.881750 -78-450200 544.53 0.00 544.53 34 37.881530 -78.450900 536.63 0.00 536.63 35 37.881330 -78-451600 522.13 0.00 522.13 36 37.881250 -78.452000 518.33 0.00 518.33 37 37.881190 -78.452200 516.43 0.00 516.43 38 37.881090 -78.452400 512.12 0.00 512.12 39 37.880950 -78.452600 513.43 0.00 513.43 40 37.880770 -78-452800 515.03 0.00 515.03 41 37.880620 -78.453000 514.53 0.00 514.53 42 37.880400 -78.453300 512.63 0.00 512.63 43 37.880200 -78.453600 513.23 0.00 513.23 44 37.879830 -78-454300 517.83 0.00 517.83 45 37.879040 -78.455900 527.03 0.00 527.03 46 37.878520 -78.457000 531.93 0.00 531.93 47 37.878370 -78.457200 540.03 0.00 540.03 48 37.878070 -78.457500 543.63 0.00 543.63 49 37.877800 -78-457600 541.03 0.00 541.03 50 37.876940 -78-457300 547.53 0.00 547.53 51 37.876670 -78-457300 554.93 0.00 554.93 52 37.875940 -78.457400 554.23 0.00 554.23 53 37.875580 -78-457500 554.53 0.00 554.53 54 37.874990 -78.457800 546.33 0.00 546.33 55 37.874690 -78-457900 546.93 0.00 546.93 56 37.874450 -78.458000 545.23 0.00 545.23 57 37.873750 -78.458000 538.63 0.00 538.63 Name: Secretarys Road Path type: Two-way Observer view angle: 50.0° Note: Route receptors are excluded from this FAA policy review. Use the 2-mile flight path receptor to simulate flight paths according to FAA guidelines. vertex Latitude (') Longitude (') Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (it) Total elevation (ft) 1 37.904450 -78.488400 534.23 0.00 534.23 2 37.903160 -78.483900 505.22 0.00 505.22 3 37.901940 -78.482300 499.82 0.00 499.82 4 37.901210 -78.481000 492.62 0.00 492.62 5 37.897900 -78-473500 515.13 0.00 515.13 6 37.897750 -78.472600 503.12 0.00 503.12 7 37.897740 -78.471600 484.52 0.00 484.52 8 37.897990 -78-470300 472.22 0.00 472.22 9 37.898050 -78.469800 474.82 0.00 474.82 10 37.898030 -78.469500 470.32 0.00 470.32 11 37.897890 -78.469100 470.22 0.00 470.22 12 37.896220 -78.465700 508.62 0.00 508.62 13 37.896040 -78.465200 526.53 0.00 526.53 14 37.895980 -78.464600 515.63 0.00 515.63 15 37.896010 -78.464300 516.03 0.00 516.03 16 37.897350 -78.460000 479.12 0.00 479.12 17 37.899170 -78-456900 516.33 0.00 516.33 18 37.899390 -78.456300 516.63 0.00 516.63 19 37.899460 -78-455900 517.33 0.00 517.33 20 37.899410 -78.455400 515.53 0.00 515.53 21 37.899170 -78-454200 500.02 0.00 500.02 22 37.899210 -78.453000 509.72 0.00 509.72 23 37.899790 -78.447400 510.22 0.00 510.22 24 37.899790 -78.446700 516.13 0.00 516.13 25 37.899720 -78.446300 523.73 0.00 523.73 26 37.899440 -78-443600 537.03 0.00 537.03 27 37.899330 -78.442500 542.33 0.00 542.33 28 37.899220 -78.438600 568.83 0.00 568.83 29 37.899070 -78.437900 570.53 0.00 570.53 30 37.898830 -78.437300 566.13 0.00 566.13 31 37.898530 -78.436700 567.23 0.00 567.23 32 37.898530 -78.436700 567.23 0.00 567.23 GLARE ANALYSIS RESULTS Summary of Glare PV Array Name Tilt Orient "Green" Glare "Yellow" Glare (1) C) min min PV1 SA SA 0 0 tracking tracking PV2 SA SA 0 0 tracking tracking PV3 SA SA 0 0 tracking tracking Total annual glare received by each receptor Receptor Annual Green Glare (min) OP 0 OP2 0 OP3 0 Jefferson Mill Rd 0 Secretarys Road 0 Results for: PV1 Receptor Green Glare (min) OP 0 OP2 0 OP3 0 Jefferson Mill Rd 0 Secretarys Road 0 Point Receptor: OP 1 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Point Receptor: OP 2 0 minutes of yellow glare Energy kWh 232,000.0 75,030,000.0 72,930,000.0 Annual Yellow Glare (min) 0 0 0 0 0 Yellow Glare (min) 0 0 0 0 0 0 minutes of green glare Point Receptor: OP 3 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Route: Jefferson Mill Rd 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Route: secretarys Road 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Results for: PV2 Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min) OP 0 0 OP2 0 0 OP3 0 0 Jefferson Mill Rd 0 0 Secretarys Road 0 0 Point Receptor: OP 1 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Point Receptor: OP 2 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Point Receptor: OP 3 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Route: Jefferson Mill Rd 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Route: Secretarys Road 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Results for: PV3 Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min) OP 0 0 OP2 0 0 OP3 0 0 Jefferson Mill Rd 0 0 Secretarys Road 0 0 Point Receptor: OP 1 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Point Receptor: OP 2 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Point Receptor: OP 3 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Route: Jefferson Mill Rd 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Route: Secretarys Road 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Assumptions "Green" glare is glare with low potential to cause an after -image (flesh blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time. "Yellow" glare is glare with potential to cause an after -image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time. Times associated with glare are denoted in Standard time. For Daylight Savings, add one hour. Glare analyses do not account for physical obstructions between reflectors and receptors. This includes buildings, tree cover and geographic obstructions. Several calculations utilize the PV array centroid, rather than the actual glare spot location, due to V7 algorithm limitations. This may affect results for large PV footprints. Additional analyses of array sub -sections can provide additional information on expected glare. The subtended source angle (glare spot size) is constrained by the PV array footprint size. Partitioning large arrays into smaller sections will reduce the maximum potential subtended angle, potentially impacting results if actual glare spots are larger than the sub -army size. Additional analyses of the combined area of adjacent sub-anays can provide more information on potential glare hazards. (See previous point on related limitations.) Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare -spot locations may differ. Glare vector plots are simplified representations of analysis data. Actual glare emanations and results may differ. The glare hazard determination relies on several approximations including observer eye characteristics, angle of view, and typical blink response time. Actual results and glare occurrence may differ. Hazard zone boundaries shown in the Glare Hazard plot are an approximation and visual aid based on aggregated research data. Actual ocular impact outcomes encompass a continuous, not discrete, spectrum. Refer to the Help page at www.forgesolar.comlhelpl for assumptions and limitations not listed here. 2016 © Sims Industries dfb/a ForgeSolar, All Rights Reserved. • Goo ATTACHMENTF TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. 1001 Boulders Parkway Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23225 MEMORANDUM TO: Albemarle County Planning and Zoning Department FROM: Timmons Group on behalf of Woodridge Solar DATE: April 11, 2022 RE: Woodridge Solar Environmental Resource Impact Analysis P 804.200.6500 F 804.560.1016 www.timmons.com Timmons Group, on behalf of Woodridge Solar (Project), has conducted a limited environmental review of resources that may be present within a one -mile radius of the proposed project location. This environmental review includes National and State forests, National and State parks, wildlife management areas, conservation easements, and recreational areas. Federal, State. and Local Conservation and Recreation Lands Woodridge Solar does not intersect any federal, state, or local conservation or recreational lands, and there are no such resources within one mile of the project limits. The nearest managed lands are over one mile away. Wetlands and Streams Wetlands and streams on the project site have been delineated by Wild Ginger Field Services. The delineation results have not yet been verified by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Project will avoid wetlands and streams to the greatest extent possible, if wetland or stream impacts are unavoidable, the Applicant will obtain the appropriate USACE permit for any unavoidable impacts to USACE jurisdictional wetlands and streams. Wetlands and streams form a natural wildlife corridor and, as they will generally not be impacted by the project, will remain as interior corridors for wildlife utilization. Wetlands and streams are generally outside the fenced area so free passage of wildlife will be allowed for the duration of the project. The Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources advises that interior passages through solar projects helps reduce potential impacts to wildlife, to which this project will adhere. Threatened and Endangered Species Timmons Group has conducted a threatened and endangered (T&E) species review of the Woodridge Solar project. The following databases were reviewed for the potential presence of T&E species: • Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) — Natural Heritage Review Service • Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (VDWR) —Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VaFWIS) • US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) — Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Based on the queried databases, there is the potential for four T&E species to occur near the Project. CIVIL ENGINEERING I ENVIRONMENTAL I SURVEYING I GIs I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Common Name Scientific Name Status Agency Source Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Federal, State Threatened USFWS James Spinymussel Parvaspina collina Federal, State Endangered VDWR Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate Species USFWS Although there is potential habitat for bat species to exist on the Project, the majority of the land is timber tracts that were previously harvested. Furthermore, there are no known hibernacula or roost trees for these species within the vicinity of the Project. A common strategy recommended by reviewing agencies to avoid potentially harmful impacts to bat species is implementation of a time of year restriction on tree clearing. The Hardware River is noted as threatened and endangered water where the James spinymussel has been observed; the Hardware River is approximately 0.73 miles south of the Site. Wetlands and streams that drain to this river occur onsite, but a 100-foot buffer will be maintained around these features as well as the floodplain. The monarch butterfly is a candidate species, but it is not listed as federally or state threatened or endangered. During permitting efforts at the state level, the Applicant will coordinate with the appropriate agencies to ensure the protection and avoidance of T&E species. Attachments • T&E Species Database Reviews ,G, v Species Observed within Two Miles Common Name Federal Status State Status Bass, largemouth NT/NE NT/NE Bass, smallmouth NT/NE NT/NE Blue ill NT/NE NT/NE Chub, bluehead NT/NE NT/NE Chub, creek NT/NE NT/NE Crayfish, no common name Dace, blacknose NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE Dace, mountain redbelly NT/NE NT/NE Dace, ros side NT/NE NT/NE Darter, fantail Darter, glassy Darter, johnny Darter, Ion fin Darter, stripeback NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE Ni/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE Falffish NT/NE NT/NE Madtom, margined NT/NE NT/NE mussel spp. NT/NE NT/NE Shiner, cornely NT/NE NT/NE Shiner, common NT/NE NT/NE Shiner, golden NT/NE NT/NE Shiner, satinfin NT/NE Ni/NE Shiner, swallowtail NT/NE Nf/NE Stoneroller, central NT/NE NT/NE Sucker, northern hog NT/NE NT/NE Sucker, torrent Sucker, white NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE Sunfish, green NT/NE NT/NE Sunfish, redbreast NT/NE NT/NE NT = Non -Threatened, NE = Non -Endangered r ejMorrs Lno e�ay O �m� \ OPO Gaaa \a`\ap? G 4 4a Cru Thorny Q a d a a., hi !; m m � eea c O d IV_ GapC�O o F oUP�aP� 6. Coop `yM \A. ers Ln Farm Ln Ga 7 _ one Hill Ln V `0 9/ O�O� ,« ,cN,; Wallace � Qa q�Fa PaOQFarm �1eWmonl West /DA." . \% Viewm nt Far s r e f yarns cr .Oier��� t :- Y' rRd • Ln % Co No, Sao, � peo, �� a°j �° •,�,, �g O s ' + ,� . , -. _ Op \mc a `\ m a, � rip, � a. o AL cee� F �°o n Oe G � �OOdF o s �n ,• o� o Saddle oa Old Qanks • �' \ o Pia, arm _- \e. (� 7 aLn a �se�o \ e Roy%p9 ePre�R` hoc ' . 0` \3 �a O - o CI)1. Fa �. r zr Secretar s iN ° c � O N .. Y - C') M - m I ' C _ D 1` ` \\ , Rolling creek ` oLn �" a ` 5 Z Q _ { had Qa�` v Gales Ln d a� ` d VaKe Rdg (D o/ e Rd p of a ° m organ Run Cn T o/ LL MbOre Ln Blueberry Hj// U cO 1 i leasantFaun 00 0 P\\9r� M grlery F Qr � r Ip °Qh e Dr Spring t' C/eb e� n o 0,Jc Ll ,eS/ 1Q • ODCR Department of Conservation & Recreation PROJECT INFORMATION TITLE: Woodridge Solar Web Project ID: WEB0000017535 Client Project Number: 50445 DESCRIPTION: The project is a proposed solar facility. Wetlands and streams will be avoided to the extent practicable. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Forested and cleared lands QUADRANGLES: Simeon, Scottsville COUNTIES: Albemarle Latitude/Longitude (DMS): 37' 53' 31.5794" N / 78' 27' 49.2793" W Acreage: 2,260 acres Comments: REQUESTOR INFORMATION Priority: N Tier Level: Tier I Tax ID: 54-1301413 Contact Name: Jillian Frazier Company Name: Timmons Group Address: 1001 Boulders Parkway City: Chesterfield Phone: 804-448-5973 State: VA Fax: Zip: 23225 Email: jillian.frazier@timmons.com Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program Page 1 of 4 Report Created: 4/11/2022 09:09:27 AM Natural Heritage Screening Features Intersecting Project Boundary Predictive Model Results In addition, the proposed project will impact an Ecological Core(s) with rankings C3,C4,C5 as identified in the Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment. Mapped cores in the project area can be viewed via the Virginia Natural Heritage Data Explorer, available here: https://vanhde.org/content/map. Ecological Cores are areas of at least 100 acres of continuous interior, natural cover that provides habitat for a wide range of species, from interior - dependent forest species to habitat generalists, as well as species that utilize marsh, dune, and beach habitats. Interior core areas begin 100 meters inside the nearest core edges and continue to the deepest parts of cores. Cores also provide natural and economic benefits of open space, recreation, water quality (including drinking water recharge and protection, and erosion prevention), and air quality (including carbon sequestration and oxygen production). Cores are ranked from C1 to C5 (C5 being the least significant) using nine prioritization criteria, including the habitats of natural heritage resources they contain. Impacts to cores occur when their natural cover is partially or completely converted permanently to developed land uses. Habitat conversion to development results in changes that reduce ecosystem processes, biodiversity, population viability and habitat quality due to limited recolonization, increased predation, and increased introduction and establishment of invasive species. Therefore, avoiding or minimizing core impacts is a key mitigation measure that will reduce deleterious effects and preserve the area and connectivity of habitats that are key components of biodiversity. DCR recommends efforts to minimize edge in remaining habitat fragments, retain natural corridors that allow movement between fragments and design the intervening landscape to support native wildlife (natural cover versus lawns). Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program Page 2 of 4 Report Created: 4/11/2022 09:09:27 AM J �yRP{"P M2 "<o�d BVGh ❑ Project Boundary ❑ Buffered Project Boundary Quads: Scottsville; Simeon Counties: Albemarle Woodridge Solar contributors. and the GIs User Community Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, Nos, NRCAN, GeoBase, 9. Earl China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenttreetMap 1:31,621 0 0.25 0.5 1 mi 0 0.425 0.85 1.7 km Company: Timmons Group Lat/Long:375331/-782749 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program Page 3 of 4 Report Created: 4/11/2022 09:09:27 AM COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION The project mapped as part of this report has been searched against the Department of Conservation and Recreation's Biotics Data System for occurrences of natural heritage resources in the vicinity of the area indicated for this project. Natural heritage resources are defined as the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species, unique or exemplary natural communities, and significant geologic formations. According to the information currently in Biotics, natural heritage resources have not been documented within the submitted project boundary including a 100 foot buffer. In addition, the project area does not intersect any of the predictive models identifying potential habitat for natural heritage resources. Under a Memorandum of Agreement established between the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), DCR represents VDACS in comments regarding potential impacts on state -listed threatened and endangered plant and insect species. The current activity will not affect any documented state -listed plants or insects. Any absence of data may indicate that the project area has not been surveyed, rather than confirm that the area lacks additional natural heritage resources. New and updated information is continually added to Biotics. Please revisit this website or contact DCR for an update on this natural heritage information if a significant amount of time passes (DCR recommends no more than six months) before it is utilized. The Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources maintains a database of wildlife locations, including threatened and endangered species, trout streams, and anadromous fish waters, that may contain information not documented in the Natural Heritage Data Explorer. Their database may be accessed from http://vafwis.oLq/fwis/ or contact Amy Martin (804-367-2211 or amy.martin@dwr.virginia.gov). Thank you for submitting your project to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Natural Heritage Data Explorer Web Service. Based on the preliminary screening results for this project,,, no further correspondenge will be sent from this office. Should you have any questions or concerns about this report, the Data Explorer, or other Virginia Natural Heritage Program services, please contact the Natural Heritage Project Review Unit at 804-371-2708. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program Page 4 of 4 Report Created: 4/11/2022 09:09:27 AM 4/522, 11:53 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC resource list This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site -specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project -specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section. Location Albemarle County, Virginia 1� Local office Virginia Ecological Services Field Office t. (804) 693-6694 18 (804) 693-9032 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, VA 23061-4410 11 0\0000 G http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virgi n iafield/ https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM6lE/resources 1110 4/5122, 11:53 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources Endangered species This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site -specific and project -specific information is often required. r o. \ Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to 'request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing%the following: 1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE. 2. Click DEFINE PROJECT. 3. Log in (if directed to do so). 4. Provide a name and description for your project. 5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST. Listed species! and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries?). Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction. 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location: Mammals https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM6lE/resources 2/10 4/522, 11:53 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources NAME STATUS Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://e cos.fws.gov/ec p/species/9045 Insects NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. htt ps://e cos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Critical habitats O Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed aJd1v endangered species themselves. THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION. O Migratory birds -0 G Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection ActZ.. '%� % % Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below. 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Additional information can be found using the following links: • Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php • Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management project -assessment -tools -and -guidance/ conservation-measures.php • Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM6lE/resources 3110 4/5/22, 11:53 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON (IF.A BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE ..................................................................................................... BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR ..................................................................................... PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN ................................................................................ THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED, .................................................................................... O WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL ................................................................................ G ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE ..................................................................................................... WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS ............................................................................... ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE. O ".BREEDS ELSEWHERE" I.NDICATES .. THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY • BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.) ........ ......... ..... Eastern Whip -poor -will Antrostomus vociferus Breeds May 1 to Aug 20 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeds May 1 to Jul 31 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeds May 10 to Sep 10 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeds May 10 to Aug 31 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM6lE/resources 4110 415/22, 11:53 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence (m) Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in t e presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. 1 How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: ) 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion ss that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season ( ) Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort (1) Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data (—) A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM6lE/resources 5110 4/5/22, 11:53 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. SPECIES JAN Eastern Whip - poor -will BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of ................... Conservation concern(BCC) throughout its range in the .................................. continental USA ............................................. and Alaska.) .................................. Prairie Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird i f................... ................... Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout .its ............................. range in the .................................. continental USA ............................................. and Alaska.) Red-headed Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation 6ir cern (BCC) throughout its range continental USA and Alaska.) ........................:......... Wood Thrush BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of ................... Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) ■ probability of presence breeding season survey effort — no data FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC — — — — — — — — ---1-- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- \1 N 11111111111- 1111111111111111 - 't (-44 �4 Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X4]WIDUM6lE/resources 6110 4/5122, 11:53 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC). and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKIN data is based on a growing collection of survev, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKIN Phenology Tool. ##,� q v What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets . Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing). hops://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM6lE/resources 7110 4/5122, 11:53 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional informa on I5n marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel of Loring. 4 What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. Facilities National Wildlife Refuge lands https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM6lE/resources a/10 4/5/22, 11:53 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION. Fish hatcheries THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION. Wetlands in the National Wetlands InventR110\ Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. WETLAND INFORMATION IS NOTAVAILABLE ATTHIS TIME This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location. O Data limitations The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis. The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Data exclusions Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM6lE/resources 9110 4/5122, 11:53 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities. Foy https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/locatioNSABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM6lE/resources 10110 VaFWIS Map 4/5122, 2:38 PM FWI Department f Game and Inland 37.89580-78.46291 is the Search Point Submit cancel iearch Point OQ Change to "clicked" map point O Fized at 37.89580 -7846291 ihow Position Rings O Yes e0 No I mile and 1/4 mile at the iearch Point ihow Search Area OO Yes O No 2 Search distance miles Search Point is at map center BW Aerial Photography Map Overlay Choices Current List: Anadromous, Waters, BAEANests, ECAR, Trout, Twill, Habitat B P Screen Surat Stag ,B H I Up Overlay Legend T►EYdaters Elpara state Predicted Habitat WAP Tler I Bt II Aquatic Terrestrial Trout Waters 7 Class l - IV l Class V - VI l Anadromous Fish Reads Confirmed Potential Impediment N xs 0 an 0 1.5 10 KIIon,.Nn a 0 6 e Maaa 2 mile radius 1 Search Area Bald Eagle Concentration Areas and Roosts Point of Search 37,89580-78.46291 Map Location 37.89580-78.46291 Bald Eagle Nests Select Coordinate System: 0 Degrem,Minutes,Seconds Latitude - Longitude *Decimal Degrees Latitude - Longitude Data OMeters UTM NAD83 East North Zone nhaarvatimm lira O Meters UTM NAD27 East North Zone Base Map source- Black & White USGS Aerial Photography (see Microsoft termserver-usa.corn for details) hltps://services.dwr.virginia.gov/fwis/maps/zMapFo"Java.asp?w040514 1/2 4/5122, 2:38 PM VaFWIS Map Map projection is UTM Zone 17 NAD 1983 with left 707083 and top 4213289. Pixel size is I& Coordinates displayed are decimal Degrees North and West. Map is currently displayed as 1000 columns by 1000 rows for a total of 1000000 pales. The map display represents 32000 meters east to west by 32000 meters north to south for a total of 1024.0 square kilometers. The map display represents 105004 feet east to west by 105004 feet north to south for a total of 395.5 square miles. Topographic maps and Black and white aerial photography for year 1990+- are from the United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Suyey Color aerial photography squired 2002 is from Virginia Base Mapping Program, Virginia Geographic Information Network. Shaded topographic maps are from TOPOI 02006 National Geographic http://wwwnational.geogmphic.com/tDpo All other map products are from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. map assembled 2022-04-05 14:37:04 (ga/gc March 21, 2016 12:20 - tn=1174946 dist=32181 $poi=37.9039500-78.4572800 IFI Credits I Di�lla I comactx6m anomn(nldeifvngmi m Please"IM our piym 0 1998-20U Commonwealth of Virginia Deparhnent ofCramc and Inland Fishenes hltps://sewices.dwr.virginia.gov/fwis/maps/zMapFo"Java.asp?v 040514 2/2 4/5122, 2:38 PM VAFWIS Seach Report VaFWIS Initial Project Assessment Report Compiled on 4i5i2022, Help 2:38:41 PM Known or likely to occur within a 2 mile buffer around polygon; center 37.9039500-78.4572799 in 003 Albemarle County, 065 Fluvanna County, VA View MaMf Site Location 509 Known or Likely Species ordered by Status Concern for Conservation (displaying first 23) (23 species with Status* or Tier I** or Tier II** ) BOVA Status* Tier** Common Name Scientific Name Confirmed Database(s) Code 060017 FESE Ia Spinymussel,James Parvaspina collina a BOVA,TEWaters,Habitat 050022 FTST Ia Bat, northern long_ Myotis septentrionalis BOVA eared 060173 FTST Ia Pigtoe, Atlantic Fusconaia masoni BOVA 060029 FTST IIa lLance, _yellow Elliptic, lanceolata BOVA 050020 SE Ia Bat, little brown Myotis lucifugus BOVA 050027 SE Ia Bat, tri-colored Perimyotis subflavus BOVA 060006 SE Ib Floater, brook Alasmidonta varicosa BOVA 040096 ST Ia Falcon,_pgrgginL Falco peregrinus BOVA 040293 ST Ila IShrike,loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus BOVA 060081 ST IIa Floater, -green Lasmigona subviridis BOVA,Habitat 040292 ST Shrike, migrant loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus migans BOVA 030063 CC IIIa Turtle, spotted Clemmys guttata IBOVA 030012 CC IVa Rattlesnake, timber Crotalus horridus BOVA 040092 Ila lEagLe,.golden Aquila chrysaetos BOVA 040306 la Warbler,- winmL Vennivora chrysoptera BOVA 100248 Ia Fri ill , [m-1 Speyeria idalia idalia BOVA 060084 Ib PigJgg, Virg1mL Lexingtonia subplana IBOVA 040052 IIa Duck, American black Anas rubripes BOVA 040320 IIa Warbler, cerulean Setophaga cerulea BOVA 040140 IIa Woodcock, American Scolopax minor BOVA 040203 IIb Cuckoo, black- billed Coccyzus erythropthalmus BOVA 040105 J IIb Rail, king_ Rallus elegans I BOVA 040304 IIc Warbler, Swainson'L Limnothlypis swainsonii BOVA hops://services.dwr.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPagesNaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.asp 1/4 4/5122, 2:38 PM To view All 509 species View509 VAFWIS Seach Report *FE=Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened; FP --Federal Proposed; FC=Federal Candidate; CC=Collection Concern **I=VA Wildlife Action Plan -Tier I -Critical Conservation Need; fI=VA Wildlife Action Plan -Tier II -Very High Conservation Need; III=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier III - High Conservation Need; IV=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier IV - Moderate Conservation Need Virginia Widlife Action Plan Conservation Opportunity Ranking: a - On the ground management strategies/actions exist and can be feasibly implemented.; b - On the ground actions or research needs have been identified but cannot feasibly be implemented at this time.; c - No on the ground actions or research needs have been identified or all identified conservation opportunities have been exhausted. Bat Colonies or Hibernacula: Not Known Anadromous Fish Use Streams ( I records ) View Map of All Anadromous Fish Use Streams Stream ID Stream Name Reach Status AnadromousSpecies View Ma ** Different Species � Highest TE Highest Tier P77 Hardware River Potential 000 Yes Impediments to Fish Passage 13 records) Name I River View Map 895 PACES DAM TR-BRIERY CREEK Yes 731 T. POTTS DAM #2 TR BRIERY CREEK Yes EflITIMBER LAKE DAMI I IFLINT CREEK Yes Colonial Water Bird Survey N/A Threatened and Endangered Waters (17 Reaches ) View Ma of f Al Fish Impediments N iew Nlap of All Threatened and Endangered NiTaters T&E Waters Species Stream Name View Highest TE* BOVA Code, Status*, Tier**, Common & Scientific Name Map Hardware River in Smussel, Parvas Ina (0100212.). FESE 060017 FESE la Jams collinap Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE la Sin mussel, rvas ma rco (0100750) Jams llina Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia Sin mussel, s Parvasma Yes ( 10 01830) Jarn collina Hardware River Sin mussel, rvas ma (0101864) FESE 060017 FESE la Jams rcollina Yes Hardware River �m mussel, Parvas ma (085651) FESE 060017 FESE Ia James collinap Yes hfps://services.dwr.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPagesNaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.asp 2/4 4/5122, 2:38 PM VAFWIS Seach Report Hardware River FESE m mussel, (088871) �rn[n[� ��ParvaspinaILY James collina Hardware River Sin mussel, Parvas ma (091711 ), FESE 060017 FESE Ia Jams collina Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia Sin mussel, Parvas ma Yes (091974) Jams collina Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE [Ia]�James Sin mussel, Parvasina Yes (092525) collina Hardware River Sin mussel, Parvas ma (093184) FESE 060017 FESE Ia Jams collina Yes Hardware River m mussel, Parvasma (093300) FESE 060017 FESE Ia James collinaP Yes Hardware Rive SpinymuuLl, Parvasma (093961) FESE 060017 FESE Ia James collinaP Yes Hardware River Sin mussel, Parvas tna (094506) FESE 060017 FESE la Jams collinaP Hardware River Sin mussel, P—Y Parvasfna P (4262) FESE 060017 FESE Ia James collina Yes Hardware River P—p Parvas tnaFESE (42642). 060017 FESE ][]Sinym_ussel, Ia James collina Yes Hardware River Sin mussel, Parvasma (098543) FESE 060017 FESE la Jams collina Yes Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia Sin mussel, Parvasma �collinaP Yes (098786) Jams Managed Trout Streams N/A Bald Eagle Concentration Areas and Roosts N/A Bald Eagle Nests N/A Habitat Predicted for Aquatic WAP Tier I & II Species (4 Reaches ) https://services.dwr.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPagesNaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.asp 3/4 4/522, 2:38 PM VAFWIS Seach Report View Map Combined Reaches from Below of Habitat Predicted for WAP Tier I & II Aquatic Species Stream Name Highest TE* Briery Creek (20802031) FESE Hardware River FESE (20802031) Murphy Creek FESE (20802031) tributary (20802041) ST tributary (20802041) 1 ST Tier Species BOVA Code, Status*, Tier**, Common & Scientific Name 060017 FESE Ia Spinymussel, Jamescollina Parvaspina 060017 FESE FlaSP—y in mussel, LMIL ParvasPina collina 060017 FESE Ia Spinymussel, James Parvaspina collina 060081 ST IIa Floater, Lasmigona een subviridis 060081 ST FlIa Floater, Lasmigona �grLen subviridis Habitat Predicted for Terrestrial WAP Tier I & 11 Species N/A Public Holdings: rr/ A View Map Yes Yes Yes Yes hfps://services.dwr.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPagesNaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.asp 4/4 4/5122, 2:39 PM Threatened and Endangered Waters here Spinymussel, James (060017) observed 37.90395-78.45727 is the Search Point Show Position Rings O Yes .O No 1 mile and 1/4 mile at the Search Point Show Search Area OO Yes O No 2 Search distance miles offer et cerner � map center � Use Map Choices BW Aeral Photography 1 Nap Overlay Choice 'went List Search, FEWaters Nap Overlay Legend T & E Waters Federal State 2 mile radius Search Area VaFWIS Map .ra Refresh Browser Pap Map Screen Smd Slze t gq I H 1 N as a as 0 7A 10 Rlsmmon 10 R 4 4 Nil.. Point of Search 37,90395-78.45727 Map Location 37.89580-78.46291 Select Coordinate System: O Degrees,Minutes,Seconds Latitude - Longitude *Decimal Degrees Latitude - Longitude OMeters UTM NAD83 East North Zone O Meters UTM NAD27 East North Zone Base Map source- Black & White USGS Aerial Photography (see Microsoft termserver-usa.corn for details) hfps://sewices.dwr.virginia.gov/maps/ZMapFo"Java.asp?autoscale=l4&coord=LL&dispiay_only=l &dist=3218&dp=&gap=&In=timmons&opoi=&overt... 1 /2 4/5122, 2:39 PM VaFWIS Map Map projection is UTM Zone 17 NAD 1983 with left 707083 and top 4213289. Pixel size is I& Coordinates displayed are decimal Degrees North and West. Map is currently displayed as 1000 columns by 1000 rows for a total of 1000000 pales. The map display represents 32000 meters east to west by 32000 meters north to south for a total of 1024.0 square kilometers. The map display represents 105004 feet east to west by 105004 feet north to south for a total of 395.5 square miles. Topographic maps and Black and white aerial photography for year 1990+- are from the United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Suyey Color aerial photography squired 2002 is from Virginia Base Mapping Program, Virginia Geographic Information Network. Shaded topographic maps are from TOPOI 02006 National Geographic http://wwwnational.geogmphic.com/tDpo All other map products are from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. map assembled 2022-04-05 14:39:16 (qa/qc March 21, 2016 12:20 - in=1174946.1 dist=3218 I) $poi=37.9039500-78.4572799 IFI Credits I Di�lla I comactx s anononradaifvngimam Plesse,,IMOafur.c ® 1998-20U Commonwealth of Virginia Deparhnent ofCramc and Inland Fisheries https://sewices.dwr.virginia.govlmapslzMapFo"Java.asp?autoscale=14&coord=LL&dispiay_only=l &dist=3218&dp=&gap=&In=timmons&opoi=&overl... 212 4/522, 2:38 PM VAFWIS Seach Report Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4/5/2022 2:38:55 PM Fish and Wildlife Information Service VaFWIS Search Report Compiled on 4/5/2022, 2:38:55 PM Help Known or likely to occur within a 2 mile buffer around polygon; center 37.9039500 -78.4572799 in 003 Albemarle County, 065 Fluvanna County, VA where (060017) SSpLinymussel, James observed. View Map of Site Location Threatened and Endangered Waters where Spinymussel, James (060017) observed ( 17 Reaches ) N'iew Map of All Threatened and Endangered Waters ME Waters Species Stream Name View Map Highest * ** BOVA Code, Status*, Tier Common & Scientific Name Hardware River m mussel, Parvasma (0100212). FESE 060017 FESE Ia Jams collina Yes Hardware Riverm FESE EEHE�!jpJam mussel, P irvasina Yes (0100750) s collina Hardware River Parvasma (0101830). FESE 060017 FESE Ia �jpmymussel Jin s collina Hardware River FESE EE H E S m mussel, s Parvasma Yes ( 10 01864) Japi collina! I Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia S m mussel, s Parvasma Yes (085651) Jain collina Hardware River S m mussel, Parvasma (088871) FESE EEH Ia Jams collina Yes Hardware River FESE 060017 HE tnmussel, Parvasma Ycs (091711). Jams collinap Hardware River FESE EEHEesa m mussel, arvasma E Yes (091974) Jam ollina Hardware River ap m mussel, Parvas ma (092525) FESE EE FESEFla]Jams collina Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia S to mussel, s Parvasma YU (093184) Jain collina Hardware River FESE I https:gservices.dwr.virginia.gov/fwisINewPagesNaFWIS_report_search.asp?pf=1&Title=VaFWIS+Report+Search&commonName=Spinymussel +Jam... 1/3 4/5122, 2:38 PM VAFWIS Seach Report (023300) 060017 FESE I[J�5nym sse11 Parvaspina Parvaa 1 l James Hardware River S to mussel, Parvasma (093961) FESE 060017 FESE Ia James collina Yes Hardware River FESE EEH Fla S m mussel, s Parvasma Yes (094506) Jain collina Hardware Hardware River FESE EEHE�apLnymussel,Jin Parvas ma Parvacollina Yes Hardware River Sto mussel, Parvasma (096051) FESE EEH Ia Jams collina YeS Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia m mussel, P ;as ma Yes (098543) Jan s collina Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia - m mussel, P;v ma Yes (098786) James- collina *FE=Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened; FP --Federal Proposed; FC=Federal Candidate; CC=Collection Concern **I=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier I - Critical Conservation Need; II=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier II - Very High Conservation Need; III=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier III - High Conservation Need; IV=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier IV - Moderate Conservation Need Virginia Widlife Action Plan Conservation Opportunity Ranking: a - On the ground management strategies/actions exist and can be feasibly implemented.; b - On the ground actions or research needs have been identified but cannot feasibly be implemented at this time.; c - No on the ground actions or research needs have been identified or all identified conservation opportunities have been exhausted. Habitat Predicted for Aquatic WAP Tier I & II Species where Spinymussel, James (060017) observed ( 3 Reaches ) View Map Combined Reaches from Below of Habitat Predicted for WAP Tier I & II Aquatic Species Tier Species Stream Name View Map Highest BOVA Code, Status*, Tier**, TE* Common & Scientific Name Brie Creek S m mussel, Parvasma (20802031) FESE EHE� Jams collina Yes Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia �Spnymussel, Parvasma Yes (20802031) Jin collina Murphy Creek FESE EEFIESE][la]S m mussel, s Parvasma(200 Yes 031) Jain collinap Habitat Predicted for Terrestrial WAP Tier I & II Species where Spinymussel, James (060017) observed hftps:flsewices.dw.virginia.gov/fvAs/NewPagesNaFWIS report-search.asp?pf-l&Titie=VaFWIS+Report+Search&commonName=Spinymussel+Jam... 2/3 4/5122, 2:38 PM VAFWIS Seach Report N/A C=pdedon4/52022,238:55PM 11174W] mpo BOVA s chTyp P disc=3218poi=37,%39500-784572799 audit no. 1174946 4/5/2022 2:38:55 PM Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service © 1998-2022 Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries hftps://sewices.dw.virginia.gov/fvAs/NewPagesNaFWIS report-search.asp?pf-l&Titie=VaFWIS+Report+Search&commonName=Spinymussel+Jam... 3/3 1 ��,.r�,' P Kirkland k Appraisals, LLC V May 26, 2021 Mr. Adam Ventre Hexagon Energy, LLC 722 Preston Avenue, Suite 102 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: Loblolly Solar Farm, Spring Grove, Surry County, VA Mr. Ventre: Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI 9408 Northfield Court Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Phone (919) 414-8142 rldrkland2na,email.com www.kirklandappraisals. com At your request, I have considered the impact of a solar farm proposed to be constructed on a 1,000- acre portion of a larger parent tract assemblage located on Forest Lane, Spring Grove, Virginia. Specifically, I have been asked to give my professional opinion on whether the proposed solar farm will have any impact on adjoining property value and whether "the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located." To form an opinion on these issues, I have researched and visited existing and proposed solar farms in Virginia as well as other states, researched articles through the Appraisal Institute and other studies, and discussed the likely impact with other real estate professionals. I have not been asked to assign any value to any specific property. This letter is a limited report of a real property appraisal consulting assignment and subject to the limiting conditions attached to this letter. My client Hexagon Energy, LLC, represented to me by Mr. Adam Ventre. My findings support the Application. The effective date of this consultation is May 26, 2021. Conclusion The adjoining properties are well set back from the proposed solar panels and most of the site has good existing landscaping for screening the proposed solar farm. Additional supplemental vegetation is proposed to supplement the areas where the existing trees are insufficient to provide a proper screen. The matched pair analysis shows no impact on home values due to abutting or adjoining a solar farm as well as no impact to abutting or adjacent vacant residential or agricultural land where the solar farm is properly screened and buffered. The criteria that typically correlates with downward adjustments on property values such as noise, odor, and traffic all indicate that a solar farm is a compatible use for rural/residential transition areas and that it would function in a harmonious manner with this area. Data from the university studies, broker commentary, and other appraisal studies support a finding of no impact on property value adjoining a solar farm with proper setbacks and landscaped buffers. Very similar solar farms in very similar areas have been found by hundreds of towns and counties not to have a substantial negative effect to abutting or adjoining properties, and many of those 2 findings of no impact have been upheld by appellate courts. Similar solar farms have been approved with adjoining agricultural uses, schools, churches, and residential developments. Based on the data and analysis in this report, it is my professional opinion that the solar farm proposed at the subject property will have no impact on the value of adjoining or abutting properties and that the proposed use is in harmony with the area in which it is located. I note that some of the positive implications of a solar farm that have been expressed by people living next to solar farms include protection from future development of residential developments or other more intrusive uses, reduced dust, odor and chemicals from former farming operations, protection from light pollution at night, it's quiet, and there is minimal traffic. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, KIR ff <G. av pa u• yeas � V ii��aaNa i � TV �! ApPRP c'�4)EO SEA' Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI NC Certified General Appraiser #A4359 VA Certified General Appraiser # 4001017291 3 Table of Contents Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 1 I. Proposed Project and Adjoining Uses....................................................................................... 4 II. Methodology and Discussion of Issues.................................................................................... 9 III. Research on Solar Farms..................................................................................................... 11 A. Appraisal Market Studies....................................................................................................... 11 B. Articles...................................................................................................................................12 C. Broker Commentary.............................................................................................................. 13 IV. University Studies................................................................................................................ 14 A. University of Texas at Austin, May 2018................................................................................ 14 B. University of Rhode Island, September 2020......................................................................... 15 C. Master's Thesis: ECU by Zachary Dickerson July 2018........................................................ 17 D. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, December, 2019 ........................... 18 V. Summary of Solar Projects In Virginia................................................................................... 19 354: Amazon Solar project East (Eastern Shore), Accomack, VA ................................................. 25 364: Remington Solar, 12080 Lucky Hill Rd, Remington, VA ....................................................... 26 373: Woodland Solar, Longview Drive, Smithfield, VA.................................................................. 29 374: Whitehouse Solar, Chalklevel Road, Louisa, VA...................................................................30 484: Essex Solar, Tidewater Trail, Center Cross, VA.................................................................... 31 485: Southampton Solar, General Thomas Hwy, Newsoms, VA ................................................... 32 VI. Market Analysis of the Impact on Value from Solar Farms ............................................. 34 A. Virginia Data.......................................................................................................................... 35 B. Southeastern USA Data- Over 5 MW.................................................................................... 52 C. Summary of National Data on Solar Farms.........................................................................107 D. Larger Solar Farms.............................................................................................................. 109 VII. Distance Between Homes and Panels...............................................................................113 VIII. Topography.........................................................................................................................113 IX. Potential Impacts During Construction........................................................................... 113 X. Scope of Research.................................................................................................................. 114 XI. Specific Factors Related To Impacts on Value................................................................115 XII. Conclusion..........................................................................................................................118 ProfessionalExperience............................................................................................................... 119 ProfessionalAffiliations................................................................................................................119 Education....................................................................................................................................119 ContinuingEducation.................................................................................................................. 119 4 I. Proposed Project and Adjoining Uses Proposed Use Description This 149.5 MW solar farm is proposed to be constructed on a 1,000-acre portion of a larger parent tract assemblage located on Forest Lane, Spring Grove, Virginia. Adjoining land is a mix of residential and agricultural uses, which is very typical of solar farm sites. Adjoining Properties I have considered adjoining uses and included a map to identify each parcel's location. The breakdown of those uses by acreage and number of parcels is summarized below. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 10.33% 63.00% Agricultural 57.09% 27.00% Agri/Res 32.52% 8.000% Religious 0.06% 2.000% Total 100.00% 100.00% 1 • 3+ �� •�^� 5 1-8 9-10 i13 93 85 91 86�90 11-84/ /b / /4 0 00 4I '.6 T) 4 / `.0 43 46 41 ')I S3 0 Surrounding Uses OIS Data Adjoin Adjoin N MAP ID Owner Acres Present Use Acres Parcels 1 1-12 Beulah Land 28.31 Agricultural 0.690% 1.000% 2 2-55G Beulah Land 40.00 Agricultural 0.970/0 1.000/0 3 ll-lA Pierce 42.26 Agricultural 1.030% 1.000/0 4 11-2 Goodrich 30.75 Agricultural 0.75% 1.000/0 5 ll-1B Curling 36.32 Agricultural 0.89% 1.000/0 6 ll-lD Carnahan 24.93 Agricultural 0.61% 1.000/0 7 11-1C Carnahan 5.07 Residential 0.120% 1.000/0 8 ll-lE Curling 4.72 Residential 0.120% 1.000/0 9 11-14 Washington 5.00 Residential 0.120% 1.000/0 10 11-1-3 Brinkman 3.10 Residential 0.08% 1.000% 11 11-50 Surry, 336.00 Agri/Res 8.190/0 1.000/0 12 F 11-46 Surry 552.08 Agricultural 13.45% 1.000/0 13 11-18 Bielmyer 20.19 Agricultural 0.490/. 1.000/0 14 11-24A Howell 9.85 Residential 0.240/. 1.000/0 15 10-13B Schein 2.00 Residential 0.050% 1.000/0 16 10-13A Schein 2.06 Residential 0.050% 1.000/0 17 10-13D Jones 19.81 Residential 0.480% 1.000/0 18 10-13E Jones 13.85 Residential 0.340% 1.000/0 19 10-13 Novak 33.05 Agricultural 0.81% 1.000/0 20 10-13F Dudney 1.96 Residential 0.050% 1.000/0 21 11-25A Hopkins 1.00 Residential 0.02% 1.000% 22 11-40M Morgan 12.75 Residential 0.31% 1.000/0 23 11-40N Collins 9.01 Residential 0.22% 1.000/0 24 11-26 Nixon 4.69 Residential 0.11% 1.000/0 25 11-26A Johnson 5.01 Residential 0.12% 1.000/0 26 11-27 Cox 49.64 Agricultural 1.21% 1.000% 27 11-28 Idlewild 71.95 Agri/Res 1.750% 1.000% 28 24-10 Barter 109.64 Residential 2.670% 1.000/0 29 24-8 West 73.20 Agricultural 1.780% 1.000% 30 24-7 Howell 19.19 Residential 0.470% 1.000% 31 24-6C Padgett 13.00 Agri/Res 0.320% 1.000% 32 24-4 Wooden 74.40 Agricultural 1.81% 1.000/0 33 24-4B Saunders 1.00 Residential 0.020% 1.000/6 34 24-4C Cotten 1.00 Residential 0.020% 1.000/0 35 24-3 Shaw 1.00 Residential 0.02% 1.000/0 36 24-2 W & M 1.00 Residential 0.02% 1.000/0 37 24-5 Padgett 3.34 Residential 0.080% 1.000% 38 24-32 Dowdy 23.73 Agricultural 0.580% 1.000/0 39 24-32A Howell 10.43 Residential 0.250% 1.000% 40 24-32C Gilchrist 2.00 Residential 0.050% 1.000/0 41 24-32B Gilchrist 42.00 Agri/Res 1.02% 1.000/0 42 23-30I Twain 269.50 Agricultural 6.570% 1.000/0 43 23-29C Ellis 20.90 Agricultural 0.51% 1.000/0 44 23-29 Ellis 1.00 Residential 0.02% 1.000% 7 Surrounding Uses GIS Data Adjoin Adjoin # MAP ID Owner Acres Present Use Acres Parcels 45 23-29B Clark 1.00 Residential 0.02% 1.000/0 46 23-29A Saunders 0.50 Residential 0.01% 1.000/0 47 23-48A Ricks 5.89 Residential 0.14% 1.000/0 48 23-48 Odum 5.00 Residential 0.12% 1.000/0 49 23-47H Wotring 5.00 Residential 0.12% 1.000/0 50 23-47 Moody 24.92 Agri/Res 0.61% 1.000/0 51 23-5-A Holmes 14.04 Residential 0.34% 1.000/0 52 23-5-1 Thompson 0.87 Residential 0.02% 1.000/0 53 23-40 Sheldon 22.67 Agricultural 0.55% 1.000/0 54 23-41A Shaw 2.71 Residential 0.07% 1.000/0 55 23-41E Shaw 0.87 Residential 0.02% 1.000/0 56 23-8 Hart 745.20 Agri/Res 18.16% 1.000/0 57 23-55 Bardsley 19.11 Residential 0.47% 1.000/0 58 23-44 Bardsley 5.45 Residential 0.13% 1.000/0 59 24-44D Bardsley 3.49 Residential 0.08% 1.000/0 60 23-44B Bardsley 3.20 Residential 0.08% 1.000/0 61 23-54 Shears 5.00 Residential 0.12% 1.000/0 62 23-54I Charity 3.75 Residential 0.09% 1.000/0 63 23-54H Shears 4.25 Residential 0.100/0 1.000/0 64 23-54A Shears 2.99 Residential 0.07% 1.000/0 65 23-54G Thomas 0.50 Residential 0.01% 1.000/0 66 23-54E Thomas 1.00 Residential 0.02% 1.000/0 67 23-54J Smith 1.00 Residential 0.02% 1.00% 68 23-56 Jones 8.89 Residential 0.22% 1.000/0 69 23-6 Bailey 38.25 Agri/Res 0.93% 1.000/0 70 23-58 All Nations 2.00 Religious 0.050/0 1.000/0 71 23-59B All Nations 0.46 Religious 0.01% 1.00% 72 23-59C Smith 63.22 Agri/Res 1.54% 1.00% 73 10-11 Thompson 386.00 Agricultural 9.41% 1.000/0 74 10-10 Romaine 21.29 Agricultural 0.52% 1.000/0 75 10-8 Cabin Pt 60.00 Agricultural 1.46% 1.000/0 76 10-35 Cabin Pt 34.95 Agricultural 0.85% 1.00% 77 10-11C Jones 15.07 Residential 0.37% 1.000/0 78 10-5-5 Graves 4.29 Residential 0.100/0 1.000/0 79 10-32C Graves 3.46 Residential 0.08% 1.000/0 80 10-32 Wooden 23.74 Agricultural 0.580/0 1.000/0 81 10-31C Jones 3.70 Residential 0.09% 1.000/0 82 10-31B Chiarky 3.70 Residential 0.09% 1.000/0 83 10-31A Allen 3.70 Residential 0.09% 1.000/0 84 10-31 White 11.06 Residential 0.27% 1.000/0 0 Surrounding Uses # MAP ID Owner 85 10-30 Denham 86 10-21 Dew LLC 87 10-19 Harrison 88 10-17B Drew 89 10-17C Shaw 90 10-18A Shaw 91 10-17A Dew LLC 92 10-15 Dew LLC 93 10-16 Dew LLC 94 10-22 Evans 95 10-52 Higgins 96 10-1-16 Barnes 97 10-1-15 Barnes 98 10-1-14 Barnes 99 10-1-11 Barnes 100 1-1-10 blagler GIS Data Adjoin Adjoin Acres Present Use Acres Parcels 32.50 Agricultural 0.79% 1.000/0 65.75 Agricultural 1.60% 1.000/0 1.83 Residential 0.04% 1.000/0 2.14 Residential 0.050/0 1.000/0 1.49 Residential 0.04% 1.000/0 1.00 Residential 0.02% 1.000/0 31.60 Agricultural 0.77% 1.000/0 12.50 Residential 0.30°/u 1.000/0 25.00 Agricultural 0.61% 1.000/0 20.00 Agricultural 0.49% 1.000/0 300.00 Agricultural 7.31% 1.000/0 3.24 Residential 0.08% 1.000/0 3.48 Residential 0.08% 1.000/0 3.31 Residential 0.08% 1.000/0 3.00 Residential 0.07% 1.000/0 2.99 Residential 0.07% 1.000/0 Total 4103.695 100.00% 100.00% 0 II. Methodology and Discussion of Issues Standards and Methodology I conducted this analysis using the standards and practices established by the Appraisal Institute and that conform to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The analyses and methodologies contained in this report are accepted by all major lending institutions, and they are used in Virginia and across the country as the industry standard by certified appraisers conducting appraisals, market analyses, or impact studies and are considered adequate to form an opinion of the impact of a land use on neighboring properties. These standards and practices have also been accepted by the courts at the trial and appellate levels and by federal courts throughout the country as adequate to reach conclusions about the likely impact a use will have on adjoining or abutting properties. The aforementioned standards compare property uses in the same market and generally within the same calendar year so that fluctuating markets do not alter study results. Although these standards do not require a linear study that examines adjoining property values before and after a new use (e.g. a solar farm) is developed, some of these studies do in fact employ this type of analysis. Comparative studies, as used in this report, are considered an industry standard. The type of analysis employed is a Matched Pair Analysis or Paired Sales Analysis. This methodology is outlined in The Appraisal of Real Estate, Twelfth Edition by the Appraisal Institute pages 438-439. It is further detailed in Real Estate Damages, Third Edition, pages 33-36 by Randall Bell PhD, MAI. Paired sales analysis is used to support adjustments in appraisal work for factors ranging from the impact of having a garage, golf course view, or additional bedrooms. It is an appropriate methodology for addressing the question of impact of an adjoining solar farm. The paired sales analysis is based on the theory that when two properties are in all other respects equivalent, a single difference can be measured to indicate the difference in price between them. Dr. Bell describes it as comparing a test area to control areas. In the example provided by Dr. Bell he shows five paired sales in the test area compared to 1 to 3 sales in the control areas to determine a difference. I have used 3 sales in the control areas in my analysis for each sale developed into a matched pair. Determining what is an External Obsolescence An external obsolescence is a use of property that, because of its characteristics, might have a negative impact on the value of adjacent or nearby properties because of identifiable impacts. Determining whether a use would be considered an external obsolescence requires a study that isolates that use, eliminates any other causing factors, and then studies the sales of nearby versus distant comparable properties. The presence of one or a combination of key factors does not mean the use will be an external obsolescence, but a combination of these factors tends to be present when market data reflects that a use is an external obsolescence. External obsolescence is evaluated by appraisers based on several factors. These factors include but are not limited to: 1) Traffic. Solar Farms are not traffic generators. 