Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
SP202200014 Narrative 2022-05-16
May 16, 2022 HE)(AGON ENERGY Woodridge Solar, LLC Special Use Permit Application Narrative for Solar Energy Facility and Energy and Communications Transmission Facilities (Substation) Tax Map Parcels 114-51; 114-55, 114-56, 114-58, 114-65, 114-68, 114-69, 114-70, 115-10 SP 2022- SP 2022- INTRODUCTION Hexagon Energy, LLC is a clean energy development firm based in Charlottesville and the sole owner of Woodridge Solar, LLC (the "Applicant'). Hexagon Energy has delivered over 6,500 megawatts of clean energy to communities across the United States. Hexagon Energy is committed to helping our community achieve a future of clean energy, and the company is pleased to propose a solar energy project in Albemarle County. PROJECT PROPOSAL Woodridge Solar is a proposed solar energy facility (the "Project') to be located near Woodridge, in the Scottsville Magisterial District, within a project area of approximately 1,500 timbered acres (the "Special Use Permit Area") located on nine parcels of land with a total acreage of approximately 2,259 acres (collectively, the "Property'). The panels will encompass 650 acres, and the remaining acreage of the project area will be restored and planted with pollinators and meadow mix. The Property is zoned Rural Areas. The Project is a "solar energy system" that may be allowed by special use permit in the Rural Areas district Zoning Ordinance § 10.2.2(58). A "solar energy system" is defined as "an energy conversion system consisting of photovoltaic panels, support structures, and associated control, conversion, and transmission hardware occupying one-half acre or more of total land area." Zoning Ordinance § 3.1. As part of the Project, a substation or "energy and communications transmission facilities" is also proposed and may be allowed by special use permit in the Rural Areas district Zoning Ordinance § 1 10.2.2(6). An "energy and communications transmission facility" is defined as "electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro -wave and radio -wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances; but excluding personal wireless service facilities." Zoning Ordinance 4 3.1. The Project will be located on property owned by J D Land Holdings, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company (the "Owner'). The Special Use Permit Area will consist of approximately 1,200 acres as which is a portion of 2,259 acres of the following parcels: Tax Map Parcel Acreage Special Use Permit Area Acreage 11400-00-00-05100 113 97.5 11400-00-00-05500 89 78.1 11400-00-00-05600 14.8 12 11400-00-00-05800 143.65 81.9 11400-00-00-06500 35A8 34.2 11400-00-00-06800 42 16A 11400-00-00-06900 42 37.9 11400-00-00-07000 1728 1097.2 11500-00-00-01000 48.5 44.5 The Property has been historically used for timbering of planted pine over the last 80 years and a significant portion of the site is already cleared. The Project will allow the Property to be restored and rest for the next 30 years. See Attachment A. The Project has a nameplate capacity of 138 megawatts AC from equipment installed on approximately 630 acres of the Property. The Project will deliver over 315 million kWh of clean, emissions free power to our electrical grid, enough to power over 25,000 homes each year. The power generated by the Project will be sold via a long-term (20 year) power purchase agreement to a public utility or entity with suitably high -power usage. Such entities include large corporations, non -profits, Universities, municipalities, or the Commonwealth of Virginia. CHARACTER AND USE OF SURROUNDING PARCELS The surrounding land is used for agricultural, forestry, conservation, and residential purposes. The operation of a solar facility in the Rural Area would not affect the viability of agriculture, forestry, or conservation in the surrounding rural landscape. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2 Rural Areas Plan The Property is designated for Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan. The Rural Areas Plan supports agricultural and silvicultural uses, and the protection of natural and cultural resources. The Project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it would preserve lands for future agricultural and silvicultural uses. Unlike other utility uses such as traditional power plants, the Project would not permanently remove land from agricultural or silvicultural uses. After the Project has reached the end of its useful life, which is expected to be approximately 35-40 years, the solar energy equipment can be removed from the Property and the land can be returned to agricultural or silvicultural uses. The Project plans to preserve large areas of vegetated buffers along the Property's boundaries and public roads to screen the solar energy equipment from adjacent parcels and roads. In addition to helping screen the facility, a vegetated buffer would help establish a perimeter that supports the character of the surrounding rural landscape. Natural Resources The Natural Resources chapter of the Comprehensive Plan refers to the Local Climate Action Planning Process Report, which the County approved on September 7, 2011. That report recommended that the community "promote wider awareness and adoption of cleaner sources of electrical energy (e.g., solar photovoltaic, co -generation, biomass, wind)." In addition, the Natural Resources chapter (Page 4.45) of the Comprehensive Plan states: In 2010, members of the community and representatives of the County, the City, and UVA began a local planning process to find ways to lower the community's energy consumption and, thus, greenhouse gas emissions. The Committee, known as the Local Climate Action Planning Process (LCAPP) Steering Committee, recommended that the City, County, and UVA: • Continue to demonstrate leadership in energy and carbon reductions at the local level; • Build on existing synergies by continued collaboration of City, County, UVA, and community partners; • Integrate the role of energy and carbon emissions in projects and planning; • Equip the community at all levels to make informed decisions about the impacts of carbon emissions and energy, and • Identify and promote actions that enable the community to reap the health, economic and environmental benefits that accompany sound energy -based decisions. The proposed project will meet these objectives. Historic Resources The Property is located within the geographic boundaries of the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District, a national historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places (the "SARHD"). None of the nine parcels making up the Property are identified as contributing to the SARHD. Therefore, the Property is not listed on the National Register. 3 The County GIS indicates that parcels 114-51 and a sliver of the adjacent parcel 114-55 is within the the Monticello Viewshed which is less than 5% of the total project site. However, no panels are proposed within parcel 114-51 and only a very small portion of 114-55 is within the viewshed. Given that the installed solar facility equipment has a low profile (< 10' high), the vast majority, if not all, of the Project is not expected to cause visual impacts to the Monticello Viewshed. The Applicant met with Liz Russel, the Director of Planning, Sustainability, & Project Management at Monticello and she did not express any concerns with the proposal, and is in support of solar.. PUBLIC NEED AND BENEFIT Direct Revenue to the County Albemarle County can benefit directly from the Project in the form of increased tax revenue, both from real property tax and from personal property taxation. After construction of the solar project, it is anticipated that the real property taxation will increase due to the increased value placed on the Project. In addition to taxes on real property, personal property tax can provide additional revenue for the County. Solar projects in Virginia can be assessed for Personal Property Taxation in one of two ways, dependent on the County's choosing: 1. Machine and Tool (M&T) Tax Stepdown- this begins as an 80% abatement for Personal Property Taxes in years 1-5. IT steps down to 70% in years 6-10, and 60% after year 10. 2. Energy Revenue Share- this is a straightforward taxation methodology which requires $1,400/MWac/year in Personal Property Taxation. Utilizing this taxation methodology would represent $193,200 in Personal Property Tax revenue for the County in year 1 of operations, and $6.7 million over the life of the Project. Another consideration is the amount of public services that accompany this additional tax revenue base; while the Project will increase tax base provided to the County from the Project, it will not have any significant draw on public resources such as schools, emergency services, or roads. Economic Development In addition to direct revenue from taxes, there are other economic benefits to consider. The largest of these isjobs directly attributable through the construction of the Project. Hexagon Energy and other local environmental, engineering, and consultants that are employed through the Project contribute to the local economy in Albemarle County. In addition, upon reaching construction, the Project would contribute to support local jobs by sourcing local contractors and subcontractors wherever possible. From fence installers, to panel electricians, civil engineers, and construction laborers, significant local job creation during the engineering and construction of the Project is guaranteed. Climate Action Plan 4 In October 2020, the County adopted the Climate Action Plan that recommends a number of strategies and actions for renewable energy and other initiatives. The Project will specifically contribute to the following strategies and actions: Strategy: Enable and incentivize utility scale renewable energy projects in the County Code and during the community development regulatory process. Actions: • Establish a County policy clarifying this strategy to enable and incentivize utility -scale renewable energy projects, incorporating holistic analysis of local impacts on equity and environment. • Review the building, zoning, subdivision, land use, and tax sections of the County Code for opportunities to better facilitate and incentivize renewable energy projects. Encourage and prioritize the use of roof tops, parking lots, brownfields, landfills, and post-industrial or other open lands over forested or ecologically valuable lands. Strategy. Partner with utilities and renewable energy companies to increase local renewable energy and energy storage initiatives. Actions: • Conduct a study in cooperation with renewable energy companies to identify locations for utility scale projects in Albemarle County. Prioritize the use of roof tops, parking lots, brown fields, landfills, and post-industrial or other open lands over forested or ecologically valuable lands. