Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-22 Reports & Studies
Redbud Run Solar LLC Impact Analysis Statement for Conditional Use Permit Application Attachment 1 Preliminary Site Layout 0 1,000 2,000 Feet± Underground Medium Voltage Line Existing Rappahannock Electric 34.5kV Inverter Pad PV Array POI Project Fence Staging Area Access Road Stormwater Basin Landscape Screening Delineated Stream/Wetland Project Boundary Name of Map: Redbud_SiteDesign PRELIMINARY SITE LAYOUT Redbud Run Solar LLC Frederick County, VA 1/12/2022 Redbud Run Solar LLC Impact Analysis Statement for Conditional Use Permit Application Attachment 2 Protected Species Search Results Ann Jennings Secretary of Natural and Historic Resources and Chief Resilience Officer Clyde E. Cristman Director Rochelle Altholz Deputy Director of Administration and Finance Nathan Burrell Deputy Director of Government and Community Relations Darryl M. Glover Deputy Director of Dam Safety & Floodplain Management and Soil & Water Conservation Thomas L. Smith Deputy Director of Operations 600 East Main Street, 24th Floor | Richmond, Virginia 23219 | 804-786-6124 State Parks • Soil and Water Conservation • Outdoor Recreation Planning Natural Heritage • Dam Safety and Floodplain Management • Land Conservation October 13, 2021 Ali Trunzo Oriden LLC 106 Isabella St 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Re: Redbud Run Solar Dear Ms. Trunzo: The Department of Conservation and Recreation's Division of Natural Heritage (DCR) has searched its Biotics Data System for occurrences of natural heritage resources from the area outlined on the submitted map. 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. The absence of data may indicate that the project area has not been surveyed, rather than confirm that the area lacks natural heritage resources. In addition, the project boundary does not intersect any of the predictive models identifying potential habitat for natural heritage resources. DCR recommends the development of an invasive species management plan for the project and the planting of Virginia native pollinator plant species that bloom throughout the spring and summer, to maximize benefits to native pollinators. DCR recommends planting these species in at least the buffer areas of the planned facility, and optimally including other areas within the project site. For screening zones outside the perimeter fencing, DCR recommends native species appropriate for the region be used. Guidance on plant species can be found here: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/solar-site-native-plants-finder. In addition, Virginia native species alternatives to the non-native species listed in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (Third Edition 1992), can be found in the 2017 addendum titled “Native versus Invasive Plant Species”, here: https://www.deq.virginia.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=2466. Page 3 of the addendum provides a list of native alternatives for non-natives commonly used for site stabilization including native cover crop species (i.e. Virginia wildrye). Furthermore, the proposed project will fragment an Ecological Core (C5) as identified in the Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment (https://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/vaconvisvnla), one of a suite of tools in Virginia ConservationVision that identify and prioritize lands for conservation and protection. Mapped cores in the project area can be viewed via the Virginia Natural Heritage Data Explorer, available here: http://vanhde.org/content/map. Ecological Cores are areas of unfragmented natural cover with at least 100 acres of interior that provide 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. Cores also provide benefits in terms of open space, recreation, water quality (including drinking water protection and erosion prevention), and air quality (including carbon sequestration and oxygen production), along with the many associated economic benefits of these functions. The cores are ranked from C1 to C5 (C5 being the least ecologically relevant) using many prioritization criteria, such as the proportions of sensitive habitats of natural heritage resources they contain. Fragmentation occurs when a large, contiguous block of natural cover is dissected by development, and other forms of permanent conversion, into one or more smaller patches. Habitat fragmentation results in biogeographic changes that disrupt species interactions and ecosystem processes, reducing biodiversity and habitat quality due to limited recolonization, increased predation and egg parasitism, and increased invasion by weedy species. Therefore minimizing fragmentation is a key mitigation measure that will reduce deleterious effects and preserve the natural patterns and connectivity of habitats that are key components of biodiversity. DCR recommends efforts to minimize edge in remaining fragments, retain natural corridors that allow movement between fragments and designing the intervening landscape to minimize its hostility to native wildlife (natural cover versus lawns). Under a Memorandum of Agreement established between the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) and the 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. There are no State Natural Area Preserves under DCR’s jurisdiction in the project vicinity. New and updated information is continually added to Biotics. Please re-submit a completed order form and project map for an update on this natural heritage information if the scope of the project changes and/or six months (April 13, 2022) has passed before it is utilized. A fee of $90.00 has been assessed for the service of providing this information. Please find attached an invoice for that amount. Please return one copy of the invoice along with your remittance made payable to the Treasurer of Virginia, DCR Finance, 600 East Main Street, 24th Floor, Richmond, VA 23219. Payment is due within thirty days of the invoice date. Please note late payment may result in the suspension of project review service for future projects. The Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (VDWR) maintains a database of wildlife locations, including threatened and endangered species, trout streams, and anadromous fish waters that may contain information not documented in this letter. Their database may be accessed from http://vafwis.org/fwis/ or contact Amy Martin at 804-367-2211 or amy.martin@dwr.virginia.gov. Should you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me at 804-371-2708. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, S. René Hypes Natural Heritage Project Review Coordinator Cc: Mary Major- DEQ Mary Beth Price- Interim Fredrick County Administrator Sucker, northern hog Madtom, margined Darter, fantailBass, rock BluegillMinnow, bluntnose Stoneroller, central Darter, fantail Bluegill Chub, creek Crappie, white Shiner, comely Pumpkinseed Chubsucker, creek Turtle, eastern musk Bluegill Mussel, eastern elliptio Dace, blacknose FlierTrout, rainbow Sculpin, Potomac Dace, longnose Sucker, white Bass, rock Killifish, banded Clam, Asian Mussel, eastern elliptio Sucker, white Bluegill Chub, creek Dace, blacknose Shiner, common Dace, blacknose Trout, brook Sucker, white Pumpkinseed Sculpin, Potomac Chub, creek Dace, blacknose Sucker, white Dace, pearl Shiner, spottail Trout, rainbow Dace, pearl Dace, pearl 0 1,000 2,000 Feet± Boundary Project Area 500ft Project Area Buffer Existing Infrastructure Transmission Line WERMS* Species Observation Location Trout Streams TE Waters DGIF WMAs Name of Map: Redbud_Environmental_WERMS ENVIRONMENTAL - WERMS Redbud Run Frederick County, VA 1/10/2022 * Wildlife Environmental Review Map Service (WERMS). Assessed on 1/10/2022. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Redbud Run Solar LLC Impact Analysis Statement for Conditional Use Permit Application Attachment 3 Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey Report Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project Frederick County, Virginia December 2021 Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia Document Information Project Name Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey, Redbud Run Solar Project DHR File Number 2021-0163 Cardno Project Number E319302502 Principal Investigator James N. Ambrosino, PhD, RPA Project Manager Ryan Rupprecht Date December 2021 Prepared for: Oriden 106 Isabella Street, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Prepared by: Valerie Nobles, MA, RPA Lillian Hutzell Kimberly Hinder, MHP James N. Ambrosino, Ph.D., RPA Cardno, Inc. 104 South White Street, Suite 205, Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Executive Summary i Executive Summary Between May and November of 2021, Cardno, Inc. (Cardno) conducted a Phase I cultural resources identification survey for the proposed Redbud Run Solar Project in Frederick County, Virginia by Oriden, LLC (Oriden). Oriden is proposing a ~30 MW AC solar project to interconnect to the adjacent Rappahannock Electric Co- op 34.5 kV electric line. The Redbud Run Project is located approximately 2.4 miles east of Winchester, Virginia in northeastern Frederick County. As proposed, the project will consist of approximately 154.3 acres of solar arrays contained within fencing, located on the south side of Woods Mill Road. The disturbance zone for the project consists of various elements including the fenced solar array boundaries, access roads, three staging areas, connection lines, the point of interconnection (POI), and three strips of plantings to create vegetative screening. The Phase I cultural resource survey was completed to fulfill compliance with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) Small Renewable Energy Projects (Solar) Permit by Rule (PBR) regulation (Virginia Code 9VAC15-60). The fieldwork and the resulting report conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (FR48: 190:44716-44742 – U.S. Department of the Interior, 1983) and the current guidelines set forth by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR 2017). The purpose of Phase I archaeological and architectural surveys was to locate and document the presence of all archaeological and historic architectural resources within the project disturbance zone, and provide a recommendation for eligibility for inclusion in the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR) and/or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) for each resource. Additionally, architectural resources within one-half mile of the project disturbance zone were recorded and considered for potential visual effects during the survey. During the Phase I identification survey, three previously recorded sites were revisited and one new archaeological resource was identified. Shovel tests conducted within and surrounding 44FK0383, a 19th century historic farmstead, yielded no cultural material, and no aboveground features were identified. The site boundaries were not updated, and the site remains not eligible for the NRHP. Previously recorded site 44FK0385, a 19th to 20th century farmstead, yielded one additional artifact during this survey, and as a result the original site boundaries were updated. However, the site is recommended not eligible for the NRHP and no further work is warranted. Shovel tests conducted within and surrounding the boundaries of 44FK0423, a mid-19th century historic site, yielded no cultural material. Additionally, no aboveground features were observed. As a result, the original site boundaries were not updated and the site remains not evaluated for the NRHP. Metal detecting conducted within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District, along the western edge of survey areas, did not yield any archaeological material. Site 44FK1041 was identified as a small, 19th to 20th century domestic site via artifacts collected from the surface and shovel testing. All artifacts were collected from the surface and from the first five centimeters upslope from a creek bed. Due to the paucity of subsurface material and nature of redeposition, this site is not eligible for the NRHP. During the historical portion of the survey, Cardno documented 62 properties including three districts in the APE that were more than 50 years old and evaluated these properties to determine potential NRHP eligibility. As a result of this survey, nine resources were identified as significant properties, meaning that they were either previously NRHP-listed, determined NRHP eligible or this survey found them potentially NRHP eligible. These include: High Banks (034-0109), Opequon Battlefield of the Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), Second Winchester Battlefield (034-5023), Milburn Rural Historic District (034-5035), Jordan White Sulfur Springs (030-0110), Duvall House (034-0723), Brumley House/Smith Farm (034-0704), Redbud Farm/Wood House (formerly Charles W. Wood’s Miller’s House; 034-1157), and Red Bud United Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Executive Summary ii Bretheren Church and Cemetery (034-1147). Three additional properties, J. Clark House and Mill/Jackson Mill/Silent Mills (034-1064), Backbone Farm (034-1114), and 180 Pine Road (034-5399) were found to have an unknown eligibility as the structures on the parcel were not visible from the public right-of-way. Viewshed analysis revealed that the existing topography as well as existing tree canopy and vegetation outside of the construction footprint would shield the eligible properties from adverse visual effects. Provided the existing vegetation outside of the construction footprint is maintained, this project would have no adverse effect on NRHP listed or eligible properties and no mitigation is anticipated. Based on the results of this investigation, it is believed that the development of the current project area will not affect sites or properties that have historical, cultural, or sacred significance, or that otherwise meet the minimum criteria for listing in the NRHP. No further archaeological or historic research is recommended for the project area. The following table summarizes these archaeological and historical resources including evaluations and recommendations related to the Redbud Run Solar Project. VCRIS Number Site Type / Name Recommended NRHP Status Recommended Action 44FK0383 19th Century Historic Farmstead Ineligible None 44FK0385 19th – 20th Century Historic Farmstead Ineligible None 44FK0423 Mid-19th Century Historic site Not evaluated None 44FK1041 19th – 20th Century Domestic site Ineligible None 034-5023 Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District Determined Eligible Continued screening with existing vegetation 034-0456 Opequon Battlefield (Third Battle of Winchester) Historic District Determined Eligible Continued screening with existing vegetation 034-5035 Milburn Rural Historic District Determined Eligible Continued screening with existing vegetation 034-0110 Jordan White Sulfur Springs/1160 Jordan Springs Road Determined Eligible, Contributing (2nd Winchester HD and Milburn Rural Historic District) Continued screening with existing vegetation 034-5357 1384 Jordan Springs Road Ineligible No further action 034-5358 1392 Jordan Springs Road Ineligible No further action 034-5359 1418 Jordan Springs Road Ineligible No further action 034-5360 1430 Jordan Springs Road Ineligible No further action 034-5361 1462 Jordan Springs Road Ineligible No further action 034-5362 1472 Jordan Springs Road Ineligible No further action 034-5363 1482 Jordan Springs Road Ineligible No further action 034-5364 1500 Jordan Springs Road Ineligible No further action 034-5365 1552 Jordan Springs Road Ineligible No further action 034-5366 1564 Jordan Springs Road Ineligible No further action 034-0723 Duvall House/1681 Jordan Springs Road Potentially Eligible Continued screening with existing vegetation 034-5367 1695 Jordan Springs Road Ineligible No further action 034-0704 Brumley House/Smith Farm/223 Burnt Factory Road Potentially Eligible Continued screening with existing vegetation Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Executive Summary iii VCRIS Number Site Type / Name Recommended NRHP Status Recommended Action 034-5368 1058-1110 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-5369 1108 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-5370 1102 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-1115 Harold Conner House/ 1010 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-5371 976 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-5372 936 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-5376 906 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-5377 896 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-5378 897 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-5382 886 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-5373 878 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-5374 870 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-5375 840 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-5379 830 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-5380 758 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-5381 748 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-5383 527 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-1116 Jenkins-Dehaven House/ 417 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-1118 Jenkins House/359 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-5384 349 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-1156 Patrick McTeirnan House/Thomas McTeirnan House/ 223 Woods Mill Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 034-1157 Redbud Farm/Wood House/145 Woods Mill Road Potentially Eligible, Contributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) Continued screening with existing vegetation 034-1147 Red Bud United Brethren Bud Church and Cemetery/1551 Redbud Road Potentially Eligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) Continued screening with existing vegetation 034-5385 1506 Redbud Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 034-5386 1501 Redbud Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 034-5387 1451 Redbud Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Executive Summary iv VCRIS Number Site Type / Name Recommended NRHP Status Recommended Action 034-1146 Red Bud School/1420 Redbud Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 034-5388 1347 Redbud Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 034-5389 1307 Redbud Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 034-5390 328 Redbud Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 034-5391 185 Pine Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-1119 Redbud Cemetery/North side of Pine Road Ineligible No further action 034-5392 473 Pine Road Ineligible No further action 034-5393 138 Steepwood Lane Ineligible, Noncontributing (Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 034-5394 183 Steepwood Lane Ineligible, Noncontributing (Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 034-5395 2663 Berryville Pike Ineligible, Noncontributing (Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 034-5396 2621 Berryville Pike Ineligible, Noncontributing (the Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 034-0724 Hallam House/1586 Jordan Springs Road Ineligible No further action 034-5397 2444 Berryville Pike Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 034-1144 Robert D. Keckley House/1263 Redbud Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (the Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 034-5398 1054 Jordan Springs Road Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 034-1064 J. Clark House and Mill/Jackson Mill/Silent Mills/302 High Banks Road Unknown Continued screening with existing vegetation 034-0109 High Banks/423 High Banks Road NRHP-Listed VLR Listed Continued screening with existing vegetation 034-1114 Backbone Farm/352 Monastery Ridge Road Unknown Continued screening with existing vegetation 034-5399 180 Pine Road Unknown, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) Continued screening with existing vegetation Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Table of Contents v Table of Contents 1 General Project Description .............................................................................................. 1 2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Soils ..................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Vegetation and Current Land Use ..................................................................................... 10 3 Cultural Context ............................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Paleoindian Period (ca. 12,000-8000 BC) ......................................................................... 13 3.2 Archaic Period (ca. 8000-1000 BC) ................................................................................... 14 3.2.1 Early Archaic ...................................................................................................... 14 3.2.2 Middle Archaic .................................................................................................... 14 3.2.3 Late Archaic ....................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Woodland Period (ca. 1000 BC - AD 1600) ...................................................................... 15 3.3.1 Early Woodland .................................................................................................. 15 3.3.2 Middle Woodland ............................................................................................... 16 3.3.3 Late Woodland ................................................................................................... 16 3.4 Historic Period ................................................................................................................... 16 4 Archival Research ............................................................................................................ 19 4.1 Previously Recorded Archaeological and Architectural Resources .................................. 19 4.2 Historic Maps ..................................................................................................................... 26 5 Research Design .............................................................................................................. 32 5.1 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 32 5.2 Area of Potential Effects .................................................................................................... 32 5.3 Expected Results ............................................................................................................... 32 5.4 Probability Model ............................................................................................................... 33 5.5 Field Methods .................................................................................................................... 36 5.5.1 Definitions .......................................................................................................... 36 5.5.2 Archaeological Field Methods ............................................................................ 36 5.5.3 Architectural Field Methods ............................................................................... 37 5.6 Laboratory Methods........................................................................................................... 37 5.6.1 Historic Artifacts ................................................................................................. 38 5.6.1.1 Kitchen Group ..................................................................................... 39 5.7 Curation ............................................................................................................................. 39 5.8 Criteria for NRHP Eligibility ............................................................................................... 39 6 Archaeological Survey Results ...................................................................................... 40 6.1 Summary of Results .......................................................................................................... 40 6.2 Previously Recorded Sites ................................................................................................ 46 6.2.1 Site 44FK0383 ................................................................................................... 46 6.2.2 Site 44FK0385 ................................................................................................... 48 6.2.3 Site 44FK0423 ................................................................................................... 50 6.3 Newly Recorded Sites ....................................................................................................... 52 6.3.1 Site 44FK1041 ................................................................................................... 52 7 Historical Survey Results ................................................................................................ 54 7.1 Summary of Results .......................................................................................................... 54 Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Table of Contents vi 7.2 Historic District Descriptions .............................................................................................. 61 7.2.1 Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District .................................................. 61 7.2.2 Opequon Battlefield (Third Battle of Winchester) Historic District ..................... 64 7.2.3 Milburn Rural Historic District ............................................................................. 67 7.3 Historical Site Descriptions ................................................................................................ 68 7.3.1 Jordan White Sulfur Springs .............................................................................. 68 7.3.2 1384 Jordan Springs Road ................................................................................ 75 7.3.3 1392 Jordan Springs Road ................................................................................ 76 7.3.4 1418 Jordan Springs Road ................................................................................ 77 7.3.5 1430 Jordan Springs Road ................................................................................ 78 7.3.6 1462 Jordan Springs Road ................................................................................ 79 7.3.7 1472 Jordan Springs Road ................................................................................ 80 7.3.8 1482 Jordan Springs Road ................................................................................ 81 7.3.9 1500 Jordan Springs Road ................................................................................ 82 7.3.10 1552 Jordan Springs Road ................................................................................ 83 7.3.11 1564 Jordan Springs Road ................................................................................ 84 7.3.12 Duvall House ...................................................................................................... 85 7.3.13 1695 Jordan Springs Road ................................................................................ 87 7.3.14 Bromley House/Smith Farm ............................................................................... 88 7.3.15 1058-1110 Woods Mill Road .............................................................................. 93 7.3.16 1108 Woods Mill Road ....................................................................................... 98 7.3.17 1102 Woods Mill Road ....................................................................................... 99 7.3.18 Harold Conner House ...................................................................................... 100 7.3.19 976 Woods Mill Road ....................................................................................... 103 7.3.20 936 Woods Mill Road ....................................................................................... 104 7.3.21 906 Woods Mill Road ....................................................................................... 105 7.3.22 896 Woods Mill Road ....................................................................................... 106 7.3.23 897 Woods Mill Road ....................................................................................... 107 7.3.24 886 Woods Mill Road ....................................................................................... 108 7.3.25 878 Woods Mill Road ....................................................................................... 109 7.3.26 870 Woods Mill Road ....................................................................................... 110 7.3.27 840 Woods Mill Road ....................................................................................... 111 7.3.28 830 Woods Mill Road ....................................................................................... 112 7.3.29 758 Woods Mill Road ....................................................................................... 113 7.3.30 748 Woods Mill Road ....................................................................................... 114 7.3.31 527 Woods Mill Road ....................................................................................... 115 7.3.32 Jenkins-Dehaven House .................................................................................. 116 7.3.33 Jenkins House .................................................................................................. 118 7.3.34 349 Woods Mill Road ....................................................................................... 119 7.3.35 Patrick McTeirnan House/Thomas McTeirnan House ..................................... 120 7.3.36 Redbud Farm/Wood House ............................................................................. 122 7.3.37 Red Bud United Brethren Church and Cemetery ............................................ 133 7.3.38 1506 Redbud Road .......................................................................................... 136 7.3.39 1501 Redbud Road .......................................................................................... 137 7.3.40 1451 Redbud Road .......................................................................................... 138 7.3.41 Red Bud School ............................................................................................... 139 Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Table of Contents vii 7.3.42 1347 Redbud Road .......................................................................................... 141 7.3.43 1307 Redbud Road .......................................................................................... 142 7.3.44 328 Redbud Road ............................................................................................ 143 7.3.45 185 Pine Road ................................................................................................. 144 7.3.46 Redbud Cemetery ............................................................................................ 145 7.3.47 473 Pine Road ................................................................................................. 146 7.3.48 138 Steepwood Lane ....................................................................................... 147 7.3.49 183 Steepwood Lane ....................................................................................... 148 7.3.50 2663 Berryville Pike ......................................................................................... 149 7.3.51 2621 Berryville Pike ......................................................................................... 150 7.3.52 Hallam House ................................................................................................... 151 7.3.53 2444 Berryville Pike ......................................................................................... 154 7.3.54 Robert D. Keckley House ................................................................................. 155 7.3.55 1054 Jordan Springs Road .............................................................................. 157 7.3.56 J. Clark House and Mill/Jackson Mill/Silent Mills ............................................. 158 7.3.57 High Banks ....................................................................................................... 160 7.3.58 Backbone Farm ................................................................................................ 164 7.3.59 180 Pine Road ................................................................................................. 166 7.4 Project Effects ................................................................................................................. 167 8 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................... 177 9 References Cited ............................................................................................................ 179 Appendices Appendix A Artifact Inventory Appendix B Resumes of Key Personnel Tables Table 1 Soil Types for the Redbud Run Project Area ...................................................................... 8 Table 2 Previous Cultural Resource Surveys within 0.5 Mile of the Project Disturbance Zone .................................................................................................................................. 19 Table 3 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within 0.5 Mile of the Project Disturbance Zone .............................................................................................................. 22 Table 4 Previously Recorded Historic Resources within 0.5 Mile of the Project Disturbance Zone .............................................................................................................. 25 Table 5 Key to Numbered Features on Historic Map Comparison ................................................ 29 Table 6 Model and Actual Shovel Testing According to Probability Zone ..................................... 36 Table 7 South’s (1977) Artifact Function Categories ..................................................................... 38 Table 8 Historic Resources Identified during Redbud Run Phase I Survey .................................. 54 Table 9 Historic Resources within the Boundaries of the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) ............................................................................................... 62 Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Table of Contents viii Table 10 Historic Resources within the Boundaries of the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester Historic District (034-0456) ........................................................................ 65 Table 11 Historic Resources within the Boundaries of the Milburn Rural Historic District (034-5035) ......................................................................................................................... 67 Figures Figure 1 Location of the Redbud Run Solar Project, Frederick County, Virginia. ............................. 2 Figure 2 Redbud Run Project area with 0.5 Mile buffer on aerial imagery. ...................................... 3 Figure 3 Redbud Run Project area with 0.5 Mile buffer on topographic map. .................................. 4 Figure 4 Redbud Run proposed Disturbance area ........................................................................... 5 Figure 5 USDA soils within Redbud Run Project area. ..................................................................... 9 Figure 6 View of agricultural field, facing northeast. ....................................................................... 10 Figure 7 Harvested agricultural field, facing west. .......................................................................... 11 Figure 8 Mixed hardwood and pine, facing east. ............................................................................ 11 Figure 9 Forested area with moderately dense undergrowth, facing west. .................................... 12 Figure 10 Forested area, predominately pine, facing south. ............................................................. 12 Figure 11 Previous survey conducted by JMU in 1992 with current project survey areas. .............. 21 Figure 12 Previously recorded cultural resources within 0.5 miles of Redbud Run Project. ............ 24 Figure 13 Detail of Hotchkiss (1863) map showing the portion north and east of Winchester ......... 27 Figure 14 Comparison of Hotchkiss (1863) and 1942 Winchester quadrangle ................................ 28 Figure 15 Possible routes (purple) of Johnson’s march along roads depicted on Gillespie (1873) map, oriented with north to the top of the page (with the project area shown in orange) ............................................................................................................... 30 Figure 16 Detail of Gillespie (1873) map showing the relation of the project area to troop positions during the Third Battle of Winchester ................................................................ 31 Figure 17 Map showing soil analysis of the disturbance zone along with previous survey findings and slope analysis of area ................................................................................... 34 Figure 18 Map showing combined probability model and stratified sample testing plan .................. 35 Figure 19 Disturbance zones for Redbud Run Project. .................................................................... 41 Figure 20 Survey results, Tie-in line. ................................................................................................. 42 Figure 21 Survey results, Access Road (AR) and Area B. ............................................................... 43 Figure 22 Survey results, Area D. ..................................................................................................... 44 Figure 23 Survey results, Area E. ..................................................................................................... 