2) Odor. Solar farms do not produce odor. 3) Noise. Solar farms generate no noise concerns and are silent at night. 10 4) Environmental. Solar farms do not produce toxic or hazardous waste. Grass is maintained underneath the panels so there is minimal impervious surface area. 5) Appearance/Viewshed. This is the one area that potentially applies to solar farms. However, solar farms are generally required to provide significant setbacks and landscaping buffers to address that concern. Furthermore, any consideration of appearance of viewshed impacts has to be considered in comparison with currently allowed uses on that site. For example if a residential subdivision is already an allowed use, the question becomes in what way does the appearance impact adjoining property owners above and beyond the appearance of that allowed subdivision or other similar allowed uses. 6) Other factors. I have observed and studied many solar farms and have never observed any characteristic about such facilities that prevents or impedes neighbors from fully using their homes or farms or businesses for the use intended. Relative Solar Farm Sizes Solar farms have been increasing in size in recent years. Much of the data collected is from existing, older solar farms of smaller size, but there are numerous examples of sales adjoining 75 to 80 MW facilities that show a similar trend as the smaller solar farms. This is understandable given that the primary concern relative to a solar farm is the appearance or view of the solar farm, which is typically addressed through setbacks and landscaping buffers. The relevance of data from smaller solar farms to larger solar farms is due to the primary question being one of appearance. If the solar farm is properly screened, then little of the solar farm would be seen from adjoining property regardless of how many acres are involved. Larger solar farms are often set up in sections where any adjoining owner would only be able to see a small section of the project even if there were no landscaping screen. Once a landscaping screen is in place, the primary view is effectively the same whether adjoining a 5 MW, 20 MW or 100 MW facility. I have split out the data for the matched pairs adjoining larger solar farms only to illustrate the similarities later in this report. Steps Involved in the Analysis The paired sales analysis employed in this report follows the following process: 1. Identify sales of property adjoining existing solar farms. 2. Compare those sales to similar property that does not adjoin an existing solar farm. 3. Confirmation of sales are noted in the analysis write ups. 4. Distances from the homes to panels are included as a measure of the setbacks. 5. Topographic differences across the solar farms themselves are likewise noted along with demographic data for comparing similar areas. There are a number of Sale/Resale comparables included in the write ups, but most of the data shown is for sales of homes after a solar farm has been announced (where noted) or after a solar farm has been constructed. 11 III. Research on Solar Farms A. Appraisal Market Studies I have also considered a number of impact studies completed by other appraisers as detailed below CohnReznick - Property Value Impact Study: Adjacent Property Values Solar Impact Study: A Study of Eight Existing Solar Facilities Patricia McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS, CRA and Andrew R. Lines, MAI with CohnReznick completed an impact study for a proposed solar farm in Cheboygan County, Michigan completed on June 10, 2020. I am familiar with this study as well as a number of similar such studies completed by CohnReznick. I have not included all of these studies but I submit this one as representative of those studies. This study addresses impacts on value from eight different solar farms in Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Virginia and North Carolina. These solar farms are 19.6 MW, 100 MW, 11.9 MW, 23 MW, 71 MW, 61 MW, 40 MW, and 19 MW for a range from 11.9 MW to 100 MW with an average of 31 MW and a median of 31.5 MW. They analyzed a total of 24 adjoining property sales in the Test Area and 81 comparable sales in the Control Area over a five-year period. The conclusion of this study is that there is no evidence of any negative impact on adjoining property values based on sales prices, conditions of sales, overall marketability, potential for new development or rate of appreciation. Christian P. Kaila & Associates - Property Impact Analysis - Proposed Solar Power Plant Guthrie Road, Stuarts Draft, Augusta County, Virginia Christian P. Kaila, MAI, SRA and George J. Finley, MAI developed an impact study as referenced above dated June 16, 2020. This was for a proposed 83 MW facility on 886 acres. Mr. Kaila interviewed appraisers who had conducted studies and reviewed university studies and discussed the comparable impacts of other development that was allowed in the area for a comparative analysis of other impacts that could impact viewshed based on existing allowed uses for the site. He also discussed in detail the various other impacts that could cause a negative impact and how solar farms do not have such characteristics. Mr. Kaila also interviewed county planners and real estate assessors in eight different Virginia counties with none of the assessor's identifying any negative impacts observed for existing solar projects. Mr. Kaila concludes on a finding of no impact on property values adjoining the indicated solar farm. Fred Beck, MAI, CCIM - Impact Analysis in Lincoln County 2013 Mr. Fred Beck, MAI, CCIM completed an impact analysis in 2013 for a proposed solar farm that concluded on a negative impact on value. That report relied on a single cancelled contract for an adjoining parcel where the contracted buyers indicated that the solar farm was the reason for the cancellation. It also relied on the activities of an assessment impact that was applied in a nearby county. Mr. Beck was interviewed as part of the Christian Kalia study noted above. From that I quote `Mr. Beck concluded on no effect on moderate priced homes, and only a 5% change in his limited research of higher priced homes. His one sale that fell through is hardly a reliable sample. It also 12 was misleading on Mr. Beck's part to report the lower re -assessments since the primary cause of the re -assessments were based on the County Official, who lived adjacent to the solar farm, appeal to the assessor for reductions with his own home." In that Clay County Case study the noted lack of lot sales after announcement of the solar faun also coincided with the recession in 2008/2009 and lack of lot sales effectively defined that area during that time. I further note, that I was present at the hearing where Mr. Beck presented these findings and the predominance of his argument before the Lincoln County Board of Commissioner's was based on the one cancelled sale as well as a matched pair analysis of high -end homes adjoining a four-story call center. He hypothesized that a similar impact from that example could be compared to being adjacent solar farm without explaining the significant difference in view, setbacks, landscaping, traffic, light, and noise. Furthermore, Mr. Beck did have matched pairs adjoining a solar farm in his study that he put in the back of his report and then ignored as they showed no impact on property value. Also noted in the Christian Kalia interview notes is a response from Mr. Beck indicating that in his opinion "the homes were higher priced homes and had full view of the solar faun." Based on a description of screening so that "the solar farm would not be in full view to adjoining property owners. Mr. Beck said in that case, he would not see any drop in property value." NorthStar Appraisal Company - Impact Analysis for Nichomus Run Solar, Pilesgrove, NJ, September 16, 2020 Mr. William J. Sapio, MAI with NorthStar Appraisal Company considered a matched pair analysis for the potential impact on adjoining property values to this proposed 150 MW solar farm. Mr. Sapio considered sales activity in a subdivision known as Point of Woods in South Brunswick Township and identified two recent new homes that were constructed and sold adjoining a 13 MW solar farm and compared them to similar homes in that subdivision that did not adjoin the solar farm. These homes sold in the $1,290,450 to $1,336,613 price range and these homes were roughly 200 feet from the closest solar panel. Based on this analysis, he concluded that the adjoining solar farm had no impact on adjoining property value. Conclusion of Impact Studies Of the four studies noted two included actual sales data to derive an opinion of no impact on value. The only study to conclude on a negative impact was the Fred Beck study based on no actual sales data, and he has since indicated that with landscaping screens he would not conclude on a negative impact. I have relied on these studies as additional support for the findings in this impact analysis. B. Articles I have also considered a number of articles on this subject as well as conclusions and analysis as noted below. Farm Journal Guest Editor, March 22, 2021 - Solar's Impact on Rural Property Values Andy Ames, ASFMRA (American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers) published this article that includes a discussion of his survey of appraisers and studies on the question of property value related to solar farms. He discusses the university studies that I have cited as well as Patricia McGarr, MAI. 13 He also discusses the findings of Donald A. Fisher, ARA, who served six years at the Chair of the ASFMRA's National Appraisal Review Committee. He is also the Executive Vice President of the CNY Pomeroy Appraiser and has conducted several market studies on solar farms and property impact. He is quoted in the article as saying, "Most of the locations were in either suburban or rural areas, and all of those studies found either a neutral impact, or ironically, a positive impact, where values on properties after installation of solar farms went up higher than time trends." Howard Halderman, AFM, President and CEO of Halderman Real Estate and Farm Management attended the ASFMRA solar talk hosted by the Indiana Chapter of the ASFMRA and he concludes that other rural properties would likely see no impact and farmers and landowners shown even consider possible benefits. "In some cases, farmers who rent land to a solar company will insure the viability of their farming operation for a longer time period. This makes them better long-term tenants or land buyers so one can argue that higher rents and land values will follow due to the positive impact the solar leases offer." National Renewable Energy Laboratory - Top Five Large -Scale Solar Myths, February 3, 2016 Megan Day reports form NREL regarding a number of concerns neighbors often express. Myth #4 regarding property value impacts addresses specifically the numerous studies on wind fauns that show no impact on property value and that solar farms have a significantly reduced visual impact from wind farms. She highlights that the appearance can be addressed through mitigation measures to reduce visual impacts of solar fauns through vegetative screening. Such mitigations are not available to wind farms given the height of the windmills and again, those studies show no impact on value adjoining wind farms. North Carolina State University: NC Clean Energy Technology Center White Paper: Balancing Agricultural Productivity with Ground -Based Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Development (Version 2), May 2019 Tommy Cleveland and David Sarkisian wrote a white paper for NCSU NC Clean Energy Technology Center regarding the potential impacts to agricultural productivity from a solar faun use. I have interviewed Tommy Cleveland on numerous occasions and I have also heard him speak on these issues at length as well. He addresses many of the common questions regarding how solar fauns work and a detailed explanation of how solar fauns do not cause significant impacts on the soils, erosion and other such concerns. This is a heavily researched paper with the references included. North Carolina State University: NC Clean Energy Technology Center White Paper: Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics, May 2017 Tommy Cleveland wrote a white paper for NCSU NC Clean Energy Technology Center regarding the health and safety impacts to address common questions and concerns related to solar farms. This is a heavily researched white paper addressing questions ranging from EMFs, fire safety, as well as vegetation control and the breakdown of how a solar farm works. C. Broker Commentary In the process of working up the matched pairs used later in this report, I have collected comments from brokers who have actually sold homes adjoining solar farms indicating that the solar farm had no impact on the marketing, timing, or sales price for the adjoining homes. I have comments from 12 such brokers within this report including brokers from Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina. I have additional commentary from other states including New Jersey and Michigan that provide the same conclusion. 14 IV. University Studies I have also considered the following studies completed by four different universities related to solar farms and impacts on property values. A. University of Texas at Austin, May 2018 An Exploration of Property -Value Impacts Near Utility -Scale Solar Installations This study considers solar farms from two angles. First it looks at where solar farms are being located and concludes that they are being located primarily in low density residential areas where there are fewer homes than in urban or suburban areas. The second part is more applicable in that they conducted a survey of appraisers/assessors on their opinions of the possible impacts of proximity to a solar farm. They consider the question in terms of size of the adjoining solar farm and how close the adjoining home is to the solar farm. I am very familiar with this part of the study as I was interviewed by the researchers multiple times as they were developing this. One very important question that they ask within the survey is very illustrative. They asked if the appraiser being surveyed had ever appraised a property next to a solar farm. There is a very noticeable divide in the answers provided by appraisers who have experience appraising property next to a solar farm versus appraisers who self -identify as having no experience or knowledge related to that use. On Page 16 of that study they have a chart showing the responses from appraisers related to proximity to a facility and size of the facility, but they separate the answers as shown below with appraisers with experience in appraising properties next to a solar farm shown in blue and those inexperienced shown in brown. Even within 100 feet of a 102 MW facility the response from experienced appraisers were -5% at most on impact. While inexperienced appraisers came up with significantly higher impacts. This chart clearly shows that an uninformed response widely diverges from the sales data available on this subject. 15 -s -10 as Chart B.2 -Estimates of Property Value Impacts (%) by Size of Facility, Distance, & Respondent Type Have you assessed a home near a utility -scale solar installation? loo feet sw feet um reef 1/2 Mae 1Wme 3MIM Furthermore, the question cited above does not consider any mitigating factors such as landscaping buffers or screens which would presumably reduce the minor impacts noted by experienced appraisers on this subject. The conclusion of the researchers is shown on Page 23 indicated that "Results from our survey of residential home assessors show that the majority of respondents believe that proximity to a solar installation has either no impact or a positive impact on home values." This analysis supports the conclusion of this report that the data supports no impact on adjoining property values. B. University of Rhode Island, September 2020 Property Value Impacts of Commercial -Scale Solar Energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island The University of Rhode Island published a study entitled Property Value Impacts of Commercial - Scale Solar Energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island on September 29, 2020 with lead researchers being Vasundhara Gaur and Corey Lang. I have read that study and interviewed Mr. Corey Lang related to that study. This study is often cited by opponents of solar farms but the findings of that study have some very specific caveats according to the report itself as well as Mr. Lang from the interview. While that study does state in the Abstract that they found depreciation of homes within 1-mile of a solar faun, that impact is limited to non -rural locations. On Pages 16-18 of that study under Section 5.3 Heterogeneity in treatment effect they indicate that the impact that they found was limited to non -rural locations with the impact in rural locations effectively being zero. For the study they defined "rural" as a municipality/township with less than 850 population per square mile. 16 They further tested the robustness of that finding and even in areas up to 2,000 population per square mile they found no statistically significant data to suggest a negative impact. They have not specifically defined a point at which they found negative impacts to begin, as the sensitivity study stopped checking at the 2,000-population dataset. Where they did find negative impacts was in high population density areas that was largely a factor of running the study in Massachusetts and Rhode Island which the study specifically cites as being the 2nd and 3rd most population dense states in the USA. Mr. Lang in conversation as well as in recorded presentations has indicated that the impact in these heavily populated areas may reflect a loss in value due to the scarce greenery in those areas and not specifically related to the solar farm itself. In other words, any development of that site might have a similar impact on property value. Based on this study I have checked the population for the Carsley District of Surry County, which has a population of 1,545 population for 2020 based on SiteToDoBusiness by ESRI and a total area of 96.56 square miles. This indicates a population density of 16 people per square mile which puts this well below the threshold indicated by the Rhode Island Study. I therefore conclude that the Rhode Island Study supports the indication of no impact on adjoining properties for the proposed solar farm project. 17 C. Master's Thesis: ECU by Zachary Dickerson July 2018 A Solar Farm in My Backyard? Resident Perspectives of Utility -Scale Solar in Eastern North Carolina This study was completed as part of a Master of Science in Geography Master's Thesis by Zachary Dickerson in July 2018. This study sets out to address three questions: 1. Are there different aspects that affect resident satisfaction regarding solar farms? 2. Are there variations in satisfaction for residents among different geographic settings, e.g. neighborhoods adjacent to the solar farms or distances from the solar farms? 3. How can insight from both the utility and planning sectors, combined with knowledge gained from residents, fill gaps in communication and policy writing in regard to solar farms? This was done through survey and interview with adjacent and nearby neighbors of existing solar farms. The positive to neutral comments regarding the solar farms were significantly higher than negative. The researcher specifically indicates on Page 46 "The results show that respondents generally do not believe the solar farms pose a threat to their property values." The most negative comments regarding the solar farms were about the lack of information about the approval process and the solar farm project prior to construction. 100% 90% 21% W% — 70% — 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Total Distanced Adjacent Total Distanced Adjacent About the solar farm About their neighborhood sitting near a solar farm ■ positive ■ Negative ■ Neutral Figure 1 I: Residents' positive/negative word choices by geographic setting for both questions 18 D. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, December, 2019 The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi -Site Hedonic Analysis This study addresses wind farms and not solar farms but it is a reasonable consideration. The activity on a wind farm is significantly different in terms of the mechanics and more particularly on the appearance or viewshed as wind farms cannot be screened from adjoining property owners. This study was commissioned by the Department of Energy and not by any developer. This study examined 7,500 home sales between 1996 and 2007 in order to track sales prices both before and after a wind energy facility was announced or built. This study specifically looked into possible stigma, nuisance, and scenic vista. On page 17 of that study they conclude "Although the analysis cannot dismiss the possibility that individual homes or small numbers of homes have been or could be negatively impacted, it finds that if these impacts do exist, they are either too small and/or too infrequent to result in any widespread, statistically observable impact." Given that solar farms are a similar use, but with a lower profile and therefore a lower viewshed than the wind farms, it is reasonable to translate these findings of no impact to solar farms. 19 V. Summary of Solar Projects In Virginia I have researched the solar projects in Virginia. I identified the solar farms through the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) Major Projects List and then excluded the roof mounted facilities. I focused on larger solar farms over 10 MW though I have included a couple of smaller solar farms as shown in the chart below I was able to identify and research 50 solar farms in Virginia as shown below. These are primarily over 20 MW in size with adjoining homes as close as 100 feet and the mix of adjoining uses is primarily agricultural and residential. 20 Avg. Dist Closest Adjoining Use by Aere parcel a Name Conaty City Output Totes Acres Used Acres to home Home Rea Agri Agri/Rea Co. (dW) 115 Buckingham Buckingham Cumberland 19.8 481.18 N/A N/A W. 73% IS% 0% 121 Scott Powhatsn Amelia Court Hou 20 898.4 1,421 730 29 289/o 44% 0% 204 Walker -Correctional New Kent Barhsmsville 20 484.65 484.65 516 103 13% 68% 20% M. 205 Sappony Sussex Stony Creek 20 322.68 322.68 2% 98% 09% M. 216 Beetle Southampton Boykin. 40 422.19 422.19 1,169 310 0% 101yo 90% 0% 222 Grasshopper Mecklenburg Chase City 80 946.25 946.25 69/ 87 /. S% 1% 226 Belcher Louisa Louisa 88 1238.11 1238.11 150 19% 539% 2S% 0% 228 Bluestone Fans Mecklenburg Chase City 4.99 332.5 332.5 0% 100% 0% 0% 257 Nokesvdle Prince Willis Nokesville 331.01 331.01 12% 49% 179/o 23% 261 Burlingham It Buckingham Buckingham 19.8 460.05 460.05 69/ 79% I5% 262 Mount Jackson Shenandoah Mount Jackson 15.65 652.47 652.47 21% 51% 149/o 13% 263 Gloucester Gloucester Gloucester 20 203.55 203.55 508 190 17% 55% 28% 0% 267 Scott It Powhatan Powhaten 701 701 41% 25v/o 349/o 272 Churchview Middlesex Church View 20 567.91 567.91 9% 64% 27% 0% 303 Turner Henri. Henrict, 20 463.12 463.12 N/A N/A 21% 37/. 09% 4W. 311 Sunnybrook Farm Halifax S.ttsburg 527.88 527.88 N/A N/A 15% 59% 269/ 312 Powell Creek Halifax Alton 513 513 N/A N/A 7% 71% 22% 0% 339 Crystal Hill Halifax Crystal Hill 62&67 628.67 1,570 140 6% 41% 35% 18% 354 Amazon Fast Accomack Oak Hall 80 1000 1000 645 135 8% 759/ 17% 0% 355 Alton Post Halifax Alton 501.96 501.96 749 100 2% 58% 40% 0% 364 Remington Fauquier Remington 20 277.2 2772 2,755 1,280 109/o 41% 31% 18% 365 Greenwood Culpepper Stevensburg 100 2266.58 2266.58 788 200 8% 62% 29% 0o/ 367 Culpeper Sr Culpeper Culpeper 12.53 12.53 N/A N/A 15% 0% 86% 0% 370 Cherrydale Northampton Kendall Grove 20 180.17 180.17 N/A N/A 55/o 0 92% 3% 373 W.dland,VA Isle of Wight Smithfield 19.7 211.12 211.12 606 190 9% 0% 91% 0% 374 Whitehouse Louisa Louisa 20 499.52 499.52 1,195 110 249/o 55% 18% 49% 402 Cedar Park Henri. Richmond 13.93 13.93 57% 0 0"/. 43% 4 Foxhound Halifax Clover 91 1311.78 1311.78 885 INS 5% 61% 17v/v 18% 415 Stagecoach II Halifax Nathalie 16.625 327.87 327.87 1,073 255 55/o 66% 29% 0% 484 Essex Solar Center Essex Center Cross 20 106.12 106.12 693 360 35/o 70% 27v/v 0% 485 Southampton Southampton Newsoms 100 3243.92 3243.92 - - 35/o 78% 17v/v 3% 487 Augusta Augusta Stuarts Draft 125 3197.4 1147 588 165 16% 61% 16% 7% 490 Cartersville Powhatan POWhaten 2945 1358 1,467 105 6% 14% 80% 0% 495 Walnut Kingand Que Shacldefords 110 1700 1173 641 165 149/o 729% 13% 1% 497 Piney Creek Halifax Clover 80 776.18 422 523 195 159/ 629% 24% 0% 511 UVA Puller Middlesex Topping 15 120 120 1,095 185 59 329% 0"/. 10v/o 519 Fountain Creek Greeneville Emporia 80 798.3 798.3 - - 69/ 23% 71% 0% 557 Winterpock 1 Chesterfield Chesterfield 518 308 2,106 350 4% 78% 18% 0% 577 Windsor Isle of Wight Windsor 85 564.1 564.1 572 160 9% 67% 249% 0% 579 Spotsylvarda Spotsylvaria Pates 500 6412 3500 91 52% I1 % 27% 586 Sweet Sue King William Aylett 77 1262 576 1,617 680 7% 68% 25% 0% 591 Warwick prince Geor,Disputenta 26.5 967.62 442.05 555 115 12% 68% 20% 0% 621 Inblolly Suny Spring Grove 150 2181.92 1000 1,860 110 7% 62% 31% 0% 622 Woodridge Albemarle Scottsville 138 2260.87 1000 1,094 170 9% 63% 28% 0% 633 Brunswick GreensvUle F Ixria 150.2 2076.36 1387.3 1,091 240 4% 85% 11% 0% 642 Belcher 3 Louisa Louisa 749.36 658.56 598 180 149/o 71% 149% 1% 649 F2rdless Caverns Roc6'nppam New Market 31.5 355 323.6 624 190 159/ 27% 51% 7% 664 Wallington Halifax South Boston 20 240.09 137 536 215 249/o 48% 28% 0% 671 Spout Spring Appomattox Appomattox 60 881.12 673.37 836 335 169/ 30 46% 8% 703 Illy Pond Dinwiddie Carson 80 2197.74 1930 723 115 13% 609% 279/ 0% Total Number of Solar Farms 50 Average 66.76 1006.61 755.54 1003.2 253.5 13% 53% 29% 556 Median 31.50 566.01 520.44 78KO 185.0 9% 6(ff. 2456 096 High 500.00 6412.00 3500.00 2755.0 1280.0 59% 10(ff. 92% 439/6 Low 4.99 12.53 12.53 50810 100.0 0% (ff. M. 0% On the following pages I have included summary data on the constructed solar farms indicated above. Similar information is available for the larger set of solar farms in the adjoining states in my files if requested. 21 115: Buckingham Solar, E. James Anderson Hwy, Buckingham, VA This project was proposed in 2017 and located on 460 acres with the closest home proposed to be 150 feet from the closest solar panel. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 5.95% 71.79% Agricultural 78.81% 20.51% Agri/Res 15.24% 7.69% Total 100.00% 100.00% 22 121: Scott Solar Project, 1580 Goodes Bridge Rd, Powhatan, VA FVN This project was built in 2016 and located on 165 acres out of 898 acres for a 17 MW with the closest home proposed to be 730 feet from the closest solar panel. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 28.83% 78.57% Agri/Res 43.52% 3.57% Agricultural 27.65% 17.86% Total 100.00% 100.00% 23 204: Walker -Correctional Solar, Barham Road, Barhamsville, VA This project was built in 2017 and located on 484.65 acres for a 20 MW with the closest home at 110 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 500 feet. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 12.59% 76.92% Agricultural 67.71% 15.38% Agri/Res 19.70% 7.69% Total 100.00% 100.00% 24 205: Sappony Solar, Sussex Drive, Stony Creek, VA This project was built in 2017 and located on 484.65 acres for a 20 MW with the closest home at 110 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 500 feet. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 12.59% 76.92% Agricultural 67.71% 15.38% Agri/Res 19.70% 7.69% Total 100.00% 100.00% 25 354: Amazon Solar project East (Eastern Shore), Accomack, VA This project was built in 2016 for a solar project on a 1,000-acre assemblage for an 80 MW facility. The closest home is 135 feet from the closest panel. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 8.18% 63.74% Agricultural 75.16% 30.77% Agri/Res Substation Church Total 16.56% 3.30% 0.08% 1.100/0 0.01% 1.100% 100.00% 100.00% 26 364: Remington Solar, 12080 Lucky Hill Rd, Remington, VA This project was built in 2017 for a solar project on a 125-acre tract for a 20 MW facility. There were some recent home sales adjoining this project, but it was difficult to do any matched pairs. One sale was an older home in very poor condition according to the broker and required crossing railroad tracks on a private road to get access to the home and located across from a large industrial building. The other sale is a renovated historic home on a large tract of land just one parcel north of the large industrial building. These sales essentially have too much static around them to isolate any impacts separate from these other factors. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 10.24% 65.38% Agricultural 40.79% 19.23% Agri/Res 30.87% 7.69% Warehouse 0.82% 3.85% Substation 17.280/u 3.85% Total 100.00% 100.00% 2 370: Cherrydale Solar, Seaside Road, Kendall Grove, VA This project was built in 2017 and located on 180.17 acres for a 20 MW facility. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 5.44% 80.77% Agricultural 92.01% 15.38% Warehouse 2.55% 3.85% Total 100.00% 100.00% 28 371: Clarke County Solar, Double Tollgate Road, White Post, VA This project was built in 2017 and located on a portion of a 234.84-acre tract for a 20 MW facility. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 13.70% 74.19% Agricultural 38.89% 6.45% Agri/Res 46.07% 6.45% Commercial 0.190/0 6.45% Warehouse 0.85% 3.23% Substation 0.30% 3.23% Total 100.00% 100.00% 29 373: Woodland Solar, Longview Drive, Smithfield, VA This project was built in 2016 for a solar project on a 211.12-acre tract for a 19.7 MW facility. The closest single-family home is 190 feet away from the closest solar panel. The average distance is 606 feet. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 8.85% 46.15% Agricultural 91.080/0 46.15% Cell Tower 0.07% 7.69% Total 100.00% 100.00% 374: Whitehouse Solar, Chalklevel Road, Louisa, VA This project was built in 2016 for a solar project on a 499.52-acre tract for a 20 MW facility. The closest single-family home is 110 feet away from the closest solar panel. The average distance is 1,195 feet. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 23.55% 70.27% Agricultural 54.51% 10.81% Agri/Res 18.22% 2.70% Commercial 2.49% 13.51% Industrial 1.22% 2.70% Total 100.00% 100.00% 484: Essex Solar, Tidewater Trail, Center Cross, VA This project was built in 2017 for a solar project on a 106.12-acre tract for a 20 MW facility. The closest single-family home is 360 feet away from the closest solar panel. The average distance is 693 feet. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 3.13% 57.89% Agricultural 69.65% 26.32% Agri/Res Religious Total 26.99% 10.53% 0.23% 5.26% 100.00% 100.00% 485: Southampton Solar, General Thomas Hwy, Newsoms, VA 33 This project was built in 2017 for a solar project on an assemblage of 3,244 acres for a 100 MW facility. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 2.56% 53.33% Agricultural 77.99% 36.67% Agri/Res 16.56% 8.33% Industrial 2.89% 1.67% Total 100.00% 100.00% 34 VI. Market Analvsis of the Imvact on Value from Solar Farms I have researched hundreds of solar farms in numerous states to determine the impact of these facilities on the value of adjoining property. This research has primarily been in North Carolina, but I have also conducted market impact analyses in Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Oregon, Mississippi, Maryland, New York, California, Missouri, Florida, Montana, Georgia, Louisiana, and New Jersey. Wherever I have looked at solar farms, I have derived a breakdown of the adjoining uses to show what adjoining uses are typical for solar farms and what uses would likely be considered consistent with a solar farm use similar to the breakdown that Ibe shown for the subject property on the previous page. A summary showing the results of compiling that data over hundreds of solar farms is shown later in the Scope of Research section of this report. I also consider whether the properties adjoining a solar farm in one location have characteristics similar to the properties abutting or adjoining the proposed site so that I can make an assessment of market impact on each proposed site. Notably, in most cases solar farms are placed in areas very similar to the site in question, which is surrounded by low density residential and agricultural uses. In my over 700 studies, I have found a striking repetition of that same typical adjoining use mix in over 90% of the solar farms I have looked at. Matched pair results in multiple states are strikingly similar, and all indicate that solar farms - which generate very little traffic, and do not generate noise, dust or have other harmful effects - do not negatively impact the value of adjoining or abutting properties. On the following pages I have considered matched pair data specific to Virginia and Kentucky. In the next section I have considered matched pair data throughout the Southeast of the United States as being the most similar states that would most readily compare to Virginia. This includes data from Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Maryland. I focused on projects of 5 MW and larger though I have significant supplemental data on solar farms just smaller than that in North Carolina that show similar results. This data is available in my files. I have additional supporting information from other states in my files that show a consistent pattern across the United States, but again, I have focused on the Southeast in this analysis. 35 A. Virginia Data I have identified matched pairs adjoining 3 of the 27 solar farms noted above. I have also included data from a solar farm in Kentucky that does a good job of illustrating distant views of solar panels in relation to adjoining housing. The following pages detail the matched pairs and how they were derived. 36 1. Matched Pair - Clarke County Solar, Clarke County, VA This project is a 20 MW facility located on a 234-acre tract that was built in 2017. 37 I have considered two recent sales of Parcel 3. The home on this parcel is 1,230 feet from the closest panel as measured in the second map from Google Earth, which shows the solar farm under construction. This home sold in January 2017 for $295,000 and again in August 2019 for $385,000. I show each sale below and compare those to similar home sales in each time frame. The significant increase in price between 2017 and 2019 is due to a major kitchen remodel, new roof, and related upgrades as well as improvement in the market in general. The sale and later resale of the home with updates and improvements speaks to pride of ownership and increasing overall value as properties perceived as diminished are less likely to be renovated and sold for profit. I note that 102 Tilthammer includes a number of barns that I did not attribute any value in the analysis. The market would typically give some value for those barns but even without that adjustment there is an indication of a positive impact on value due to the solar farm. The landscaping buffer from this home is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 3 Adjoins 833 Nations Spr 5.13 8/18/2019 $385,000 1979 1,392 $276.58 3/2 Det Gar Ranch UnBsrat Not 167 Leslie 5.00 8/19/2020 $429,000 1980 1,665 $257.66 3/2 Det2Gar Ranch Not 2393 Old Chapel 2.47 8/10/2020 $330,000 1974 1,500 $220.00 3/1.5 Det Gar Ranch Not 102 Tilthammer 6.70 5/7/2019 $372,000 1970 1,548 $240.31 3/1.5 Det Gar Ranch UnBsmt Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance $385,000 1230 -$13,268-$2,145 -$56,272 -$5,000 $50,000 $402,315 -40% -$9,956 $25,000 $8,250 -$19,008 $5,000 $50,000 $389,286 -1% $3,229 $16,740 -$29,991 $5,000 $366,978 50% 0% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 3 Adjoins 833 Nations Spr 5.13 1/9/2017 $295,000 1979 1,392 $211.93 3/2 Det Gar Ranch UnBsmt Not 6801 Middle 2.00 12/12/2017 $249,999 1981 1,584 $157.83 3/2 Open Ranch Not 4174 Rockland 5.06 1/2/2017 $300,000 1990 1,688 $177.73 3/2 2 Gar 2-story Not 400 Sugar Hill 1.00 6/7/2018 $180,000 1975 1,008 $178.57 3/1 Open Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance $295,000 1230 -$7,100 $25,000-$2,500 -$24,242 $5,000 $50,000 $296,157 00% $177-$16,500 -$42,085 -$10,000 $50,000 $281,592 5% -$7,797 $3,600 $54,857 $10,000 $5,000 $50,000 $295,661 00/6 1% m 2. Matched Pair - Walker -Correctional Solar, Barham Road, Barhamsville, VA This project was built in 2017 and located on 484.65 acres for a 20 MW with the closest home at 110 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 500 feet. I considered the recent sale identified on the map above as Parcel 19, which is directly across the street and based on the map shown on the following page is 250 feet from the closest panel. A 39 limited buffering remains along the road with natural growth being encouraged, but currently the panels are visible from the road. Alex Uminski, SRA with MGMiller Valuations in Richmond VA confirmed this sale with the buying and selling broker. The selling broker indicated that the solar farm was not a negative influence on this sale and in fact the buyer noticed the solar farm and then discovered the listing. The privacy being afforded by the solar farm was considered a benefit by the buyer. I used a matched pair analysis with a similar sale nearby as shown below and found no negative impact on the sales price. Property actually closed for more than the asking price. The landscaping buffer is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 5241 Barham 2.65 10/18/2018 $264,000 2007 1,660 $159.04 3/2 Drive Ranch Modular Not 17950 New Kent 5.00 9/5/2018 $290,000 1987 1,756 $165.15 3/2.5 3 Gar Ranch Not 9252 Ordinary 4.00 6/13/2019 $277,000 2001 1,610 $172.05 3/2 1.5-Gar Ranch Not 2416 W Miller 1.04 9/24/2018 $299,000 1999 1,864 $160.41 3/2.5 Gar Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist Adjoins 5241 Barham $264,000 250 Not 17950 New Kent -$8,000 $29,000-$4,756-$5,000-$20,000-$15,000 $266,244 -1% Not 9252 Ordinary -$8,310 -$8,000 $8,310 $2,581-$10,000-$15,000 $246,581 75% Not 2416 W Miller $8,000 $11,960-$9,817-$5,000-$10,000-$15,000 $279,143 -6/ Average Diff 0°/ I also spoke with Patrick W. McCrerey of Virginia Estates who was marketing a property that sold at 5300 Barham Road adjoining the Walker -Correctional Solar Farm. He indicated that this property was unique with a home built in 1882 and heavily renovated and updated on 16.02 acres. The solar farm was through the woods and couldn't be seen by this property and it had no impact on marketing this property. This home sold on April 26, 2017 for $358,000. I did not set up any matched pairs for this property since it is a unique property that any such comparison would be difficult to rely on. The broker's comments do support the assertion that the adjoining solar farm had no impact on value. The home in this case was 510 feet from the closest panel. 40 3. Matched Pair - Sannony Solar, Sussex County, VA This project is a 30 MW facility located on a 322.68-acre tract that was built in the fourth quarter of 2017. I have considered the 2018 sale of Parcel 17 as shown below. This was a 1,900 s.f. manufactured home on a 6.00-acre lot that sold in 2018. I have compared that to three other nearby manufactured homes as shown below. The range of impacts is within typical market variation with an average of -1%, which supports a conclusion of no impact on property value. The landscaping buffer is considered medium. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built Adjoins 12511 Palestine 6.00 7/31/2018 $128,400 2013 Not 15698 Concord 3.92 7/31/2018 $150,000 2010 Not 23209 Sussex 1.03 7/7/2020 $95,000 2005 Not 6494 Rocky Br 4.07 11/8/2018 $100,000 2004 Adjoining Sales Adjusted GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 1,900 $67-58 4/2.5 Open Manuf 2,310 $64.94 4/2 Open Manuf Fence 1,675 $56.72 3/2 Det Crpt Manuf 1,405 $71.17 3/2 Open Manuf Avg Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other $0 $2,250-$21,299 $5,000 -$5,660 $13,000 $3,800 $10,209 $5,000 $1,500 -$843 $4,500 $28,185 Total % Diff % Diff Distance $128,400 1425 $135,951 -6% $122,849 4% $131,842 -3% -1% 42 This solar farm is being built in four phases with the area known as Site C having completed construction in November 2020 after the entire project was approved in April 2019. Site C, also known as Plejnmont 1 Solar, includes 99.6 MW located in the southeast comer of the project and shown on the maps above with adjoining parcels 111 through 144. The entire Spotsylvania project totals 617 MW on 3500 acres out of a parent tract assemblage of 6,412 acres. I have identified three adjoining home sales that occurred during construction and development of the site in 2020. The first is located on the north side of Site A on Orange Plank Road. The second is located on Nottoway Lane just north of Caparthin Road on the south side of Site A and east of Site C. The third is located on Post Oak Road for a home that backs up to Site C that sold in September 2020 near the completion of construction for Site C. Spotsylvania Solar Farm Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 12901 Omg Plnk 5.20 8/27/2020 $319,900 1984 1,714 $186.64 3/2 Drive 1.5 Un Bsmt Not 8353 Gold Dale 3.00 1/27/2021 $415,000 2004 2,064 $201.07 3/2 3 Gar Ranch Not 6488 Southfork 7.26 9/9/2020 $375,000 2017 1,680 $223.21 3/2 2 Gar 1.5 Barn/Patio Not 12717 Flintlock 0.47 12/2/2020 $290,000 1990 1,592 $182.16 3/2.5 Det Gar Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist 12901 Omg Plnk $319,900 1270 8353 Gold Dale-$5,219 $20,000-$41,500-$56,298-$20,000 $311,983 2% 6488 Southfork -$401-$20,000-$61,875 $6,071-$15,000 $283,796 11% 12717 Flintlock-$2,312 $40,000-$8,700 $17,779-$5,000-$5,000 $326,767 -2% Average Diff 4/ Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 9641 Nottoway 11.00 5/12/2020 $449,900 2004 3,186 $141.21 4/2.5 Garage 2-Story Un Bsmt Not 26123 Lafayette 1.00 8/3/2020 $390,000 2006 3,142 $124.12 3/3.5 Gar/DtG, 2-Story Not 11626 Forest 5.00 8/10/2020 $489,900 2017 3,350 $146.24 4/3.5 2 Gar 2-Story Not 10304 Pny Bmch 6.00 7/27/2020 $485,000 1998 3,076 $157.67 4/4 2Gar/Dt2 Ranch Fn Bsmt Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YE GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist 9641 Nottoway $449,900 1950 26123 Lafayette-$2,661 $45,000 -$3,900 $4,369-$10,000 -$5,000 $417,809 70/6 11626 Forest-$3,624 -$31,844-$19,187 -$5,000 $430,246 4/ 10304 Pny Burch-$3,030 $14,550 $13,875-$15,000 -$15,000-$10,000 $470,396 -50% Average Diff 2% Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 13353 Post Oak 5.20 9/21/2020 $300,000 1992 2,400 $125.00 4/3 Drive 2-Story Fn Bsmt Not 9609 Login Hgt 5.86 7/4/2019 $330,000 2004 2,352 $140.31 3/2 2Gar 2-Story Not 12810 Catharpian 6.18 1/30/2020 $280,000 2008 2,240 $125.00 4/2.5 Drive 2-StoryBsmt/Nd Pnt Not 10725 Rbrt Lee 5.01 10/26/2020 $295,000 1995 2,166 $136.20 4/3 Gar 2-Story Fn Bsmt 43 Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time 13353 Post Oak 9609 Logan Hgt $12,070 12810 Catharpian $5,408 10725 Rbrt Lee -$849 Ac/Loc YE GLA -$19,800 $5,388 -$22,400 $16,000 -$4,425 $25,496 BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist $300,000 1171 -$15,000 $15,000 $327,658 -90% $5,000 $15,000 $299,008 00/6 -$10,000 $305,222 -2"/0 Average Diff -4% All three of these homes are well set back from the solar panels at distances over 1,000 feet and are well screened from the project. All three show no indication of any impact on property value. 44 5. Matched Pair - Crittenden Solar, Crittenden, KY This solar farm was built in December 2017 on a 181.70-acre tract but utilizing only 34.10 acres. This is a 2.7 MW facility with residential subdivisions to the north and south. I have identified five home sales to the north of this solar farm on Clairborne Drive and one home sale to the south on Eagle Ridge Drive since the completion of this solar farm. The home sale on Eagle Drive is for a $75,000 home and all of the homes along that street are similar in size and price range. According to local broker Steve Glacken with Cutler Real Estate these are the lowest price range/style home in the market. I have not analyzed that sale as it would unlikely provide significant data to other homes in the area. Mr. Glacken is currently selling lots at the west end of Clairborne for new home construction. He indicated that the solar farm near the entrance of the development has been a complete non -factor and none of the home sales are showing any concern over the solar farm. Most of the homes are in the $250,000 to $280,000 price range. The vacant residential lots are being marketed for $28,000 to $29,000. The landscaping buffer is considered light, but the rolling terrain allows for distant views of the panels from the adjoining homes along Clairborne Drive. The first home considered is a bit of an anomaly for this subdivision in that it is the only manufactured home that was allowed in the community. It sold on January 3, 2019. I compared that sale to three other manufactured home sales in the area making minor adjustments as shown on the next page to account for the differences. After all other factors are considered, the adjustments show a -1% to +13% impact due to the adjacency of the solar farm. The best indicator is 1250 Cason, which shows a 3% impact. A 3% impact is within the normal static of real estate transactions and therefore not considered indicative of a positive impact on the property, but it strongly supports an indication of no negative impact. 45 Adjoining Residential Sales After Soler Farm Approved Parcel Soler Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 250 Claiborne 0.96 1/3/2019 $120,000 2000 2,016 $59.52 3/2 Drive Manuf Not 1250 Cason 1.40 4/18/2018 $95,000 1994 1,500 $63.33 3/2 2-Det Manuf Carport Not 410 Reeves 1.02 11/27/2018 $80,000 2000 1,456 $54.95 3/2 Drive Manuf Not 315N Fork 1.09 5/4/2019 $107,000 1992 1,792 $59.71 3/2 Drive Manuf Adjustments Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total %Diff %Diff Distance Adjoins 250 Claiborne $120,000 373 Not 1250 Cason $2,081 $2,850 $26,144 -$5,000-$5,000 $116,075 39/o Not 410 Reeves $249 $0 $24,615 $104,865 13% Not 315N Fork-$1,091 $4,280 $10,700 $120,889 -1% 5% I also looked at three other home sales on this street as shown below. These are stick -built homes and show a higher price range. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 300 Claiborne 1.08 9/20/2018 $212,720 2003 1,568 $135.66 3/3 2-Car Ranch Hick Not 460 Claiborne 0.31 1/3/2019 $229,000 2007 1,446 $158.37 3/2 2-Car Ranch Hick Not 2160 Sherman 1.46 6/l/2019 $265,000 2005 1,735 $152-74 3/3 2-Car Ranch Hick Not 215 Lexington 1.00 7/27/2018 $231,200 2000 1,590 $145.41 5/4 2-Car Ranch Hick Adjustments Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance Adjoins 300 Claiborne $213,000 488 Not 460 Claiborne-$2,026 -$4,580 $15,457 $5,000 $242,850 -14% Not 2160 Sherman-$5,672 -$2,650-$20,406 $236,272 -11% Not 215 Lexington $1,072 $3,468-$2,559-$5,000 $228,180 -7% -11% This set of matched pairs shows a minor negative impact for this property. I was unable to confirm the sales price or conditions of this sale. The best indication of value is based on 215 Le�dngton, which required the least adjusting and supports a -70/o impact. Adjoining Residential Salsa After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 350 Claiborne 1.00 7/20/2018 $245,000 2002 1,688 $145-14 3/3 2-Car Ranch Hick Not 460 Claiborne 0.31 1/3/2019 $229,000 2007 1,446 $158.37 3/2 2-Car Ranch Hick Not 2160 Sherman 1.46 6/1/2019 $265,000 2005 1,735 $152.74 3/3 2-Car R/Fasmt Hick Not 215 Lexington 1.00 7/27/2018 $231,200 2000 1,590 $145-41 5/4 2-Car Ranch Hick Adjustments Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance Adjoins 350 Claiborne $245,000 720 Not 460 Claiborne-$3,223 -$5,725 $30,660 $5,000 $255,712 -4% Not 2160 Sherman-$7,057 -$3,975-$5,743 $248,225 -1% Not 215 Lexington -$136 $2,312 $11,400-$5,000 $239,776 2% -1% The following photograph shows the light landscaping buffer and the distant view of panels that was included as part of the marketing package for this property. The panels are visible somewhat on the left and somewhat through the trees in the center of the photograph. The first photograph is from the home, with the second photograph showing the view near the rear of the lot. This set of matched pairs shows a no negative impact for this property. The range of adjusted impacts is -4% to +2%. The best indication is -10/6, which as described above is within the typical market static and supports no impact on adjoining property value. 47 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 370 Claiborne 1.06 8/22/2019 $273,000 2005 1,570 $173.89 4/3 2-Ca, 2-Story Brick Not 2160 Sherman 1.46 6/1/2019 $265,000 2005 1,735 $152.74 3/3 2-Ca, R/FEsmt Brick Not 2290 Dry 1.53 5/2/2019 $239,400 1988 1,400 $171.00 3/2.5 2-Ca, R/FEsmt Brick Not 125 Lexington 1.20 4/17/2018 $240,000 2001 1,569 $152.96 3/3 2-Ca, Split ]rick Adjustments Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance Adjoins 370 Claiborne $273,000 930 Not 2160 Shenoan $1,831 $0-$20,161 $246,670 10% Not 2290 Dry $2,260 $20,349 $23,256 $2,500 $287,765 -5% Not 125 Lexington $9,951 $4,800 $254,751 7% 4% This set of matched pairs shows a general positive impact for this property. The range of adjusted impacts is -5e/6 to +10%. The best indication is +71/o. I typically consider measurements of +/-5% to be within the typical variation in real estate transactions. This indication is higher than that and suggests a positive relationship. The photograph from the listing shows panels visible between the home and the trampoline shown in the picture. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA ✓4/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 330 Claiborne 1.00 12/10/2019 $282,500 2003 1,768 $159.79 3/3 2-Car Renck lkick/pool Not 895 Osborne 1.70 9/16/2019 $249,900 2002 1,705 $146.57 3/2 2-Car Ranch Brick/pool Not 2160 Sherman 1.46 6/1/2019 $265,000 2005 1,735 $152.74 3/3 2-Car R/FBsmt Brick Not 215 Lexington 1.00 7/27/2018 $231,200 2000 1,590 $145.41 5/4 2-Car Ranch Brick Avg Solar Address Time Site VB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total %Diff %Diff Distance Adjoins 330 Claiborne $282,500 665 Not 895 Osborne $1,790 $1,250 $7,387 $5,000 $0 $265,327 6% Not 2160 Sheroam $4,288 -$2,650 $4,032 $20,000 $290,670 -3% Not 215 Lexington $9,761 $3,468 $20,706 -$5,000 $20,000 $280, 135 1% 1% This set of matched pairs shows a general positive impact for this property. The range of adjusted impacts is -3% to +6%. The best indication is +69/o. I typically consider measurements of +/-50/o to be within the typical variation in real estate transactions. This indication is higher than that and suggests a positive relationship. The landscaping buffer on these is considered light with a fair visibility of the panels from most of these comparables and only thin landscaping buffers separating the homes from the solar panels. The five matched pairs considered in this analysis includes two that show no impact on value, one that shows a negative impact on value, and two that show a positive impact. The negative indication supported by one matched pair is -7a/o and the positive impacts are +6% and +71/o. The two neutral indications show impacts of -1% and +3%. The average indicated impact is +oa/o when all five of these indicators are blended. Furthermore, the comments of the local real estate broker strongly support the data that shows no negative impact on value due to the proximity to the solar farm. Conclusion The solar farm matched pairs shown above have similar characteristics to each other in terms of population, but with several outliers showing solar farms in far more urban areas. The median income for the population within 1 mile of a solar farm among this subset of matched pairs is $80,778 with a median housing unit value of $320,076. Most of the comparables are under $500,000 in the home price, with $483,333 being the high end of the set, though I have matched pairs in other states over $1,000,000 in price adjoining large solar farms. The predominate adjoining uses are residential and agricultural. These figures are in line with the larger set of solar farms that I have looked at with the predominant adjoining uses being residential and agricultural and similar to the solar farm breakdown shown for Virginia and adjoining states as well as the proposed subject property. Based on the similarity of adjoining uses and demographic data between these sites and the subject property, I consider it reasonable to compare these sites to the subject property. Matched Pak Summary Rome City 1 Clarke Cray White Post 2 Walker Harhamsville 3 Sappony Stony Crk 4 Spotyslvania Payaes 5 Crittenden Crittenden Average Median High 1q Adj. Uses By Acreage Top* State Acres MW Shift Res AS Ag/Rea Com/lad VA 234 20.00 70 14% 39% 46D/ 1 VA 485 20.00 N/A 12% 68% 20% 0"/0 VA 322 20.00 N/A 2% 98% 0 % Gy. VA 3,500 617.00 160 37/. 52% 11% 0 KY 34 2.70 40 22 % 51% 27% 0% 915 135.94 90 17% 62% 21% 0% 322 20.00 70 14% 52% 20% 0% 3,500 617.00 160 37% 98% 469% 1% 34 2.70 40 2% 39% (ff. 0 1 settle Radius 12010-2020 lintel Med. Avg. Housing Population Income Urdt Veg. Buffer 578 $81,022 $374,453 Light 203 $80,773 $320,076 Light 74 $51,410 $155,208 Medium 74 $120,861 $483,333 Med to Hvy 1,419 $60,198 $178,643 Light 470 $78,853 $302,343 203 $80,773 $320,076 1,419 $120,861 $483,333 74 $51,410 $155,208 On the following page is a summary of the matched pairs for all of the solar farms noted above. They show a pattern of results from -7% to +7% with an average of 0% and a median finding of +1 %. As can be seen in the chart of those results below, most of the data points are between -31/6 and +5B/u. This variability is common with real estate and consistent with market "static." I therefore conclude that these results strongly support an indication of no impact on property value due to the adjacent solar farm. 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% -8% 50 Residential Dwelling M atched Pairs Adjoining Solar Farms Apprmr A4j. Sale Veg. Pair Solar Farm City State Alta MW Distance Tan M/Address Date Sale Prim Price %DIH BaSkr 1 Clarke Cnty White Post VA Rural 20 1230 833 Nations SF Jan-17 $295,000 Light 6801 Middle Dec-17 $249,999 $296,157 09% 2 Walker Barhamsville VA Rural 20 250 5241 Barham Oct-18 $264,000 Light 9252 Ordinary Jun-19 $277,000 $246,581 79% 3 Clarke Cnty White Post VA Rural 20 1230 833 Nations Sin Aug-19 $385,000 Light 2393O1d Chapel Aug-20 $330,000 $389,286 -1% 4 Sappony Stony Creek VA Rural 20 1425 12511 Palestine Jul-18 $128,400 Medium 6494 Rocky Branch Nov-18 $100,000 $131,842 -3 % 5 Spotsybumia Poytes VA Rural 617 1270 12901 Orange Pink Aug-20 $319,900 Medium 12717 Flintlock Dec-20 $290,000 $326,767 -2% 6 Spotsylvama Paytes VA Rural 617 1950 9641 Nottoway May-20 $449,900 Medium 11626 Forest Aug-20 $489,900 $430,246 4% 7 Spotsylvania Paytes VA Rural 617 1171 13353 Post Oak Sep-20 $300,000 Heavy 12810 Catharldn Jan-20 $280,000 $299,008 W. 8 Crittenden Crittenden KY Suburban 2.7 373 250Claiborne Jar-19 $120,000 Light 315 N Fork May-19 $107,000 $120,889 -1% 9 Crittenden Crittenden KY Suburban 2.7 488 300Claiborne Sep -a $213,000 Light 1795gay Valley Dec-17 $231,200 $228,180 -7% 10 Crittenden Crittenden KY Suburban 2.7 720 350Claiborne Jul-18 $245,000 Light 2160Sherman Jun-19 $265,000 $248,225 -1% 11 Crittenden Crittenden KY Suburban 2.7 930 370Claiborne Aug-19 $273,000 Light 125 Leri ngton Apr-18 $240,0W $254,751 J% Avg. MW Dist.. Avenge 176.53 1,003 Median 20.00 1,171 High 617.00 1,950 1. 2.70 250 Indicated Impact Average 0% Median -1% High 7% Low -7% I have further broken down these results based on the MWs, Landscaping, and distance from panel to show the following range of findings for these different categories. This breakdown shows no homes between 100-200 homes. Solar farms up to 75 MW show homes between 201 and 500 feet with no impact on value. Most of the findings are for homes between 201 and 500 feet. Light landscaping screens are showing no impact on value at any distances, though solar farms over 75.1 MW only show Medium and Heavy landscaping screens in the 3 examples identified. 