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Impact to Adjacent Properties There are a number of single-family residential lots and vacant parcels that are adjacent to the Project. Mitigation of the Project will be done through the careful siting of the panels, setbacks of 200 feet from any parcel boundary, and use of existing vegetation and additional planted vegetation for buffering as necessary. Glint and Glare Study and Analysis Research shows that solar panels, while flat and somewhat shiny, are designed to absorb light, rather than reflect it and therefore produce less glint and glare than snow or concrete. An analysis for Woodridge was conducted using the Federal Aviation Administration's Notice Criteria Tool, which takes into consideration the Project Site latitude, longitude, horizontal datum, site elevation, and structure height, and it was determined that the proposed solar facility would not pose a risk to air traffic and no further glare and glint study would be necessary. The results can be found in Attachment E. Lighting The Applicant recognizes and appreciates the County's desire to protect its dark skies. All lighting will comply with the County's Zoning Ordinance requirements and will be kept to the minimum necessary 5 to ensure the safe operation of the facility. All lighting will be designed to prevent spillover and will be arranged or shielded away from adjoining residences and roads. Visibility Analysis Hexagon conducted a visibility analysis and photo renderings of proposed conditions at locations along Secretary's Road and adjacent to property to the south of the project, see Attachment C. While there is some visibility from Secretary's Road, the propose vegetation buffer will minimize the visibility such that it will have a negligible impact from the road. Noise Analysis Solar facilities produce negligible noise when operating, such that any noise produced becomes inaudible at approximately one hundred (100) feet from the noise producing components. These components include inverters and tracker motors, which have few moving parts that produce decibel levels that will not be heard from adjacent properties. The solar inverters have a manufacturer listed noise rating of sixty-five (65) decibels at one meter aware from the inverter. The CDC reports this level of noise as comparable to an air conditioner, washing machine, or dishwasher. The inverters on the site will be setback at least two hundred (200) feet from property lines. At one hundred (100) feet away from the inverter the noise is reduced to approximately thirty-five (35) decibels which is comparable to the noise of a refrigerator hum. There will be some noise increase during construction of the facility. It is estimated that the construction will take between 12 and 18 months. However, noise producing construction activities will be limited to daytime hours. The amount and frequency of noise is anticipated to be similar to the timbering activity that has occurred on site for 80 years. Vegetative Buffer The Project site has been evaluated to determine visibility impacts from adjacent roads and properties where vegetation is sparse or not existent, and a two hundred (200) foot setback has been established along the property boundaries. The existing mature vegetation will be used as buffer and screening wherever possible within the 200 feet. The setback will be divided into two sections: forest and meadow. The forest section will be a minimum of 100 feet where the existing mature vegetation and trees will remain. In areas in the forest section where possible visibility will occur along the roads and adjacent to residential homes, an additional vegetative screening buffer will be provided as shown on the concept plan that will be 20 feet wide. Within the other 100ft-wide section, native pollinator -friendly meadow mix will be planted. In areas with a planted screening buffer, the meadow width will be 80 feet wide. The security fence will be located interior to the forest buffer but may be located in the meadow buffer area. Native, non-invasive species will be utilized wherever possible for the screening. Vegetative buffering will be maintained throughout the life of the Project. See diagram below. C. /�-100 LINEAR FEET - SOLAR ARRAYS PROPOSED SECURITY FENCE: 6 FT, HT CHAN"IN t WITH BARBED WIRE �TVID) 1 ...:.....:. : POLLINATOR'. •;• • MEADOW tar MIN•• •••••. •. SETBACK •.••�•• .•. .•. ••• ?0' PLANTING STRIP �d� 0 �O �O • y 4%MIN. EVERGREEN TREES. It O.C. 18-H WN SHRUBS. 1e O.C. PROPERTY LVe Security The Project components will be completely enclosed in a perimeter fencing of not less than 6 feet. When possible, The Project will be split into several individual sub -arrays, each individually fenced to allow for natural wildlife corridors. The fencing will serve to prevent unauthorized personnel from entering the Project site and will protect the system components from damage from wildlife. Locked gates will be installed to allow for ingress and egress of authorized personnel. Temporary fencing will be installed, as necessary for safety and security, during construction. Access will be limited to authorized personnel, including designated County officials. Public Facilities & Public Infrastructure As stated above, the Project will not have any impacts to roads or schools. Site access has been identified on the concept plan. The majority of the access points are existing entrances and accessways that have been used by Dominion, for the timbering operation, or for hunting activities. Temporary traffic control measures that meet VDOT and the County's best management practices, will be employed during construction. Once operational, there will be no daily staff at the Project site and site visits are expected to be limited to approximately one or two times per month. It is not anticipated that the Project would impact other County services such as Fire/Rescue and Police. All project gates will have a knox box that will be accessible to Fire/Rescue and Police should 7 the need to access the project area arises. If requested, the Applicant will provide training for Fire/Rescue personnel to address the unique characteristics of a utility scale solar facility. Environmental Resources Streams, Flood plain, and Wetlands A wetland delineation, along with field verification, was performed by Wild Ginger Services to identify all streams, flood plain, and wetlands as shown on the Concept Plan, and the delineation was approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers on April 25, 2022. The Project has been designed to ensure that there will be no impact on any identified streams, flood plain, or wetlands within the Special Use Permit Area. Consistent with the Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance, the project design incorporates a 100-foot buffer around all identified and field verified streams and wetlands. Additional buffer has been provided between the Limits of Disturbance and the Special Use Permit lines to allow for the Water Protection Ordinance to protect all 100 feet. All proposed limits of disturbance, stormwater management, and panels will be outside of these areas as shown on the Concept Plan, and where possible the panels will be located at least 70 feet from any buffer. The Project will not impact any delineated streams, flood plain, or wetlands and will be developed and constructed in conformance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations including the Chesapeake Bay Act, Clean Water Act, and VA-DEQ Stormwater Management Program Regulations. Grading and Stormwater Management Conceptual grading and stormwater management plans have been provided within the special use permit plan set. Careful siting of the panels has been done to minimize grading and impacts to critical slopes. Stormwater management facilities are shown located outside of stream buffers, flood plain, and wetlands to protect these environmental features. All stormwater management plans will be in conformance with all applicable local laws and regulations, as well as with the VA-DEQ Stormwater Management Program Regulations. Critical Slopes There are approximately 60 acres of critical slopes are located on the approximate 1,500 acre Special Use Permit Area. An application for disturbance of 8.55 acres of the slopes has been submitted with this application. The majority of the slopes to be disturbed are outside of the stream buffers and are small areas (less than 10,000 square feet) that are not part of a system of slopes. Careful grading of the site, along with erosion and sediment control measures and the preservation of wetlands and stream buffers will allow for the health, safety, and welfare of the public to be maintained with the small area of disturbance proposed. Prime Agricultural Soils Included with the Conceptual Plan is a plan showing the location of prime agricultural soils. While the plan indicates that the limits of disturbance will include areas where prime soils are designated, it should be noted that this property has timbered planted pine and used for silviculture for over 80 years. In addition, the Project includes the planting of native pollinator -friendly seed and meadow mix. The decommissioning plan will allow the property to be used for agricultural/forestall uses in the future. H The grasses and pollinators planted around the array will help nurture the soil and improve its agricultural viability over the timber growing activities of the past decades. Wildlife Study and Analysis As part of the environmental due diligence, the Applicant engaged Timmons Group to determine the likelihood of encountering any species on the State or Federal lists of Threatened and Endangered Species within a one -mile radius of the project. See Attachment F for full findings and analysis; below is an excerpt from the findings of that review. 