45 Figure 24 Area of previously recorded site 44FK0383, facing west.................................................. 47 Figure 25 Representative shovel test within boundaries of 44FK0383. ............................................ 47 Figure 26 Area of previously recorded site 44FK0385, facing south. ............................................... 48 Figure 27 Survey results at site 44FK0385 ....................................................................................... 49 Figure 28 View of site 44FK0423, facing northeast. ......................................................................... 50 Figure 29 Survey results at site 44FK0423. ...................................................................................... 51 Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Table of Contents ix Figure 30 Survey results at site 44FK1041. ...................................................................................... 52 Figure 31 View of site 44FK1041 from eastern edge of site, facing west. ........................................ 53 Figure 32 Historic Resources within the Redbud Run architectural APE ......................................... 59 Figure 33 Significant historic resources within the Redbud Run architectural APE .......................... 60 Figure 34 Map of Second Winchester Battlefield .............................................................................. 63 Figure 35 Map of Opequon Battlefield of the Third Battle of Winchester Historic District ................ 66 Figure 36 Portion of map of Frederick County showing Duvall’s “Sulpher spring” (Varle and Jones 1809). ..................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 37 Portion of map of the Battle of Winchester depicting troop movements and infrastructure at the point of the battle on September 19, 1864 (Gillespie 1873). ............ 69 Figure 38 Jordan Springs site plan from a promotional brochure, ca. 1920, which includes the existing hotel at the top of the map and the ca. 1855 hotel at the lower right (Historic Jordan Springs 2021). ........................................................................................ 70 Figure 39 Hotel at Jordan White Sulfur Springs, façade, looking west ............................................. 71 Figure 40 Hotel at Jordan White Sulfur Springs, façade and northwest elevation, looking southwest .......................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 41 Hotel at Jordan White Sulfur Springs, façade and southeast elevation, looking northwest ........................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 42 Hotel at Jordan White Sulfur Springs, southwest (rear) elevation, looking southeast ........................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 43 Cabin at Jordan White Sulfur Springs, façade and west elevation, looking northeast ........................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 44 Office at Jordan White Sulfur Springs, façade and southwest elevation, looking northwest ........................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 45 Pergola set above spring at Jordan White Sulfur Springs, looking southwest ................. 74 Figure 46 Workshop at Jordan White Sulfur Springs, northeast elevation, looking southwest ........ 75 Figure 47 Dwelling at 1384 Jordan Springs Road, southeast (façade) and northeast elevations, looking west .................................................................................................... 76 Figure 48 Dwelling at 1392 Jordan Springs Road, façade and northwest elevation, looking southwest .......................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 49 Dwelling at 1418 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking west .......................................... 78 Figure 50 Dwelling at 1430 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking west .......................................... 79 Figure 51 Dwelling at 1462 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking west .......................................... 80 Figure 52 Dwelling at 1472 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking west .......................................... 81 Figure 53 Dwelling at 1482 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking west .......................................... 82 Figure 54 Dwelling at 1500 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking west .......................................... 83 Figure 55 Dwelling at 1552 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking west .......................................... 84 Figure 56 Dwelling at 1564 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking northwest ................................. 85 Figure 57 Duvall House depicted on Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. in 1885 (Lathrop and Dayton 1885). ................................................................................. 86 Figure 58 Dwelling at 1681 Jordan Springs Road, south elevation and outbuilding, looking north .................................................................................................................................. 87 Figure 59 Dwelling at 1695 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking east .......................................... 88 Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Table of Contents x Figure 60 Portion of map of the Battle of Winchester depicting troop movements and infrastructure at the point of the battle on September 19, 1864 (Gillespie 1873). ............ 89 Figure 61 Bromley House/Smith Farm depicted on Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. in 1885 (Lathrop and Dayton 1885) ........................................................ 90 Figure 62 Dwelling at 223 Burnt Factory Road, façade, looking north.............................................. 91 Figure 63 Dwelling at 223 Burnt Factory Road, west and north (rear) elevations, looking southeast ........................................................................................................................... 92 Figure 64 Garage at 223 Burnt Factory Road, west elevation, looking east .................................... 92 Figure 65 Quonset Hut at 223 Burnt Factory Road, west and south elevation, looking east ........... 93 Figure 66 Dwelling at 1078 Woods Mill Road, façade and northwest elevation, looking southeast ........................................................................................................................... 94 Figure 67 Dwelling at 1110 Woods Mill Road, northeast elevation, looking southwest .................... 95 Figure 68 Dwelling at 1068 Woods Mill Road, façade and northeast elevation, looking southwest .......................................................................................................................... 96 Figure 69 Dwelling at 1058 Woods Mill Road, façade and northwest elevation, looking southeast ........................................................................................................................... 97 Figure 70 Garage at 1108 Woods Mill Road, northwest and northeast elevations, looking south ................................................................................................................................. 98 Figure 71 Dwelling at 1102 Woods Mill Road, façade and northeast elevation, looking southwest .......................................................................................................................... 99 Figure 72 Dwelling at 1010 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking southeast ...................................... 101 Figure 73 Dwelling at 1010 Woods Mill Road, façade and southwest, looking east ....................... 101 Figure 74 Dwelling and outbuildings at 1010 Woods Mill Road, looking southwest ....................... 102 Figure 75 Outbuildings at 1010 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking southeast ................................ 102 Figure 76 Dwelling at 976 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking south ............................................... 103 Figure 77 Dwelling at 936 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking east ................................................. 104 Figure 78 Dwelling at 906 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking east ................................................. 105 Figure 79 Dwelling at 896 Woods Mill Road, façade and northeast elevation, looking southeast ......................................................................................................................... 106 Figure 80 Dwelling at 897 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking northwest ........................................ 107 Figure 81 Dwelling at 886 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking east ................................................. 108 Figure 82 Dwelling at 878 Woods Mill Road, façade and northeast elevation, looking east .......... 109 Figure 83 Dwelling at 870 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking east ................................................. 110 Figure 84 Dwelling at 840 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking east ................................................. 111 Figure 85 Dwelling at 830 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking southeast ........................................ 112 Figure 86 Dwelling at 758 Woods Mill Road, façade and northeast, looking southeast ................. 113 Figure 87 Dwelling at 748 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking northeast ......................................... 114 Figure 88 Dwelling at 527 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking west ................................................ 115 Figure 89 Dwelling at 417 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking northwest ........................................ 117 Figure 90 Dwelling at 417 Woods Mill Road, south and east (rear), looking northeast .................. 117 Figure 91 Garage at 417 Woods Mill Road, south elevation, looking north .................................... 118 Figure 92 Dwelling at 359 Woods Mill Road, façade and south elevation, looking northwest ........ 119 Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Table of Contents xi Figure 93 Dwelling at 349 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking west ................................................ 120 Figure 94 Dwelling at 223 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking southwest ....................................... 121 Figure 95 Site plan of Charles Wood’s Mill Complex (Hofstra and Geier 1992:Figure XIV-7) ....... 122 Figure 96 Portion of map of Frederick County showing the grist mills, paper mills, sawmills, and taverns along Red Bud Run in 1809 (Varle and Jones 1809). ................................ 123 Figure 97 Isaac Wood’s 1818 advertisement for a miller (Republican Constellation 1818) .......... 123 Figure 98 Portion of map of the Battle of Winchester depicting troop movements and infrastructure at the point of the battle on September 19, 1864. C. Wood’s Mill as well as two residences, one occupied by F. Hoodel, were noted on the map on this property (Gillespie 1873). ......................................................................................... 125 Figure 99 Portion of map depicting Winchester and its environs during the Civil War with Wood’s Mill noted on the map (Vorzet 1875). ................................................................. 126 Figure 100 The Mill and House site in the Red Bud area on the Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. in 1885 (Lathrop and Dayton 1885) ................................ 127 Figure 101 1901 Photograph labeled as Littler Home on Red Bud Run (Bowen 1901. Albert Bowen Collection, Courtesy Stewart Bell Jr. Archives, Handley Regional Library). ....... 127 Figure 102 Redbud Farm/ Wood House at 145 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking north ................ 129 Figure 103 Redbud Farm/Wood House, 1992 survey photos (VDHR, VCRIS 034-1147)................ 130 Figure 104 Corn Crib at 145 Woods Mill Road, west elevation, looking east ................................... 131 Figure 105 Pennsylvania Bank Barn at 145 Woods Mill Road, south elevation, looking northeast ......................................................................................................................... 131 Figure 106 Pennsylvania Bank Barn, 1992 survey photos (VDHR, VCRIS 034-1147) .................... 132 Figure 107 Bridge at 145 Woods Mill Road, north elevation, looking southwest ...................................... 132 Figure 108 Red Bud United Bretheren Church and the Red Bud area on Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. in 1885 (Lathrop and Dayton 1885) ....................... 133 Figure 109 Red Bud Church Homecoming, 1934 (Unknown photographer, James L. Prince Collection, Courtesy Stewart Bell Jr. Archives, Handley Regional Library) .................... 134 Figure 110 Red Bud United Brethren Church at 1551 Redbud Road, façade and south elevation, looking northeast ............................................................................................ 135 Figure 111 Red Bud United Brethren Cemetery at 1551 Redbud Road, looking northeast ............. 136 Figure 112 Dwelling at 1506 Redbud Road, façade and north elevation, looking east .................... 137 Figure 113 Dwelling at 1501 Redbud Road, façade and southeast elevation, looking north ........... 138 Figure 114 Dwelling at 1451 Redbud Road, façade and southeast elevation, looking north ........... 139 Figure 115 Red Bud School at 1420 Redbud Road, façade and northwest elevation, looking south ............................................................................................................................... 140 Figure 116 Red Bud School, 1934 (Unknown photographer, Frederick Co. VA School System Collection, Courtesy Stewart Bell Jr. Archives, Handley Regional Library). ........................................................................................................................... 141 Figure 117 Dwelling at 1347 Redbud Road, façade, looking east .................................................... 142 Figure 118 Dwelling at 1307 Redbud Road, façade, looking east .................................................... 143 Figure 119 Dwelling at 328 Redbud Road, façade, looking east. ..................................................... 144 Figure 120 Dwelling at 185 Pine Road, façade and east elevation, looking northwest .................... 145 Figure 121 Redbud Cemetery on North side of Pine Road, looking north ........................................ 146 Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Table of Contents xii Figure 122 Dwelling at 473 Pine Road, façade and southeast elevation, looking north ................... 147 Figure 123 Dwelling at 138 Steepwood Lane, looking north ............................................................. 148 Figure 124 Dwelling at 183 Steepwood Lane, looking north ............................................................. 149 Figure 125 Dwelling at 2663 Berryville Road, façade, looking northwest ......................................... 150 Figure 126 Dwelling at 2621 Berryville Road, façade and north elevation, looking southwest ........ 151 Figure 127 Dwelling at 1586 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking west ........................................ 152 Figure 128 Dwelling at 1586 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking southwest ............................... 153 Figure 129 Barn at 1586 Jordan Springs Road, looking southeast .................................................. 153 Figure 130 Dwelling at 2444 Berryville Pike, north and west elevations, looking southeast ............ 155 Figure 131 Dwelling at 1263 Redbud Road, façade, looking northeast ............................................ 156 Figure 132 Garage at 1263 Redbud Road, west and south elevations, looking north ..................... 156 Figure 133 Dwelling at 1054 Jordan Springs Road, east and north elevations, looking southwest ........................................................................................................................ 157 Figure 134 View from right-of-way toward 302 High Banks Road, looking southeast ...................... 158 Figure 135 Portion of map of Frederick County showing the John Clark mill and house in 1809 (Varle and Jones 1809) .......................................................................................... 159 Figure 136 J. Clark House and Mill/Jackson Mill/Silent Mills in 1991 (Kalbian 1999:233) ................ 160 Figure 137 Portion of map of the Third Battle of Winchester depicting troop movements and infrastructure at the point of the battle on September 19, 1864. Clevenger’s house, sawmill and the ford of Opequon Creek were noted on the map (Gillespie 1873). .............................................................................................................................. 161 Figure 138 Dwelling at 423 High Banks Road, west elevation, looking east .................................... 162 Figure 139 Equipment Shed at 423 High Banks Road, west elevation, looking northeast ............... 163 Figure 140 Barn at 423 High Banks Road, west elevation, looking northeast with Equipment Shed in background ........................................................................................................ 163 Figure 141 View from right-of-way down driveway toward 352 Monastery Ridge Road, looking southeast ............................................................................................................ 165 Figure 142 Dwelling at 352 Monastery Ridge Road, close-up of west elevation from right-of- way, looking southeast .................................................................................................... 165 Figure 143 Backbone Farm, 1992 survey photos (VDHR, VCRIS 034-1114) .................................. 166 Figure 144 View from right-of-way down driveway toward 180 Pine Road, looking south ............... 167 Figure 145 Viewshed analysis ........................................................................................................... 168 Figure 146 View from the High Banks (034-0109) parcel located at 423 High Banks Road toward the project area ................................................................................................... 169 Figure 147 View toward the project area from in front of 880 Woods Mill Road within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) ......................................................... 170 Figure 148 View toward the project area from in front of 417 Woods Mill Road within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) ............................................ 170 Figure 149 View toward the project area from in front of 748 Woods Mill Road within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) ............................................ 171 Figure 150 View from the Jordan White Sulfur Springs (030-0110) parcel located at 1160 Jordan Springs Road toward the project area ................................................................ 171 Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Table of Contents xiii Figure 151 View from Redbud Farm/Wood House (034-1157) parcel located at 145 Woods Mill Road toward the project area ................................................................................... 172 Figure 152 View from the Duvall House (034-0723) parcel located at 1681 Jordan Springs Road toward the project area .......................................................................................... 173 Figure 153 View from the Brumley House/Smith Farm (034-0704) parcel located at 223 Burnt Factory Road toward the project area ................................................................... 173 Figure 154 View from the Red Bud United Bretheren Church and Cemetery (034-1147) parcel located at 1551 Redbud Road toward the project area ....................................... 174 Figure 155 View from the J. Clark House and Mill/Jackson Mill/Silent Mills (034-1064) parcel at 302 High Banks Road toward the project area ........................................................... 175 Figure 156 View from the Backbone Farm (034-1114) at 352 Monastery Ridge Road parcel toward the project area ................................................................................................... 175 Figure 157 View from the 180 Pine Road (034-5399) parcel toward the project area...................... 176 Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Table of Contents xiv This page intentionally left blank. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno General Project Description 1 1 General Project Description Between May and November 2021, Cardno, Inc. (Cardno) conducted a Phase I cultural resources identification survey for the proposed Redbud Solar Project in Frederick County, Virginia by Oriden, LLC (Oriden). Oriden is proposing a ~30 megawatt (“MW”) AC solar project to interconnect to the adjacent Rappahannock Electric Co-op 34.5 kV electric line. The Redbud Run Project is located approximately 2.4 miles east of Winchester, Virginia in northeastern Frederick County (Figure 1). As proposed, the project will consist of approximately 154.3 acres of solar arrays contained within fencing, located on the south side of Woods Mill Road. The plans for the Project cover two main property parcels, which include a mix of agricultural fields and woods (Figure 2). A third small parcel provides access to the northern solar array area, while connection lines will run along the outer boundaries of five other parcels. The general project area is situated on a rolling to hilly area known as “Devils Backbone,” and is found on the 2001 Stephenson, Virginia, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ topographic quadrangle (Figure 3). The project sits between 0.7 and 1.1 miles west of Opequon Creek, which forms the boundary between Frederick County to the west and Clarke County to the east. The Phase I cultural resource survey was completed to fulfill compliance with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) Small Renewable Energy Projects (Solar) Permit by Rule (PBR) regulation (Virginia Code 9VAC15-60). The fieldwork and the resulting report conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (FR48: 190:44716-44742 – U.S. Department of the Interior, 1983) and the current guidelines set forth by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR 2017). The purpose of Phase I archaeological and architectural surveys was to locate and document the presence of all archaeological and historic architectural resources within the project disturbance zone, and provide a recommendation for eligibility for inclusion in the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR) and/or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) for each resource. Additionally, architectural resources within one-half mile of the project disturbance zone were recorded and considered for potential visual effects during the survey. The disturbance zone for the project consists of various elements including the fenced solar array boundaries, access roads, three staging areas, connection lines, the point of interconnection (POI), and three strips of plantings to create vegetative screening (Figure 4). The POI is located approximately 500 feet east-northeast of the intersection of Woods Mill Road and Jordan Spring Road. A 0.6-mile long tie-in line is planned extending from the northernmost solar array area to the POI. The access roads include three short segments connecting the fenced area to Woods Mill Road to the west and one short segment connecting to Pine Road to the south. One of the proposed staging areas is situated along the east side of Woods Mill Road, while the other two are situated along the north side of Pine Road. All of the vegetative screening is planned along Project parcel boundaries on the east side of Woods Mill Road and are intended to screen existing homes in the immediate vicinity from the solar arrays. James N. Ambrosino, Ph.D., RPA, served as Principal Investigator during the survey. Archaeological fieldwork was directed by Valerie Nobles, M.A., RPA, who was a primary author of the report. Kimberly Hinder, MHP, oversaw the architectural history work on the project, while Lillian Hutzell performed architectural fieldwork and coauthored the report. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Introduction 2 Figure 1 Location of the Redbud Run Solar Project, Frederick County, Virginia. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Introduction 3 Figure 2 Redbud Run Project area with 0.5 Mile buffer on aerial imagery. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Introduction 4 Figure 3 Redbud Run Project area with 0.5 Mile buffer on topographic map. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Introduction 5 Figure 4 Redbud Run proposed Disturbance area Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Introduction 6 During the Phase I identification survey, three previously recorded sites were revisited and one new archaeological resource was identified. Shovel tests conducted within and surrounding 44FK0383, a 19th century historic farmstead, yielded no cultural material, and no aboveground features were identified. The site boundaries were not updated, and the site remains not eligible for the NRHP. Previously recorded site 44FK0385, a 19th to 20th century farmstead, yielded one additional artifact during this survey, and as a result the original site boundaries were updated. However, the site is recommended not eligible for the NRHP and no further work is warranted. Shovel tests conducted within and surrounding the boundaries of 44FK0423, a mid-19th century historic site, yielded no cultural material. Additionally, no aboveground features were observed. As a result, the original site boundaries were not updated and the site remains not evaluated for the NRHP. Metal detecting conducted within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District, along the western edge of survey areas, did not yield any archaeological material. Site 44FK1041 was identified as a small, 19th to 20th century domestic site via artifacts collected from the surface and shovel testing. All artifacts were collected from the surface and from the first five centimeters upslope from a creek bed. Due to the paucity of subsurface material and nature of redeposition, this site is not eligible for the NRHP. During the historical portion of the survey, Cardno documented 62 properties including three districts in the APE that were more than 50 years old and evaluated these properties to determine potential NRHP eligibility. As a result of this survey, nine resources were identified as significant properties, meaning that they were either previously NRHP-listed, previously determined NRHP eligible, or this survey found them potentially NRHP eligible. These include: High Banks (034-0109), Opequon Battlefield of the Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), Second Winchester Battlefield (034-5023), Milburn Rural Historic District (034- 5035), Jordan White Sulfur Springs (030-0110), Duvall House (034-0723), Brumley House/Smith Farm (034-0704), Redbud Farm/Wood House (formerly recorded as Charles W. Wood’s Miller’s House; 034- 1157), and Red Bud United Bretheren Church and Cemetery (034-1147). Three additional properties, J. Clark House and Mill/Jackson Mill/Silent Mills (034-1064), Backbone Farm (034-1114), and 180 Pine Road (034-5399) were found to have an unknown eligibility as the structures on the parcel were not visible from the public right-of-way. Viewshed analysis revealed that the existing topography as well as existing tree canopy and vegetation outside of the construction footprint would shield the eligible and unknown properties from adverse visual effects. Provided the existing vegetation outside of the construction footprint is maintained, this project would have no adverse effect on NRHP eligible properties and no mitigation is anticipated. The following report provides information concerning the survey for cultural resources of the Redbud Run Solar Project in Frederick County, Virginia. Chapter 2 provides a summary of the project area’s environmental setting, and Chapter 3 provides a detailed overview of the culture history of Piedmont Virginia used to identify and evaluate the historic properties identified in the project APE. Chapter 4 includes a discussion of archival research and identifies previously recorded resources near the project area. Chapter 5 illustrates the research, field, and laboratory methods used during the survey. Chapter 6 provides a summary of project findings and recommendations regarding archaeological sites, while Chapter 7 discusses the architectural findings and recommendations for the identified properties. Finally, Chapter 8 provides a brief summary of the overall findings and recommendations. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Environmental Setting 7 2 Environmental Setting The Redbud Run Project area is situated east of Winchester, Virginia in Frederick County. The county is entirely within the Ridge and Valley physiographic province of Virginia, within the Appalachian Highlands. The province is characterized by long, parallel ridges with relatively steep topography interspersed by low- lying valleys, a result of repeated geological folding and faulting (VDCR 2016). Rivers and streams tend to follow these valleys in a general northeast to southwest direction. Frederick County lies within the Shenandoah drainage basin which drains into the Chesapeake Bay. A number of creeks and streams run through the county, namely Back Creek, Opequon Creek, and Cedar Creek, with smaller tributaries crossing through. The closest river, although outside Frederick County, is the Shenandoah River, six miles to the southeast. The general project area includes a mix of farmland and wooded sections in a rolling to hilly area known as “Devils Backbone” between 0.7 and 1.1 miles west of Opequon Creek, which forms the boundary between Frederick County to the west and Clarke County to the east. Redbud Run is situated approximately 340 m south of the project disturbance zone, while the confluence of Lick Run and Hiatt Run is about 275 m north of the disturbance zone. Other smaller, unnamed drainages flow generally eastward through the project area. 2.1 Soils According to the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey database, a total of four different soil series, which are further divided into ten detailed soil map units, occur within the Redbud Run Project survey area (Table 1) (USDA NRCS 2021). Weikert-Berks channery soils make up the majority of the survey area at 57.2 percent. Blairton silt loam soils account for approximately 30.3 percent of the area. Berks channery soil groups and Clearbrook channery soils make up 11.4 percent and 1 percent of the area, respectively. With the exception of Blairton silt loam soils, the soils within the survey area are considered to be not prime farmland. The majority of soils present, or nearly 70 percent of the total area, are classified as well drained (Figure 5). Making up 30.3 percent of the survey area, the Blairton silt loam soils are classified as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance. All of the soils classified as “not prime farmland” within the area are channery silt loams, meaning they consist of 15 to 35 percent thin, flat stone fragments by volume. The two most prevalent soil types mapped within the disturbance zone are Weikert-Berks channery silt loams and Berks channery silt loam. Weikert series soils tend to be shallower than Berks series, which is moderately deep, but both are well drained and found on mountains and in valleys and formed from weathered shale, siltstone, and sandstone. Blairton silt loam makes up about 30.3 percent of the disturbance zone within much of the level to gradually sloping sections. The Blairton series is characterized by moderately deep, somewhat poorly to moderately well drained soils found mostly within valleys. The final soil type, Clearbrook channery silt loam, includes moderately deep, somewhat poorly drained soils in valleys. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Environmental Setting 8 Table 1 Soil Types for the Redbud Run Project Area Map Symbol Soil Series Drainage Class Approximate Acres % of Area Farm Land Class 1B Berks channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Well drained 18.2 11.1% Not prime farmland 1C Berks channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Well drained 0.6 0.3% Not prime farmland 3B Blairton silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Poorly drained 48.5 29.8% Prime farmland 3C Blairton silt loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Moderately well drained 0.7 0.5% Farmland of statewide importance 41B Weikert-Berks channery silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Shallow, well drained 13.1 8.1% Not prime farmland 41C Weikert-Berks channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Shallow, well drained 47.7 29.3% Not prime farmland 41D Weikert-Berks channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Shallow, well drained 25.9 15.9% Not prime farmland 41E Weikert-Berks channery silt loam, 25 to 65 percent slopes Shallow, well drained 6.8 4.0% Not prime farmland 9B Clearbrook channery silt loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Poorly drained 1.0 0.6% Not prime farmland 9C Clearbrook channery silt loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Somewhat poorly drained 0.7 0.4% Not prime farmland Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Environmental Setting 9 Figure 5 USDA soils within Redbud Run Project area. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Environmental Setting 10 2.2 Vegetation and Current Land Use The Redbud Run Project area exists within a generally rural setting outside of Winchester, Virginia. The survey area encompasses a combination of agricultural fields and wooded areas. Most of the open field areas were covered with grasses and hay, while the rest were in the latter stages of hay harvest. These fields were generally large, contiguous areas and were characterized by grassy vegetation with narrow tree lines as field borders. Surface visibility in the harvested fields was around 75 to 100 percent, while the grassy areas ranged from 0 to 50 percent visibility. The wooded areas were a mix of moderately dense undergrowth, pine, and mixed hardwoods. Surface visibility in the wooded areas varied; approximately half of the area was covered in leaf litter and forest debris. Photographs illustrating setting and vegetation within various portions of the Redbud Run Project area follow (Figure 6 through Figure 10). Figure 6 View of agricultural field, facing northeast. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Environmental Setting 11 Figure 7 Harvested agricultural field, facing west. Figure 8 Mixed hardwood and pine, facing east. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Environmental Setting 12 Figure 9 Forested area with moderately dense undergrowth, facing west. Figure 10 Forested area, predominately pine, facing south. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Cultural Context 13 3 Cultural Context The culture history of Virginia has been organized into a temporal sequence whereby the past has been separated into periods that are differentiated by changes in subsistence strategy, settlement patterning, and material culture. Traditionally, these periods are recognized as the Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Historic and they span a time roughly encompassing the last 12,000 years of human occupation of the Americas. 