51 M W Range 4.4 to 10 Landscaping Light Light Light M edium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ Average N/A -4% 3% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Median N/A -4% 3% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A High N/A -1% 7% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Low N/A -7% -1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10.1 to 30 Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ Average N/A 7% -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A Median N/A 7% -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A High N/A 7% 0% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A Low N/A 7% -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A 30.1 to 75 Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ Average N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Median N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A High N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Low N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 75.1+ Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ Average N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1% N/A N/A N/A Median N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1% N/A N/A N/A High N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4% N/A N/A N/A Low N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -2% N/A N/A N/A 52 B. Southeastern USA Data - Over 5 MW 1. Matched Pair - AM Best Solar Farm, Goldsboro, NC This 5 MW solar farm adjoins Spring Garden Subdivision which had new homes and lots available for new construction during the approval and construction of the solar farm. The recent home sales have ranged from $200,000 to $250,000. This subdivision sold out the last homes in late 2014. The solar farm is clearly visible particularly along the north end of this street where there is only a thin line of trees separating the solar farm from the single-family homes. Homes backing up to the solar farm are selling at the same price for the same floor plan as the homes that do not back up to the solar farm in this subdivision. According to the builder, the solar farm has been a complete non -factor. Not only do the sales show no difference in the price paid for the various homes adjoining the solar farm versus not adjoining the solar farm, but there are actually more recent sales along the solar farm than not. There is no impact on the sellout rate, or time to sell for the homes adjoining the solar farm. I spoke with a number of owners who adjoin the solar farm and none of them expressed any concern over the solar farm impacting their property value. The data presented on the following page shows multiple homes that have sold in 2013 and 2014 adjoining the solar farm at prices similar to those not along the indicate that the solar farm has no impact on the adjoining residential use. The homes that were marketed at Spring Garden are shown below. Amerimna wa.hvpnm SgFt 3.194 Piicc 5237900 SQFt. 3,292 M Bed / Bath. Bed / Bath: 3/3.5 4/3.5 Pmaide ml Kmttedy Sgit: 3,400 Pnce S244900 & I , SpFt: 3.494 Bed / Bath - Bed / Bath: 5/35 5/3 Virginia SpFt 3.449 Pnce 5259.900 Bed/Bath: 5/3 solar farm. These series of sales Price: 5244,900 Pnu: 5249.900 The homes adjoining the solar farm are considered to have a light landscaping screen as it is a narrow row of existing pine trees supplemented with evergreen plantings. 53 Matched Pairs As of Date: 9/3/2014 Adjoining Sales After Solar Farm Completed TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 3600195570 Helm 0.76 Sep-13 $250,000 2013 3,292 $75.94 2 Story 3600195361 Leak 1.49 Sep-13 $260,000 2013 3,652 $71.19 2 Story 3600199891 McBrayer 2.24 Jul-14 $250,000 2014 3,292 $75.94 2 Story 3600198632 Foresman 1.13 Aug-14 $253,000 2014 3,400 $74.41 2 Story 3600196656 Hinson 0.75 Dec-13 $255,000 2013 3,453 $73.85 2 Story Average 1.27 $253,600 2013.4 3,418 $74.27 Median 1.13 $253,000 2013 3,400 $74.41 Adjoining Sales After Solar Farm Announced TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 0 Feddereen 1.56 Feb-13 $247,000 2012 3,427 $72.07 Ranch 0 Gentry 1.42 Apr-13 $245,000 2013 3,400 $72.06 2 Story Average 1.49 Median 1.49 Adjoining Sales Before Solar Farm Announced $246,000 2012.5 3,414 $72.07 $246,000 2012.5 3,414 $72.07 TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 3600183905 Carter 1.57 Dec-12 $240,000 2012 3,347 $71.71 1.5 Story 3600193097 Kelly 1.61 Sep-12 $198,000 2012 22532 $78.20 2 Story 3600194189 Hadwan 1.55 Nov-12 $240,000 2012 3,433 $69.91 1.5 Story Average 1.59 Median 1.59 Nearby Sales After Solar Farm Completed $219,000 2012 2,940 $74.95 $219,000 2012 2,940 $74.95 TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 3600193710 Barnes 1.12 Oct-13 $248,000 2013 3,400 $72.94 2 Story 3601105180 Nackley 0.95 Dec-13 $253,000 2013 3,400 $74.41 2 Story 3600192528 Mattheis 1.12 Oar-13 $238,000 2013 3,194 $74.51 2 Story 3600198928 Beckman 0.93 Mar-14 $250,000 2014 3,292 $75.94 2 Story 3600196965 Hough 0.81 Jun-14 $224,000 2014 22434 $92.03 2 Story 3600193914 Pmskitt 0.67 Jun-14 $242,000 2014 22825 $85.66 2 Story 3600194813 Bordner 0.91 Apr-14 $258,000 2014 3,511 $73.48 2 Story 3601104147 Shaffer 0.73 Apr-14 $255,000 2014 32453 $73.85 2 Story Average 0.91 $246,000 2013.625 32189 $77.85 Median 0.92 $249,000 2014 3,346 $74.46 Nearby Sales Before Solar Farm Announced TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 3600191437 Thomas 1.12 Sep-12 $225,000 2012 3,276 $68.68 2 Story 3600087968 Lilley 1.15 Jan-13 $238,000 2012 3,421 $69.57 1.5 Story 3600087654 Burke 1.26 Sep-12 $240,000 2012 32543 $67.74 2 Story 3600088796 Hobbs 0.73 Sep-12 $228,000 2012 32254 $70.07 2 Story Average 1.07 $232,750 2012 3,374 $69.01 Median 1.14 $233,000 2012 3,349 $69.13 54 Matched Pair Summary Adjoins Solar Farm Average Median Sales Price $253,600 $253,000 Year Built 2013 2013 Size 3,418 3,400 Price/SF $74.27 $74.41 Percentage Differences Median Price -2% Median Size -2% Median Price/SF 00/0 Nearby Solar Farm Average Median $246,000 $249,000 2014 2014 3,189 3,346 $77.85 $74.46 I note that 2308 Granville Drive sold again in November 2015 for $267,500, or $7,500 more than when it was purchased new from the builder two years earlier (Tax ID 3600195361, Owner: Leak). The neighborhood is clearly showing appreciation for homes adjoining the solar farm. The Median Price is the best indicator to follow in any analysis as it avoids outlying samples that would otherwise skew the results. The median sizes and median prices are all consistent throughout the sales both before and after the solar farm whether you look at sites adjoining or nearby to the solar farm. The average size for the homes nearby the solar farm shows a smaller building size and a higher price per square foot. This reflects a common occurrence in real estate where the price per square foot goes up as the size goes down. So even comparing averages the indication is for no impact, but I rely on the median rates as the most reliable indication for any such analysis. I have also considered four more recent resales of homes in this community as shown on the following page. These comparable sales adjoin the solar farm at distances ranging from 315 to 400 feet. The matched pairs show a range from -9% to +60/6. The range of the average difference is -2% to +1% with an average of 0% and a median of +0.5%. These comparable sales support a finding of no impact on property value. 55 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Soler Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 103 Granville PI 1.42 7/27/2018 $265,000 2013 3,292 $80.50 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story 385 Not 2219 Granville 1.15 1/8/2018 $2.60,000 2012 3,292 $78.98 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 634 Friendly 0.96 7/31/2019 $267,000 2018 3,053 $87.45 4/4.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 2403 Graonlle 0.69 4/23/2019 $265,000 2014 2,816 $94.11 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 103 Granville PI $265,000 -2% Not 2219 Granville $4,382 $1,300 $0 $265,682 0% Not 634 Friendly -$8,303 -$6,675 $16,721 -$10,000 $258,744 2% Not 2403 Graoville -$6,029 -$1,325 $31,356 $289,001 -9% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GSA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 104 Erin 2.24 6/19/2017 $280,000 2014 3,549 $78.90 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story 315 Not 2219 Graonlle 1.15 1/8/2018 $260,000 2012 3,292 $78.98 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 634 Friendly 0.96 7/31/2019 $267,000 2018 3,053 $87.45 414.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 2403 Granville 0.69 4/23/2019 $265,000 2014 2,816 $94.11 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 104 Erin $280,000 0% Not 2219 Granville 44,448 $2,600 $16,238 $274,390 2% Not 634 Friendly -$17,370 -$5,340 $34,702 -$10,000 $268,992 4% Not 2403 Granville -$15,029 $0 $48,285 $298,256 -7% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 2312 Granville 0.75 5/1/2018 $284,900 2013 3,453 $82.51 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story 400 Not 2219 Granville 1.15 1/8/2018 $260,000 2012 3,292 $78.98 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 634 Friendly 0.96 7/31/2019 $267,000 2018 3,053 $87.45 4/4.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 2403 Graonlle 0.69 4/23/2019 $265,000 2014 2,816 $94.11 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 2312 Granville $284,900 1% Not 2219 Granville $2,476 $1,300 $10,173 $273,948 49/6 Not 634 Friendly -$10,260 -$6,675 $27,986 -$10,000 $268,051 69/6 Not 2403 Granville -$7,972 -$1,325 $47,956 $303,659 -7% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 2310 Granville 0.76 5/14/2019 $280,000 2013 3,292 $85.05 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story 400 Not 2219 Granville 1.15 1/8/2018 $260,000 2012 3,292 $78.98 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 634 Friendly 0.96 7/31/2019 $267,000 2018 3,053 $87.45 4/4.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 2403 Granville 0.69 4/23/2019 $265,000 2014 2,816 $94.11 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total %Dill %Dill Adjoins 2310 Granville $280,000 1% Not 2219 Graoville $10,758 $1,300 $0 $272,058 39/6 Not 634 Friendly -$1,755 -$6,675 $16,721 -$10,000 $265,291 5% Not 2403 Granville $469 -$1,325 $31,356 $295,500 -6% I have also considered the original sales prices in this subdivision relative to the recent resale values as shown in the chart below. This rate of appreciation is right at 2.5% over the last 6 years. Zillow indicates that the average home value within the 27530-zip code as of January 2014 was $101,300 and as of January 2020 that average is $118,100. This indicates an average increase in the market of 2.37%. I conclude that the appreciation of the homes adjoining the solar farm are not impacted by the presence of the solar farm based on this data. 56 Address 1 103Granville PI 2 105 Erin 3 2312 Granville 4 2312 Granville 5 2310Granville 6 2308 Granville 7 2304 Granville 8 102 Erin Initial Sale Second Sale Year Date Price Date Price Diff 4/1/2013 $245,000 7/27/2018 $265,000 7/1/2014 $250,000 6/19/2017 $280,000 12/1/2013 $255,000 5/1/2015 $262,000 5/1/2015 $262,000 5/1/2018 $284,900 8/1/2013 $250,000 5/14/2019 $280,000 9/1/2013 $260,000 11/12/2015 $267,500 9/1/2012 $198,000 6/1/2017 $225,000 8/1/2014 $253,000 11/1/2016 $270,000 % Apprec. Apprec. Apprec. %/Year 5.32 $20,000 8.16% 1.53% 2.97 $30,000 12.00% 4.049/. 1.41 $7,000 2.75% 1.949/. 3.00 $22,900 8.74% 2.91% 5.79 $30,000 12.00% 2.07% 2.20 $7,500 2.88% 1.31% 4.75 $27,000 13.64% 2.87% 2.25 $17,000 6.72% 2.98% Average 2.46% Median 2.47% 57 2. Matched Pair - Mulberry, Selmer, TN This 16 MW solar farm was built in 2014 on 208.89 acres with the closest home being 480 feet. This solar farm adjoins two subdivisions with Central Hills having a mix of existing and new construction homes. Lots in this development have been marketed for $15,000 each with discounts offered for multiple lots being used for a single home site. I spoke with the agent with Rhonda Wheeler and Becky Heamsberger with United County Farm & Home Realty who noted that they have seen no impact on lot or home sales due to the solar farm in this community. I have included a map below as well as data on recent sales activity on lots that adjoin the solar farm or are near the solar farm in this subdivision both before and after the announced plan for this solar farm facility. I note that using the same method I used to breakdown the adjoining uses at the subject property I show that the predominant adjoining uses are residential and agricultural, which is consistent with the location of most solar farms. WJ Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Commercial 3.40% 0.034 Residential 12.84% 79.31% Agri/Res 10.39% 3.45% Agricultural 73.37% 13.79% Total 100.00% 100.00% I have run a number of direct matched comparisons on the sales adjoining this solar farm as shown below. These direct matched pairs include some of those shown above as well as additional more recent sales in this community. In each of these I have compared the one sale adjoining the solar farm to multiple similar homes nearby that do not adjoin a solar farm to look for any potential impact from the solar farm. Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other 3 Adjoins 491 Dusty 6.86 10/28/2016 $176,000 2009 1,801 $97.72 3/2 2-Gar Ranch Not 820 Lake Trail 1.00 6/8/2018 $168,000 2013 1,869 $89.89 4/2 2-Gar Ranch Not 262 Country 1.00 1/17/2018 $145,000 2000 1,860 $77.96 3/2 2-Gar Ranch Not F 35 April 1.15 8/16/2016 $185,000 2016 1,980 $93.43 3/2 2-Gar Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Parcel Solar Address i Time Site YB GLA Park Other Total % Diff Distauce 3 Adjoins 491 Dusty $176,000 480 Not 8201ake Trail -$8,324 $12,000-S3,360-$4,890 $163,426 7% Not 262 Country -$5,450 $12,000 $6,525-$3,680 $154,396 12% Not r 35Apri1 $1,138 $12,000-$6,475-$13,380 $178,283 -1% Average 6% The best matched pair is 35 April Loop, which required the least adjustment and indicates a -1% increase in value due to the solar farm adjacency. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other 12 Adjoins 57 Cooper 1.20 2/26/2019 $163,000 2011 1,586 $102.77 3/2 2-Gar 1.5 Story Pool Not 191 Amelia 1.00 8/3/2018 $132,000 2005 1,534 $86.05 3/2 Drive Ranch Not r 75 April 0.85 3/17/2017 $134,000 2012 1,588 $84.38 3/2 2-Crprt Ranch Not 345 Woodland 1.15 12/29/2016 $131,000 2002 1,410 $92.91 3/2 1-Gar Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Parcel Solar Address Sales Price Time Site YB GLA Park Other Total % Diff Distance 12 Adjoins 57 Cooper $163,000 $163,000 685 Not 191 Amelia $132,000 $2,303 $3,960 $2,685 $10,000 $5,000 $155,947 4% Not r 75 April $134,000 $8,029 $4,000 -$670 r -$135 $5,000 $5,000 $155,224 50/0 Not 345 woodland $131,000 $8,710 $5,895 $9,811 $5,000 $160,416 2% Average 4% The best matched pair is 191 Amelia, which was most similar in time frame of sale and indicates a +4% increase in value due to the solar farm adjacency. 59 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/ORA BR/BA Park Style Other 15 Adjoins 297 Country 1.00 9/30/2016 $150,000 2002 1,596 $93.98 3/2 4-Gar Ranch Not 185 Dusty 1.85 8/17/2015 $126,040 2009 1,463 $86.15 3/2 2-Gar Ranch Not 53 Glen 1.13 3/9/2017 $126,000 1999 1,475 $85.42 3/2 2-Gar Ranch Brick Adjoining Sales Adjusted Parcel Solar Address Sales Price Time Site YB GLA Park Other Total % Diff Distance 15 Adjoins 297 Country $150,000 $150,000 650 Not 185 Dusty $126,040 $4,355 -$4,411 $9,167 $10,000 $145,150 3% Not 53 Glen $126,000 -$1,699 $1,890 $8,269 $10,000 $144,460 4% Average 3% The best matched pair is 53 Glen, which was most similar in time frame of sale and required less adjustment. It indicates a +4% increase in value due to the solar faun adjacency. The average indicated impact from these three sets of matched pairs is +4%, which suggests a mild positive relationship due to adjacency to the solar farm. The landscaping buffer for this project is mostly natural tree growth that was retained as part of the development but much of the trees separating the panels from homes are actually on the lots for the homes themselves. I therefore consider the landscaping buffer to be thin to moderate for these adjoining homes. I have also looked at several lot sales in this subdivision as shown below. These are all lots within the same community and the highest prices paid are for lots one parcel off from the existing solar farm. These prices are fairly inconsistent, though they do suggest about a $3,000 loss in the lots adjoining the solar farm. This is an atypical finding and additional details suggest there is more going on in these sales than the data crunching shows. First of all Parcel 4 was purchased by the owner of the adjoining home and therefore an atypical buyer seeking to expand a lot and the site is not being purchased for home development. Moreover, using the SiteToDoBusiness demographic tools, I found that the 1-mile radius around this development is expecting a total population increase over the next 5 years of 3 people. This lack of growing demand for lots is largely explained in that context. Furthermore, the fact that finished home sales as shown above are showing no sign of a negative impact on property value makes this data unreliable and inconsistent with the data shown in sales to an end user. I therefore place little weight on this outlier data. 4/18/2019 4/18/2019 Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Adj for Time $/AC Adj for Time 4 Adjoins Shelter 2.05 10/25/2017 $16,000 $16,728 $7,805 $8,160 10 Adjoins Carter 1.70 8/2/2018 $14,000 $14,306 $8,235 $8,415 11 Adjoins Cooper 1.28 9/17/2018 $12,000 $12,215 $9,375 $9,543 Not 75 Dusty 1.67 4/18/2019 $20,000 $20,000 $11,976 $11,976 Not Lake Trl 1.47 11/7/2018 $13,000 $13,177 $8,844 $8,964 Not lake Trl 1.67 4/18/2019 $20,000 $20,000 $11,976 $11,976 Adjoins Per Acre Not Adjoins Per Acre % DIF/Lot % DIF/AC Average $14,416 $8,706 $17,726 $10,972 190/6 21% Median $14,306 $8,415 $20,000 $11,976 280/6 300/6 High $16,728 $9,543 $20,000 $11,976 160% 200/6 Low $12,215 $8,160 $13,177 $8,964 7% 9% 60 3. Matched Pair - Leonard Road Solar Farm, Hughesville, MD This 5 MW solar farm is located on 47 acres and mostly adjoins agricultural and residential uses to the west, south and east as shown above. The property also adjoins retail uses and a church. I looked at a 2016 sale of an adjoining home with a positive impact on value adjoining the solar farm of 2.90%. This is within typical market friction and supports an indication of no impact on property value. I have shown this data below. The landscaping buffer is considered heavy. 1.eonardtomn Road Solar Farm, Magbesville, MD Nearby Residential Sale After Solar Farm Constraetion Address Solar Farm Acres Date Bold Bole. P m* Built GBA $/GBA Style BR/BA Bamt Park Uppedes other 14595 Box Elder Ct Adjoins 3.00 2/12/2016 $291,000 1991 2,174 $133.85 Colmdal 5/2.5 No 2Car Art N/A Deck 15313 Eassford Rd Not 3.32 7/20/2016 $329,800 1990 2,520 $130.87 Colonial 3/2.5 Finished 2Cm Att Custom Scr Por/Paid *$9,ODO concession deducted from sole prole for Box ceder end $10,20D deducted from Hassford Adjoining Sales Adjusted Adjustments Address Date Sold Sales Price Time GLA Bsmt Upgrades Other Total 14595 Box Elder Ct 2/12/2016 $291,000 $291,000 15313 Bassford Rd 7/20/2016 $329,800-$3,400-$13,840-$10,000-$15,000-$5,000 $282,560 Difference Attributable to Location $8,440 2.900% This is within typical market friction and supports an indication of no impact on property value. 9 11 9 62 through the approval process. The property was put under contract during the permitting process with the permit being approved while the due diligence period was still ongoing. After the permit was approved the property closed with no concerns from the buyer. I spoke with Jennifer Bouvier, the broker listing the property and she indicated that the solar farm had no impact at all on the sales price. She considered some nearby sales to set the price and the closing price was very similar to the asking price within the typical range for the market. The buyer was aware that the solar farm was coming and they had no concerns. This two-story brick dwelling was sold on March 20, 2017 for $270,000 for a 3,437 square foot dwelling built in 1934 in average condition on 1.42 acres. The property has four bedrooms and two bathrooms. The landscaping screen is light for this adjoining home due to it being a new planted landscaping buffer. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GRA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 609 Neal Hawkins 1.42 3/20/2017 $270,000 1934 3,427 $78.79 4/2 Open 2-Brick Not 1418 N Modena 4.81 4/17/2018 $225,000 1930 2,906 $77.43 3/3 2-Crprt 2-Brick Not 363 Dallas Bess 2.90 11/29/2018 $265,500 1968 2,964 $89.57 3/3 Open FmBsmt Not 1612 Dallas Chry 2.74 9/17/2018 $245,000 1951 3,443 $71.16 3/2 Open 2-Brick Unfin bath Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site VB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 609 Neal Hawldns $270,000 225 1418 N Modena $7,319 $2,700 $32,271 410,000 $257,290 5% 363 Dallas Bess $746 -$27,081 $33,179 -$10,000 $53,100 $262,456 3% 1612 Dallas Chry $4,110 -$12,495 -$911 $10,000 $235,704 13% 7% I also considered the newer adjoining home identified as Parcel 5 that sold later in 2017 and it likewise shows no negative impact on property value. This is also considered a light landscaping buffer. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GRA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Adjoins 611 Neal Hawkins 0.78 7/6/2017 $288,000 1991 2,256 $127.66 5/3 2-Gar 1.5 Brick Not 1211 Still Frst 0.51 7/30/2018 $280,000 1989 2,249 $124.50 3/3 2-Gar Br Rneh Not 2867 Colony Wds 0.52 8/14/2018 $242,000 1990 2,006 $120.64 3/3 2-Gar Br Rnch Not 1010 Strawberry 1.00 10/4/2018 $315,000 2002 2,330 $135.19 3/2.5 2-Gar 1.5 Stick Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site VB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 611 Neal Hawkins $288,000 145 1211 Still Frst $1,341 $2,800 $697 $284,838 1% 2867 Colony Wds $7,714 $1,210 $24,128 $275,052 41/6 1010 Strawberry -$4,555 -$17,325-$8,003 $5,000 $290,116 -1% 2% I [to, This project is located at 1374 Caritoke Highway, Moyock, NC. This is an 80 MW facility on a parent tract of 2,034 acres. Parcels Number 48 and 53 as shown in the map above were sold in 2016. The project was under construction during the time period of the first of the matched pair sales and the permit was approved well prior to that in 2015. I looked at multiple sales of adjoining and nearby homes and compared each to multiple comparables to show a range of impacts from -10% up to +11% with an average of +2% and a median of +3%. These ranges are well within typical real estate variation and supports an indication of no impact on property value. Adjoining Residential Sales After Soler Form Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GRA $/GBA BR/RA Park Style Other Distance 48 Adjoins 129 Pinto 4.29 4/15/2016 $170,000 1985 1,559 $109.04 3/2 Drive MFG 1,060 Not 102 Timber 1.30 4/1/2016 $175,500 2009 1,352 $129.81 3/2 Drive MFG Not 120 Ranchland 0.99 10/l/2014 $170,000 2002 1,501 $113.26 3/2 Drive MFG Avg Solar Address Time Site VB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % DID % Diff Adjoins 129 Pinto $170,000 -3% Not 102 Timber $276 $10,000-$29,484 $18,809 $175,101 -39% Not 120 Ranchland $10,735 $10,000-$20,230 $4,598 $175,103 -39% Solar Address Acres Data Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 105 Pinto 4.99 12/16/2016 $206,000 1978 1,484 $138.81 3/2 Det G Ranch Not 111 Spur 1.15 2/1/2016 $193,000 1985 2,013 $95.88 4/2 Gar Ranch Not 103 Marshall 1.07 3/29/2017 $196,000 2003 1,620 $120.99 3/2 Drive Ranch Not 127 Ranchland 0.00 6/9/2015 $219,900 1988 1,910 $115.13 3/2 Gar/3Det Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YE GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 105 Pinto $206,000 980 111 Spur $6,747 $10,000-$6,755-$25,359 $177,633 14% 103 Marshall-$2,212 $10,000-$24,500-$8,227 $5,000 $176,212 14% 127 Ranchland $13,399 $10,000-$10,995-$24,523 -$10,000 $197,781 4% 11% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GRA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance 15 Adjoins 318 Green View 0.44 9/15/2019 $357,000 2005 3,460 $103.18 4/4 2-Car 1.5 Brick 570 Not 195 St Andrews 0.55 6/17/2018 $314,000 2002 3,561 $88.18 5/3 2-Car 2.0 Brick Not 336 Green View 0.64 1/13/2019 $365,000 2006 3,790 $96.31 6/4 3-Car 2.0 Brick Not 275 Green View 0.36 8/15/2019 $312,000 2003 3,100 $100.65 5/3 2-Car 2.0 Brick Avg Solar Address Time Site VB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 318 Green View $357,000 49/6 Not 195 St Andrews $12,040 $4,710 -$7,125 $10,000 $333,625 7% Not 336 Green View $7,536-$1,825 -$25,425 -$5,000 $340,286 5% Not 275 Green View $815 $3,120 $28,986 $10,000 $354,921 1% 65 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Soler Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance 29 Adjoins 164 Ranchland 1.01 4/30/2019 $169,000 1999 2,052 $82.36 4/2 Go- MFG 440 Not 150 Pinto 0.94 3/27/2018 $168,000 2017 1,920 $87.50 4/2 Drive MFG Not 105 Longhorn 1.90 10/10/2017 $184,500 2002 1,944 $94.91 3/2 Drive MFG Not 112 Pinto 1.00 7/27/2018 $180,000 2002 1,836 $98.04 3/2 Drive MFG Fenced Avg Solar Address Time Site VB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 164 Ranchland $169,000 -10% Not 150 Pinto $5,649 -$21,168 $8,085 $5,000 $165,566 2% Not 105 Longhom $8,816 -$10,000 -$3,875 $7,175 $5,000 $191,616 -13% Not 112 Pinto $4,202 -$3,780 $14,824 $5,000 $200,245 -18% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Ames Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 358 Oxford 10.03 9/16/2019 $478,000 2008 2,726 $175.35 3/3 2 Gar Ranch 635 Not 276 Summit 10.01 12/20/2017 $355,000 2006 1,985 $178.84 3/2 2 Gar Ranch Not 176 Providence 6.19 5/6/2019 $425,000 1990 2,549 $166.73 3/3 4 Gar Ranch Brick Not 1601 BCaratoke 12.20 9/26/2019 $440,000 2016 3,100 $141.94 4/3.5 5Gar Ranch Pool Avg Solar Address Time Site VB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 358 Oxford $478,000 5% Not 276 Summit $18,996 $3,550 $106,017 $10,000 $493,564 -39/o Not 176 Providence $4,763 $38,250 $23,609 -$10,000 -$25,000 $456,623 4% Not 1601 BCaratoke -$371 $50,000 -$17,600 -$42,467 -$5,000 -$10,000 $414,562 13% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Nearby 343 Oxford 10.01 3/9/2017 $490,000 2016 3,753 $130.56 3/3 2 Gar 1.5 Story Pool 970 Not 287 Oxford 10.01 9/4/2017 $600,000 2013 4,341 $138.22 5/4.5 8-Gar 1.5 Story Pool Not 301 Oxford 10.00 4/23/2018 $434,000 2013 3,393 $127.91 5/3 2 Gar 1.5 Story Not 218 Oxford 10.01 4/4/2017 $525,000 2006 4,215 $124.56 4/3 4 Gar 1.5 Story VG Bum Avg Solar Address Time Site VB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 343 Oxford $490,000 39/6 Not 287 Oxford -$9,051 $9,000 -$65,017 -$15,000 -$25,000 $494,932 -1% Not 301 Oxford -$14,995 -$10,000 $6,510 $36,838 $452,353 8% Not 218 Oxford -$1,150 $26,250 -$46,036 -$10,000 -$10,000 $484,064 1% 66 6. Matched Pair - Tracy Solar, Bailey, NC This project is located in rural Nash County on Winters Road with a 5 MW facility that was built in 2016 on 50 acres. A local builder acquired parcels 9 and 10 following construction as shown below 67 at rates comparable to other tracts in the area. They then built a custom home for an owner and sold that at a price similar to other nearby homes as shown in the matched pair data below. The retained woods provide a heavy landscaped buffer for this homesite. Adjoining Land gala After Solar Form Completed M Solar Form TAR ID Grantor Grantee 9&10 Adjoin. 316003 coz lGngsmilt & 316004 Not 6056 Billingsly Not 33211 Fulcher Weikel Not 106807 Pen, Gardner Not 3437 Vaugian N/A Address Acres Date gold gal. Prior $/AC Other 9162 Winters 13.22 7/21/2016 $70,000 $5,295 427 Young 41 10/21/2016 $164,000 $4,000 10533 Cone 23.46 7/18/2017 $137,000 $5,840 Doublewidc, structures Claude Lewis 11.22 8/10/2017 $79,000 $7,041 Gravel drive for sub, cleared 11354 Old 18.73 Listing $79,900 $4,266 Small cemeterywooded Lewis Sch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Time Acres Location Other Adj $/Ac % Diff $5,295 $0 $400 $0 $0 $4,400 170/a -$292 $292 $0 -$500 $5,340 -1% -$352 $0 $0 -$1,000 $5,689 -70/o -$213 $0 $0 $213 $4,266 190/0 Average 7% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Completed s Solar Farm v Address Acres Date Sold Sales price Built 01.A $/OLA BR/BA Style Other 98,10 Adjoins g 9162 Winters 13.22 1/5/2017 $255,000 2016 1,616 $157.80 3/2 Ranch 1296 sf wrkshp Not 7352 Red Fox 0.93 6/30/2016 $176,000 2010 1,529 $115.11 3/2 2-story Adjoining Sales Adjusted Time Acres YB GLA Style $0 $44,000 $7,392 $5,007 $5,000 Other Total % Diff $255,000 $15,000 $252,399 1% The comparables for the land show either a significant positive relationship or a mild negative relationship to having and adjoining solar farm, but when averaged together they show no negative impact. The wild divergence is due to the difficulty in comping out this tract of land and the wide variety of comparables used. The two comparables that show mild negative influences include a property that was partly developed as a residential subdivision and the other included a doublewide with some value and accessory agricultural structures. The tax assessed value on the improvements were valued at $60,000. So both of those comparables have some limitations for comparison. The two that show significant enhancement due to adjacency includes a property with a cemetery located in the middle and the other is a tract almost twice as large. Still that larger tract after adjustment provides the best matched pair as it required the least adjustment. I therefore conclude that there is no negative impact due to adjacency to the solar farm shown by this matched pair. The dwelling that was built on the site was a build -to -suit and was compared to a nearby homesale of a property on a smaller parcel of land. I adjusted for that differenced based on a $25,000 value for a 1-acre home site versus the $70,000 purchase price of the larger subject tract. The other adjustments are typical and show no impact due to the adjacency to the solar farm. M. The closest solar panel to the home is'780 feet away. I note that the representative for Kingsmill Homes indicated that the solar farm was never a concern in purchasing the land or selling the home. He also indicated that they had built a number of nearby homes across the street and it had never come up as an issue. 69 7. Matched Pair - Manatee Solar Farm, Parrish, FL This solar farm is located near Seminole Trail, Parrish, FL. The solar farm has a 74.50 MW output and is located on a 1,180.38-acre tract and was built in 2016. The tract is owned by Florida Power & Light Company. I have considered the recent sale of 13670 Highland Road, Wimauma, Florida. This one-story, concrete block home is located just north of the solar farm and separated from the solar farm by a railroad corridor. This home is a 3 BR, 3 BA 1,512 s.f. home with a carport and workshop. The property includes new custom cabinets, granite counter tops, brand-new stainless -steel appliances, updated bathrooms and new carpet in the bedrooms. The home is sitting on 5 acres. The home was built in 1997. I have compared this sale to several nearby homesales as part of this matched pair analysis as shown below. The landscaping separating the home from the solar farm is considered heavy. 70 Solar TAR ID/Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Note Adjoins 13670 Highland 5.00 8/21/2017 $255,000 1997 1,512 $168.65 3/3 Carport/Wrkshp Ranch Renov. Not 2901 Arrowsmith 1.91 1/31/2018 $225,000 1979 1,636 $137.53 3/2 2 Garage/Wrkshp Ranch Not 602 Butch Cassidy 1.00 5/5/2017 $220,000 2001 1,560 $141.03 3/2 N/A Ranch Renov. Not 2908 Wild West 1.23 7/12/2017 $254,000 2003 1,554 $163.45 3/2 2 Garage/Wrkshp Ranch Renov. Not 13851 Highland 5.00 9/13/2017 $240,000 1978 1,636 $146.70 4/2 3 Garage Ranch Renov. Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar TAR ID/Address Time Acres YE GLA BR/BA Park Note Total % Diff Adjoins 13670 Highland $255,000 Not 2901 Arrowsmith $2,250 $10,000 $28,350 -$8,527 $5,000 -$10,000 $10,000 $262,073 -39/. Not 602 Butch Cassidy -$22200 $10,000 -$6,160 -$3,385 $5,000 $2,000 $2252255 12% Not 2908 Wild West $0 $10,000 -$102668 -$32432 $5,000 -$10,000 $2442900 4°/n Not 13851 Highland $0 $0 $31,920 -$92095 $3,000 -$102000 $255,825 00/6 Average 3% The sales prices of the comparables before adjustments range from $220,000 to $254,000. After adjustments they range from $225,255 to $262,073. The comparables range from no impact to a strong positive impact. The comparables showing -3% and +4% impact on value is considered within a typical range of value and therefore not indicative of any impact on property value. This set of matched pair data falls in line with the data seen in other states. The closest solar panel to the home at 13670 Highland is 1,180 feet. There is a wooded buffer between these two properties. I have included a map showing the relative location of these properties below. 71 S. Matched Pair - McBride Place Solar Farm, Midland, NC This project is located on Mount Pleasant Road, Midland, North Carolina. The property is on 627 acres on an assemblage of 974.59 acres. The solar farm was approved in early 2017 for a 74.9 MW facility. I have considered the sale of 4380 Joyner Road which adjoins the proposed solar farm near the northwest section. This property was appraised in April of 2017 for a value of $317,000 with no consideration of any impact due to the solar farm in that figure. The property sold in November 72 2018 for $325,000 with the buyer fully aware of the proposed solar farm. The landscaping buffer relative to Joyner Road, Hayden Way, Chanel Court and Kristi Lane is considered medium, while the landscaping for the home at the north end of Chanel Court is considered very light. I have considered the following matched pairs to the subject property Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Form Approved Soler Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 4380 Joyner 12.00 11/22/2017 $325,000 1979 1,598 $203.38 3/2 2sGar Ranch Outbldg Not 3870 Elkwuod 5.50 8/24/2016 $250,000 1986 1,551 $161.19 3/2.5 Det 2xGar Craft Not 8121 Lower Rocky 18.00 2/8/2017 $355,000 1977 1,274 $278.65 2/2 2xCarprt Ranch Eq. For. Not 13531 Cabarrus 7.89 5/20/2016 $267,750 1981 2,300 $116.41 3/2 2.Gar Roach Adjoining Sales Adjusted Time Acres YB Condition GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff $325,000 $7,500 $52,000-$12,250 $10,000 $2,273 -$2,000 $2,500 $7,500 $317,523 2% $7,100 -$48,000 $4,970 $23,156 $0 $3,000 415,000 $330,226 -2% $8,033 $33,000-$3,749 $20,000 -$35,832 $0 $0 $7,500 $296,702 9% Average 3% The home at 4380 Joyner Road is 275 feet from the closest solar panel. I also considered the recent sale of a lot at 5800 Kristi Lane that is on the east side of the proposed solar farm. This 4.22-acre lot sold in December 2017 for $94,000. A home was built on this lot in 2019 with the closest point from home to panel at 689 feet. The home site is heavily wooded and their remains a wooded buffer between the solar panels and the home. I spoke with the broker, Margaret Dabbs, who indicated that the solar farm was considered a positive by both buyer and seller as it ensures no subdivision will be happening in that area. Buyers in this market are looking for privacy and seclusion. The breakdown of recent lot sales on Kristi are shown below with the lowest price paid for the lot with no solar farm exposure, though that lot has exposure to Mt Pleasant Road South. Still the older lot sales have exposure to the solar farm and sold for higher prices than the front lot and adjusting for time would only increase that difference. Adjoining Lot Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price $/AC $/Lot Adjoins 5811 Kristi 3.74 5/1/2018 $100,000 $26,738 $100,000 Adjoins 5800Kristi 4.22 12/1/2017 $94,000 $22,275 $94,000 Not 5822 Kristi 3.43 2/24/2020 $90,000 $26,239 $90,000 The lot at 5811 Kristi Lane sold in May 2018 for $100,000 for a 3.74-acre lot. The home that was built later in 2018 is 505 feet to the closest solar panel. This home then sold to a homeowner for $530,000 in April 2020. I have compared this home sale to other properties in the area as shown below. 73 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 5811 Kristi 3.74 3/31/2020 $530,000 2018 3,858 $137.38 5/3.5 2 Gar 2-story Cement Fxt Not 3915 Tania 1.68 12/9/2019 $495,000 2007 3,919 $126.31 3/3.5 2 Gar 2-story Met Gar Not 6782 Manatee 1.33 3/8/2020 $460,000 1998 3,776 $121.82 4/2/2h 2Gar 2-story Water Not 314 Old Hickory 1.24 9/20/2019 $492,500 2017 3,903 $126.18 6/4.5 2 Gar 2-story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 5811 Kristi $530,000 5% Not 3915 Tania $6,285 $27,225-$3,852-$20,000 $504,657 50/. Not 6782 Manatee $1,189 $46,000 $4,995 $5,000 $517,183 2% Not 314 Old Hickory $10,680 $2,463-$2,839-$10,000 $492,803 70% After adjusting the comparables, I found that the average adjusted value shows a slight increase in value for the subject property adjoining a solar farm. As in the other cases, this is a mild positive impact on value but within the typical range of real estate transactions. I also looked at 5833 Kristi Lane that sold on 9/ 14/2020 for $625,000. This home is 470 feet from the closest panel. Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Nearby 5833 Kristi 4.05 9/14/2020 $625,000 2008 4,373 $142.92 5/4 3-Car 2-Brick Not 4055 Dakeita 4.90 12/30/2020 $629,000 2005 4,427 $142.08 4/4 4-Car 2-Brick 4DetGar/Stable Not 9615 Bales 2.16 6/30/2020 $620,000 2007 4,139 $149.79 4/5 3-Car 2-Stone 2DetGar Not 9522 Bales 1.47 6/18/2020 $600,000 2007 4,014 $149.48 4/4.5 3-Car 2-Stone Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YE GLA BR/BA Park Other Total %Diff %Diff Distance 5833 Kristi $625,000 470 4055 Dakeita-$9,220 $5,661-$6,138-$25,000 $594,303 5% 9615 Bales $6,455 $1,860 $28,042-$10,000-$15,000 $631,356 -1% 9522 Bales $7,233 $1,800 $42,930-$5,000 $646,963 -40/6 The average difference is 0% impact and the differences are all within a close range with this set of comparables and supports a finding of no impact on property value. I have also looked at 4504 Chanel Court. This home sold on January 1, 2020 for $393,500 for this 3,010 square foot home built in 2004 with 3 bedrooms, 3.5 bathrooms, and a 3-car garage. This home includes a full partially finished basement that significantly complicates comparing this to other sales. This home previously sold on January 23, 2017 for $399,000. This was during the time that the solar farm was a known factor as the solar farm was approved in early 2017 and public discussions had already commenced. I spoke with Rachelle Killman with Real Estate Realty, LLC the buyer's agent for this transaction and she indicated that the solar farm was not a factor or consideration for the buyer. She noted that you could see the panels sort of through the trees, but it wasn't a concern for the buyer. She was not familiar with the earlier 2017 sale, but indicated that it was likely too high. This again goes back to the partially finished basement issue. The basement has a fireplace, and an installed 3/4 bathroom but otherwise bare studs and concrete floors with different buyers assigning varying value to that partly finished space. I also reached out to Don Gomez with Don Anthony Realty, LLC as he was the listing agent. I also looked at the recent sale of 4599 Chanel Court. This home is within 310 feet of solar panels but notably does not have a good landscaping screen in place as shown in the photo below. The plantings appear to be less than 3-feet in height and only a narrow, limited screen of existing hardwoods were kept. The photograph is from the listing. According to Scott David with Better Homes and Gardens Parade Realty, this property was under contract for $550,000 contingent on the buyer being able to sell their former home. The former home was apparently overpriced and did not sell and the contract stretched out over 2.5 months. 74 The seller was in a bind as they had a home they were trying to buy contingent on this closing and were about to lose that opportunity. A cash buyer offered them a quick close at $500,000 and the seller accepted that offer in order to not lose the home they were trying to buy. According to Mr. David, the original contracted buyer and the actual cash buyer never considered the solar farm as a negative. In fact Mr. David noted that the actual buyer saw it as a great opportunity to purchase a home where a new subdivision could not be built behind his house. I therefore conclude that this property supports a finding of no impact on adjoining property, even where the landscaping screen still requires time to grow in for a year-round screen. I also considered a sale/resale analysis on this property. This same home sold on September 15, 2015 for $462,000. Adjusting this upward by 51/6 per year for the five years between these sales dates suggests a value of $577,500. Comparing that to the $550,000 contract that suggests a 5% downward impact, which is within a typical market variation. Given that the broker noted no negative impact from the solar farm and the analysis above, I conclude this sale supports a finding of no impact on value. 75 9. Matched Pair - Mariposa Solar, Gaston County, NC This project is a 5 MW facility located on 35.80 acres out of a parent tract of 87.61 acres at 517 Blacksnake Road, Stanley that was built in 2016. I have considered a number of recent sales around this facility as shown below. The first is identified in the map above as Parcel 1, which is 215 Mariposa Road. This is an older dwelling on large acreage with only one bathroom. Ibe compared it to similar nearby homes as shown below. The landscaping buffer for this home is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Adjoins 215 Mariposa 17.74 12/12/2017 $249,000 1958 1,551 $160.54 3/1 Garage Br/Rnch Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3/1/2019 $153,000 1974 1,792 $85.38 4/2 Garage Br/Rnch Not 110 Airport 0.83 5/10/2016 $166,000 1962 2,165 $76.67 3/2 Crprt Br/Rnch Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9/20/2018 $242,500 1980 2,156 $112.48 3/2 Drive 1.5 Not 1201 Abernathy 27.00 5/3/2018 $390,000 1970 2,190 $178.08 3/2 Crprt Br/Rnch 76 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Adjoins 215 Mariposa 17.74 12/12/2017 $249,000 Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3/1/2019 $153,000 Not 110 Airport 0.83 5/10/2016 $166,000 Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9/20/2018 $242,500 Not 1201 Abernathy 27.00 5/3/2018 $390,000 Adjoining Sales Adjusted Time YB Acres GLA BR/BA Park Other Total %Dili $249,000 -$5,583 -$17,136 $129,450 -$20,576-$10,000 $229,154 8% $7,927 -$4,648 $126,825 -$47,078-$10,000 $239,026 4% -$5,621 -$37,345 $95,475 -$68,048-$10,000 $5,000 $221,961 11% -$4,552 -$32,760 -$69,450 -$60,705-$10,000 $212,533 15% Average 9% The average difference after adjusting for all factors is +9% on average, which suggests an enhancement due to the solar farm across the street. Given the large adjustments for acreage and size, I will focus on the low end of the adjusted range at 4%, which is within the typical deviation and therefore suggests no impact on value. I have also considered Parcel 4 that sold after the solar farm was approved but before it had been constructed in 2016. The landscaping buffer for this parcel is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Rice Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 242 Mariposa 2.91 9/21/2015 $180,000 1962 1,880 $95.74 3/2 Carport Br/Rnch Det Wrkshop Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3/1/2019 $153,000 1974 1,792 $85.38 4/2 Garage Br/Rnch Not 110 Airport 0.83 5/10/2016 $166,000 1962 2,165 $76.67 3/2 Crprt Br/Rnch Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9/20/2018 $242,500 1980 2,156 $112.48 3/2 Drive 1.5 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Sol. Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Time YS Acres GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Adjoins 242 Mariposa 2.91 9/21/2015 $180,000 $180,000 Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3/1/2019 $153,000-$15,807-$12,852 $18,468 $7,513 -$3,000 $25,000 $172,322 4% Not 110 Airport 0.83 5/10/2016 $166,000-$3,165 $0 $15,80S-$28,600 $25,000 $175,043 3% Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9/20/2018 $242,500-$21,825-$30,555-$15,960-$40,942 $2,000 $25,000 $160,218 11% Average 6% The average difference after adjusting for all factors is +6%, which is again suggests a mild increase in value due to the adjoining solar farm use. The median is a 4% adjustment, which is within a standard deviation and suggests no impact on property value. I have also considered the recent sale of Parcel 13 that is located on Blacksnake Road south of the project. I was unable to find good land sales in the same 20-acre range, so I have considered sales of larger and smaller acreage. I adjusted each of those land sales for time. I then applied the price per acre to a trendline to show where the expected price per acre would be for 20 acres. As can be seen in the chart below, this lines up exactly with the purchase of the subject property. I therefore conclude that there is no impact on Parcel 13 due to proximity to the solar farm. Adjoining Residential Land Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Tax/Street Acres Date Sold Sales Price $/Ac Adjoins 174339/Blacksnake 21.15 6/29/2018 Not 227852/Abernathy 10.57 5/9/2018 Not 17443/Legion 9.87 9/7/2018 Not 164243/Alexis 9.75 2/1/2019 Not 176884/Bowden 55.77 6/13/2018 Adjoining Sales Adjusted Time $160,000 $7,565 $97,000 $9,177 $38 $64,000 $6,484 -$37 $110,000 $11,282 -$201 $280,000 $5,021 $7 $/Ac $7,565 $9,215 $6,447 $11,081 $5,027 77 $/Ac $12,000 $lg000 Ss,oao $6,000 t S/Ac — $4,000 Expon. (S/Ac) $2,000 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 Finally, I have considered the recent sale of Parcel 17 that sold as vacant land. I was unable to find good land sales in the same 7-acre range, so I have considered sales of larger and smaller acreage. I adjusted each of those land sales for time. I then applied the price per acre to a trendline to show where the expected price per acre would be for 7 acres. As can be seen in the chart below, this lines up with the trendline running right through the purchase price for the subject property. I therefore conclude that there is no impact on Parcel 13 due to proximity to the solar farm. I note that this property was improved with a 3,196 square foot ranch built in 2018 following the land purchase, which shows that development near the solar farm was unimpeded. Adjoining Residential Land Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Tax/Street Acres Date Sold Sales Price $/Ac Time Location $/Ac Adjoins 227039/Mariposa 6.86 12/6/2017 $66,500 $9,694 $9,694 Not 227852/Abernathy 10.57 5/9/2018 $97,000 $9,177 -$116 $9,061 Not 17443/Legion 9.87 9/7/2018 $64,000 $6,484 -$147 $6,338 Not 177322/Robinson 5.23 5/12/2017 $66,500 $12,715 $217 -$1,272 $11,661 Not 203386/Carousel 2.99 7/13/2018 $43,500 $14,548 -$262 -$1,455 $12,832 $14,001) $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 +Seriesl �� Expon. (Seriesl) $4,000 $2,000 SQ 0,00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 m 10. Matched Pair - Clarke County Solar, Clarke County, VA This project is a 20 MW facility located on a 234-acre tract that was built in 2017. 79 I have considered two recent sales of Parcel 3. The home on this parcel is 1,230 feet from the closest panel as measured in the second map from Google Earth, which shows the solar farm under construction. This home sold in January 2017 for $295,000 and again in August 2019 for $385,000. I show each sale below and compare those to similar home sales in each time frame. The significant increase in price between 2017 and 2019 is due to a major kitchen remodel, new roof, and related upgrades as well as improvement in the market in general. The sale and later resale of the home with updates and improvements speaks to pride of ownership and increasing overall value as properties perceived as diminished are less likely to be renovated and sold for profit. I note that 102 Tilthammer includes a number of barns that I did not attribute any value in the analysis. The market would typically give some value for those barns but even without that adjustment there is an indication of a positive impact on value due to the solar farm. The landscaping buffer from this home is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 3 Adjoins 833 Nations Spr 5.13 8/18/2019 $385,000 1979 1,392 $276.58 3/2 Det Gar Ranch UnBsmt Not 167 Leslie 5.00 8/19/2020 $429,000 1980 1,665 $257.66 3/2 Det2Gar Ranch Not 2393 Old Chapel 2.47 8/10/2020 $330,000 1974 1,500 $220.00 3/1.5 Det Gar Ranch Not 102 Tilthammer 6.70 5/7/2019 $372,000 1970 1,548 $240.31 3/1.5 Det Gar Ranch UnBsmt Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance $385,000 1230 -$13,268-$2,145 -$56,272 -$5,000 $50,000 $402,315 -40% -$9,956 $25,000 $8,250 -$19,008 $5,000 $50,000 $389,286 -1% $3,229 $16,740 -$29,991 $5,000 $366,978 5% 0% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 3 Adjoins 833 Nations Spr 5.13 1/9/2017 $295,000 1979 1,392 $211.93 3/2 Det Gar Ranch UnBsmt Not 6801 Middle 2.00 12/12/2017 $249,999 1981 1,584 $157.83 3/2 Open Ranch Not 4174 Rockland 5.06 1/2/2017 $300,000 1990 1,688 $177.73 3/2 2 Gar 2-story Not 400 Sugar Hill 1.00 6/7/2018 $180,000 1975 1,008 $178.57 3/1 Open Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance $295,000 1230 -$7,100 $25,000-$2,500 -$24,242 $5,000 $50,000 $296,157 00% $177-$16,500 -$42,085 -$10,000 $50,000 $281,592 5% -$7,797 $3,600 $54,857 $10,000 $5,000 $50,000 $295,661 00/6 1% 80 11. Matched Pair - Simon Solar, Social Circle, GA This 30 MW solar farm is located off Hawldns Academy Road and Social Circle Fairplay Road. I identified three adjoining sales to this tract after development of the solar farm. However, one of those is shown as Parcel 12 in the map above and includes a powerline easement encumbering over a third of the 5 acres and adjoins a large substation as well. It would be difficult to isolate those impacts from any potential solar farm impact and therefore I have excluded that sale. I also excluded the recent sale of Parcel 17, which is a farm with conservation restrictions on it that similarly would require a detailed examination of those conservation restrictions in order to see if there was any impact related to the solar farm. I therefore focused on the recent sale of Parcel 7 and the adjoining parcel to the south of that. They are technically not adjoining due to the access road for the flag -shaped lot to the east. Furthermore, there is an apparent access easement serving the two rear lots that encumber these two parcels which is a further limitation on these sales. This analysis assumes that the access easement does not negatively impact the subject property, though it may. The landscaping buffer relative to this parcel is considered medium. Adjoining Land Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price $/AC Type Other 7+ Adjoins 4514 Hawlans 36.86 3/31/2016 $180,000 $4,883 Pasture Esmts Not HD Atha 69.95 12/20/2016 $357,500 $5,111 Wooded N/A Not Pannell 66.94 11/8/2016 $322,851 $4,823 Mixed Not 1402 Roy 123.36 9/29/2016 $479,302 $3,885 Mixed ** * Adjoining 1 acre purchased by same buyer in same deed. Allocation assigned on the County Tax Record. ** Dwelling built in 1996 with a 2016 tax assessed value of $75,800 deducted from sales price to reflect land value Adjoining Sales Adjusted Time Size Type $89 $256 -$90 $241 -$60 $389 Avg Other Total/Ac % Diff % Diff $4,883 $5,455 -12% $4,974 -2% $4,214 14% 0% The range of impact identified by these matched pairs are -12% to +14%, with an average of Oo/o impact due to the solar farm. The best matched pair with the least adjustment supports a -2% impact due to the solar farm. I note again that this analysis considers no impact for the existing access easements that meander through this property and it may be having an impact. Still at -2% impact as the best indication for the solar farm, I consider that to be no impact given that market fluctuations support +/- 5%. 12. Matched Pair - Candace Solar, Princeton, NC This 5 MW solar farm is located at 4839 US 70 Highway just east of Herring Road. This solar farm was completed on October 25, 2016. W I identified three adjoining sales to this tract after development of the solar farm with frontage on US 70. I did not attempt to analyze those sales as they have exposure to an adjacent highway and railroad track. Those homes are therefore problematic for a matched pair analysis unless I have similar homes fronting on a similar corridor. I did consider a land sale and a home sale on adjoining parcels without those complications. The lot at 499 Herring Road sold to Paradise Homes of Johnston County of NC, Inc. for $30,000 in May 2017 and a modular home was placed there and sold to Karen and Jason Toole on September 29, 2017. I considered the lot sale first as shown below and then the home sale that followed. The landscaping buffer relative to this parcel is considered medium. Adjoining Land Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Other Time Site Other Total % Diff 16 Adjoins 499 Herring 2.03 5/1/2017 $30,000 $30,000 Not 37 Becky 0.87 7/23/2019 $24,500 Sub/Pavr-$1,679 $4,900 $27,721 8% Not 5858 Bizzell 0.88 8/17/2016 $18,000 $390 $3,600 $21,990 270/. Not 488 Herring 2.13 12/20/2016 $35,000 $389 $35,389 -180% Average 5% Following the land purchase, the modular home was placed on the site and sold. I have compared this modular home to the following sales to determine if the solar farm had any impact on the purchase price. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other 16 Adjoins 499 Herring 2.03 9/27/2017 $215,000 2017 2,356 $91.26 4/3 Dnve Modular Not 678 WC 6.32 3/8/2019 $226,0D0 1993 1,848 $122.29 3/2.5 Det Gar Mobile Ag bldgs Not 1810 Bay 8.70 3/26/2018 $170,000 2003 2,336 $72.16 3/2 Drive Mobile Ag bldgs Not 1795 Bay V 1.78 12/1/2017 $194,000 2017 1,982 $97.88 4/3 Drive Modular Adjoining Residential Sales AI Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Parcel Solar Address Time Site VB GLA BR/RA Park Other Total % Dtif % Dilf Distance 16 Adjoins 499 Herring $215,000 488 Not 678 WC -$10,037 -$25,000 $24,860 $37,275 -$5,000 -$7,500 -$20,000 $220,599 -300 Not 1810 Bay -$2,579 -$20,000 $11,900 $0 $159,321 26% Not 1795 Bay V -$1,063 $0 $21,964 $214,902 0% So/ The best comparable is 1795 Bay Valley as it required the least adjustment and was therefore most similar, which shows a 0% impact. This signifies no impact related to the solar farm. The range of impact identified by these matched pairs ranges are therefore -3% to +26% with an average of +8% for the home and an average of +4% for the lot, though the best indicator for the lot shows a $5,000 difference in the lot value due to the proximity to the solar farm or a -12% impact. 