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 There were three potential species identified: Northern Long-eared bat, James Spinymussel (located 0.73 miles south of the site within the Hardware River), and the Monarch Butterfly. Given the timbering of the parcels, along with the large, preserved buffers along the identified wetlands and streams, it is not anticipated that these species will be impacted. However, during permitting the Applicant will continue to coordinate with Local, State, and Federal agencies through the State led Permit by Rule process to ensure there is no impact to local fish and wildlife species. If a potential impact is identified, the Applicant will coordinate with those applicable agencies to draft and enact plans to mitigate the impact. In addition, when possible, The Project will be split into several individual sub -arrays, each individually fenced to allow for natural wildlife corridors, and the proposed fencing is located six (6) inches off of the ground to allow small wildlife to go in and out of the Project. Historic and Cultural Resources A small portion of TMP 114-55 is within the Monticello Viewshed. The Applicant met with Liz Russel, the Director of Planning, Sustainability, & Project Management at Monticello and she did not express any concerns with the proposal, and is in support of solar. In addition, a historic and cultural resources assessment was completed by Stantec in 2020 in accordance with the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Quality (DEQ) Solar Permit By Rule for solar projects, see Attachment B. There is a small cemetery and home site within the project area that has been identified and set aside to be preserved and located outside of the limits of disturbance. Additional areas were identified has high, moderate, and low potential for containing cultural resources. As part of the required PBR process for renewable energy generating facilities in Virginia, further W described below, a Phase 1 archeological study will be required by DEQ and completed by the Applicant prior to any land disturbance for the Project. CONSTRUCTION PHASING Construction of the Project is expected to begin no earlier than 2023 and take approximately 12-18 months for completion. The Project will be developed in multiple phases to allow for minimal impact and proper stabilization. Each phase will be stabilized and required stormwater management will be installed prior to moving on to the next phase. Phasing will be established during the Site Plan and Water Protection Ordinance processes. PERMIT BY RULE All renewable energy generating facilities in the Commonwealth of Virginia must complete requirements set forth under the Department of Environmental Quality Permit By Rule ("PBR") process. The PBR process provides a streamlined method for cultural and environmental permitting of renewable energy projects. PBR incorporates review from the Department of Quality (DEQ), Department of Wildlife resources (DWR), Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), and Department of Historic Resources (DHR) to identify and mitigate potential impacts a project may have to the state's cultural, historic, natural, and wildlife resources. Any identified impacts must be sufficiently mitigated to receive approval under the PBR process. The PBR process addresses 15 major points required by DEQ for approval. These points include the completion of reviews from DHR, DWR, and DCR, as well as assessments on air quality and interconnection. A mitigation plan and operating plan outlining how the Applicant will avoid environmental and cultural impacts are also required. A 30-day review and public comment period, inclusive of a public community meeting, must occur prior to the permit submittal. DEQ recommends submittal of the project's Notice of Intent (NOI) to complete the PBR process after local land use approval has been secured. However, the Applicant will begin initial discussion with DEQ prior to local land use approval in order to coordinate with applicable agencies and ensure compliance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The Applicant will submit a NOID for the Woodridge project to DEQ if the Special Use Permit is secured. The Applicant will update Albemarle County staff on permit progress through the PBR process. A complete permit will be forwarded to the County once secured. DECOMMISSIONING PLAN At the time the Project permanently ceases to operate, the Project Owner (the "Owner') will perform decommissioning activities. The Owner will provide notification to the Zoning Administrator of the abandonment or discontinuance of the use, and complete physical removal of the project within phases 10 over two years of abandonment. Decommissioning includes the removal of all equipment and materials as it relates to the operation of a solar project including: • Removal of all racking, panels, and electrical equipment • Removal of all cabling above 36" below grade • Removal of all above ground cabling • Removal of all concrete foundations • Removal of all internal roadways and fencing Any existing vegetation and buffering will remain in place and disturbed areas will be covered with topsoil. All refuse and materials will be removed from the site and disposed of according to applicable laws and regulations. Where possible, materials will be recycled, savaged, or reused. Decommissioning is designed to restore the property to its condition prior to the Project's construction. The Applicant has developed a preliminary Decommissioning Plan, see Attachment D. Prior to the Project's construction the Owner will enter into a written agreement with the County, along with posting a bond, to decommission the facility in the event the Owner is not able to do so. This agreement will be developed in accordance with State regulation (15.2-2241.2). ATTACHMENTS 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 (473941542) 11 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 20252027 2 2005 2008 2027 48 Inspect for either Thinning orClear-cut harvest 20262028 3 2019 2022 2042 235 Site prep sprayed summer 2021 & Ioblolly pine reforestation 2022 3 2019 2022 2042 109 Site prep sprayed summer 2021 & Ioblolly pine reforestation 2022 3 12019 2022 2042 137 1 Site prep sprayed summer 2021 & Ioblolly pine reforestation 2022 4 2019 2022 2042 38 Site prep sprayed summer 2021 & Ioblolly pine reforestation 2022 5 2012 2015 2034 150 Inspect for either thinning orclear-cut harvest 20332035 7 2004 2007 2026 217 Inspect for Thinning orClear-Cut harvest 20252027 8 2003 2006 2025 130 Inspect for Thinning orClear-Cut harvest 20242026 9 1999 2002 2022 145 Inspect for either Thinning orClear-cut harvest 2022 10 12019 2022 2042 60 1 Site prep sprayed summer 2021 & Ioblolly pine reforestation 2022 11 2019 2022 2042 43 Site prep sprayed summer 2021 & Ioblolly 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 & Ioblolly pine reforestation 2022 15 2015 2018 12037 150 Inspect for either Thinning orClear-cut harvest 2036-2038 Legend M Project Parcel Boundaries Forest Management Plan Forest Management Tracts 0 Tract 1 Tract 2 Tract 3 0 Tract 4 Tract 5 Tract 7 Tract 8 Tract 9 Tract 10 Tract 11 Tract 12 Tract 14 Tract 15 t Tract lb Last Cleared: 2019 3 Tract W 94114a., .0 v `J f f Last ATTACHMENTAA N 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 F 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 25.2 0.17 Legend - Approx Panel LocatlOQ....... Approx Fenceline Forest Management Tracts 1 S 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 - 10 11 - 12 14 - 15 Project Parcel Boundary r Note: Acreages and dates are approximate and indicative. i� t I fF i' Tract ✓e 4 / Imagery from 2006 Imagery from 2013 Imagery from 2021. OR Imagery from 2011 � 11 Imagery between 2006 & 2009� \ Imagery from 2015 • � ri' :ar Imagery from 2017 X w to the northwest'of Tract 3 r' ,it - I.. ew to the south of Tract'3 View to the southwest of Tract 12 2. View to the northwest of Tract 14 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 0 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................................................................................................... 2.3 Table 2 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites within a 1-Mile Radius of the Study Area............................................................................................................................... 4.3 Table 3 Previously Identified Architectural Resources Within a 1-Mile Radius of the StudyArea..................................................................................................................... 4.3 Table 4 STP 1 Soil Profile............................................................................................................ 5.1 Table5 STP 2 Soil Profile............................................................................................................ 5.2 Table6 STP 3 Soil Profile............................................................................................................ 5.4 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 .................. Tnhla 9n CTP 91 Rnil Prnfila 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 ............. 5.4 ............. 5.5 ............. 5.6 ............. 5.6 ............. 5.7 ............. 5.9 ........... 5.11 ........... 5.11 ........... 5.11 ........... 5.12 ........... 5.13 ........... 5.14 ........... 5.15 ........... 5.16 ........... 5.17 ........... 5.18 ........... 5.19 ........... 5.20 ........... 5.21 ........... 5.22 ............. 6.1 ............. 6.2 ............. 6.2 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 ofMaj. 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.arogis.com/topoexplorerlindex.htmi, accessed 2019)........................................................................................................................... 3.15 Figure 6 Detail of the 1943 Scottville, VA Topographic Map Depicting the Study Area (USGS 1943; https://Iivingatias.arogis.com/topoexplorerfiindex.htmi, 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:Hlivingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer/index.htmi, 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........ B.1 APPENDIX C KEY PERSONNELL RESUMES...................................................................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. 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. vI 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 1.0 IN PRODUCTION 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. IA Fgure NoMe - - / Location of the Study Area ,�♦ �♦ _ ctiewpoyed 203401402 Hexagon Energy - 1 Woodridge Solar Site . 