3.1 Paleoindian Period (ca. 12,000-8000 BC) The Paleoindian period is generally regarded by most scholars to be the time in which human occupation of the Americas began. It is presently a matter of debate as to when the first human groups permanently settled the western hemisphere, but most archaeologists believe that event occurred around 12,000 years ago. This particular point has been the subject of much heated debate and the matter has not been settled. Reliable radiometric assay dates as early as 11,800 BC have been obtained from a Paleoindian site in Monte Verde, Chile (Dillehay 1989). This date suggests to many that the Americas were occupied relatively soon after humans first entered. As the start of the Paleoindian period is marked by human occupation of the Americas, archaeologists mark its conclusion with the arbitrary date of 8000 BC, which roughly corresponds to the Pleistocene/Holocene transition and the onset of modern climatic conditions. In the mid- Atlantic region, the Paleoindian period is conventionally partitioned into three broad temporal divisions, designated as the Early, Middle, and Late Paleoindian periods. These divisions are recognized archaeologically as changing projectile point morphology, which are believed to reflect changes in subsistence strategy and settlement patterning (Anderson et al. 1990). The earliest recognized diagnostic artifacts are Clovis projectile points, typically fashioned of high quality cryptocrystalline materials such as chert, chalcedony, and jasper. Later Paleoindian points include smaller Clovis-like and Cumberland variants, small “Mid-Paleo” points, and, at the end of the period, Dalton, Hardaway-Dalton and Hardaway Side-notched points. Also diagnostic, though to a lesser extent, are certain types of well-made endscrapers, sidescrapers, and other formalized tools. Most current views now hold that eastern Paleoindians were generalized foragers with an emphasis on hunting. Social organization apparently consisted of relatively small bands that exploited a wide, but defined, territory (Gardner 1989; Turner 1989). The majority of Paleoindian remains in Virginia are represented by isolated projectile point finds and what appear to be small temporary camps. Although some larger and very notable base camps are present in the state, they are relatively rare and usually associated with sources of preferred, high quality, lithic materials. The most important Paleoindian sites in Virginia, and in the eastern United States are the Thunderbird Site in the Shenandoah Valley (Gardner 1974, 1977), the Williamson Site (44DW0001) in south-central Virginia (McCary 1951, 1975, 1983), and the Cactus Hill Site in Sussex County (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). Both the Thunderbird and Williamson sites are large base camps associated with local sources of high-grade cryptocrystalline lithic materials. At the Thunderbird site (44WR0011) and its environs, a site typology has been formulated which includes lithic quarries, quarry-related base camps, quarry reduction stations, base camp maintenance stations, outlying hunting sites, and isolated point sites (Gardner 1981, 1989). Cactus Hill (44SX202), located on the Nottoway River near Stony Creek, is characterized by stratified deposits associated with the Paleoindian through Woodland periods. The site has yielded numerous Clovis projectile points, and generated a radiocarbon date of 15,070 B.P. from a pre- Clovis occupation layer, which is characterized by artifacts in a pre-Clovis core blade tradition (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Cultural Context 14 3.2 Archaic Period (ca. 8000-1000 BC) The transition from the Paleoindian to the Archaic period was gradual and is believed to have been a cultural response related to the onset of modern climactic conditions, conditions that were similar to those experienced by the first European explorers and settlers much later in the Protohistoric period, and marked in the region by a climatic shift from a moist, cool period to a warmer, drier climate. Vegetation also changed at this time from a largely boreal forest setting to a mixed conifer-deciduous forest. In eastern Virginia, a temperate climate was established, and the formation of the Chesapeake estuary began. Increasing differences in seasonal availability of resources brought on by post-Pleistocene changes are thought to have coincided with increasing emphasis on strategies of seasonally geared mobility (Dent 1995). The transition from the Paleoindian to Archaic period has been somewhat arbitrarily designated as 8000 BC. Changes in technology, population demography, and diversity in social organization characterize this era. The growth of subregional traditions is indicated by the appearance of a range of notched and/or stemmed hafted biface types across the Southeast and Middle Atlantic (Sassaman et al. 1990). The Archaic period is traditionally partitioned into Early, Middle, and Late Archaic periods to recognize the many technological and demographic changes that occurred throughout the period. Archaic populations likely were characterized by a band-level social organization involving seasonal movements corresponding to the availability of resources. Settlement during this era probably involved the occupation of relatively large regions by single band-sized groups living in base camps during part of the year, and then dispersing as necessary during certain seasons, creating smaller microband camps that may have consisted of groups as small as single families. The Archaic period saw the development of more specialized resource procurement activities and associated technologies. These differences in material culture are believed to reflect larger, more localized populations, as well as changes in food procurement and processing methods. The Archaic period also marked the beginning of ground stone technology, with the occurrence of ground atlatl weights and celts. New tool categories that developed during the Archaic include chipped and ground stone celts, ground stone net sinkers, pestles, pecked stones, mullers, axes, and, during the more recent end of the Late Archaic, vessels carved from soapstone quarried in the Piedmont (Custer 1990; Geier 1990). 3.2.1 Early Archaic Corner and side-notching became a common characteristic of projectile points at the beginning of the Archaic Period (Early Archaic), indicating changes in hafting technology and possibly the invention of the spear-thrower (atlatl). Notched point forms include Palmer and Kirk Corner-notched and, in localized areas, various side-notched types. The later end of the Early Archaic period are marked by a series of bifurcate base projectile point forms, specifically Palmer, Fort Nottoway, Kirk Stemmed, and LeCroy points (Egloff and Woodward 2006). As with the preceding Paleoindian period, the most common Early Archaic site locations were near the confluence of major streams and tributaries. 3.2.2 Middle Archaic In Virginia, the Middle Archaic, ca. 6500 - ca. 3000 BC, was characterized by a notable increase in the number of occupation sites over the immediately preceding Early Archaic period, suggesting an increase in population most likely resulting from environmental stabilization. The Middle Archaic witnessed the rise of various stemmed projectile point forms. The most common Middle Archaic projectile point types include (from oldest to youngest): Lecroy, Stanly, Morrow Mountain, and Guilford, followed by the side-notched Halifax type which appeared at the very end of the period as it transitioned into the Late Archaic, between ca. 3500 and 3000 BC. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Cultural Context 15 3.2.3 Late Archaic The Late Archaic period, ca. 3000 - 1200 BC, was dominated by stemmed and notched knife and spear point forms, including various large, broad-bladed stemmed knives and projectile points that generally diminish in size by the succeeding Early Woodland period (e.g., Savannah River points and variants). Also found, though less common, are stemmed and notched-stem forms identical to those associated more prominently with areas of Pennsylvania and adjoining parts of the northeast (Susquehanna and Perkiomen points). Marked increases in population density and, in some areas, decreased mobility characterized the Late Archaic period in the Middle Atlantic states, and eastern North America as a whole. Locally, there is an increase in the numbers of late Middle Archaic (Halifax) and Late Archaic (Savannah River) sites over those of earlier periods, suggesting a population increase and/or intensity of use of this region between about 3500 BC and ca. 1200 BC. Agriculture in the Middle Atlantic region probably has its origins during this period. Yarnell (1976), for example, writes that sunflower, sumpweed, and possibly goosefoot may have been cultivated as early as 2000 BC. In the lower Little Tennessee River Valley, remains of squash have been found in Late Archaic Savannah River contexts (ca. 2400 BC), with both squash and gourd in slightly later Iddins period contexts (Chapman and Shea 1981). 3.3 Woodland Period (ca. 1000 BC - AD 1600) The widespread adoption of ceramic technology traditionally characterizes the beginning of the Woodland period in southeastern archaeology, and a date of 1000 BC is often used for the beginning of the period. The Woodland period is conventionally distinguished from preceding periods by increased ritual ceremonialism, elaborate mortuary practices, and the introduction of stamped pottery. Throughout the Woodland period population increased, social groups became larger, and the landscape was more densely settled. As Bense (1994:123) observes, the Woodland period was not marked by sweeping socio-cultural changes. Instead, Woodland cultural developments had their roots in the preceding Archaic period and were elaborated and expanded throughout the course of the Woodland period. Widespread Woodland period characteristics include an increase in long distance trade, changes in ceramic technology, the development of sedentary village life, and the cultivation of domestic plants, although foraging continued to be essential to subsistence. Additionally, the appearance of burial mounds and well-appointed burials mark a significant change between the Woodland and earlier periods. These characteristics are believed to relate to an increase in social complexity and social stratification. The Woodland period is traditionally partitioned into Early, Middle, and Late Woodland to recognize certain technological and demographic changes that occurred throughout the period. 3.3.1 Early Woodland The Early Woodland period, ca. 1200 - 500 BC, is generally defined by the appearance of ceramics in the archaeological record. The earliest Woodland ceramic wares, Marcey Creek Plain and variants, are rectangular or oval with steatite temper and resemble the preceding Late Archaic soapstone vessels. These ceramics are followed by cord-marked, soapstone-tempered Selden Island ceramics, then by sand-and- grit-tempered Elk Island (Accokeek) ceramics with both plain and cord-marked surfaces. The latter traditionally were referred to as the Stony Creek series, although this type is now known to subsume several Early, Middle, and Late Woodland ceramic wares (Egloff 1991). Broad bladed projectile points became less prominent in favor of stemmed, notched, or lanceolate points, including the Piscatawy, Calvery, and the Small Savannah River types (McLearen 1991). Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Cultural Context 16 Early Woodland communities are believed to have been comprised of fairly small groups which spent only a portion of the year in settled locations alternating with mobile hunter-gathering activities. Early Woodland sites include a wider range of site types and typically consist of small camps in both riverine and lesser- order stream locations. 3.3.2 Middle Woodland The Middle Woodland period in Virginia was marked by the appearance of sand-tempered and fabric- impressed ceramics, although plain, cord, and net treatments have also been identified. In the Ridge and Valley region there was also an increase in crushed rock temper. Stony Creek is the most commonly identified ceramic in this vicinity, although grit-/sand-tempered Vincents and Clements-like ceramics are also typical of this region (Egloff 1991). Typical projectile points associated with the Middle Woodland period include Yadkin, Badin, Fox Creek, Potts, and Rossville types, and the development of bow and arrow technology is believed to have occurred at this time. Previous archaeological studies have demonstrated the intensive use of small tributary streams as well as major river floodplains throughout the Middle Woodland period (ca. 500 BC – AD 900). Archaeologists have suggested that the Middle Woodland was characterized by “restricted wandering,” in which groups used various campsites for several weeks at a time, obtaining needed materials in the site vicinity (Stewart 1992). The Shenandoah Valley region exhibits stone and earthen cairns/mounds built by Middle Woodland groups, possibly early forms of burial ritual or ceremonialism. Archaeologists believe those found in Virginia in the Shenandoah Valley, may be the eastern extents of societies in the Ohio Valley, such as the Adena and/or Hopewell groups. Many of these burial mounds have been identified overlooking smaller tributaries and major waterways, particularly the Shenandoah River (McLearen 1992; Leithoff and Brady 2017). 3.3.3 Late Woodland By the Late Woodland period, ca. AD 900 - 1600, agriculture had assumed a role of major importance in the prehistoric subsistence system. The adoption of agriculture represented a major change in the subsistence economy and patterns of settlement. The availability of large areas of arable land became a dominant factor in settlement location, and sites increasingly were located on fertile floodplain soils or on higher terraces or ridges adjacent to them. Even so, most Late Woodland sites have been identified in the inter-riverine uplands, suggesting that Late Woodland populations continued to exploit natural resources in interior settings (Hantman and Klein 1992; Turner 1992). In the Ridge and Valley region, there is evidence that shell and limestone tempered ceramics began to be more prevalent, including Page series, Keyser series, Radford, and New River pottery. Lithics associated with Ridge and Valley Late Woodland sites consist of triangular points and tools (Walker and Miller 1992; Leithoff and Brady 2017). Diagnostic artifacts of this period include several triangular projectile point styles such as Clarksville and Caraway that originated during the latter part of the Middle Woodland period and decreased in size through time. The Shawnee and Iroquois were the primary tribes located in the Shenandoah Valley when Europeans began exploring the area. 3.4 Historic Period European activity in the Shenandoah Valley began in the early to mid-1600s with French missionaries, and later trappers and traders. Though the Virginia Company, and later the English Crown, owned much of the area throughout the seventeenth century, intense European settlement did not occur until later in the eighteenth century. Much of the land that would eventually become Frederick County was granted by the English Crown to several lords, including Thomas Colepeper, 2nd Lord Colepeper. After his daughter married Thomas Fairfax, the 5th Lord Fairfax, in the late 1600s, their son owned the combined land grants, estimated to be over 5 million acres and became known as the Fairfax grant. Throughout the late 1600s Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Cultural Context 17 and early 1700s, several explorers and traders came to the Shenandoah Valley and returned with accounts of rich lands and resources. Settlement of this region throughout the early eighteenth century included English settlers who pushed their way westward from the Coastal Plain and Piedmont, and settlers making their way down from Pennsylvania. Among the earliest settlers were groups of Quakers, some of which constructed the Hopewell Friends Meeting House, which still stands just over three miles north of the project area (Frederick County n.d.). Colonial officials of Virginia wanted the western extents of the land settled quickly to act as a buffer from potentially hostile native populations who had been increasingly forced westward. However, Robert “King” Carter acting land agent for Lord Fairfax, was selling large portions of the land grant to wealthy families. Lord Fairfax intended to develop the area in a similar way to the eastern portions of Virginia, with extensive, self-sufficient plantations. In 1738, the Virginia government created Frederick County from the western portion of Orange County, and argued that Lord Fairfax’s land grant extended only to the Blue Ridge Mountains. The government began selling plots of land, up to 1,000 acres per family, with the condition that a house and orchard be established within two years. With this incentive and the search for more land, the Ridge and Valley region flourished. Winchester was established as the county seat, and was fully organized by 1743 (Frederick County n.d.). George Washington was associated with Frederick County from 1748 to 1765, having established a surveyor’s office in Winchester, and later his headquarters when he served as Commander in Chief during the French and Indian War. In 1758 and 1761, he was elected to serve Frederick County in the House of Burgesses. During the Revolutionary War, Frederick County contributed not only supplies to the effort but also riflemen. Daniel Morgan’s Riflemen, also known as Morgan’s Sharpshooters, were among the first to join the revolutionary forces under Washington. Later, prisoners of war, largely Hessian soldiers, were held in Winchester. The economy of this area was based on smaller, family held farms, unlike the large plantations in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. Much of the area focused on livestock and grain, specifically wheat which included numerous flour mills throughout the county. In this region, slavery was not as entrenched in the social and economic landscapes when compared to vast, single-crop plantations to the east. Smaller farms and a more diverse economy resulted in less of a demand for an extensive labor force, thus fewer enslaved persons. Additionally, the presence of a larger population of Scottish and German settlers from northern states meant there were fewer ties to the plantation culture and ideals prevalent in the eastern areas of Virginia. Winchester and other towns flourished and hosted a range of craftsmen and merchants. The Great Wagon Road, originally a Native American trail and which would eventually become Route 11, ran through Frederick County and brought numerous settlers and travelers south and west through the region. Winchester became a stopping point along this road, contributing to the growth of the city as a result of the influx of traders and settlers. Prior to the Civil War, many areas of Virginia, including Frederick County, benefited from the increase of railroad construction and transportation improvements. Particular to the Winchester area were the improvements to the Great Wagon Road and the construction of Winchester and Potomac Railroad. When the Civil War broke out in 1861, the Shenandoah Valley was an important resource for supplies, livestock, and soldiers. Winchester in particular was a highly strategic target because of its proximity to Washington D.C. and transportation routes through the region. In Confederate hands, Winchester would hold the key to the resources throughout the Shenandoah Valley, and would offer an advantageous position to D.C. and neighboring northern states. Under Union occupation, Winchester would cut off needed supplies to the Confederacy and threaten their defense of the Confederate capital, Richmond. Several Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Cultural Context 18 major battles took place within and around Winchester; the city itself changed hands over 70 times throughout the war. The First Battle of Winchester (1862) and the Second Battle of Winchester (1863) were important victories for the Confederacy. The Third Battle of Winchester secured the city for the Union in 1864 during their reclamation of the Shenandoah Valley (Frederick County n.d.; Duncan 2007). Portions of the project area intersect the Second Winchester Battlefield (VDHR 034-5023) along Woods Mill Road and corresponds to a possible route of a night time advance of Confederate troops to cut off the Union retreat (Wittenberg and Mingus 2016). This is outside of the recorded combat zone and represent suspected troop movement. The Second Battle of Winchester took place between June 13 and 15, 1863. During the Gettysburg Campaign, Major General Richard Ewell successfully led Confederate forces against Union forces occupying Winchester. Union troops were entrenched in fortifications along ridgelines to the north and west of Winchester. By capturing the area, the Confederate flank was protected and supplies secured for General Robert E. Lee’s push into Pennsylvania during July 1863 (Duncan 2007; Maier 2002). In August 1864, the Union sent General Philip Sheridan to the Shenandoah Valley with the goal of putting an end to the Confederate hold of the area and laying waste to the valley so that the Confederates had no reason to return. Starting in mid-August 1864 and continuing for the next six weeks was what became known as “the Burning.” Sheridan ordered his divisions to burn fields and farm buildings, destroy livestock, and set slaves free throughout the valley. While he ordered that no houses were to be burned, this caused much suffering to the families throughout the area by destroying their livelihood (Wheelan 2012). In the end, Union troops destroyed 2,000 barns, 120 mills, and half a million bushels of grain and confiscated 50,000 head of livestock (Fredrick County n.d.). The Third Battle of Winchester, also known as the Battle of Opequon, was fought during this campaign on September 19, 1864 north and east of Winchester. This fierce battle was one of the bloodiest of those fought within the Shenandoah Valley and resulted in a victory for Sheridan’s Union forces who drove the Confederates under Lieutenant General Jubal Early south away from Winchester (Frederick County n.d.; Wheelan 2012). Immediately after the Civil War, the landscape in the region was devastated which resulted in a localized economic depression and decreased land values. Economic and social environments improved towards the end of the nineteenth century. Agriculture continued as it did prior to the war, though the area saw an increase in orchards and fruit farming, particularly apples. As the industrial revolution progressed throughout the country, new industries came into the region including numerous factories and mills. Manufacturing and apple production continued to intensify through the beginning of the twentieth century. As population growth increased after WWII, manufacturing and production diversified although agriculture remained very important to Frederick County. Large companies found the region’s proximity to Washington D.C. and other eastern cities highly desirable. While the region is still dominated by agriculture and apple orchards, there are significant pockets of both suburban and commercial development (Frederick County n.d.; Kalbian 1999). Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archival Research 19 4 Archival Research 4.1 Previously Recorded Archaeological and Architectural Resources A search was made of the NRHP database and the Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (VCRIS) in order to identify known archaeological and historic resources and NRHP-listed resources within the vicinity of the proposed project. Two previous surveys are mapped in VCRIS within 0.5 mile of the disturbance zone, FK-021 and FK-055 (Table 2). Another five surveys were previously conducted within the search area but were unable to be accurately mapped within VCRIS. Six of these surveys are related to the proposed Route 37 (Winchester Bypass) project in the 1990s, which was never constructed. One, an architectural survey, was a countywide survey of unincorporated areas. Table 2 Previous Cultural Resource Surveys within 0.5 Mile of the Project Disturbance Zone Survey Number Title Year Author FK-021 The Abrams Creek-Redbud Run Project: A Cultural Resource Inventory Study of Archaeological Sites in the Shale Area East of Winchester, Virginia 1992 Warren Hofstra and Clarence Geier FK-022 Rural Landmarks Survey Report, Frederick County, Virginia Phases I-III, 1988-1992 1992 Maral S. Kalbian FK-026 A Phase 1 Architectural Resource Survey Report of the Proposed Route 37 Corridor Study of Frederick County, Virginia 1993 Maral S. Kalbian FK-055 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigations, Route 37, Frederick County, Virginia 1997 Brad Botwick and Ashley Neville FK-057 Supplemental Phase I Archaeological Survey of Selected Project Corridor Segments, Route 37, Frederick County, Virginia 1998 Brad Botwick and Len E. Winter FK-067 A Phase I Evaluation of Archaeological Cultural Resources in Place on Terrain Lying within Corridor Alternatives of the Route 37, Winchester Bypass, Frederick County, Virginia 1992 Clarence R. Geier and Warren Hofstra FK-068 Site Predictability on Lands within the corridor Alternatives for the Route 37 Bypass of Winchester, Virginia, for which Phase I Survey Access was Denied 1993 Clarence R. Geier and Warren R. Hofstra In 1992, James Madison University (JMU) completed a cultural resource inventory for the Adams Creek- Redbud Run study area (FK-021) as part of the initial studies for the Route 37 project. The survey covered over 4,300 acres and identified over 200 sites ranging from the Early Archaic through the Historic Period. The current project area overlaid on survey maps from 1992 is shown in Figure 11. While the maps do not indicate specific shovel test or transect placement, they do indicate what areas were surveyed according to standardized methodology and what areas were inaccessible. Pedestrian survey was conducted in wooded areas, represented in white on the map. Shovel testing was conducted at 50-foot, or 25 to 30-foot, intervals with some pedestrian survey if the land was clear, represented as shaded or grey areas. Hatched areas represent those where access was denied at the time of the survey. The current project area is located almost entirely within the 1992 survey area. Approximately 90% of the current project’s disturbance zone was shovel tested or surveyed during the 1992 survey, and the remaining 10%, mostly corresponding Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archival Research 20 to steeply sloped sections, was completed via pedestrian survey. A short section of the tie-in line was not accessed during this 1992 survey. Further studies in 1992 and 1993 were completed as route alternatives were narrowed down, including a further archaeological study of various route alternatives (FK-067), an architectural reconnaissance of the corridor (FK-026), and an archaeological site predictability model of portions of the corridor where access was previously denied (FK-068). In 1997 and 1998, Gray and Pape, Inc. conducted Phase I and II surveys (FK-055 and FK-057) in the small areas of the Route 37 corridor which were previously omitted from the surveys by JMU. In VCRIS, a portion of survey FK-055 is shown within one of the Redbud Run Solar Project disturbance zones, however closer inspection of the survey maps included with that report indicate that the area surveyed was actually adjacent to and completely outside of the Redbud disturbance zone and represents a parcel that was shown as avoided in the 1992 survey FK-021. Thirty-four archaeological sites have been recorded within 0.5 mile of the disturbance zone for the project, all of which are recorded as having unknown NRHP-eligibility (Table 3, Figure 12). Three of the sites are located within the total project area (44FK0383, 44FK0385, and 44FK0423), only two of which are intersected by the disturbance zone (44FK0385 and 44FK0423). Site 44FK0383 is recorded as an early nineteenth-century farmstead and has not been evaluated for the NRHP. The site was recorded in 1992 by JMU including aboveground foundation remains and earthen driveway. Recovered artifacts date the site to the Antebellum and Early National Periods. Site 44FK0385 has not been evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP by the SHPO. Site 44FK0423, like the other two sites, is also listed in its VCRIS entry as having been recorded during survey FK-021. The site is simply recorded as a historic site with a general category of transportation/communication and a comment of “property boundary.” No additional information about site 44FK0423 could be found within the FK-021 survey report. It has also not been evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP by the SHPO. A total of 24 historic resources have been identified within 0.5 mile of the disturbance zone including two Civil War battlefield areas, a rural historic district, several historic houses and farmsteads, two cemeteries, a church, a school, and a historic bridge (Table 4, Figure 12). The majority of the individual properties were recorded as part of a countywide architectural survey of rural landmarks performed by Maral S. Kalbian in 1992 (Kalbian 1992). One resource, the plantation known as High Banks (034-0109) located east of the project, is listed on both the NRHP and VLR. While the farm fields associated with High Banks lie within 0.5 mile of the disturbance zone, all of the buildings associated with the resource are greater than 0.5 mile away. Four other historic resources have been determined eligible for the NRHP or potentially eligible. Of these resources, the Jordan White Sulphur Springs (034-0110) and Milburn Rural Historic District (034- 5035) are just to the north of the project area, and the Opequon Battlefield/Third Battle of Winchester (034- 0456) is located just to the south. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archival Research 21 Figure 11 Previous survey conducted by JMU in 1992 with current project survey areas. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archival Research 22 Table 3 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within 0.5 Mile of the Project Disturbance Zone Site ID Site Type/Time Period NRHP Eligibility 44FK0001 Unknown, Woodland (1200 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) unknown 44FK0330 Other, Early National Period (1790 - 1829), Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil War (1861 - 1865), Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) unknown 44FK0331 Unknown, Historic/Unknown unknown 44FK0332 Farmstead, Early National Period (1790 - 1829), Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860), Civil War (1861 - 1865), Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916) unknown 44FK0333 Unknown, null unknown 44FK0334 Mill, 19th Century: 1st half (1800 - 1849) unknown 44FK0339 Dwelling, single, 19th Century (1800 - 1899) unknown 44FK0347 Mill, raceway, 19th Century: 1st half (1800 - 1849) unknown 44FK0348 Ford, 19th Century: 1st half (1800 - 1849) unknown 44FK0349 Ford, 19th Century: 1st half (1800 - 1849) unknown 44FK0372 T.H. Hoffman Site, Dwelling, single, 19th Century: 1st half (1800 - 1849) unknown 44FK0375 Earthworks, 19th Century: 3rd quarter (1850 - 1874) unknown 44FK0376 Earthworks, 19th Century: 3rd quarter (1850 - 1874) unknown 44FK0377 Unknown, Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.) unknown 44FK0379 Dwelling, single, 19th Century: 2nd half (1850 - 1899), 20th Century (1900 - 1999) unknown 44FK0380 Dwelling, single, 20th Century: 1st half (1900 - 1949) unknown 44FK0381 Other, 19th Century (1800 - 1899) unknown 44FK0382 Other, 19th Century (1800 - 1899) unknown 44FK0383 Farmstead, 19th Century: 1st half (1800 - 1849) unknown 44FK0384 Cemetery, Dwelling, single, Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.), 19th Century: 1st quarter (1800 - 1825) unknown 44FK0385 Farmstead, 19th Century: 2nd half (1850 - 1899), 20th Century: 1st half (1900 - 1949) unknown 44FK0386 Farmstead, 19th Century: 1st half (1800 - 1849) unknown 44FK0407 Dwelling, multiple, 19th Century: 2nd quarter (1825 - 1849) unknown 44FK0408 Jordan's White Sulphur Springs Spa Locale, Other, 19th Century: 1st quarter (1800 - 1825) unknown Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archival Research 23 Site ID Site Type/Time Period NRHP Eligibility 44FK0409 Other, 19th Century (1800 - 1899), 20th Century (1900 - 1999) unknown 44FK0410 Farmstead, 19th Century: 4th quarter (1875 - 1899), 20th Century (1900 - 1999) unknown 44FK0412 Cistern, 19th Century (1800 - 1899) unknown 44FK0413 Resort facility, bath/spa, 19th Century: 1st quarter (1800 - 1825) unknown 44FK0420 Unknown, 19th Century (1800 - 1899) unknown 44FK0422 Dwelling, single, null unknown 44FK0423 Other, Historic/Unknown unknown 44FK0428 Unknown, 19th Century: 3rd quarter (1850 - 1874) unknown 44FK0435 Mill, Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. - 1606 A.D.), 18th Century (1700 - 1799), 19th Century (1800 - 1899) unknown 44FK0888 Cemetery, Reconstruction and Growth (1866 - 1916), World War I to World War II (1917 - 1945) unknown Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archival Research 24 Figure 12 Previously recorded cultural resources within 0.5 miles of Redbud Run Project. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archival Research 25 Table 4 Previously Recorded Historic Resources within 0.5 Mile of the Project Disturbance Zone Resource ID Name NRHP Eligibility 034-0109 High Banks (Historic/Current), Grapes-Seevers-Clevenger House (Historic), Helms-Clevenger House (Historic), Highland (Historic) NRHP Listing, VLR Listing 034-0110 Jordan White Sulfur Springs (Historic/Current), Shalom et Benidictus, Sulfur Springs Spa (Historic) Eligible 034-0456 Opequon Battlefield (Historic), Third Battle of Winchester Site (Current) Eligible 034-0704 Brumley House (Current), Smith Farm (Historic) Not Eligible 034-0722 Pugh House (Current) unknown 034-0723 Duvall House (Current) unknown 034-0724 Hallam House (Current) Not Eligible 034-1064 Clark, J., House and Mill (Historic), Jackson Mill (Historic), Silent Mills (Historic/Current) unknown 034-1114 Backbone Farm (Historic/Current) unknown 034-1115 Conner, Harold House (Current) Not Eligible 034-1116 Jenkins-Dehaven House (Current) Not Eligible 034-1117 Bond-Stephenson-Simpson Cemetery (Current) Not Eligible 034-1118 Jenkins House (Current) Not Eligible 034-1119 Redbud Cemetery (Current) Not Eligible 034-1144 Keckley, Robert D., House (Historic/Current) unknown 034-1145 Moore, Keckley, House (Historic), Moore, Evaline, House (Current) unknown 034-1146 Red Bud School (Historic/Current) unknown 034-1147 Red Bud Church (Historic/Current), Red Bud United Methodist Church (Historic/Current), Redbud Church (Alternate Spelling) unknown 034-1156 McTeirnan, Patrick, House (Historic), McTeirnan, Thomas, House (Current) unknown 034-1157 Wood, C.W. Millers House (Historic) unknown 034-1158 Wood, Chas. Mill Ruins (Historic) unknown 034-5023 Second Winchester Battlefield (Historic) Eligible 034-5035 Milburn Rural Historic District (Current) Potentially Eligible 034-5191 Bridge #6133, Jordan Springs Rd, unnamed tributary, Opequon Creek (Function/Location) Not Eligible Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archival Research 26 The only NRHP-eligible historic resource to intersect the survey area is the Second Winchester Battlefield (034-5023), the battles of which took place in June 1863. Most of the fighting associated with this battle took place greater than a mile away from the project area, mostly to the south and west of downtown Winchester as well as on the south side of the town of Stephenson north of the project area. Part of the study area associated with this battle runs along Woods Mill Road (SR 660) and represents a possible route of a night-time advance of Confederate troops to cut off the Union retreat. The study area at this location is roughly defined as an approximately 1,000-ft. wide corridor centered on Woods Mill Road. Suspected troop movement lines generally have lower probability to contain Civil War remains than would expected battle locations, troop positions, or camps. Eight of the historic resources within 0.5 mile of the disturbance zone have been determined not eligible for the NRHP by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), while the remaining 11 historic resources have not been assessed for NRHP eligibility. None of these resources have been recorded within the project disturbance zone itself. 4.2 Historic Maps Cardno archaeologists completed a review of digitally archived historic maps, topographic quadrangles, and aerial imagery for the survey area in order to determine more precisely how the land has been used historically. Maps and imagery available online from websites maintained by Library of Congress, USGS and Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR) as well as aerial imagery on Google Earth were reviewed. This data can be used to determine the probability for encountering intact cultural remains in the study area. Historic maps of Civil War battles were examined to assess the potential for Civil War remains within the project area. The First Battle of Winchester was mostly fought to the immediate south of the city, although Union lines of retreat also ran to the north. The study area for the First Winchester Battlefield (VDHR 138- 5005) lies greater than 2 miles west and southwest of the Redbud Run Project area. The study area of the Second Battle of Winchester (VDHR 034-5023) includes a section running along Woods Mill Road and intersecting the project area, while that of the Third Battle of Winchester (VDHR 034-0456) lies within one mile of the project area but does not intersect it. A map of the Second Battle of Winchester drawn in 1863 to accompany the report of Lieutenant General Robert S. Ewell of the Confederate Army shows the positions and lines of movement of Confederate troops in and around Winchester (Hotchkiss 1863). The portion of the battle suspected to have taken place within the immediate vicinity of the project area was the nighttime march under Confederate Major General Edward “Allegheny” Johnson, which took place between midnight and the morning of June 15, 1863 and was intended to cut off retreating Union troops. Johnson’s march took a circuitous route out of the eastern side of Winchester and towards Stephen’s Depot (modern Stephenson) via Jordan White Sulphur Springs. The troops followed roads and are known to have traversed Devils Backbone, which has led some to suspect they traveled along Woods Mill Road (Lauck 1921; Wittenberg and Mingus 2016). The Hotchkiss (1863) map, however, shows Johnson’s march essentially as a limited series of straight lines between a few key points, with the route across Devils Backbone as a single straight line connecting a crossing of Red Bud Run and Jordan’s Springs (Figure 13). This section of the march is shown roughly paralleling Red Bud Run to its north, and Jordan Springs is shown very close to this drainage. A closer analysis of the map indicates that the area depicted south and west of Red Bud Run are drawn with north to the top of the map, while the area north of Red Bud Run has been rotated by at least 70 degrees towards the east. This serves to most drastically distort the area between Jordan Springs and Red Bud Run, which is the project area itself. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archival Research 27 Figure 13 Detail of Hotchkiss (1863) map showing the portion north and east of Winchester Comparing identifiable points on the Hotchkiss (1863) map with more accurately drawn maps from later in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, in particular a map of the Third Battle of Winchester (Gillespie 1873), various potential routes over Devils Backbone become apparent. Figure 14 shows these identified points on Hotchkiss (1863) as well as the 1942 Winchester USGS 1:62,500 scale topographic quadrangle. This early twentieth-century quadrangle map compares well with the roads depicted on the Gillespie (1873) map but shows them much clearer for easier illustration. Table 5 provides a key to the individual points identified on Hotchkiss (1863) and Gillespie (1873). Point 16 on the illustrations represents the crossing of Red Bud Run and is dependent on Point 14, or the start of the march north from Berryville Pike. Fords of Red Bud Run existed in two locations in the vicinity on the Gillespie (1873) map, one directly south of the southern end of Woods Mill Road (and the southwest corner of the project area) and one farther west. Only the ford farther west would connect with Point 14, which lies both west of the split of Berryville Pike and Old Berryville Road and on a similar ridge with houses on both sides of the road depicted on both maps. Assuming Point 16 is the actual crossing of Johnson’s march, the turn towards Jordan Springs just across the creek would likely have been on what is now Redbud Road. The Gillespie (1873) map as well as the later 1942 quadrangle show two possible roads that turned off of Redbud Road towards Jordan Springs and traversed Devils Backbone previously (Figure 15). Woods Mill Road was the farther of the two and the least direct route. The other road ran over the spine of Devils Backbone and connected up with Woods Mill Road just south of the project area access in the north. If this was the route taken by Johnson, the only portion of the project area they would have passed immediately adjacent to may be the project area access. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archival Research 28 Figure 14 Comparison of Hotchkiss (1863) and 1942 Winchester quadrangle Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archival Research 29 Table 5 Key to Numbered Features on Historic Map Comparison Number Feature 1 Star Fort 2 Fort Collyer 3 James Lewis 4 Mrs. Carter 5 Stephenson's Depot 6 Turnpike to Martinsburg 7 Intersection Martinsburg Pike and Charlestown Road 8 Intersection along Charlestown Road 9 Road splits, NW to Stephenson's Depot 10 Road splits, E to Charlestown, SE to Jordan's Springs 11 Jordan's Springs 12 Cemetery 13 Lime Kiln 14 Intersection along Berryville Pike 15 Road splits, Berryville Pike and Old Berryville Road 16 Red Bud Run crossing 17 Intersection along Martinsburg Pike 18 Railroad crossing Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archival Research 30 Figure 15 Possible routes (purple) of Johnson’s march along roads depicted on Gillespie (1873) map, oriented with north to the top of the page (with the project area shown in orange) Besides providing a more accurate comparison map to assess the potential route of Johnson’s march during the Second Battle of Winchester, the Gillespie (1873) map details the Confederate and Union positions during the Third Battle of Winchester on September 19, 1864, also known as the Battle of Opequon. No troop positions or lines of movement are shown for the specific area of the project (Figure 16). The closest positions to the project area noted on the map are those of the Union VIII Corps 1st Division (Thoburn) between 0.6 and 0.7 miles to the west-southwest (upper left on the map), the Union VIII Corps (Crook) between 1.1 and 1.2 miles to the southeast (lower left on the map), and the Confederate Infantry and Cavalry of Warton and the Union Cavalry of Devin and Lowell near Leetown between 0.9. and 1.0 mile to the north (upper right on the map). Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archival Research 31 Figure 16 Detail of Gillespie (1873) map showing the relation of the project area to troop positions during the Third Battle of Winchester Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Research Design 32 5 Research Design 5.1 Objectives The objective of this archaeological and historical survey was to locate and evaluate any historic properties located within the survey boundaries. Prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, structures, landforms, cemeteries, landscapes, traditional cultural properties, linear resources (historic roads, railroads, and canals), and structures are among the types of historic properties looked for during this investigation. The first part of the research strategy was to compile background, or archival, information about the survey area. State and local agency records and the “gray” literature were searched for relevant data. This information was used to generate a site predictive model for this particular survey area to guide the field investigations. Previous survey work in the general vicinity and within the region was consulted to provide an overview of the types of resources that might be encountered, and to give insight into the methods used by other researchers. VCRIS data was searched for any previously recorded sites within or adjacent to the survey area that would merit special consideration. The survey area was mapped on USGS 7.5’ topographic quadrangles to indicate slope and distance to water, important factors in developing the site predictive model. Soil data and environmental surveys were used to characterize the environmental setting of the survey area, and identify areas more suitable for prehistoric or historic settlement. Both primary and secondary resources were used to develop a historic context of the survey area. 5.2 Area of Potential Effects The area of potential effects (APE) is the “geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character of or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist” (36 CFR 800.16(d)). The APE is defined based on the potential for effect, which may differ for aboveground resources (historic structures and landscapes) and subsurface resources (archaeological sites). The APE for subsurface resources includes all areas where ground disturbances are proposed along the Project, while the APE for aboveground locations includes those areas along with areas where land use may change, and any locations from which the Project may be visible. The archaeological APE for the Redbud Run Project in Virginia is defined as the areas proposed for solar arrays contained within fencing and the access road connecting to Woods Mill Road. In addition to the area of direct effects, the APE for above-ground resources (including architectural resources and cultural landscapes) also includes areas from which the Project may be visible. For the Redbud Run Project, this includes a half-mile buffer surrounding the defined disturbance zone. 5.3 Expected Results Throughout Virginia, the larger prehistoric sites tend to be located in proximity to important water sources, namely along major rivers and creeks. These areas are often where two or more different environmental settings interface. Such locations gave the early inhabitants access to a variety of resources in one place. Distance to potable water is a key factor in predicting site location. Rivers, creeks, and lake shores were favored locations. Sites found in upland settings farther from water tend to be small lithic scatters or campsites. Riverine settings, especially near the confluence of two rivers or streams, became especially important during the Late Woodland Period when agriculture increased in importance. Distance to water is not as significant of an indicator when it comes to historic sites, but major rivers were still important during early historic times since they formed the major transportation corridors to the interior. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Research Design 33 Locations of natural crossings where rivers could be forded were especially important during early historic periods. River floodplains away from towns, such as the Project area location were typically used for agricultural purposes. Historic structures, particularly residences, tend to be located on somewhat higher ground, where flooding is not an issue. Historic resources for this project were expected mostly to be related to agricultural activities, and given the proximity of Civil War activity, Civil War-related sites or artifacts were considered also possible. 5.4 Probability Model An archaeological probability model was developed to guide subsurface testing of the project disturbance zone. This model took into account the results of previous archaeological testing within the area, locations of known sites, soils, topography, and distance to water. Three main levels of probability are typically identified throughout the area: high, medium, and low. Additionally, a fourth level designated medium-low was identified for this area. Given that the entirety of the disturbance zone was shovel tested at 50 to 25-ft. intervals previously with the exception of very steep side slopes (Hofstra and Geier 1992), high probability areas were limited to the locations of previous findings and their immediate surroundings. The other zones were determined through analysis of the various environmental factors. Given that the entire project area was dissected by several small drainages, distance to water as a factor in distinguishing zones was considered to be fairly equivalent throughout. Soils mapped within the disturbance zone were classified as having higher or lower archaeological probability based on farm classification, that is, areas classed as prime farmland having higher archaeological probability than those that are not prime farmland (Figure 17). Topography was considered by undertaking a slope analysis based on high-resolution LiDAR data available from the USGS via The National Map webviewer (https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/). The available digital elevation model (DEM) covering the area had a horizontal resolution of 1/9 arc-second (approximately 3 m) and was based on LiDAR data collected between 2011 and 2014. The DEM was used to classify slopes for the vicinity of the project. The right-hand panel of Figure 17 displays the slope analysis which color codes individual pixels of the DEM according to certain ranges of percentage slope. Like soils, slopes were also used to classify the disturbance zone into two general areas of higher or lower archaeological potential. Flatter and more gently sloping areas, in particular larger more uniform areas, were considered to have higher archaeological probability than steeper areas. Areas with 0 to 2 or 2 to 5 percent slopes were considered to have the best potential, while areas with 7-15 or greater than 15 percent slopes were considered to have the lowest potential. The division between the two probability zones was generally drawn between these within areas classified as having 5 to 7 percent slopes, generally with fairly wide areas of 5 to 7 percent slopes included in the higher probability class. The overall probability model was formed through a combination of the 1992 survey results and the soil and slope analysis maps (Figure 18). When combining soil and slope, slope was considered the more significant factor, mostly because the slope model was considered more spatially accurate than the soil mappings since the former is based on accurate LiDAR data. High probability zones were those in the immediate vicinity of previous findings regardless of soil and slope. Medium probability zones were those remaining areas where both soils and slope suggested higher probability. Medium-low probability zones were those that were considered to have higher potential regarding slope but lower potential regarding soils. Finally, low probability zones were those areas with lower potential according to slope regardless of soil type. The probability model was used to devise a stratified subsurface shovel testing plan for the project disturbance zone. One hundred percent of high probability zones were to be systematically shovel tested, while at least 25 percent of medium probability zones were to be tested. Medium-low and low probability zones were to include about 15 and 10 percent testing, respectively. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Research Design 34 Figure 17 Map showing soil analysis of the disturbance zone along with previous survey findings and slope analysis of area Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Research Design 35 Figure 18 Map showing combined probability model and stratified sample testing plan Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Research Design 36 5.5 Field Methods In May and September 2021, Cardno provided trained field survey crews, comprised of a lead archaeologist or architectural historian and field technicians, to evaluate and record archaeological and historical resource data needed to produce the cultural resource reports. Field surveys were conducted based on both procedures and protocols developed for large acreage surveys, previous surveys conducted in the area, and previous solar projects. These procedures and protocols were designed and based on the Virginia guidelines for cultural resource surveys (VDHR 2017) and in accordance with Virginia Code 9VAC15-60- 40 related to the Small Renewable Energy Projects permit by Rule Provisions. Detailed methodology was submitted as a Phase I research design to the VDHR for review and comments prior to the start of fieldwork. 5.5.1 Definitions Two designations for identified archaeological resources were used in this Phase I survey: archaeological site and archaeological location. As outlined in Virginia survey guidelines (VDHR 2017), an archaeological site is defined as the physical remains of any area of human activity greater than 50 years old for which a boundary can be established, and often is manifested by the presence of artifacts and/or cultural features. To establish a boundary, typically three or more artifacts related temporally or functionally within a spatially restricted area are needed. This definition does not apply to cultural material that has been recently redeposited or reflects casual discard. Any occurrence of artifacts or other cultural features which does not qualify for a site designation is termed an archaeological location. In application, defining these types of resources requires a certain degree of judgment in the field and consideration of a number of variables. Contextual factors such as prior disturbance and secondary deposition must be taken into account. The representative nature of the sample as measured by such factors as the degree of surface exposure and shovel test interval also must be considered. 5.5.2 Archaeological Field Methods The archaeological survey encompassed the entirety of the disturbance zone as identified by the project plans. The survey included a mix of visual inspection and systematic subsurface testing based on a probability model developed for the site and specific field conditions. All portions of the project disturbance zone were at least visually inspected through pedestrian survey along transect spaced 15 m (50 ft.) apart. Additionally, fields with at least 50 percent ground visibility were surface inspected, typically along transects spaced about 10 m (33 ft.) apart. Systematic shovel testing at 15-m (50-ft.) intervals was performed within the area according to the stratified sampling methodology based on the probability model. To simplify the survey in the field, a series of shovel tests predominantly in 5 by 5 blocks covering areas measuring 75-x- 75 m (250-x-250 ft.) were placed throughout the area, with the blocks oriented at magnetic north. Table 6 indicates the amount of systematic shovel testing performed according to probability zones devised for the area. Table 6 Model and Actual Shovel Testing According to Probability Zone Probability Zone Model Testing Percentage Actual Testing Percentage High 100% 100% Medium 25% 38% Medium-Low 15% 17% Low 10% 11% Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Research Design 37 If artifacts were encountered in shovel tests, site boundaries were to be determined through the excavation of 7.5-m (25-ft.) spaced shovel tests on a cruciform pattern around a central positive test until two consecutive negative tests were noted in each direction or the boundaries of the survey area were reached. However, no positive shovel tests were noted during the survey. All excavated shovel tests measured 15 inches (38 cm) in diameter and were dug to sterile subsoil. No deep alluvial sediments were encountered during the survey that might require additional use of hand augers beyond the reach of a shovel. As portions of the project area intersect a Civil War battlefield area as mapped within VCRIS, metal detecting was employed according to the VDHR guidelines and the standards set forth by the board of Advanced Metal Detecting for the Archaeologist (AMDA). Metal detecting survey was not previously completed during the prior archaeological survey of the area in the 1990s. A portion of the Second Winchester Battlefield (034-5023) is mapped along Woods Mill Road (SR 660) and corresponds to a possible route of a night-time advance of Confederate troops to cut off the Union retreat. As suspected troop movement lines generally have lower probability to contain Civil War remains than would be expected at battle locations, troop positions, or camps, metal detection survey was performed along limited transects within the portions of the disturbance zone closest to Woods Mill Road. Cardno performed metal detection survey along parallel transects within sections of the disturbance zone within 500 ft. of Woods Mill Road, with some shorter, perpendicular transects judgmentally placed with the survey area as well. Metal detector finds were to be flagged, mapped, and hand excavated using pinpointer devices to locate materials and confirm that all metal at the specific find location is uncovered. Additional shovel tests were to be excavated near metal detection finds as appropriate, however, no historic materials were encountered during the metal detection survey. During shovel testing and pedestrian survey, all shovel test locations were recorded using a Trimble 7x handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) device with sub-meter accuracy. Also during the metal detector survey, all transects were also recorded with the Trimble GPS device. All GPS positions were taken as UTM coordinates in relation to North American Datum (NAD) 83. 5.5.3 Architectural Field Methods Architectural reconnaissance field survey located and documented all historic resources (buildings, structures, objects, districts, landscapes, or linear resources) within 0.5 mile of the disturbance zone and evaluated them for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. Historical research including, but not limited to, historic maps, books, newspapers, deeds, aerial photographs, and local informants, identified significant historical associations, related contexts, historic settlement, and land use patterns in the region. Field survey involved walking or driving the APE to identify buildings, other man-made features, natural elements, circulation networks, transportation routes, and spatial relationships between the resources in their settings. All resources constructed on or before 1971 were recorded and submitted to VCRIS. Resources less than 50 years of age, but of exceptional significance as defined by the NRHP, were recorded. A physical description of each resource is provided in this report, and digital photographs were taken of exteriors of each resource. In assessing the historical significance of any resource, standard criteria utilized for determining eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP, as defined in 36 CFR 60.4, and in consultation with the SHPO, was used. 5.6 Laboratory Methods Materials recovered during the investigation were returned to the Cardno laboratory in Wake Forest, North Carolina, to be cleaned, stabilized, and catalogued. Cardno performs laboratory analysis of all artifacts based on industry standards for the processing of archaeological materials. Proveniences recorded in the field were maintained throughout processing. Although most material was washed, some delicate cultural Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Research Design 38 material such as some rusting metal was merely dry-brushed. Artifacts were completely dried in racks with mesh bottoms prior to rebagging. Following initial processing, all artifacts were sorted and cataloged. Artifacts from each provenience were sorted by material and type into analytical categories, each of which was assigned a lot. Artifacts were further analyzed to identify more specific typological characteristics, with the aim of obtaining specific or relative dates. All diagnostic artifacts were labeled in the least conspicuous spot with the state site number, FS, and lot following the VDHR’s collection management standards (VDHR 2011). Selected artifacts related to particular time periods or cultural affiliation were photographed for illustration in the technical report. All artifacts were bagged by individual lot in 4-mil polyethylene bags with zip closure labeled with permanent marker. Documentation of artifacts was done on standardized forms. All pertinent information was recorded including all provenience information, dates of collection and analysis, initials of collector and analyst, detailed artifact descriptions, count, weight in grams (g), and size measurements when appropriate. This information was then entered into an database for generation of tables in reports. 5.6.1 Historic Artifacts The data recording and analysis of historic artifacts collected during this Phase I survey were based on South’s (1977) artifact function categorization system with necessary modifications. Functional categories employed in this system include Architecture, Clothing, Furniture, Kitchen, Personal, Arms, Tobacco, and Activities (Table 7). Only those categories relevant to the current project are described in more detail in the following section. Artifacts not confidently assigned to one of these groups are referred to as Miscellaneous. Ceramics and glass bottles constitute two of the most frequent artifact types within the Kitchen category, which itself is the most comprehensive and detailed group of artifacts. Both of these materials are durable; they survive long term exposure to soil and the natural environment and enter the archaeological record regularly. Few of these artifacts are routinely adapted to other uses and therefore, ceramic and glass characteristics can be used to help place an archaeological component in time. When possible, maker’s marks, trademarks, and evidence of manufacturing methods were researched to help identify location and date of production. Maker’s marks on ceramics and glass were recorded and researched using standard reference works to identify manufacturer, location and date of manufacture. Table 7 South’s (1977) Artifact Function Categories Category Description Activities Artifacts representing leisure time, such as marbles, fish hooks, gaming pieces, and children’s tea sets, as well as work-related artifacts such as axes, harness parts, horseshoes, and plow parts. Architectural Architectural artifacts cover a broad range of items related to structures such as brick, mortar, nails, and window glass. Arms Category includes all types of weapons and ammunition Clothing Artifacts of clothing consist of various fasteners and apparel related items Furniture Refers to hardware associated with furniture Kitchen Artifacts that involve food preparation or eating, including ceramic and glass artifacts. Personal Category includes items used primarily by and for an individual Tobacco Pipes Kaolin clay pipes, many types Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Research Design 39 5.6.1.1 Kitchen Group Whiteware. Whiteware is an English ceramic dating to between 1820 and the present; its production was a direct result of the trend toward whiter ceramics over time. In order to accomplish this look, less cobalt was utilized and alkaline was used for the glaze instead of lead. Decoration styles often carry over between pearlware and whiteware, such as sponge decorated and annularware. Sponge decoration is created by applying a stamped decoration to the vessel with a cut sponge and was used until at least 1930. Annularware is made by applying rouletted or engine-turned, slipped, or painted bands in circles around the vessel, are often earthen in color. They were popular between the mid-nineteenth century into the early twentieth century. Whiteware can also be hand-painted with flower decorations in polychrome or other imagery, decal-transferred in which a decal design is placed on the body of the vessel before or after the firing process, or molded with an embossed rim but no other decorations (Lloyd 2001; Price 1979; Samford and Miller 2015). 5.7 Curation All artifacts (except those from private lands requested to be retained by the landowner), written records, photographs, and project materials will be prepared for permanent curation in a facility meeting the federal requirements of 36 CFR 79 Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archeological Collections and in accordance with VDHR’s curation standards (VDHR 2011). Copies of the field notes, maps, and other paperwork generated during the course of this survey along with digital photographic image files will be stored at Cardno under file number E319302502. 5.8 Criteria for NRHP Eligibility Cultural resources are evaluated for potential NRHP eligibility based on several criteria (NRHP 1998:2). “The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.” To be considered significant, the historic property must meet one or more of the four National Register of Historic Places criteria in addition to possessing integrity: A. Be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. Be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criterion D is most commonly applied to archaeological sites, while A, B, and C are most often used to evaluate buildings and structures (NRHP 1998). Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archaeological Survey Results 40 6 Archaeological Survey Results 6.1 Summary of Results The current Phase I survey of the Redbud Run Project covered of a total of approximately 163.2 acres, south, east, and north of Woods Mill Road. This includes the disturbance area inside the fence line planned to be erected around the solar arrays as well as the access roads, tie-in line, POI, staging areas, and planting strips. Of the total survey area, approximately 26 acres, or 16 percent, was covered by shovel testing. These areas were targeted based on the previous surveys done in the area and areas of higher probability. The remaining acreage was surveyed via visual inspection, including the agricultural fields and wooded areas. The Redbud Run Project as proposed includes multiple disturbance zone sections. For ease of data organization and discussion, each area was assigned a letter designation (Figure 19). The northernmost disturbance area (labeled B) as well as its access road (AR) were entirely wooded, comprised of mixed hardwood, pine, and dense undergrowth. The larger two survey areas, D and E, were a mix of woods and open field, and the tie-in line was a mix of woods and lawn. During the archaeological survey of the Redbud Run Project, 545 total shovel tests were excavated. Two of the excavated tests were positive for cultural material. Thirty tests were not excavated due to steep slope or safety concerns, or their location within an existing road. Pedestrian survey of ground surfaces yielded a single historic artifact, located in the vicinity of a previously recorded site (44FK0385), and multiple historic artifacts located along a ridge which constituted historic site 44FK1041. Metal detector survey, covering approximately 19.6 acres conducted within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District, did not yield any historic material. Survey results are detailed in Figures 20 through 23. Soils across the project area were similar and revealed shallow, heavily disturbed soils over highly compact subsoil. In wooded areas, the average shovel test extended to 25 to 30 centimeters below surface (cmbs). Stratum I was typically a light brown (7.5YR 6/3) or light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4) silty loam. Stratum II was typically a highly compacted silty clay or silty loamy clay, and recorded as a pale brown (2.5Y 7/3) or a pale yellow (5Y 7/4), often with significant mudstone deposits. In the agricultural areas, shovel tests were shallower than those excavated in the wooded areas. These revealed highly disturbed and deflated soils and very compact, dry subsoil. The typical shovel test excavated in the agricultural areas extended to an average depth of 15 to 25 cmbs. Stratum I was recorded as light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) or light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) silty loam. Stratum II was a highly compact silty clay or silty loamy clay with mudstone and bedrock deposits, and was observed as light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3) or pale brown (2.5Y 7/4). Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archaeological Survey Results 41 Figure 19 Disturbance zones for Redbud Run Project. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archaeological Survey Results 42 Figure 20 Survey results, Tie-in line. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archaeological Survey Results 43 Figure 21 Survey results, Access Road (AR) and Area B. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archaeological Survey Results 44 Figure 22 Survey results, Area D. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archaeological Survey Results 45 Figure 23 Survey results, Area E. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archaeological Survey Results 46 6.2 Previously Recorded Sites The survey revisited three previously recorded site locations, 44FK0383, 44FK0385, and 44FK0423, all originally identified in 1992 during the Abrams Creek-Redbud Run Survey by James Madison University (JMU) (Hofstra and Geier 1992). 6.2.1 Site 44FK0383 Site 44FK0383 was originally recorded as a small antebellum farmstead including limestone pieces and a pile of limestone and brick suggesting a possible foundation and chimney. The site was recorded as destroyed to an unknown degree in 1992. Artifacts noted at the site at the time included brick fragments, a horseshoe fragment, hand-blown bottle glass, a clay pipe stem, and various ceramic sherds including earthenware, pearlware and whiteware. The site was not evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP. Site 44FK0383 is situated south of the northernmost access road planned for the current project and sits on a fairly level hilltop within an area of fairly open pines. Undergrowth was generally dense, and a dirt two track ran through the area offering some exposed ground (Figure 24). The entire site area was fairly well accessible allowing for close-interval pedestrian survey inspecting for surface limestone or bricks, but none were noted in the area. The entire site area was shovel tested, but all tests were negative. The soils at this location appeared to be greatly deflated. Shovel tests excavated within the site boundaries extended to an average of 40 cmbs and exhibited two distinct strata. Stratum I was typically a brown (10YR 5/3) or light brown (7.5YR 6/3) compact silty loam. Stratum II was a highly compact silty clay or silty loam clay and was typically a yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) or very pale brown (10YR 7/4) (Figure 25). Due to the compact nature of Stratum II, shovel tests were impassable beyond an average of 40 cmbs. The lack of findings, both subsurface and surface, within the vicinity of 44FK0383 suggest that either the site has been total destroyed since it was recorded in 1992, the site is ephemeral so as to be virtually invisible, or the site was misplaced when first recorded and does not lie within the disturbance zone of the current project. It is interesting that the recorded location of 44FK0383 existed within a plowed field as shown on a 1964 aerial. This could lend credence to the idea that the site, which was described as containing a possible foundation and chimney pile, was misplaced in 1992, or alternatively could mean that it was a redeposited site pushed into the area after its use as a plowed farm field and has since been removed from the area. Given the uncertainties, the original site boundaries were not adjusted. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archaeological Survey Results 47 Figure 24 Area of previously recorded site 44FK0383, facing west. Figure 25 Representative shovel test within boundaries of 44FK0383. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archaeological Survey Results 48 6.2.2 Site 44FK0385 Site 44FK0385 was previously recorded along the western edge of survey area D, currently located within a powerline corridor along Woods Mill Road (Figure 27, Figure 26). JMU surveyed the site through visual inspection and shovel testing. Largely through artifact recovery, 44FK0385 was identified as a nineteenth to twentieth century domestic farmstead. Artifacts included handmade brick, limestone, tin roofing, iron hardware, window glass, porcelain, stoneware, and earthenware. Subsurface integrity at the site was noted as being destroyed to an unknown degree. The site has not been evaluated for inclusion on the NRHP. Cardno excavated shovel tests within and surrounding the site boundaries of 44FK0385. No cultural material was found in shovel tests. Surface inspection indicated highly disturbed soils with areas of subsoil on the surface. A single whiteware sherd was recovered from the surface. As such, the original site boundaries were adjusted. The single recovered artifact is a whiteware sherd, likely from a large vessel. The artifact exhibits no diagnostic information beyond a broad association with the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This would fall into South’s Kitchen Artifact Group, and be consistent with the assemblage and artifact types recovered during the initial survey. The shovel tests in and adjacent to the site revealed extensively disturbed soils. Shovel tests extended to an average of 30 cmbs and exhibited two distinct strata. Stratum I was typically a light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) or pale brown (10YR 6/3) silty loam. Stratum II was a highly compact silty clay or silty loam clay and was typically a light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3) or pale brown (2.5Y 7/3). In several shovel tests, Stratum II contained up to 30 percent mudstone or moderate sized rocks. The ground surface of the powerline corridor also contained gravel throughout, and subsoil was visible in some areas. The original site boundaries were adjusted to reflect the additional artifact recovery. However, given the extensive disturbance, relatively small assemblage, and lack of temporally diagnostic artifacts, this site is recommended not eligible for the NRHP. Figure 26 Area of previously recorded site 44FK0385, facing south. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archaeological Survey Results 49 Figure 27 Survey results at site 44FK0385 Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archaeological Survey Results 50 6.2.3 Site 44FK0423 Site 44FK0423 was originally recorded along the eastern edge of the planned tie-in line, currently located in a combination of woods and lawn (Figure 28, Figure 29). JMU recorded the site based on map projections and through visual inspection. The site is categorized as a historic site related to the transportation and communication industries. The original survey did not recover artifacts, and the site has not been evaluated for inclusion on the NRHP. Cardno excavated shovel tests near the western site boundary of 44FK0385. No cultural material was found in shovel tests or on the surface, and no aboveground features were observed. The shovel tests in the areas around the site revealed relatively shallow and compact soils. Shovel tests extended to an average of 20 cmbs and exhibited two distinct strata. Stratum I was typically a reddish brown (10YR 5/3) silty loam. Stratum II was a compact loamy clay or clay and was typically a strong brown (7.5Y 5/6). Given that no cultural material was recovered from subsurface testing, and surface inspection did not yield any additional cultural data, the original site was not relocated. Due to the lack of data, this site remains unevaluated for the NRHP. Figure 28 View of site 44FK0423, facing northeast. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archaeological Survey Results 51 Figure 29 Survey results at site 44FK0423. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archaeological Survey Results 52 6.3 Newly Recorded Sites The survey identified one previously unrecorded archaeological site, 44FK1041, located north of Woods Mill Road and west of Jordan Springs Road 6.3.1 Site 44FK1041 Site 44FK1041 was identified north of Woods Mill Road and west of Jordan Springs Road (Figure 30). The site sits along a ridge, upslope from a creek bed, which runs adjacent to Jordan Springs Road. The site is located approximately 45 m north-northwest from the intersection of Woods Mill Road and Jordan Springs Road, and 39.5 m south of an open powerline corridor. The area is entirely wooded, and slopes downward to the east towards a creek bed (Figure 31). Shovel tests in and around the site were relatively similar, extending to an average depth of 25 cmbs. Stratum I was typically a dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3) loamy clay, over Stratum II, a yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) or reddish brown (5YR 5/3) clay. Throughout the area Stratum II was compact, and in many contained up to 25 percent small rocks. Figure 30 Survey results at site 44FK1041. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Archaeological Survey Results 53 Figure 31 View of site 44FK1041 from eastern edge of site, facing west. The site was first identified through artifacts observed on the surface, and measures approximately 24 m by 27 m. In addition to the artifacts collected from the surface, two positive shovel tests yielded additional artifacts. This portion of the survey area lies within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District, and metal detecting was conducted throughout. Historic, domestic artifacts were identified on the surface at site 44FK1041, but nothing directly related to the district. Shovel tests were not excavated in areas of slope greater than 25 percent. Pedestrian survey was conducted surrounding the area and along the creek bed. Modern trash and debris was observed in the creek bed. A total of 20 artifacts were collected from site 44FK1041, including from the surface and from two shovel tests (see Appendix A). Surface artifacts were scattered in approximately a 10-m diameter, roughly centered around the two positive shovel tests. A total of four artifacts were collected from Shovel Test 99- 118, all of which were recovered from the first five centimeters. The remaining artifacts were collected from the location of Shovel Test 99-103 and immediately surrounding it, all from the surface. Additional non- diagnostic brick, glass, and iron were identified on the surface but uncollected. The majority of the recovered artifact assemblage is made up of historic glass and ceramics, included in South’s Kitchen Artifact Group. Additionally, an iron shoe horn, and a shard of window glass were recovered. The ceramics generally date from the late nineteenth to twentieth centuries. The bottles with identifying marks all date to the early twentieth century. Taken together this assemblage is indicative of a domestic site from the late nineteenth to twentieth centuries, post-dating the Civil War and not associated with the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District. Due to the majority of the artifacts being located on or very near the surface, the lack of subsurface deposits, and the location on a ridge sloping down towards a creek, it is also highly likely that this site has been redeposited. Due to the common nature of the material and lack of cultural data in situ, it is unlikely this site has the potential to contribute additional significant information. Site 44FK1041 does not meet the criteria for inclusion on the NRHP. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 54 7 Historical Survey Results 7.1 Summary of Results Cardno conducted the historic architectural fieldwork in May and September 2021. The historic resources were scattered throughout the architectural APE, which consisted primarily of agricultural fields and scattered residences. Photographs were limited to the public right-of-way; in some cases, it was challenging to capture the entire property since several of the buildings were set back from the road or hidden behind vegetation. During the course of the investigation, Cardno documented 62 properties including three districts in the APE that were more than 50 years old and evaluated these properties to determine potential eligibility (Table 8; Figure 32). A description of these resources and NRHP evaluations are provided in this chapter. The surveyed resources are primarily buildings and building complexes (i.e., farmsteads) but also include sites such as historic cemeteries. The buildings are predominantly houses, agricultural outbuildings, and former schoolhouses or churches. In addition to the three districts, 19 resources in the APE were previously recorded in VCRIS. Three of these have been demolished including: the Pugh House at 1654 Jordan Springs Road (034-0722), Bridge #6133, Jordan Springs Rd, unnamed tributary, Opequon Creek (034-5191), and the Keckley Moore/Evaline Moore House (034-1145) on Redbud Road. As a result of this survey, nine resources were identified as significant properties, meaning that they were either previously NRHP-listed or determined NRHP-eligible or this survey found them potentially NRHP-eligible (Figure 33). Three additional properties, the J. Clark House and Mill/Jackson Mill/Silent Mills at 302 High Banks Road (034-1064), the Backbone Farm at 352 Monastery Ridge Road (034-1114), and 180 Pine Road (034-5399) were found to have an unknown eligibility as the structures on the parcel were not visible from the right-of-way. Only one resource, High Banks at 423 High Banks Road (034-0109), is listed in the NRHP. The APE contains the previously determined NRHP-eligible battlefields: the Opequon Battlefield of the Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456) and the Second Winchester Battlefield (034-5023). The Milburn Rural Historic District (034-5035), which was previously determined NRHP-eligible, also extends into the APE. One individual resource within the APE, the Jordan White Sulfur Springs (030-0110), was also previously determined NRHP-eligible. Four additional properties, the Duvall House (034-0723), the Bromley House/Smith Farm (034-0704), Redbud Farm/Wood House (formerly recorded as Charles W. Wood’s Miller’s House; 034-1157), and the Red Bud United Bretheren Church and Cemetery (034-1147), were identified as potentially individually eligible during this survey. Only two buildings could contribute to the above-mentioned districts. The remaining resources lack the significant historical associations, architectural distinction, or integrity to be considered eligible for listing in the NRHP. Table 8 Historic Resources Identified during Redbud Run Phase I Survey Resource VCRIS Number Site Name/ Address Date Type Evaluation Recommended Action 1 034-5023 Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District 1863 District Determined Eligible Continued screening with existing vegetation 2 034-0456 Opequon Battlefield (Third Battle of Winchester) Historic District 1864 District Determined Eligible Continued screening with existing vegetation 3 034-5035 Milburn Rural Historic District 1730 District Determined Eligible Continued screening with existing vegetation Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 55 Resource VCRIS Number Site Name/ Address Date Type Evaluation Recommended Action 4 034-0110 Jordan White Sulfur Springs/1160 Jordan Springs Road 1832, 1893 Com- mercial Determined Eligible, Contributing (2nd Winchester HD and Milburn Rural Historic District) Continued screening with existing vegetation 5 034-5357 1384 Jordan Springs Road 1969 Single Dwelling Ineligible No further action 6 034-5358 1392 Jordan Springs Road 1967 Single Dwelling Ineligible No further action 7 034-5359 1418 Jordan Springs Road 1970 Single Dwelling Ineligible No further action 8 034-5360 1430 Jordan Springs Road 1970 Single Dwelling Ineligible No further action 9 034-5361 1462 Jordan Springs Road 1965 Single Dwelling Ineligible No further action 10 034-5362 1472 Jordan Springs Road 1967 Single Dwelling Ineligible No further action 11 034-5363 1482 Jordan Springs Road 1961 Single Dwelling Ineligible No further action 12 034-5364 1500 Jordan Springs Road 1971 Single Dwelling Ineligible No further action 13 034-5365 1552 Jordan Springs Road 1967 Single Dwelling Ineligible No further action 14 034-5366 1564 Jordan Springs Road 1968 Single Dwelling Ineligible No further action 15 034-0723 Duvall House/1681 Jordan Springs Road 1840 Single Dwelling Potentially Eligible Continued screening with existing vegetation 16 034-5367 1695 Jordan Springs Road 1971 Single Dwelling Ineligible No further action 17 034-0704 Bromley House/Smith Farm/223 Burnt Factory Road 1805 Farm Potentially Eligible Continued screening with existing vegetation 18 034-5368 1058-1110 Woods Mill Road 1940- 1970 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 19 034-5369 1108 Woods Mill Road 1969 Garage Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 20 034-5370 1102 Woods Mill Road 1966 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 21 034-1115 Harold Conner House/ 1010 Woods Mill Road 1887 Farm Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 22 034-5371 976 Woods Mill Road 1925 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 23 034-5372 936 Woods Mill Road 1956 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 56 Resource VCRIS Number Site Name/ Address Date Type Evaluation Recommended Action 24 034-5376 906 Woods Mill Road 1946 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 25 034-5377 896 Woods Mill Road 1951 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 26 034-5378 897 Woods Mill Road 1966 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 27 034-5382 886 Woods Mill Road 1960 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 28 034-5373 878 Woods Mill Road 1959 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 29 034-5374 870 Woods Mill Road 1951 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 30 034-5375 840 Woods Mill Road 1935 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 31 034-5379 830 Woods Mill Road 1960 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 32 034-5380 758 Woods Mill Road 1952 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 33 034-5381 748 Woods Mill Road 1962 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 34 034-5383 527 Woods Mill Road 1969 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 35 034-1116 Jenkins-Dehaven House/ 417 Woods Mill Road 1890 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 36 034-1118 Jenkins House/359 Woods Mill Road 1954 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 37 034-5384 349 Woods Mill Road 1957 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 57 Resource VCRIS Number Site Name/ Address Date Type Evaluation Recommended Action 38 034-1156 Patrick McTeirnan House/Thomas McTeirnan House/ 223 Woods Mill Road 1925 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 39 034-1157 Redbud Farm/Wood House /145 Woods Mill Road 1804 Grist Mill/ Farm Potentially Eligible, Contributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) Continued screening with existing vegetation 40 034-1147 Red Bud United Brethren Bud Church and Cemetery/1551 Redbud Road 1882, 1876 Church Potentially Eligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) Continued screening with existing vegetation 41 034-5385 1506 Redbud Road 1947 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 42 034-5386 1501 Redbud Road 1956 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 43 034-5387 1451 Redbud Road 1930 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 44 034-1146 Red Bud School/1420 Redbud Road 1950 School Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 45 034-5388 1347 Redbud Road 1956 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 46 034-5389 1307 Redbud Road 1966 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 47 034-5390 328 Redbud Road 1956 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 48 034-5391 185 Pine Road 1900 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 49 034-1119 Redbud Cemetery/North side of Pine Road 1906 Cemetery Ineligible No further action Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 58 Resource VCRIS Number Site Name/ Address Date Type Evaluation Recommended Action 50 034-5392 473 Pine Road 1940 Single Dwelling Ineligible No further action 51 034-5393 138 Steepwood Lane 1970 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 52 034-5394 183 Steepwood Lane 1970 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 53 034-5395 2663 Berryville Pike 1962 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 54 034-5396 2621 Berryville Pike 1965 Trailer Ineligible, Noncontributing (the Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 55 034-0724 Hallam House/1586 Jordan Springs Road 1840 Farm Ineligible No further action 56 034-5397 2444 Berryville Pike 1926 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD and the Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 57 034-1144 Robert D. Keckley House /1263 Redbud Road 1920 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (Opequon Battlefield HD) No further action 58 034-5398 1054 Jordan Springs Road 1956 Single Dwelling Ineligible, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) No further action 59 034-1064 J. Clark House and Mill/Jackson Mill/Silent Mills/302 High Banks Road 1800 Single Dwelling Unknown Continued screening with existing vegetation 60 034-0109 High Banks/423 High Banks Road 1753 Farm NRHP-Listed Continued screening with existing vegetation 61 034-1114 Backbone Farm/352 Monastery Ridge Road 1864 Single Dwelling Unknown Continued screening with existing vegetation 62 034-5399 180 Pine Road 1956 Single Dwelling Unknown, Noncontributing (2nd Winchester HD) Continued screening with existing vegetation Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 59 Figure 32 Historic Resources within the Redbud Run architectural APE Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 60 Figure 33 Significant historic resources within the Redbud Run architectural APE Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 61 7.2 Historic District Descriptions 7.2.1 Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District Address: Frederick County VCRIS: 034-5023 Type: District (multiple property types) Date: June 13-15, 1863 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Determined Eligible Description: The Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC), which was created by Congress in 1991, identified the Second Winchester Battlefield as a historically significant Civil War site. The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2002 instructed the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) of the National Park Service to update the findings of the CWSAC. The Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) is a Civil War-era battlefield located in and around the city of Winchester in Fredrick County, Virginia. The district was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR) by the Virginia State Review Board in 1999. According to the ABPP, the district covers approximately 18,133 acres incorporating the routes of Confederate approach and flanking movements and the Union retreat route and surrender site involved with the battle (ABPP 2009:319-21; VDHR, VCRIS 034-5023; Figure 34). Fought from June 13th to 15th, 1863, the Second Battle of Winchester was a part of the Gettysburg Campaign commanded by Confederate General Robert E. Lee (National Park Service 2020). On June 7th, 1863, General Lee gathered 70,000 confederate forces in central Virginia, with the intent to invade the Potomac, take Washington D.C. and Philadelphia. On June 10th, General Lee ordered Confederate Lieutenant General Richard S. Ewell to march north towards the Shenandoah Valley to invade the Blue Ridge Mountains and capture Winchester, Virginia (NPS 2020a; VDHR, VCRIS 034-5023). At the time, Union Major General Robert H. Malroy, held 8,000 Union forces in the Confederate sympathizing City of Winchester. Although General Malroy received numerous reports of General Ewell’s intention to invade, Malroy did very little to prepare for the possible invasion or to even evacuate. It was not until General Ewell attacked the southern town of Middletown, Virginia that General Malroy decided send out infantry to defend Winchester. Early on the morning of June 13th, General Ewell commanded 14,000 troops to attack Winchester and the surrounding villages, cutting off any possible escape by the Union troops. The Battle raged on for two more days before Confederate forces captured the City of Winchester (NPS 2020a; VDHR, VCRIS 034-5023). The Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District is located along the center of the APE incorporating the western edge of the project footprint along Woods Mill Road. The Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District runs north-south from the northern boundary of the APE along Jordan Springs Road, and then turns southwest along Woods Mill Road to the southern edge of the APE and extending further west along Redbud Road to the western boundary of the APE. The APE does not extend into the core areas of the district according to the ABPP boundaries (ABPP 2009:321; VDHR, VCRIS 034-5023). Within the APE, much of the landscape within the Second Battlefield of Winchester has been altered, including the construction of many modern dwellings and paved roads. More modern developments and widening of the Berryville Pike have impacted the district along the southern edge of the APE. While an evaluation of the historic district in its entirety is beyond the scope of the current survey, 33 properties within the APE are within the district boundaries (Table 9). However, only two were present at the time of the battle, which is the period of significance for the district. As a result, the remaining 31 resources are not Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 62 considered contributing to the district. Although the portion of the Second Battlefield of Winchester that is within the APE may retain some of its historic landscape features, the majority of the essential features of the Battlefield are located outside of the APE. Areas of the district beyond the APE were not evaluated. Table 9 Historic Resources within the Boundaries of the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) VCRIS Number Name Address Date Contributing/ Noncontributing to District 034-0110 Jordan White Sulfur Springs 1160 Jordan Springs Road 1832, 1893 Contributing 034-5368 1058-1110 Woods Mill Road 1110 Woods Mill Road 1940-1970 Noncontributing 034-5369 1108 Woods Mill Road 1108 Woods Mill Road 1969 Noncontributing 034-5370 1102 Woods Mill Road 1102 Woods Mill Road 1966 Noncontributing 034-1115 Harold Conner House 1010 Woods Mill Road 1887 Noncontributing 034-5371 976 Woods Mill Road 976 Woods Mill Road 1925 Noncontributing 034-5372 936 Woods Mill Road 936 Woods Mill Road 1956 Noncontributing 034-5373 878 Woods Mill Road 878 Woods Mill Road 1959 Noncontributing 034-5374 870 Woods Mill Road 870 Woods Mill Road 1951 Noncontributing 034-5375 840 Woods Mill Road 840 Woods Mill Road 1935 Noncontributing 034-5376 906 Woods Mill Road 906 Woods Mill Road 1946 Noncontributing 034-5377 896 Woods Mill Road 896 Woods Mill Road 1951 Noncontributing 034-5378 897 Woods Mill Road 897 Woods Mill Road 1966 Noncontributing 034-5379 830 Woods Mill Road 830 Woods Mill Road 1960 Noncontributing 034-5380 758 Woods Mill Road 758 Woods Mill Road 1952 Noncontributing 034-5381 748 Woods Mill Road 748 Woods Mill Road 1962 Noncontributing 034-5382 886 Woods Mill Road 886 Woods Mill Road 1960 Noncontributing 034-5383 527 Woods Mill Road 527 Woods Mill Road 1969 Noncontributing 034-1116 Jenkins-Dehaven House 417 Woods Mill Road 1890 Noncontributing 034-1118 Jenkins House 359 Woods Mill Road 1954 Noncontributing 034-5384 349 Woods Mill Road 349 Woods Mill Road 1957 Noncontributing 034-1156 Patrick McTeirnan House/Thomas McTeirnan House 223 Woods Mill Road 1925 Noncontributing 034-1157 Redbud Farm/Wood House 145 Woods Mill Road 1804 Contributing 034-1147 Red Bud United Brethren Church and Cemetery 1551 Redbud Road 1882, 1876 Noncontributing 034-5385 1506 Redbud Road 1506 Redbud Road 1947 Noncontributing 034-5386 1501 Redbud Road 1501 Redbud Road 1956 Noncontributing 034-5387 1451 Redbud Road 1451 Redbud Road 1930 Noncontributing Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 63 VCRIS Number Name Address Date Contributing/ Noncontributing to District 034-1146 Red Bud School 1420 Redbud Road 1950 Noncontributing 034-5390 328 Redbud Road 328 Redbud Road 1956 Noncontributing 034-5391 185 Pine Road 185 Pine Road 1900 Noncontributing 034-5397 2444 Berryville Pike 2444 Berryville Pike 1946 Noncontributing 034-5398 1054 Jordan Springs Road 1054 Jordan Springs Road 1956 Noncontributing 034-5399 180 Pine Road 180 Pine Road 1956 Noncontributing Figure 34 Map of Second Winchester Battlefield Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 64 7.2.2 Opequon Battlefield (Third Battle of Winchester) Historic District Address: Frederick County VCRIS: 034-0456 Type: Site, District (multiple property types) Date: September 19th, 1864 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Determined Eligible Description: The Opequon Battlefield (the Third Battle of Winchester) Historic District stretches north to south along the eastern side of the city of Winchester and extends east along the Berryville Pike. Situated on the southern boundary of the APE, properties along the Berryville Pike, Steepwood Lane, the south end of Woods Mill Road, and Redbud Road are located within the district boundaries. According to the ABPP, the larger district incorporates approximately 13,688 acres focusing on the action along the Berryville Pike and the Federal attack on the Confederate Army (Figure 35; Lowe 1992:93-97; ABPP 2009:211-213; VDHR, VCRIS 034- 0456). The district was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in 1990. The Opequon Battle, also known as the Third Winchester Battle, was fought outside of the City of Winchester on September 19th, 1864. The Third Battle of Winchester is the largest of all of the battles in Winchester and the Shenandoah Valley. In 1864, the Confederate-occupied City of Winchester was commanded by Lieutenant General Jubal Early. In September of 1864, a large Confederate infantry left Winchester to head north. Word of this movement reached Union Army Major General Philip Sheridan who decided it was time to take back the City of Winchester and the Shenandoah Valley. General Sheridan attacked the remaining Confederate forces along the Opequon Creek, just north of the City of Winchester. General Sheridan surrounded the Confederate Forces on all sides except for the south, forcing the Confederate troops to flee to the streets of Winchester (NPS 2020b; VDHR, VCRIS 034-0456). On September 19th, General Sheridan attacked the Confederate forces within the City of Winchester. Confederate General Early and his troops fled to Fisher’s Hill, south of Strasburg. The Confederate Army lost 4,000 soldiers and two generals during the Third Battle of Winchester while the Union Army lost 5,000 soldiers and one general. The Opequon Battlefield of the Third Battle of Winchester was the bloodiest battle in Winchester throughout the Civil War and marked the turning point of the war in the Shenandoah Valley and the decline of Confederate control (VDHR, VCRIS 034-0456). Identified as one of the battlefields at the highest risk in 1992, much of the landscape within the Opequon Battlefield has now been altered by modern development. While an evaluation of the historic district in its entirety is beyond the scope of the current survey, 16 properties within the APE are within the district boundaries (Table 10). Of these, only one was present at the time of the battle, which is the period of significance for the district. As a result, the remaining 15 resources are not considered contributing to the district. The portion of the district within the southern section of the APE along the Berryville Pike has been impacted by more recently constructed housing complexes, but the areas immediately north along Redbud Run remain largely rural where some landscape features may remain. Areas of the district beyond the APE were not evaluated. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 65 Table 10 Historic Resources within the Boundaries of the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester Historic District (034-0456) VCRIS Number Name Address Date Contributing/ Noncontributing to District 034-1156 Patrick McTeirnan House/Thomas McTeirnan House 223 Woods Mill Road 1925 Noncontributing 034-1157 Redbud Farm/Wood House 145 Woods Mill Road 1804 Contributing 034-1147 Red Bud United Brethren Church and Cemetery 1551 Redbud Road 1876 Noncontributing 034-5385 1506 Redbud Road 1506 Redbud Road 1947 Noncontributing 034-5386 1501 Redbud Road 1501 Redbud Road 1956 Noncontributing 034-5387 1451 Redbud Road 1451 Redbud Road 1930 Noncontributing 034-1146 Red Bud School 1420 Redbud Road 1950 Noncontributing 034-5388 1347 Redbud Road 1347 Redbud Road 1956 Noncontributing 034-5389 1307 Redbud Road 1307 Redbud Road 1966 Noncontributing 034-5390 328 Redbud Road 328 Redbud Road 1956 Noncontributing 034-5393 138 Steepwood Lane 138 Steepwood Lane 1970 Noncontributing 034-5394 183 Steepwood Lane 183 Steepwood Lane 1970 Noncontributing 034-5395 2663 Berryville Pike 2663 Berryville Pike 1962 Noncontributing 034-5396 2621 Berryville Pike 2621 Berryville Pike 1965 Noncontributing 034-5397 2444 Berryville Pike 2444 Berryville Pike 1946 Noncontributing 034-1144 1263 Redbud Road 1263 Redbud Road 1920 Noncontributing Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 66 Figure 35 Map of Opequon Battlefield of the Third Battle of Winchester Historic District Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 67 7.2.3 Milburn Rural Historic District Address: Frederick County VCRIS: 034-5035 Type: District (multiple property types) Date: 1730-early 20th century NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Determined Eligible Description: Located northeast of the city of Winchester, the Milburn Rural Historic District (034-5035) is a cultural landscape roughly bounded by Jordan Springs Road, Old Charles Town Road, Martinsburg Pike, and Lick Run. Located on the northwestern edge of the APE, the Milburn Rural Historic District encompasses both natural and manmade features including a cluster of historic resources such as the Milburn House (034- 0729), the Byers House (034-1124), Stephenson’s Depot Battlefield (034-0720), the Helm House/Fort Helm (034-0703), the Milburn Chapel Site and Cemetery (034-0950), the Carter-Hardesty House (034-0112), and the Jordan White Sulphur Springs (034-0110) (VDHR, VCRIS 034-5035). Of these, only the Jordan White Sulphur Springs (034-0110) is within the APE. The heart of the district, the Milburn estate, encompasses 268 acres of land incorporating the mid- nineteenth century Milburn House along with many of its original domestic and agricultural outbuildings. Named after one of its earliest owners, John Milburn was a prominent Methodist minister in Frederick County who constructed a Methodist church and cemetery on his property at the end of the eighteenth century. The rural historic district also incorporates lands from the major Civil War battles in the Shenandoah Valley including the Stephenson’s Depot Battlefield, the Second Battle of Winchester and the Opequon Battle (Third Battle of Winchester). VDHR staff determined the Milburn Rural Historic District eligible for NRHP listing under Criteria A and C in 1997 (VDHR, VCRIS 034-5035; Gray and Pape 1997). Today, much of the landscape within the Milburn Historic District has been altered, including many modern dwellings and paved roads. However, the essential residential properties, the cemetery, and the battlefield remain intact. The portion of Milburn Historic District that is within the APE, only includes the Jordan White Sulfur Springs (Table 11), which retains its integrity and significance, while the additional properties are located outside of the APE. Table 11 Historic Resources within the Boundaries of the Milburn Rural Historic District (034-5035) VCRIS Number Name Address Date Contributing/ Noncontributing to District 034-0110 Jordan White Sulfur Springs 1160 Jordan Springs Road 1832, 1893 Contributing Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 68 7.3 Historical Site Descriptions 7.3.1 Jordan White Sulfur Springs Address: 1160 Jordan Springs Road VCRIS: 034-0110 Tax Parcel: 8027570, 8041277 Type: Multiple Dwellings, Commercial Date: 1832, 1893 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Determined Eligible, Contributing Description: Located along the northern boundary of the APE, the Jordan White Sulfur Springs property is situated on the west side of the road at 1160 Jordan Springs Road. This resource is within both the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) and the Milburn Rural Historic District (034-5035) boundaries and was also determined individually eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and C by the Virginia State Review Board in 1993. Throughout its long life the Jordan White Sulfur Springs has had many uses. The original property owner who developed it into a retreat appears to have been Rezin Duvall, who promoted it for its medicinal qualities in the early 1800s. Several cabins were built and the dam was enlarged drawing invalids from across the region (Figure 36; Cartmell 1909:297). Figure 36 Portion of map of Frederick County showing Duvall’s “Sulpher spring” (Varle and Jones 1809). In 1832, Branch Jordan purchased the property and built a limestone hotel named the White Sulfur Resort adjacent to the undergound springs on the property. Jordan further capitalized on the waters by building a bathhouse and several cabins creating an early spa. Over time, additional buildings were added to the property including a larger, ca. 1855 wood frame hotel fronting on Jordan Springs Road, which was later destroyed by fire ca. 1920. With the death of Branch Jordan, his nephew, Edwin C. Jordan, inherited the property at the start of the Civil War. Hotel operations ceased during the war, and both hotel buildings were used as hospitals for both the Confederate and Union armies, depending on who controlled Winchester. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 69 Soldiers who died at Sulpher Springs were buried on the grounds until reinterred at Stonewall Cemetery in Winchester in 1866 (VDHR, VCRIS 034-0110; Historic Jordan Springs 2021; Allen 2001; Cartmell 1909:297). The 1873 map showing the September 19, 1864 Battle of Winchester illustrated the layout of this property during the war (Figure 37; Gillespie 1873). Figure 37 Portion of map of the Battle of Winchester depicting troop movements and infrastructure at the point of the battle on September 19, 1864 (Gillespie 1873). After the war, the hotel and spa reopened serving numerous veterans and statesmen. During the late nineteenth century, the Jordan White Sulfur Springs Hotel and Spa gained increasing popularity as a resort and tourism destination. Many people would travel by train from Washington, Baltimore, New York, and Philadelphia to the property to enjoy the relaxing and healing environment and social events (VDHR, VCRIS 034-0110; Historic Jordan Springs 2021; Allen 2001; Cartmell 1909:297). After Edwin Jordan died in 1890, his son, Clarendon, inherited the property and built the current brick building ca. 1893. Built on the foundation of the 1832 carriage house, the new building appears to have been attached to the 1832 hotel and was constructed of brick made on the property. Around the turn of the century, however, the hotel lost its popularity and Jordan sold the property to his brother-in-law Col. Henry Baker in 1905. Baker leased out the the hotel until the resort closed in 1916. Several attempts to revive the inn during the late 1910s and 1920s failed in their longterm efforts, but an advertising brochure produced during the period provides insight to the buildings and amenities offered on site at the time (Figure 38; VDHR, VCRIS 034-0110; Historic Jordan Springs 2021; Allen 2001; Cartmell 1909:297). Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 70 Figure 38 Jordan Springs site plan from a promotional brochure, ca. 1920, which includes the existing hotel at the top of the map and the ca. 1855 hotel at the lower right (Historic Jordan Springs 2021). The hotel remained largely closed during the 1920s and 1930s until W.H.M. Stover purchased it during World War II in 1942 and repaired the buildings after the war in the late 1940s. He reopened it on a limited basis in 1949 when it regained some popularity, especially among local residents who used the grounds for picnics, camping, baseball, and swimming. In 1951, the Franklin Foundation leased the property for use as a school. After the school failed, the Missionary Servants of the Most Holy Trinity purchased the property in 1953, in order to operate a Catholic Monastery and Seminary. Under their ownership, changes included replacing the Sulfur Springs pool and converting the dressing rooms into a library as well as turning the ballroom into a chapel. In 1972, the Shalom et Benidictus leased the property converting it into a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center for teenagers. After the treatment center closed in 1999, County Court Reporters Inc. purchased the property in 2001 for use as their headquarters and converted the main building into a technology and training center and a full service event venue. In the same year, the Jordan White Sulfur Springs became the first property in Frederick County Virginia to receive a Historic Overlay District (VDHR, VCRIS 034-0110; Historic Jordan Springs 2021; Allen 2001). The 237-acre Jordan White Sulfur Springs property contains six buildings: the hotel, a cabin, an office, a pergola set over the spring, a workshop, and a shed. The L-shaped hotel (Figures 39 through 42) consists of the 1893 three-and-a-half-story front brick block and a two-and-a-half-story limestone based rear wing, Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 71 which appears to have been the original 1832 hotel. The brick is laid in seven-course American bond brick. The cross-hipped roof is covered in asphalt shingles and pierced by six gable dormers. There is a stepped brick pattern at the cornice line. The hotel rests on a tall stone foundation wall with a walkout basement on the south elevation. The façade has nine-bays that are separated by brick pilasters that stretch the entire height of the building. The two front entrances are protected by a two-story wrap-around porch. The porch is covered in asphalt shingles and supported by wood posts. The rear wing has a large interior brick chimney on the ridge line. The windows are vertical configured 2-over-2 double-hung sash wood with stone sills. All of the window openings on the first, second, and basement stories are topped with brick curved segmental arched lintels, while the window openings on the third story are topped with brick flat arched lintels. Located directly northeast of the hotel, the two-story, wood frame cabin (Figure 43) rests on a tall stone foundation wall. The cabin is clad in wood siding and the side gable roof is covered in standing seam metal. There is an end exterior brick chimney on the east elevation. The windows are 6-over-6 double-hung sash wood and 1-over-1 double-hung sash vinyl flanked by shutters. The front entrance is protected by a three- bay, one-story porch. The porch has an asphalt shingle-clad shed roof supported by wood posts with decorative sawnwork in the wood balustrade. Additional investigation may reveal that this building was constructed soon after the original hotel was built, but may date as late as 1880. Constructed in 1954, the office (Figure 44) is a Ranch-type building clad in a brick veneer topped by a hipped roof covered in asphalt shingles. There is an interior brick chimney on the west roof slope, while the windows are vinyl casement. Built prior to 1917, the spring (Figure 45) has an open, octagonal pergola with a conical roof supported by parged brick Doric columns (Historic Jordan Springs 2021). The 1941 workshop (Figure 46) is a two-story, concrete block building with a shed roof covered in asphalt shingles. The façade has four garage openings with original wood garage doors. The windows are 6-over-1, wood double-hung sash with brick sills. The shed is a frame building resting on a parged foundation and clad in wood siding. The side gable roof is covered in standing seam metal. Figure 39 Hotel at Jordan White Sulfur Springs, façade, looking west Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 72 Figure 40 Hotel at Jordan White Sulfur Springs, façade and northwest elevation, looking southwest Figure 41 Hotel at Jordan White Sulfur Springs, façade and southeast elevation, looking northwest Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 73 Figure 42 Hotel at Jordan White Sulfur Springs, southwest (rear) elevation, looking southeast Figure 43 Cabin at Jordan White Sulfur Springs, façade and west elevation, looking northeast Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 74 Figure 44 Office at Jordan White Sulfur Springs, façade and southwest elevation, looking northwest Figure 45 Pergola set above spring at Jordan White Sulfur Springs, looking southwest Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 75 Figure 46 Workshop at Jordan White Sulfur Springs, northeast elevation, looking southwest 7.3.2 1384 Jordan Springs Road Address: 1384 Jordan Springs Road VCRIS: 034-5357 Tax Parcel: 8015495 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1969 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Not Eligible Description: The residence located at 1384 Jordan Springs Road (034-5357; Figure 47) is a Ranch style house constructed in 1969 on a 0.56-acre parcel on the west side of Jordan Springs Road. The Ranch style building is clad in a brick veneer with vinyl siding within the gable ends. Covered in asphalt shingles, the side gable roof has widely overhanging eaves. The main entry door on the façade (east elevation) is an 8- panel, 1-light, wood door set behind a storm door above a simple brick stoop. There is an interior brick chimney on the south wall and an integrated one-car garage on the north elevation at the walk-out basement level. The windows are primarily 1-over-1 vinyl single-hung sash flanked by fixed louvered shutters. An original picture window remains on the façade featuring horizontally configured wood 2-over-2 double-hung sash windows flanking a 1-light fixed picture window. This residence is typical of Ranch style houses built throughout the state and evidences some modern alterations, including replacement windows, that have impacted its architectural integrity. Consequently, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 76 Figure 47 Dwelling at 1384 Jordan Springs Road, southeast (façade) and northeast elevations, looking west 7.3.3 1392 Jordan Springs Road Address: 1392 Jordan Springs Road VCRIS: 034-5358 Tax Parcel: 8015494 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1967 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Not Eligible Description: Set on a 0.9-acre parcel on the west side of the road, the residence located at 1392 Jordan Springs Road (034-5358; Figure 48) is a Ranch style dwelling constructed in 1967. Clad in a brick veneer with vinyl siding within the gable ends, the building has a side gable roof covered in asphalt shingles with widely overhanging eaves and an interior brick chimney on the south elevation. The main entry is a 2-panel wood door with a fanlight set behind a storm door with a brick stoop. An integrated one-car garage is situated on the north elevation. The windows are horizontally configured 2-over-2 wood, double-hung sash set independently and flanking a 1-light fixed picture window flanked by fixed louvered shutters. A detached metal frame, 2- car garage northwest of the house is wrapped in standing seam metal sheeting and topped by a gambrel roof. There is a small wood frame workshop with a side gable roof located along the southern property line. The limited historical data available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people. Consequently, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Typical