13. Matched Pair - Walker -Correctional Solar, Barham Road. BarhA,. sville, VA This project was built in 2017 and located on 484.65 acres for a 20 MW with the closest home at 110 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 500 feet. I considered the recent sale identified on the map above as Parcel 19, which is directly across the street and based on the map shown on the following page is 250 feet from the closest panel. A MN limited buffering remains along the road with natural growth being encouraged, but currently the panels are visible from the road. Alex Uminski, SRA with MGMiller Valuations in Richmond VA confirmed this sale with the buying and selling broker. The selling broker indicated that the solar farm was not a negative influence on this sale and in fact the buyer noticed the solar farm and then discovered the listing. The privacy being afforded by the solar farm was considered a benefit by the buyer. I used a matched pair analysis with a similar sale nearby as shown below and found no negative impact on the sales price. Property actually closed for more than the asking price. The landscaping buffer is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 5241 Barham 2.65 10/18/2018 $264,000 2007 1,660 $159.04 3/2 Drive Ranch Modular Not 17950 New Kent 5.00 9/5/2018 $290,000 1987 1,756 $165.15 3/2.5 3 Gar Ranch Not 9252 Ordinary 4.00 6/13/2019 $277,000 2001 1,610 $172.05 3/2 1.5-Gar Ranch Not 2416 W Miller 1.04 9/24/2018 $299,000 1999 1,864 $160.41 3/2.5 Gar Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist Adjoins 5241 Barham $264,000 250 Not 17950 New Kent -$8,000 $29,000-$4,756-$5,000-$20,000-$15,000 $266,244 -1% Not 9252 Ordinary -$8,310 -$8,000 $8,310 $2,581-$10,000-$15,000 $246,581 75% Not 2416 W Miller $8,000 $11,960-$9,817-$5,000-$10,000-$15,000 $279,143 -6/ Average Diff 0°/ I also spoke with Patrick W. McCrerey of Virginia Estates who was marketing a property that sold at 5300 Barham Road adjoining the Walker -Correctional Solar Farm. He indicated that this property was unique with a home built in 1882 and heavily renovated and updated on 16.02 acres. The solar farm was through the woods and couldn't be seen by this property and it had no impact on marketing this property. This home sold on April 26, 2017 for $358,000. I did not set up any matched pairs for this property since it is a unique property that any such comparison would be difficult to rely on. The broker's comments do support the assertion that the adjoining solar farm had no impact on value. The home in this case was 510 feet from the closest panel. ME 14. Matched Pair - Innovative Solar 46, Roslin Farm Rd, Hone Mills, NC This project was built in 2016 and located on 532 acres for a 78.5 MW solar farm with the closest home at 125 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 423 feet. I considered the recent sale of a home on Roslin Farm Road just north of Running Fox Road as shown below. This sale supports an indication of no impact on property value. The landscaping buffer is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Fri" Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 6849 Roslin Farm 1.00 2/18/2019 $155,000 1967 1,610 $96.27 3/3 Drive Rauch Brick 435 Not 6592 Sim Canady 2.43 9/5/2017 $185,000 1974 2,195 $84.28 3/2 Gar Ranch Brick Not 1614 Joe Hall 1.63 9/3/2019 $145,000 1974 1,674 $86.62 3/2 Det Gar Ranch Brick Not 109131edsoe 0.68 1/17/2019 $150,000 1973 1,663 $90.20 3/2 Gar Ranch Brick Avg Soler Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 6849 Rosho Farm $155,000 5% Not 6592 Sim Canady M278 -$6,475 -$39,444 $10,000 -$5,000 $152,359 2% Not 1614 Joe Hall -$2,407 -$5,075 -$3,881 $10,000 -$2,500 $141,137 99% Not 109 Bledsoe $404 $10,000 -$4,500 -$3,346 -$5,000 $147,558 5% 21 15. Matched Pair - Innovative Solar 42, County Line Rd, Fayetteville, NC :l This project was built in 2017 and located on 413.99 acres for a 71 MW with the closest home at 135 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 375 feet. I considered the recent sales identified on the map above as Parcels 2 and 3, which is directly across the street these homes are 330 and 340 feet away. Parcel 2 includes an older home built in 1976, while Parcel is a new home built in 2019. So the presence of the solar farm had no impact on new construction in the area. The matched pairs for each of these are shown below. The landscaping buffer relative to these parcels is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Form Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 2923 County l.n 8.98 2/28/2019 $385,000 1976 2,905 $132.53 3/3 2-Car Ranch Brick/Pond 340 Not 1928 Shaw Mill 17.00 7/3/2019 $290,000 1977 3,001 $96.63 4/4 2-Car Ranch Brick/Pond/Rental Not 2109 John McM. 7.78 4/25/2018 $320,000 1978 2,474 $129.35 3/2 Bet Gar Ranch Vinyl/Pool,Stable Avg Soler Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 2923 County I.n $385,000 3% Not 1928 Shaw Mill -$3,055 $100,000 -$1,450 -$7,422 -$10,000 $368,074 49/o Not 2109 John McM. $8,333 -$3,200 $39,023 $10,000 $5,000 $379,156 2% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 2935 County Lo 1.19 6/18/2019 $266,000 2019 2,401 $110.79 4/3 Gar 2-Story 330 Not 3005 Hemingway 1.17 5/16/2019 $269,000 2018 2,601 $103.42 4/3 Gar 2-Story Not 7031 Glynn Mill 0.60 5/8/2018 $255,000 2017 2,423 $105.24 4/3 Gar 2-Story Not 5213 Bree Brdg 0.92 5/7/2019 $260,000 2018 2,400 $108.33 4/3 3-Gar 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 2935 County Lo $266,000 3% Not 3005 Hemingway $748 $1,345 -$16,547 $254,546 4% Not 7031 Glynn Mill $8,724 $2,550 -$1,852 $264,422 1% Not 5213 Bree Brdg $920 $1,300 $76 -$10,000$252,296 5/ Both of these matched pairs adjust to an average of +3% on impact for the adjoining solar farm, meaning there is a slight positive impact due to proximity to the solar farm. This is within the standard +/- of typical real estate transactions, which strongly suggests no impact on property value. I noted specifically that for 2923 County Line Road, the best comparable is 2109 John McMillan as it does not have the additional rental unit on it. I made no adjustment to the other sale for the value of that rental unit, which would have pushed the impact on that comparable downward — meaning there would have been a more significant positive impact. �s7 16. Matched Pair - Sunfish Farm, Keenebec Rd, Willow Spring, NC This project was built in 2015 and located on 49.6 acres (with an inset 11.25-acre parcel) for a 6.4 MW project with the closest home at 135 feet with an average distance of 105 feet. I considered the 2017 sale identified on the map above, which is 205 feet away from the closest panel. The matched pairs for each of these are shown below followed by a more recent map showing the panels at this site. The average difference in the three comparables and the subject property is +3% after adjusting for differences in the sales date, year built, gross living area, and other minor differences. This data is supported by the comments from the broker Brian Schroepfer with Keller Williams that the solar farm had no impact on the purchase price. The landscaping screen is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/ORA BR/BA Park Style Adjoins 7513 Glen Willow 0.79 9/1/2017 $185,000 1989 1,492 $123.99 3/2 Gar HR/Rnch Not 2968 Tram 0.69 7/17/2017 $155,000 1984 1,323 $117.16 3/2 Drive HR/Rnch Not 205 Pine Burr 0.97 12/29/2017 $191,000 1991 1,593 $119.90 3/2.5 Drive BR/Rnch Not 1217 Old Honeycutt 1.00 12/15/2017 $176,000 1978 1,558 $112.97 3/2.5 2Carprt VY/Rnch Adjustments Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 7513 Glen Willow $185,000 Not 2968 Tram $601 $3,875 $15,840 $10,000 $185,316 01% Not 205 Pine Burr-$1,915 -$1,910-$9,688-$5,000 $172,487 7% Not 1217 Old Honeycuti-$1,557 $9,680-$5,965-$5,000 $5,280 $178,438 4% 3% 17. Matched Pair - SaDDony Solar, Sussex County, VA This project is a 30 MIN facility located on a 322.68-acre tract that was built in the fourth quarter of 2017. I have considered the 2018 sale of Parcel 17 as shown below. This was a 1,900 s.f. manufactured home on a 6.00-acre lot that sold in 2018. I have compared that to three other nearby manufactured homes as shown below. The range of impacts is within typical market variation with an average of -1%, which supports a conclusion of no impact on property value. The landscaping buffer is considered medium. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Prim Built Adjoins 12511 Palestine 6.00 7/31/2018 $128,400 2013 Not 15698 Concord 3.92 7/31/2018 $150,000 2010 Not 23209 Sussex 1.03 7/7/2020 $95,000 2005 Not 6494 Rocky Br 4.07 11/8/2018 $100,000 2004 Adjoining Sales Adjusted GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 1,900 $67.58 4/2.5 Open Manuf 2,310 $64.94 4/2 Open Manuf Fence 1,675 $56.72 3/2 Det Crpt Manuf 1,405 $71.17 3/2 Open Manuf Avg Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other $0 $2,250-$21,299 $5,000 -$5,660 $13,000 $3,800 $10,209 $5,000 $1,500 -$843 $4,500 $28,185 Total % Diff % Diff Distance $128,400 1425 $135,951 -6% $122,849 4% $131,842 -3% -1% 91 18. Matched Pair - Camden Dam, Camden, NC This 5 MW project was built in 2019 and located on a portion of 49.83 acres. Parcel 1 noted above along with the home on the adjoining parcel to the north of that parcel sold in late 2018 after this solar farm was approved but prior to construction being completed in 2019. I have considered this sale as shown below. The landscaping screen is considered light. The comparable at 548 Trotman is the most similar and required the least adjustment shows no impact on property value. The other two comparables were adjusted consistently with one showing significant enhancement and another as showing a mild negative. The best indication is the one requiring the least adjustment. The other two sales required significant site adjustments which make them less reliable. The best comparable and the average of these comparables support a finding of no impact on property value. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Soler Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 122 N Mill Dam 12.19 11/29/2018 $350,000 2005 2,334 $149.96 3/3.5 3-Gar Ranch Not 548 Trotman 12.10 5/31/2018 $309,000 2007 1,960 $157.65 4/2 Det2G Ranch Wrkshp Not 198 Sand Hills 2.00 12/22/2017 $235,0D0 2007 2,324 $101.12 4/3 Open Ranch Not 140 Sleepy Hlw 2.05 8/12/2019 $330,000 2010 2,643 $124.86 4/3 1-Gar 1.5 Story Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site VB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 122 N Mill Dam $350,000 342 548 Tmtman $6,163 -$3,090 $35,377 $5,000 $352,450 -1 % 198 Sand Hills $8,808 $45,000 -$2,350 $607 $30,000 $317,064 9°/ 140 Sleepy Hlw-$9,258 $45,000 -$8,250-$23,149 $5,000 $30,000 $369,343 -6% 1% 19. Matched Pair - Grandy Solar, Grandy, NC This 20 MW project was built in 2019 and located on a portion of 121 acres. Parcels 40 and 50 have sold since construction began on this solar farm. I have considered both in matched pair analysis below. I note that the marketing for Parcel 40 (120 Par Four) identified the lack of homes behind the house as a feature in the listing. The marketing for Parcel 50 (269 Grandy) identified the property as "very private.' Landscaping for both of these parcels is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 120ParFour 0.92 8/17/2019 $315,000 2006 2,188 $143.97 4/3 2-Gar 1.5 Story Pool Not 102 Teague 0.69 1/5/2020 $300,000 2005 2,177 $137.80 3/2 Det 3G Rauch Not 112 Meadow Lk 0.92 2/28/2019 $265,000 1992 2,301 $115.17 3/2 Gar 1.5 Story Not 116 Barefoot 0.78 9/29/2020 $290,000 2004 2,192 $132.30 4/3 2-Gar 2Story Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YE GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 120 Par Four $315,000 405 102 Teague-$4,636 $1,500 $910 $10,000 $20,000 $327,774 -40/6 112 Meadow Lk $4,937 $18,550-$7,808 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $320,679 -2% 116 Barefoot-$12,998 $2,900 -$318 $20,000 $299,584 5% 0% W3 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 269 Grandy 0.78 5/7/2019 $275,000 2019 1,535 $179.15 3/2.5 2-Gar Ranch Not 307 Grandy 1.04 10/8/2018 $240,000 2002 1,634 $146.88 3/2 Gar 1.5 Story Not 103 Branch 0.95 4/22/2020 $230,000 2000 1,532 $150.13 4/2 2-Gar 1.5 Story Not 103 Spring Lf 1.07 8/14/2018 $270,000 2002 1,635 $165.14 3/2 2-Gar Ranch Pool Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site 1B GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 269 Grandy $275,000 477 307 Grandy $5,550 $20,400-$8,725 $5,000 $10,000 $272,225 1% 103 Branch-$8,847 $21,850 $270 $243,273 12% 103 Spring Lf $7,871 $22,950-$9,908 $5,000 -$20,000 $275,912 00/6 4% Both of these matched pairs support a finding of no impact on value. This is reinforced by the listings for both properties identifying the privacy due to no housing in the rear of the property as part of the marketing for these homes. 20. Matched Pair - Champion Solar, Lexington County, SC This project is a 10 MW facility located on a 366.04-acre tract that was built in 2017. I have considered the 2020 Sale of an adjoining home located off 517 Old Charleston Road. Landscaping is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Soler Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 517 Old Charleston 11.05 8/25/2020 $110,000 1962 925 $118.92 3/1 Crport Br Rnch Not 133 Buena Vista 2.65 6/21/2020 $115,000 1979 1,104 $104.17 2/2 Crport Br Poch Not 214 Crystal SFr 2.13 6/10/2019 $102,500 1970 1,025 $100.00 3/2 Crport Rneh Not 1429 Laurel 2.10 2/21/2019 $126,000 1960 1,250 $100.80 2/1.5 Open Br Rnch 3 Gar/Bm Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YE GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 517 Old Charleston $110,000 505 133 Buena Vista $410 $17,000 -$9,775-$14,917-$10,000 $97,718 11% 214 Crystal Spr $2,482 $18,000 -$4,100-$8,000-$10,000 $10,000 $110,882 -1% 1429 Laurel $3,804 $18,000 $1,260-$26,208-$5,000 $5,000-$15,000 $107,856 29/o 4% 95 21. Matched Pair - Barefoot Bay Solar Farm, Barefoot Bay, FL This project is located on 504 acres for a 704.5 MW facility. Most of the adjoining uses are medium density residential with some lower density agricultural uses to the southwest. This project was built in 2018. There is a new subdivision under development to the west. I have considered a number of recent home sales from the Barefoot Bay Golf Course in the Barefoot Bay Recreation District. There are a number of sales of these mobile/manufactured homes along the eastern boundary and the lower northern boundary. I have compared those home sales to other similar homes in the same community but without the exposure to the solar farm. Staying within the same community keeps location and amenity impacts consistent. I did avoid any comparison with home sales with golf course or lakefront views as that would introduce another variable. The six manufactured/double wide homes shown below were each compared to three similar homes in the same community and are consistently showing no impact on the adjoining property values. Based on the photos from the listings, there is limited but some visibility of the solar farm to the east, but the canal and landscaping between are providing a good visual buffer and actually are commanding a premium over the non -canal homes. Landscaping for these adjoining homes is considered light, though photographs from the listings show that those homes on Papaya that adjoin the solar farm from east/west have no visibility of the solar farm and is effectively medium density due to the height differential. The homes that adjoin the solar farm from north/south along Papaya have some filtered view of the solar farm through the trees. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 14 Adjoins 465 Papaya Cr 0.12 7/21/2019 $155,000 1993 1,104 $140.40 2/2 Drive Manuf Canal Not 1108 Navajo 0.14 2/27/2019 $129,000 1984 1,220 $105.74 2/2 Crprt Manuf Canal Not 1007 Barefoot 0.11 9/3/2020 $168,000 2005 1,052 $159.70 2/2 Crprt Manuf Canal Not 1132 Waterway 0.11 7/10/2020 $129,000 1982 1,012 $127.47 2/2 Crprt Manuf Canal Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 465 Papaya Cr $155,000 765 1108 Navajo $1,565 $5,805 -$9,812 $126,558 18% 1007 Barefoot -$5,804-$10,080 $6,643 $158,759 -20/. 1132 Waterway -$3,859 $7,095 $9,382 $141,618 9% 8% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres, Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 19 Adjoins 455 Papaya 0.12 9/1/2020 $183,500 2005 1,620 $113.27 3/2 Crprt Manuf Canal Not 938 Waterway 0.11 2/12/2020 $160,000 1986 1,705 $93.84 2/2 Crprt Manuf Canal Not 719 Barefoot 0.12 4/14/2020 $150,000 1996 1,635 $91.74 3/2 Crprt Manuf Canal Not 904 Fir 0.17 9/27/2020 $192,500 2010 1,626 $118.39 3/2 Crprt Manuf Canal Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 455 Papaya $183,500 750 938 Waterway $2,724 $15,200 -$6,381 $171,542 70/6 719 Barefoot $1,770 $6,750 -$1,101 $157,419 140/6 904 Fir -$422 -$4,813 -$568 $186,697 -20/. 6% Adjoining Residential Sales After Soler Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA park Style Other 37 Adjoins 419 Papaya 0.09 7/16/2019 $127,500 1986 1,303 $97.85 2/2 Crprt Manuf Green Not 865 Tamarind 0.12 2/4/2019 $133,900 1995 1,368 $97.88 2/2 Crprt Manuf Green Not 501 Papaya 0.10 6/15/2018 $109,000 1986 1,234 $88.33 2/2 Crprt Manuf Not 418 Papaya 0.09 8/28/2019 $110,000 1987 1,248 $88.14 2/2 Crprt Manuf Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 419 Papaya $127,500 690 865 Tamarind $1,828 -$6,026 -$5,090 $124,613 2% 501 Papaya $3,637 $0 $4,876 $5,000 $122,513 4% 418 Papaya -$399 -$550 $3,878 $5,000 $117,930 80/6 5% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 39 Adjoins 413 Papaya 0.09 7/16/2020 $130,000 2001 918 $141.61 2/2 Crprt Manuf Gm/Upd Not 341 Loquat 0.09 2/3/2020 $118,000 1985 989 $119.31 2/2 Crprt Manuf Full Upd Not 1119 Por tella 0.19 1/5/2021 $120,000 1993 999 $120.12 2/2 Crprt Manuf Green Not 1367 Barefoot 0.10 1/12/2021 $130,500 1987 902 $144.68 2/2 Crprt Manuf Green/Upd Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 413 Papaya $130,000 690 341 Loquat $1,631 $9,440 -$6,777 $122,294 6% 1119 Pocatella -$1,749 $4,800 -$7,784 $5,000 $120,267 70/6 1367 Barefoot -$1,979 $9,135 $1,852 $139,507 -7% 2% �4m Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 48 Adjoins 343 Papaya 0.09 12/17/2019 $145,000 1986 1,508 $96.15 3/2 Crprt Manuf Gn/Fc/Upd Not 865 Tamarind 0.12 2/4/2019 $133,900 1995 1,368 $97.88 2/2 Crprt Manuf Green Not 515 Papaya 0.09 3/22/2018 $145,000 2005 1,376 $105.38 3/2 Crprt Manuf Green Not 849 Tamarind 0.15 6/26/2019 $155,000 1997 1,716 $90.33 3/2 Crprt Manuf Gm/Fnce Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time YE GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 343 Papaya $145,000 690 865 Tamarind $3,566 -$6,026 $10,963 $142,403 2% 515 Papaya $7,759 -$13,775 $11,128 $150,112 -40/. 849 Tamarind $2,273 -$8,525 -$15,030 $5,000 $138,717 4% 1% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 52 Nearby 335 Papaya 0.09 4/17/2018 $110,000 1987 1,180 $93.22 2/2 Crprt Manuf Green Not 865 Tamarind 0.12 2/4/2019 $133,900 1995 1,368 $97.88 2/2 Crprt Manuf Green Not 501 Papaya 0.10 6/15/2018 $109,000 1986 1,234 $88.33 2/2 Crprt Manuf Not 604 Puffin 0.09 10/23/2018 $110,000 1988 1,320 $83.33 2/2 Crprt Manuf Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 335 Papaya $110,000 710 865 Tamarind -$3,306 -$5,356 -$14,721 $0 $110,517 00/6 501 Papaya -$542 $545 -$3,816 $5,000 $110,187 00/6 604 Puffin -$1,752 -$550 -$9,333 $5,000 $103,365 6% 2% I also identified a new subdivision being developed just to the west of this solar farm called The Lakes at Sebastian Preserve. These are all canal -lot homes that are being built with homes starting at $271,000 based on the website and closed sales showing up to $342,000. According to Monique, the onsite broker with Holiday Builders, the solar farm is difficult to see from the lots that back up to that area and she does not anticipate any difficulty in selling those future homes or lots or any impact on the sales price. The closest home that will be built in this development will be approximately 340 feet from the nearest panel. Based on the closed home prices in Barefoot Bay as well as the broker comments and activity at The Lakes at Sebastian Preserve, the data around this solar farm strongly indicates no negative impact on property value. 98 22. Matched Pair - Miami -Dade Solar Farm, Miami, FL This project is located on 346.80 acres for a 74.5 MW facility. All of the adjoining uses are agricultural and residential. This project was built in 2019. I considered the recent sale of Parcel 26 to the south that sold for over $1.6 million dollars. This home is located on 4.2 acres with additional value in the palm trees according to the listing. The comparables include similar homes nearby that are all actually on larger lots and several include avocado or palm tree income as well. All of the comparables are in similar proximity to the subject and all have similar proximity to the Miami -Dade Executive airport that is located 2.5 miles to the east. These sales are showing no impact on the value of the property from the adjoining solar farm. The landscaping is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Soler Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 26 Adjoins 13600 SW 182nd 4.20 11/5/2020 $1,684,000 2008 6,427 $262.02 5/5.5 3 Gar CBS Rnch PI/Guest Not 18090 SW 158th 5.73 10/8/2020 $1,050,000 1997 3,792 $276.90 5/4 3Gar CBS Rnch Not 14311 SW 187th 4.70 10/22/2020 $1,100,000 2005 3,821 $287.88 6/5 3 Gar CBS Rnch Pool Not 17950 SW 158th 6.21 10/22/2020 $1,730,000 2000 6,917 $250.11 6/5.5 2 Gar CBS Rnch Pool Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % DiQ % DiQ Distance 13600 SW 182nd $1,684,000 1390 18090 SW 158th $2,478 $57,750 $583,703 $30,000 $1,723,930 -2% 14311 SW 187th $1,298 $16,500 $600,178 $10,000 $1,727,976 -3% 17950 SW 158th $2,041 $69,200-$98,043 $10,000 $1,713,199 -2% -2% 100 This solar farm is being built in four phases with the area known as Site C having completed construction in November 2020 after the entire project was approved in April 2019. Site C, also known as Plejnmont 1 Solar, includes 99.6 MW located in the southeast comer of the project and shown on the maps above with adjoining parcels 111 through 144. The entire Spotsylvania project totals 617 MW on 3500 acres out of a parent tract assemblage of 6,412 acres. I have identified three adjoining home sales that occurred during construction and development of the site in 2020. The first is located on the north side of Site A on Orange Plank Road. The second is located on Nottoway Lane just north of Caparthin Road on the south side of Site A and east of Site C. The third is located on Post Oak Road for a home that backs up to Site C that sold in September 2020 near the completion of construction for Site C. Spotsylvania Solar Farm Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 12901 Orng Plnk 5.20 8/27/2020 $319,900 1984 1,714 $186.64 3/2 Drive 1.5 Un Bsmt Not 8353 Gold Dale 3.00 1/27/2021 $415,000 2004 2,064 $201.07 3/2 3 Gar Ranch Not 6488 Southfork 7.26 9/9/2020 $375,000 2017 1,680 $223.21 3/2 2 Gar 1.5 Barn/Patio Not 12717 Flintlock 0.47 12/2/2020 $290,000 1990 1,592 $182.16 3/2.5 Det Gar Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist 12901 Grog Plnk $319,900 1270 8353 Gold Dale-$5,219 $20,000-$41,500-$56,298-$20,000 $311,983 2% 6488 Southfork -$401-$20,000-$61,875 $6,071-$15,000 $283,796 11% 12717 Flintlock-$2,312 $40,000-$8,700 $17,779-$5,000-$5,000 $326,767 -2% Average Diff 40/6 Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 9641 Nottoway 11.00 5/12/2020 $449,900 2004 3,186 $141.21 4/2.5 Garage 2-Story Un Bsmt Not 26123 Lafayette 1.00 8/3/2020 $390,000 2006 3,142 $124.12 3/3.5 Gar/DtG, 2-Story Not 11626 Forest 5.00 8/10/2020 $489,900 2017 3,350 $146.24 4/3.5 2 Gar 2-Story Not 10304 Puy Bmch 6.00 7/27/2020 $485,000 1998 3,076 $157.67 4/4 2Gar/Dt2 Ranch Fn Bsmt Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist 9641 Nottoway $449,900 1950 26123 Lafayette-$2,661 $45,000 43,900 $4,369-$10,000 -$5,000 $417,809 7% 11626 Forest-$3,624 -$31,844-$19,187 -$51000 $430,246 40/6 10304 Puy Burch-$3,030 $14,550 $13,875-$15,000 -$15,000-$10,000 $470,396 -5/ Average Diff 2% Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 13353 Post Oak 5.20 9/21/2020 $300,000 1992 2,400 $125.00 4/3 Drive 2-Story Fn Bsmt Not 9609 Login Hgt 5.86 7/4/2019 $330,000 2004 2,352 $140.31 3/2 2Gar 2-Story Not 12810 Catharpian 6.18 1/30/2020 $280,000 2008 2,240 $125.00 4/2.5 Drive 2-StoryBsmt/Nd Pnt Not 10725 Rbrt Lee 5.01 10/26/2020 $295,000 1995 2,166 $136.20 4/3 Gar 2-Story Fn Bsmt 101 Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time 13353 Post Oak 9609 Logan Hgt $12,070 12810 Catharpian $5,408 10725 Rbrt Lee -$849 Ac/Loe YB GLA BR/BA -$19,800 $5,388 -$22,400 $16,000 $5,000 -$4,425 $25,496 Park Other Total % Diff Dist $300,000 1171 -$15,000 $15,000 $327,658 -99/. $15,000 $299,008 0% -$10,000 $305,222 -20/. Average Diff -4% All three of these homes are well set back from the solar panels at distances over 1,000 feet and are well screened from the project. All three show no indication of any impact on property value. 102 Conclusion - SouthEast Over 5 MW Southeast USA Over S MW Matched Pair Summary Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius )2010-2020 Data) Topo Med. Avg. Housing Veg. Name city State Acres MW Shift Res AS Ag/Res Cam/Ind Pop. Income Unit Buffer 1 AM Best Goldsboro NC 38 5,00 2 389/ 09/6 23% 39% 1,523 $37,358 $148,375 Light 2 Mulberry Selmer TN 160 5.00 60 13/ 73% 109/6 3% 467 $40,936 $171,746 Lt to Med 3 Leonard Hughesville MD 47 5.00 20 18/ 75% 0% 6% 525 $106,550 $350,000 Light 4 Gastonia SC Gastonia NC 35 5.00 48 33/ 09/6 23% 449/6 4,689 $35,057 $126,562 Light S Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 4 49/6 0% 94/ 2% 382 $79,114 $281,731 Light 6 Tracy Bailey NC 50 5.00 10 29% 0°/h 71% 0% 312 $43,940 $99,219 Heavy 7 Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 20 2% 97% 1% 0% 48 $75,000 $291,667 Heavy S McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 12% 10% 78% 0% 398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Med 9 Mariposa Stanley NC 36 5.00 96 48% 0°/h 52% 0% 1,716 $36,439 $137,884 Light 10 Clarke Cary White Post VA 234 20.00 70 14% 399/o 46/ 1% 578 $81,022 $374,453 Light 11 Simon Social Circle GA 237 30.00 71 1% 63% 36/ 0% 203 $76,155 $269,922 Medium 12 Candace Princeton NC 54 5.00 22 76% 24% 09/6 0% 448 $51,002 $107,171 hledium 13 Walker Bmhamsville VA 485 20.00 N/A 12% 68% 20% 0% 203 $80,773 $320,076 Light 14 Inuov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 83% 0% 0% 2,247 $58,688 $193,435 Light 15 runny 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 59% 0% 0% 568 $60,037 $276,347 Light 16 Sunfish Willow Spring NC 50 6.40 30 35/ 35% 30°/ 0% 1,515 $63,652 $253,138 Light 17 Sappony Stony Crk VA 322 20.00 N/A 2% 98o/ 0°/ 0% 74 $51,410 $155,208 Light Is Camden Dam Camden NC 50 5.00 0 179/6 72% 11% 0% 403 $84,426 $230,288 Light 19 Grandy Grandy NC 121 20.00 10 55/ 24o/ 0% 21% 949 $50,355 $231,408 Light 20 Champion Pelion Sc 100 10.00 N/A 4/ 70% 8% 18% 1,336 $46,867 $171,939 Light 21 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 504 74.50 0 11% 87% 0% 3% 2,446 $36,737 $143,320 Lt to Med 22 Miami -Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 0 26/ 74% 0% 0% 127 $90,909 $403,571 Light 23 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 160 37°/ 52% 11% 0°� 74 $120,861 $483,333 Md to Hvy Average 485 57.04 38 24/ 48o/ 22% 69/6 923 $63,955 $237,700 Median 234 20.00 20 179/6 599% 11% 0% 467 $60,037 $231,408 High 3,500 617.00 160 76/ 98% 94% 44% 4,689 $120,861 $483,333 Low 35 5.00 0 1% 0°/6 0% 0% 48 $35,057 $99,219 The solar farm matched pairs shown above have similar characteristics to each other in terms of population, but with several outliers showing solar farms in farm more urban areas. The median income for the population within 1 mile of a solar farm is $60,037 with a median housing unit value of $231,408. Most of the comparables are under $300,000 in the home price, with $483,333 being the high end of the set, though I have matched pairs in multiple states over $1,000,000 adjoining solar farms. The adjoining uses show that residential and agricultural uses are the predominant adjoining uses. These figures are in line with the larger set of solar farms that I have looked at with the predominant adjoining uses being residential and agricultural and similar to the solar farm breakdown shown for Virginia and adjoining states as well as the proposed subject property. Based on the similarity of adjoining uses and demographic data between these sites and the subject property, I consider it reasonable to compare these sites to the subject property. I have pulled 56 matched pairs from the above referenced solar farms to provide the following summary of home sale matched pairs and land sales next to solar farms. The summary shows that the range of differences is from -10% to +10% with an average of +1% and median of +1%. This means that the average and median impact is for a slight positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm. However, this +1 to rate is within the typical variability I would expect from real estate. I therefore conclude that this data shows no negative or positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm. While the range is seemingly wide, the graph below clearly shows that the vast majority of the data falls between -5% and +50/6 and most of those are clearly in the 0 to +5% range. This data strongly supports an indication of no impact on adjoining residential uses to a solar farm. I therefore conclude that these matched pairs support a finding of no impact on value at the subject property for the proposed project, which as proposed will include a landscaped buffer to screen adjoining residential properties. 103 Indicated Impacts SE USA Arranged Smallest to Largest 7r 104 Residential Dwelling M atched Pairs Adjoining Solar Farms Approx Adj. Sale Veg. Pair Solar Farm City State Id Distance Tax ID/Address Date Sale Price Price %DIB'Buffer 1 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600195570 Selr13 $250,000 Light 3600198928 Mar-14 $250,000 $250,000 09/6 2 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600195361 Sclr13 $260,000 Light 3600194813 Apr-14 $258,000 $258,000 1% 3 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600199891 Jul-14 $250,000 Light 3600198928 Mar-14 $250,000 $250,000 09/6 4 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600198632 Aug-14 $253,000 Light 3600193710 Oct-13 $248,000 $248,000 2% 5 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600196656 Dec-13 $255,000 Light 3601105180 Dec-13 $253,000 $253,000 1% 6 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600182511 Feb13 $247,000 Light 3600183905 Dec-12 $240,000 $245,000 1% 7 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600182784 Apr-13 $245,000 Light 3600193710 Oct-13 $248,000 $248,000 -1% 8 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600195361 Nov-15 $267,500 Light 3600195361 SeP13 $260,000 $267,800 09/6 9 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 400 0900A011 Jul-14 $130,000 Light 099CA043 Feb-15 $148,900 $136,988 -59/6 10 Mulberry Schorr TN 5 400 099CA002 Jul-15 $130,000 Light 0990NA040 Mar-15 $120,000 $121,200 71/6 11 Mulberry Schorr TN 5 480 491 Dusty Oct 16 $176,000 Light '35 April Aug 16 $185,000 $178,283 -1% 12 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 650 297 Country Sep 16 $150,000 Medium 53 Glen Mar-17 $126,000 $144,460 4% 13 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 685 57 Cooper Feb-19 $163,000 Medium 191 Amelia Aug-18 $132,000 $155,947 4% 14 Leonard Rd Hughesville MD 5.5 230 14595 Box Oder Feb-16 $291,000 Light 15313 Bassford Rd Jul-16 $329,800 $292,760 -1% 15 Neal Hawkins Gastonia NC 5 225 609 Neal Hawkins Mar-17 $270,000 Light 1418 N Modena Apr-18 $225,000 $242,520 10% 16 Summit Moyock NC 80 1,060 129 Pinto Apr-16 $170,000 Light 102 Timber Apr-16 $175,500 $175,101 -39/6 17 Summit Moyock NC 80 980 105 Pinto Dec-16 $206,000 Light 127 Ranchland Jun-15 $219,900 $198,120 49/6 18 Tracy Bailey NC 5 780 9162 Winters Jan-17 $255,000 Heavy 7352 Red Fox Jun-16 $176,000 $252,399 1% 19 Manatee Parrish FL 75 1180 13670 Highland Aug-18 $255,000 Heavy 13851 Highland Sep>18 $240,000 $255,825 0% 20 McBride Place Midland NC 75 275 4380 Joyner Nov-17 $325,000 Medium 3870 Flkwood Aug 16 $250,000 $317,523 2% 21 McBride Place Midland NC 75 505 5811 Kristi Mar20$530,000 Medium 3915 Tania Dec-19 $495,000 $504,657 59/6 22 Mariposa Stanley NC 5 1155 215 Mariposa Dec-17 $249,000 Light 110 Airport May-16 $166,000 $239,026 49/6 23 Mariposa Stanley NC 5 570 242 Mariposa Sep-15 $180,000 Light 110 Airport Apr-16 $166,000 $175,043 39/6 24 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 20 1230 833 Nations Spr Jan-17 $295,000 Light 6801 Middle Dec-17 $249,999 $296,157 09/ 25 Candace Princeton NC 5 488 499 Herring Sep-17 $215,000 Medium 1795 Bay Valley Dec-17 $194,000 $214,902 09/ 26 Walker Barboursville VA 20 250 5241 Barham Oct-18 $264,000 Light 9252 Ordinary Jun-19 $277,000 $246,581 79/6 27 AM Beat Goldsboro NC 5 385 103 Granville PI Jul-18 $265,000 Light 2219 Granville Jan-18 $260,000 $265,682 09/ 28 AM Beat Goldsboro NC 5 315 104 Fain Jun-17 $280,000 Light 2219 Granville Jan-18 $265,000 $274,390 2% 29 AM Beat Goldsboro NC 5 400 2312 Granville May-18 $284,900 Light 2219 Granville Jan-18 $265,000 $273,948 4% 105 Residential Dwelling Matched Pairs Adjoining Solar Farms Approx Adj. Sale Vag. Pair Soler Farm City State MW Distance Tax ID/Address Date Sale Price Price %Dlff Hoffer 30 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 400 2310 Granville May-19 $280,000 Light 634 Friendly Jul-19 $267,000 $265,291 59/6 31 Summit Moyock NC 80 570 318 Green View Sep-19 $357,000 Light 336 Green View Jan-19 $365,000 $340,286 59/6 32 Summit Moyock NC 80 440 164 Ranchland Apr-19 $169,000 Light 105 Longhorn Oct-17 $184,500 $186,616 -109/6 33 Summit Moyock NC 80 635 358 Oxford Sep-19 $478,000 Light 176 Providence Sep-19 $425,000 $456,623 4% 34 Summit Moyock NC 80 970 343 Oxford Mar-17 $490,000 Light 218 Oxford Apr-17 $525,000 $484,064 1% 351nnov 46 Hope Mills NC 78.5 435 6849 Roshn Farm Feb19 $155,000 Light 109 Bledsoe Jan-19 $150,000 $147,558 59/6 361nnov 42 Fayetteville NC 71 340 2923 County Line Feb19 $385,000 Light 2109 John McMillan Apr-18 $320,000 $379,156 2% 37 lunar 42 Fayetteville NC 71 330 2935 County Line Jun-19 $266,000 Light 7031 Glynn Mill May-18 $255,000 $264,422 1% 38 Sunfish Willow Sprng NC 6.4 205 7513 Glen Willow Sep-17 $185,000 Light 205 Pine Burr Dec-17 $191,000 $172,487 7% 39 Neal Hawkins Gastonia NC 5 145 611 Neal Hawkins Jun-17 $288,000 Light 1211 Still Forrest Jul-18 $280,000 $274,319 5% 40 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 20 1230 833 Nations Spr Aug-19 $385,000 Light 2393 Old Chapel Aug 20 $330,000 $389,286 -1% 41 Sappony, Stony Creek VA 20 1425 12511 Palestine Jul-18 $128,400 Medium 6494 Rocky Branch Nov-18 $100,000 $131,842 -3% 42 Camden Data Camden NC 5 342 122 N Mill Data Nov-18 $350,000 Light 548 Trotman May-18 $309,000 $352,450 -1% 43 Grandy Grandy NC 20 405 120 Par Four Aug-19 $315,000 Light 116 Barefoot Sep-20 $290,000 $299,584 59/6 44 Grandy Grandy NC 20 477 269 Grandy May-19 $275,000 Light 103 Spring Leaf Aug-18 $270,000 $275,912 09/6 45 Champion Pelion SC 10 505 517 Old Charleston Aug 20 $110,000 Light 1429 Laurel Feb19 $126,000 $107,856 2% 46 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 765 465 Papaya Jul-19 $155,000 Medium 1132 Waterway Jul20$129,000 $141,618 9% 47 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 750 455 Papaya Sep-20 $183,500 Medium 904 Fir Sep-20 $192,500 $186,697 -2% 48 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 690 419 Papaya Jul-19 $127,500 Medium 865Tamarfnd Feb19 $133,900 $124,613 2% 49 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 690 413 Papaya Jul20$130,000 Medium 1367 Barefoot Jan-21 $130,500 $139,507 -79/6 50 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 690 343 Papaya Dec-19 $145,000 Light 865Tamarfnd Feb 19 $133,900 $142,403 2% 51 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 710 335 Papaya Apr-18 $110,000 Light 865Tamarind Feb 19 $133,900 $110,517 0% 52 Miami -Dade Miami FL 74.5 1390 13600 SW 182nd Nov-20 $1,684,000 Light 17950 SW 158th Oct 20 $1,730,000 $1,713,199 -2% 53 Spotsylvania Paytes VA 617 1270 12901 Orange Plak Aug 20 $319,900 Medium 12717 Flintlock Dec-20 $290,000 $326,767 -2% 54 Spotsylvania Paytes VA 617 1950 9641 Nottoway May-20 $449,900 Medium 11626 Forest Aug 20 $489,900 $430,246 4% 55 Spotsylvania Paytes VA 617 1171 13353 Post Oak Sep-20 $300,000 Heavy 12810 Catharpin Jan-20 $280,000 $299,008 09/6 56 McBride Place Midland NC 75 470 5833 Kristi Sep-20 $625,000 Light 4055 Dakeita Dec 20 $600,000 $594,303 59/6 Avg. Indicated MW Distance Impact 64.91 612 Average 20.00 479 Median li 617.00 1,950 High 101111 5.00 145 Low -10ol. 106 I have further broken down these results based on the MWs, Landscaping, and distance from panel to show the following range of findings for these different categories. Most of the findings are for homes between 201 and 500 feet. Most of the findings are for Light landscaping screens. Light landscaping screens are showing no impact on value at any distances, including for solar farms over 75.1 MW. MW Range 4.4 to 10 Landscaping Light Light Light M edium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ # 1 19 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 Average 5% 2% Median 5% 1% High 5% 10% Low 5% -5% 10.1 to 30 Landscaping Light Light Distance 100-200 201-500 # 0 3 Average N/A 4% Median N/A 5% High N/A 7°% Low N/A 0% 30.1 to 75 Landscaping Light Light Distance 100-200 201-500 # 0 2 Average N/A 1% Median N/A 1% High N/A 2% Low N/A 1% 75.1+ Landscaping Light Light Distance 100-200 201-500 # 0 2 Average N/A -3% Median N/A -3% High N/A 5% Low N/A -10% 3% N/A 0% 4% N/A N/A 1% 3% N/A 0% 4% N/A N/A 1% 4% N/A 0% 4% N/A N/A 1% 3% N/A 0% 4% N/A N/A 1% Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A 0% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy 500+ 100-200 201500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0% N/A N/A 0% N/A N/A N/A 0% N/A N/A 0% N/A N/A N/A 2% N/A N/A 9% N/A N/A N/A -2% N/A N/A -7% N/A N/A N/A Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy 500+ 100-200 201500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 5 0 0 2 0 0 1 2% N/A N/A 1% N/A N/A 0% 4% N/A N/A 1% N/A N/A 0% 5% N/A N/A 4% N/A N/A 0% -3% N/A N/A -2% N/A N/A 0% 107 C. Summary of National Data on Solar Farms I have worked in 19 states related to solar farms and I have been tracking matched pairs in most of those states. On the following pages I provide a brief summary of those findings showing 37 solar farms over 5 MW studied with each one providing matched pair data supporting the findings of this report. The solar farms summary is shown below with a summary of the matched pair data shown on the following page. Matched Pak Summary Adj. Uses By Acreage I mile Radius 12010-2020 Data) Topc Med. Avg. Housing Same City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Corn/Ind Poo. Income Unit Veg. Buffer 1 AM Best Goldsboro NC 38 5.00 2 38% 0% 23% 39% 1,523 $37,358 $148,375 Light 2 Mulberry Selmer TN 160 5.00 60 13% 73% 10% 3% 467 $40,936 $171,746 Lt to Med 3 Leonard Hughesville MD 47 5.00 20 18% 75% 0°0 6% 525 $106,550 $350,000 Light 4 Gastonia SC Gastonia NC 35 5.00 48 33% 0°0 23% 44% 4,689 $35,057 $126,562 Light 5 Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 4 4% 0%94% 2%382 $79,114 $281,731 Light 7 Tracy Bailey NC 50 5.00 10 29°/ 0°/ 71% 0% 312 $43,940 $99,219 Heavy S Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 20 2% 97% 1% 0% 48 $75,000 $291,667 Heavy 9 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 129% 10% 78% 0% 398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Med 10 Grand Ridge Streator IL 160 20.00 1 8% 87% 5% 0% 96 $70,158 $187,037 Light 11 Dominion Indianapolis IN 134 8.60 20 3% 97% 0°/ 0°/ 3,774 $61,115 $167,515 Light 12 Mariposa Stanley NC 36 5.00 96 48% 0% 52% 0°/ 1,716 $36,439 $137,884 Light 13 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 234 20.00 70 141/6 39% 46 % 1% 578 $81,022 $374,453 Light 14 Flemington Flemington NJ 120 9.36 N/A 13% 50% 28% 8% 3,477 $105,714 $444,696 Lt to Med 15 Frenchtown Frenchtmm NJ 139 7.90 N/A 37% 35% 29% 0% 457 $111,562 $515,399 Light 16 McGraw Fast Windsor NJ 95 14.00 N/A 279/6 44% 0% 29% 7,684 $78,417 $362,428 Light 17 Tinton Falls Tinton Falls NJ 100 16.00 N/A 98% 0% 0% 2% 4,667 $92,346 $343,492 light is Simon Social Circle GA 237 30.00 71 1% 639a 36% 0% 203 $76,155 $269,922 Medium 19 Candace Princeton NC 54 5.00 22 76% 24% 0°0 0% 448 $51,002 $107,171 Medium 20 Walker Barhamsville VA 495 20.00 N/A 129/6 68% 20°/ 0% 203 $80,773 $320,076 Light 21 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 83% 0°/ 0"/ 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 Light 22 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 59% 0% 0°/ 568 $60,037 $276,347 Light 23 Demille Lapeer MI 160 28.40 10 10% 68% 0°/ 22% 2,010 $47,208 $187,214 Light 24 Tuaill Lapeer MI 230 19.60 10 75% 59% 0°/ 259% 2,390 $46,839 $110,361 Light 25 Sunfish Willow Spring NC 50 6.40 30 35% 35% 30°/ O°/ 1,515 $63,652 $253,138 Light 26 Picture Rocks Tucson AZ 182 20.00 N/A 6% 88% 6% 0°/ 102 $81,081 $280,172 None 27 Avra Valley Tucson AZ 246 25.00 N/A 3% 94% 3% 0°/ 85 $80,997 $292,308 None 28 Sappony Stony Crk VA 322 20.00 N/A 2% 98% 0% 0°/ 74 $51,410 $155,208 Medium 29 Camden Dam Camden NC 50 5.00 0 17% 729% 11% 0% 403 $84,426 $230,288 Light 30 Grandy Grandy NC 121 20.00 10 55% 249% 0°/ 21% 949 $50,355 $231,408 Light 31 Champion Pelion Sc 100 10.00 N/A 4% 70% 8% 18% 1,336 $46,867 $171,939 Light 32 Eddy ll Eddy TX 93 10.00 N/A 15% 25 % 58% 2% 551 $59,627 $139,088 Light 33 Somerset Somerset TX 128 10.60 N/A 5% 95 % 0% 0% 1,293 $41,574 $135,490 Light 34 DG Amp Piqua Piqua OH 86 12.60 2 26% 16% 589/ 0% 6,735 $38,919 $96,555 Light 45 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 504 74.50 0 11% 87% 0°/ 3°/ 2,446 $36,737 $143,320 Lt to Med 36 Miami -Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 0 26% 74% 0% 0°/ 127 $90,909 $403,571 Light 37 SPJtyslvama Fares VA 3,500 617.00 160 379/ 52% 11% 0°/ 74 $120,861 $483,333 Med to Hvy Average 362 42.05 32 24% 52% 19°a 6% 1,515 $66,292 $242,468 Median 150 17.80 10 16% 59% 71/6 0% 560 $62,384 $230,848 High 3,500 617.00 160 98°/ 98% 949% 44% 7,684 $120,861 $515,399 Loa 35 5.00 0 1% 0% 0°/ 0°/ 48 $35,057 $96,555 From these 37 solar farms, I have derived 94 matched pairs. The matched pairs show no negative impact at distances as close as 105 feet between a solar panel and the nearest point on a home. The range of impacts is -10% to +10%with an average and median of +1%. Avg. Indicated MW Distance Impact Average 44.80 569 Average 1% Median 14.00 400 Median 1% High 617.00 1,950 High 10% Low 5.00 145 Low -10% While the range is broad, the two charts below show the data points in range from lowest to highest. There is only 3 data points out of 94 that show a negative impact. The rest support either a finding of no impact or 9 of the data points suggest a positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm. As discussed earlier in this report, I consider this data to strongly support a finding of no impact on value as most of the findings are within typical market variation and even within that, most are mildly positive findings. National Impact Data on Solar Farms Over 5 MW Arranged Smallest to Largest 15% 10% -15% i4A 109 A Larger Solar Farms I have also considered larger solar farms to address impacts related to larger projects. Projects have been increasing in size and most of the projects between 100 and 1000 MW are newer with little time for adjoining sales. I have included a breakdown of solar farms with 20 MW to 80 MW facilities with one 617 MW facility. Hatched Pair Summary - Qa20 MW And Larger Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mDe Radius (2010-2019 Data Top* Med. Avg. Housing Veg. Barre City State Acres MW Shift Res AS Ag/Res Corr/Ind Poo. Income Unit Buffer I Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 4 4% 0% 94% 2% 382 $79,114 $281,731 light 2 Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 10 2% 97°/ 1% ON. 48 $75,000 $291,667 Heavy 3 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 Ia0 12% 10% 78% 0% 398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Med 4 Grand Ridge Streator IL 160 20.00 1 8% 87% 5% 0% 96 $70,158 $187,037 light 5 Clarke Cnty white Post VA 234 20.00 70 14% 39% 46% 1% 578 $81,022 $374,453 Light 6 Simon Social Circle GA 237 30.00 n 1% 63/ 36% 0% 203 $76,155 $269,922 Medium 7 Walker Barharnwille VA 485 20.00 N/A 12% 68% 20% W/. 203 $80,773 $320,076 Light S Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 83% 0°/ W/. 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 Light 9 inn. 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 59% 0% 0% 568 $60,037 $276,347 Light 10 Denville Lapeer MI 160 28.40 i0 10% 68°/ 0% 22% 2,010 $47,208 $187,214 Light II Turrill Lapeer MI 230 19.60 10 75% 59°/ 0% 251% 2,390 $46,839 $110,361 Light 12 Picure Rocks Tucson AZ 182 20.00 N/A 6% 88% 69/ 0% 102 $81,081 $280,172 light 13 Ana Valley Tucson AZ 246 25.00 N/A 3% 949% 3% 0% 85 $80,997 $292,308 None 14 Sappony Stony Crk VA 322 20.00 N/A 2% 98% 0% 0% 74 $51,410 $155,208 None IS Grandy Grandy NC 121 20.00 10 55% 24% 09% 21% 949 $50,355 $231,408 Medium 16 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 504 74.50 0 11% 87% 0% 3% 2,446 $36,737 $143,320 Lt to Med 17 Miami -Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 0 26% 74% 0°/ W/. 127 $90,909 $403,571 light 18 Spotysivania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 160 37% 52% 11% 0% 74 $120,861 $483,333 Med to Hey Average 640 76.03 19°0 649% 17% 4% 721 $69,501 $262,659 Median 335 29.20 12% 68% 29% 0% 293 $72,579 $273,135 High 3,500 617.00 75% 98% 94% 259/6 2,446 $120,861 $483,333 Low 121 19.60 1% 0% 0% 0% 48 $36,737 $110,361 The breakdown of adjoining uses, population density, median income and housing prices for these projects are very similar to those of the larger set. The matched pairs for each of these were considered earlier and support a finding of no negative impact on the adjoining home values. I have included a breakdown of solar farms with 50 MW to 617 MW facilities adjoining. Matched Pair Summary - @50 MW And Larger Sense City State Acres MW Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 home 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL " 74.50 Miami -Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 Adj. Uses By Acreage Tope Shift Rea Ag Ag/Rea Corr/Ind 4 4% 0% 949% 2% M 2% 979/ 1% 0% 140 12% 10% 78% 0% o 17% 83% 0% 0% 0 41% 599% 0% 0% 0 11% 87% 0% 3% 0 26% 74% 0% 0 % 160 379/ 52% 11% 0% 1 mile Radius 12010-2019 Data Med. Avg. Housing Veg. Paid. Income Unit Buffer 382 $79,114 $281,731 Light 48 $75,000 $291,667 Heavy 398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Med 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 light 568 $60,037 $276,347 light 2,446 $36,737 $143,320 Lt to Med 127 $90,909 $403,571 light 74 $120,861 $483,333 Med to Hey Average 1,142 143.19 19% 58°/ 23% 1% 786 $73,128 $289,964 Median 580 75.00 15% 67% 0°/ W/. 390 $69,339 $279,039 High 3,500 617.00 41% 97% 94% 3% 2,446 $120,861 $483,333 Low 347 71.00 2% 0% 0% 0% 48 $36,737 $143,320 The breakdown of adjoining uses, population density, median income and housing prices for these projects are very similar to those of the larger set. The matched pairs for each of these were considered earlier and support a finding of no negative impact on the adjoining home values. The data for these larger solar farms is shown in the SE USA and the National data breakdowns with similar landscaping, setbacks and range of impacts that fall mostly in the +/-5% range as can be seen earlier in this report. 110 On the following page I show 81 projects ranging in size from 50 MW up to 1,000 MW with an average size of 111.80 MW and a median of 80 MW. The average closest distance for an adjoining home is 263 feet, while the median distance is 188 feet. The closest distance is 57 feet. The mix of adjoining uses is similar with most of the adjoining uses remaining residential or agricultural in nature. This is the list of solar farms that I have researched for possible matched pairs and not a complete list of larger solar farms in those states. III Output Total Used Avg. Dist Closest Adjoining Use by Acre Parcel t State City Name JMW) Ames Acres to home Home Res Agri Ag/R Com 78 NC Moyock Summit/Ranchland 80 2034 674 360 4% 94% 0°Po 2% 133 MS Hattiesburg Hattiesburg 50 1129 479.6 650 315 35% 659/. ON. 0% 179 SC Ridgeland Jasper 140 1600 1000 461 108 2% 859/. 13% ON. 211 NC Enfield Chestnut 75 1428.1 1,429 210 4% 969/o O'/o 0%" 222 VA Chase City Grasshopper 80 946.25 6% 87% 5% 1% 226 VA Louisa Belcher 88 1238.1 150 19% 53% 28% 0% 305 FL Dade City Mountain View 55 347.12 510 175 329/6 399Po 21% 8%" 319 FL Jasper Hamilton 74.9 1268.9 537 3,596 240 50/6 67% 28% 0%' 336 FL Parrish Manatee 74.5 1180.4 1,079 625 25/6 50% 1% 47%" 337 FL Arcadia Citrus 74.5 640 04/0 0% 100% 0% 338 FL Port Charlotte Babcock 74.5 422.61 0% 0% He% 0% 353 VA Oak Hall Amaaon East)em at 80 1000 645 135 8% 759/. 17% 0%' 364 VA Stevensburg Greenwood 100 2266.6 1800 788 200 85/o 62% 29% 0%' 368 NC Warsaw Warsaw 87.5 585.97 499 526 130 11% 66% 21% 30/*" 390 NC Ellerbe Innovative Solar 34 50 385.24 226 N/A N/A I% 99% 0% 0% 399 NC Midland McBride 74.9 974.59 627 1,425 140 12% 78/ 91. 0%" 400 FL Mulberry Alydia 51 420.35 490 105 7% 903/0 3% 0%' 406 VA Clover Foxhound 91 1311.8 885 185 5% 61% 17% 18% 410 FL Trenton Trenton 74.5 480 2,193 775 04/o 26% 55% 19%'' 411 NC Battleboro Fern 100 1235.4 960.71 1,494 220 55/. 76% 19% 0%' 412 MD Goldsboro Cherrywood 202 1722.9 1073.7 429 200 10% 76% 13% 0% 434 NC Conetoe Conetoe 80 1389.9 910.6 1,152 120 5% 78% 17% 0%' 440 FL Debary Debary 74.5 844.63 654 190 3% 27% 0% 70% 441 FL Hawthorne Horizon 74.5 684 39/o 81% 16% 0% 484 VA Newsome Southampton 100 3243.9 - - 3% 78% 17% 3% 486 VA Stuarts Draft Augusta 125 3197.4 1147 588 165 16% 61% 16% 7% 491 NC Misenheimer Misenheimer 2018 80 740.2 687.2 504 130 11% 409/. 22% 27%' 494 VA Shacklefords Walnut 110 1700 1173 641 165 14% 72% 13% 1% 496 VA Clover Piney Creek 80 776.18 422 523 195 159/o 62% 24% 0%" 511 NC Scotland Neck American Beech 160 3255.2 1807.8 1,262 205 29/o 58/ 38% 3% 514 NC Reidsville Williamsburg 80 802.6 507 734 200 259/o 12% 63% O%" 517 VA Luray Cape 100 566.53 461 519 I10 42% 12% 46% 0%' 518 VA Emporia Fountain Creek 80 798.3 595 862 300 61/o 23% 71 % 0%' 525 NC Plymouth Macadamia 484 5578.7 4813.5 1,513 275 1% 90% 9% 0%'' 526 NC Mooreabom Broad River 50 759.8 365 419 70 29"/o 55% 16% 0%' 555 FL Mulberry Dunmore 74.5 463.57 324.65 438 140 3% 97% 0% 0%" 560 NC Yadklnville Sugar 60 477 357 382 65 19% 39% 2WIo 22%' 561 NC Enfield Halifax 80mw 2019 80 1007.6 1007.6 672 190 8% 73% 19% 0'% 577 VA Windsor Windsor 85 564.1 564.1 572 160 9% 67% 249/o 0%'' 579 VA Paytes Sputsylvania 500 6412 3500 95/o 52% 11% 27% 582 NC Salisbury China Grove 65 428.66 324.26 438 85 589/o 49/o 38% 0%" 583 NC Walnut Cove Lick Creek 50 1424 185.11 410 65 20% 64% 11% 59/o' 584 NC Enfield Sweetleaf 94 1956.3 1250 968 160 5% 63% 32% 0%" 586 VA Aylett Sweet Sue 77 1262 576 1,617 680 7% 689/. 25% 0%� 593 NC Windsor Sumac 120 3360.6 1257.9 876 160 4% 90% 6% 0%' 599 TN Somerville Yum Yum 147 4000 1500 1,862 330 35/o 32% 64% 1%'' 602 GA Waynesboro White Oak 76.5 516.7 516.7 2,995 1,790 1% 34/ 65% 0% 603 GA Butler Butler GA 103 2395.1 2395.1 1,534 255 2% 739/6 23% 25/o 604 GA Butler White Pine 101.2 505.94 505.94 1,044 100 1% 51% 48% 1% 605 GA Metter Live Oak 51 417.84 417.84 910 235 4°/a 72% 23% 0% 606 GA Hazelhurst Hazelhurst D 52.5 947.15 490.42 2,114 105 99/o 64% 27% 0% 607 GA Bainbridge Decatur Parkway 80 781.5 781.5 1,123 450 29/o 27% 22% 499/o 608 GA Leslie -De Soto Americus 1000 9661.2 4437 5,210 510 1% 63% 36% 0% 616 FL Fort White Fort White 74.5 570.5 457.2 828 220 12% 71 % 17% 0% 621 VA Spring Grove Loblolly 150 2181.9 1000 1,860 110 7% 62% 31% 0% 622 VA Scottsville Woodridge 138 2260.9 1000 1,094 170 9% 639/. 28% O% 625 NC Middlesex Phobos 80 754.52 734 356 57 14% 75% 10% 0% 628 MI Deerfield Carroll Road 200 1694.8 1694.8 343 190 129/6 869/6 O'/o 2% 633 VA Emporia Brunswick 1%2 2076.4 1387.3 1,091 240 4% 859/. 11% O% 634 NC Elkin Partin 50 429.4 257.64 945 155 30% 259/o 15% 30% 112 Parcel s State City Rem, 638 GA Dry Bunch TWiggs 639 NC Hope Mills Innovative Solar 46 640 NC Hope Mills Innovative Solar 42 645 NC Stanley Hornet 650 NC Grifton Grifton 2 651 NC Grifton Buddeberry 657 KY Greensburg Horseshoe Bend 658 KY Campbellsville Flat Run 666 FL Archer Archer 667 FL New Smyrna Ber Pioneer Trail 668 FL Lake City Sunshine Gateway 669 FL Florahome Coral Farms 672 VA Appomattox Spout Spring 676 TX Stamford Alamo 7 677 TX Fort Stockton RE Rosemck 678 TX Lamesa Lamesa 679 TX Lamesa Ivory 680 TX Uvalde Alamo 5 684 NC Waco Brookcliff 689 AZ Arlington Mesquite 692 AZ Tucson Avalon Average median High Low Output Total Used Avg. Dist Closest Adjoining Use by Acre )mW) Acres Ames to home Home Res Agri Ag/R Com 200 2132.7 2132.7 - - 109/. 55 % 35 % 0% 78.5 531.87 531.87 423 125 17% 83% 0% 0%' 71 413.99 413.99 375 135 41% 59% 0% 0%' 75 1499.5 858.4 663 110 30% 409/6 23% 6 56 681.59 297.6 363 235 1% 990/0 0% 0%' 52.1 367.67 361.67 913 180 5% 549/. 41% 0%' 60 585.65 395 1,394 63 3% 36% 61% 0%' 55 429.76 429.76 408 115 13/ 52% 35% 05/0' 74.9 636.94 636.94 638 200 43/ 57% 0% 0%' 74.5 1202.8 900 1,162 225 14% 61% 21 % 4%' 74.5 904.29 472 1,233 890 11% 80% W. 0%' 74.5 666.54 580 1,614 765 19% 75% 7% 0%' 60 881.12 673.37 836 335 169/o 30% 46% 8%' 106.4 1663.1 1050 - - 6/ 83% 09/ 11% 160 1738.2 1500 - - 0% 100% W/0 0% 102 914.5 655 921 170 4% 41% 11% 44% 50 706 570 716 460 0% 87% 2% 12%' 95 830.35 800 925 740 1% 939/6 6% 0%' 50 671.03 671.03 560 150 71/o 21% 15% 57^/0' 320.8 3774.5 2617 1,670 525 8% 92% 0-/0 0%' 51 479.21 352 - - 0% 100% 0% 0% 81 111.80 1422.4 968.4 1031 263 f0% 62% 229/6 6% 80.00 914.5 646.0 836 188 7% 64% 17% 09/6 1000.00 9661.2 4813.5 5210 1790 58/ 100% 100% 709/o 50.00 347.1 185.1 343 57 09/. 09/6 0% 0% 113 VII. Distance Between Homes and Panels I have measured distances at matched pairs as close as 105 feet between panel and home to show no impact on value. This measurement goes from the closest point on the home to the closest solar panel. This is a strong indication that at this distance there is no impact on adjoining homes. However, in tracking other approved solar farms across Virginia, North Carolina and other states, I have found that it is common for there to be homes within 100 to 150 feet of solar panels. Given the visual barriers in the form of privacy fencing or landscaping, there is no sign of negative impact. I have also tracked a number of locations where solar panels are between 50 and 100 feet of single- family homes. In these cases the landscaping is typically a double row of more mature evergreens at time of planting. There are many examples of solar farms with one or two homes closer than 100- feet, but most of the adjoining homes are further than that distance. VIII. Topography As shown on the summary charts for the solar farms, I have been identifying the topographic shifts across the solar farms considered. Differences in topography can impact visibility of the panels, though typically this results in distant views of panels as opposed to up close views. The topography noted for solar farms showing no impact on adjoining home values range from as much as 160-foot shifts across the project. Given that appearance is the only factor of concern and that distance plus landscape buffering typically addresses up close views, this leaves a number of potentially distant views of panels. I specifically note that in Crittenden in KY there are distant views of panels from the adjoining homes that showed no impact on value. General rolling terrain with some distant solar panel views are showing no impact on adjoining property value. IX. Potential Impacts During Construction Any development of a site will have a certain amount of construction, whether it is for a commercial agricultural use such as large-scale poultry operations or a new residential subdivision. Construction will be temporary and consistent with other development uses of the land and in fact dust from the construction will likely be less than most other construction projects given the minimal grading. I would not anticipate any impacts on property value due to construction on the site. I note that in the matched pairs that I have included there have been a number of home sales that happened after a solar farm was approved but before the solar farm was built showing no impact on property value. Therefore the anticipated construction had no impact as shown by that data. 114 X. Scope of Research I have researched over 750 solar farms and sites on which solar farms are existing and proposed in Virginia, Illinois, Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky as well as other states to determine what uses are typically found in proximity with a solar farm. The data I have collected and provide in this report strongly supports the assertion that solar farms are having no negative consequences on adjoining agricultural and residential values. Beyond these references, I have quantified the adjoining uses for a number of solar farm comparables to derive a breakdown of the adjoining uses for each solar farm. The chart below shows the breakdown of adjoining or abutting uses by total acreage. Average 19% 53% 20% 2% 6% 887 344 91% 8% Median 11% 56% 11% 0% 0% 708 218 100% 0% High 100% 1000% 100% 93% 98% 5,210 4,670 1000/6 98% Low 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 90 25 0% 0% Res = Residential, Ag = Agriculture, Com = Commer ed: 705 I have also included a breakdown of each solar farm by number of adjoining parcels to the solar farm rather than based on adjoining acreage. Using both factors provide a more complete picture of the neighboring properties. Parcels Adjoin Closest All Res All Comm Res Ag %LAG Comm Ind Avg Home Home Uses Uses Average 61% 24% 9% 2% 4% 887 344 93% 6% Median 65% 19% 5% 00% 0% 708 218 1000/6 0% High 100% 100% 100% 60% 78% 5,210 4,670 105% 780/6 Low 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 90 25 0% 0% Both of the above charts show a marked residential and agricultural adjoining use for most solar farms. Every single solar farm considered included an adjoining residential or residential/agricultural use. 115 XI. Specific Factors Related To Impacts on Value I have completed a number of Impact Studies related to a variety of uses and I have found that the most common areas for impact on adjoining values typically follow a hierarchy with descending levels of potential impact. I will discuss each of these categories and how they relate to a solar farm. 1. Hazardous material 2. Odor 3. Noise 4. Traffic 5. Stigma 6. Appearance 1. Hazardous material A solar farm presents no potential hazardous waste byproduct as part of normal operation. Any fertilizer, weed control, vehicular traffic, or construction will be significantly less than typically applied in a residential development and even most agricultural uses. The various solar farms that I have inspected and identified in the addenda have no known environmental impacts associated with the development and operation. 2. Odor The various solar farms that I have inspected produced no odor. 3. Noise Whether discussing passive fixed solar panels, or single -axis trackers, there is no negative impact associated with noise from a solar farm. The transformer reportedly has a hum similar to an HVAC that can only be heard in close proximity to this transformer and the buffers on the property are sufficient to make emitted sounds inaudible from the adjoining properties. No sound is emitted from the facility at night. The various solar farms that I have inspected were inaudible from the roadways. 4. Traffic The solar farm will have no onsite employee's or staff. The site requires only minimal maintenance. Relative to other potential uses of the site (such as a residential subdivision), the additional traffic generated by a solar farm use on this site is insignificant. 5. Stigma There is no stigma associated with solar farms and solar farms and people generally respond favorably towards such a use. While an individual may express concerns about proximity to a solar farm, there is no spec stigma associated with a solar farm. Stigma generally refers to things such as adult establishments, prisons, rehabilitation facilities, and so forth. Solar panels have no associated stigma and in smaller collections are found in yards and roofs in many residential communities. Solar fauns are adjoining elementary, middle and high schools as well as churches and subdivisions. I note that one of the solar farms in this report not only adjoins a church, but is actually located on land owned by the church. Solar panels on a roof are often cited as an enhancement to the property in marketing brochures. 