1 Phi LOCeflM prepared by an 19.12.12 TR iR by TP19-12-12 on M . Alternate County, Virginu IR by ESS B55 on 2019-12-02 N ♦♦` z,000 a,aa Fee �` ♦ - (At original domomentize of 1107) `♦♦� '` i j.� Project Limits Blen�ielm • .31 1 j 1.000 I w 1 14 ,, i Notes Vignia South FIpS 4502 Feel Coyarelesprout J `a, ,/ -• ! f 15) '. I� r—/ r f Y �\ i yj /� d by t1983 hretenleplane 2. Prounty Imna Prartletl by Hexagon Energy, 1 CountybcuNary poMetl by VAMiDLR 6. iopograpM1e mapo 05Gs]SMnNe Ser¢TOPograpHC Map •Y�r, ' .. 951 �3� ..\� `l�'.� i[ �J -_. J ZI -ram? QI c-" �\ _ \ /✓r �) \�-,:- " �e sty % i' FD/tea Sta ntec Page 1,2 Olssaimer. This diM ment M1az been prepared based at information provided by Mrs, as reel in Me home archon. Shame, has net Veifed Me accuracy mother compL+lamaa of this iffonnation and alal rot,, reapenaible her any carom or omissions which may be inemporal d M1aein as a earth. Stank, assumes no reapenaibili y her dad supplied! in ekcdmicbanned, and IM redpeM accepts; had res,moibility for verifying IM accuracy and cwnFMeress 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 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 2 "� Map Unit Symbol Description 51B. ~- 61B� 16 Codorus silt loam, 0to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded F� 5 c � t 1B Meadowville silt loam, 2to 7 percent slopes Soils Map 510 51D 32B Orenda silt loam, 2to 7 percent slopes r - 62B 51062B 32C Orenda silt loam, 7to 15 percent slopes coi22r 2034ma07 46B Grassland silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes fS1D 16 51E ♦ Hexagon Energy Woodridge Solar Site Map Dme:zm9-,z-„ _` till, 51C' .o • 51B Bugley channery silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes 62C' 51 D;, 80Bi Revisal Date:202001-23 HLyrrzIXsstyar2 Petri by JKMon M19.12.11 62C �"-'`80C 51C 51C Bugley channery silt loam, 7to 15 percent slopes TRbyTPSon2019-12-12 \�62B 51D Bugleychannerysiltloam,15 to25percentslopes ��� Abemarle Lounry,Yrgine IRby SSSiM2019-12-12 N �'Snc 51C 51E Bugley channery silt loam, 25to 45 percent slopes D 1,600 3,200 5'i'6 sg `\ 626 Buffstat silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes ZC •. Feet _ 6YB sic BB55 51B 51D%. 62C Buffstat silt loam,7to15percentslopes (At orgifal dommeM size of 11K171 1:19,200 •. 51D • 80B Littlejoe siltloam, 2to7percentslopes 516 �' 80C Littlejoesiltloam, 7 to 15 percent sl opes Project Limits ,51B A c 51 c 516 51,• 95 Hatboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded Soils 95 5iC 5113 62B 51B ,yj��1S ♦ 966 IDelila loam, 2to7percentslopes 51C ` 51,C.+•\626 96B 51E 61D � • 62C • ''%62B 516 i 96�51B 51C sic ♦�-.51 C. .�'' 51B i 62C'62C.,.. 762E < 626,` •62C 628 80B'1 ••%%' 62B 62C 62B ` 1 +9fiB ] 80B -- _ �46B 51D 62B% - titi-62C� 32B / 62B 51 • 62B'^ - 62C ♦ 62C 622C 51C .r 96B 51B • 32C 62C 468 ' 516 •. ♦ 62C� 51& % Sq 51 C \' � 3213 82G _ 6 .0.� i=r ♦ / r 51 D 51 B 51 B .808 62C 626. "� 51C �328 51D ♦ � 51C f 626 62B / 1C 51C N2B 808 628 51B 51CB� 518 51C �W i ♦ 628 495 � 51C 51B �62 1 95 62C 808 468 516 62C 62C �r51D �2B 80 SgOB. 510 62G 62B 51C 328 C--� 51 Cr �Y--B 51G 628 , ��� 51C � 5�6 �. ' � ✓. � 51B 32B ��' � -- - ' \ 32C 51@ 626 628 62B i •/q/ �`,D s181►J 32B 62 �51C ` 62C 80g _� �62C 51 U�� ' 51D 1i 51D 62B 62C -: 808 62B � + .' 628 62C' /62C 51B• a - •/ ,- - _- /51C 51C 62C , 626 F:�-- �62B 51D 51E T .... .. �_ _7 f; .�. 628 51D 62B 51B 62B.46B 51D 806 62B * 6�C _5 \ 62C 46BY - BOB, _ �♦ S 1 B �' 62 B 51 D I '. - \�. 6.2B r 62C.. ., �51c ; y r T—Cwtdire,e System NAD 1983 Sta,ePlane Virginia South FIP54502 Fee, 2. R* t Iirds residual by Hermann Energy ]. SO is do from USDA NRL5550RGO Soil Surrey 4. OMo me a thing Maps 5. MkrosoX pmtluel sheen sboi reported Vdh grooli tom Miaosofl Laryoralion sic .�f� 326 , \ 32G 32C ; 80B- 62C �•� ■51D r.80C i _ y Y, 1��2B •r ® Sta ntec Page 22 Dlsdaimer. Tom JWumed has been pretested! buseal on information pmvitletl by Mbes as eiel in Me home sudian.Shame[has rolveriretl Me accuracy aNbr inanimateness d this informatim and sMl red the reaimnsible her any enora or omissions whirin may be fieoryamlN herein as a resW.S,anlec assumes no respcnsibiliry for giants supplied in ektlruniefanal, arM me retlp¢m aeeritoI realnreibilily for veMying me aeeumry and comanderess of Me Mrs. 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 51 B Bugley channery silt loam 2-7% Somewhat Excessively Drained 51 C Bugley channery silt loam 7-15% Somewhat Excessively Drained 51 D Bugley channery silt loam 15-25% Somewhat Excessively Drained 51 E 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 vide 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.L .ULILJRAL 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. OR 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 4L . xica 1 .7'imberlu;�r f 4j�e j i a / Il North, ~ / Not to Scale 5&171cz �E flrle t Figure 4 Detail of Albemarle County, Virginia Depicting the Study Area Vicinit (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 North; Not to Scale 1 Figure 5 Detail of the 1891 Palmyra, Virginia Topographic Map Depicting the Study Area (USGS 1891; hffps://livinciatias.arcciis.com/topoexplorer/indox.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 Scaler'• - r 11>(-- �� a r �Y .till Z43� B ry 00 ° it r�l jfl �' S Jc J l C� 1 -/v �� .•• . h Figure 6 Detail of the 1943 Scottville, VA Topographic Map Depicting the Study Area (USGS 1943; https://livingatias.arcais.com/topoexplorer/index.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 . t� udr4lKe�• r b' North; Not to Scale 1 Figure 7 Detail of the 1967 Simeon, VA (Top) and Scottville, VA (Bottom) Topographic Maps Depicting the Study Area (USGS 1967; https://livingatias.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 F*M,, N.. 8 Fd Previously Identified Archaeological Sites within a 1-Mile Radius of the Study Area cl-&P-1/ 203401E02 Hexagon Energy Woodridge Solar Site HgEC/LIX'9l%O// peppered by JKM on M19-12-12 TR by TPS m M19-12-12 Albemarle County, Virginia IR by BSS on 2019-12-12 N © D 3.000 6.DDD Feet (At original do1:36. size of 11 x1 ]) 1:36,OW •.� m Project Limits 1-Mile Buffer ® Archaeological Resource ,vacs 1. CooNirete System NAD 1983 Slatelflane Virginia South FIPS 4502 Feet 2. project limits propane! by Hexagon Energy 3. Hkbrie ce data provided by Virginia Department of Histed, Resourres, Virginia t Comm Reres Information System(VCRIS) C. Cmnry boundary from Virginia DCR S. OMoimagay 0 Bing Maps & Mbosog pmtlutl screen sboi(s) reramoed w86 permission tmm Mi.-ft Coryomtion ® Stantec [sessions. This tlmrmed has been prepared! basetl on information pmvitled by Mbrs as Chad! in the NMes seeton. Stantec has rot ve fired Me dower, anchor complaterem, d this information and sMl mt the resimnsible for any errors or omissions wbieb may be fieoryorat N herein as a resW. Stantec assumes no respcnsibiliry for tlata supplied in electronic format, and the retlp¢M aeeegs ful responsibility for veMying the accuracy and cwnpiHeress 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 19th c. & Mid- to Late 20" c. VDHR 1986 Not Evaluated 44AB0283 Limestone Quarry Mid- to Late 19th c. VDHR 1986 Not Evaluated 44AB0571 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/EIIRon 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 Brid a #6244, Blenheim Road Arcadia Preservation Not Eligible 002-2134 c. 1907 2005; (VDHR 2016 & (Roue 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 Fguie Na. 9 Previously Recorded Architectural ` ooz-soar = Resources within a 1-Mile Radius of the tH' 1 I - I _ -yC y'•�,. C R ` CFP/Y/PigxL 203401 Hexagon Energy Woodridge Solar Site 002-1640 t HgEyJLA`9/%O// Repa mbJ11ii 9- R22 nyTp5m201n-1z-12 - OO2-OQ 7O ,., 002-0904 Nbemarle Lounry, Yrgin¢ IR M BSS m 201R12-12 N 002-0469 D 3,00o 6,ODo © Feet (AI Drigiral do136. size of 11 x1 ]) :36,aW ! 002-0468 1.j Project Limits 1-Mile Buffer `.� Architectural Resource 002-0394 © Rural Historic District (VDHR #002-5045) ai-`` 002-1161 .� 1% 002-0393 002-0467 ,\ ` � 002-5268 !� '•�: � 002-5267 L aii fj V 002-2134 .a .,.F 002-0500. t. 1. Fade Ur 5yslan:HAD W8351n1eplane Virginia South Flp5 4502 Feel 2I-Mao linils pre data by Heed by Energy 3. Hk resmrce data tl by Virginia Department of Hisdo�ic Resources, Virginia _ It R IMomVaron System (VLRIS) LJ amon 002-5014 oam =ndres C. Cmnryager,0 hom Virginia 0LR S.& OMoimagay a Bing Maps 6. Microsoft pmtlutl Breen sbol(z) repnnRtl wi1M1 pmnissim Imm Microsoft Loryomlim • ® Stantec page 05 Dlstlaimer. This JWument has been prepared! has N on information pmvitled by mines as eiel in the hoe, seelon. 51antec has net veiretl Me accuracy aNbr completeness d this information and sMl ml the resimnsible he any comes or omissions which may be fimryoml N herein as a print. Stories assumes no respcnsibiliry br tlad auppl N in ektlrmie lamed, and the retlp¢M aeeegs had responsibility is verifying the accuracy and ewnpiHeress 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 �.t .ULTURAL 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 STIR 7 Soil Profile Stratum Depth R Color Soil T e/Texture Interpretation I Surface 1 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Silty Clay w/ 5% Gravel Subsoil 5.1 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 M 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 Figure 11 View of Location 2 on a finger ridge; View to the North. 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 ft 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 1 OYR6/6 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 1 Depth ft. Color Soil Type/Texture Interpretation 0-0.3 1 10YR6/3 Pale Brown I Loam w/ 40% Gravel A Horizon 11 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 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 10YR6/6 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 ft. Color I Soil T e/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 fL Color I Soil T e/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 ft 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. 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 ff. Color I Soil Type/Texture Interpretation I Surface 1 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow I Silty Clay w/ 10% Gravel Subsoil 5.2.9 Locations 9 8. 10 Locations 9 R 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. g> - h Rfti k�' �.fh,� A Ny'!ip�.