116 I see no basis for an impact from stigma due to a solar farm. 6. Appearance I note that larger solar farms using fixed or tracking panels are a passive use of the land that is in keeping with a rural/residential area. As shown below, solar farms are comparable to larger greenhouses. This is not surprising given that a greenhouse is essentially another method for collecting passive solar energy. The greenhouse use is well received in residential/rural areas and has a similar visual impact as a solar farm. The solar panels are all less than 15 feet high, which means that the visual impact of the solar panels will be similar in height to a typical greenhouse and lower than a single -story residential dwelling. Were the subject property developed with single family housing, that development would have a much greater visual impact on the surrounding area given that a two-story home with attic could be three to four times as high as these proposed panels. Whenever you consider the impact of a proposed project on viewshed or what the adjoining owners may see from their property it is important to distinguish whether or not they have a protected viewshed or not. Enhancements for scenic vistas are often measured when considering properties that adjoin preserved open space and parks. However, adjoining land with a preferred view today conveys no guarantee that the property will continue in the current use. Any consideration of the impact of the appearance requires a consideration of the wide variety of other uses a property already has the right to be put to, which for solar farms often includes subdivision development, agricultural business buildings such as poultry, or large greenhouses and the like. Dr. Randall Bell, MAI, PhD, and author of the book Real Estate Damages, Third Edition, on Page 146 "Views of bodies of water, city lights, natural settings, parks, golf courses, and other amenities are considered desirable features, particularly for residential properties." Dr. Bell continues on Page 147 that "View amenities may or may not be protected by law or regulation. It is sometimes argued that views have value only if they are protected by a view easement, a zoning ordinance, or covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC8&Rs), although such protections are relatively 117 uncommon as a practical matter. The market often assigns significant value to desirable views irrespective of whether or not such views are protected by law." Dr. Bell concludes that a view enhances adjacent property, even if the adjacent property has no legal right to that view. He then discusses a "borrowed" view where a home may enjoy a good view of vacant land or property beyond with a reasonable expectation that the view might be partly or completely obstructed upon development of the adjoining land. He follows that with "This same concept applies to potentially undesirable views of a new development when the development conforms to applicable zoning and other regulations. Arguing value diminution in such cases is difficult, since the possible development of the offending property should have been known." In other words, if there is an allowable development on the site then arguing value diminution with such a development would be difficult. This further extends to developing the site with alternative uses that are less impactful on the view than currently allowed uses. This gets back to the point that if a property has development rights and could currently be developed in such a way that removes the viewshed such as a residential subdivision, then a less intrusive use such as a solar farm that is easily screened by landscaping would not have a greater impact on the viewshed of any perceived value adjoining properties claim for viewshed. Essentially, if there are more impactful uses currently allowed, then how can you claim damages for a less impactful use. 7. Conclusion On the basis of the factors described above, it is my professional opinion that the proposed solar farm will not negatively impact adjoining property values. The only category of impact of note is appearance, which is addressed through setbacks and landscaping buffers. The matched pair data supports that conclusion. 118 MI. Conclusion The matched pair analysis shows no negative impact in home values due to abutting or adjoining a solar farm as well as no impact to abutting or adjacent vacant residential or agricultural land. The criteria that typically correlates with downward adjustments on property values such as noise, odor, and traffic all support a finding of no impact on property value. Very similar solar farms in very similar areas have been found by hundreds of towns and counties not to have a substantial injury to abutting or adjoining properties, and many of those findings of no impact have been upheld by appellate courts. Similar solar farms have been approved adjoining agricultural uses, schools, churches, and residential developments. I have found no difference in the mix of adjoining uses or proximity to adjoining homes based on the size of a solar farm and I have found no significant difference in the matched pair data adjoining larger solar fauns versus smaller solar farms. The data in the Southeast is consistent with the larger set of data that I have nationally, as is the more specific data located in and around Virginia. Based on the data and analysis in this report, it is my professional opinion that the solar farm proposed at the subject property will have no negative impact on the value of adjoining or abutting property. I note that some of the positive implications of a solar farm that have been expressed by people living next to solar farms include protection from future development of residential developments or other more intrusive uses, reduced dust, odor and chemicals from former farming operations, protection from light pollution at night, it's quiet, and there is no traffic. 119 Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI r�Cl 1 9408 Northfield Court Kirkland Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Mobile (919) 414-8142 Appraisals, LLC rldrklandXngoiail.com \Jv� w .kirklandappraisals.com Professional Experience Kirkland Appraisals, LLC, Raleigh, N.C. 2003 — Present Commercial appraiser Hester & Company, Raleigh, N.C. Commercial appraiser 1996 — 2003 Professional Affiliations MAI (Member, Appraisal Institute) designation #11796 2001 NC State Certified General Appraiser # A4359 1999 VA State Certified General Appraiser # 4001017291 SC State Certified General Appraiser # 6209 FL State Certified General Appraiser # RZ3950 IL State Certified General Appraiser # 553.002633 KY State Certified General Appraiser # 5522 Education Bachelor of Arts in English, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 1993 Continuing Education Florida Appraisal Laws and Regulations 2020 Michigan Appraisal Law 2020 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2020 Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Yellow Book) 2019 The Cost Approach 2019 Income Approach Case Studies for Commercial Appraisers 2018 Introduction to Expert Witness Testimony for Appraisers 2018 Appraising Small Apartment Properties 2018 Florida Appraisal Laws and Regulations 2018 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2018 Appraisal of REO and Foreclosure Properties 2017 Appraisal of Self Storage Facilities 2017 Land and Site Valuation 2017 NCDOT Appraisal Principles and Procedures 2017 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2016 Forecasting Revenue 2015 Wind Turbine Effect on Value 2015 Supervisor/Trainee Class 2015 Business Practices and Ethics 2014 Subdivision Valuation 2014 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2014 Introduction to Vineyard and Winery Valuation 2013 Appraising Rural Residential Properties 2012 120 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2012 Supervisors/Trainees 2011 Rates and Ratios: Making sense of GIMs, OARS, and DCFs 2011 Advanced Internet Search Strategies 2011 Analyzing Distressed Real Estate 2011 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2011 Business Practices and Ethics 2011 Appraisal Curriculum Overview (2 Days — General) 2009 Appraisal Review - General 2009 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2008 Subdivision Valuation: A Comprehensive Guide 2008 Office Building Valuation: A Contemporary Perspective 2008 Valuation of Detrimental Conditions in Real Estate 2007 The Appraisal of Small Subdivisions 2007 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2006 Evaluating Commercial Construction 2005 Conservation Easements 2005 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2004 Condemnation Appraising 2004 Land Valuation Adjustment Procedures 2004 Supporting Capitalization Rates 2004 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, C 2002 Wells and Septic Systems and Wastewater Irrigation Systems 2002 Appraisals 2002 2002 Analyzing Commercial Lease Clauses 2002 Conservation Easements 2000 Preparation for Litigation 2000 Appraisal of Nonconforming Uses 2000 Advanced Applications 2000 Highest and Best Use and Market Analysis 1999 Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches 1999 Advanced Income Capitalization 1998 Valuation of Detrimental Conditions in Real Estate 1999 Report Writing and Valuation Analysis 1999 Property Tax Values and Appeals 1997 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, A & B 1997 Basic Income Capitalization 1996 WHITE PAPER Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics By Tommy Cleveland May 2017 I044 NC CLEAN ENERGY O;i# TECHNOLOGY CENTER Contents 1.1 • Project Installation / Construction...................................................................4 1.2 • System Components 1 1.2.1 Solar Panels: Construction and Durability ........ 5 1.2.2 • Photovoltaic (PV) Technologies...................................................................7 1.2.3. • Panel End -of -Life Management...............................................................10 1.2.4 • Non -Panel System Components (racking, wiring, inverter, transformer)..12 1.4 • Operations and Maintenance — Panel Washing and Vegetation Control .... 13 2 • Electromagnetic Fields(EMF)........................................................................14 3 • Electric Shock and Arc Flash Hazards...........................................................16 4 • Fire Safety.......................................................................................................16 Summary..............................................................................................................17 Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics The increasing presence of utility -scale solar pho- tovoltaic (PV) systems (sometimes referred to as solar farms) is a rather new development in North Carolina's landscape. Due to the new and un- known nature of this technology, it is natural for communities near such developments to be con- cerned about health and safety impacts. Unfortu- nately, the quick emergence of utility -scale solar has cultivated fertile grounds for myths and half- truths about the health impacts of this technology, which can lead to unnecessary fear and conflict. Photovoltaic (PV) technologies and solar inverters are not known to pose any significant health dan- gers to their neighbors. The most important dan- gers posed are increased highway traffic during the relative short construction period and dangers posed to trespassers of contact with high voltage equipment. This latter risk is mitigated by signage and the security measures that industry uses to deter trespassing. As will be discussed in more detail below, risks of site contamination are much less than for most other industrial uses because PV technologies employ few toxic chemicals and those used are used in very small quantities. Due to the reduction in the pollution from fossil -fu- el -fired electric generators, the overall impact of solar development on human health is overwhelm- ingly positive. This pollution reduction results from a partial replacement of fossil -fuel fired generation by emission -free PV-generated electricity, which reduces harmful sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen ox- ides (NOx), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, both affiliates of the U.S. Department of Energy, estimates the health -related air quali- ty benefits to the southeast region from solar PV generators to be worth 8.0 ¢ per kilowatt-hour of solar generation.' This is in addition to the value of the electricity and suggests that the air quality benefits of solar are worth more than the electricity itself. Even though we have only recently seen large- scale installation of PV technologies, the technol- ogy and its potential impacts have been studied since the 1950s. A combination of this solar -spe- cific research and general scientific research has led to the scientific community having a good un- derstanding of the science behind potential health and safety impacts of solar energy. This paper uti- lizes the latest scientific literature and knowledge of solar practices in N.C. to address the health and safety risks associated with solar PV technol- ogy. These risks are extremely small, far less than those associated with common activities such as driving a car, and vastly outweighed by health ben- efits of the generation of clean electricity. This paper addresses the potential health and safety impacts of solar PV development in North Carolina, organized into the following four catego- ries: (1) Hazardous Materials (2) Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) (3) Electric Shock and Arc Flash (4) Fire Safety 1 • Hazardous Materials One of the more common concerns towards solar is that the panels (referred to as "modules" in the solar industry) consist of toxic materials that en- danger public health. However, as shown in this section, solar energy systems may contain small amounts of toxic materials, but these materials do not endanger public health. To understand poten- tial toxic hazards coming from a solar project, one May 2017 1 Version 1 3 must understand system installation, materials used, the panel end -of -life protocols, and system operation. This section will examine these aspects of a solar farm and the potential for toxicity im- pacts in the following subsections: (1.2) Project Installation/Construction (1.2) System Components 1.2.1 Solar Panels: Construction and Durability 1.2.2 Photovoltaic technologies (a) Crystalline Silicon (b) Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) (c) CIS/CIGS 1.2.3 Panel End of Life Management 1.2.4 Non -panel System Components (1.3) Operations and Maintenance 1.1 Project Installation/ Construction The system installation, or construction, process does not require toxic chemicals or processes. The site is mechanically cleared of large vegetation, fences are constructed, and the land is surveyed to layout exact installation locations. Trenches for underground wiring are dug and support posts are driven into the ground. The solar panels are bolt- ed to steel and aluminum support structures and wired together. Inverter pads are installed, and an inverter and transformer are installed on each pad. Once everything is connected, the system is tested, and only then turned on. C f Figure 1: Utility -scale solar facility (5 MWAC) located in Catawba County. Source: Strata Solar May 2017 1 Version 1 4 1.2 • System Components 1.2.1 Solar Panels: Construction and Durability Solar PV panels typically consist of glass, polymer, aluminum, copper, and semiconductor materials that can be recovered and recycled at the end of their useful life.z Today there are two PV technol- ogies used in PV panels at utility -scale solar facil- ities, silicon, and thin film. As of 2016, all thin film used in North Carolina solar facilities are cadmium telluride (CdTe) panels from the US manufacturer First Solar, but there are other thin film PV panels available on the market, such as Solar Frontier's CIGS panels. Crystalline silicon technology con- sists of silicon wafers which are made into cells Ak nn m Faro $ealn� Gass EVA Cells EVA Todw Fin Figure 2: Components of crystalline silicon panels. The vast majority of'silicon panels consist of'a glass sheet on the topside with an aluminum frame providing structural support. Image Source: w wvv. riteksolar. com. tw To provide decades of corrosion -free operation, PV cells in PV panels are encapsulated from air and moisture between two layers of plastic. The encapsulation layers are protected on the top with a layer of tempered glass and on the backside with a polymer sheet. Frameless modules include a protective layer of glass on the rear of the pan- el, which may also be tempered. The plastic eth- ylene -vinyl acetate (EVA) commonly provides the and assembled into panels, thin film technologies consist of thin layers of semiconductor material deposited onto glass, polymer or metal substrates. While there are differences in the components and manufacturing processes of these two types of so- lar technologies, many aspects of their PV panel construction are very similar. Specifics about each type of PV chemistry as it relates to toxicity are covered in subsections a, b, and c in section 1.2.2; on crystalline silicon, cadmium telluride, and CIS/ CIGS respectively. The rest of this section applies equally to both silicon and thin film panels. Lansparen( OnIiCO) F'cr'. VIJsi - h Caf^liUrr �TOurife (Wel Sulfide kcJs Encapsulare Bari E earode Back Glue Figure 3: Layers of a common frameless thin film panel (CdTe)..Wany thin film panels are frameless, including the most common thin-film panels, First Solar's CdTe. Frameless panels have protective glass on both the front and back of the panel. Laver thicknesses not to scale. Image Source: www.homepower.com cell encapsulation. For decades, this same mate- rial has been used between layers of tempered glass to give car windshields and hurricane win- dows their great strength. In the same way that a car windshield cracks but stays intact, the EVA layers in PV panels keep broken panels intact (see Figure 4). Thus, a damaged module does not generally create small pieces of debris; instead, it largely remains together as one piece. May 2017 1 Version 1 5 Figure 4: The mangled PV panels in this picture illustrate the nature of broken solar panels; the glass cracks but the panel is still in one piece. Image Source: htt[)://imci.alibaba.com/l)ho- to/1115259576/broken solari) a n e l .jpg PV panels constructed with the same basic com- ponents as modern panels have been installed across the globe for well over thirty years.3 The long-term durability and performance demonstrat- ed over these decades, as well as the results of accelerated lifetime testing, helped lead to an in- dustrystandard 25-year power production warran- ty for PV panels. These power warranties warrant a PV panel to produce at least 80% of their origi- nal nameplate production after 25 years of use. A recent SolarCity and DNV GL study reported that today's quality PV panels should be expected to reliably and efficiently produce power for thirty-five years .4 Local building codes require all structures, includ- ing ground mounted solar arrays, to be engineered to withstand anticipated wind speeds, as defined by the local wind speed requirements. Many rack- 4 ing products are available in versions engineered for wind speeds of up to 150 miles per hour, which is significantly higher than the wind speed require- ment anywhere in North Carolina. The strength of PV mounting structures were demonstrated during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and again during Hurri- cane Matthew in 2016. During Hurricane Sandy, the many large-scale solar facilities in New Jer- sey and New York at that time suffered only minor damage.5 In the fall of 2016, the US and Carib- bean experienced destructive winds and torrential rains from Hurricane Matthew, yet one leading so- lar tracker manufacturer reported that their numer- ous systems in the impacted area received zero damage from wind or flooding.6 In the event of catastrophic event capable of dam- aging solar equipment, such as a tornado, the sys- tem will almost certainly have property insurance May 2017 1 Version 1 6 that will cover the cost to cleanup and repair the project. It is in the best interest of the system own- er to protect their investment against such risks. It is also in their interest to get the project repaired and producing full power as soon as possible. Therefore, the investment in adequate insurance is a wise business practice for the system owner. For the same reasons, adequate insurance cover- age is also generally a requirement of the bank or firm providing financing for the project. 1.2.2 Photovoltaic (PV) Technologies a. Crystalline Silicon This subsection explores the toxicity of sili- con -based PV panels and concludes that they do not pose a material risk of toxicity to public health and safety. Modern crystalline silicon PV panels, which account for over 90% of solar PV panels installed today, are, more or less, a commodity product. The overwhelming majority of panels installed in North Carolina are crystalline silicon panels that are informally classified as Tier I pan- els. Tier I panels are from well -respected manu- facturers that have a good chance of being able to honor warranty claims. Tier I panels are under- stood to be of high quality, with predictable perfor- mance, durability, and content. Well over 80% (by weight) of the content of a PV panel is the tem- pered glass front and the aluminum frame, both of which are common building materials. Most of the remaining portion are common plastics, including polyethylene terephthalate in the backsheet, EVA encapsulation of the PV cells, polyphenyl ether in the junction box, and polyethylene insulation on the wire leads. The active, working components of the system are the silicon photovoltaic cells, the small electrical leads connecting them togeth- er, and to the wires coming out of the back of the panel. The electricity generating and conducting components makeup less than 5% of the weight of most panels. The PV cell itself is nearly 100% silicon, and silicon is the second most common element in the Earth's crust. The silicon for PV cells is obtained by high -temperature processing of quartz sand (SiO2) that removes its oxygen molecules. The refined silicon is converted to a PV cell by adding extremely small amounts of bo- ron and phosphorus, both of which are common and of very low toxicity. The other minor components of the PV cell are also generally benign; however, some contain lead, which is a human toxicant that is particularly harmful to young children. The minor components include an extremely thin antireflective coating (silicon nitride or titanium dioxide), a thin layer of aluminum on the rear, and thin strips of silver alloy that are screen -printed on the front and rear of cell? In order for the front and rear electrodes to make effective electrical contact with the proper layer of the PV cell, other materials (called glass frit) are mixed with the silver alloy and then heated to etch the metals into the cell. This glass frit historically contains a small amount of lead (Pb) in the form of lead oxide. The 60 or 72 PV cells in a PV panel are connected by soldering thin solder -covered cop- per tabs from the back of one cell to the front of the next cell. Traditionally a tin -based solder contain- ing some lead (Pb) is used, but some manufactur- ers have switched to lead-free solder. The glass frit and/or the solder may contain trace amounts of other metals, potentially including some with hu- man toxicity such as cadmium. However, testing to simulate the potential for leaching from broken panels, which is discussed in more detail below, did not find a potential toxicity threat from these trace elements. Therefore, the tiny amount of lead in the grass frit and the solder is the only part of silicon PV panels with a potential to create a neg- ative health impact. However, as described below, the very limited amount of lead involved and its strong physical and chemical attachment to other components of the PV panel means that even in worst -case scenarios the health hazard it poses is insignificant. May 2017 1 Version 1 7 As with many electronic industries, the solder in sil- icon PV panels has historically been a leadbased solder, often 36% lead, due to the superior prop- erties of such solder. However, recent advances in lead-free solders have spurred a trend among PV panel manufacturers to reduce or remove the lead in their panels. According to the 2015 Solar Scorecard from the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, a group that tracks environmental responsibili- ty of photovoltaic panel manufacturers, fourteen companies (increased from twelve companies in 2014) manufacture PV panels certified to meet the European Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) standard. This means that the amount of cadmium and lead in the panels they manufacture fall below the RoHS thresholds, which are set by the European Union and serve as the world's de facto standard for hazardous substances in man- ufactured goods.8 The Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) standard requires that the maximum concentration found in any homog- enous material in a produce is less than 0.01% cadmium and less than 0.10% lead, therefore, any solder can be no more than 0.10% lead.9 While some manufacturers are producing PV panels that meet the RoHS standard, there is no requirement that they do so because the RoHS Directive explicitly states that the directive does not apply to photovoltaic panels.10 The justification for this is provided in item 17 of the current RoHS Directive: "The development of renewable forms of energy is one of the Union's key objectives, and the contribution made by renewable energy sources to environmental and climate objectives is crucial. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (4) recalls that there should be coherence between those objectives and other Union envi- ronmental legislation. Consequently, this Directive should not prevent the development of renewable energy technologies that have no negative impact on health and the environment and that are sus- tainable and economically viable." The use of lead is common in our modern econo- my. However, only about 0.5% of the annual lead consumption in the U.S. is for electronic solder for all uses; PV solder makes up only a tiny portion of this 0.5%. Close to 90% of lead consumption in the US is in batteries, which do not encapsu- late the pounds of lead contained in each typical automotive battery. This puts the lead in batteries at great risk of leaching into the environment. Es- timates for the lead in a single PV panel with lead - based solder range from 1.6 to 24 grams of lead, with 13g (less than half of an ounce) per panel seen most often in the literature." At 13 g/pane112, each panel contains one-half of the lead in a typi- cal 12-gauge shotgun shell. This amount equates to roughly 1/750th of the lead in a single car bat- tery. In a panel, it is all durably encapsulated from air or water for the full life of the panel.14 As indicated by their 20 to 30-year power warran- ty, PV modules are designed for a long service life, generally over 25 years. For a panel to comply with its 25-year power warranty, its internal components, including lead, must be sealed from any moisture. Otherwise, they would corrode and the panel's out- put would fall below power warranty levels. Thus, the lead in operating PV modules is not at risk of release to the environment during their service life- time. In extreme experiments, researchers have shown that lead can leach from crushed or pulver- ized panels.15 16 However, more real -world tests designed to represent typical trash compaction that are used to classify waste as hazardous or non- hazardous show no danger from leaching.1718 For more information about PV panel end -of -life, see the Panel Disposal section. As illustrated throughout this section, silicon -based PV panels do not pose a material threat to public health and safety. The only aspect of the panels with potential toxicity concerns is the very small amount of lead in some panels. However, any lead in a panel is well sealed from environmental expo- sure for the operating lifetime of the solar panel and thus not at risk of release into the environment. May 2017 1 Version 1 8 b. Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) PV Panels This subsection examines the components of a cadmium telluride (CdTe) PV panel. Research demonstrates that they pose negligible toxicity risk to public health and safety while significant- ly reducing the public's exposure to cadmium by reducing coal emissions. As of mid-2016, a few hundred MWs of cadmium telluride (CdTe) panels, all manufactured by the U.S. company First Solar, have been installed in North Carolina. Questions about the potential health and environ- mental impacts from the use of this PV technology are related to the concern that these panels con- tain cadmium, a toxic heavy metal. However, sci- entific studies have shown that cadmium telluride differs from cadmium due to its high chemical and thermal stability.19 Research has shown that the tiny amount of cadmium in these panels does not pose a health or safety risk.20 Further, there are very compelling reasons to welcome its adoption due to reductions in unhealthy pollution associat- ed with burning coal. Every GWh of electricity gen- erated by burning coal produces about 4 grams of cadmium air emissions .21 Even though North Car- olina produces a significant fraction of our elec- tricity from coal, electricity from solar offsets much more natural gas than coal due to natural gas plants being able to adjust their rate of production more easily and quickly. If solar electricity offsets 90% natural gas and 10% coal, each 5-megawatt (5 MWAC, which is generally 7 MWDC) CdTe solar facility in North Carolina keeps about 157 grams, or about a third of a pound, of cadmium out of our environment .22. 23 Cadmium is toxic, but all the approximately 7 grams of cadmium in one CdTe panel is in the form of a chemical compound cadmium telluride'24 which has 1/100th the toxicity of free cadmium.25 Cadmium telluride is a very stable compound that is non-volatile and non -soluble in water. Even in the case of a fire, research shows that less than 0.1% of the cadmium is released when a CdTe panel is exposed to fire. The fire melts the glass and encapsulates over 99.9% of the cadmium in the molten glass.27 It is important to understand the source of the cad- mium used to manufacture CdTe PV panels. The cadmium is a byproduct of zinc and lead refining. The element is collected from emissions and waste streams during the production of these metals and combined with tellurium to create the CdTe used in PV panels. If the cadmium were not collected for use in the PV panels or other products, it would otherwise either be stockpiled for future use, ce- mented and buried, or disposed of.28 Nearly all the cadmium in old or broken panels can be recycled which can eventually serve as the primary source of cadmium for new PV panels.29 Similar to silicon -based PV panels, CdTe panels are constructed of a tempered glass front, one instead of two clear plastic encapsulation layers, and a rear heat strengthened glass backing (to- gether >98% by weight). The final product is built to withstand exposure to the elements without significant damage for over 25 years. While not representative of damage that may occur in the field or even at a landfill, laboratory evidence has illustrated that when panels are ground into a fine powder, very acidic water is able to leach portions of the cadmium and tellurium,30 similar to the pro- cess used to recycle CdTe panels. Like many sil- icon -based panels, CdTe panels are reported (as far back ask 199831 to pass the EPA's Toxic Char- acteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test, which tests the potential for crushed panels in a landfill to leach hazardous substances into groundwater.32 Passing this test means that they are classified as non -hazardous waste and can be deposited in landfills.33,34 For more information about PV panel end -of -life, see the Panel Disposal section. There is also concern of environmental impact re- sulting from potential catastrophic events involv- ing CdTe PV panels. An analysis of worst -case scenarios for environmental impact from CdTe PV May 2017 1 Version 1 9 panels, including earthquakes, fires, and floods, was conducted by the University of Tokyo in 2013. After reviewing the extensive international body of research on CdTe PV technology, their report concluded, "Even in the worst -case scenarios, it is unlikely that the Cd concentrations in air and sea water will exceed the environmental regulation values."35 In a worst -case scenario of damaged panels abandoned on the ground, insignificant amounts of cadmium will leach from the panels. This is because this scenario is much less condu- cive (larger module pieces, less acidity) to leach- ing than the conditions of the EPAs TCLP test used to simulate landfill conditions, which CdTe panels pass.36 First Solar, a U.S. company, and the only signifi- cant supplier of CdTe panels, has a robust panel take -back and recycling program that has been operating commercially since 2005.37 The compa- ny states that it is "committed to providing a com- mercially attractive recycling solution for photovol- taic (PV) power plant and module owners to help them meet their module (end of life) EOL obliga- tion simply, costeffectively and responsibly." First Solar global recycling services to their custom- ers to collect and recycle panels once they reach the end of productive life whether due to age or damage. These recycling service agreements are structured to be financially attractive to both First Solar and the solar panel owner. For First Solar, the contract provides the company with an afford- able source of raw materials needed for new pan- els and presumably a diminished risk of undesired release of Cd. The contract also benefits the solar panel owner by allowing them to avoid tipping fees at a waste disposal site. The legal contract helps provide peace of mind by ensuring compliance by both parties when considering the continuing trend of rising disposal costs and increasing regulatory requirements. c. CIS/CIGS and other PV technologies Copper indium gallium selenide PV technology, of- ten referred to as CIGS, is the second most com- mon type of thin-film PV panel but a distant second behind CdTe. CIGS cells are composed of a thin layer of copper, indium, gallium, and selenium on a glass or plastic backing. None of these elements are very toxic, although selenium is a regulated metal under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).38 The cells often also have an extremely thin layer of cadmium sulfide that contains a tiny amount of cadmium, which is toxic. The promise of high efficiency CIGS pan- els drove heavy investment in this technology in the past. However, researchers have struggled to transfer high efficiency success in the lab to low-cost full-scale panels in the field.39 Recently, a CIGS manufacturer based in Japan, Solar Fron- tier, has achieved some market success with a rig- id, glass -faced CIGS module that competes with silicon panels. Solar Frontier produces the major- ity of CIS panels on the market today.40 Notably, these panels are RoHS compliant'41 thus meeting the rigorous toxicity standard adopted by the Eu- ropean Union even thought this directive exempts PV panels. The authors are unaware of any com- pleted or proposed utility -scale system in North Carolina using CIS/CIGS panels. 1.2.3 Panel End -of -Life Management Concerns about the volume, disposal, toxicity, and recycling of PV panels are addressed in this sub- section. To put the volume of PV waste into per- spective, consider that by 2050, when PV systems installed in 2020 will reach the end of their lives, it is estimated that the global annual PV panel waste tonnage will be 10% of the 2014 global a -waste tonnage.42 In the U.S., end -of -life disposal of so- lar products is governed by the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as well as state policies in some situations. RCRA sepa- rates waste into hazardous (not accepted at ordi- nary landfill) and solid waste (generally accepted May 2017 1 Version 1 10 at ordinary landfill) based on a series of rules. Ac- cording to RCRA, the way to determine if a PV panel is classified as hazardous waste is the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. This EPA test is designed to simulate landfill dis- posal and determine the risk of hazardous sub- stances leaching out of the landfill.434445 Multiple sources report that most modern PV panels (both crystalline silicon and cadmium telluride) pass the TCLP test.46,47 Some studies found that some older (1990s) crystalline silicon panels, and perhaps some newer crystalline silicon panels (specifics are not given about vintage of panels tested), do not pass the lead (Pb) leachate limits in the TCLP test.48,49 The test begins with the crushing of a panel into centimeter -sized pieces. The pieces are then mixed in an acid bath. After tumbling for eighteen hours, the fluid is tested for forty hazardous sub- stances that all must be below specific threshold levels to pass the test. Research comparing TCLP conditions to conditions of damaged panels in the field found that simulated landfill conditions pro- vide overly conservative estimates of leaching for field -damaged panels.50 Additionally, research in Japan has found no detectable Cd leaching from cracked CdTe panels when exposed to simulated acid rain.51 Although modern panels can generally be land - filled, they can also be recycled. Even though recent waste volume has not been adequate to support significant PV-specific recycling in- frastructure, the existing recycling industry in North Carolina reports that it recycles much of the current small volume of broken PV panels. In an informal survey conducted by the NC Clean Energy Technology Center survey in early 2016, seven of the eight large active North Carolina utility -scale solar developers surveyed report- ed that they send damaged panels back to the manufacturer and/or to a local recycler. Only one developer reported sending damaged panels to the landfill. The developers reported at that time that they are usually paid a small amount per panel by local re- cycling firms. In early 2017, a PV developer re- ported that a local recycler was charging a small fee per panel to recycle damaged PV panels. The local recycling firm known to authors to accept PV panels described their current PV panel recycling practice as of early 2016 as removing the alumi- num frame for local recycling and removing the wire leads for local copper recycling. The remain- der of the panel is sent to a facility for processing the non-metallic portions of crushed vehicles, re- ferred to as "fluff' in the recycling industry.52 This processing within existing general recycling plants allows for significant material recovery of major components, including glass which is 80% of the module weight, but at lower yields than PV-spe- cific recycling plants. Notably almost half of the material value in a PV panel is in the few grams of silver contained in almost every PV panel pro- duced today. In the long-term, dedicated PV panel recycling plants can increase treatment capacities and maximize revenues resulting in better output quality and the ability to recover a greater fraction of the useful materials.53 PV-specific panel recy- cling technologies have been researched and im- plemented to some extent for the past decade, and have been shown to be able to recover over 95% of PV material (semiconductor) and over 90% of the glass in a PV panel.54 A look at global PV recycling trends hints at the future possibilities of the practice in our country. Europe installed MW-scale volumes of PV years before the U.S. In 2007, a public -private partner- ship between the European Union and the solar industry set up a voluntary collection and recycling system called PV CYCLE. This arrangement was later made mandatory under the EU's WEEE di- rective, a program for waste electrical and elec- tronic equipment.55 Its member companies (PV panel producers) fully finance the association. This makes it possible for end -users to return the member companies' defective panels for recycling at any of the over 300 collection points around May 2017 1 Version 1 11 Europe without added costs. Additionally, PV CYCLE will pick up batches of 40 or more used panels at no cost to the user. This arrangement has been very successful, collecting and recycling over 13,000 tons by the end of 2015.56 In 2012, the WEEE Directive added the end -of -life collection and recycling of PV panels to its scope.57 This directive is based on the principle of extend- ed -producer -responsibility. It has a global impact be- cause producers that want to sell into the EU market are legally responsible for end -of -life management. Starting in 2018, this directive targets that 85% of PV products "put in the market" in Europe are recovered and 80% is prepared for reuse and recycling. The success of the PV panel collection and recycling practices in Europe provides promise for the future of recycling in the U.S. In mid-2016, the US Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) announced that they are starting a national solar panel recycling pro- gram with the guidance and support of many leading PV panel producers.58 The program will aggregate the services offered by recycling vendors and PV manufacturers, which will make it easier for consum- ers to select a cost-effective and environmentally re- sponsible end -of -life management solution for their PV products. According to SEIA, they are planning the program in an effort to make the entire industry landfill -free. In addition to the national recycling net- work program, the program will provide a portal for system owners and consumers with information on how to responsibly recycle their PV systems. While a cautious approach toward the potential for negative environmental and/or health impacts from retired PV panels is fully warranted, this sec- tion has shown that the positive health impacts of reduced emissions from fossil fuel combustion from PV systems more than outweighs any poten- tial risk. Testing shows that silicon and CdTe pan- els are both safe to dispose of in landfills, and are also safe in worst case conditions of abandonment or damage in a disaster. Additionally, analysis by local engineers has found that the current salvage value of the equipment in a utility scale PV facili- ty generally exceeds general contractor estimates for the cost to remove the entire PV system.59,60,61 1.2.4 Non -Panel System Components (racking, wiring, inverter, transformer) While previous toxicity subsections discussed PV panels, this subsection describes the non -panel components of utility -scale PV systems and inves- tigates any potential public health and safety con- cerns. The most significant non -panel component of a ground -mounted PV system is the mounting structure of the rows of panels, commonly referred to as "racking". The vertical post portion of the rack- ing is galvanized steel and the remaining above- ground racking components are either galvanized steel or aluminum, which are both extremely com- mon and benign building materials. The inverters that make the solar generated electricity ready to send to the grid have weather-proof steel enclo- sures that protect the working components from the elements. The only fluids that they might con- tain are associated with their cooling systems, which are not unlike the cooling system in a com- puter. Many inverters today are RoHS compliant. The electrical transformers (to boost the inverter output voltage to the voltage of the utility connec- tion point) do contain a liquid cooling oil. However, the fluid used for that function is either a nontoxic mineral oil or a biodegradable non -toxic vegetable oil, such as BIOTEMP from ABB. These vegetable transformer oils have the additional advantage of being much less flammable than traditional min- eral oils. Significant health hazards are associ- ated with old transformers containing cooling oil with toxic PCBs. Transfers with PCB -containing oil were common before PCBs were outlawed in the U.S. in 1979. PCBs still exist in older transformers in the field across the country. May 2017 1 Version 1 12 Other than a few utility research sites, there are no batteries on- or off -site associated with utility -scale solar energy facilities in North Carolina, avoiding any potential health or safety concerns related to battery technologies. However, as battery technol- ogies continue to improve and prices continue to decline we are likely to start seeing some batter- ies at solar facilities. Lithium ion batteries current- ly dominate the world utility -scale battery market, which are not very toxic. No non -panel system components were found to pose any health or en- vironmental dangers. 1.4 Operations and Maintenance — Panel Washing and Vegetation Control Throughout the eastern U.S., the climate provides frequent and heavy enough rain to keep panels adequately clean. This dependable weather pat- tern eliminates the need to wash the panels on a regular basis. Some system owners may choose to wash panels as often as once a year to increase production, but most in N.C. do not regularly wash any PV panels. Dirt build up over time may justify panel washing a few times over the panels' life- time; however, nothing more than soap and water are required for this activity. The maintenance of ground -mounted PV facili- ties requires that vegetation be kept low, both for aesthetics and to avoid shading of the PV panels. Several approaches are used to maintain vegeta- tion at NC solar facilities, including planting of lim- ited -height species, mowing, weed -eating, herbi- cides, and grazing livestock (sheep). The following descriptions of vegetation maintenance practices are based on interviews with several solar devel- opers as well as with three maintenance firms that together are contracted to maintain well over 100 of the solar facilities in N.C. The majority of solar facilities in North Carolina maintain vegetation pri- marily by mowing. Each row of panels has a single row of supports, allowing sickle mowers to mow under the panels. The sites usually require mow- ing about once a month during the growing sea- son. Some sites employ sheep to graze the site, which greatly reduces the human effort required to maintain the vegetation and produces high quality Iamb meat.62 In addition to mowing and weed eating, solar fa- cilities often use some herbicides. Solar facilities generally do not spray herbicides over the entire acreage; rather they apply them only in strategic locations such as at the base of the perimeter fence, around exterior vegetative buffer, on interior dirt roads, and near the panel support posts. Also unlike many row crop operations, solar facilities generally use only general use herbicides, which are available over the counter, as opposed to re- stricted use herbicides commonly used in com- mercial agriculture that require a special restricted use license. The herbicides used at solar facilities are primarily 2-4-D and glyphosate (Round -up®), which are two of the most common herbicides used in lawns, parks, and agriculture across the country. One maintenance firm that was inter- viewed sprays the grass with a class of herbicide known as a growth regulator in order to slow the growth of grass so that mowing is only required twice a year. Growth regulators are commonly used on highway roadsides and golf courses for the same purpose. A commercial pesticide appli- cator license is required for anyone other than the landowner to apply herbicides, which helps ensure that all applicators are adequately educated about proper herbicide use and application. The license must be renewed annually and requires passing of a certification exam appropriate to the area in which the applicator wishes to work. Based on the limited data available, it appears that solar facili- ties in N.C. generally use significantly less herbi- cides per acre than most commercial agriculture or lawn maintenance services. May 2017 1 Version 1 13 2. Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) PV systems do not emit any material during their operation; however, they do generate electromag- netic fields (EMF), sometimes referred to as radi- ation. EMF produced by electricity is non -ionizing radiation, meaning the radiation has enough en- ergy to move atoms in a molecule around (experi- enced as heat), but not enough energy to remove electrons from an atom or molecule (ionize) or to damage DNA. As shown below, modern humans are all exposed to EMF throughout our daily lives without negative health impact. Someone outside of the fenced perimeter of a solar facility is not exposed to significant EMF from the solar facility. Therefore, there is no negative health impact from the EMF produced in a solar farm. The following paragraphs provide some additional background and detail to support this conclusion. Since the 1970s, some have expressed concern over potential health consequences of EMF from electricity, but no studies have ever shown this EMF to cause health problems.63 These concerns are based on some epidemiological studies that found a slight increase in childhood leukemia associated with average exposure to residential power -frequency magnetic fields above 0.3 to 0.4 pT (microteslas) (equal to 3.0 to 4.0 mG (milli - gauss)). pT and mG are both units used to mea- sure magnetic field strength. For comparison, the average exposure for people in the U.S. is one mG or 0.1 J, with about 1 % of the population with an average exposure in excess of 0.4 pT (or 4 mG).64 These epidemiological studies, which found an association but not a causal relation- ship, led the World Health Organization's Interna- tional Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to classify ELF magnetic fields as "possibly carcino- genic to humans". Coffee also has this classifi- cation. This classification means there is limited evidence but not enough evidence to designate as either a "probable carcinogen" or "human carcinogen". Overall, there is very little concern that ELF EMF damages public health. The only concern that does exist is for long-term exposure above 0.4 pT (4 mG) that may have some con- nection to increased cases of childhood leuke- mia. In 1997, the National Academies of Science were directed by Congress to examine this con- cern and concluded: "Based on a comprehensive evaluation of pub- lished studies relating to the effects of power -fre- quency electric and magnetic fields on cells, tis- sues, and organisms (including humans), the conclusion of the committee is that the current body of evidence does not show that exposure to these fields presents a human -health hazard. Specifically, no conclusive and consistent evi- dence shows that exposures to residential electric and magnetic fields produce cancer, adverse neu- robehavioral effects, or reproductive and develop- mental effects.'165 There are two aspects to electromagnetic fields, an electric field and a magnetic field. The elec- tric field is generated by voltage and the mag- netic field is generated by electric current, i.e., moving electrons. A task group of scientific ex- perts convened by the World Health Organiza- tion (WHO) in 2005 concluded that there were no substantive health issues related to electric fields (0 to 100,000 Hz) at levels generally encoun- tered by members of the public.66 The relatively low voltages in a solar facility and the fact that electric fields are easily shielded (i.e., blocked) by common materials, such as plastic, metal, or soil means that there is no concern of negative health impacts from the electric fields generated by a solar facility. Thus, the remainder of this sec- tion addresses magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are not shielded by most common materials and thus can easily pass through them. Both types of fields are strongest close to the source of elec- tric generation and weaken quickly with distance from the source. May 2017 1 Version 1 14 The direct current (DC) electricity produced by PV panels produce stationary (0 Hz) electric and mag- netic fields. Because of minimal concern about po- tential risks of stationary fields, little scientific re- search has examined stationary fields' impact on human health.67 In even the largest PV facilities, the DC voltages and currents are not very high. One can illustrate the weakness of the EMF gen- erated by a PV panel by placing a compass on an operating solar panel and observing that the nee- dle still points north. While the electricity throughout the majority of a solar site is DC electricity, the inverters convert this DC electricity to alternating current (AC) elec- tricity matching the 60 Hz frequency of the grid. Therefore, the inverters and the wires delivering this power to the grid are producing non -station- ary EMF, known as extremely low frequency (ELF) EMF, normally oscillating with a frequency of 60 Hz. This frequency is at the low -energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Therefore, it has less energy than other commonly encountered types of non -ionizing radiation like radio waves, infrared radiation, and visible light. The wide use of electricity results in background levels of ELF EMFs in nearly all locations where people spend time — homes, workplaces, schools, cars, the supermarket, etc. A person's average ex- posure depends upon the sources they encounter, how close they are to them, and the amount of time they spend there.68 As stated above, the av- erage exposure to magnetic fields in the U.S. is estimated to be around one mG or 0.1 NT, but can vary considerably depending on a person's expo- sure to EMF from electrical devices and wiring.69 At times we are often exposed to much higher ELF magnetic fields, for example when standing three feet from a refrigerator the ELF magnetic field is 6 mG and when standing three feet from a micro- wave oven the field is about 50 mG.71) The strength of these fields diminish quickly with distance from the source, but when surrounded by electricity in our homes and other buildings moving away from one source moves you closer to another. However, unless you are inside of the fence at a utility -scale solar facility or electrical substation it is impossible to get very close to the EMF sources. Because of this, EMF levels at the fence of electrical sub- stations containing high voltages and currents are considered "generally negligible".7172 The strength of ELF-EMF present at the perimeter of a solar facility or near a PV system in a commer- cial or residential building is significantly lowerthan the typical American's average EMF exposure.73,74 Researchers in Massachusetts measured mag- netic fields at PV projects and found the magnetic fields dropped to very low levels of 0.5 mG or less, and in many cases to less than background levels (0.2 mG), at distances of no more than nine feet from the residential inverters and 150 feet from the utility -scale inverters.71 Even when measured within a few feet of the utility -scale inverter, the ELF magnetic fields were well below the Interna- tional Commission on Non -Ionizing Radiation Pro- tection's recommended magnetic field level ex- posure limit for the general public of 2,000 mG.76 It is typical that utility scale designs locate large inverters central to the PV panels that feed them because this minimizes the length of wire required and shields neighbors from the sound of the in- verter's cooling fans. Thus, it is rare for a large PV inverter to be within 150 feet of the project's security fence. Anyone relying on a medical device such as pacemaker or other implanted device to maintain proper heart rhythm may have concern about the potential for a solar project to interfere with the operation of his or her device. However, there is no reason for concern because the EMF outside of the solar facility's fence is less than 1/1000 of the level at which manufacturers test for ELF EMF interference, which is 1,000 mG.77 Manufacturers of potentially affected implanted devices often pro- vide advice on electromagnetic interference that includes avoiding letting the implanted device get too close to certain sources of fields such as some May 2017 1 Version 1 15 household appliances, some walkie-talkies, and similar transmitting devices. Some manufactur- ers' literature does not mention high -voltage pow- er lines, some say that exposure in public areas should not give interference, and some advise not spending extended periods of time close to power lines.78 3. Electric Shock and Arc Flash Hazards There is a real danger of electric shock to any- one entering any of the electrical cabinets such as combiner boxes, disconnect switches, inverters, or transformers; or otherwise coming in contact with voltages over 50 Volts.79 Another electrical hazard is an arc flash, which is an explosion of en- ergy that can occur in a short circuit situation. This explosive release of energy causes a flash of heat and a shockwave, both of which can cause seri- ous injury or death. Properly trained and equipped technicians and electricians know how to safely install, test, and repair PV systems, but there is al- ways some risk of injury when hazardous voltages and/or currents are present. Untrained individuals should not attempt to inspect, test, or repair any aspect of a PV system due to the potential for inju- ry or death due to electric shock and arc flash, The National Electric Code (NEC) requires appropriate levels of warning signs on all electrical compo- nents based on the level of danger determined by the voltages and current potentials. The national electric code also requires the site to be secured from unauthorized visitors with either a six-foot chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire or an eight -foot fence, both with adequate hazard warning signs. 4. Fire Safety general public as well as among firefighters. How- ever, concern over solar fire hazards should be limited because only a small portion of materials in the panels are flammable, and those components cannot self-support a significant fire. Flammable components of PV panels include the thin layers of polymer encapsulates surrounding the PV cells, polymer backsheets (framed panels only), plas- tic junction boxes on rear of panel, and insulation on wiring. The rest of the panel is composed of non-flammable components, notably including one or two layers of protective glass that make up over three quarters of the panel's weight. Heat from a small flame is not adequate to ignite a PV panel, but heat from a more intense fire or en- ergy from an electrical fault can ignite a PV panel.80 One real -world example of this occurred during July 2015 in an and area of California. Three acres of grass under a thin film PV facility burned without igniting the panels mounted on fixed -tilt racks just above the grass.81 While it is possible for electri- cal faults in PV systems on homes or commercial buildings to start a fire, this is extremely rare.82 Improving understanding of the PV-specific risks, safer system designs, and updated fire -related codes and standards will continue to reduce the risk of fire caused by PV systems. PV systems on buildings can affect firefighters in two primary ways, 1) impact their methods of fighting the fire, and 2) pose safety hazard to the firefighters. One of the most important techniques that firefighters use to suppress fire is ventilation of a building's roof. This technique allows super- heated toxic gases to quickly exit the building. By doing so, the firefighters gain easier and safer access to the building, Ventilation of the roof also makes the challenge of putting out the fire easier. However, the placement of rooftop PV panels may interfere with ventilating the roof by limiting access to desired venting locations. The possibility of fires resulting from or intensified New solar -specific building code requirements by PV systems may trigger concern among the are working to minimize these concerns. Also, the May 2017 1 Version 1 16 latest National Electric Code has added require- ments that make it easier for first responders to safely and effectively turn off a PV system. Con- cern for firefighting a building with PV can be re- duced with proper fire fighter training, system design, and installation. Numerous organizations have studied fire fighter safety related to PV. Many organizations have published valuable guides and training programs. Some notable examples are listed below. • The International Association of Fire Fight- ers (IAFF) and International Renewable Energy Council (IREC) partnered to create an online training course that is far beyond the PowerPoint click-andview model. The self -paced online course, "Solar PV Safety for Fire Fighters," features rich video con- tent and simulated environments so fire fighters can practice the knowledge they've learned. www.iaff.orq/pvsafetytraininn • Photovoltaic Systems and the Fire Code: Office of NC Fire Marshal • Fire Service Training, Underwriter's Labo- ratory • Firefighter Safety and Response for Solar Power Systems, National Fire Protection Research Foundation • Bridging the Gap: Fire Safety & Green Buildings, National Association of State Fire Marshalls • Guidelines for Fire Safety Elements of So- lar Photovoltaic Systems, Orange County Fire Chiefs Association • Solar Photovoltaic Installation Guidelines, California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection, Office of the State Fire Marshall • PV Safety & Firefighting, Matthew Paiss, Homepower Magazine • PV Safety and Code Development: Mat- thew Paiss, Cooperative Research Network Summary The purpose of this paper is to address and al- leviate concerns of public health and safety for utility -scale solar PV projects. Concerns of public health and safety were divided and discussed in the our following sections: (1) Toxicity, (2) Electro- magnetic Fields, (3) Electric Shock and Arc Flash, and (4) Fire. In each of these sections, the nega- tive health and safety impacts of utility -scale PV development were shown to be negligible, while the public health and safety benefits of installing these facilities are significant and far outweigh any negative impacts. 1 Wiser, Ryan, Trieu Mai, Dev Millstein, Jordan Macknick, Alberta Carpenter, Stuart Cohen, Wesley Cole, Bethany Frew, and Garvin A. Heath. 2016. On the Path to SunShot: The Environmental and Public Health Benefits of Achieving High Penetrations of Solar Energy in the United States. Golden, CO: Na- tional Renewable Energy Laboratory. Accessed March 2017, www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65628.pdf 2 IRENA and IEA-PVPS (2016), "End -of -Life Man- agement: Solar Photovoltaic Panels," International Renewable Energy Agency and International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems. 3 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Overview of Field Experience — Degradation Rates & Lifetimes. September 14, 2015. Solar Power International Con- ference. Accessed March 2017, www.nrel.gov/docs/fvl 5osti/65040. pdf 4 Miesel et al. SolarCity Photovoltaic Modules with 35 Year Useful Life. June 2016. Accessed March 2017. http://www. sola rcity. com/newsroom/reports/solarci- tv-photovoltaic-mod u les-35-year-useful-I ife 5 David Unger. Are Renewables Stormproof? Hur- ricane Sandy Tests Solar, Wind. November 2012. Accessed March 2017. http://www. esmonitor. com/Envi ronment/Energy-Voic- es/2012/1119/Are-renewables-stormproof-Hurri- cane-Sandy-tests-solarwind & http://www.Gsmonitor. com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1119/Are-re- newables-stormproof-H urricane-Sandytests-solar-wind 6 NEXTracker and 365 Pronto, Tracking Your Solar Investment: Best Practices for Solar Tracker O&M. May 2017 1 Version 1 17 Accessed March 2017. www.nextracker.com/content/uploads/2017/03/NEX- Tracker_ OandM-White Paper FINAL_March-2017.pdf 7 Christiana Honsberg, Stuart Bowden. Overview of Screen Printed Solar Cells. Accessed January 2017. www.pveducation.orci/t)vcdrom/manufacturinci screen -printed 8 Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. 2015 Solar Score- card. Accessed August 2016. www.solarscorecard.com/2015/2015-SVTC-Solar- Scorecard.odf 9 European Commission. Recast of Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive. September 2016. Accessed August 2016. http://ec. eu ropa. eu/envi ronment/waste/rohs_eee/i n- dex en.htm 10 Official Journal of the European Union, DIREC- TIVE 20111651EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIA- MENTAND OF THE COUNCIL of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. June 2011. Accessed May 2017. http: //eur-lex. eu ropa. eu/lecialcontent/EN/TXT/PD- F/?uri=CELEX:32011 L0065&from=en 11 Giancarlo Giacchetta, Mariella Leporini, Barbara Marchetti. Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits of New High Value Process for the Management of the End of Life of Thin Film Photovoltaic Modules. July 2013. Accessed August 2016. www.researchgate.net/publication/257408804 Evalu- ation of the environmental benefits of new high value process for the management_ of the end of life of thin film photovoltaic_ modules 12 European Commission. Study on Photovoltaic Panels Supplementing The Impact Assessment for a Recast of the Weee Directive. April 2011. Accessed August 2016. http://ec.eu ropa. eu/envi ronment/waste/weee/pdf/ Study%20on%20PVs%20Bio%20final.pdf 14 The amount of lead in a typical car battery is 21.4 pounds. Waste 360. Chaz Miller. Lead Acid Batteries. March 2006. Accessed August 2016. http://waste360.com/mag/waste leadacid batteries 3 15 Okkenhaug G. Leaching from CdTe PV module material results from batch, column and availability tests. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, NGI report No. 20092155-00-6-R; 2010 16 International Journal of Advanced Applied Physics Research. Renate Zapf-Gottwickl, et al. Leaching Hazardous Substances out of Photovoltaic Modules. January 2015. Accessed January 2016. www.cosmosscholars.com/phms/index. phhp/iiaapr/arti- cle/down load/485/298 17 ibid 18 Parikhit Sinha, et al. Evaluation of Potential Health and Environmental Impacts from End -Of -Life Disposal of Photovoltaics, Photovoltaics, 2014. Accessed May 2016 19 Bonnet, D. and P. Meyers. 1998. Cadmium -tellu- ride —Material for thin film solar cells. J. Mater. Res., Vol. 13, No. 10, pp. 2740-2753 20 V. Fthenakis, K. Zweibel. CdTe PV.- Real and Per- ceived EHS Risks. National Center ofr Photovoltaics and Solar Program Review Meeting, March 24-26, 2003. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33561.i)df. Ac- cessed May 2017 21 International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme. Life Cycle Inventories and Life Cycle Assessments of Photovoltaic Systems. March 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://iea-pvps. org/i ndex. ph p?id=315 22 Data not available on fraction of various genera- tion sources offset by solar generation in NC, but this is believed to be a reasonable rough estimate. The SunShot report entitled The Environmental and Public Health Benefits of Achieving High Penetrations of Solar Energy in the United States analysis contributes significant (% not provided) offsetting of coal-fired generation by solar PV energy in the southeast. 23 7 MWDC ` 1.5 GWh/MWDC' 25 years' 0.93 degradation factor ` (0.1 4.65 grams/GWh + 0.9'0.2 grams/GWh) 24 Vasilis Fthenakis. CdTe PV.- Facts and Handy Comparisons. January 2003. Accessed March 2017. https://www.bnl.ciov/pv/files/pdf/art 165.pdf 25 Kaczmar, S., Evaluating the Read -Across Ap- proach on CdTe Toxicity for CdTe Photovoltaics, SETAC North America 32nd Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, November 2011. Available at: ftp://ftp.co.imperial.ca.us/icpds/eir/campo-verdesola final/evaluating-toxicitypdf, Accessed May 2017 27 V. M. Fthenakis et al, Emissions and Encapsula- tion of Cadmium in CdTe PV Modules During Fires Renewable Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Application: Res. Appl. 2005; 13:1-11, Accessed March 2017, www.bnl.ciov/pv/files/pdf/abs_179.pdf 28 Fthenakis V.M., Life Cycle Impact Analysis of Cad- mium in CdTe Photovoltaic Production, Renewable May 2017 1 Version 1 18 and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8, 303-334, 2004. www.cica.columbia.edu/gapers/Life Cycle Impact Analysis_ Cadmium CdTe Photovoltaic production. pdf, Accessed May 2017 29 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stepha- nie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. 30 International Journal of Advanced Applied Physics Research. Renate Zapf-Gottwickl, et al. Leaching Hazardous Substances out of Photovoltaic Modules. January 2015. Accessed January 2016. www.cosmosscholars.com/phms/index. phhp/iiaapr/arti- cle/d ownl oad/485/298 31 Cunningham D., Discussion about TCLP protocols, Photovoltaics and the Environment Workshop, July 23-24, 1998, Brookhaven National Laboratory, BNL- 52557 32 Parikhit Sinha, et al. Evaluation of Potential Health and Environmental Impacts from End -Of -Life Disposal of Photovoltaics, Photovoltaics, 2014. Accessed May 2016 33 Practical Handbook of Photovoltaics: Fundamen- tals and Applications. T. Markvart and L. Castaner. Chapter VII-2: Overview of Potential Hazards. Decem- ber 2003. Accessed August 2016. htti)s://www.bnl.ciov/i)v/files/pdf/art 170.pdf 34 Norwegian Geotechnical Institute. Environmental Risks Regarding the Use and End -of -Life Disposal of CdTe PV Modules. April 2010. Accessed August 2016. https://www.dtsc.ca.ciov/LawsRecisPoiicies/upload/ Norwegian-Geotechnical-InstituteStudy. pdf 35 First Solar. Dr. Yasunari Matsuno. December 2013. August 2016. Environmental Risk Assessment of CdTe PV Systems to be considered under Cata- strophic Events in Japan. http://www. fi rstsolar. com/-/media/Documents/Sus- tainability/PeerReviews/Japan Peer -Review Matsu - no CdTe-PV-Tsunami.ashx 36 First Solar. Parikhit Sinha, Andreas Wade. As- sessment of Leaching Tests for Evaluating Potential Environmental Impacts of PV Module Field Breakage. 2015 IEEE 37 See p. 22 of First Solar, Sustainability Report. Available at: www.firstsolar.com/-/media/FirstSolar/Sustainabili- tv-Documents/03801 FirstSolar SustainabilityRe- port_08MAR16_Web.ashx. Accessed May 2017 38 40 CFR §261.24. Toxicity Characteristic. May 2017. Accessed May 2017. httr)s://www.ecfr.gov/cqi-bin/textidx- ?node= se40.26.261 _124&ran=div8 39 Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide. Accessed March 2017. https: //www.eneray.aov/eere/sunshot/copper-i nd i- um-gallium-diselenide 40 Mathias Maehlum. Best Thin Film Solar Panels — Amorphous, Cadmium Telluride or CIGS? April 2015. Accessed March 2017. http://energyi nformative. org/best-thi n-fi lm-solar-pan- els-amorphous-cadmium-telluride-cias/ 41 RoHS tested certificate for Solar Frontier PV mod- ules. TUVRheinland, signed 11.11.2013 42 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stepha- nie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. httr)://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publica- tions/IRENA IEAPVPS End -of -Life Solar PV Pan- els 2016.pdf 43 40 C.F.R. §261.10. Identifying the Characteris- tics of Hazardous Waste and for Listing Hazardous Waste. November 2016. Accessed November 2016 httr)://www. ecfr. gov/cgi-bin/textidx?S I D=ce0006d- 66d a40146b490084ca2816143&mc=true&node=pt40. 26.261 &ran=div5#sp40.28.261. b 44 40 C.F.R. §261.24 Toxicity Characteristic. Novem- ber 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SI D=ce0006d- 66d a40146b490084ca2816143&mc=true&node=pt40. 26.261 &ran=div5#se40.28.261 _124 45 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stepha- nie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. httr)://www.irena.orci/DocumentDownloads/Publica- tions/IRENA IEAPVPS End -of -Life Solar PV Pan- els 2016.pdf 46 TLCP test results from third -party laboratories for REC, Jinko, and Canadian Solar silicon -based pan- els. Provided by PV panel manufacturers directly or indirectly to authors 47 Sinovoltaics, Introduction to Solar Panel Recycling, March 2014. Accessed October 2016. http://si novoltaics. com/solarbasics/introd uction-to-so- lar-panel-recycling/ 48 Brookhaven National Laboratory. Vasilis Fthenakis, May 2017 1 Version 1 19 Regulations on Photovoltaic Module Disposal and Recycling. January 29, 2001. 49 Parikhit Sinha, et al. Evaluation of Potential Health and Environmental Impacts from End -Of -Life Disposal of Photovoltaics, Photovoltaics, 2014. 50 First Solar. Parikhit Sinha, Andreas Wade. As- sessment of Leaching Tests for Evaluating Potential Environmental Impacts of PV Module Field Breakage. October 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://www.fi rstsolar. com/-/media/Documents/Sus- tai na bi lity/PVSC42-M anuscri pt-20150912--Assess- ment-of-Leaching-Tests-for-Evaluating-Potentia I Envi- ron mental- Imoa.ashx 51 First Solar. Dr. Yasunari Matsuno. December 2013. Environmental Risk Assessment of CdTe PV Systems to be considered under Catastrophic Events in Japan. http://www.fi rstsolar.com/-/media/Documents/Sus- tai na bi lity/PeerReviews/J apan_Peer-Review_Matsu- no CdTe-PV-Tsunami.ashx 52 Phone interview, February 3, 2016, TT&E Iron & Metal, Garner, NC www.ncscrapmetal.com 53 Wen -His Huang, et al. Strategy and Technology To Recycle Water -silicon Solar Modules. Solar Energy, Volume 144, March 2017, Pages 22-31 54 International Renewable Energy Agency. Stepha- nie Weckend, Andreas Wade, Garvin Heath. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels. June 2016. Accessed November 2016. http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publica- tions/IRENA IEAPVPS End -of -Life Solar PV Pan- els 2016.ndf 55 Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2012091EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Elec- tronic Equipment. July 2012. Accessed November 2016. http://eurlex. eu roi)a.eu/legal-content/ENITXT/?uri=cel- ex%3A32012L0019 56 PV CYCLE. Annual Report 2015. Accessed No- vember 2016. https://pvcyclepubl ications. cld. bz/An n ual-Report-PV- CYCLE-2015/6-7 57 Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 20121191EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Elec- tronic Equipment. July 2012. Accessed November 2016. http://eurlex. eu ropa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=cel- ex%3A32012L0019 58 SEIA National PV Recycling Program: www.seia.orci/seia-national-pv-regyclinci-prociram 59 RBI Solar, Decommissioning Plan submitted to Catawba County associated with permitting of a 5MW solar project in June 2016. Accessed April 2017. www.catawbacounlync.ciov/Planninci/Pro ects/Rezon- inas/RZ2015-05 DecommissioninoPlan. odf 60 Birdseye Renewables, Decommissioning Plan sub- mitted to Catawba County associated with permitting of a 5MW solar project in May 2015. Accessed April 2017. www. catawbacountync. gov/Plan n ing/Projects/Rezon- ings/RZ2015-04 DecommissioninoPlan. odf 61 Cypress Creek Renewables, Decommissioning Plan submitted to Catawba County associated with permitting of a 5MW solar project in September 2016. Accessed April 2017. www. catawbacounlync.gov/Pla n n ing/Projects/Rezon- inas/RZ2016-06decommission. pdf 62 Sun Raised Farms: http://sunraisedfarms.com/index.html- 63 National Institute of Environmental Health Scienc- es and National Institutes of Health, EMF: Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with Electric Power: Questions and Answers, June 2002 64 World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Exposure to Extremely Low Fre- quency Fields. June 2007. Accessed August 2016. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs322/ en/ 65 Committee on the Possible Effects of Electro- magnetic Fields on Biologic Systems, National Re- search Council, Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields, ISBN: 0-309-55671-6, 384 pages, 6 x 9, (1997) This PDF is available from the National Academies Press at: htto://www.nai).edu/cataloci/5155.html 66 World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Exposure to Extremely Low Fre- quency Fields. June 2007. Accessed August 2016. htti)://www.who.int/peh-emf/i)ublications/facts/fs322/en/ 67 World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Static Electric and Magnetic Fields. March 2006. Accessed August 2016. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs299/ en/ 68 Asher Sheppard, Health Issues Related to the Static and Power -Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) of the Soitec Solar Energy Farms, April May 2017 1 Version 1 20 30, 2014. Accessed March 2017: www.sandieciocounty.ciov/content/dam/sdc/r)ds/cega/ Soitec-Documents/Final-EI R-Files/Appendix_9.0-1 _ EMF.pdf 69 Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. Study of Acoustic and EMF Levels from Solar Photovoltaic Projects. December 2012. Accessed August 2016. 70 Duke Energy Corporation. Frequently Asked Questions: Electric and Magnetic Fields. Accessed August 2016. httj)s://www.duke-energy.com/about-enerciv/freguent- ly asked questions.asp 71 National Institute of Environmental Health Sci- ences, Electric and Magnetic Fields Associate with the use of Electric Power: Questions and Answers, 2002. Accessed November 2016 www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/electric and magnetic_ fields 72 Duke Energy Corporation. Frequently Asked Questions: Electric and Magnetic Fields. Accessed August 2016. https://www.duke-energy.com/about-eneray/frequent- ly asked auestions.asp 73 R.A. Tell et al, Electromagnetic Fields Associated with Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Electric Power Generating Facilities, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Volume 12, 2015,- Issue 11. Abstract Accessed March 2016: htti)://www.tandfontine.com/doi/full/10.1080/1545962 4.2015.1047021 74 Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Pro- tection, and Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. Questions & Answers: Ground -Mounted Solar Photo- voltaic Systems. June 2015. Accessed August 2016. htto://www. mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/so- lar/solar-pv-guide.pdf 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid. 77 EMFs and medical devices, Accessed March 2017. www.emfs.info/effects/medical-devices/ 78 ibid. 79 Damon McCluer. Electrical Construction & Main- tenance: NFPA 70E's Approach to Considering DC Hazards. September 2013. Accessed October 2016. http://ecmweb. com/safety/nfpa-70e-s-approach-con- siderinq-dc-hazards 80 Hong-Yun Yang, et. al. Experimental Studies on the Flammability and Fire Hazards of Photovoltaic Modules, Materials. July 2015. Accessed August 2016. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/8/7/4210/ndf 81 Matt Fountain. The Tribune. Fire breaks out at To- paz Solar Farm. July 2015. Accessed August 2016. www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39055539. html 82 Cooperative Research Network. Matthew Paiss. Tech Surveillance: PV Safety & Code Developments. October 2014. Accessed August 2016. http://www.nreca.coop/wi)-content/uploads/2013/06/ is ov fire_safety _oct_2014.pdf May 2017 1 Version 1 21 Analysis of the Potential for a Heat Island Effect in Large Solar Farms Vasilis FthenakisL2 and Yuanhao Yu' 'Center for Life Cycle Analysis, Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY 2 PV Environmental Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY Abstract — Large-scale solar power plants are being built at a rapid rate, and are setting up to use hundreds of thousands of acres of land surface. The thermal energy Bows to the environment related to the operation of such facilities have not, so far, been addressed comprehensively. We are developing rigorous computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation capabilities for modeling the air velocity, turbulence, and energy flow fields induced by large solar PV farms to answer questions pertaining to potential impacts of solar farms on local microchmate. Using the CFD codes Ansys CFX and Fluent, we conducted detailed 3-1) simulations of a I MW section of a solar farm in North America and compared the results with recorded wind and temperature field data from the whole solar farm. Both the field data and the simulations show that the annual average of air temperatures in the center of PV field can reach up to 1.9°C above the ambient temperature, and that this thermal energy completely dissipates to the environment at heights of 5 to IS in. The data also show a prompt dissipation of thermal energy with distance from the solar farm, with the air temperatures approaching (within 0XQ the ambient at about 300 to away of the perimeter of the solar farm. Analysis of IS months of detailed data showed that in most days, the solar array was completely cooled at night, and, thus, it is unlikely that a heat island effect could occur. Work is in progress to approximate the flow fields in the solar farm with 2-1) simulations and detail the temperature and wind profiles of the whole utility scale PV plant and the surrounding region. The results from these simulations can be extrapolated to assess potential local impacts from a number of solar farms reflecting various scenarios of large PV penetration into regional and global grids. Index Terms— PV, climate change, heat island, fluid dynamics I. INTRODUCTION Solar farms in the capacity range of 50MW to 500 MW are being proliferating in North America and other parts of the world and those occupy land in the range from 275 to 4000 acres. The environmental impacts from the installation and operation phases of large solar farms deserve comprehensive research and understanding. Tumey and Fthenakis [I] investigated 32 categories of impacts from the life -stages of solar farms and were able to categorize such impacts as either beneficial or neutral, with the exception of the `local climate" effects for which they concluded that research and observation are needed. PV panels convert most of the incident solar radiation into heat and can alter the air -flow and temperature profiles near the panels. Such changes, may subsequently affect the thermal environment of near -by populations of humans and other species. Nemet [2] investigated the effect on global climate due to albedo change from widespread installation of solar panels and found this to be small compared to benefits from the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. However, Nemet did not consider local micro - climates and his analytical results have not been verified with any field data. Donovan [3] assumed that the albedo of ground -mounted PV panels is similar to that of underlying grassland and, using simple calculations, postulated that the heat island effect from installing PV on grassy land would be negligible. Yutaka [4] investigated the potential for large scale of roof -top PV installations in Tokyo to alter the heat island effect of the city and found this to be negligible if PV systems are installed on black roofs. In our study we aim in comprehensively addressing the issue by modeling the air and energy flows around a solar farm and comparing those with measured wind and temperature data. II. FIELD DATA DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS Detailed measurements of temperature, wind speed, wind direction, solar irradiance, relative humidity, and rain fall were recorded at a large solar farm in North America. Fig. 1 shows an aerial photograph of the solar farm and the locations where the field measurements are taken. on, woe ands swan :wan 3aoa,e Fig, 1. A picture of the solar farm indicating the locations of the monitoring stations The field data are obtained from 17 monitoring stations within and around the solar farm, including 8 weather stations (WS) and 9 Hawk stations (HK), all at 2.5 in heights off the ground. There also 80 module temperature (MT) sensors at the back -side of the modules close to each of the corresponding power stations. The WS and MT provide data at 1-min intervals, while the Hawk provides data every 30 minutes. The WS and MT data cover a period of one year from October 2010 to September 2011, while the Hawk data cover a period of 18 months from March 2010 through August 2011. Hawk stations 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are outside the solar farm and were used as reference points indicating ambient conditions. The measurements from Hawk 3, 6, 8 and 9 agree very well confirming that their distances from the perimeter of the solar farm are sufficient for them to be unaffected by the thermal mass of the PV system, Hawk 7 shows higher temperatures likely due to a calibration inaccuracy. In our comparative data analysis we use Hawk 6 as a reference point and, since the prevailing winds are from the south, we selected the section around WS7 as the field for our CFD simulations. Figures 2 to 7 show the difference between the temperatures in Hawk 6 and those in the weather stations WS2 and WS7 within the field, and Hawks 1, 2, 4 and 5 around the solar field. _W -20 -10 0 10 20 N M Ha Gwr TemperaWre c Fig. 2. Air temp WS2 vs. Hawk 6 V � 20 " c a` 2-m -T0 a0 40 0 10 :0 30 . I4ee*6 Air Tense re C Fig. 4. Air temp Hawk I vs. 6 NEENE� 2 ■■■■P,A■ ■■■!FAME ■■!{�i■■ EMO Fig.3. Air temp WS7 vs. Hawk6 -30 -M -10 0 10 W W a I GMrTmq m C Fig. 5. Air temp Hawk 2 vs. 6 V 30 20 10 a 0 a -10 2-20 .W -30 -20 -20 0 W W 30 60 .30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 NaM6NrT iv;, . C Rank6 Nr Teny3eralurc C Fig. 6. Air temp Hawk 1 vs. 6 Fig. 7. Air temp Hawk 2 vs. 6 These figures and Table 1 show that with the exception of Hawk 4, the closer the proximity to solar farm the higher the temperature difference from the ambient (indicated by Hawk 6). The relative high temperatures recorded at Hawk 4, and also the relative low temperatures at Hawks 1 and 5 are explained by the prevailing wind direction, which for the time period used in our analysis (8/14/2010-3/14/2011) was Southerly (158°-202°). Hawk 4 is downwind of the solar farm, whereas Hawks 1 and 5 are upwind; the downwind station "feels" more the effect of the heat generated at the solar farm than the ones upwind. Fig. 8 shows the decline in air temperature as a function of distance to solar farm perimeter. Distances for WS2 and WS7 are negative since they are located inside the solar farm site. WS2 is further into the solar farm and this is reflected in its higher temperature difference than WS7. TABLE DIFFERENCE OF AIR TEMPERATURE (@2.5 M HEIGHTS) BETWEEN THE LISTED WEATHER AND HAWK STATIONS AND THE AMBIENT Met Station WS2 WS7 HK1 HK2 HK3 HK4 HK5 HK9 Temp Difference from H6 (°C) 1.878 1.468 0.488 1.292 0.292 0.609 0.664 0.289 Distance to solar farm perimeter (in) _440 -100 100 10 450 210 20 300 Fig. 8. Air temperature difference as a function of distance from the perimeter of the solar farm. Negative distances indicate locations within the solar farm. We also examined in detail the temperature differences between the modules and the surrounding air. These vary throughout the year but the module temperatures are consistently higher than those of the surrounding air during the day, whereas at night the modules cool to temperatures below ambient; an example is shown in Fig. 9. Thus, this PV solar farm did not induce a day -after -day increase in ambient temperature, and therefore, adverse micro -climate changes from a potential PV plant are not a concern. —555..b Ra. E 30 I E 20 ~ 10 9 1 2 34 5 67 8 91011121310151617 1819 W 2122239 r a' Fig. 9. Comparison of module temperature and air temperature 2.5 in off the ground on a sunny day (July 1, 2011) I1I. CFD MODEL DEVELOPMENT In preliminary simulations we tested the Ansys CFX and FLUENT computational fluid dynamics codes (CFD) and decided to use FLUENT in detailed simulations. FLUENT offers several turbulence schemes including multiple variations of the k-c models, as well as k-m models, and Reynolds stress turbulence models. We used the standard, renormalized-group (RNG), and realizable k-c turbulence closure scheme as it is the most commonly used model in street canyon flow and thermal stratification studies [5]. FLUENT incorporates the P-1 radiation model which affords detailed radiation transfer between the solar arrays, the ground and the ambient air; it also incorporates standard free convection and wind -forced convection models. Our choice of solver was the pressure -based algorithm SIMPLE which uses a relationship between velocity and pressure corrections to enforce mass conservation and obtain the pressure field. We conducted both three-dimensional (3-D) and 2-D simulations. A 3-D model was built of four fields each covering an area of 93-meters by 73-meters (Fig. 10). Each field contains 23 linear arrays of 73-meter length and 1.8-meter width. Each array has 180 modules of 10.5% rated efficiency, placed facing south at a 25-degree angle from horizontal, with their bottom raised 0.5 in from the ground and their top reaching a height of 1.3 in . Each array was modeled as a single 73 in xL8 in x 1 cm rectangular. The arrays are spaced 4 meters apart and the roads between the fields are 8 in. Fig. 10 shows the simulated temperatures on the arrays at 14:00 pm on 7/1/2011, when the irradiance was 966 W/m2. As shown, the highest average temperatures occur on the last array (array 46). Temperature on the front edge (array 1) is lower than in the center (array 23). Also, temperature on array 24 is lower than array 23, which is apparently caused by the cooling induced by the road space between two fields, and the magnitude of the temperature difference between arrays 24 and 46 is lower than that between arrays 1 and 23, as higher temperature differences from the ambient, result in more efficient cooling. TABLE II MODULES TEMPERATURE Arrays I 1 23 24 46 Temperature °C 1 46.1 56.4 53.1 57.8 Amyl w w• 40 v: 11u w6 Fig. 10. Module temperatures from 3-D simulations of air flows and thermal exchange during a sunny day Our simulations also showed that the air temperatures above the arrays at a height of 2.5 in ranged from 28.6 °C to 31.1°C; NMI M8 al a a2 313 n of M2 (a) AM 1 a5 a a5 A5 al 205 N. 31, (b) Fig. 11 Air temperatures from 3-D simulations during a sunny day. a) Air temperatures at a height of 1.5 in; b) air temperatures at a height of 2.5 in. TABLE III AIR TEMPERATURE Temperature Ambient (4Q Low (4C) High (°(.) I Average (IQ 2.5m height 28.6 28.6 31.1 30.1 1.5m height 28.6 28.6 33.2 30.8 These simulations show a profound cooling effect with increasing height from the ground. It is shown that the temperatures on the back surface of solar panels is up to 30' C warmer than the ambient temperature, but the air above the arrays is only up to 2.5°C higher than the ambient (i.e., 31.PQ. Also the road between the fields allows for cooling, which is more evident at the temperatures 1.5 in off the ground (Fig. 1la). The simulations show that heat build-up at the power station in the middle of the fields has a negligible effect on the temperature flow fields; it was estimated that a power station adds only about 0.4% to the heat generated by the corresponding modules. The 3-D model showed that the temperature and air velocity fields within each field of the solar farm were symmetrical along the cross -wind axis; therefore a 2-D model of the downwind and the vertical dimensions was deemed to be sufficiently accurate. A 2-D model reduced the computational requirements and allowed for running simulations for several subsequent days using actual 30-min solar irradiance and wind input data. We tested the numerical results for three layers of different mesh sizes and determined that the following mesh sizes retain sufficient detail for an accurate representation of the field data: a) Top layer: 2m by lm, b) Middle layer: 1.5m by 0.6m, c) Bottom layer: lm by 0.4m. According to these mesh specifications, a simulation of 92 arrays (length of 388m, height 9m), required a total of 13600 cells. Figures 12-15 show comparisons of the modeled and measured module and air temperatures. .Fieidde �CFD root 6 2 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 Time Hour Fig. 12. Comparisons of field and modeled module temperatures; a sunny summer day (7/1/2011); 2-D simulations. 35 90 25 20 p� 15 F 10 ,Flelddad �ffD root 6 2 8 9 30 11 12 13 34 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 Time Hour Fig. 13. Comparisons of field and modeled air temperatures at a height of 2.5 m; a sunny summer day (7/t/2011); 2-D simulations. .FIdaab �CFD root 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 Time Hour Fig. 14. Comparisons of field and modeled module temperatures; a cloudy summer day (7/11/2011); 2-D simulations. 35 30 0 25 20 y 15 10 Field data �CFD root 6 7 8 9 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 Time Hour Fig. 15. Comparisons of field and modeled air temperatures at a height of 2.5 in; a cloudy summer day (7/11/2011); 2-D simulations. Figures 16a and 16b show the air temperature as a function of height at different downwind distances in the morning and afternoon during a sunny summer day. At 9 am (irradiance 500 W/m2, wind speed 1.6 m/s, inlet ambient temperature 23.7°C), the heat from the solar array is dissipated at heights of 5-15m, whereas at 2 pm (irradiance 966 W/m2, wind speed 2.8m/s, inlet ambient temperature 28.60C , the temperature of the panels has reached the daily peak, and the thermal energy takes up to 18 in to dissipate. 20 is 16 14 E12 _1D 6 s 6 4 2 0 22 23 23.7 24 25 26 27 2B Air Temperature (C) 20 18 16 14 E12 8 x 6 4 2 0 27 (a) 9:00 am 28 28.629 30 31 32 33 34 MrTamperature (Q (b) 2:00 pm Fig. 16 Air temperatures within the solar farm, as a function of height at different downwind distances. From 2-D simulations during a sunny summer day (7/l/2011) at 9 am and 2 pm. IV. CONCLUSION The field data and our simulations show that the annual average of air temperatures at 2.5 in of the ground in the center of simulated solar farm section is 1.9°C higher than the ambient and that it declines to the ambient temperature at 5 to 18 in heights. The field data also show a clear decline of air temperatures as a function of distance from the perimeter of the solar farm, with the temperatures approaching the ambient temperature (within 0.3°C), at about 300 in away. Analysis of 18 months of detailed data showed that in most days, the solar array was completely cooled at night, and, thus, it is unlikely that a heat island effect could occur. Our simulations also show that the access roads between solar fields allow for substantial cooling, and therefore, increase of the size of the solar farm may not affect the temperature of the surroundings. Simulations of large (e.g., 1 million m2) solar fields are needed to test this hypothesis. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We are grateful to First Solar for providing data for this study. REFERENCES [11 D. Tumey and V. Fthenakis Environmental, "Impacts from the installation and operation of large-scale solar power slants," Renewable and Sustainable Energy, Reviews, vol. 15, pp. 326 1- 3270,2011. [21 F.G. Nemet. 'Net radiative forcing from widespread deployment of photovoltaics," Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 43, pp. 2173- 2178,2009. [3] M. Donovan, "Memorandum: impact of PV systems on local temperature," SunPower, July 6, 2010. htto://www.rurdev.usda.gov/SupportDocuments/EA-5-17-13— RUS — PartA.pdf [41 Y. Genchi, M. Ishisaki, Y. Ohashi, H. Takahashi, & A. Inaba, "Impacts of large-scale photovoltaic panel installation on the heat island effect in Tokyo, " in Fifth Conference on the Urban Climate, 2003. [51 Theory Guide, ANSYS Fluent HELP 13. Traffic & Route Evaluation Study Woodridge Solar Albemarle County, Virginia September 2022 Prepared For: Hexagon Energy TIMMONS GROUP .00000� YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. • 0 • Traffic & Route Evaluation Study Woodridge Solar Albemarle County, Virginia Prepared For: Hexagon Energy 321 East Main Street Suite 500 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (434) 326-4405 Prepared By: Timmons Group 1001 Boulders Parkway Suite 300 Richmond, Virginia 23225 (804)200-6500 September 2022 PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK September 2022 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Woodridge Solar Project TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................I LISTOF FIGURES........................................................................................................................... II 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW..............................................................................................................1-1 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................2-1 ADJACENTROADWAYS.............................................................................................................. 2-1 EXISTINGSTRUCTURES............................................................................................................. 2-2 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................3-1 SITEENTRANCES..................................................................................................................... 3-1 EXTERNAL TRAFFIC ROUTES...................................................................................................... 3-2 4 SITE TRAFFIC.........................................................................................................................4-1 5 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................5-1 September 2022 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Woodridge Solar Project LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: SURROUNDING ROADWAY NETWORK AND SITE LOCATION FIGURE 2: SITE ENTRANCES AND STUDY INTERSECTIONS FIGURE 3: CONCEPTUAL PLAN FIGURE 4: LOCATION OF PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES FIGURE 5: TYPICAL PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ON JEFFERSON MILL ROAD FIGURE 6: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ON JEFFERSON MILL ROAD FIGURE 7: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ON JEFFERSON MILL ROAD FIGURE 8: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ON JEFFERSON MILL ROAD FIGURE 9: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ON SECRETARYS ROAD FIGURE 10: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ON SECRETARYS ROAD FIGURE 11: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ON SECRETARYS ROAD FIGURE 12: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ON SECRETARYS ROAD FIGURE 13: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ON SECRETARYS ROAD FIGURE 14: PAVEMENT DEFICIENCIES ON SECRETARYS ROAD FIGURE 15: INTERSECTION #1-JEFFERSON MILL ROAD AND ROLLING ROAD FIGURE 16: INTERSECTION #2 - SECRETARYS ROAD AND ROLLING ROAD FIGURE 17: INTERSECTION #3 - BLACK BRANCH FARM AND JEFFERSON MILL ROAD FIGURE 18: INTERSECTION #4 - SECRETARYS ROAD AND BLENHEIM ROAD FIGURE 19: SITE ENTRANCE #1 - SECRETARYS ROAD FIGURE 20: SITE ENTRANCE #2 - SECRETARYS ROAD FIGURE 21: SITE ENTRANCE #3 - SECRETARYS ROAD FIGURE 22: SITE ENTRANCE #4 - SECRETARYS ROAD FIGURE 23: SITE ENTRANCE #5 - SECRETARYS ROAD FIGURE 24: SITE ENTRANCE #6-JEFFERSON MILL ROAD FIGURE 25: SITE ENTRANCE #7-JEFFERSON MILL ROAD FIGURE 26: SITE ENTRANCE #8-JEFFERSON MILL ROAD FIGURE 27: SITE ENTRANCE #9 - BLACK BRANCH FARM FIGURE 28: SITE ENTRANCE #10 - EYELAND DRIVE September 2022 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study — Woodridge Solar Project 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW Timmons Group, at the request of Hexagon Energy, completed a transportation assessment for the proposed Woodridge Solar Project, located in Albemarle County, Virginia. This work has been prepared to identify potential transportation issues associated with the construction and operation phases of the proposed project. The tasks associated with this assessment included: • Review of data and documents provided by the Client relative to the project; • Coordination with the Client on access, schedule, and other parameters that are reflected in the traffic assessment; • Obtaining available geometric (roadway widths, intersection control, etc.) and speed limit data that is readily available via a review of available aerial imagery through Google Earth, Bing, or County GIS systems and a field visit conducted on Friday, March 25, 2022; • Obtaining available VDOT traffic data for those roads adjacent to the site; and • Preparing a narrative summarizing existing pavement/intersection conditions, traffic along the adjacent roadway network, and anticipated impacts associated with the site traffic along with potential mitigation measures. 1-1 September 2022 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Woodridge Solar Project 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Timmons Group compiled existing pavement conditions, existing structures, and roadway characteristics for facilities adjacent to the proposed Woodridge Solar Project in Albemarle County, Virginia. The site is located along US Route 708 (Secretarys Road), south of the City of Charlottesville, north of Scottsville, and east of Route 20 (Scottsville Road). The project location is shown on Figure 1 (all figures are located at the end of the study), the study intersections and site entrances can be found in Figure 2 and a conceptual plan can be found in Figure 3. ADJACENT ROADWAYS A visual assessment of the adjacent roadways was performed on March 25, 2022. The locations of noted pavement deficiencies and numerical photo key is shown on Figure 4 and photos of representative pavement deficiencies can be found in Figures 5 through 14. Jefferson Mill Road (Route 618) is a two-lane, undivided minor collector road with no posted speed limit, assumed to be 55 mph. According to the 2019 VDOT Count Book, Jefferson Mill Road services 520 vehicles per day. The pavement on Jefferson Mill Road is in fair condition with some potholes, alligator cracking and patching throughout. Pictures of the existing pavement deficiencies can be found in Figures 5 through 8. Secretarys Road (Route 708) is a two-lane, undivided local road with no posted speed limit, assumed to be 55 mph. According to the 2019 VDOT Count Book, Secretarys Road services 790 vehicles per day between Route 627 and Presidents Road and 600 vehicles per day between Presidents Road and Rolling Road. The pavement on Secretarys Road is in fair condition and is unstriped. Pictures of the existing pavement deficiencies can be found in Figures 9 through 14. Rolling Road (Route 620) is a two-lane, undivided local road with no posted speed limit, assumed to be 55 mph. According to the 2019 VDOT Count Book, Rolling Road services 1,900 vehicles per day. The pavement on Rolling Road is in fair condition. Blenheim Road (Route 795) is a two-lane, undivided local road with no posted speed limit. The pavement on Blenheim Road is in good condition. Eyeland Drive is a gravel, undivided local road with no posted speed limit and no available AADT data. This facility is private and serves a limited number of agricultural/residential parcels. Black Branch Farm is a gravel, undivided local road with no posted speed limit and no available AADT data. This facility is private and serves a limited number of agricultural/residential parcels. 2-1 September 2022 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Woodridge Solar Project EXISTING STRUCTURES Per the online VDOT database, there are four (4) structures in the vicinity of the project: 1. An unrestricted culvert on Secretary Road to accommodate Murphy Creek. 2. An unrestricted culvert on Jordan Run Lane to accommodate a branch of Turkey Run. 3. An unrestricted bridge on Blenheim Road over the Hardware River. 4. An unrestricted bridge on Jefferson Mill Road over the Hardware River. Based on our field review and the database information, these structures should not preclude heavy vehicle access to the site. Intersection Control Four (4) key intersections were identified within the study area and are included in this evaluation: 1. Rolling Road and Jefferson Mill Road (Unsignalized); 2. Rolling Road and Secretarys Road (Unsignalized); 3. Jefferson Mill Road and Black Branch Farm (Unsignalized); and 4. Secretarys Road and Blenheim Road (Unsignalized). At the unsignalized four -legged intersection of Rolling Road and Jefferson Mill Road, Jefferson Mill Road is the stop -controlled approach; the northern approach serves gravel parking area that has a second driveway approximately 100' to the west. The pavement on Jefferson Mill Road flares out to 80' at the stop sign but typically measures 19-20' wide along the site frontage. The pavement on Rolling Road is 20' wide. Each approach consists of a single lane that serves all movements. Photos of the intersection can be found in Figure 15. At the unsignalized three-legged intersection of Rolling Road and Secretarys Road, Secretarys Road is the stop -controlled approach. On Secretarys Road the pavement is 50' at the stop sign and 20' typically. The pavement on Rolling Road is 21-22' wide. Each approach consists of a single lane that serves all movements. Photos of the intersection can be found in Figure 16. At the unsignalized three-legged intersection of Jefferson Mill Road and Black Branch Farm, Black Branch Farm is the stop -controlled approach. Black Branch Farm is a gravel road that flares out to 42' at Jefferson Mill Road; typically, the road 16-18' wide. Black Branch Farm is not suitable for heavy truck traffic in its current condition. Jefferson Mill Road measures 20' wide. Photos of the intersection can be found in Figure 17. At the four -legged intersection of Secretarys Road and Blenheim Road all approaches are stop controlled (i.e., all way stop). The pavement on Blenheim Road north of Secretarys Road is 20' and not adjacent to the site. The pavement along Blenheim Road south of Secretarys Road (adjacent to the site) is 22-23' typically. The pavement on east- and westbound Secretarys Road is 23-24' typically. Photos of the intersection can be found in Figure 18. 2-2 September 2022 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Woodridge Solar Project 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE ENTRANCES Site Access will be provided via 10 entrances as shown in Figure 1, five (5) along Secretarys Road, three (3) along Jefferson Mill Road, one (1) along Black Branch Farm, and one (1) on Eyeland Drive. Entrance Number Location Pavement Condition Driveway Condition Figure Number 1 Secretarys Road Good; 24' Paved; 20' 19 2 Secretarys Road Good; 22' Gravel; 24' 20 3 Secretarys Road Good; 22' Gravel; 17' 21 4 Secretarys Road Good; 19' Gravel; 24' 22 5 Secretarys Road Good; 20' Gravel; 17' 23 6 Jefferson Mill Road Good; 20' Gravel; 14' 24 7 Jefferson Mill Road Good; 20' Gravel; 14' 25 8 Jefferson Mill Road Good; 20' Gravel; 13' 26 9 Black Branch Farm Gravel; 16' Gravel; 12' 27 10 Eyeland Drive Gravel; 14' Gravel; 12' 28 With respect sight distance at the site entrances listed above, the following should be noted: Entrance #1 at the Eyeland Drive/Secretarys Road intersection - sight distance right appeared limited. Entrance #3 on Secretarys Road - sight distance left appeared to be limited. • Site Entrance #9 (Study Intersection #3) at the Black Branch Farm/Jefferson Mill Road intersection - sight distance left and right appeared limited. A thorough field evaluation of the aforementioned entrances should be conducted prior to finalization and approval. Adjustments may ultimately be necessary due to geometric limitations. 3-1 September 2022 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study — Woodridge Solar Project EXTERNAL TRAFFIC ROUTES Based on the existing road network and types of traffic associated with the site, it is anticipated that all construction equipment, aggregate, supplies and general construction traffic will access the site primarily utilizing Secretarys Road and Jefferson Mill Road. The geometry and volumes present along these facilities are capable of accommodating site -generated traffic during construction or operation/maintenance. It is recommended that internal access roads be utilized as much as possible to minimize traffic impacts to the surrounding state -maintained roads and residents of the area. Several entrances are proposed off existing local/private roads that may need to be enhanced to accommodate the construction traffic (both vehicle type and volume). Given the existing posted speeds and anticipated slower entering/exiting traffic, temporary traffic control (TTC) measures may be necessary. Pertinent signage should be installed prior to the site preparation work and removed when mechanical/electrical work/inspections begin. Should a traffic issue arise during construction, it is anticipated that the chosen contactor will work Albemarle County and VDOT to appropriately address the specific concern. 3-2 September 2022 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study — Woodridge Solar Project 4 SITE TRAFFIC General construction traffic will consist of the following: • Component deliveries (i.e., solar panels, inverters, gravel/concrete trucks, construction equipment, etc.) via single -unit heavy vehicles; and • Passenger vehicles (pick-up trucks) carrying personnel, tools, and minor equipment to and around the construction site. The following assumptions were used in calculating a truck load estimate for the proposed solar site: • Estimated power generation of 138 MWac • Total project size of 2,244 acres (626 fenced/disturbed acres) • Approximately 550,000 total solar panels (ultimately dependent on selected panel); • An anticipated construction period of 12 to 15 months: 0 3 to 4 months of grading and site preparation; 0 8 to 9 months of solar panel installation; and 0 1 to 2 months of mechanical/electrical work and inspection. Based on the above information and an assumed carrying capacity of 80,000 pounds for a standard tractor trailer (WB-50 or WB-62) and 15 cubic yards/dump truck for gravel, it is estimated that over the 12- to 15-month construction period, the site will generate a total of approximately 4,000 truck trips. Once this number is separated across site preparation (50% of site -generated heavy vehicle traffic), panel/infrastructure installation (45% of site -generated heavy vehicle traffic traffic), and commissioning/testing (5% of site -generated heavy vehicle traffic), it is estimated that the site will generate approximately 30 truck trips/day during site preparation, 12 truck trips/day during panel/infrastructure installation, and 6 truck trips/day during the commissioning/testing period. It is anticipated that heavy vehicles traffic will be spread out over the course of a typical day and not concentrated during the AM or PM peak hours. Construction employees will consist of laborers, electricians, supervisory personnel, support personnel, and construction management personnel. It is anticipated that there will be an average of 150 — 175 workers on -site during the construction period with a maximum 400 workers for limited periods. It is anticipated that employee traffic will primarily enter in the AM peak and exit during the PM peak. Carpooling is anticipated among employees/contractors. Construction work is anticipated to occur 6 days/week (Monday — Saturday) with weekday workhours of 7am to 7pm and Saturday workhours of 8am to 5pm. Work will be limited to daylight hours to the fullest extent possible. Final allowable workhours will be agreed upon with the County and compliant with the applicable zoning ordinance. Table 3 on the following page summarizes anticipated site -generated traffic by respective phase and classification based on the available information for this site. 4-1 September 2022 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Woodridge Solar Project Table 3 Site -Generated Traffic Phase Grading/Soil Preparation Panel Installation Mechanical/Electrical Inspection Duration 3 to 4 months S to 9 months 1 to 2 months Weeks (Average) 14 34 6 Total Work Days 70 170 30 Employees (Daily Average) 150 300 75 Heavy Vehicle Traffic (loads) %Site Trucks Site Preparation 1600 2200 - - Panel/Infrastructure Install 1300 1500 Commissioning/Testing 300 200 3200 2200 1500 200 Average Heavy Vehicle Traffic (loads/day) 31 11 7 Following construction of the site, operations/maintenance-related traffic will be insignificant; weekly visits by one (1) or two (2) vehicles for the purpose of inspection and maintenance are anticipated. 4-2 September 2022 Traffic & Route Evaluation Study - Woodridge Solar Project 5 CONCLUSIONS Based on our review of available data relating to the site and the adjacent roadways, the following is offered: The proposed Woodridge Solar site is located south of Charlottesville, in Albemarle County, Virginia (see Figure 1). • Site Access will be provided via ten entrances as shown in Figure 1, five (5) along Secretarys Road, three (3) along Jefferson Mill Road, one (1) along Black Branch Farm, and one (1) on Eyeland Drive. The primary adjacent roadway facilities have the available capacity to accommodate site - generated traffic, both during construction and operations/maintenance activities based on existing ADTs. Any pavement deficiencies found in the field were typical and noted. Assuming site -traffic is focused on Secretarys Road and Jefferson Mill Road no improvements are necessary/anticipated to accommodate site -generated traffic. However, it is recommended that temporary traffic control measures be considered for the duration of the site preparation/construction phase. Potential measures include roadside signage alerting drivers to (1) construction vehicles along designated routes and (2) increased vehicular activity at approved construction entrances. In addition, supplemental wayfinding signage may be considered to direct deliveries and employees to the correct route/location. It is recommended that internal access roads be utilized as much as possible to minimize traffic impacts to the surrounding state -maintained roads and residents of the area . 5-1 i TFOY.e ® - - M -� t .!n rr �.,,, g q •l� :. Hunters ,. r r7 F -� .".y •,rs ! (?Calms _ ✓ ' / Simeon' .......• ' f - � • I '® �'• .yr r L ' Lake Monticello a • v story, o 'r CD it Woodridge44� e Ir 9r j `��f'` R V t{ �' ��r �` •� I 5f o, M! • �stF =!1 R. e � N MprvtYYNvli-]IIYS Wx Nys.. F.YSILuap.Vl y„ 1/iY.l0.om�m. �.R9,vw (i r i. w 0, y ban emim.�•eb ]py V Z F •� bit �.�. raicerniw Conceptual Plan .,006000 Figure Solar TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. r-Wo arle County, VA Albemarle 3 1 J - -, Woodridge 15 1 Lam' "'ROUE 2 9 • p \.dC1Z ' � �6 Se a 16 mom 17 3 18 F 19 ® \� 20 4 , v 23 22 21 5 �0 3332 313029`L82726 25 24 F 60 _ I 17 1 .. 110 r• Existing Road y. Proposed Site 00*0000 Typical Pavement Deficiencies on Jefferson Mill Road TIMMONS GROUP Woodridge Solar YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OUP$ Albemarle County, VA Figure 5 1. Patching and Potholes 2. Edge Raveling 3. Alligator Cracking 4. Patching .00.00 � Pavement Deficiencies on Jefferson Mill Road Figure TIMMONS GROUP Woodridge Solar YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. Albemarle County, VA 6 5. Pothole 6.Edge Raveling 7. Edge Raveling w 8. Pothole Pavement Deficiencies on Jefferson Mill Road 00900 0000 TIMMONS GROUP Woodridge Solar Figure YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. Albemarle County, VA 7 9. Patching 10. Alligator Cracking 11. Patching 12. Pothole .00000 � Pavement Deficiencies on Jefferson Mill Road Figure TIMMONS GROUP Woodridge Solar YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. Albemarle County, VA 8 13. Alligator Cracking 15. Patching 14. Alligator Cracking 16. Pothole .00000 � Pavement Deficiencies on Secretarys Road Figure TIMMONS GROUP Woodridge Solar YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. Albemarle County, VA 9 17. Patching/Bleeding r� - .. to=-. 19. Patching 18. Alligator Cracking 20. Edge Raveling .,.•0•.0 Pavement Deficiencies on Secretarys Road Figure Fi Woodridge Solar 9 TIMMONS GROUP g 10 YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. Albemarle County, VA 21. Longitudinal Cracking 22. Patching .0 00 • TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. 23. Edge Raveling 24. Patching Pavement Deficiencies on Secretarys Road Figure Woodridge Solar Albemarle County, VA 11 26. Alligator Cracking 00• • TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. 28. Edge Raveling Pavement Deficiencies on Secretarys Road Figure Woodridge Solar Albemarle County, VA 12 1 � I 1 '� �� � Q Fi i ` l� \Y S � I � i �` s�n ��. r r-. _ �-ro,�y,,, "�+- �, .J � 4 _ �. _ �� �A '0 i..e... - _ �I.. 1�/' �^.'. ��`� ,� �- �� , ��;j ,, .�: .. �� �w. �' ���ri = �:,, ,. .. � 11 r A� of 4 ;� as �"� - --fir I j�+ �, _--r_ -: ®� - -- ��e !� _"�.. - � � ���s� rr' .,... � �?�::. ti \i I f.J''�.�F.