�' � k�.J � ♦r 1�Y}�1 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 10YR6/6 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 ft. Color I Soil T errexture 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 11, a layer of 10YR6/6 brownish yellow clay (Subsoil). Stratum 11 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 ff. 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 10YR6/6 Brownish 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 11, 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 ff. 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 11, a layer of 10YR6/6 brownish yellow clay with gravel inclusions (Subsoil). Stratum 11 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 Sandy 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. "VAN L'![eIeY.11to]IMILIJ 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 (It.) Color Soil Type/Texture Interpretation I 1 0-0.4 1 10YR6/2 Light Brownish Gray Sandy Loam A Horizon 11 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 11, a layer of 7.5YR5/8 strong brown Gay with quartz gravel inclusions (Subsoil). Stratum 11 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 ft Color Soil T en-exture 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 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 18). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Table 18 STP 18 Soil Profile Stratum 1 Depth ft. Color Soil T e/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 j.2.18 Location 7 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 ft. 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 5.2.19 Location 21 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 1 OYR6/4 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 ff. Color Soil Typerrexture 1 Interpretation 0-0.4 1 10YR4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown --clay Loam I Disturbed A Horizon 11 0.4-0.8 1 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown 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 5.2.20 Location 22 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 ft. Color Soil Type/Texture 1 Interpretation I 1 0-0.4 1 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 j.2.21 Locatiui i zi 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 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 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 ff. Color Soil Type/Texture 1 Interpretation 0-0.4 1 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown tclameyLoam 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 5.2.22 Location 25 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 0-0.4 1 7.5YR5/6 Strong Brown I Silty Loam A Horizon II 0.4-0.8 1 7.5YR5/8 Strong Brown I 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 5.2.23 Location 2b 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 ft Color Soil Type/Texture interpretation I 1 0-0.4 1 10YR4/6 Dark Yellowish Brown Sil 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 j.2.24 Locatiu, , z , 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 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 25). No artifacts were recovered, and no surface features were observed. Figure 31 Vii Table 25 STP 27 Soil Profile Stratum 1 Depth ft. Color Soil T e/Texture Interpretation I 1 0-0.4 1 7.5YR5/6 Strong Brown I Silty Loam A Horizon II 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 5.2.25 Location 28 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 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 5.22 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 Woad 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 .l 1 1 I I 1 1fir �` / gt t 1 •` • .:al • Fguie Na. 36 F� Archaeological Predictive Model for the Project Cb-&ROIe 203401407 Hexagon Energy Woodridge Solar Site HgEC/LIX'9!/O// Prepared by -KM on M2"1-23 TR by TpS ar M20-01-29 Albemarle County, Virginia IR by ESS M 2020.01-30 N © 0 1.500 3.000 Feel (At original dosae of llxl]) t 19.20:19,20p 1..p Project Limits - High Probability Area (286.7 Acres) _ Moderate Probability Area (710.2 Acres) - Low Probability Area(1,279.5 Acres) ,Pbe,' 1. CmNinale Sptern: NAD 1983 Sedeplane Vigni i South Fil 4502 Fast 2. an ea linila prariied by Hexagon Energy IPrNitlim ine"a ,ended w8b date from USDA NRCS SSORGO Sell Survey, NW I, NHD, and dijidd 9ev= handed tlmivM lawn VGIN LDAR. C. TheIi aWaters MMe USaWardinad (WOOS), including wetlands, Mve not been fiHtl braid and are Air greening pureses cnty S. OMhimagery a Bing Maps & Mic W pmtluct sheen sMnMg repain ed w8b peranissior Men Miwasofl Caryorstior ® Stantec Disdaimer.TNstlmument basbeen prepared! brad ar Mamalmprended by Mbwaasciwl in the NMea section. Stantec has nolverired Me sound, ani trompleteriesa d this inlormatim antlsMl mt[ msimnsibkbranyen moromissbmwbitl may be neoryaratNM1erein are hard. Seefi,assumesnorespunsibilirylortlad supplied! ineledinnielan antl the recip¢Naeeegaful res,irmbility iaveMying the aennicy androrldraeressof Me tlala. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND WORK PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 2,276.4 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED WOODRIDGE SOLAR SITE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA PREDICTIVE MODEL U. 1. 1 riCnistoric 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.L ONCLUSIONS 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 kkus0265- ppfssOl lshared—projeds1203401407105_report_delivldeliverable\reporlsku IWral_resourceslrpt_hexagon_woodridge_solar_phia_dft_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 kkus0265- ppfssOl lshared—projeds1203401407105_report_delivldeliverable\reporlsku IWral_resourceslrpt_hexagon_woodridge_solar_phia_dft_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 kkus0265- ppfssOl lshared—projects1203401407105_report_delivldeliverable\reporlsku IWral_resourceslrpt_hexagon_woodridge_solar_phia_dft_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. 91 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 Anthropologist VI(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/yrginia/provinces/i)iedmonVi)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. [Er? 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 Eastem 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. Im 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 (18Prl31) 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 I. 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. [E 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. [i 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 History45:19-60. M 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/WaterSupDIyWaterQuantity/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 /s ie Na. Appendix A /01 Base Mapping for Field Assessment Cb-Y/Fyyi 203401407 Hexagon Energy Woodridge Solar Site KLYE LIX sia,ya Repmetl by JKM on 202042.11 TR by Mi on M20-02-12 Nbemarle County, Virginia IR by BS5 on 2020-02-02 N © 0 1,u0 3.DD0 Feet (At odglnal document size of llxlT) 1.19,200 1..p Project Limits - Approximate Architectural Complex Location - Approximate Cemetery Location o Reference Point MaV, 1. CmNire,e system: NAD 1983 SodeGlane Vignia Sw,b FIPS 4502 Fee, 2. Rrdms limits preariletl go by Hexan Egy ner 3. OMoimagey 0 Bing Maps 4 MicmsW pmi armed sbol(s) repnnRd with permission Imm Miemsofl Cm,mindmn (3 Stantec 01 do, Dodaimer. This tlrvmer has been grape ad based on iRrmation provided by des as road! in Me More, seeton. Stantec has not veiled Me drawraey andbr to iplatereas d this information aid shal not M nesi,nnsible for any moors or omissions whitln may be ineorymrM N herein as a read. Smi assumes no nespcnsibiliry for data supplied! in drasomic Mond, aid Me retlp¢m aeeegs tul rea,,ormbility to veMying Me aecumry and com deress of Me door 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 m B.1 FyumNa. Appendix B /0, Predictive Model Data C%f/N/P/O�2LY 203401407 Hexagon Energy Woodridge Solar Site KO�EdLIX'9!/0/2 Reparetl by JKM on 2020-02.11 TR by MG5 on 2020-02-12 Amemarle County, Virginia IR by B55 on 2020-02-02 N © D 1.3.DDDet Fe (At original domnlme0 size of 11 x1 ]) 1:19,2DD 1.. 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 Aii,sa> 1. Cerebrate System : NAD 1983 Solaria- Virginia South FIGS 4502 Feel 2. RokO limits prariod by Hexagon Egy ner 3. Data hen USDA NRCS SSDRGO Sud Survey, NW I, NHD, and sores and Contours tlaivetl from VGIN UDAR. C. The arprozinale limits W Waters of Me US (WOOS), ircotlog wetlands, bow net been told Imatd and are or planning Phrases only. S. Col imagery a Bing Maps 6. Microsoft pmtluct screen sbol(s) reprinted with permission from Microsoft Caryora on ® Stantec Disdaimer. TNa tlavmee has been preisa N base on iRamatim provided by Mori as road! in the NMes sister. Stantec has rot ve iretl Me scram, andorcompleteness W this informaficn and shal rot M msiansibo he any ears or omissions which may be oeoryomlN herein as a romStange, assumes no msimnsibiliryfor road supplied! in electronic barrel, and the retlp¢maceega ful realnreinility for veMying the accuracy and canrMeress 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 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 Phase IT Evaluations for 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 Henrim 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 of field 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 project for the entire - 6o 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 5oo 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 5oo kV transmission line, with 3o8 tower structures, covers a distance of approximately 6o.3 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 acres for the proposed borrow pits. Aimee was Principal Investigator and work was conducted under the ND Stantec zo16 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 Aimee provided Class III Cultural Resources Survey of approximately 53 acres for the proposed road improvements. Aimee was Principal Investigator and work was conducted under the NO Stantec 2015 Cultural Resources Permit. Aimee conducted the background research, the fieldwork and wrote the report. Regional / Suburban Planning Archaeological Survey`, Dawes County, Nebraska Aimeeprovided archaeological survey far 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 Aimee provided archaeological survey for approximately 26.4 acres associated with a proposed Powder House Pass water treatmentplant, water main line, and water treatmentplant 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, Solomon 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 project. 