(d.. �l iIri it p. � Il y •��` YF reA� 07) �l, rda " V., R 1, South along Blenheim Road North along Blenheim Road 3 •.e i East along Secretarys Road West along Secretarys Road Intersection #4: Secretarys Road and Blenheim Road Woodridge Solar TIMMONS GROUP Albemarle County, VA Figure 0M r# kilt e � Eyeland a t+ t' At �j Sr East along Secretarys Road Site Entrance #2 West along Secretarys Road .00.00 � Site Entrance #2 and Secretarys Road Figure TIMMONS GROUP Woodridge Solar YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS Albemarle County, VA 20 South along Site Entrance #3 East along Secretarys Road • TIMMONS GROUP ,OUR VISION ACHIEVED TNROUON OURS. Site Entrance #3 West along Secretarys Road Site Entrance #3 and Secretarys Road Figure Woodridge Solar Albemarle County, VA 21 ' 1- East along Site Entrance #4 North along Secretarys Road • TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. West along Site Entrance #4 South along Secretarys Road Site Entrance #4 and Secretarys Road Figure Woodridge Solar Albemarle County, VIA �2 *KT y4n, e -"S"' '5u! Site Entrance #6 West along Site Entrance #6 North along Jefferson Mill Road South along Jefferson Mill Road Site Entrance #6 and Jefferson Mill Road Figure Woodridge Solar Albemarle County, VA 24 IM ' j k •i Site Entrance #8 North along Jefferson Mill Road West along Site Entrance #8 South along Jefferson Mill Road Site Entrance #8 and Jefferson Mill Road Figure Woodridge Solar Albemarle County, VA 26 . n. South along Black Branch Farm 00..•0• TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. along Site Entrance South alona Black Branch Farm Site Entrance #9 and Black Branch Farm Woodridge Solar Figure Albemarle County, VA 27 North along Eyeland Drive 00 00 • TIMMONS GROUP OUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. East along Site Entrance #10 South alona Eveland Drive Site Entrance #10 and Eyeland Drive Figure Woodridge Solar Albemarle County, VA �$ WOODRIDGE SOLAR FACILITY VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN SEPTEMBER 2022 PREPARED FOR: Hexagon Energy Contact: J. Scott Remer, Director of Development 321 E Main I Suite 500 Charlottesville, VA, 22902 434.227.5087 sremer@hexagon-energy.com PREPARED BY: Bryan McKnight, PLA, Landscape Architect Scott Wiley, PLA, Landscape Architect Liz Fabis, Landscape Planner 1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300 Richmond, Virginia 23225 804.200.6477 bryan.mcknight(a)timmons.com www.timmons.com Off! TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. Woodridge Solar Facility —Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia This Page Intentionally Left Blank Woodridge Solar Facility— Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia Table of Contents 1. Vegetation Management Goals and Objectives.............................................................................................1 Goalsand Objectives.................................................................................................................................1 VAPollinator -Smart Scorecard...................................................................................................................1 ProjectOverview........................................................................................................................................1 2. Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................................2 Topography, Hydrology, and Soils..............................................................................................................2 Land Use and Existing Vegetation..............................................................................................................4 3. Vegetation Management Methods.................................................................................................................4 Vegetative Buffer Types and Plant Selection..............................................................................................5 PlantSelection...........................................................................................................................................5 Groundcover Types and Seed Selection....................................................................................................6 Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) and Adaptive Management.......................................................6 Integrated Pest Management(IPM)............................................................................................................6 Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed Management.........................................................................................7 4. Monitoring......................................................................................................................................................9 Re -Vegetation Protocol..............................................................................................................................9 5. Project Schedule...........................................................................................................................................9 SitePreparation........................................................................................................................................10 PlantingPeriod.........................................................................................................................................10 Establishment Period —1 to 3 years.........................................................................................................11 Long-term Management — 3 years onward...............................................................................................12 Annual Maintenance Schedule.................................................................................................................13 6. Resources...................................................................................................................................................15 Websites..................................................................................................................................................15 Publications..............................................................................................................................................15 7. Appendix A: Draft VA Pollinator -Smart Scorecard (See attached)...............................................................15 8. Appendix B: Soil Analysis Report (See attached)........................................................................................15 Woodridge Solar Facility —Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia This Page Intentionally Left Blank Woodridge Solar Facility —Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia 1. Vegetation Management Goals and Objectives The proper establishment, ongoing maintenance, and long-term management of vegetation in the landscape is key to soil stabilization, sustaining the ecological and aesthetic functions of the design, and reducing maintenance costs. To that end, this Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) has been prepared to guide successful stewardship of the Woodridge Solar Facility. It has been prepared in consultation with Monarch Vegetation Services, Inc. and Ernst Conservation Seeds. Goals and Objectives The Vegetation Management Plan for the Woodridge Solar Facility addresses the following project goals: • Mitigate the visual impact of the facility along its perimeter with a vegetative buffer by retaining existing vegetation to the greatest extent possible and planting vegetative buffer where existing vegetation does not sufficiently screen the Facility from view. • Establish a robust groundcover layer that stabilizes the site, reduces erosion, and provides ecological benefits by using native vegetation. • Ensure the long-term health of desirable vegetation and reduce long-term maintenance costs through a proactive and timely approach to management, including the effective control and removal of invasive and other undesirable plant species. Each of these goals is addressed in methodology described in the sections that follow. VA Pollinator -Smart Scorecard The Virginia Pollinator -Smart Solar program's Comprehensive Manual served as a reference for the vegetative management plan. The manual outlines site conditions and constraints that impact the suitability of a site for pollinator habitat and promotes best management practices for vegetative management to support pollinators. While a VMP is not required to achieve Pollinator -Smart Solar certification, an approved VMP is a significant component of the Scorecard solar site scoring and evaluation process. Further, as a blueprint for Pollinator -Smart re -vegetation activities, the information in the VMP can be used to streamline the remaining steps in the program (e.g., installation and monitoring). Therefore, the creation of this VMP is an important step in achieving certification under the Virginia Pollinator -Smart Solar program, if certification is pursued. This project commits to achieving VA Pollinator -Smart Certification, barring external market factors prohibiting the cost of plants and materials between approval and construction. See Appendix A for a draft Pollinator Scorecard indicating credit goals for VA Pollinator -Smart certification. Project Overview Location The Woodridge Solar Facility (hereafter referred to as "the Facility") is a proposed utility -scale solar facility to be located south of Charlottesville and west of Woodridge in Albemarle County, Virginia. The project is situated in a rural, agrarian area of gently rolling hills and a mixed land cover of mostly agricultural fields interspersed with large patches of woodlands. The limits of disturbance, (hereafter referred to as "The Project Area") are bisected by Secretary's Road. They are bound on the east by Jefferson Mill Road and Black Branch Farm Road (private road), and on the west by Eyeland Drive and Courtenay Glen Way. .,.••• s •• TIMMONS GROUP 1 1 www.timmons.com Woodridge Solar Facility -Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia Project Area The Project Area is split into multiple large, contiguous sections that together total 1,515 acres. For the purposes of the Vegetation Management Plan, the Project Area is divided into three management zones: Open Area, Panel Zone (containing ground -mounted photovoltaic arrays), and Screening Zone. These areas are defined and illustrated below: Open Area: Any area beyond the panel zone, within the property boundary. Panel Zone: The area underneath the solar arrays, including inter -row spacing. Project Area: Open Area + Panel Zone + Screening Zone. Screening Zone: A vegetated visual barrier OPEN .AREA -- -- FENCELINE PANEL ZONE OPEN AREA `---------------' OPFN AREA Source: Virginia Pollinator-Smart/Bird Habitat Scorecard A portion of the Open Area will be designated as Conserved Open Space as defined under Virginia Stormwater Management Program. The maintenance of this area will fall under the same management practices as the Open Area, but the installation process will differ in order to meet Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) requirements. 2. Existing Conditions An existing conditions inventory and analysis has been compiled during the SUP application process for this project. The following is a concise summary of the site's context and existing conditions as of September 2022. Topography, Hydrology, and Soils The site's rolling terrain is indicative of its location in Virginia's Piedmont physiographic region. Small streams feed Turkey Run, which runs through the center of the site and drains into the Hardware River to the south, which then feeds the James River downstream. Soil types found on site are predominately silt loams of varying degrees of slope. The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) classifies this land as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance (farmland that does not meet the criteria for prime farmland, but that may be farmed with high yields when managed according to acceptable farm methods), and areas that are not prime farmland. See sheets C3.1-C4.0 for location of existing natural features. i •e TIMMONS GROUP 2 1 www.timmons.com Woodridge Solar Facility —Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia 18 sample points (red dots) represent the approximate center of a sampled area. Each composite sample is made up of 10 combined soil cores from within each 200' radius. Soils were sampled in September 2022. The .,.••, s •• TIMMONS GROUP 3 1 www.timmons.com Woodridge Solar Facility —Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia Soil tests found that the soil pH across the site ranged from 4.1 to 5.0, indicating that the soils are extremely to strongly acidic. In previously farmed areas, decaying organic matter and oxidation of fertilizers can contribute to acidic soils. These soils can have high concentrations of soluble minerals that can impair plants' nutrient uptake and thus establishment of new plant communities. The CEC value (cation exchange capacity) is another indicator of soil health. CEC values below 12 indicate that the soil is considered "nutrient deficient" and will struggle to effectively uptake nutrients from fertilizer applications unless the soil is amended. The CEC values across the site ranged from 2.0-5.4. Strongly acidic soils typically have low CEC values. Amending the soil through the application of lime is a simple and relatively inexpensive procedure that will raise the pH and thus CEC into ranges will promote nutrient uptake, allow for effective fertilizer treatment, and ultimately more successful plant establishment. See Appendix B for full soil test results and soil amendment recommendations. Land Use and Existing Vegetation The site's land use for the past 80 years has been dominated by industrial silviculture. Referencing aerial photography, land use in the Project Area appears to have remained consistent in the past 25 years. The wooded areas of the site are comprised of loblolly pines. Proposed land disturbance and grading necessitate stockpiling of topsoil and soil remediation prior to revegetation. Current conditions inform the methods for site preparation for the proposed groundcover. Open Areas A large portion of the open areas of the site has been in recent industrial silviculture production. It has been cleared for timber production. It is not unlikely that noxious weeds are present in these areas. Careful preparation of the topsoil stockpiled from these areas —namely removal of invasive species and noxious weeds before removal of the topsoil itself —is necessary for creating soil conditions conducive to establishing the desired groundcover and long-term management of the site. Wooded Areas The wooded areas of the site are comprised mostly of loblolly pines, serving as riparian buffers for existing hydrologic features and areas of pine plantation. This vegetation will be preserved 1) in wetland and buffers adjacent to streams and 2) in sections of the Screening Zone designated as "Retained Existing Vegetation." To count towards buffer requirements, a 100-foot wide swath of existing vegetation will be maintained where credited for screening. Careful preparation of the topsoil stockpiled from these areas —namely the removal of woody material like woodchips—is necessary for creating soil conditions conducive to establishing groundcover. Failure to remove woody refuse after tree removal threatens nitrogen levels critical to the establishment of proposed herbaceous vegetation. 3. Vegetation Management Methods There are two types of plantings proposed on site —a vegetative buffer and groundcover—as well as preservation of existing vegetation for use in the buffer and areas of undisturbed groundcover in the Open Area and Screening Zone outside of the fenced areas. This section addresses the specific establishment and management required for these different vegetation types and general management methods. Schedules for maintenance and management activities are described in more detail in the "Project Schedule" section. s •• TIMMONS GROUP 4 1 www.timmons.com Woodridge Solar Facility —Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia Establishment and Management The landscaping will be established and managed to achieve its intended effect for the duration of the facility's operation. Particular attention is needed to the Establishment Period over the first three years following planting; this period is addressed in detail later in this section and in the "Project Schedule" section. The contractor will be responsible for ensuring the survival of plant material through the warranty period, and the buffer will be maintained in good condition until the facility has been decommissioned and removed. Plant material will be replaced as necessary. Vegetative Buffer Types and Plant Selection Buffer Types A vegetative buffer will wrap the entire perimeter of the Project Area in order to mitigate the visual impact of the facility. There are two main types of screening: Proposed Planting Strip is planned in areas where the array may be most visible and where existing vegetation does not already exist to adequately screen the array in its own right. This screening type consists of a 20 foot wide planting strip. The planting strip contains two rows of evergreen trees and two rows of shrubs within the property setback. The rows are planted in a staggered formation for visual interest, and the species/cultivars of trees are varied every 100 linear feet to avoid a monotonous appearance along long stretches of the Project Area perimeter. See sheet C6.0 for location of proposed planting strip. See sheet C6.8 for vegetative buffer planting template and recommended buffer plant list. • Retained Existing Vegetation will be used as a part of the buffer wherever it adequately screens the Facility from view from outside of the Project Area. The use of existing vegetation and natural screening is the preferred screening type and has been designated wherever possible. See sheet C6.0 for location of existing vegetation to be retained. Plant Selection The recommended species and cultivars were selected based on their suitability to meet the screening goal and their appropriateness for the site. Factors used to make these selections include: • Hardiness zone: the selected vegetation is classified as hardy in USDA Hardiness Zone 7a, which is the designation for the project site. • Soil needs: the selected vegetation will grow in the soil conditions as described in Appendix B • Drought tolerance: the selected vegetation is expected to sustain temporary drought conditions. • Native or regionally adapted status: the selected vegetation is identified as native to Albemarle County, Virginia (by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation) or, if non-native, have been deemed to be regionally adapted and well -suited for the project growing conditions. • Availability: the selected vegetation is generally available from regional nurseries and seed providers, including Monarch Vegetation Services and Ernst Conservation Seeds, in coordination with whom this plan was prepared. • Pollinator Suitability: per the VA Pollinator -Smart Scorecard, the selected seed mixes for the screening, open, and panel zones includes Solar Native Plant Finder species s •• TIMMONS GROUP 5 1 www.timmons.com Woodridge Solar Facility —Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia Groundcover Types and Seed Selection Seed Mix Selection and Sources Seed mixes were selected to meet the project goals and for suitability with the project infrastructure, namely the photovoltaic arrays. Other non -noxious, non-invasive species may be added to seed mixes if desired or required. Groundcover on site will comprise the following components: • Open Area: The Open Area within the fenced area of the site, surrounding the Panel Zone, will be seeded with new groundcover since it will have been largely disturbed. A portion of the Open Area outside of the fence is designated as Conserved Open Space; it will not be graded, but it must be revegetated with new groundcover per DEQ requirements for stormwater runoff reduction. Most of the remaining portion of the Open Area outside of the fenced area will not be disturbed, except for temporary construction facilities —including a road and laydown area —which will be removed and reseeded. In any undisturbed areas, no new groundcover is planned (unless invasive species or noxious weeds are later discovered on site and specific areas need to be revegetated). The entirety of the Open Area to be seeded be seeded with a Solar Pollinator Buffer Seed Mix. Other non -noxious, non-invasive wildflowers may be added to this mix if desired or required. • Panel Zone: The entirety of the Panel Zone will be seeded with a Solar Farm Seed Mix that contains native and naturalized grass species and provides some pollinator benefit. This mix can also support sheep grazing, if desired. Other non -noxious, non-invasive, low -growing wildflowers may be added to this mix if desired or required. • Screening Zone: The Screening Zone will be primarily vegetated with retained existing vegetation or the proposed buffering screening types. Each tree will be mulched and most of the remaining groundcover within the landscape buffer will consists of the existing groundcover. Seed mixes with their complete list of constituents are included on sheet C6.8. Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) and Adaptive Management An overarching goal for management is reducing maintenance over time. Within the groundcover layer of native and naturalized grass species, the creation of a largely self-sustaining ecological community is optimal. Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) is a useful approach to achieving this goal; it is "based on the assumption that proactive vegetation management using targeted herbicide treatment and/or mechanical removal is an activity that not only controls pest species, but also minimizes its own use over time."' Appropriate management of pests and invasive species and noxious weeds are key components of this approach and are described below. IVM incorporates adaptive management, which responds to "direct feedback from project performance to guide management decisions" over time.2 Essentially, the practices described within this Vegetation Management Plan are the best estimation of the appropriate practices at the time of project planning and design, but ongoing maintenance and management, including monitoring the site regularly, will inform and guide modification of these practices. See Virginia DCR and DEQ's Pollinator -Smart Comprehensive Manual for more information on this approach. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an approach that establishes thresholds for acceptable pest pressure and using a hierarchy of preferred methods of control, prioritizing those that are less intensive or risky first —for ' Virginia DCR and DEQ, Pollinator -Smart Comprehensive Manual, (2020), 31. 2 Ibid., 32. .,.••• s •• TIMMONS GROUP 6 1 www.timmons.com Woodridge Solar Facility —Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia instance, using beneficial predatory insects to control insect pests before resorting to chemical insecticide. An IPM approach should be employed to develop appropriate pest control strategies needed on site, minimize the overall use of chemical control methods, and reduce the maintenance effort needed to address pest pressure. Key to this approach is taking a regular inventory of pest pressure to remain aware of problematic species and the extents of their presence and risk to vegetation on site. The use of growing degree-days is recommended for scheduling the most effective intervention times for controlling pests. Hand removal of pests and vegetation that is diseased or damaged is generally preferred to chemical applications. Appropriate biological controls, such as the use of beneficial predators, are also recommended. The use of herbicides for perimeter landscaping shall be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Herbicides are recommended in this plan for the groundcover establishment and management, especially during the Establishment Period. For long-term management, all pesticides, including herbicides, should be used only to target specific problematic species as needed. See "Project Schedule" section for more information. If assistance is needed in making a determination about a problem and the appropriate solution, consult a Virginia Certified Horticulturalist, ISA Certified Arborist, or Albemarle County's office of the Virginia Cooperative Extension. Only VDACS Certified Commercial Pesticide Applicators should apply pesticides. Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed Management Invasive plants typically refer to undesirable non-native species that grow quickly and disrupt other plant communities and ecosystems. Noxious weeds typically refer to plants that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to agricultural or natural resources. If left unmanaged, noxious weeds and invasive plants can impede on the establishment and long-term viability of native plantings. Invasive species and noxious weeds should be monitored and removed and controlled within the entirety of the Project Area, but priority should especially be given to all newly planted areas on the site. The appropriate means for management is dependent on a combination of factors: the species present, the volume of plants, the habitat where they are located, any functions that these species are currently providing (such as slope stabilization), the potential damage to the surrounding native and non-invasive/noxious species that certain management strategies pose, the maintenance season, the acceptable thresholds for certain species on site, and the proposed frequency of control measures. Timing of removal and control measures is included in the "Project Schedule" section. Removal and control strategies will be implemented to begin management prior to seeding proposed groundcover. General recommendations are provided on sheet C6.8. The following includes the general recommendations provided on sheet C6.8 as well as additional recommendations for invasive plant and noxious weed management. General Recommendations General recommendations include the following: • For new tree plantings, remove invasive plants and noxious weeds by hand, in a circle at least three feet in diameter, to make room for planting pits. If a weed or invasive plant is providing a functional value such as slope stabilization, replace it with plant that will provide functional value equal to or greater than that of the existing plant. • Use the proper equipment for the type of control measure. These include but are not limited to: s •• TIMMONS GROUP 7 1 www.timmons.com Woodridge Solar Facility —Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia o Tractor mounted bush hog for heavy mowing (minimum plant height equal to or greater than three (3) to four (4) inches) and high mowing (minimum plant height equal to or greater six (6) to eight (8) inches). o Tractor -mounted, truck -mounted, trailer -counted, or ATV -mounted sprayer for broadcast applications. o Backpack style sprayer or other device for spot spraying, appropriate to the class of pesticide. o Areas under and directly adjacent to solar arrays may require use of hand-held equipment. o Grazing by ruminants (usually goats or sheep) where practical and appropriate to plant species present. Areas where Fuzz and Buzz seed mixes are specified are designed to be suitable for sheep grazing. • Mechanical methods: o Mowing and mechanical means should be used as the primary method of managing vegetation growth. Hand removal and seasonal cutbacks are the preferred methods for controlling problematic species. The specific means of removing (e.g. pulling, cutting) must factor in what is most effective but also least disruptive to the site, particularly when the location is on a slope. o The use of a pull -behind brush hog or hand-held string trimmer can be used for high -mowing of grasses and (orbs at 6 to 8 inches height to effectively control weeds without negatively impacting the growth of the native plants. o If and where possible, shrubs and woody vines should be removed by their root systems. Alternatively, these plants can be pruned at ground level. o If possible, problematic plants with flowers or seeds will be removed and disposed of properly. • Chemical methods: o The use of herbicides for perimeter landscaping shall be minimized to the greatest extents practicable. Herbicides must be used in accordance with their approved label, and the quantity of herbicides expected to be used annually for the Facility will be less than the amounts that generally were used in the open areas hosting the Facility during the 12 months prior to the start of construction. o Herbicides are recommended in this plan for the groundcover establishment and management, especially during the Establishment Period, in order to successfully establish the proposed groundcover. During long-term management, all pesticides, including herbicides, should be used only to target specific problematic species as needed. o The class of herbicide to be used will depend on problematic species in question. o Herbicide must not be applied when rainfall is expected within 48 hours or wind speeds exceed 10 mph. o Only VDACS Certified Commercial Pesticide Applicators or Registered Technicians working under direct supervision of a Commercial Applicator should apply chemical control treatments. • Consult the reputable sources listed in the "Resources" section for specific tool and herbicide product selection for each plant targeted. • Conduct regular inspections during site visits to monitor the presence of problematic species. .,.••• s •• TIMMONS GROUP 8 1 www•timmons.com Woodridge Solar Facility —Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia If assistance is needed in making a determination about a problematic species and the appropriate solution, consult a Virginia Certified Horticulturalist, ISA Certified Arborist, or the Albemarle County's office of the Virginia Cooperative Extension. Consult the latest USDA recommendations and resources for control measures, including the National Invasive Species Information Center (NISIC) and "A Management Guide for Invasive Plants in Southern Forests" from the U.S. Forest Service. 4. Monitoring Monitoring procedures should be implemented to sustain and modify maintenance and management practices over time. Virginia DCR and DEQ's Pollinator -Smart Comprehensive Manual Chapter 6 and the Pollinator - Smart Monitoring Plan provides a detailed basis for monitoring best practices that can be used. The use of sample plots as described in the Pollinator -Smart Program manuals is an effective means of monitoring for utility -scale solar sites. At a minimum, the following monitoring practices must be implemented on an annual or biennial basis: • An inventory of health of buffer and groundcover plantings • An inventory and mapping of invasive plants and noxious weeds • A site assessment of current conditions and a report on appropriate action needed to address any issues affecting the health of the plantings and modifications needed to maintenance activities and management practices. • Submission of the assessment and report to the Albemarle County Department of Planning and Zoning. This will include an updated inventory of invasive plants and noxious weeds. Monitoring should be conducted over the lifetime of the project in order to effectively manage the control of invasive plant and noxious weed species. Re -Vegetation Protocol The best time to reseed and replant is generally in the fall and spring per the planting periods included in the planting specifications for the project. Replacement planting should match the original plantings or be approved by the project designers and consultants. If all of one species dies, consider an alternate plant selection, taking into consideration what plants have done well. 5. Project Schedule The project schedule should be approached from the perspective of both long-term management covering the life of the project as well as ongoing seasonal maintenance activities that will evolve over the life of the facility. This section sorts the management of the project into phases —site preparation, planting, initial establishment and management, and long-term management —and includes guidance for regular maintenance. General planting, establishment, and maintenance guidance are included in the specifications and planting notes and details that are a part of the project construction documents. This plan references and builds on those directions. The overall goal for maintenance is to implement more intensive maintenance procedures during the Planting Period and Establishment Period (one to three years after planting) in order to reduce long- term maintenance requirements. .,.••• s •• TIMMONS GROUP 9 1 www•timmons.com Woodridge Solar Facility —Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia Site Preparation Prior to planting, it is best to complete an inventory of invasive plants and noxious weeds and develop a plan to manage these species. Remove and eradicate these species to the greatest extents possible prior to seeding or planting anything on site. See the "Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed Management' section for more detailed information. Vehicles and other equipment will be excluded from those areas that have been prepared for planting to avoid soil compaction. Based on soil test results from Waypoint Analytical, soil amendments are recommended prior to seeding in order to ensure establishment of proposed seed mixes. For both seeding and planting, the Planting Period is the time to apply fertilizer (such as compost), lime, and other soil amendments. See Appendix B for soil test results and soil amendment recommendations. Planting Period Detailed information on planting is included in the landscape specifications and notes and details in the project construction documents. Key maintenance tasks include the following: General • Conduct invasive plant and noxious weed removal per instructions in the "Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed Management' section. • Hand weed or spot spray herbicide to remove competition to new plantings. Woody Vegetation • For trees, remove top one-third of burlap and all wiring. Remove tags and labels from plants. • Prune trees at planting to remove dead, diseased, or damaged branches. • In addition to topsoil preparation, amend plantings per planting details. • Mulch within two days of planting using a minimum of two-inch thickness at a two -and -a -half -foot radius around the tree trunk. Water adequately. Groundcover • Following initial implementation of noxious weed and invasive species management plan, prepare site soil conditions for seeding. • Seed disturbed areas with a temporary mixture as needed to meet state regulations for erosion and sediment control (see C6.8 for recommended seed mixes). Seed promptly following completion of construction in order to reduce invasive species and weed growth and sediment run-off.1 • During the next suitable seeding period (spring or fall), sow groundcover to establish permanent vegetative cover. Optimal seed germination occurs after October 15 and before April 15. If seeding is conducted outside of optimal seed germination period, pair a seasonally appropriate temporary cover crop with the seeding to support erosion and sediment control, soil stabilization, and weed suppression during seed establishment. The seed mixture shall adhere to the acceptable mixtures specified on sheet C6.8 or Table 3.31-b of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Areas to be s •• TIMMONS GROUP 10 1 www.timmons.com Woodridge Solar Facility —Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia seeded with primarily a fescue mix —the Solar Farm Seed Mix —should not require a cover crop at the time of permanent seeding unless permanent seeding is to take place in the fall to stabilize soils over the winter months. • Use recommended seeding rates (specific to mixture) and proper seed packing for optimal germination and seed establishment. Drilling is recommended for seeding on most areas of the site, but areas beneath the panels will need to be broadcasted (which will require scarification of the soil as much as the panel construction allows access for). A warm season no -till drill is specified for drilling. • Water adequately. • Instructional signage should be placed around newly planted areas outside the fenced area as needed to keep visitors or maintenance staff from traversing over or mowing the seeded areas. Place the signs at 50-foot intervals around the perimeter of the planted areas. • Only biodegradable soap and water, and no other chemicals, may be used to clean the surface of the solar panels in order to protect the soil and plantings. Establishment Period —1 to 3 years This period is crucial to the long-term success of the plantings and will require the most active management. Particular attention to the site during this phase of management will provide for successful implementation of the landscaping plan and generally reduces requirements for intervention over time. Key maintenance tasks include the following: General • Complete tasks as described in the "Annual Maintenance Schedule" section. • Continue seasonal watering for the first year and as needed during periods of drought. Use of a watering truck is highly recommended. • Hand weed regularly to remove competition to native plantings. • Conduct invasive plant and noxious weed control per instructions in the "Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed Management' section. • Soil testing and amending: Test every few seasons and respond according to the recommendations. This may include the addition of lime to adjust soil pH (this should be applied lightly as needed) and fertilizer (which should be applied lightly if at all). Woody Vegetation Monitor trees support systems (staking) monthly to ensure correct placement in order to ensure proper tree growth. As tree mature and outgrow the staking, remove it. Remove any remaining tags and labels from plants within one year. • Remulch seasonally or as needed. Groundcover • Monitor seeded areas to ensure that they are filling in over time. This is particularly important after the first full year of growth. Observe whether the plantings have weathered the first summer and have rooted in well. Seed, propagate or add additional plantings as needed to fill in patches without plants to avoid weeds filling the voids. • Mowing and Spraying: .,.••• s •• TIMMONS GROUP 11 1 www.timmons.com Woodridge Solar Facility —Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia o Do not mow, prune, or deadhead except as described in the mowing schedule below and in the "Annual Maintenance Schedule" section. o Mow and spot spray seeded areas seasonally to manage weeds and competition with the other plantings as well as spur the growth of the vegetation. This will expose the soil to more sunlight, prompting invasive and weed species found in the seed bank to germinate, which can then be spot sprayed before they reach a mature height. o As the planting matures, it is best to mow outside of typical nesting periods for any wildlife present on site (typically between April and September). o Mowing is recommended when vegetation has reached 2 to 2.5 feet tall. Per Woodridge Solar's operational standards for areas beneath the solar panels, 18 inches is the maximum vegetation height desired where the leading edge of the panels is 2 feet from the ground and 24 inches is the maximum vegetation height desired where the leading edge of the panels is 3 feet from the ground. o Mow using a tractor -pulled or push -behind brush hog, depending on the location (beneath versus not beneath the panels). o The yearly mowing and spraying regimen during the Establishment Period is as follows: Year 1: Mow twice (2x) and spot spray once (1x). The first mowing will take place when much of the site has reached a height of 1.5 to 2 feet tall at which point it can be mowed down to about 1 foot tall. The second mowing can be done later in the growing season when temperatures cool down and before cool season invasive and weed species can produce seed. Year 2: Mow once (1x) and spot spray twice (2x). Mowing will take place when much of the site has reached a height of 1.5 to 2.5 feet tall at which point it can be mowed down to about 1 foot tall. The seeded areas will begin to fill in after this point to shade out new invasive and weed species. Year 3: Mow twice (2x) and spot spray once (1x). Mowing will take place when much of the site has reached a height of 1.5 to 2.5 feet tall at which point it can be mowed down to about 1 foot tall. A second spot spray will be scheduled in the second half of the growing season to kill invasive and weed species that may still try to germinate before the new vegetation can smother those weeds out. o Include inspections of weed pressure during regularly scheduled site visits Additional mowing may be needed for invasive plant and weed control, but spot spraying of any weed clusters is preferred should issues arise. • Only biodegradable soap and water, and no other chemicals, may be used to clean the surface of the solar panels in order to protect the soil and plantings. Long-term Management — 3 years onward Continue ongoing maintenance and management, including the tasks described in the "Annual Maintenance Schedule" section. For the long-term, the grasses and perennials in the groundcover layer should be allowed to naturalize with minimal to no management. Key maintenance tasks include the following: • Maintain the buffer and groundcover layer actively as needed until plants have matured and the buffer and groundcover layer have reached fully functional condition. • Evaluate plant survival on an annual basis. .,..•, s •• TIMMONS GROUP 12 1 www.timmons.com Woodridge Solar Facility —Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia • Monitor the overall composition of the plantings as they naturalize to ensure that they represent the general species composition originally intended. Manage, remove, and replace vegetation as needed to sustain the buffer and groundcover layer. • Mow seeded areas once annually in late winter or early spring or late fall after vegetation has gone dormant following the same protocol as during the Establishment Period. The vegetation can be chopped to prevent thatch and ground smothering. Additional mowing may be needed for invasive plant and weed control, but spot spraying of any weed clusters is preferred should issues arise. • Repair damage as needed to prevent irreparable harm to plants, and in the case of trees, reduce hazards to people if plants are located adjacent to where people would be accessing site facilities. • Conduct invasive plant and noxious weed control per instructions in the "Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed Management" section. • Only biodegradable soap and water, and no other chemicals, may be used to clean the surface of the solar panels in order to protect the soil and plantings. This plan is suitable for the lifespan of the project with reasonable modifications as needed based on ongoing management activities and changes that occur on site, incorporating Integrated Vegetation Management goals and Adaptive Management principles. Annual Maintenance Schedule Establish regular maintenance inspections on either a minimum of a quarterly/seasonal basis or a bimonthly basis. This should include an assessment of pest, disease, and weed pressure. Use a checklist or inspection form to complete maintenance tasks. Maintenance inspection forms or reports should be shared with the Albemarle County Department of Planning and Zoning. Maintenance tasks have been listed here by season given the optimal times for planting, pruning, and other activities. This list draws on the "Sample Conservation Landscaping Calendar" for seasonal maintenance in the Chesapeake Conservation Landscaping Council's "Conservation Landscaping Guidelines: The Eight Essential Elements of Conservation Landscaping." Winter Key maintenance tasks include the following: • Review and revise management plans for the upcoming year based on observations from the prior year. • Prune as necessary and seasonally appropriate. • During the Establishment Period, Years 1, 2, and 3: During late winter or early spring, mow seeded areas when vegetation grows to 18 inches beneath the panels or 2 to 2.5 feet elsewhere. Mow to a height of 12 inches. After the Establishment Period, this should become the once -a -year mowing or an as needed mowing. Spring Key maintenance tasks include the following: • Weed manually or spot spray to treat weeds, ideally once per month. • During the Establishment Period, Years 1, 2, and 3: If not done in winter, mow seeded areas when vegetation grows to 18 inches beneath the panels or 2 to 2.5 feet elsewhere. Mow to a height of 12 inches. • Water as needed, especially during periods of drought. s •• TIMMONS GROUP 13 1 www.timmons.com Woodridge Solar Facility —Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia • Remove and dispose of diseased and damaged plant material, particularly those that contain or could contain pests. Summer Key maintenance tasks include the following: • Weed manually or spot spray to treat weeds, ideally once per month. • Water as needed, especially during periods of drought. Remove and dispose of diseased and damaged plant material, particularly those that contain or could contain pests. Fall Key maintenance tasks include the following: • During the Establishment Period, Years 1 and 3: if not done in winter, mow seeded areas when vegetation grows to 18 inches beneath the panels or 2 to 2.5 feet elsewhere. Mow to a height of 12 inches. The second or last mowing should be in October. • Remove and dispose of diseased and damaged plant material, particularly those that contain or could contain pests. • Leave groundcover alone for the purposes of creating seasonal interest in the landscape and winter habitat and food sources for wildlife. Do not dead -head or cut down standing vegetation, including grasses and forbs. An exception is any species that seeds aggressively; in that case, deadheading can prevent these plants from self -sowing. If a decision is made to cut down any vegetation, lay the clippings on the ground to serve as mulch (except for aggressive, noxious, or invasive plants, which should be properly removed from the site). • Identify problem areas and challenges from the prior growing season to incorporate into maintenance and management plans for the upcoming season. Plan out and schedule specific maintenance tasks. These seasons overlap as far as timing for different maintenance tasks. The timing for various tasks differs between plant species based on their individual phenology—when they bud, flower, leaf out, and so on. The following calendar shows when these seasonal tasks should generally take place, but attention should be paid to the best time to complete specific tasks, such as pruning, for individual species. General Seasonal Maintenance Calendar .,.••• s •• TIMMONS GROUP 14 1 www.timmons.com Woodridge Solar Facility —Vegetation Management Plan Albemarle County, Virginia November December 6. Resources Websites Ernst Seeds Resource Center — https://www.ernstseed.com/resources/ USDA National Invasive Species Information Center (NISIC) — https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/ Virginia Invasive Plant List — https://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/invsppdflist Virginia Noxious Weed List — https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title2/agency5/chapter3l7/section20/ Virginia Pollinator -Smart Program — https://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/pollinator-smart Publications "A Management Guide for Invasive Plants in Southern Forests," U.S. Forest Service, 2015. https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr—srsl 31.pdf "USDA-NRCS Conservation Practice Standard: Herbaceous Weed Treatment," USDA Natural resources Conservation Service, 2017 — https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/stelprdbl254947.pdf Virginia Pollinator -Smart Program materials — https://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/pollinator-smart • Pollinator -Smart Comprehensive Manual • Pollinator -Smart Program Monitoring Plan • Virginia Pollinator-SmartlBird Habitat Scorecard 7. Appendix A: Draft VA Pollinator -Smart Scorecard (See attached) B. Appendix B: Soil Analysis Report (See attached) .,.••• s •• TIMMONS GROUP 15 1 www.timmons.com VERSION 2.Ob I VIRGAAA POLLINATOR -SMART/ '1 BIRD HABITAT SCORECARD Established Solar Sites 9 , , "4, VEGETATION PANEL ZONE 1. Percent of overall existing cover in the panel zone vegetated with Solar Native Plant Finder species (max 15 pts) O <5 percent (0) 5-25 percent (5) O 26-50 percent (8) O 51-75 percent (10) O greater than 75 percent (15) 2. Native grass diversity in panel zone (max 5 pts) I or fewer species (0) O 2 species (2) O 3 or more species (5) OPEN AREA 3. Pence nt of overa I I existi n g cove r with i n the open a rea vegetated with Solar Native Plant Finder species used by pollinators (max 15 pts) O 15 percent (0) O 5-25 percent (5) O 26-50 percent (8) Q 51-75 percent (10) Q greater than 75 percent (15) 4. Total number of Solar Native Plant Finder species found within the open area (max 15 pts) O 9 or fewer species (0) O 10-19 species (5) Q 20-29 species (8) O 30-39 species (10) O 40 or greater species (15) 5. Within the open area, seasons with at least three (3) Solar Native Plant Finder species in flower (max 30 pts) [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] ❑ Spring (March -May) (2) a FarlySummer(June-July15)(2) 9 Late Summer (July 15-August) (4) 9 Fall (September -November) (2) SCREENING ZONE 6. Percent of overall existing cover in the screening area vegetated with Solar Native Plant Finder species (max 15 pts) O <5 percent (0) O 5-25 percent (5) O 26-50 percent(8) O 51-75 percent (10) QQ greater than 75 percent (15) MVIMNIA GDCR c® ENVIP MENTAL QINUTY WgjniaIXpterentdCamelwtlon6Pm�ui SITE MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND MAINTENANCE PRACTICES 7. [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] (max 25 pts) © Site has an Approved' Vegetation Management Plan (15) O Vegetation monitoring2conducted annually (5) a Invasive species mapping and control conducted annually (5) ❑ On -site use of insecticide (excluding safety/hazard spot treatment around buildings/electrical boxes, etc.) (-40) INVASIVE SPECIES RISK 8. [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] (-20 pts possible) ❑ Combined cover oftallfescue across all three zones >10 percent (-10) ❑ Combined cover of species on DNH Virginia Invasive Plant Species List across all three zones 10 percent (-10) PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND RESEARCH 9. [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] (max 10 pts) ❑ 2 or more legible and accessible signs identifying pollinator and bird habitat present on -site (2.5) ❑ Accessible bench and educational display present on-site(2.5) ❑ Research collaboration with college, university, school, or research institute (5) POLLINATOR/BIRD NESTING HABITAT ON -SITE 10. [CHECK ALL FEATURES THAT ARE PRESENT ON -SITE] (20+ pts) ❑ Fxisting bare ground patches one square foot or larger, with undisturbed and well -drained soil (2) 0 Preserved upland forested communities orforest edge habitat that includes native flowering shrubs and young trees (8) ❑ Cavity nesting sites (e.g. dead trees, snags, fallen logs, shrubs, plants with pithy -stemmed twigs such as native sumacs, roses, or blackberries) (2) ❑ Created bee/bird nesting habitat features (e.g., boxes, tunnels, etc.) (0.2 pts per featu rep # featu re: x0.2=0 pts. a Preserved wetlands communities/presence of clean water source(s) (8) 2 See guidelines for development of a Vegetation Management Plan here. Vegetation Management Plans forsolorsites are approved by the Virginia Pollinator-Smort Solar Industry Review Board. Vegetation Management Plans may be submitted here. 2Vegetation monitoring should be conducted in accordance with the methods described here. For the purposes of compliance, monitoring is only required every two years,, therefore, annual monitoring is incentivized with additional points in the Scorecard. 3 Up to a maximum of 10 points (50 features) Page 1 of 8 Report Number: 22-249-9512 Account Number: 70627 Send To: TIMMONS GROUP Sarah Kern 1001 Boulders Pkwy Suite 300 Richmond VA 23225 Date Received: 09/06/2022 Waypoint. ANALYTICAL Date Of Analysis: 09/07/2022 "Every acre... Everyyear. 7621 Whitepine Road, Richmond, VA 23237 Main 804-743-9401 ° Fax 804-271-6446 www.waypointanalytical.com Grower: Woodridge Solar Farm: Woodridge SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT AnalyticalMethod(s): SMPBuflerpH Mehlich3 LossOnlgnition WaterpH Date Of Report: 09/09/2022 OM W/V ENR Phosphorus Potassium Magnesium Calcium Sodium pH Acidity C.E.0 Sample ID Field ID Lab Number % Rate Soil Class Ibs/Appm M3 Rate ppm Rate ppm Rate K ppm Rate Mg ppm Rate Ca ppm Rate Na ppm Rate Soil PH Buffer Index H meq/100g meq/100g SMU-1 20207 4.3 M 131 10 VL 50 L 47 M 244 L 4.7 6.76 1.7 3.4 SMU-2 20208 4.4 M 135 5 VL 50 L 29 M 174 L 4.8 6.82 1.1 2.3 SMU-3 20209 4.1 M 127 8 VL 74 M 52 M 296 L 4.9 6.77 1.6 3.7 SMU-4 20210 3.5 M 117 3 VL 35 VL 22 L 116 VL 4.5 6.81 1.2 2.1 SMU-5 20211 3.1 M 109 3 VL 43 L 23 L 99 VL 4.3 6.77 1.6 2.4 Percent Base Saturation Nitrate Sulfur Zinc Manganese Iron Copper Boron Soluble Salts Sample Field ID ID K % %% MgN59 Na H NOs N ppm Rate S ppm Rate Zn ppm Rate Mn ppm Rateppm Fe Rate Cu ppm Rate B ppm Rate SS ms/cm RateSMU-1 3.8 11.5 50.0 SMU-2 5.6 10.5 37.8 47.8 SMU-3 5.1 11.7 40.0 43.2 SMU-4 4.3 8.7 27.6 57.1 SMU-5 4.6 8.0 20.6 66.7 Values on this report represent the plant available nutrients in the Explanation of symbols: % (percent), ppm (parts per million), Ibs/A soil. Rating after each value: VL (Very Low), L (Low), M (Medium), (pounds per acre), ms/cm (milli -mhos per centimeter), meq/100g H (High), VH (Very High). ENR - Estimated Nitrogen Release. (milli -equivalent per 100 grams). Conversions: ppm x 2 = Ibs/A, Soluble C.E.C. - Cation Exchange Capacity. Salts ms/cm x 640 = ppm. This report applies to sample(s) tested. Samples are retained a maximum of thirty days after testing. Analysis prepared by: Waypoint Analytical Virginia, Inc. by: I",-, At G/a.nr Pauric Mc Groary Ph.D., CPAg Page 2 of 8 Report Number: 22-249-9512 Account Number: 70627 Send To: TIMMONS GROUP Sarah Kern 1001 Boulders Pkwy Suite 300 Richmond VA 23225 Date Received: 09/06/2022 Date Of Report: 09/09/2022 Waypoint. ANALYTICAL "Every acre... Everyyear. Farm: Woodridge SOIL FERTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS 7621 Whitepine Road, Richmond, VA 23237 Main 804-743-9401 ° Fax 804-271-6446 www.waypointanalytical.com Grower: Woodridge Solar Nitrogen Phosphate Potash Magnesium Sulfur Zinc Manganese Iron Copper Boron Sample IDF Intended Crop Yield Goal Lime N P205 K20 Mg S Zn Mn Fe Cu B Field ID Optimum TonslA Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A SMU-1 CRP 1 1.5 30 100 100 14 SMU-2 CRP 1 1.0 30 130 100 21 SMU-3 CRP 1 1.5 30 130 60 12 SMU-4 CRP 1 1.0 30 150 140 24 SMU-5 CRP 1 1.5 30 150 120 24 Comments: "The recommendations are based on research data and experience, but NO GUARANTEE or WARRANTY expressed or implied, concerning crop performance is made." Our reports and letters are for the exclusive and Confidential use of our clients„ and may not be reproduced in whole or part, nor may any reference be made to the work,the results, or the company in any advertising, news release, or other public anouncements without obtaining our prior written authorization. Copy right 1977. 7awIz Mt Goorr Pauric Mc Groary Ph.D., CPAg Page 3 of 8 Report Number: 22-249-9512 Account Number: 70627 Send To: TIMMONS GROUP Sarah Kern 1001 Boulders Pkwy Suite 300 Richmond VA 23225 Date Received: 09/06/2022 Waypoint. ANALYTICAL Date Of Analysis: 09/07/2022 "Every acre... Everyyear. 7621 Whitepine Road, Richmond, VA 23237 Main 804-743-9401 ° Fax 804-271-6446 www.waypointanalytical.com Grower: Woodridge Solar Farm: Woodridge SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT AnalyticalMethod(s): SMPBuflerpH Mehlich3 LossOnlgnition WaterpH Date Of Report: 09/09/2022 OM W/V ENR Phosphorus Potassium Magnesium Calcium Sodium pH Acidity C.E.0 Sample ID Field ID Lab Number % Rate Soil Class Ibs/Appm M3 Rate ppm Rate ppm Rate K ppm Rate Mg ppm Rate Ca ppm Rate Na ppm Rate Soil PH Buffer Index H meq/100g meq/100g SMU-6 20212 7.1 VH 150 4 VL 62 L 41 L 279 L 4.6 6.70 2.3 4.2 SMU-7 20214 5.0 H 146 4 VL 59 L 31 L 141 VL 4.4 6.75 1.8 2.9 SMU-8 20215 3.3 M 113 3 VL 48 L 31 M 109 VL 4.6 6.82 1.1 2.0 SMU-9 20216 3.6 M 118 10 VL 89 M 43 M 247 L 5.0 6.80 1.3 3.1 SMU-10 20217 8.0 VH 150 4 VL 50 L 30 L 172 VL 4.4 6.73 2.0 3.2 Percent Base Saturation Nitrate Sulfur Zinc Manganese Iron Copper Boron Soluble Salts Sample Field ID ID K % Mg % Ca % Na °h H % NOs N ppm Rate S ppm Rate Zn ppm Rate Mn ppm Rate Fe ppm Rate Cu ppm Rate B ppm Rate SS ms/cm Rate SMU-6 3.8 8.1 33.2 54.8 SMU-7 5.2 8.9 24.3 62.1 SMU-8 6.2 12.9 27.3 55.0 SMU-9 7.4 11.6 39.8 41.9 SMU-10 4.0 7.8 26.9 62.5 Values on this report represent the plant available nutrients in the Explanation of symbols: % (percent), ppm (parts per million), Ibs/A soil. Rating after each value: VL (Very Low), L (Low), M (Medium), (pounds per acre), ms/cm (milli -mhos per centimeter), meq/100g H (High), VH (Very High). ENR - Estimated Nitrogen Release. (milli -equivalent per 100 grams). Conversions: ppm x 2 = Ibs/A, Soluble C.E.C. - Cation Exchange Capacity. Salts ms/cm x 640 = ppm. This report applies to sample(s) tested. Samples are retained a maximum of thirty days after testing. Analysis prepared by: Waypoint Analytical Virginia, Inc. by: I",-, At G/a.nr Pauric Mc Groary Ph.D., CPAg Page 4 of 8 Report Number: 22-249-9512 Account Number: 70627 Send To: TIMMONS GROUP Sarah Kern 1001 Boulders Pkwy Suite 300 Richmond VA 23225 Date Received: 09/06/2022 Date Of Report: 09/09/2022 Waypoint. ANALYTICAL "Every acre... Everyyear. Farm: Woodridge SOIL FERTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS 7621 Whitepine Road, Richmond, VA 23237 Main 804-743-9401 ° Fax 804-271-6446 www.waypointanalytical.com Grower: Woodridge Solar Nitrogen Phosphate Potash Magnesium Sulfur Zinc Manganese Iron Copper Boron Sample IDF Intended Crop Yield Goal Lime N P205 K20 Mg S Zn Mn Fe Cu B Field ID Optimum Tons/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A SMU-6 CRP 1 1.8 30 150 80 15 SMU-7 CRP 1 1.5 30 150 100 19 SMU-8 CRP 1 1.0 30 150 120 19 SMU-9 CRP 1 1.0 30 100 40 14 SMU-10 CRP 1 3.0 30 150 100 20 Comments: "The recommendations are based on research data and experience, but NO GUARANTEE or WARRANTY expressed or implied, concerning crop performance is made." Our reports and letters are for the exclusive and Confidential use of our clients„ and may not be reproduced in whole or part, nor may any reference be made to the work,the results, or the company in any advertising, news release, or other public anouncements without obtaining our prior written authorization. Copy right 1977. 