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 ll 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 held 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 ll, 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. ATTACHMENT C r' del 04 i i� i 4;4 HE)(AGO N ENERGY Visualization Is for discussion purposes only. Final design is subject to change pending public, engineering, and regulatory review. X. - A ' T4 VP1 Existing Conditions i VP VP1 Proposed Conditions la w r e tY _ VPJ Existing Conditions al � r } x OW-M, Af� :P: ;Rk - N"g - 7A v . 1:5 1, 41 VPJ Existing Conditions 141�, ®R ; % Alp lew PR Y4, 61 r llit • _){`v • Y VP2 Existing Conditions VP2 Proposed Conditions PIMP i - \14.\ 61 \ r 1 .w Ir �♦ ,7 \ � A%� VP2 Existing Conditions VP2 5 Year Planting 61 VP2 Existing Conditions VP2 Mature Height r r w FrroL�. � �5 ppp r. '• VP3 Existing Conditions VP 3 Ji arc 1iI J i' � :. ` I � •f•r mill Objects displayed in yellow represent project infrastructure and Solar Arrays tz vegetation that are obscured by foreground vegetation. � Project Infrastructure and Vegetation t I - Woodridge SOLAR PV PROJECT Time: 9:30 am Direction: South �..4-7 pr' Pam.. fr' .. t > d ...�:, .,, yi.r..'o.... 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. 1 0 J Y Woodridge SOLAR PV PROJECT Time: 9:30 am Direction: South W HE)(AG0N 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. w t' FI Y J ;c .�7 y 4 -• .a. r; r �v ,t _A t+ � '$' .,,ye ' P is ,� ifid'^�4� , i} i+ i'! �!°'iih ..-•..�yrtf ?"�}%,r.,,;�6 k}i•�4"1-'�T�r ^I�s4Jt%:iyrE'',��i'yt'�, '�kx'%.�"-4`_p�. Sl a�.YS� r ;..f. _ •• • 111 •• ��� �• • • .•.. • • ErroTHE.1• wI TYPICAL PROJECT ACCESS FROM SECRETARYS ROAD Mature Height � T `dl. ����.F�.n�: ry1.�p.�R +.. ti •ir+. -.-.d: w. ' -ering, and regula -MT 1nE ♦ OI-y '_ � � Al 5 r A < ! / .A-f 7. PP rj) •. 'u!ry i�7F 'N+'n ��'/ ��Y 7 ��' 47- 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 Visualization is for discussion purposes only. Final design is subject to change pending LIDAR data public, engineering, and regulatory review. r w W 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. . Y TYPICAL VIEW FROM SECRETARYS ROAD Mature Height wy `��� � +'07 ►.. .J �. ''�� •�` - •,fit � .. ti j r sAt\ 74� - R Prepared By: ATTACHMENT D TIMMONS GROUP ENGINEERING I DESIGN I TECHNOLOGY Woodridge Solar, LLC Decommissioning Plan Albemarle County, VA Date: 4/22/2022 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 CLIENTNAME Woodridge Solar, LLC. 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 TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION.ONIEVED THROUGH OURS. REV 0 21 Page HE)(AGON ENERGY Table of Contents Woodridge Solar Decommissioning Plan 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 i TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS, REV 0 31 Page HE)(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 near the town of Windsor, 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 Solar 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. 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 Site 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 Site 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 ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS, REV 0 41 Page HE)(AGON ENERGY • Project Collection Substation. 3 Reaulatory Compliance Woodridge Solar Decommissioning Plan 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: • 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; • Development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); • Albemarle County building, road, discharge, or erosion control permits (as necessary); and Special state or local hauling permits (as necessary). 4 Decommissioni 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 YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS, REV 0 51 Page HE)(AGON ENERGY k. Remove all MV feeders and utility poles I. Removal of Collector Substation m. Removal of weather station n. Remove access road o. Remove all fencing p. Fill/Grade/Seed as needed Woodridge Solar Decommissioning Plan 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. 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 Decommissionina 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: 37.887ON, -78.464O W TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS, REV 0 61 Page HE)(AGON ENERGY Table 7-1: Estimated Decommissioning Cost: Woodridge Solar Decommissioning Plan ModulePV QUANTITY # 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 1 $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 $183,750 Electrical Wires Removal MV Conductor (10% removal) QUANTITY 145,478 UNITS FT Unit Cost $20 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 1 EA $45,000 $45,000 Disassembly, Haul off -site kV 90/120/150 Substation Control House 1 EA 1 $15,000 1 $15,000 1 Disassembly, Haul off -site Capacitor Bank (Size TBD) 1 EA $40,000 $40,000 Disassembly, Haul off -site SUBTOTAL $415,000 Removal/Restoration Fence Perimeter QUANTITYFence/land, 122,030 FT $1 $122,030 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 YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS, REV 0 71 Page HE)(AGON ENERGY Fence/land, Removal/Restoration $1,680,030 ESTIMATED GRAND TOTAL $6,606,929 Woodridge Solar Decommissioning Plan Data Sources: 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: $.33/W before Removal and Hauling) QUANTITY UNITS New Cost/Unit New Total Cost Salvage Value 10% of New Cost Foundations Structural (at:$ .20/1-13 after Removal and Hauling) QUANTITY UNITS Estimated Weight LB. Estimated Salvage Value Estimated Salvage Value ... • : 1 • 1 1� R7. 1 : 1 11 # Panel Racks Estimated Electrical Equipment QUANTITY UNITS Estimated New CosVUnit Estimated New Total Cost Salvage Value of New Transformers:MV r �� :r err r rrr Cos Cost r• �r� Estimated Electrical Collector Substation QUANTITY UNITS Estimated New Cost/Unit Estimated New Total Cost Salvage Value Cos of New Cost �� ', err •, -� rrr •, rrr HV Circuit Breakers 115 kV �� r rrr rrr rrr Substation TIMMONS GROUP YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS, REV 0 M=. 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 New Cost/Unit Estimated New Total Cost SalvageEstimated Value 10% of Now Cost MV Conductor (only 10% of total) 145,478 FT $35 $5,091,739 $5019,174 DC/LC Conductor 231,036 FT $3 $693,108 $69,311 SUBTOTAL $578,485 Estimated QUANTITY UNITS Weight LB. SalvageEstimated Estimated Value .• SalvaFence 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 1 $246,257.55 Summary of Salvage Values Estimate PV Module $4,659,984 Foundations Structural $2,588,880 Electrical Equipment $704,000 Electrical VVires $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 YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS, REV 0 91 Page HE)(AGON ENERGY 7.4 DECOMMISSIONING ASSUMPTIONS Woodridge Solar Decommissioning Plan 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 40 years. 2. This Cost Estimate is based on the Timmons Group data request forwarded Aprily 2022. 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. Topsoil is required to be stockpiled on site during construction, therefore this top soil is available on site to replace the road aggregate, once removed. Subsoiling cost to decompact 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 YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS, REV 0 10 1 Page HE)(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.scrapmonster.com. 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.solomoncorr).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 YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS, REV 0 111 Page HE)(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. seia. o rg/initiatives/seia-national-r)v-recvcl i ng-I)rog 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: httr)://www.firstsolar.com/en/Modules/Recycling. 8 Financial Assurance The Owner will post a financial surety per Condition of its Conditional 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 YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS, REV 0 121 Page r 5 4 P Maven Estate Gol Course �ttek t QProperty Limits - 2,259.5 Acres 200' Property Setbacks Proposed Features (Conceptual) r LDD 1 Limits of Disturbance - 1,000 Acres DD Potenial Access Location CIE Point of Interconnection Internal Roads "I x �x Fence ® Solar Arrays - Inverters Substation/Collection Yard Area Parking Area Stormwater Basin Existing Features Transmission Line = Albemarle Tax Parcels r�fa 4t NOTES 1. PROPERTY LIMITS ARE APPROXIMATE FROM ALBEMARLE COUNTY GIS. 2. SITE LAYOUT IS CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. 3. PARKING AREAS ARE NOT PROPOSED EXCEPT IN THE SUBSTATION AREA. 4. ENTRANCE LOCATIONS AND INTERNAL DRIVEWAYS SHOWN ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. ANY NOTABLE CHANGES WILL BE SUBJECT TO COUNTY APPROVAL BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. 5. APPROXIMATE CEMETERY LOCATION IDENTIFIED BY STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES. 6. STEEP SLOPES OVERLAY DATA FROM ALBEMARLE COUNTY GIS. 7. AERIAL IMAGERY FROM MICROSOFT BING. Q'I w Common Ownersh`ip�'-'p Solar to be excluded _ from thisuarea 0' �',' �I i , �I01111011010�I�I II1llmlha�uul `w V �) LOB -t- �� ,�,�.•"I;flIlllkil!IIIIIIIIIIII MR I III ;a a� >> O O _ U' o 0 • � O M C « • IA _ 3N • v N '`+ o E O mHvoiu >>o0 O • •N D • Z 6La • O mEwE Q atW • O °nw~ 1^ o 7 L� r i O PROJECT NAME S LOCATION J Z N OQ W U ZLU p J0 7 o m Q DATE 05/12/2022 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 pad and shall not be used for any purpose Whatsoever, inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking Mhouf the express Wditen consent of REVISIONS # MM/DDNY DESCRIPTION DRAWING DESCRIPTION CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 0 SCALE FEET 0 800 1,600 PLANS PRINTED AS 11X17 ARE HALF SCALE H:1 "=800' 1 ATTACHMENT E ,■. qmmmmvmForgeSolar 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 FIR 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 FIR 63276 can be read at https://www.federalregisteLgov/d/2013-24729 SITE CONFIGURATION Analysis Parameters DNI: peaks at 1,000.0 W/W2 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: PV7 Axis tracking: Single -axis rotation Backtracking: Shade -slope Tracking axis orientation: 180.0° Max tracking angle: 52.Oo Resting angle: 0.00 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 (') Longitude (') Ground elevation (Tt) Height above ground (tt) Total elevation (R) 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: 52.0o Resting angle: 0.0o 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 (o) Longitude (o) 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 -78.464424 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 -78.472384 457.02 10.00 467.02 16 37.878503 -78.478000 "1.52 10.00 451.52 Name: PV3 Axis tracking: Single -axis rotation Backtracking: Shade -slope Tracking axis orientation: 180.0° Max tracking angle: 52.0' Resting angle: 0.0' 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 (o) Longitude (o) Ground elevation (it) Height above ground (1t) 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 -78.457215 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 -78.474656 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 -78.465111 450.92 10.00 460.92 22 37.906979 -78.459858 412.22 10.00 422.22 Discrete Observation Receptors Name ID Latitude (°) Longitude (o) Elevation (it) Height (tt) OP 1 1 37.873220 -78.483600 444.42 0.00 OP 2 2 37.931640 -78.499000 682.93 0.00 OP 3 3 38.010320 -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 (1t) Height above ground (1t) Total elevation (R) 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 (o) Longitude (o) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (h) 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 (I 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 (flash 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 -array size. Additional analyses of the combined area of adjacent sub-arays 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.comlhelp/ for assumptions and limitations not listed here. 2016 © Sims Industries dfb/a ForgeSolar, All Rights Reserved. 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 vsldlife 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 Species Observed within Two Miles Bass, Common Name largemouth Federal Status NT/NE State Status 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, Dace, Dace, Dace, Darter, Darter, Darter, Darter, Darter, no common name blacknose mountain redbelly ros side fantail glassy johnny Ion fin stri eback NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NWT/ NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE Fallfish NT/NE NT/NE Madtom, margined NT/NE NT/NE mussel sop. NT/NE NT/NE Shiner, comely NT/NE NT/NE Shiner, common NT/NE NT/NE Shiner, golden NT/NE NT/NE Shiner, satinfin NT/NE NT/NE Shiner, swallowtail NT/NE NT/NE Stoneroller, central NT/NE NT/NE Sucker, northern hog NT/NE NT/NE Sucker, Sucker, torrent NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE NT/NE white Sunfish, green NT/NE NT/NE Sunfish, redbreast NT/NE NT/NE NT = Non -Threatened, NE = Non -Endangered oiMords Ln0. 0 l2dy c 3a s'o' ca Cru Thom CA <7- s ' � o a �r`acrR Mo - 2• eye as\eFarm /Ln Ga Winery Hill Ln e y d� m t a m r a°QFarm ` �+it- �o � DJ A' RedlaoAl �s d ShPihOO 'hi 't �Facm �a I N�' v.eWmont'West Dr J Vi@wmont Farm r, t o„ 0 ti L �� Hams C ap'e� wee k� Mocc�sy� 0�a� a m C di v i J _ ` 9idn L Ch� \ Ga<cee po coo O > �m o� °,oe/s Lri \ °a m ` Qacc �a Qec�a� Wallace ca Ln era 6o r Noell' / ,w dyn Gee i" .\ r o•� r.. ae\ o os 40 .• :-� °" o add\e jpO S Old Ran • \ 1 aLn a _ \ °�� e R°iiin a ��a9e w,, � ' 9s,c�4 ` �• N,} °O CD ' Secretarys IN F c ° Ip (Pn\\ Q P C I •� '2s r F Rolling Creek o Ln Z ha ` r �e • m Fa a� c -Oa — m ks Ln e .. �aK 1 _ _ , � R�c��ar ' s. ,r. Gordan Run J Ra Q0 0 °�e Ln 2-• e VNQ rh ueberY Nil\Dr Y - 0 i - O k�'OM r �' ®• V nJ I / !7 Rd' R J) Mountain w nO� Briery Creek Rd o �s�3 0Y �n A oOc yanesr •,►i �a���n N Hidde N 9nr°Q� `d �P D . -od RacOOn Rdg n a \,n RdRd IT Briery Fa 9 P tcor, c T 01 c nr'O/ �° Pl G^�P F L ..f ni/a9e0 a m -Ln ID e°o� c r Meadows Springeqt • 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: REQUES TOR 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 ,Voa N A ❑ Project Boundary ❑ Buffered Project Boundary Quads: Scottsville; Simeon Counties: Albemarle Woodridge Solar contributors. and the GIs User Community Corp.. GEBCO. USGS. FAO. NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, 9. Esd China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenSireetMap 1:31,621 0 0.25 0.5 1 mi 0 0.425 0.85 1.7 km Company: Timmons Group Lat/Long:375331/-762749 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 htto://vafwis.org/twis/ 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. - preliminary results for this project, no further correspong�ill be sent from tbl . 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 Local office Virginia Ecological Services Field Office t. (804) 693-6694 18 (804) 693-9032 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, VA 23061-4410 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virgi n iafield/ https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM61E/resources 1110 4/5/22, 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 project -specific information is often required. 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/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM61E/resources 2110 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 V•11TAII Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Wherever found STATUS Candidate No critical habitat has been designated for this species. hops://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Critical habitats 'O Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. �L THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS ATTHIS LOCATION. V— O Migratory birds n 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/mana ged-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php • Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management project -assessment -tools -a nd-guidance/ conservation-measures.php • Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratoryirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM61E/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 t the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in project area. I i NAME BREEDING SEASON (IRA BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE ..................................................................................................... BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR ..................................................................................... 5 PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN ................................................................................ THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED, .................................................................................... O WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL ................................................................................ L G ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE .....................................................................................................E WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS ..................................................I............................. ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE. O I? THAT ELSEWHERE" THE IDEINDICATES L.LY CATES HAT BIRD OS NOT ' BREED IN YOUR PROJECARE T A.) 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. hftps://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM61E/resources 4110 415122, 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. 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 !,� 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 httpsJ/ipac.ecosphere.fws.govllocation/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM61EIresources 5110 4/5122, 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 of ................... Conservation Concern(BCC) throughout .its ............................. range in the .................................. continental USA ............................................. and Alaska.) Red-headed Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its ............. range. in the continental USA Ad Alaska.) - Wood Thrush BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of ................... Conservation 6ircern (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 ---1111111111111 IF ---- ---- - NO 1600 ■--■ 001- 1A dill 1111 sm 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/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM61E/resources 6110 4/5/22, 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 survey., 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. 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 . a.i 1 Probability of presence data is continuously being update1 d 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 1rd'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). https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM61E/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 marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel q n Loring. 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 b 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 hftps://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM61E/resources 8110 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 Nationa Wetlands Inventory `_ 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. oA r 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. 