7awIz Mt Goorr Pauric Mc Groary Ph.D., CPAg Page 5 of 8 Report Number: 22-249-9512 Account Number: 70627 Send To: TIMMONS GROUP Sarah Kern 1001 Boulders Pkwy Suite 300 Richmond VA 23225 Date Received: 09/06/2022 Waypoint. ANALYTICAL Date Of Analysis: 09/07/2022 "Every acre... Everyyear. 7621 Whitepine Road, Richmond, VA 23237 Main 804-743-9401 ° Fax 804-271-6446 www.waypointanalytical.com Grower: Woodridge Solar Farm: Woodridge SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT AnalyticalMethod(s): SMPBuflerpH Mehlich3 LossOnlgnition WaterpH Date Of Report: 09/09/2022 OM W/V ENR Phosphorus Potassium Magnesium Calcium Sodium pH Acidity C.E.0 Sample ID Field ID Lab Number % Rate Soil Class Ibs/Appm M3 Rate ppm Rate ppm Rate K ppm Rate Mg ppm Rate Ca ppm Rate Na ppm Rate Soil PH Buffer Index H meq/100g meq/100g SMU-11 20218 6.2 H 150 6 VL 58 L 53 M 211 VL 4.6 6.73 2.0 3.6 SMU-12 20219 10.5 VH 150 6 VL 50 L 46 M 292 L 4.9 6.78 1.5 3.5 SMU-13 20220 6.2 H 150 4 VL 57 L 40 L 214 VL 4.5 6.72 2.1 3.6 SMU-14 20221 5.8 H 150 3 VL 52 VL 36 VL 198 VL 4.1 6.53 4.0 5.4 SMU-15 20222 9.0 VH 150 5 VL 43 VL 36 VL 226 VL 4.2 6.57 3.6 5.1 Percent Base Saturation Nitrate Sulfur Zinc Manganese Iron Copper Boron Soluble Salts Sample Field ID ID K % %% MgN293 Na H NOs N ppm Rate S ppm Rate Zn ppm Rate Mn ppm Rateppm Fe Rate Cu ppm Rate B ppm Rate SS ms/cm RateSMU-11 4.1 123 55.6 SMU-12 3.7 11.0 41.7 42.9 SMU-13 4.1 9.3 29.7 58.3 SMU-14 2.5 5.6 18.3 74.1 SMU-15 2.2 5.9 22.2 70.6 Values on this report represent the plant available nutrients in the Explanation of symbols: % (percent), ppm (parts per million), Ibs/A soil. Rating after each value: VL (Very Low), L (Low), M (Medium), (pounds per acre), ms/cm (milli -mhos per centimeter), meq/100g H (High), VH (Very High). ENR - Estimated Nitrogen Release. (milli -equivalent per 100 grams). Conversions: ppm x 2 = Ibs/A, Soluble C.E.C. - Cation Exchange Capacity. Salts ms/cm x 640 = ppm. This report applies to sample(s) tested. Samples are retained a maximum of thirty days after testing. Analysis prepared by: Waypoint Analytical Virginia, Inc. by: I",-, At G/a.nr Pauric Mc Groary Ph.D., CPAg Page 6 of 8 Report Number: 22-249-9512 Account Number: 70627 Send To: TIMMONS GROUP Sarah Kern 1001 Boulders Pkwy Suite 300 Richmond VA 23225 Date Received: 09/06/2022 Date Of Report: 09/09/2022 Waypoint. ANALYTICAL "Every acre... Everyyear. Farm: Woodridge SOIL FERTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS 7621 Whitepine Road, Richmond, VA 23237 Main 804-743-9401 ° Fax 804-271-6446 www.waypointanalytical.com Grower: Woodridge Solar Nitrogen Phosphate Potash Magnesium Sulfur Zinc Manganese Iron Copper Boron Sample IDF Intended Crop Yield Goal Lime N P205 K20 Mg S Zn Mn Fe Cu B Field ID Optimum Tons/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A SMU-11 CRP 1 1.8 30 130 100 12 SMU-12 CRP 1 3.0 30 130 100 14 SMU-13 CRP 1 1.8 30 150 100 15 SMU-14 CRP 1 2.6 30 150 100 22 SMU-15 CRP 1 3.0 30 130 120 22 Comments: "The recommendations are based on research data and experience, but NO GUARANTEE or WARRANTY expressed or implied, concerning crop performance is made." Our reports and letters are for the exclusive and Confidential use of our clients„ and may not be reproduced in whole or part, nor may any reference be made to the work,the results, or the company in any advertising, news release, or other public anouncements without obtaining our prior written authorization. Copy right 1977. 7awIz Mt Goorr Pauric Mc Groary Ph.D., CPAg Page 7 of 8 Report Number: 22-249-9512 Account Number: 70627 Send To: TIMMONS GROUP Sarah Kern 1001 Boulders Pkwy Suite 300 Richmond VA 23225 Date Received: 09/06/2022 Waypoint. ANALYTICAL Date Of Analysis: 09/07/2022 "Every acre... Everyyear. 7621 Whitepine Road, Richmond, VA 23237 Main 804-743-9401 a Fax 804-271-6446 www.waypointanalytical.com Grower: Woodridge Solar Farm: Woodridge SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT AnalyticalMethod(s): SMPBuOerpH Mehlich3 LossOnlgnition WaterpH Date Of Report: 09/09/2022 OM W/V ENR Phosphorus Potassium Magnesium Calcium Sodium pH Acidity C.E.0 Sample ID Field ID Lab Number % Rate Soil Class Ibs/Appm M3 Rate ppm Rate ppm Rate K ppm Rate Mg ppm Rate Ca ppm Rate Na ppm Rate Soil PH Buffer Index H meq/100g meq/100g SMU-16 20223 7.8 VH 150 2 VL 42 L 28 L 170 VL 4.4 6.73 2.0 3.2 SMU-17 20225 5.2 H 149 3 VL 105 H 44 M 235 L 4.8 6.77 1.6 3.4 SMU-18 20226 4.8 M 143 2 VL 99 H 33 M 149 L 4.8 6.82 1.1 2.4 Percent Base Saturation Nitrate Sulfur Zinc Manganese Iron Copper Boron Soluble Salts Sample Fed ID ID K % Mg % Ca % Na % H % NO, N ppm Rate S ppm Rate Zn ppm Rate Mn ppm Rate Fe ppm Rate Cu ppm Rate B ppm Rate SS ms/cm Rate SMU-16 3.4 7.3 26.6 62.5 SMU-17 7.9 10.8 34.6 47.1 SMU-18 10.6 11.5 31.0 45.8 Values on this report represent the plant available nutrients in the Explanation of symbols: % (percent), ppm (parts per million), Ibs/A This report applies to sample(s) tested. Samples are retained a soil. Rating after each value: VL (Very Low), L (Low), M (Medium), (pounds per acre), ms/cm (milli -mhos per centimeter), meq/100g maximum of thirty days after testing. by 9 H (High), VH (Very High). ENR - Esfimated Nitrogen Release. (milli -equivalent per 100 grams). Conversions: ppm x 2 = Ibs/A, Soluble Analysis prepared by: Waypoint Analytical Virginia, Inc. C.E.C. - Cation Exchange Capacity. Salts ms/cm x 640 = ppm. Pauric Mc Groary Ph.D., CPAg Page 8 of 8 Report Number: 22-249-9512 Account Number: 70627 Send To: TIMMONS GROUP Sarah Kern 1001 Boulders Pkwy Suite 300 Richmond VA 23225 Date Received: 09/06/2022 Date Of Report: 09/09/2022 Waypoint. ANALYTICAL "Every acre... Everyyear. Farm: Woodridge SOIL FERTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS 7621 Whitepine Road, Richmond, VA 23237 Main 804-743-9401 ° Fax 804-271-6446 www.waypointanalytical.com Grower: Woodridge Solar Nitrogen Phosphate Potash Magnesium Sulfur Zinc Manganese Iron Copper Boron Sample IDF Intended Crop Yield Goal Lime N P205 K20 Mg S Zn Mn Fe Cu B Field ID Optimum Tons/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A Ib/A SMU-16 CRP 1 1.8 30 150 120 21 SMU-17 CRP 1 1.5 30 150 0 14 SMU-18 CRP 1 1.0 30 150 20 18 Comments: "The recommendations are based on research data and experience, but NO GUARANTEE or WARRANTY expressed or implied, concerning crop performance is made." q Our reports and letters are for the exclusive and confidential use of our clients„ and may not be reproduced in whole or part, nor may any reference be made to the 7 awi �1t G/rw� work,the results, or the company in any advertising, news release, or other public anouncements without obtaining our prior written authorization. Copy right 1977. Pauric Mc Groary Ph.D., CPAg WOODRIDGE SOLAR ECONOMIC & FISCAL CONTRIBUTION, TO ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Prepared for HE (AGON ENERGY FEBRUARY 2022 MANGUM!' economics 4201 DOMINION BOULEVARD, SUITE 114 GLEN ALLEN,VIRGINIA 23060 804-346-8446 MANGUMECONOMICS.COM [oil1Yi'7t dil9 ki tell] 80 x2LeL Eel Pi 111541 N. About Mangum Economics, LLC Mangum Economics is a Glen Allen, Virginia based firm that was founded in 2003. Since then, we have become known as a leader in industry analysis, economic impact assessment, policy and program evaluation, and economic and workforce strategy development. The Mangum Team specializes in producing objective and actionable quantitative economic research that our clients use for strategic decision making in a variety of industries and environments. We know that our clients are unique, and that one size does not fit all. As a result, we have a well-earned reputation for tailoring our analyses to meet the specific needs of specific clients, with a specific audience. Most of our research falls into four general categories: • Information Technology: Working with some of the largest names in the industry, to date the Mangum Team has produced analyses of the economic and fiscal impact of the data center industry in Virginia, home to the largest concentration of data centers in the world, and in five other states. • Energy: The Mangum Team has produced analyses of the economic and fiscal impact of over 13 GW of proposed solar, wind, battery storage, and hydro projects spanning Virginia and eleven other states. Among those projects was Dominion Energy's 2.6 GW Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project off of Virginia Beach. In addition, the Mangum Team has also performed economic and fiscal impact analyses for the natural gas, nuclear, oil, and pipeline industries. • Economic Development and Special Projects: The Mangum Team has performed hundreds of analyses of proposed economic development projects. Most recently, we were called upon by Henrico County to provide an analysis of the proposed $2.3 billion Green City "net -zero eco district." The Mangum Team has also authored multiple economic development plans, including identifying industries that were likely recruitment targets because of the high-speed MAREA and BRUSA sub -sea cable landings in Virginia Beach. • Education and Workforce: The Mangum Team has worked with multiple post -secondary and secondary education institutions to quantify their economic contribution to their host communities as well as their impact on regional and statewide workforce needs. The Project Team Rebecca Kyle Research Analyst Martina Are], M.B.A. Director— Economic Development & Renewable Energy Research A. Fletcher Mangum, Ph.D. Founder and CEO MANGUM% Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary.......................................................................................................................................1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................4 TheProject....................................................................................................................................................4 Electricity Production in Virginia...................................................................................................................4 OverallMarket......................................................................................................................................4 Sourcesof Production...........................................................................................................................5 Impact on the Environment..................................................................................................................6 LocalEconomic Profile..................................................................................................................................8 TotalEmployment.................................................................................................................................8 Employment and Wages by Major Industry Sector..............................................................................9 Unemployment...................................................................................................................................11 Economic and Fiscal Impact........................................................................................................................13 Method...................................................................................................................................................13 ConstructionPhase.................................................................................................................................14 Assumptions........................................................................................................................................14 Results.................................................................................................................................................14 OngoingOperations Phase.....................................................................................................................15 Assumptions........................................................................................................................................15 Results— Economic Impact.................................................................................................................16 Results— Fiscal Impact........................................................................................................................16 Reassessment of Property..............................................................................................................16 Scenario 1: Taxation of Capital Investment....................................................................................17 Scenario 1: Total Fiscal Impact........................................................................................................20 Scenario 2: Revenue Share Ordinance............................................................................................20 Scenario 2: Total Fiscal Impact........................................................................................................22 CurrentAgricultural Use.........................................................................................................................22 Assumptions........................................................................................................................................ 22 Results— Economic Impact.................................................................................................................22 Results— Fiscal Impact........................................................................................................................23 MANGUM, Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar Executive Summary This report assesses the economic and fiscal contribution that the proposed Woodridge Solar project would make to Albemarle County, Virginia. The primary findings from that assessment are as follows: 1) Woodridge Solar is a proposed 138-megawatt (MW) alternating current (AC) solar photovoltaic power generating facility. The project would be located South of Secretarys Road and West of Jefferson Mill Road in Albemarle County, Virginia. The total acreage leased for the project would be approximately 900 acres of timberland. The actively used, fenced -in portion of the solar site would be approximately 860 acres. 2) The proposed Woodridge Solar project would make a significant economic contribution to Albemarle County: • The proposed Woodridge Solar project would provide an estimated one-time pulse of economic activity to Albemarle County during its construction phase supporting approximately: 0 249 direct, indirect, and induced jobs. o $14.4 million in associated labor income. o $38.8 million in economic output. • The proposed Woodridge Solar project would provide an estimated annual economic impact to Albemarle County during its ongoing operational phase supporting approximately: 0 5 direct, indirect, and induced jobs. o $267,200 in associated labor income. o $667,500 in economic output. 3) The proposed Woodridge Solar project would also make a significant fiscal contribution to Albemarle County. The proposed project would generate approximately: • $987,100 in state and local tax revenue from the one-time pulse of economic activity associated with the project's construction. • $13.9 million in cumulative county revenue over the facility's anticipated 35-year operational life assuming revenues are generated from the reassessment of the real property and the taxation of the associated capital investments, (Scenario 1); or • $12.4 million in cumulative county revenue over the facility's anticipated 35-year operational life assuming revenues are generated from the reassessment of the real property and payments associated with a locally adopted revenue share ordinance. The payments would be based on the project's generation capacity and would include a 10 percent escalator every five years pursuant to recently passed legislation (Scenario 2). MANGUMI Y - Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar economics N 4) The proposed Woodridge Solar project would have a significantly greater fiscal impact on Albemarle County than the property generates in its current agricultural use: • The proposed Woodridge Solar project would generate approximately $13.9 million (from taxation on capital equipment) or $12.4 million (from a revenue share agreement) in cumulative county revenue over the facility's anticipated 35-year operational life, as compared to approximately $137,000 in cumulative county revenue in the property's current agricultural use — a difference of approximately $13.7 million and $12.3 million. $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 :E Estimated Cumulative Albemarle County Revenue over 35 Years $13,851,000 Current Agricultural Use Proposed Solar Project Use Proposed Solar Project Use Scenario 1 Scenario 2 (Taxation of Capital (Revenue Share) Investments) 5) The proposed Woodridge Solar project would provide a boost to Albemarle County's construction sector: • At 2,183 jobs, construction is Albemarle's sixth largest major industry sector.' • However, the construction sector posted the sixth largest employment loss of any major industry sector in the county between the first quarter of 2020 and the first quarter of 2021 (a loss of 110 jobs). • The proposed Woodridge Solar project could directly support approximately 206 jobs and $12.1 million in labor income in Albemarle County's construction sector. 'Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, QCEW Quarter 1, 2021. MANGUMIM Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar I'll A% This page is intentionally left blank. The estimates provided in this report are based on the best information available and all reasonable care has been taken in assessing that information. However, because these estimates attempt to foresee circumstances that have not yet occurred, it is not possible to provide any assurance that they will be representative of actual events. These estimates are intended to provide a general indication of likely future outcomes and should not be construed to represent a precise measure of those outcomes. MANGUMI Y - Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar N% Introduction This report assesses the economic and fiscal contribution that the proposed Woodridge Solar project would make to Albemarle County, Virginia. This report was commissioned by Hexagon Energy and produced by Mangum Economics. The Project Woodridge Solar is a proposed 138-megawatt (MW) alternating current (AC) solar photovoltaic power generating facility. The project would be located South of Secretarys Road and West of Jefferson Mill Road in Albemarle County, Virginia. The total acreage leased for the project would be approximately 900 acres of timberland. The actively used, fenced -in portion of the solar site would be approximately 860 acres. Electricity Production in Virginia This section provides a backdrop for the proposed Woodridge Solar project by profiling Virginia's electricity production sector and the role that solar energy could play in that sector. Overall Market As shown in Figure 1, in 2020 electricity sales and direct use in Virginia totaled 120.0 million megawatt hours, ranking the state 10`h among the fifty states in terms of electricity consumption. However, only 86 percent of that demand was met by in -state utilities, independent producers, and other sources. As a result, Virginia had to import the remaining electricity it consumed from producers in other states. As with all imports, this means that the jobs, wages, and economic output created by that production went to localities in those states, not to localities in Virginia. Figure 1: Demand and Supply of Electricity in Virginia in 2020 (in millions of megawatt -hours)' 140 i 120 3 = 100 3 80 c 60 ° 40 i 20 120.0 Total Retail Sales and Direct Total Net Generation Net Imports Use ' Data Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. In this chart, "Net Imports' also takes into account losses during transmission. As a result, it does not directly equal the residual of "Total Net Generation' minus "Total Retail Sales and Direct Use." MANGUNI Y' Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar econom,cs A% Sources of Production Between 2010 and 2020, the total amount of electricity produced in Virginia increased from 73.0 to 103.1 million megawatt hours, while retail and direct consumption of electricity only increased from 115.8 to 120.0 million megawatt hours. Consequently, imports of electricity decreased by 27.6 million megawatt hours (or 54 percent) during this time.' Figure 2 provides a comparison of the energy sources that were used to produce electricity in Virginia in each of those years. As these data show, the most significant change between 2010 and 2020 was a decrease in the use of coal and an increase in the use of natural gas. Where coal was the state's second largest source of electricity in 2010, accounting for 25.5 million megawatt hours (or 35 percent) of production, by 2020 production had fallen by 21.7 million megawatt hours, making coal a distant third place source of electricity with only 4 percent of production. In contrast, the share of electricity produced using cleaner -burning low -emissions energy sources increased over the period. Where natural gas accounted for only 17.0 million megawatt hours (or 23 percent) of Virginia's electricity production in 2010, by 2020 that proportion had more than tripled to 62.6 million megawatt hours (or 61 percent of production), making natural gas the state's largest source of electricity. In addition, solar, which entered the Virginia electricity production market in 2016, increased its share to 1.4 million megawatt hours by 2020. Figure 2: Electricity Generation in Virginia by Energy Source in 2010 and 2020 (in millions of megawatt -hours)° Solar 0.0 1 1.4 Hydroelectric 1 1.5 2.0 Other E 2.4 3.1 17.0 Natural Gas 62.6 Coal 25.5 = 3.8 6.6 Nuclear .r 30.1 10 20 30 40 50 60 Million MW Hours 70 ■ 2010 ■ 2020 3 Imports also takes into account losses during transmission. As a result, totals do not equal sum of components. 4 Data Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. The "Other" category includes battery, wood, petroleum, other biomass, "other", and pumped storage. MANGUM/ V- Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar N% Figure 3 provides similar data for the U.S. as a whole. A quick comparison of Figures 2 and 3 shows that although the degree of reliance on specific energy sources for electricity production is different between the U.S. and Virginia, the trend toward lower -emissions energy sources is the same. Nationally, between 2010 and 2020 the amount of electricity produced using coal declined by 1,073.9 million megawatt hours from 45 to 19 percent of production, while in contrast the amount of electricity produced using natural gas increased by 636.3 million megawatt hours from 24 to 41 percent of production. Nationwide, as in Virginia, the reliance on renewable energy sources such as solar increased during this time but at a much faster pace than in Virginia. Between 2010 and 2020, the amount of electricity produced using solar increased by 88.0 million megawatt hours to 2 percent of total electricity production in the nation compared to 1 percent of total electricity production in Virginia. Figure 3: Electricity Generation in the United States by Energy Source in 2010 and 2020 (in millions of megawatt -hours)' Solar 1.2 89.2 Hydroelectric 260.2 - 285.3 - 221.7 Other 445.2 7 ■ 2010 Natural Gas 987 1,624.0 ■ 2020 Coal Nuclear Impact on the Environment - 773.4 807.0 789.9 Soo 1,000 Million MW Hours 1,847.3 11500 2,000 In discussing the impact of these trends on the environment, it is important to realize that electricity production is one of the U.S: s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Figure 4 depicts carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production in 2010 and 2020 for both Virginia and the U.S. As these data indicate, between 2010 and 2020, as the share of electricity produced in Virginia by coal fell from 35 to 4 percent, carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production fell from 39.7 to 31.8 million metric tons. Where at the national level, as the share of electricity produced by coal fell from 45 to 19 percent, carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production fell from 2,388.6 to 1,553.0 million metric tons. 5 Data Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Other" includes battery, geothermal, other, other biomass, other gas, petroleum, pumped storage, wind, and wood. MANGUNI Y - Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar Figure 4: Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Electricity Production (millions of metric tons)6 45 3,000 39.7 40 2,388.6 2,500 35 N 31.8 o 30 2,000 25 1,553.0 E 1,500 20 0 15 1,000 10 500 S 0 0 2010 2020 2010 2020 Virginia 6 Data Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. U.S. MANGUMIM Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar 7 N% Local Economic Profile This section provides context for the economic and fiscal impact assessments to follow by profiling the local economy of Albemarle County. Total Employment Figure 5 depicts the trend in total employment in Albemarle County from June 2016 to June 2021. As these data show, employment in the county increased overall, aside from seasonal fluctuations, until the decrease in economic activity associated with the COVID-19 pandemic led to a steep employment decline in Albemarle County in April 2020. Since then, employment has rebounded, but has not yet reached pre -pandemic levels. As of June 2021, total employment in the county stood at 56,421 jobs, which represents an overall increase in employment of 3.2 percent (or 1,726 jobs) over the five-year period. To put this number in perspective, over this same period, total statewide employment in Virginia increased by 0.6 percent' Figure 5: Total Employment in Albemarle County —June 2016 to June 20218 62,000 60,000 58,000 56,000 54,000 52,000 50,000 48,000 46,000 �17i 4N �,01' �06 �,�0 �,01' �Ob �,YO �0�' �Ob �,�0 �01' Oro �,ti0 �01' p00 tid' ,yrc• y1'' y1'' y1'' yV ye• yV 19. y9. ,yCi• ,y0• ,y0• ,y0• .y'i• vti• ,t0 .y0 .y0 .y0 .y0 .y0 .y0 .y0 .y0 4 16; ,t0 ,t0 To control for seasonality and provide a point of reference, Figure 6 compares the year -over -year change in total employment in Albemarle County to that of the state of Virginia over the same five-year period. Any point above the zero line in this graph indicates an increase in employment, while any point below the zero line indicates a decline in employment. As these data show, Albemarle County experienced positive year -over -year employment increases, outperforming the statewide average throughout most of the period. However, Albemarle County was more adversely impacted than the state as a whole in April 2020 by the `lockdowns" in response to the COVID-19 virus, but the county 7 Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 8 Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. MANGUM/ V- Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar 1V% tracked closely with the statewide norm during the recovery. As of June 2021, the year -over -year change in total employment in both, Albemarle County and Virginia as a whole, was 6.1 percent. Figure 6: Year -Over -Year Change in Total Employment —June 2016 to June 20219 Albemarle County —Virginia -15% 01oOto1 o� 001 �0011 �1001 '01 0r1 01 C301 Q05 1 oti OOorti oti Q. tiy O `s `����Oti���ifo`So,o�0 a�Cy 0 5O ti ti ti ti n• v ti �. ti 1- n• ti v n. Employment and Wages by Major Industry Sector To provide a better understanding of the underlying factors motivating the total employment trends depicted in Figures 5 and 6, Figures 7 through 9 provide data on private employment and wages in Albemarle County by major industry sector. Figure 7 provides an indication of the distribution of private sector employment across major industry sectors in Albemarle County in the first quarter of 2021. As these data indicate, the county's largest industry sector that quarter was Health Care and Social Assistance (6,763 jobs), followed by Retail Trade (5,967 jobs), and Professional and Technical Services (3,925 jobs). Figure 8 provides a similar ranking for average private sector weekly wages by major industry sector in Albemarle County in the first quarter of 2021. As these data show, the highest paying industry sectors that quarter were Finance and Insurance ($2,459 per week), Wholesale Trade ($2,002 per week), and Management of Companies and Enterprises ($1,779 per week). To provide a point of reference, the average private sector weekly wage across all industry sectors in Albemarle County that quarter was $1,062 per week. 9 Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. MANGUMIV` Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar a Figure 7: Private Employment by Major Industry Sector in Albemarle County -1" Cu. 202110 Health Care and Social Assistance Retail Trade Professional and Technical Services Accommodation and Food Services Manufacturing Construction Other Services Administrative and Waste Services Management of Companies and Enterprises Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Finance and Insurance Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Educational Services Transportation and Warehousing Wholesale Trade Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting Information Mining, Quarrying, Oil and Gas Extraction Utilities 2,311 2,183 1,782 1,781 1,278 1,074 1,038 1,028 ■ 863 ■ 814 1784 523 499 45 24 � 3,925 3,156 � 6,763 5,967 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Figure 8: Average Private Weekly Wages by Major Industry Sector in Albemarle County -1st Qu. 2021" Finance and Insurance Wholesale Trade Management of Companies and Enterprises Utilities Professional and Technical Services Information Manufacturing Mining, Quarrying, Oil and Gas Extraction Other Services, Except Public Administration Total, All Industries Construction Health Care and Social Assistance Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Educational Services Transportation and Warehousing Administrative and Waste Services Retail Trade Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Accommodation and Food Services 10 Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. i� Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. $2,459 $2,002 $1,779 $1,696 $1,651 $1,373 $1,340 $1,091 � $1,065 $1,062 � $1,040 � $1,034 � $998 $851 $811 $789 $689 $638 $596 $o $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 MANGUMIM Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar 10 N% Lastly, Figure 9 details the year -over -year change in private sector employment from the first quarter of 2020 to the first quarter of 2021 in Albemarle County by major industry sector. Over this period, the largest employment gains occurred in the Finance and Insurance (up 31 jobs) sector. Most of the other sectors experienced employment losses. The largest employment losses occurred in the Accommodation and Food Services (down 880 jobs), Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (down 579 jobs), and Health Care and Social Assistance (down 298 jobs) sectors. Figure 9: Change in Private Employment by Major Industry Sector in Albemarle County from 151 Qu. 2020 to 151 Qu. 202112 Finance and Insurance utilities Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction Transportation and warehousing Manufacturing Management of Companies and Enterprises Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting Retail trade Professional and Technical Services Educational Services Construction Administrative and Waste Services Other Services, Except Public Administration Information Health Care and Social Assistance Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Accommodation and Food Services -2,500 -2,000 -1,500 -1,000 -500 0 S00 Unemployment Figure 10 illustrates the trend in Albemarle County's unemployment rate over the five-year period from December 2016 through December 2021 and benchmarks those data against the statewide trend for Virginia. As these data show, unemployment rates in Albemarle County were consistently lower than the statewide trend by an average of 0.4 percentage points throughout the period until April 2020 when unemployment in the county and state significantly rose as a result of the labor dislocations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Albemarle County's unemployment rate did not peak as high as the statewide rate and has remained below the statewide average during the recovery from the pandemic. As of December 2021, unemployment stood at 2.1 percent in Albemarle County compared to 2.7 percent in Virginia as a whole. 12 Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. MANGUM/ V% Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar 11 Figure 10: Unemployment Rate— December 2016 to December 202113 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% �tiv boa doe �tiv boa how �tiv �� �o� �,,v boa �o� �tiv boa doe �tiv 016 011 01^ Oti^ 01� 01$ Otis 019 Oti9 01� Ong O�� Ong O�� 011 On1 'L '1• '1• 'L '1• 'L 'L '1• 'L '1• 'L 'L '1• 'L '1• 'L 13 Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. —Albemarle County —Virginia MANGUMIM Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar 12 N% Economic and Fiscal Impact This section quantifies the economic and fiscal contribution that the proposed Woodridge Solar project would make to Albemarle County. The analysis separately evaluates the one-time pulse of economic activity that would occur during the construction phase of the project, as well as the annual economic activity that the project would generate during its ongoing operations phase. Method To empirically evaluate the likely local economic impact attributable to the proposed Woodridge Solar project, the analysis employs a regional economic impact model called IMPLAN 14 The IMPLAN model is one of the most commonly used economic impact simulation models in the U.S., and in Virginia is used by UVA's Weldon Cooper Center, the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget, the Virginia Employment Commission, and other state agencies and research institutes. Like all economic impact models, the IMPLAN model uses economic multipliers to quantify economic impact. Economic multipliers measure the ripple effects that an expenditure generates as it makes its way through the economy. For example, as when the Woodridge Solar project purchases goods and services — or when contractors hired by the facility use their salaries and wages to make household purchases — thereby generating income for someone else, which is in turn spent, thereby becoming income for yet someone else, and so on, and so on. Through this process, one dollar in expenditures generates multiple dollars of income. The mathematical relationship between the initial expenditure and the total income generated is the economic multiplier. One of the primary advantages of the IMPLAN model is that it uses regional and national production and trade flow data to construct region -specific and industry -specific economic multipliers, which are then further adjusted to reflect anticipated actual spending patterns within the specific geographic study area that is being evaluated. As a result, the economic impact estimates produced by IMPLAN are not generic. They reflect as precisely as possible the economic realities of the specific industry, and the specific study area, being evaluated. In the analysis that follows, these impact estimates are divided into three categories. First round direct impact measures the direct economic contribution of the entity being evaluated (e.g., own employment, wages paid, goods and services purchased by the Woodridge Solar project). Second round indirect and induced impact measures the economic ripple effects of this direct impact in terms of business to business, and household (employee) to business, transactions. Total impact is simply the sum of the preceding two. These categories of impact are then further defined in terms of employment (the jobs that are created), labor income (the wages and benefits associated with those jobs), and economic output (the total amount of economic activity that is created in the economy). 14 IMPLAN is produced by IMPLAN Group, LLC. MANGUM/ Y - Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar 13 N. Construction Phase This portion of the section assesses the economic and fiscal impact that the one-time pulse of activity associated with construction of the proposed Woodridge Solar project would have on Albemarle County. Assumptions The analysis is based on the following assumptions: • For ease of analysis, all construction expenditures are assumed to take place in a single year. • Total investment in the Woodridge Solar project is estimated to be approximately $177.0 million is • Of that total: o Architecture, engineering, site preparation, and other construction and development costs are estimated to be approximately $70.8 million.16 It is estimated that approximately 45 percent of that total could be spent with vendors in Albemarle County.' o Capital equipment costs are estimated to be approximately $106.2 million.18 It is anticipated that no capital equipment would be purchased from vendors in Albemarle County.19 Results Applying these assumptions in the IMPLAN model results in the following estimates of one-time economic and fiscal impact. As shown in Table 1, construction of the proposed Woodridge Solar project would directly provide a one-time pulse supporting approximately: 1) 206jobs, 2) $12.1 million in labor income, and 3) $31.9 million in economic output to Albemarle County " Taking into account the economic ripple effects that direct investment would generate, the total estimated one-time impact on Albemarle County would support approximately: 1) 249 jobs, 2) $14.4 million in labor income, 3) $38.8 million in economic output, and 4) $987,100 in state and local tax revenue. is Data Source: Hexagon Energy. Investment estimate is subject to change based on final design and vendor contracts. 16 Data Source: Hexagon Energy. 17 Please note that due to data limitations, this estimate is based on industrywide averages. The ultimate percentage spent in Albemarle County may therefore vary. 18 Data Source: Hexagon Energy. 19 Data Source: IMPLAN Group LLC. 20 It is important to note that construction sector jobs are not necessarily new jobs, but the investments made can also support an existing job during the construction of the project. MANGUM/ Y - Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar 14 Table 1: Estimated One -Time Economic and Fiscal Impact on Albemarle County from Construction of the Woodridge Solar Project" OutputEconomic Impact Employment Labor Income In Round Direct Economic Activity 206 $12,134,800 $31,857,300 2"a Round Indirect and Induced Economic Activity 43 $2,255,100 $6,975,700 Total Economic Activity 249 $14,389,900 $38,833,000 State and Local Tax Revenue $987,100 *Totals may not sum due to rounding Ongoing Operations Phase This portion of the section assesses the annual economic and fiscal impact that the proposed Woodridge Solar project would have on Albemarle County during its anticipated 35-year operational phase. Assumptions The analysis is based on the following assumptions: • The Woodridge Solar project would spend approximately $828,000 each year for maintenance and repair, vegetative control, and other operational expenditures." • The Woodridge Solar project would involve an investment of approximately $177.0 million in capital equipment and improvements to the existing property " • The Woodridge Solar project would be situated on approximately 860 acres of fenced -in acres within a 900-acre tract of leased land 24 • Only the actively used, fenced -in acreage of the leased parcels would be removed from the land use program and reappraised at $10,000 per acre 26 • The Woodridge Solar project's total generation capacity would be 138 MW AC.26 • The Woodridge Solar project would become operational in 2024.27 21 It is important to note that construction sector jobs are not necessarily new jobs, but the investments made can also support an existing job during the construction of the project. 22 Data Source: Hexagon Energy. Expenditure estimate is subject to change based on final design and vendor contracts. 23 Data Source: Hexagon Energy. 24 Data Source: Hexagon Energy. 25 Data Source: Estimated future assessment value based on an informal discussion with the Albemarle County Assessor's Office. Actual future assessment value may vary. 36 Data Source: Hexagon Energy. 27 Data Source: Hexagon Energy. MANGUNI Y' Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar 15 econom,cs N% Results— Economic Impact Applying these assumptions in the IMPLAN model results in the following estimates of annual economic impact. As shown in Table 2, annual operation of the proposed Woodridge Solar project would directly support approximately: 1) 4 jobs, 2) $221,400 in labor income, and 3) $521,000 in economic output to Albemarle County. Taking into account the economic ripple effects that direct impact would generate, the total estimated annually supported impact on Albemarle County would be approximately: 1) 5 jobs, 2) $267,300 in labor income, and 3) $667,600 in economic output. Table 2: Estimated Annual Economic Impact on Albemarle County from the Ongoing Operation of the Woodridge Solar Project EmploymentEconomic Impact Output 11 Round Direct Economic Activity 4 $221,400 $521,000 2"" Round Indirect and Induced Economic Activity 1 $45,900 $146,600 Total Economic Activity 5 $267,300 $667,600 *Totals may not sum due to rounding. Results— Fiscal Impact This portion of the section quantifies the direct fiscal contribution that the proposed Woodridge Solar project would make to Albemarle County. The analysis considers two scenarios. Both scenarios include the additional revenue that the Woodridge Solar project would generate for Albemarle County over a 35-year period from the increased property assessments associated with reassessing the site as solar use property. Scenario 1 then describes the additional revenue Woodridge Solar would generate for Albemarle County from taxes levied on the capital investment, while Scenario 2 assumes tax revenue generated from the capital investment will be replaced with revenue associated with a locally adopted revenue share ordinance and based on the project's total generation capacity. Reassessment of Property Table 3 details the increased property assessments associated with removing the affected acreage from the land use program and reassessing the 860-acre fenced -in site as solar use property. The county real estate tax revenue from the project after reassessment is estimated to be approximately $73,444 per year, for a cumulative total of approximately $2.6 million over the project's anticipated 35-year operational life expectancy.21 Adding one-time rollback taxes of approximately $147,431 increases that cumulative total to approximately $2.7 million. In contrast, the property currently generates 28 Assumes property will be reassessed at $10,000 per acre once it is under solar use. MANGUM/ Y - Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar 16 N. approximately $3,923 per year in real estate tax revenue for the county, for a cumulative total of approximately $137,289 over 35 years 29 Table 3: Estimated County Revenue Generated by the Proposed Woodridge Solar Project over 35 Years from Real Estate Taxes Estimated Increased Appraised Value of Property under Solar Use30 $8,600,000 Albemarle County Real Estate Tax Rate 0.00854 Annual County Real Estate Tax — Solar Use $73,444 Cumulative Revenue over 35 Years $2,570,540 One-time Rollback Taxes" $147,431 Cumulative Revenue over 35 Years $2,717,971 *Totals may not sum due to rounding Scenario 1: Taxation of Capital Investment Table 4 separately details the additional annual revenue that the proposed Woodridge Solar project would generate for Albemarle County over a 35-year period from taxes levied on capital investment. This calculation is based on: 1) the taxable portion of capital investments pursuant to the stepdown local tax exemption pursuant to Virginia Code §58.1-366032, times 2) the State Corporation Commission's utility assessment ratio of 0.97 for taxation of public utilities in Albemarle County33, times 4) the State Corporation Commission's depreciation guidelines for solar facilities, times 5) Albemarle County's real property tax rate of $0.854 per $100 of assessed value pursuant to Virginia Code §58.1-2606. As the data in Table 4 indicate, based on these calculations the estimated additional county revenue from taxation of capital investments associated with the proposed Woodridge Solar project would be approximately $264,988 in the project's first year of operation, with that figure projected to increase to approximately $509,719 in the project's 111h year of operation, and then to decline to approximately $58,886 in the project's 34" year of operation and thereafter, as the value of the proposed capital investments is depreciated, for a cumulative total of approximately $11.1 million. 29 Derived from Albemarle County's GIS Website. Includes value of affected structure. 30 Calculated as 860 acres times $10,000. 31 Rollback taxes are computed as the difference between the land use value assessment tax and the tax on the fair market value for the affected acreage for five complete tax years plus the current year, including 10 percent simple interest. Does not account for changes in assessment values. 32 The Virginia Code §58.1-3660 stipulates that solar facilities over 5MW and under 150 MW are subject to a stepdown exemption from local property taxes if the interconnection request was filed on or after January 1, 2019. The amount of the exemption is 80 percent in the first five years, 70 percent in years six through ten, and 60 percent thereafter. 33 Average of county's locality ratios of the previous five years. Values shown rounded to two digits. MANGUM/ Y - Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar 17 .tv% Table 4: Estimated County Revenue Generated by the Proposed Solar Investment over 35 Years Capital Capital DepreciatedTotal Year Investment subject to Exemption" Investment Less Depreciation Exemption'6 17 of Taxable Capital Investment County Tax Revenue Solar 1 Exemption" $176,985,000 80% $34,476,678 90.0% $31,029,010 Investment38 $264,988 2 $176,985,000 80% $34,476,678 90.0% $31,029,010 $264,988 3 $176,985,000 80% $34,476,678 90.0% $31,029,010 $264,988 4 $176,985,000 80% $34,476,678 90.0% $31,029,010 $264,988 5 $176,985,000 80% $34,476,678 90.0% $31,029,010 $264,988 6 $176,985,000 70% $51,715,017 90.0% $46,543,515 $397,482 7 $176,985,000 70% $51,715,017 90.0% $46,543,515 $397,482 8 $176,985,000 70% $51,715,017 90.0% $46,543,515 $397,482 9 $176,985,000 70% $51,715,017 89.7% $46,383,199 $396,113 10 $176,985,000 70% $51,715,017 88.2% $45,597,130 $389,399 11 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 86.6% $59,686,025 $509,719 12 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 84.9% $58,513,818 $499,708 13 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 83.1% $57,272,657 $489,108 14 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 81.1% $55,948,753 $477,802 15 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 79.1% $54,549,000 $465,848 16 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 77.0% $53,066,503 $453,188 17 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 74.7% $51,494,366 $439,762 18 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 72.3% $49,832,590 $425,570 19 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 69.7% $48,060,489 $410,437 Data Source: Hexagon Energy. 35 Pursuant to Virginia Code §58.1-3660, solar facilities over 5MW and under 150 MW are subject to a stepdown exemption from local property taxes if the interconnection request was filed on or after January 1, 2019. The amount of the exemption is 80 percent in the first five years, 70 percent in years six through ten, and 60 percent thereafter. 36 Accounts for the State Corporation Commission's five-year average utility assessment ratio of 0.97 for taxation of public utilities in Albemarle County (value shown rounded to second digit). 37 Data Source: State Corporation Commission guidelines. 39 Calculated pursuant to Virginia Code §58.1-2606 which stipulates that capital equipment owned by utilities is taxed as real property and the local tax rate on that capital equipment would be capped at Albemarle County's real property tax rate of $0.854 per $100 of assessed value. MANGUMA% Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar 18 .tw% Table 4: Estimated County Revenue Generated by the Proposed Solar Investment over 35 Years Year 20 Capital Investment subject to 14 Exemption $176,985,000 Exemption" 60% Capital Investment Less Exemption'6 $68,953,356 Depreciation 67.0% 17 DepreciatedTotal of Taxable Capital Investment $46,191,853 County Tax Revenue Solar Investment38 $394,478 21 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 64.1% $44,205,997 $377,519 22 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 61.1% $42,102,919 $359,559 23 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 57.8% $39,875,726 $340,539 24 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 54.4% $37,510,626 $320,341 25 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 50.8% $35,007,619 $298,965 26 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 46.9% $32,346,019 $276,235 27 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 42.8% $29,532,722 $252,209 28 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 38.5% $26,547,042 $226,712 29 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 33.9% $23,388,978 $199,742 30 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 29.1% $20,030,950 $171,064 31 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 23.9% $16,479,852 $140,738 32 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 18.4% $12,714,999 $108,586 33 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 12.7% $8,722,600 $74,491 34 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 10.0% $6,895,336 $58,886 35 $176,985,000 60% $68,953,356 10.0% $6,895,336 $58,886 CUMULATIVE TOTAL $11,132,989 MANGUM% Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar 19 h` 5cenano1: Tota/Fisca/Impact Table 5 combines the results from the calculations depicted in Tables 3 and 4 to provide an estimate of the cumulative fiscal contribution that the proposed Woodridge Solar project would make to Albemarle County over its 35-year anticipated operational life under Scenario 1. As these data indicate, that cumulative total is approximately $13.9 million. Table 5: Estimated Cumulative County Revenue from the Proposed Woodridge Solar Project over 35 Years under Scenario 1 County Real Estate Tax $2,717,971 County Revenue from Taxation of Capital Investments $11,132,989 TOTAL Cumulative Revenue over 35 Years • $13,850,960 Scenario 2: Revenue Share Ordinance The following section describes the additional annual revenue that the proposed Woodridge Solar project would generate for Albemarle County assuming the county adopts an energy revenue share ordinance under Virginia Code §58.1-2636 in lieu of taxes on capital investment. This statute currently stipulates that a locality may assess an annual revenue share of up to $1,400 per megawatt (MW) alternating current (AC) generation capacity of a solar facility. However, legislation that was passed in the 2021 General Assembly (SB 1201/HB 2006) and went into effect July 1, 2021, allows a 10 percent escalator to be applied to the $1,400 per MW revenue share every five years, beginning in 2026. Table 6 details the revenue generated from a revenue share ordinance between Woodridge Solar and Albemarle County including the 10 percent escalator. Based on a total generation capacity of 138 MW AC and an assumed commissioning date in 2024, a revenue share agreement would generate approximately $9.7 million over the anticipated 35-year operational life of the project. MANGUMI Y - Economic and fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar 20 economics Table 6: Estimated County Revenue Generated from a Revenue Share Ordinance over 35 Years 1 138 .. Escalator $1,400 $193,200 2 138 $1,400 $193,200 3 138 $1,540 $212,520 4 138 $1,540 $212,520 5 138 $1,540 $212,520 6 138 $1,540 $212,520 7 138 $1,540 $212,520 8 138 $1,694 $233,772 9 138 $1,694 $233,772 10 138 $1,694 $233,772 11 138 $1,694 $233,772 12 138 $1,694 $233,772 13 138 $1,863 $257,149 14 138 $1,863 $257,149 15 138 $1,863 $257,149 16 138 $1,863 $257,149 17 138 $1,863 $257,149 18 138 $2,050 $282,864 19 138 $2,050 $282,864 20 138 $2,050 $282,864 21 138 $2,050 $282,864 22 138 $2,050 $282,864 23 138 $2,255 $311,151 24 138 $2,255 $311,151 25 138 $2,255 $311,151 26 138 $2,255 $311,151 27 138 $2,255 $311,151 28 138 $2,480 $342,266 29 138 $2,480 $342,266 30 138 $2,480 $342,266 31 138 $2,480 $342,266 32 138 $2,480 $342,266 33 138 $2,728 $376,492 34 138 $2,728 $376,492 35 138 $2,728 $376,492 Cumulative Total $9,714,484 *Totals may not sum due to rounding MANGUMM Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar 21 N. Scenarlo 2: Total Flscallmpact Table 7 combines the results from the calculations depicted in Tables 3 and 6 to provide an estimate of the cumulative fiscal contribution that the proposed Woodridge Solar project would make to Albemarle County over its 35-year anticipated operational life under Scenario 2. As these data indicate, that cumulative total is approximately $12.4 million. Table 7: Estimated Cumulative County Revenue from the Proposed Woodridge Solar Project over 35 Years under Scenario 2 County Real Estate Tax $2,717,971 County Revenue from Revenue Share Ordinance $9,714,484 TOTAL Cumulative Revenue over 35 Years $12,432,455 Current Agricultural Use This section provides a benchmark for the previous estimates of the economic contribution that the proposed Woodridge Solar project would make to Albemarle County by estimating the economic and fiscal contribution that the site makes to the county in its current agricultural use. Assumptions The analysis is based on the following assumptions: • The proposed Woodridge Solar project would be situated on an approximately 860-acre tract of land of actively managed timberland.39 • The average annual revenue per acre for the current use of the site is approximately $29 40 • The current assessment value of the affected acreage is approximately $459,300.01 Results — Economic Impact Applying these assumptions in the IMPLAN model results in the following estimates of annual economic impact. As shown in Table 8, in a timber production use, the proposed Woodridge Solar project site directly supports approximately: 1) < 1 job, 2) $20,300 in labor income, and 3) $24,800 in economic output to Albemarle County. Taking into account the economic ripple effects that direct impact generates, on average, the total annually supported impact on Albemarle County is approximately: 1) < 1 job, 2) $24,800 in labor income, and 3) $34,700 in economic output. 39 Data Source: Hexagon Energy. 40 Data Source: Estimated based on data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture 2017 Census and IMPLAN Group, LLC for Virginia and Albemarle County. 41 Data Source: Derived from Albemarle County's GIS Website database. Includes value of affected structure. MANGUMAv Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar 22 A% Table 8: Total Estimated Annual Economic Impact of the Woodridge Solar Project Site on Albemarle County —Current Agricultural Use In Round Direct Economic Activity < 1 $20,300 $24,800 2"" Round Indirect and Induced Economic Activity 0 $4,500 $9,900 Total Economic Activity < 1 $24,800 $34,700 *Totals may not sum due to rounding. Results -Fiscal Impact Table 9 details the estimated tax revenue that the proposed Woodridge Solar site generates for Albemarle County in its current agricultural use. As the data in Table 9 indicate, the current county real estate tax revenue from the project site is estimated to be approximately $3,923 per year, for a cumulative total of approximately $137,289 over 35 years. Table 9: Estimated County Revenue Generated by the Proposed Woodridge Solar Project Site over 35 Years from Real Estate Taxes — Current Agricultural Use Estimated Assessed Value of Property —Agricultural Use" $459,314 Albemarle County Current Real Estate Tax Rate 0.00854 Estimated Annual County Real EstateTax—Agricultural Use $3,923 Total Cumulative Revenue over 35 Years $137,289 *Totals may not sum due to rounding The estimates provided in this report are based on the best information available and all reasonable care has been taken in assessing that information. However, because these estimates attempt to foresee circumstances that have not yet occurred, it is not possible to provide any assurance that they will be representative of actual events. These estimates are intended to provide a general indication of likely future outcomes and should not be construed to represent a precise measure of those outcomes. 42 Data Source: Derived from Albemarle County's GIS Website database. Includes value of affected structure. MANGUMIV` Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Woodridge Solar 23