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/5ABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM61E/resources 9110 4/5/22, 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 13NO000 G https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/locatioNSABOCFOPN5D4JA7X41WIDUM61E/resources 10110 VaFWIS Map 4/5122, 2:38 PM FWI Department f Game and Inland 37.89580-78.46291 is the Search Point SubmR Cancel iearch Point Qa Change to "clicked" map point O Fiaed at 37.89580 -78 46291 ihow Position Rings O Yes * No I mile and 1/4 mile at the itarch Point ihow Search Area Oa Yes O No 2 Search distance miles Search Point is at map center BW Aedal Photography Map Overlay Choices Current List: Anadromous, Waters, BAEANests, ECAR, Trout, Tierq Habitat Up Overlay Legend T 8, E Waters �. Federal W state Predicted Habitat WAP Tlar 15. II Aquatic Terrestrial bout Waters Class 1 - IV Class V - VI Anadromous Fish Reach Confirmed Potential Impediment 2 mile radius Search Area Bald Eagle Concentration Areas and Roosts Bald Eagle Nests CData nhservatinn Sa'n 1 Refresh Browser Pa Screen 57mt1 SIZI O as 0 ma 1 1.E 10 glom.bn 0 0 e 6 Mll.s Point of Search 37.89580-78.46291 Map Location 37.89580-78.46291 Select Coordinate System: ODegrem,Minutes,Seconds Latitude -Longitude *Decimal Degrees Latitude. Longitude OMeters UTM NAD83 East North Zone OMeters UTM NAD27 East North Zone Base Map source: Black & White USGS Aerial Photography (see Microsoft tmraserver-usa.com for details) hltps://services.dwr.virginia.gov/fvAs/maps/zMapFo"Java.asp?v 040514 1/2 415122, 2:38 PM VaFWIS Map Map projection is UTM Zone 17 NAD 1983 with left 707083 and top 4213289. Pixel size is 18, 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 Survey Color aerial photography squired 2002 is from Virginia Base Mapping Program, Virginia Geographic Information Network. Shaded topographic maps are from TOPO! 02006 National Geographic http://wwwnational.geographic.com/tDpo All other map products are from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Game and Wand Fisheries. map assembled 2022-04-05 14:3704 (ga/gc March 21, 2016 12:20 - tr-1174946 dis1=3218 I $poi=37.9039500-78.4572800 I D IF I CreditsI Dr�imE I Contact vaf 's su000rt(ddeifvirgmia.g� Please view our p=@ ® 1998-2022 Commonwealth of Virginia Deparhnent of Game and Wand Fisheries hfps://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 MaMff 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 YU BOVA,TEWaters,Habitat 050022 FTST Ia B9, northern long_ eared Myotis septentrionalis BOVA 060173 FTST Ia Pigtae, Atlantic Fusconaia masoni BOVA 060029 FTST IIa Lance,_yellow Elliptio 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,-pggr gib Falco peregrinus BOVA 040293 ST Ila Shrike,Iggg re head 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 BOVA 030012 CC IVa Rattlesnake, timber Crotalus horridus BOVA 040092 Ila lEagLe,.golden Aquila chrysaetos BOVA 040306 la Warbler,_golden- wingU Vermivora chrysoptera BOVA 100248 Ia Fri ill , wal Speyeria idalia idalia. IBOVA 060084 Ib Pigfpg,-/irgin� Lexmgtonia 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 1 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 114 4/5122, 2:38 PM To view All 509 species View 509 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; 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. Bat Colonies or Hibernacula: Not Known Anadromous Fish Use Streams ( 1 records ) View Map of All Anadromous Fish Use Streams Stream ID Stream Name Reach Status I Anadromous Fish Species ** Different Species] Hi hest TE Hi hest Tier View Ma P77 Hardware River Potential 000 Yes Impediments to Fish Passage ( 3 records ) ® Name River View Map 895 PACES DAM TR-BRIERY CREEK Yes 731 T. POTTS DAM 42 TR-BRIERY CREEK Yes EflITIMBER LAKE DAM FLINT CREEK Yes Colonial Water Bird Survey N/A Threatened and Endangered Waters (17 Reaches ) View Ma of f All Fish Impediments View Map of All Threatened and Endangered Waters T&E Waters Species Stream Name View Highest TE* BOVA Code, Status*, Tier**, Common & Scientific Name Map Hardware River in Smussel, Parvas tna (0100212) FESE 060017 FESE la Jams collina Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE la Sin mussel, rvas ma rco (0100750) James llina Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia Sin mussel, s Parvas Yes ( 10 01830) Jain collinama Hardware River Sin mussel, vas ina (0101864). FESE 060017 FESE Ia Jams rcoina Yes Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia m mussel, Parvas ma Yes (085651) Jams collina https://services.dwr.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPagesNaFWIS_GeographicSeled_Options.asp 2/4 4/5122, 2:38 PM VAFWIS Seach Report Hardware River FESE Parvas maP (088871) jrn[nL�,Spmymuajcl, James collina Hardware River Sin mussel, Parvas ma (091711 ) FESE 060017 FESE Ia Jams collina Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia Sin mussel, ]collina Parvasma (091974) James Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE [1a]James Sin mussel, Parvasma Yes (092525) collina Hardware River Sin mussel, Parvasina (093184) FESE 060017 FESE Ia Jams collina Yes Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia m mussel, �James Parvasma Yes (093300) collina Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia m mussel, rvas ma rco Yes (093961) Jams llina Hardware River Sin mussel, Parvasma (094506) FESE 060017 FESE Ia Jams collinayta Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia Sin mussel, s asma rcrIlinap g (094692) Jarn Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia Sin mussel, s Parvasma Yes (096051) Jain collina Hardware River S m mussel, Parvas ma (098543) FESE 060017 FESE Ia Jams collina Yes Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia m mussel, �James Parvas ma Yes (098786) collina 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 S ep cies Stream Name Highest TE* Briery Creek (20802031) FESE Hardware River FESE (20802031) Murphy Creek FESE (20802031) tributary (20802041) ST tributary (20802041) I ST Tier Species BOVA Code, Status*, Tier*", Common & Scientific Name 060017 FESE Ia Sin mussel, P—Y Jamescollina Parvas ma P 060017 FESE FlaSin P—Y mussel, Jamescollina Parvas ma P 060017 FESE Ia Spinymussel, James Parvaspina collina 060081 ST IIa Floater, Lasmigona green subviridis 660081 7ST IIa Floater, Lasmigona green subviridis Habitat Predicted for Terrestrial WAP Tier I & II Species N/A Public Holdings: XT/A View Map Yes Yes Yes Yes YU hfps://services.dwr.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPagesNaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.asp 414 4/5122, 2:39 PM VaFWIS Map Threatened and Endangered Waters here Spinymussel, rfO James (060017) observed back Refresh Browser Pa e Map rmMap Screen tied BIZt:� Het 37.90395-78.45727 Click Scale Size is the Search Point Show Position Rings O Yes * No 1 mile and 1/4 mile at the Search Point Show Search Area On Yes O No 2 Search distance miles offer Display ah Point is not at center map center Bow Map Choices BW Aerial Photography r ap Overlay Choices Current List: Search, Waters Map Overlay Legend T lit E Wahr1 Federal Stare 2 mile radius Search Area A1111111111h./... .... , N to a At 1 7.3 10 lnlomatem 1 0 0 6 a MIh• Point of Search 37.90395-78.45727 Map Location 37.89580-78.46291 Select Coordinate System: ODegrem,Minutes,Seconds Latitude -Longitude *Decimal Degrees Latitude. Longitude OMeters UTM NAD83 East North Zone OMeters UTM NAD27 East North Zone Base Map source: Black & White USGS Aerial Photography (see Microsoft terraserver-usa.com for details) hops://sewices.dwr.virginia.govlmapslzMapFormJava.asp?autoscale=l4&coord=LL&display_only=l &dist=3218&dp=&gap=&In=timmons&opoi=&overl... 1/2 415122, 2:39 PM VaFWIS Map Map projection is UTM Zone 17 NAD 1983 with left 707083 and top 4213289. Pixel size is 18, 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 Survey Color aerial photography squired 2002 is from Virginia Base Mapping Program, Virginia Geographic Information Network. Shaded topographic maps are from TOPO! 02006 National Geographic http://wwwnational.geographic.com/tDpo All other map products are from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Game and Wand Fisheries. map assembled 2022-04-05 14:39:16 (ga/gc March 21, 2016 12:20 - tr-1174946.1 dis1=3218 1) $poi=37.9039500-78.4572799 I D IF I CreditsI Dr�imE I Contact vafivis su000rt(ddeifvirgmia.g� Please view our odvac ® 1998-2022 Commonwealth of Virginia Deaarhnent of Game and Wand Fisheries hops://sewices.dwr.virginia.govlmapslzMapFormJava.asp?autoscale=14&coord=LL&display_on!y-1 &dist=3218&dp=&gap=&In=timmons&opoi=&overt... 2/2 4/522, 2:38 PM VAFWIS Seach Report 4 11 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) 5pinymusse1, James observed. View Map of Site Location Threatened and Endangered Waters where Spinymussel, James (060017) observed (17 Reaches ) View Map of All Threatened and Endangered Waters T&E Waters Species Stream Name View Map Highest * " BOVA Code, Status*, Tier TE Common & Scientific Name Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia0100212 m mussel, Parvasma Yes () Jams collina Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia n mussel, Parvas ma Yes (0100750) Jams collina Hardware River mussel, SmJams Parvasma (0101830) FESE EEH la collina Yes Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia Sa1ns mussel, Parvasma Yes ( 10 01864) Jin collina Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia S m mussel, Parvasma Yes (085651) James collina Hardware River m mussel, Parvasma (088871) FESE EEH Fla]S Jams collina Yes Hardware River n mussel, Parvas ma (091711 ), FESE 060017 FESE Ia Jams collina Yes Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia to mussel, Parvasma Yes (091974) Jams collina Hardware River S m mussel, Parvasma (092525) FESE 060017 FESE Ia Jams collina Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE la S m mussel, Parvasma (093184) Jams collina Hardware River FESE hltps:Hservices.dwr.virginia.gov/fwisINewPagesNaFWIS_report_search.asp?pf=1&Title=VaFWIS+Report+Search&commonName=Spinymussel +,lam... 1/3 4/5122, 2:38 PM VAFWIS Seach Report (093300 ) Spininymusse11 Parvaspina arvaa [!nlnL�]Jarnes Hardware River S m mussel, Parvasma (093961) FESE 060017 FESE Ia Jam, s collina Yes Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Fla S m mussel, s Parvasma Yes (094506) Japin WHIM Hardware River FESE 060017 HE�!jpJin m mussel, s Parvas ma(094692) Yes collina Hardware River mussel, SmJams Parvasma (096051) FESE 17 E FESE Ia collina YeS Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia In mussel, Parvasma Yes (098543) Jams collina Hardware River FESE 060017 FESE Ia n mussel, Parvasma Yes (098786) Jams collinap *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 Briery Creek S m mussel, Parvas ma (20802031) FESE 060017 FESE Ia Jams collina Yes Hardware Hardware River FESE E[ES:E][I]aJain S m mussel, s as as ma LMI Yes Murphy Creek FESE 060017 FESE S fn mussel, Ia s Parvasma �collinap Yes (2 0 031) Jain Habitat Predicted for Terrestrial WAP Tier I & II Species where Spinymussel, James (060017) observed https://services.dwr.virginia.govlfwisINewPagesNaFWIS_report_search.asp?pf-l&Title=VaFWIS+Report+Search&commonName=Spinymussel +,lam... 213 4/5122, 2:38 PM VAFWIS Seach Report N/A Compiled on4/52022,238'55 PM 11174946.1 m,i,—BOVA u hType=P dis 3218poi=379039500-784572799 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 hfps://services.dwr.virginia.govlfwisINewPagesNaFWIS_report_search.asp?pf-l&Tiille=VaFWIS+Report+Search&commonName=Spinymussel +,lam... 3/3