of Ranch style houses built during this period, this dwelling also has a few alterations, such as some replacement siding, that have impacted its architectural integrity. As a result, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 77 Figure 48 Dwelling at 1392 Jordan Springs Road, façade and northwest elevation, looking southwest 7.3.4 1418 Jordan Springs Road Address: 1418 Jordan Springs Road VCRIS: 034-5359 Tax Parcel: 8015497 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1970 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Not Eligible Description: Constructed in 1970, the residence located at 1418 Jordan Springs Road (034-5359; Figure 49) is a Ranch style dwelling resting on a 0.5-acre parcel on the west side of the road. Clad in brick veneer, the building has a side gable roof covered in asphalt shingles. The front entrance which has a recessed 4-panel wood main entry door accessed by a brick entry stoop. There is an exterior brick chimney on the north elevation. The windows are 6-over-6 vinyl single-hung sash with fixed louvered shutters. The façade is accented by a large, 12-light fixed picture window with fixed shutters directly adjacent to the front entrance. The research available did not indicate any significance in terms of historical associations with persons or events indicating that this property is not eligible under Criteria A or B. The replacement of original windows with modern vinyl units has impacted the integrity of this typical Ranch-style dwelling. Consequently, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 78 Figure 49 Dwelling at 1418 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking west 7.3.5 1430 Jordan Springs Road Address: 1430 Jordan Springs Road VCRIS: 034-5360 Tax Parcel: 8015498 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1970 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Not Eligible Description: Situated on a 0.5-acre parcel at 1430 Jordan Springs Road (034-5360; Figure 50), this residence is a Ranch style dwelling constructed in 1970. The Ranch dwelling located on the west side of the road is clad in brick veneer with vinyl siding in the gable end. Covered in asphalt shingles, the side gable roof with widely overhanging eaves features an exterior brick chimney on the north wall within the incorporated a one-car carport. The carport is supported by metal posts set on brick bases. The 2-panel wood main entry door has a fanlight and is set behind a metal screen door above a poured concrete porch with wrought-iron railing. The windows are 1-over-1 vinyl, single-hung sash paired and set independently flanking a fixed window flanked by fixed louvered shutters. There is a small wood frame shed with a gable roof located along the northwestern property line. With limited historical significance evidenced in the available data, this property does not appear NRHP eligible for important associations in terms of events or persons. Therefore, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. As a typical Ranch style house built throughout the state during this period, this property does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 79 Figure 50 Dwelling at 1430 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking west 7.3.6 1462 Jordan Springs Road Address: 1462 Jordan Springs Road VCRIS: 034-5361 Tax Parcel: 8015501 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1965 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Not Eligible Description: The residence located at 1462 Jordan Springs Road (034-5361; Figure 51) is a Ranch style dwelling constructed in 1965 situated on a 0.5-acre parcel on the west side of the road. The house has a combination of different sidings including an uncoursed stone veneer, brick veneer along the foundation, and vinyl siding within the porch and in the gable ends. The side gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles. The main entry door is a 4-panel wood door with a fanlight set behind a storm door within a three-bay porch. The porch is covered with a slightly extended shed roof supported by square wood posts. There is an exterior chimney that is clad in a stone veneer on the north elevation. The windows are 8-over-8 single-hung metal flanked with fixed paneled shutters. There is a modern, detached one-car garage clad in vinyl siding and topped by a front gable roof is directly northwest of the dwelling. This residence has undergone extensive alterations impacting its architectural integrity. Therefore, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C for its design, construction, or architecture. Historically, this building has limited significance in terms of important events or persons and does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 80 Figure 51 Dwelling at 1462 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking west 7.3.7 1472 Jordan Springs Road Address: 1472 Jordan Springs Road VCRIS: 034-5362 Tax Parcel: 8015502 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1967 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Not Eligible Description: This Ranch style dwelling located on the 0.9-acre parcel at 1472 Jordan Springs Road (034-5362; Figure 52) was constructed in 1967. Clad in a vinyl siding, the house has a side gable roof covered in asphalt shingles and rests on a continuous concrete block foundation. The main entry is a 1-light, paneled wood door set behind a storm door. There is an interior parged chimney on the east slope. The windows are 6- over-6 vinyl, double-hung sash set independently and paired and flanking a large fixed, 1-light picture window. Decorative elements include widely overhanging eaves and fixed louvered shutters. There is a modern workshop set under a gable roof and clad in vinyl siding directly southwest of the dwelling. The limited information available concerning this property did not indicate any significant associations in terms of events or persons. As a result, this resource does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. The common Ranch style design is typical of the style found throughout the area and has undergone alterations such as replacement siding and windows impacting its integrity. Therefore, it does not appear NRHP listing under Criterion C. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 81 Figure 52 Dwelling at 1472 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking west 7.3.8 1482 Jordan Springs Road Address: 1482 Jordan Springs Road VCRIS: 034-5363 Tax Parcel: 8015503 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1961 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Not Eligible Description: The Ranch style residence located at 1482 Jordan Springs Road (034-5363; Figure 53) was constructed in 1961 on a 0.5-acre parcel on the west side of the road. Covered in asphalt shingles, the side gable roof extends into a two-bay shed roofed porch shading the main entry with its paneled wood door set behind a storm door. The porch roof is supported by square wood posts that rest on a poured concrete foundation. The building is clad in brick veneer and features vinyl siding in the gable ends. An interior brick chimney is situated on the west roof slope. The windows are 8-over-8 vinyl, single-hung sash flanked by fixed louvered shutters with a 12-light vinyl picture window accenting the façade within the porch. There is a detached one-car, wood frame garage with a side gable roof directly northwest of the dwelling. The limited historical information did not indicate any significance in terms of events or persons. Therefore, this property does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. The common design combined with alterations limiting the integrity indicate that this building is not significant under Criterion C in terms of architecture either. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 82 Figure 53 Dwelling at 1482 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking west 7.3.9 1500 Jordan Springs Road Address: 1500 Jordan Springs Road VCRIS: 034-5364 Tax Parcel: 8015506 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1971 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Not Eligible Description: This modest, Ranch style residence located at 1500 Jordan Springs Road (034-5364; Figure 54) was constructed in 1971. Set on a 0.5-acre parcel on the west side of the road, the dwelling rests on a continuous concrete block foundation, is clad with brick veneer, and topped by a side gable roof surfaced with asphalt shingles. The gable ends are surfaced with vinyl siding. Set beneath the widely overhanging eaves, the primary entrance features a 4-panel wood door set behind a storm door accessed by a small, poured concrete and brick stoop with vinyl railings. There is an exterior brick chimney on the north elevation. The windows are 6-over-6 vinyl, double hung sash with the façade anchored by a large one-light picture window flanked by 4-over-4 vinyl, double hung sash windows with fixed louvered shutters. On the west (rear) elevation, a set of wood stairs lead to a full length, wood frame porch set under a shed roof. An additional entrance is present on the north elevation accessed via a poured concrete and brick stoop with wrought- iron rails. This small, compact Ranch style house is typical of the style found throughout the south and alterations, such as replacement windows and new porches, have impacted its integrity. Therefore, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. With limited historical significance in terms of events or persons evidenced Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 83 in the available data, this property does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Figure 54 Dwelling at 1500 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking west 7.3.10 1552 Jordan Springs Road Address: 1552 Jordan Springs Road VCRIS: 034-5365 Tax Parcel: 8015510 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1967 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Not Eligible Description: Located at 1552 Jordan Springs Road (034-5365; Figure 55), this residence is a Ranch style dwelling constructed on a 0.5-acre parcel on the west side of the road in 1967. Clad in a brick veneer with vinyl siding in the gable, the house rests on a continuous concrete block foundation. The side gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles with an exterior brick chimney on the north elevation. The east elevation includes a concrete block and brick stoop with wood railings. The stoop leads to an oval light, paneled wood main entry set behind a storm door. Windows on the home are 1-over-1 vinyl, double-hung sash paired and set independently flanking a 1-light picture window flanked by fixed louvered shutters. There is a modern one-story room which may have originally served as a carport set under a gable roof with a ribbon of 1-light sliding vinyl windows on the north elevation. The limited research available regarding this modest, Ranch style dwelling did not reveal any significance in terms of associations with events or people. As a result, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 84 A or B. Similarly, the typical design combined with alterations indicate it is not eligible in terms of design under Criterion C either. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Figure 55 Dwelling at 1552 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking west 7.3.11 1564 Jordan Springs Road Address: 1564 Jordan Springs Road VCRIS: 034-5366 Tax Parcel: Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1968 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Not Eligible Description: Constructed in 1968, the Ranch style residence located at 1564 Jordan Springs Road (034-5366; Figure 56) rests on a 0.5-acre parcel on the west side of the road. Clad in brick veneer with vinyl siding in the gable ends, this dwelling on a continuous concrete block foundation. The side gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles with an interior brick chimney. The main entry is a paneled wood door set behind a storm door above a poured concrete and brick stoop on the east elevation. The windows are 1-over-1 double-hung sash vinyl, paired and independently placed. A large vinyl picture window flanked by 1-over-1 double-hung sash vinyl windows flanked by fixed louvered shutters accents the facade. There is a modern one-story, gable roof addition on the north elevation which appears to be a garage conversion. The addition now features a paneled wood secondary entry set behind a screen door. Windows flanking the secondary entry are the same type and material as those found on the main house. Alterations have adversely impacted the integrity of this typical Ranch style dwelling indicating that it is not eligible under Criterion C for its design. The limited research available did not indicate any significance in Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 85 terms of persons or events so it does not appear eligible under Criteria A or B either. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Figure 56 Dwelling at 1564 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking northwest 7.3.12 Duvall House Address: 1681 Jordan Springs Road VCRIS: 034-0723 Tax Parcel: 8016031, 8016030 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1840 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Potentially Eligible Description: Originally recorded as the Duvall House in 1989, the residence located at 1681 Jordan Springs Road (034- 0723) was constructed in 1840. It is a log structure built utilizing a Hall and Parlor plan with a rear frame addition (Kalbian 1992; VDHR, VCRIS 034-0723). The original owner appears to have been Rezin Duvall, who owned the sulphur springs just north of the property and promoted it for its medicinal qualities in the early 1800s; Branch Jordan purchased the springs in 1832 and built the combination hotel and spa known as Jordan’s White Sulphur Springs (Cartmell 1909:297). This property may have been built soon after that transfer of ownership. In the 1850 census, Rezin Duvall was listed as an 82-year-old farmer who lived with his wife, Eliza, and two of his children just south of Branch Jordan and owned approximately 126 acres with a farm valued at $500 (Ancestry.com 2009a, 2010a). He died in 1852 (Find-a-grave.com, Mount Hebron Cemetery). The house at 1681 Jordan Springs Road was shown on the map of the battlefield of Winchester, which occurred in 1864, as the home of J. Newcomb (Gillespie 1873). This may have been John Newcomb, a resident of the same district in 1850, but he relocated to Clarke County by 1870 (Ancestry.com 2009a, 2009c). This house was also on the Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. in 1885 although Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 86 no owner or resident name was listed adjacent (Figure 57; Lathrop and Dayton 1885). This dwelling now rests on a 2.02-acre property on the east side of Jordan Springs Road and appears to be used for residential purposes. Figure 57 Duvall House depicted on Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. in 1885 (Lathrop and Dayton 1885). Measuring four bays wide by one bay deep, the main portion of this two story, Hall and Parlor log dwelling is constructed of half dovetail notched hand-hewed logs set on a stone foundation (Figure 58). The side gable roof is covered in standing seam metal. The primary entrance is protected from the elements by a fully enclosed porch with a flat roof covered in standing seam metal. Board and batten wood siding in the gable ends and on the north end of the house as well as the rear ell indicate possible later additions or the application of siding over the log structure. An exterior stone chimney on the south wall as well as an interior stone chimney on the west roof slope provided heat to the main portion of the dwelling. An additional stone chimney is on the east exterior wall of the rear wing. The windows are 1-over-1 and 6-over-6 vinyl, double hung sash. There is a one-story smokehouse directly east of the dwelling which now appears to serve as an office or workshop. The smokehouse is clad in board and batten wood siding and topped by a side gable roof covered in standing seam metal. There is a ca. 1990 detached one-car concrete block garage with a gable roof and shed addition southeast of the dwelling. In spite of the enclosure of the porch and replacement windows, this residence exhibits an early form and construction method prevalent prior to the Civil War. Few of these types of houses remain in this relatively unaltered state with the log construction and stone chimneys visible. Consequently, this property may be eligible under Criterion C under Architecture for its construction methods. Although of historical interest due to its possible association with Rezin Duvall, the historical significance appears to be limited at this time, and the property does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 87 Figure 58 Dwelling at 1681 Jordan Springs Road, south elevation and outbuilding, looking north 7.3.13 1695 Jordan Springs Road Address: 1695 Jordan Springs Road VCRIS: 034-5367 Tax Parcel: 8016008 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1971 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Not Eligible Description: The Ranch style residence located at 1695 Jordan Springs Road (034-5367; Figure 59) was built in 1971 on a 0.5-acre parcel on the east side of the road. The home is topped by a side gable roof covered in asphalt shingles with an exterior brick chimney and rests on continuous foundation. The building is clad in brick veneer while vinyl siding adorns the gable. Windows on the house include 1-over-1 vinyl double-hung sash independently placed. A large picture window flanked by horizontally configured 1-over-1 double-hung vinyl windows is also present on the facade. The main entry is a paneled wood door with a fanlight set behind a storm door. With limited historical significance in terms of events or persons evidenced in the available data, this building does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. The style is typical of examples found throughout the state built during this era. Considering its alterations such as replacement windows, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C for its design. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 88 Figure 59 Dwelling at 1695 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking east 7.3.14 Bromley House/Smith Farm Address: 223 Burnt Factory Road VCRIS: 034-0704 Tax Parcel: 8015857 Type: Farm Date: ca. 1805 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Potentially Eligible Description: The Bromley House/Smith Farm located at 223 Burnt Factory Road (034-0704) is a large, Federal style residence exhibiting the Central Hallway form. Constructed ca. 1805, this dwelling rests on a 45-acre parcel on the west side of Burnt Factory Road. The property is currently used for residential purposes, but according to the homeowners, it will be used for commercial purposes in the future. Initially surveyed in 1989 and again in 1992, this resource was identified as a potentially significant property (Kalbian 1992:248; VDHR, VCRIS 034-0704). This property appears to have originally been part of the estate initially settled by Joseph Carter in 1743 and passed down to James Carter, who died in 1798. Upon his death, he conveyed his main dwelling, Spout Spring, and the associated grist mill on Abraham’s Creek, which was south of Redbud Run, to his son, Joseph. Additional allotments included the following: “To son James, land between Redbud and Abraham’s Creek with improvements, land on east side of Opeckon [sic] Creek, meadow ground on north side of Redbud. To son Arthur, remainder of tract on north side of Redbud Run, also whole tract purchased from my brother Joseph. To sons James and Arthur, equal right to all mills and mill seats within my limits on Redbud” (Ancestry.com 2006). James Carter married Rachel Neill and lived at Red Bud Mills on the west side of Opequon Creek where they raised 10 children before his death in 1831; his brother, Arthur, Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 89 married Mary Kerfoot and the couple had 15 children before she died in 1821 and he died in 1846 (Joint Committee of Hopewell Friends 1936:202-03; Cartmell 1909: 482-83; Quarles 1999:275; Find-a-Grave.com Mount Hebron Cemetery). Archaeological field survey and research conducted by Clarence Geier and Warren Hofstra in 1991 through James Madison University and Shenandoah University found that the remains of the Carter-McAllister’s Mill (44FK390) was located immediately south of Redbud Run and this house which is on the north side of the creek. Archaeological survey found the sawmill remains included a landscaped platform, a deep wheel well, and the head and tail race which was landscaped into the terrain (Hofstra and Geier 1992:90). When considered in conjunction with the 1798 deed, this may have been built as one of the homes of the Carter family. The 1873 map showing the September 19, 1864 Battle of Winchester illustrated this property as owned by W.L. Smith, but additional research did not reveal any information concerning this individual (Figure 60; Gillespie 1873). The building was subsequently shown on the Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. in 1885 as owned by John Brumley (Figure 61; Lathrop and Dayton 1885). It appears that this was John Bromley, a prominent landowner in neighboring Clarke County, which was once part of Frederick County. Although he may have owned this residence, his mother and siblings occupied the house. The entire family lived in Clarke County in the 1850 census, but, by 1860, it appears that his mother, Mary Bromley, lived in this house with daughters, Catherine and Elizabeth, and son, James. At the time, Mary Bromley, aged 67, owned $5,600 worth of real estate and had a personal estate valued at $1,345, while John Bromley still lived in Clarke County and owned $13,000 in real estate. By 1870, only Catherine and Elizabeth occupied this property and still lived in the area according to the 1880 census. The limited research available did not indicate the subsequent owners during the historic period (Ancestry.com 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2010c). Figure 60 Portion of map of the Battle of Winchester depicting troop movements and infrastructure at the point of the battle on September 19, 1864 (Gillespie 1873). Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 90 Figure 61 Bromley House/Smith Farm depicted on Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. in 1885 (Lathrop and Dayton 1885) This large, L-shaped house (Figure 62) is seven bays wide by one-bay deep with a modern rear addition. Although there is not an evident seam in the brickwork and the cornice is continuous, the size of the building and location of the interior chimney and offset entrance indicate that this house was built in two phases with the five bays on the east built prior to the two bays on the west. The two-story dwelling is set on an elevated stone and brick basement and is constructed of brick laid in five-course American bond. The side gable roof is covered in standing seam metal and pierced by three brick chimneys in the main block of the house: one set on the interior ridge and two interior chimneys at the east and west walls. Situated on a hill facing south overlooking Redbud Run, the primary entrance is set within a one-story, three bay wide porch set on elevated brick piers. The porch has a hipped roof that is covered in standing seam metal supported by Tuscan wood columns with a plain balustrade. The first floor windows are 9-over-6, while second floor windows are 6-over-6 wood double-hung sash. Basement windows are six- and nine-light wood casement. All of the windows are topped with brick flat arches and rest on stone sills. According to the homeowners, the rear wood frame addition was added by the previous owner in the early-1970s (Figure 63). The rear wing is clad in wood siding set under a gable roof covered in standing seam metal. There is a one-story, four-bay porch and an integrated two-car garage on the west elevation of the rear wing. The rear wing has 8-over-8 double-hung sash wood windows. The property has two outbuildings: a detached three-car garage and a quonset hut. The detached three- car garage (Figure 64) is clad in metal siding with a side gable roof covered in standing seam metal. The three garage openings do not have garage doors. The quonset hut (Figure 65) is clad in corrugated metal and has large corrugated metal sliding garage doors. The Federal style house exhibits its stylistic influence with a symmetrical design of brick construction, interior brick chimneys, a hierarchy of windows with larger windows at the base accented by brick lintels and stone sills, and a projecting entry porch with classically inspired elements. The modern, rear wing Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 91 addition would now be considered historic and is indicative of the changing needs of the owners by incorporating a garage. This building appears eligible under Criterion C in the area of Architecture as a fine early and unusually large example of the style for the region. Additional historical research may indicate significance associated with events or people, although it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B at present. Buildings are not typically eligible under Criterion D. Figure 62 Dwelling at 223 Burnt Factory Road, façade, looking north Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 92 Figure 63 Dwelling at 223 Burnt Factory Road, west and north (rear) elevations, looking southeast Figure 64 Garage at 223 Burnt Factory Road, west elevation, looking east Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 93 Figure 65 Quonset Hut at 223 Burnt Factory Road, west and south elevation, looking east 7.3.15 1058-1110 Woods Mill Road Address: 1058-1110 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-5368 Tax Parcel: 8009172 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1940, 1970 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: The 13.78-acre parcel located at 1058-1110 Woods Mill Road (034-5368) incorporates four residences which were recorded as one historic resource because VCRIS requires recordation by parcel. The four residences on the south side of Woods Mill Road have street addresses of 1078, 1110, 1068, and 1058 Woods Mill Road and are described separately below. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 94 This one-story Frame Vernacular dwelling at 1078 Woods Mill Road (Figure 66) is one of the earliest structures on the property, built ca. 1940. The original design appears to be the same for the two houses at 1058 and 1068 Woods Mill Road, perhaps indicating original construction for tenant housing. Now clad in vinyl siding, the house at 1078 Woods Mill Road has a front gable roof covered in asphalt shingles. The dwelling rests on a concrete block foundation and has a concrete block chimney on the exterior west wall. The façade (north elevation) includes a three-bay open porch under a shed roof covered in standing seam sheet metal supported by wood posts. A multi-light wood door set behind a metal storm door serves as the main entry. The windows are 1-over-1 wood double-hung sash independently placed. There is a wood- frame gable-roof shed with a shed addition located behind the house. Figure 66 Dwelling at 1078 Woods Mill Road, façade and northwest elevation, looking southeast Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 95 The house at 1110 Woods Mill Road (Figure 67) is a dwelling constructed in 1970. Although now on a separate parcel, the garage located at 1108 Woods Mill Road (034-5369) appears to be associated with this residence. Clad in a vinyl siding, the house has a front gable roof covered in standing seam metal. Facing east, the dwelling rests on a concrete block foundation and features an integral one-car garage on the northeast elevation. The windows are 1-over-1 vinyl single-hung sash. A modern workshop is directly south of the house, while a small frame shed is southeast of the house. Figure 67 Dwelling at 1110 Woods Mill Road, northeast elevation, looking southwest Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 96 The residence located at 1068 Woods Mill Road (Figure 68) is a vernacular dwelling constructed in 1940. This one-story dwelling has a front gable roof covered in asphalt shingles, rests on a concrete block foundation, and is clad in metal siding. The façade (north elevation) is protected from the elements by an open porch under a shed roof supported by wood posts. The wood frame porch leads to a wood main entry door set behind a metal screen door. There is an exterior concrete block chimney on the west elevation. The windows are 1-over-1 vinyl single-hung sash paired and independently placed with fixed louvered shutters. Three sheds are present in the rear yard. The wood frame shed is surfaced in wood panels and is topped by a shed roof covered in asphalt shingles. A concrete block shed sits next to it with a front gable roof clad in asphalt shingles. Finally, the metal frame shed is topped by a gable roof and wrapped in standing seam sheet metal. Figure 68 Dwelling at 1068 Woods Mill Road, façade and northeast elevation, looking southwest Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 97 The residence located at 1058 Woods Mill Road (Figure 69) is a vernacular dwelling constructed in 1940. Clad in vinyl siding, the house has a front gable roof covered in asphalt shingles and rests on a continuous concrete block foundation. The façade (north elevation) is protected from the elements by a three-bay porch covered with a front gable roof supported by wood posts set on a concrete block pier foundation. There is an exterior concrete block chimney on the west wall. The windows are 1-over-1 double-hung sash independently placed with fixed louvered shutters. There is one modern shed behind the house surfaced in wood siding with a gable and shed roof clad in standing seam sheet metal. Figure 69 Dwelling at 1058 Woods Mill Road, façade and northwest elevation, looking southeast The residences on this property are typical of vernacular front-gable dwellings built throughout the state. All of them have modern alterations, such as modern windows and replacement siding, that have impacted their architectural integrity to the extent that they do not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so the property does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), this property would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 98 7.3.16 1108 Woods Mill Road Address: 1108 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-5369 Tax Parcel: 8009171 Type: Garage Date: 1969 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: The garage located at 1108 Woods Mill Road (034-5369; Figure 70) was constructed in 1969. Although on a separate 0.37-acre parcel, this building seems to be associated with the residence at 1110 Woods Mill Road (034-5368) and is on the south side of the road. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). Resting on a continuous concrete block foundation, the garage is a concrete block building with a front gable roof that is covered in corrugated metal. A concrete block exterior chimney is present on the south elevation (rear). There is board and batten wood siding in the gable end. The façade (north elevation) features a wood sliding garage door. The windows are 3-light metal awning and 6-light metal pivot windows independently placed. The west elevation includes a 1-light, 3-panel wood pedestrian door. Typical of vernacular masonry garages found throughout the state, this resource does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 70 Garage at 1108 Woods Mill Road, northwest and northeast elevations, looking south Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 99 7.3.17 1102 Woods Mill Road Address: 1102 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-5370 Tax Parcel: 8009170 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1966 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: The residence located at 1102 Woods Mill Road (034-5370; Figure 71) is a Ranch style dwelling constructed in 1966 on a 0.46-acre parcel on the south side of the road. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). The dwelling is clad in a brick veneer on the north elevation and vinyl siding on all other elevations. The side gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles and features an interior brick chimney on the south roof slope. The dwelling rests on a continuous concrete block foundation. The main entry on the façade (north elevation) is a 4-panel fiberglass door with a fanlight accessed by a modern, small wood frame deck. The windows are 6-over-6 vinyl single-hung sash independently placed and flanked by fixed louvered shutters. There is a large one-light picture window flanked by horizontally configured 2- over-2 double-hung sash wood windows to the right of the entrance. There is a wood frame shed with a gambrel roof in the rear yard. This residence is typical of Ranch style houses built throughout the state. Alterations, such as replacement windows, have impacted its architectural integrity. As a result, the home does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 71 Dwelling at 1102 Woods Mill Road, façade and northeast elevation, looking southwest Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 100 7.3.18 Harold Conner House Address: 1010 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-1115 Tax Parcel: 8015828 Type: Farm Date: 1887 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: The residence located at 1010 Woods Mill Road (034-1115; Figures 72 and 73) is an I-House exhibiting the Central Hallway-form constructed ca. 1887. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). The building was not included on the Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. in 1885 (Lathrop and Dayton 1885). No additional historical information was discovered concerning this property. This dwelling rests on an 11-acre property on the southeast side of Woods Mill Road and appears to be used for small-scale agricultural purposes in addition to its residential use. Resting on a stone foundation, the two-story dwelling is clad in metal siding, and the side gable roof is covered in standing seam metal. There is a one-story concrete block addition on the southwest elevation and a one- story frame addition on the southeast (rear) elevation. The front entrance is protected from the elements by a three-bay porch with a hipped roof covered in asphalt shingles and supported by wood posts. The windows are 1-over-1 vinyl single-hung sash flanked by fixed shutters. There is an exterior concrete block chimney on the southwest elevation, in between the main portion of the dwelling and the concrete block addition. This dwelling has twelve outbuildings: one garage, a smokehouse, two workshops, four sheds, one pump house, one barn, one modular home, and one equipment shed (Figures 74 and 75). The garage is located directly southeast of the dwelling. It is clad in metal siding and rests on a concrete block foundation. The front gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles. The windows are 3-over-1 and 6-over-6 wood, double hung sash. A wood frame smokehouse, likely built prior to 1920, is behind the house to the east. The two workshops are frame buildings, clad in wood siding. The four sheds are frame buildings, clad in vinyl siding. The pump house is clad in wood siding with a shed roof covered in asphalt shingles. The medium barn is a concrete block building built ca. 1980 with a front gable roof covered in corrugated metal. The modular home is clad in metal siding. The equipment shed is a frame building with two-bays. Typical of I-Houses built throughout the state, this residence has been adversely impacted by non-historic and unsympathetic additions and the installation of modern windows and siding. Thus, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 101 Figure 72 Dwelling at 1010 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking southeast Figure 73 Dwelling at 1010 Woods Mill Road, façade and southwest, looking east Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 102 Figure 74 Dwelling and outbuildings at 1010 Woods Mill Road, looking southwest Figure 75 Outbuildings at 1010 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking southeast Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 103 7.3.19 976 Woods Mill Road Address: 976 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-5371 Tax Parcel: 8015829 Type: Single Dwelling Date: ca. 1925 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: The residence located at 976 Woods Mill Road (034-5371; Figure 76) is a Bungalow-type dwelling constructed ca. 1925. Although the Frederick County Commissioner of the Revenue’s website indicates that this residence was built in 1961, it is evident on the 1938 USGS Winchester quadrangle and is more typical of 1920s era design. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034- 5023). This Bungalow rests on a six-acre residential property on the southeast side of Woods Mill Road. The dwelling is clad in metal siding and the side gable roof is covered in standing seam metal with a clipped gable dormer on the northwestern roof slope. The building rests on a tall concrete block foundation wall with a full basement. The full width front porch has a shed roof supported by turned wood posts and railings. The windows are 1-over-1 double hung vinyl and vinyl casement. There is an exterior brick chimney on the southwest elevation. There are three frame sheds and storage on the property. Typical of Bungalow-type dwellings built throughout the state, this residence has undergone modern alterations, such as a replacement windows, that have impacted its architectural integrity. Therefore, the home does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 76 Dwelling at 976 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking south Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 104 7.3.20 936 Woods Mill Road Address: 936 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-5372 Tax Parcel: 8015487 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1956 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: The residence located at 936 Woods Mill Road (034-5372; Figure 77) is a Minimal Traditional style dwelling constructed on a one-acre parcel on the southeast side of the road in 1956. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). Constructed of concrete block with wood siding within the gable end, the building has a side gable roof covered in standing seam metal and rests on a continuous concrete block foundation. The entrance is accessed by a small, uncovered, poured concrete stoop. There is a one-story addition on the south elevation surfaced in vinyl siding and topped by a gable roof clad in standing seam sheet metal. The windows are 1-over-1 double hung vinyl independently placed. There is a frame shed on the property. This modest Minimal Traditional style dwelling is typical of post-World War II architecture built throughout the state and has endured alterations such as replacement windows which have impacted its architectural integrity. As a result, the residence does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical research available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 77 Dwelling at 936 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking east Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 105 7.3.21 906 Woods Mill Road Address: 906 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-5376 Tax Parcel: 8015484 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1946 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: The 1946 Minimal Traditional style residence located at 906 Woods Mill Road (034-5376; Figure 78) rests on a 1.10-acre parcel on the southeast side of the road. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). Set on a continuous concrete block foundation wall with a walkout basement on the southeast elevation, the dwelling is clad in vinyl siding and features a side gable roof covered in asphalt shingles. The main entrance has a 3-panel, 6-light wood door set behind a storm door. The entrance is protected from the elements by a small, one-bay open porch with a metal awning supported by metal railings. The windows are 1-over-1 vinyl single-hung sash and vinyl casement. There is a shed on the property. Alterations, such as replacement windows, have impacted the architectural integrity of this typical Minimal Traditional style residence. Therefore, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. With limited historical significance evidenced in the available data in terms of associations with events or people, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034- 5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 78 Dwelling at 906 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking east Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 106 7.3.22 896 Woods Mill Road Address: 896 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-5377 Tax Parcel: 8015483 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1951 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: Built in 1951, the residence located at 896 Woods Mill Road (034-5377; Figure 79) is a Minimal Traditional style dwelling situated on a one-acre property on the southeast side of the road. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). Clad in vinyl siding, the building has a side gable roof covered in asphalt shingles and a tall, continuous concrete block foundation wall. The main entry is a paneled wood door with a fanlight set behind a metal screen door. This entry is accessed via an open one- bay porch under a gable roof supported by metal posts on a poured concrete foundation. A secondary entrance on the northeast side is protected from the elements by a metal awning and accessed via a small stoop with metal railings. The windows are 1-over-1 vinyl single-hung sash and vinyl fixed windows. There are two sheds on the property. Typical of Minimal Traditional style dwellings built throughout the state, this residence has undergone changes, such as replacement siding and altered fenestration, that have impacted its integrity so that it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. With limited historical significance in terms of events or people, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 79 Dwelling at 896 Woods Mill Road, façade and northeast elevation, looking southeast Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 107 7.3.23 897 Woods Mill Road Address: 897 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-5378x Tax Parcel: 8015827 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1966 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: Situated on a 1.16-acre property on the northwest side of the road at 897 Woods Mill Road (034-5378; Figure 80), this Ranch style dwelling was constructed in 1966. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). Clad in aluminum siding, the house has a side gable roof covered in asphalt shingles and rests on a continuous concrete block foundation. The entrance is protected by a two-bay porch with a front gable roof supported by metal posts. There is an interior brick chimney on the west roof slope. The windows are 8-over-8 vinyl single-hung sash and vinyl casement flanked by fixed shutters. There is an attached carport on the south elevation. There is a frame shed on the property. Extensive alterations such as replacement siding and windows have impacted the architectural integrity of this typical Ranch style dwelling. Consequently, this property does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. With limited historical significance in terms of events or persons evidenced in the available data, this residence does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 80 Dwelling at 897 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking northwest Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 108 7.3.24 886 Woods Mill Road Address: 886 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-5382 Tax Parcel: 8015482 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1960 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: Built in 1960, the residence located at 886 Woods Mill Road (034-5382; Figure 81) is a Ranch style dwelling resting on a one-acre property on the southeast side of the road. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). The house rests on a tall, continuous concrete block foundation wall surfaced in a stone veneer. Topped by a side gable roof covered in asphalt shingles, the residence is clad in board and batten siding and stone veneer. The primary entrance is protected by an open two-bay porch under a gable roof supported by turned wood posts. The oval light wood main entry door is set behind a storm door. The windows are 1-over-1 vinyl single-hung sash and fixed paired and independently placed with fixed shutters. There is an attached two-car garage on the northeast elevation and a second open porch on the southwest elevation under a gable roof. The limited historical data available did not indicate any significant associations with events or persons important to history. As a result, this property does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. With a common design and alterations having adversely impacted its integrity, this house does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 81 Dwelling at 886 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking east Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 109 7.3.25 878 Woods Mill Road Address: 878 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-5373 Tax Parcel: 8015489 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1959 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Not Eligible, Noncontributing Description: Located at 878 Woods Mill Road (034-5373; Figure 82), this house is a Minimal Traditional style dwelling constructed in 1959. Resting on a 1.2-acre parcel on the southeast side of the road, this property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). Clad in stone veneer set in a random pattern, this building has a side gable roof covered in asphalt shingles with minimally overhanging eaves and an interior brick chimney on the southern slope. The dwelling rests on a continuous concrete block foundation wall clad in stone veneer. The main entrance has a 1-panel, rounded top light door set behind a storm door accessed by a small, poured concrete stoop with vinyl railings. The windows are 1-over-1 vinyl, single-hung sash placed in a paired, ribbon, and independent pattern flanked by faux shutters. There is a one-car garage directly southeast of the dwelling, a workshop, and two sheds on the property. The limited information available indicated a lack of historical significance in terms of persons or events. Therefore, this property does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Typical of Minimal Traditional style dwellings throughout the state with modern alterations such as replacement windows, this building does not appear significant for its design under Criterion C. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 82 Dwelling at 878 Woods Mill Road, façade and northeast elevation, looking east Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 110 7.3.26 870 Woods Mill Road Address: 870 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-5374 Tax Parcel: 8015481 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1951 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: Set on a 1.25-acre property on the southeast side of the road, the residence located at 870 Woods Mill Road (034-5374; Figure 83) is a Ranch style dwelling constructed in 1951. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). The house is clad with vinyl siding set under a side gable roof covered in asphalt shingles and rests on a concrete block foundation. The main entry is a 3-light paneled door set behind a storm door. The entrance is protected by a two-bay porch topped by a front gable roof with vinyl siding in the gable end and supported by fiberglass columns. The windows are 1- over-1 vinyl single-hung sash independently placed and flanking one-light fixed creating a picture window with fixed shutters to each side. A garage and shed are behind the house. This house does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B as it exhibits limited historical significance in terms of associations with important events or persons. Typical of early examples of the style, this house has undergone modern alterations impacting its integrity. As a result, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 83 Dwelling at 870 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking east Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 111 7.3.27 840 Woods Mill Road Address: 840 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-5375 Tax Parcel: 8015479 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1935 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: Resting on a one-acre property on the southeast side of the road, this residence located at 840 Woods Mill Road (034-5375; Figure 84) is a vernacular wood frame dwelling constructed in 1935. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). The house is clad in vinyl siding and the side gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles. The entrance is protected by an open porch under a low-pitched shed roof supported by wood posts. There is an interior parged brick chimney on the ridge line and an exterior brick chimney on the south elevation. The windows are 6-over-6 vinyl single-hung sash independently placed. A large one-story addition with a gable roof wraps around the original structure on the side and rear elevations. The original form and footprint of this modest wood frame vernacular house have been greatly modified by a large addition. Other alterations, including replacement windows and vinyl siding, have adversely impacted its architectural integrity. Consequently, the building does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 84 Dwelling at 840 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking east Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 112 7.3.28 830 Woods Mill Road Address: 830 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-5379 Tax Parcel: 8015477 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1960 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: Located at 830 Woods Mill Road (034-5379; Figure 85), this residence is a Ranch style dwelling constructed on a 1.06-acre property on the southeast side of the road in 1960. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). Clad in brick veneer, the house has a side gable roof covered in asphalt shingles pierced by an interior brick chimney. The dwelling rests on a continuous concrete block foundation wall with a walk out basement on the south elevation. The entrance is protected by a small, one-bay porch covered by a front gable roof, with vinyl siding in the gable end, and supported by vinyl columns. The windows are 6-over-6 vinyl single-hung sash paired and placed independently and three-light awning paired. There is a detached, two-car garage and a shed directly south of the dwelling. This residence is a typical example of Ranch style dwellings built throughout the state. Alterations, such as replacement windows, have impacted its architectural integrity. As a result, the house does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical data available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 85 Dwelling at 830 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking southeast Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 113 7.3.29 758 Woods Mill Road Address: 758 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-5380 Tax Parcel: 8015473 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1952 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: Constructed in 1952, the residence located at 758 Woods Mill Road (034-5380; Figure 86) is a Minimal Traditional style dwelling situated on a one-acre property within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). Located on the southeast side of the road, the dwelling is clad in vinyl siding and rests on a continuous concrete block foundation. The cross-gable roof covered in asphalt shingles is pierced by a large, interior chimney clad in stone veneer set along the ridgeline. The main entry has a paneled fiberglass door with a fanlight. Windows are 4-over-4 vinyl, single-hung vinyl sash independently placed and flanking a one-light fixed picture window. Decorative elements included fixed louvered shutters and minimally overhanging eaves. A shed is behind the house. Although a good example of this style, alterations, such as replacement siding and windows, have adversely impacted the integrity of this residence. Therefore, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C for its design. With the limited information available indicating a lack of historical significance in terms of important events or persons, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B either. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 86 Dwelling at 758 Woods Mill Road, façade and northeast, looking southeast Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 114 7.3.30 748 Woods Mill Road Address: 748 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-5381 Tax Parcel: 8015472 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1962 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: Constructed in 1962 on a one-acre parcel at 748 Woods Mill Road (034-5381; Figure 87), this residence is a Ranch style dwelling situated within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). Located on the southeast side of the road, the house has a side gable roof covered in asphalt shingles with the west slope pierced by an interior parged chimney. The one-story rectangular dwelling clad in brick veneer rests on a concrete slab foundation. The façade (west elevation) has a paneled fiberglass door set within an entry porch with a flat roof supported by wood posts. The windows are paired 1-over-1 vinyl, single-hung sash paired and placed independently flanking a one-light fixed picture window. Decorative accents include fixed louvered shutters around the windows. There is an integrated two-car carport on the south elevation with a concrete block addition extending east from the carport. A small shed is situated behind the residence. The limited historical data available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Typical of Ranch style dwellings built throughout the state with modern alterations, such as replacement windows, the house does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 87 Dwelling at 748 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking northeast Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 115 7.3.31 527 Woods Mill Road Address: 527 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-5383 Tax Parcel: 8015817 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1969 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: The residence located on a five-acre property at 527 Woods Mill Road (034-5383; Figure 88) is a Ranch style dwelling constructed in 1969. Situated on the west side of the road, this property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). Clad in vinyl siding, the house has a side gable roof covered in asphalt shingles and rests on a continuous concrete block foundation. The main entry is a 9- light, 2-panel fiberglass door and is accessed by a front porch with a shed roof supported by wood posts set on brick bases. There is an exterior brick chimney on the north elevation. The windows are 4-over-4 and 6-over-6 vinyl single-hung sash set independently and flanking a 12-light picture window to the right of the front entrance. There is a detached two-car garage directly west of the dwelling. This residence is a common example of the early Ranch style dwellings built throughout the state. It has modern alterations, such as a replacement windows, which have impacted its architectural integrity so that it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 88 Dwelling at 527 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking west Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 116 7.3.32 Jenkins-Dehaven House Address: 417 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-1116 Tax Parcel: 8015806 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1890 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Non-contributing Description: Situated on a 1.11-acre property on the west side of the road, the residence located at 417 Woods Mill Road (034-1116; Figure 89 and Figure 90) is a vernacular I-House constructed ca. 1890. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). The building was not included on the Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. in 1885 (Lathrop and Dayton 1885). No additional information was discovered concerning this property. Although likely used as a farm historically, the property appears to be used only for residential purposes now. This two-story dwelling is clad in asbestos shingle siding, while the cross-gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles. The dwelling rests on a continuous masonry foundation. The side-passage plan is evidenced in the off-center placement of the primary entrance which has a 1-light wood door set beneath a 1-light transom. The entrance is set within a three- bay porch covered in a flat roof supported by wood Tuscan columns. There is an interior brick chimney on the ridge line of the rear wing. Most windows are 1-over-1 vinyl, single-hung sash, but a decorative diamond- shaped fixed wood window accents the front gable. There are several additions to the south side of the rear gabled ell as well as a one-story sunroom addition on the north elevation. A ca. 1990 detached two-car garage (Figure 91) is northwest of the dwelling. It has a gable roof, a concrete slab foundation, T1-11 siding, and a side addition for storage of a golf cart. This residence is typical of an 1890 vernacular I-House built throughout the state. Modern alterations, such as replacement windows and siding and rear additions, have impacted its architectural integrity so that it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 117 Figure 89 Dwelling at 417 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking northwest Figure 90 Dwelling at 417 Woods Mill Road, south and east (rear), looking northeast Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 118 Figure 91 Garage at 417 Woods Mill Road, south elevation, looking north 7.3.33 Jenkins House Address: 359 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-1118 Tax Parcel: 8015805 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1954 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: The Ranch style residence located on the west side of the road at 359 Woods Mill Road (034-1118; Figure 92) was constructed in 1954. Set on a 6.18-acre property, this resource is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). The dwelling is clad in brick veneer with metal siding within the gable end. The side gable roof covered in asphalt shingles has an interior brick slab chimney and a cupola along the ridge line. There is a front gable, one-story addition surfaced with metal siding at the north end of the façade (east elevation). The dwelling rests on a continuous concrete block foundation. The inset entrance is set within a small, one-bay porch in which the central portion of the side gable roof extends further forward and is supported by wood posts set on a poured concrete foundation. The windows are horizontally configured 2-over-2 wood, double-hung sash set independently and flanking a 1-light fixed picture window. Decorative elements include fixed louvered shutters. There is a detached combination workshop and one- car garage just southwest of the dwelling. It has a side-gable roof surfaced with asphalt shingles, aluminum siding, and 1-over-1 single-hung sash vinyl windows. Alterations, including an addition, to this typical Ranch style dwelling have diminished its architectural integrity so that it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. With limited historical significance in terms of events or people evidenced in the available data, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 119 A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 92 Dwelling at 359 Woods Mill Road, façade and south elevation, looking northwest 7.3.34 349 Woods Mill Road Address: 349 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-5384 Tax Parcel: 8015804 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1957 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: Constructed in 1957, the residence located at 349 Woods Mill Road (034-5384; Figure 93) is a Ranch style dwelling. This property rests on a 1.75-acre parcel on the west side of the road within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023). The dwelling is clad in wood shingle, clapboard, and modern log replica siding. The side gable roof is covered in standing seam metal with an interior brick slab chimney on the ridge line and an end exterior brick chimney on the south elevation. The dwelling rests on a continuous concrete block foundation. The primary entrance, which has a wood door set behind a storm door, is set within an open porch with a shed roof supported by square wood posts. The windows are 1- over-1 vinyl single-hung sash flanked by fixed louvered shutters. A large 2-light fixed picture window flanked by 1-over-1 vinyl, single-hung sash windows is to the right of the front entrance. The property also includes a large, detached gable roof two-car garage with a carport addition and a shed to the south of the residence. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 120 Alterations, including replacement siding and windows, have impacted the integrity of this Ranch style house. Consequently, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 93 Dwelling at 349 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking west 7.3.35 Patrick McTeirnan House/Thomas McTeirnan House Address: 223 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-1156 Tax Parcel: 8036451 Type: Single Dwelling Date: ca. 1925 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: The residence located at 223 Woods Mill Road (034-1156; Figure 94) is a Craftsman Bungalow constructed ca. 1925. The property appears to have historically been associated with the larger mill property at 145 Woods Mill Road (034-1157), but is now on a separate parcel. It is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) and the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester Historic District (034- 0456). According to a 1991 archaeological survey conducted by Clarence Geier and Warren Hofstra through the James Madison University and Shenandoah University, the stone foundation of this building was originally the foundation for the miller’s house associated with the Charles Wood Mill (VDHR, VCRIS 44FK0334). By 1935, the property appears to have been owned by Patrick and Phyllis McTiernan. Valued at $10,000 in the 1940 census, the McTiernans lived on the property with their two sons, Patrick A. and Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 121 Thomas, and three other family members. Patrick J. McTiernan acquired the house in 1993 and conveyed it to Deborah McTiernan in 2018 (Frederick County Deed Book 810, Page 1735, Instrument 18 0000338; Ancestry.com 2012). This Bungalow rests on a two-acre property entirely set within a larger parcel (145 Woods Mill Road [034- 1157]) owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Board of Game and Inland Fisheries located on the southwest corner of Woods Mill Road and Redbud Road. This residence appears to be abandoned. Clad in aluminum siding, the one-story dwelling has a front gable roof covered in standing seam metal. There are two interior brick chimneys on the north and south roof slopes. The primary entrance has a 9-light, 3- panel wood door set within a three-bay, Craftsman-style porch covered by a hipped roof clad with standing seam metal and supported by battered wood posts set on brick piers. The porch rests on a brick pier foundation infilled with lattice, while the main structure of the house has a stone foundation. The windows are 1-over-1 vinyl single-hung sash set independently and paired and flanked by fixed louvered shutters. There is an attached wood deck on the northwest corner and a two-car garage on the rear (west) elevation. A large, detached wood frame workshop clad with metal siding and set under a shed roof is west of the dwelling. Unsympathetic alterations, such as replacement windows and siding, have impacted the architectural integrity of this typical Craftsman Bungalow to the extent that it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or persons so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) and the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 94 Dwelling at 223 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking southwest Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 122 7.3.36 Redbud Farm/Wood House Address: 145 Woods Mill Road VCRIS: 034-1157 Tax Parcel: 8015803 Type: Mill Site and House Date: ca. 1804 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Potentially eligible, Contributing Description: Constructed ca. 1804, this residence located at 145 Woods Mill Road (034-1157) consists of a two-story I- House situated on the north side of Redbud Run with a heavy timber frame bank barn and several outbuildings on the south bank of the waterway; a small bridge reflecting the original horseshoe-shaped alignment of Woods Mill Road (now closed) connected the house to the mill and outbuildings on the south side of Redbud Run. This property was the site of a grist mill, with the foundation of the mill and the mill race still evident when surveyed in 1992 (Figure 95; VDHR, VCRIS 034-1147; Hofstra and Geier 1992:88- 89). This dwelling now rests on a 24.75-acre parcel owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Board of Game and Inland Fisheries on the southwest corner of Redbud Road and Woods Mill Road. It is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) and the within the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester Historic District (034-0456). Originally surveyed in 1992, this property was described as a log structure and identified as a potentially significant property that may have served as a miller’s house owned by Charles Wood (Kalbian 1992:249). The house at 223 Woods Mill Road (034-1156) was historically part of this property following its construction ca. 1925, but is now on a separate parcel. Figure 95 Site plan of Charles Wood’s Mill Complex (Hofstra and Geier 1992:Figure XIV-7) Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 123 Historic research undertaken as part of this survey revealed that this residence was the home and mill built by Joseph Wood around 1804. A native of Chester County, Pennsylvania, Quaker Joseph Wood initially purchased land and built a flour mill along Hogue Creek in Frederick County in 1783. In 1784, he married Ann Parkins and acquired one of the mills owned by the Parkins’ family which he operated for several years. In 1804, he purchased land on Redbud Run, approximately four miles northeast of Winchester. He built a large grist mill and a house where he lived until his death ca. 1816. A map from 1809 illustrates the number of grist mills, paper mills, sawmills, and taverns already located along Redbud Run by the early nineteenth century (Figure 96). Upon Joseph’s death, the mill property and house passed to his son, Isaac. In 1817, he married Maria Littler, a great-granddaughter of John Littler, who had received a land patent for 1,332 acres from the Governor and Council of the Colony of Virginia in 1735. Upon her father’s death in 1812, she appears to have inherited additional lands along Redbud Run, enlarging Wood’s landholdings. Although raised as a Quaker, Isaac married out of the membership and joined another church. Interestingly, his sons would return to the Quaker membership (Joint Committee of Hopewell Friends 1936:169-70; Cartmell 1909: 482-83; Quarles 1999:166). In February 1818, Isaac Wood advertised for a miller for his mill on Redbud Run in the local Winchester newspaper (Figure 97; Republican Constellation 1818; Winchester Gazette 1820). Figure 96 Portion of map of Frederick County showing the grist mills, paper mills, sawmills, and taverns along Red Bud Run in 1809 (Varle and Jones 1809). Figure 97 Isaac Wood’s 1818 advertisement for a miller (Republican Constellation 1818) Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 124 In addition to the lands along Redbud Run that Isaac inherited, he started acquiring the landholdings from the heirs of James Carter, an estate initially settled by Joseph Carter in 1743. At James Carter’s death in 1798, he conveyed his main dwelling, Spout Spring, and the associated grist mill on Abraham’s Creek to his son, Joseph. By 1836, Isaac Wood had purchased the Carter homestead, Spout Spring, and grist mill, which was on the south side of the Berryville Pike along Opequon Creek (Cartmell 1909: 482-83; Quarles 1999:275-76). By 1850 at age 60, Isaac Wood was listed as a miller owning $40,000 worth of property as well as three enslaved people. He held 375 acres of land on which were located grist mills and a sawmill. Both his son, Daniel, who was listed as a miller, and miller Samuel Cochran were included in his household. Upon Isaac’s death in 1855, his estate was subdivided among his four sons: Charles Littler Wood (b. 1819), Daniel T. Wood (b. 1824), Robert Baldwin Wood (b. 1831), and Thomas Barnett Wood (b. 1839). At the time, Isaac’s personal estate was appraised at $109,074, while his real estate was valued at $64,682. The commissioners appointed to divide the real estate deeded Spout Spring to Daniel, who renamed it Millbank, while this family homestead and mill property along Redbud Run was given to Isaac’s eldest son, Charles (Cartmell 1909: 482-83; Ancestry.com 2004a, 2009a, 2010a; Quarles 1999:275-276). Charles Wood had married Rebecca Birdsall in 1847, and the couple had lived in Winchester where Charles was a merchant in his father’s mercantile partnership with Michael Danner; upon his father’s retirement in 1845, Charles took over his father’s share of the partnership. His wife died in 1854, followed by his father, Isaac, in 1855. Upon gaining his inheritance, census records indicate that he moved to Redbud Farm to run the mill. The adjacent road which curved in front of the house and the mill and connected the Berryville Pike to Jordan White Sulfur Springs was known as Woods Mill Road by 1857 (Winchester Republican 1857). Charles married Mary C. Rector in 1857. In 1860, Charles was listed in the census as a farmer and miller who owned $25,600 in real estate in addition to a personal estate of $18,775. He also owned four enslaved persons including three children. His younger brother, Thomas B. Wood, lived with Charles and his wife, while millers Lewis Smith and Franklin Ritter lived adjacent. Thomas, in partnership with Charles, established a woolen mill upstream from the grist mill on the south side of Redbud Run. Built by contractor Thomas Morgan in 1860, the mill became known as Morgan Mill for its builder, not for the original owners. Thomas also built a contemporaneous Greek Revival style house (034-1065) for himself adjacent to the woolen mill where he lived until his death in 1871. Two years after its construction, Charles conveyed his interest in the woolen mill to his brother, Thomas. Charles, who “lost heavily during the [Civil] war,” allowed part of the mill and farm property to be used as a field hospital during the fighting around Winchester (Norris 1890:776). A map from 1873 depicting the troop movements during the September 19, 1864 battle in Winchester noted the location of C. Wood’s Mill as well as this residence (Figure 98). Also included on the map was the woolen factory to the west of the mill, as well as the houses of wagoner Joseph Stump and F. Hoodel, who may have been Frederick Hottle, a miller living adjacent to Charles Wood according to the 1870 census (Norris 1890:776; Johnston 1990:36-38; Ancestry.com 2004a, 2004b, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2010a, 2010b, 2011, 2014a, 2014b; Find-a-grave.com, Mount Hebron Cemetery; Quarles 1999:275-276; Johnston 1994; Gillespie 1873; Staunton Spectator and General Advertiser 1845, 1846). A second map depicting the Winchester environs during the war was produced in 1875 and depicted both Wood’s Mill and the woolen factory (Figure 99). At one point during the early to mid-nineteenth century, the two mile stretch along Redbud Run from Thomas Wood’s woolen mill to Opequon Creek counted as many as seven operating mills including two woolen mills, a fulling mill, a grist mill, an oil mill, a sawmill, a tilt hammer or flax-breaking mill, and a paper mill; the mills along the Opequon and Abrams Creeks combined the same number of mills extended across a distance of 15 miles and represented less diversification with only grist mills, a sawmill, and woolen mills. Both Wood’s woolen mill and grist mill “piggy-backed” the mill races to allow the tail race of one to dump directly into the head race of the next mill downstream allowing the millers to take advantage of additional Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 125 water velocity. This allowed these two mills as well as the others along Redbud Run to be closer in distance to each other than the typical one mile separation between mills (Hofstra and Geier 1992:94-95). Figure 98 Portion of map of the Battle of Winchester depicting troop movements and infrastructure at the point of the battle on September 19, 1864. C. Wood’s Mill as well as two residences, one occupied by F. Hoodel, were noted on the map on this property (Gillespie 1873). Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 126 Figure 99 Portion of map depicting Winchester and its environs during the Civil War with Wood’s Mill noted on the map (Vorzet 1875). After the damage caused by the Civil War, Charles built a new mill on the original site installing the most up-to-date machinery and reportedly the largest water wheel in Virginia (Joint Committee of Hopewell Friends 1936:170). In 1870, Charles and Mary Wood lived in Stonewall Township where the subject property is located. He was listed as a miller owning $50,000 in real estate including a 500-acre farm and having a personal estate valued at $20,000. In addition, several farm hands and millers were considered part of their household and lived adjacent. Charles appears to have gone into business with one of these millers, Lewis R. Smith, who had lived adjacent to the mill as early as 1850 as the company of Wood & Smith produced wheat using a water wheel according to the manufacturing schedules of the 1870 census. Following Charles’ death in 1878, his widow, Mary, continued to live on the property. The 1885 Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. depicted the grist mill, the home of Mrs. M.C. Wood, the surrounding houses, the woolen factory, and the estate of Thomas Wood (Figure 100; Lathrop and Dayton 1885). Historian J.E. Norris noted in his 1890 history that Charles Wood “was born and raised on the estate owned by and on which his widow now resides.” Known as Redbud Farm, the property included 600 acres “including a flouring mill known by the same name; also a woolen factory (Norris 1890:776). Amateur photographer, Albert Bowen, who was a nephew of long-time owner Charles and Mary Wood, photographed this house and referred to it as the Littler Home, likely in reference to Maria Littler Wood, in 1901 (Bowen 1901; Figure 101). Charles’ Wood’s widow, Mary C. Wood, continued to live on the property until her death in 1905 (Ancestry.com 2004a, 2004b, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2010a, 2010b, 2011, 2014a, 2014b; Find-a-grave.com, Mount Hebron Cemetery; Quarles 1999:275-276). Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 127 Figure 100 The Mill and House site in the Red Bud area on the Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. in 1885 (Lathrop and Dayton 1885) Figure 101 1901 Photograph labeled as Littler Home on Red Bud Run (Bowen 1901. Albert Bowen Collection, Courtesy Stewart Bell Jr. Archives, Handley Regional Library). Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 128 By 1935, the property was owned by Patrick and Phyllis McTiernan. Valued at $10,000 in the 1940 census, the McTiernans lived on the property with their two sons and three other family members. They appear to have built the Bungalow at 223 Woods Mill Road (034-1156) which is now on a separate two-acre parcel. Rabbit Creek, LP acquired this property in 2002 and conveyed it to the Virginia Board of Game and Inland Fisheries in 2004 (Frederick County Deed Book 94, Page 178, Instrument 04 0026714; Ancestry.com 2012). This log structure, now clad in Insulbrick, appears to have originally been a three-bay wide I-House with exterior brick chimneys at each end and a central hallway interior plan (Figure 102). An additional two bays were later added to the west end of the house making one of the chimneys an interior one. Now abandoned, the two-story dwelling rests on a coursed stone foundation, while the side gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles. The front entrance is protected from the elements by five-bay porch with a hipped roof covered in standing seam metal. Although covered with vegetation, the square Doric column porch supports with the three rail balustrade and handrail remain evident. While most of the windows are missing, the few windows that remain relatively intact are 6-over-6 wood, double-hung sash. Photographs from the 1992 survey show the original design behind the vegetation, which remains relatively unchanged from the 1901 photograph (Figure 101 and Figure 103). At the time of the current survey, several outbuildings were evident including a Corn Crib and a Pennsylvania Bank Barn, the most prominent form of barn in the county built through the nineteenth century (Kalbian 1992:122). In ruins, the Corn Crib is clad in vertical wood siding and features a front gable roof covered in standing seam metal (Figure 104). The Pennsylvania Bank Barn is built of heavy timber frame clad in vertical wood siding set on a brick and stone foundation (Figure 105). It incorporates an enclosed granary. The front gable roof is covered in standing seam metal, while wooden louvers provide ventilation on the sides of the building. A photograph from the 1992 survey provides a view prior to the overgrowth of vegetation (Figure 106). There is also a small, wood bridge, now closed, directly south of the dwelling which served as the original horseshoe-shaped alignment of Woods Mill Road (Figure 107). When surveyed in 1992, a privy was also present. An archaeological survey conducted by Clarence Geier and Warren Hofstra in 1991 through James Madison University and Shenandoah University noted the following regarding the mill site: A horseshoe bend of Route 660 served as the original access road to the mill, fording the creek just east of the mill structure. On the S side of Redbud Run, E of the mill and N of the road, are a pair of wood frame barns, the easternmost having a foundation of handmade brick and limestone suggesting that it dates to the period of mill operation. The westernmost barn appears to be of 20th century age. The foundation of the mill is presently used to support a badly dilapidated 20th century wood frame chickenhouse/livestock barn. The wheel well stood at the west end of the structure and is still in place though somewhat backfilled. The headrace for the mill originates just below the Thomas Wood Mill W and N of the site. It is deeply excavated into the shale slopes S of Redbud Run and stands at the 550 foot contour interval. The race enters the wheel well from the S side; a short tale race then carrying the water in return to Redbud Run. One, and possibly two, deeply incut roads, one passing to the site from the Winchester area, enter the Redbud valley W and S of the mill joining Route 660 immediately E of the mill. The miller’s house stood across Redbud Run at the W end of the site, roughly 400 feet W and N of the mill. The superstructure of this building has been removed, though the foundation has been reused to support a house constructed in 1920 and occupied by Pat McTiernen [223 Woods Mill Road (034-1156)]. The house is a ½ story gable front house with two internal chimney flues, a metal roof and a one story three bay front porch with balustered columns. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 129 Directly across the Redbud ford from the mill stands a 19th century structure attributed to F. Hoodel on Gillespie’s map of 1873 and to Mrs. C.W. Wood in Lakes Atlas of 1885. This structure is two story with a gable-end chimney on the N, and a second more centrally placed interior chimney. The front is five bay and is fronted by a single story porch. The N two bays of the feature may be an addition. The structure stands on a platform landscaped into the shale bedrock that defines the N side of Redbud Run (VDHR, VCRIS 44FK0334; Hofstra and Geier 1992). Additional outbuildings may be extant but are now obscured by vegetation. Although covered with vegetation and in disrepair, this house and property may be eligible under Criterion A under Commerce as a former mill site and a related residential agricultural complex indicative of the development of Frederick County and under Criterion C as an early log I-House. The historical information available indicates limited significance associated with people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion B. Although no archaeological survey was conducted on this property as it is situated outside of the construction footprint for this project, the archaeological survey conducted along Redbud Run by Hofstra and Geier in 1992 indicated a number of mill sites exhibiting innovations in engineering and a wide diversity of uses which may further support significance in terms of Commerce and Settlement indicating that it may be eligible under Criterion D (Hofstra and Geier 1992:94-95). According to their report, “Redbud Run became a center for the milling industry in early Frederick County and the sites along it deserve serious consideration for National Register nomination. Among these sites a variety of industrial structures and earthworks are represented including mills, mill support structures, head and tail races, holding ponds, and miller’s houses with their own unique combination of outbuildings” (Hofstra and Geier 1992:166). Constructed prior to the Civil War, this property may contribute to the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) and the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456). Figure 102 Redbud Farm/ Wood House at 145 Woods Mill Road, façade, looking north Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 130 Figure 103 Redbud Farm/Wood House, 1992 survey photos (VDHR, VCRIS 034-1147) Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 131 Figure 104 Corn Crib at 145 Woods Mill Road, west elevation, looking east Figure 105 Pennsylvania Bank Barn at 145 Woods Mill Road, south elevation, looking northeast Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 132 Figure 106 Pennsylvania Bank Barn, 1992 survey photos (VDHR, VCRIS 034-1147) Figure 107 Bridge at 145 Woods Mill Road, north elevation, looking southwest Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 133 7.3.37 Red Bud United Brethren Church and Cemetery Address: 1551 Redbud Road VCRIS: 034-1147 Tax Parcel: 8034146 Type: Church, Cemetery Date: 1882 (church), ca. 1876 (cemetery) NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Potentially Eligible, Noncontributing Description: The Red Bud United Brethren Church and Cemetery (034-1147; also known as Red Bud United Methodist Church) is situated on a double bend on Red Bud Road. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) and the within the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456). According to a 1989 newspaper article on the rehabilitation of the building, the church was built in 1882 by a congregation which started as a result of a revival near Jordan Springs in 1875. The facility is noted on the 1885 Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. in 1885 (Figure 108; Lathrop and Dayton 1885). Although never a large congregation (Figure 109), the membership was faithful until only a few members remained when it closed for services ca. 1967. Care for the building and cemetery passed to the Mount Pleasant United Methodist Church of Gerrardstown, West Virginia. In 1983, the rear wall of the church was damaged by fire but neighbors managed to save the remainder of the church. In February 1989, the Shenandoah Club, a group for people recovering from addictions, leased the building and repaired the back wall. (Linda McCarty, “Red Bud Church, Closed and Damaged by Fire, is Getting a Facelift,” The Winchester Star, 22 November 1989 in VDHR, VCRIS 034-1147). Figure 108 Red Bud United Bretheren Church and the Red Bud area on Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. in 1885 (Lathrop and Dayton 1885) Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 134 Figure 109 Red Bud Church Homecoming, 1934 (Unknown photographer, James L. Prince Collection, Courtesy Stewart Bell Jr. Archives, Handley Regional Library) Facing east onto Redbud Road, the Red Bud United Brethren Church (Figure 110) is a one-and-a-half story rectangular building clad in the original wood weatherboard siding set on a continuous stone foundation. The front gable roof is covered in standing seam metal. Two bays wide by three bays long, the church had two separate entrances for women and men on the front façade. These mirrioring two front entrance doors are set below one-light transoms protected from the elements by a slightly overhanging gable. The entrance stairs were replaced ca. 1960 with poured concrete and metal handrails. The windows are 4-over-4 wood, double-hung sash that rest on wood sills. Notable decorative features include wood dentil detailing and wide friezeboards at the cornice line, cornice returns, corner boards, and an interior brick chimney (VDHR, VCRIS 034-1147). The Red Bud United Brethren Cemetery (Figure 111) is located directly east and north of the church. With approximately 112 graves, the Red Bud United Brethren Cemetery is in average condition and still in use. Materials include granite, limestone, and concrete with some broken or fallen markers. Iconography focuses on Christian traditions including shaking hands, crosses, a crown, and doves. Most are simple, rounded, pointed, or square topped markers some with apparently hand carved names, but a few mass produced pedestal and obelisks are present. According to the 1992 survey, the oldest marker dates to 1876 with the family names represented including Dunn, Johnson, Gurber, Kline, Keller, and Strickler. The oldest portion of the cemetery situated directly behind the Red Bud United Brethren Church, has approximately 10 gravestones bounded by a cast iron fence. All of these gravestones are for the Dunn family and the oldest dates back to 1881 (VDHR, VCRIS 034-1147; Find-a-grave.com, Redbud United Methodist Church Cemetery). Although churches and cemeteries are typically not eligible for NRHP listing, this rural church and cemetery appears to meet Criteria Consideration A and C due to its architectural design. Together, the pair retain excellent integrity exhibiting early church and cemetery design in a rural area during the Reconstruction period. For the church, the separate entrances, wood frame construction, and intact wood windows and detailing are indicative of the early design. The cemetery features hand carved markers and some original fencing marking the family plots. The limited historical information available does not indicate any Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 135 significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) and the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), neither the church nor the cemetery would be considered contributing to the districts. Figure 110 Red Bud United Brethren Church at 1551 Redbud Road, façade and south elevation, looking northeast Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 136 Figure 111 Red Bud United Brethren Cemetery at 1551 Redbud Road, looking northeast 7.3.38 1506 Redbud Road Address: 1506 Redbud Road VCRIS: 034-5385 Tax Parcel: 8015810 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1947 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: The residence located on a 4.33-acre parcel at 1506 Redbud Road (034-5385; Figure 112) is a wood frame vernacular dwelling constructed in 1947. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) and the within the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456). The most notable feature of this house is the front-facing gambrel roof covered in standing seam metal siding. The one-and-a-half-story house is clad in vinyl siding and rests on a continuous concrete block foundation. The front entrance is a 3-light, 3-panel wood door set behind a metal screen door. The entry is protected from the elements by a small open porch set under a shed roof clad in asphalt shingles supported by fiberglass posts. Windows on the home are 2-over-2 wood double-hung sash and 6-over-6 vinyl single-hung sash independently placed and flanked by fixed louvered shutters. This residence is typical of vernacular residences built throughout the state and modern alterations, such as replacement windows, have impacted its architectural integrity. Consequently, the building does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 137 the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) and the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the districts. Figure 112 Dwelling at 1506 Redbud Road, façade and north elevation, looking east 7.3.39 1501 Redbud Road Address: 1501 Redbud Road VCRIS: 034-5386 Tax Parcel: 8015808 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1956 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: The residence located at 1501 Redbud Road (034-5386; Figure 113) is a Ranch-style dwelling constructed on a 3.51-acre parcel in 1956. Situated on the east side of the road, this property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) and the within the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456). Surfaced with stucco, the dwelling has a side gable roof covered in asphalt shingles pierced by an interior concrete block chimney on the north roof slope. The house rests on a continuous foundation. The main entry is a 3-light slab wood door set behind a storm door which is set under a metal awning supported by metal railings on a concrete block stoop. The windows are horizontally configured 2- over-2 metal, single-hung sash independently placed and flanking a one-light fixed picture window. The fenestration has been altered, and some windows appear to be enclosed. A full length enclosed shed porch surfaced in vinyl siding is located on the rear (east) elevation. Extensive alterations, such as replacement siding, altered fenestration, and replacement windows, have adversely impacted this typical Ranch style residence’s architectural integrity. Therefore, the house does Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 138 not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical data found did not indicate any significance associated with events or persons, so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) and the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the districts. Figure 113 Dwelling at 1501 Redbud Road, façade and southeast elevation, looking north 7.3.40 1451 Redbud Road Address: 1451 Redbud Road VCRIS: 034-5387 Tax Parcel: 8015812 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1930 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Not Eligible, Noncontributing Description: The residence located at 1451 Redbud Road (034-5387; Figure 114) is a vernacular Bungalow dwelling constructed in 1930. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) and the within the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456). This dwelling rests on a total 2.49 acres on the northeast side of Redbud Road. Clad in vinyl siding, this one-story home has a front gable roof surfaced in asphalt shingles and rests on a concrete block foundation. The open wood frame porch is covered by a hipped roof and supported by square wood posts. There is an interior brick chimney on the east roof slope. The remaining original wood windows are 3-over-1 double hung sash while some have been replaced with 1-over-1 vinyl single-hung sash windows. A single window is present in the gable end. There is a detached one-car, garage adjacent to the southeast of the residence surfaced in vinyl siding and topped by an asphalt shingle covered hip roof. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 139 The vinyl siding and replacement windows have diminished the integrity of this typical vernacular Bungalow residence. Consequently, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited research available does not indicate any historical significance in terms of events or persons so the property does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034- 5023) and the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the districts. Figure 114 Dwelling at 1451 Redbud Road, façade and southeast elevation, looking north 7.3.41 Red Bud School Address: 1420 Redbud Road VCRIS: 034-1146 Tax Parcel: 8027581 Type: School Date: 1950 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: Now serving as a church, the former school located at 1420 Redbud Road (034-1146; Figure 115) exhibits a Bungalow form constructed ca. 1950. Although the Frederick County Commissioner of the Revenue’s website indicates that this building was built in 1986, aerials show that a building has been on the same footprint since 1964 (NETR 1964) and the architectural design is more indicative of the mid-twentieth century design. Although a school was present on this property at least as early as 1885, the late construction date of this building makes it unclear if this structure ever served as the school or was built for the church congregation. Historic photographs show that the current building is not the original school Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 140 (Figure 116), and that the building was replaced after 1934. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) and the within the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456). Exhibiting the Bungalow form, this building is constructed of concrete block set on a continuous concrete block foundation. The front gable roof is clad with composition shingles and features an inset gable likely housing the entry vestibule before the sanctuary. Vinyl siding is in the gable ends. The primary entrance has paired doors set within a gable roofed entry porch supported by fiberglass fluted Doric columns. Windows are paired wood one-over-one double-hung sash and one-over-one metal single-hung sash. An exterior concrete block chimney anchors the rear wall, while concrete block piers accent the side walls. Figure 115 Red Bud School at 1420 Redbud Road, façade and northwest elevation, looking south Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 141 Figure 116 Red Bud School, 1934 (Unknown photographer, Frederick Co. VA School System Collection, Courtesy Stewart Bell Jr. Archives, Handley Regional Library). This building is typical of the Bungalow-form and is a late example of a modest, rural church. Alterations such as some replacement siding and windows have impacted its architectural integrity indicating that it is not eligible under Criterion C. Its late construction date and the limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) and the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the districts. 7.3.42 1347 Redbud Road Address: 1347 Redbud Road VCRIS: 034-5388 Tax Parcel: 8015814 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1956 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: The residence located at 1347 Redbud Road (034-5388; Figure 117) is a Ranch style dwelling constructed on a five-acre property on the northeast side of the road in 1956. This property is within the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456). The dwelling is clad in brick veneer with vinyl siding within the gable ends. The cross-gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles with an interior brick chimney on the ridge line. Resting on a continuous concrete block foundation, the house has a front gable decorated with a canted bay window. The entrance is protected within a cutaway porch supported by wrought-iron posts. The windows are 1-over-1 vinyl single-hung sash set in a ribbon pattern and independently placed. The home also features sky lights on the southern end of the building. There is an elevated wood frame deck extending from the south elevation. There are several sheds and a garage behind the house. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 142 Figure 117 Dwelling at 1347 Redbud Road, façade, looking east This Ranch style residence is commonly found throughout the region and alterations, such as replacement windows, have impacted its integrity. As a result, this house does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. With limited historical significance evidenced in the available data in terms of events or persons, this property does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B either. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. 7.3.43 1307 Redbud Road Address: 1307 Redbud Road VCRIS: 034-5389 Tax Parcel: 8015715 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1966 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: The Ranch style residence located at 1307 Redbud Road (034-5389; Figure 118) was constructed on a five-acre parcel on the northeast side of the road in 1966. This property is within the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456). The dwelling is clad in a brick veneer on the façade with vinyl siding on all other elevations. The side gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles with wood dentil detailing in the eaves. The dwelling rests on a continuous concrete block foundation and has an exterior brick chimney on the south elevation. The entrance has a 1-light fiberglass door set behind a storm door accessed via a wood frame ramp. The windows are 6-over-6 vinyl single-hung sash independently placed with a large picture window of 1-light vinyl casement windows set in a ribbon pattern situated to the right of the entrance; fixed louvered shutters flank the windows. There is a workshop south of the house, and sheds to the east. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 143 Figure 118 Dwelling at 1307 Redbud Road, façade, looking east The limited historical information available concerning this residence did not indicate any significance in terms of historical events or persons. Therefore, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Additionally, this is a common design found throughout the state and alterations have impacted its integrity. Therefore, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. 7.3.44 328 Redbud Road Address: 328 Redbud Road VCRIS: 034-5390 Tax Parcel: 8015811 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1956 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: Although the Frederick County Commissioner of the Revenue’s website provides an official address of 328 Redbud Road (034-5390; Figure 119) for this property, it is located on a 1.13-acre parcel on the east side of Morgan Mill Road. It is a one-story Minimal Traditional style dwelling constructed in 1956. This property is within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) and within the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456). Clad in aluminum siding, this house has a side gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles. The dwelling rests on a tall concrete block foundation wall with a full basement. The primary entrance has a 1-light with rounded top, paneled wood door behind a storm door set under a gabled entry stoop with a concrete block foundation bordered by metal railings. The windows are horizontally configured 2-over-2 wood, double hung sash paired and independently placed. An enclosed shed roof porch extends east from the rear elevation and is enveloped by an open deck. There is a wood frame shed Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 144 on the property with a gambrel roof surfaced in asphalt shingles. East of the shed is a wood frame chicken coop with a gable roof. Figure 119 Dwelling at 328 Redbud Road, façade, looking east. This Minimal Traditional style residence is commonly found during the post-World War II era throughout the state. As a result, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical data available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) and the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the districts. 7.3.45 185 Pine Road Address: 185 Pine Road VCRIS: 034-5391 Tax Parcel: 8015839 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1900 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible Description: The residence located at 185 Pine Road (034-5391; Figure 120) is a wood frame vernacular dwelling constructed in 1900. This dwelling rests on 128.99 acres on the north side of Pine Road. The property seems to be used for agricultural purposes. The most notable feature of this house is the one-and-one-half- story wood frame construction with a side gable roof and a front gabled dormer which breaks into the wall plane. The house is clad in vinyl siding and rests on a continuous concrete block foundation. The side- gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles with an interior brick chimney on the ridge line. The primary Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 145 entrance is set within a small one-bay entry stoop with a gable roof supported by wood posts. The windows are 1-over-1 single-hung sash and vertically configured 2-over-2 double hung sash wood windows. There is a one-story addition on the north elevation. There are three wood frame sheds on the property. Figure 120 Dwelling at 185 Pine Road, façade and east elevation, looking northwest Although of architectural interest, alterations such as the application of vinyl siding, some replacement windows, a rear addition, and a replacement entry stoop, have adversely impacted the integrity of this house. Thus, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited research available does not indicate any significance associated with historical events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. 7.3.46 Redbud Cemetery Address: North side of Pine Road VCRIS: 034-1119 Tax Parcel: 8027542 Type: Cemetery Date: ca. 1906 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible Description: The Redbud Cemetery (034-1119, also previously recorded as archaeological site 44FK0888; Figure 121) is located approximately 150 feet north of Pine Road. With about 15 gravestones, the Redbud Cemetery is in poor condition. It does not appear to have been taken care of on a regular basis for some years. The cemetery is located in an overgrown forested area that is very hard to access. The oldest gravestone found dated to 1931, however, archival research indicates the cemetery dates back to the early 1900s and there may be a number of unmarked graves. Find-a-grave.com indicates that this was an African American cemetery (Find-a-grave.com, Redbud Cemetery). Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 146 The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with people or events so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. The loss of markers and overall design indicates that it is not eligible under Criterion C. The information that the site could yield would likely be minimal so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion D. Figure 121 Redbud Cemetery on North side of Pine Road, looking north 7.3.47 473 Pine Road Address: 473 Pine Road VCRIS: 034-5392 Tax Parcel: 8015838 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1940 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible Description: Situated on a one-acre property on the northwest corner of Pine Road and Burnt Factory Road, the residence located at 473 Pine Road (034-5392; Figure 122) is a vernacular dwelling constructed in 1940. The dwelling is clad in a stone veneer in a random pattern on the first story and vinyl siding on the second story. The side gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles, and there are circular louvered vents in the gable ends. The dwelling rests on a concrete block foundation. The façade (west elevation) features a 6-panel fiberglass main entry door flanked by 3-light sidelights with a plain lintel above. The entrance is protected by a full span open shed roof porch clad in asphalt shingles and supported by wood posts on a wood floor. Windows on the home include 1-over-1 single-hung sash vinyl set in a ribbon pattern and independently placed. A pair of 6-light casement windows are present on the south elevation and a large nine-light, wood picture window is present on the façade. All windows on the first story have plain lintels above the openings. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 147 There is a detached two-car garage northwest of the dwelling with a gable roof and similarly clad in stone veneer at the base and vinyl siding above. Alterations to this vernacular wood frame house, including replacement siding and windows, have adversely impacted the architectural integrity of this property. As a result, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Figure 122 Dwelling at 473 Pine Road, façade and southeast elevation, looking north 7.3.48 138 Steepwood Lane Address: 183 Steepwood Lane VCRIS: 034-5393 Tax Parcel: 8015845 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1970 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: The residence located at 138 Steepwood Lane (034-5393; Figure 124) is a Ranch-style house constructed in 1970. This property is within the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456). This Ranch rests on a three-acre property on the east side of Steepwood Lane. The property is completely residential and not used for agricultural purposes. The dwelling is clad in a brick veneer with vinyl siding in the gable ends and within the integrated carport. The side gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles, while an exterior brick chimney anchors the north elevation. The dwelling rests on a concrete slab foundation. Windows are Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 148 1-over-1 single-hung sash vinyl and the primary entrance has a replacement vinyl door with an oval light. There is an integrated one-car carport at the south end of the house and a garage and shed to the north. This residence is typical of Ranch-style dwellings built throughout the state. It has modern alterations, such as replacement vinyl windows, that have impacted its architectural integrity so that it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 123 Dwelling at 138 Steepwood Lane, looking north 7.3.49 183 Steepwood Lane Address: 183 Steepwood Lane VCRIS: 034-5394 Tax Parcel: 8015843 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1970 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: The residence located at 183 Steepwood Lane (034-5394; Figure 124) is a Ranch-type dwelling constructed in 1970. This property is within the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456). This Ranch rests on a three-acre property on the north side of Steepwood Lane. The property is completely residential and not used for agricultural purposes. The dwelling is clad in a brick veneer. The side gable roof is covered Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 149 in asphalt shingles. The dwelling rests on a concrete block foundation wall. There is a detached one-car carport east of the dwelling and a couple of sheds. This residence is a typical of Ranch-type dwelling built throughout the state. It is does have modern alterations, such as a modern roof covering, that have impacted its architectural integrity so that it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 124 Dwelling at 183 Steepwood Lane, looking north 7.3.50 2663 Berryville Pike Address: 2663 Berryville Pike VCRIS: 034-5395 Tax Parcel: 8015850 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1962 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: Located on a 3.30-acre parcel on the north side of the road at 2663 Berryville Pike (034-5395; Figure 125), this residence is a vernacular dwelling constructed in 1962. This property is within the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456). This one-and-a-half-story dwelling is clad in a brick veneer and features a front gable roof covered in asphalt shingles. The dwelling rests on a concrete block foundation. A small one-bay porch has a shed roof supported by fiberglass posts. There is an exterior brick chimney Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 150 on the west elevation. The windows are 1-over-1 vinyl, single-hung sash paired and independently placed flanked by fixed louvered shutters. There is a one-car garage on the property. This residence is typical 1960s era vernacular construction built throughout the state. It is has alterations, such as a replacement windows, that have impacted its architectural integrity. Therefore, the house does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 125 Dwelling at 2663 Berryville Road, façade, looking northwest 7.3.51 2621 Berryville Pike Address: 2621 Berryville Pike VCRIS: 034-5396 Tax Parcel: 8015849 Type: Mobile Home Date: 1965 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: The residence located at 2621 Berryville Pike (034-5396; Figure 126) is a mobile home constructed in 1965. This property is within the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456). This dwelling rests on a 10.69-acre parcel on the north side of Berryville Pike. The one-story, rectangular mobile home is clad in metal siding. The original flat roof has a newer gable-roofed structure built over the building. The gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles and extends to form a small entry porch supported by wood posts. The Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 151 windows are the original modular home metal windows, flanked by faux shutters and paired jalousie windows are present on the east and west elevations. There is a modern, one-car garage and shed on the property. This mobile home is typical of mid-century designs built throughout the state and alterations, such as the replacement roof, have impacted its integrity. Consequently, it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 126 Dwelling at 2621 Berryville Road, façade and north elevation, looking southwest 7.3.52 Hallam House Address: 1586 Jordan Springs Road VCRIS: 034-0724 Tax Parcel: 8015965 Type: Farm Date: 1840 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible Description: The residence located at 1586 Jordan Springs Road (034-0724; Figure 127 and Figure 128) is a large I- House with a Central Hallway plan constructed in 1840. The house at 1586 Jordan Springs Road was shown on a map of the Battle of Winchester which occurred in 1864 as the home of J. Smith. The Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. in 1885 noted two residences in the same general vicinity which were owned by T. Hopewell or T. Locke, but no additional information was found concerning this property Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 152 (Lathrop and Dayton 1885; Gillespie 1873). This dwelling rests on a 54-acre parcel on the west side of Jordan Springs Road. The dwelling has two modern additions on the north and south elevation. The house is two stories, clad in wood siding, and features a side gable roof covered in standing seam metal. The gable roof is pierced by an interior brick chimney on the east slope. The dwelling rests on a stone foundation wall. The front entrance is set within a modern three-bay porch with a hipped roof covered in standing seam metal supported by wood posts. According to the homeowners, the one-story side additions were added by the previous owner in the late-1980s. The windows are 6-over-6 wood double hung sash set independently. The property has four outbuildings; a modern detached three-car garage, a modern workshop, a modern garage, and a medium sized barn (Figure 129). The detached three-car garage is clad in wood siding and the side gable roof is covered in standing seam metal. The modern workshop is clad in wood siding and the side gable roof is covered in standing seam metal. The windows are 1-over-1 wood windows. The modern garage is clad in wood siding, the front gable roof is covered in corrugated metal, and it rests on a poured concrete foundation. The two-story barn is clad in vertical wood siding and the side gable roof is covered in standing seam metal. The barn rests on a tall parged foundation wall. The windows are six-light wood casement and two-light metal casement. Figure 127 Dwelling at 1586 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking west Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 153 Figure 128 Dwelling at 1586 Jordan Springs Road, façade, looking southwest Figure 129 Barn at 1586 Jordan Springs Road, looking southeast Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 154 Although this residence is of interest as an 1840s I-House with a Central Hallway plan, the side additions from the late-1980s adversely impacted the original design. As a result, this house does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. 7.3.53 2444 Berryville Pike Address: 2444 Berryville Pike VCRIS: 034-5397 Tax Parcel: 8015800 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1926 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible, Noncontributing Description: Situated on a one-acre parcel at the southern terminus of Woods Mill Road on the south side of the Berryville Pike, this residence located at 2444 Berryville Pike (034-5397; Figure 130) is a wood frame vernacular dwelling constructed ca. 1926. It appears that this property may now be used for commercial purposes. Set on a continuous concrete block foundation, the building is surfaced with vinyl siding and T1- 11 paneling. The oldest portion of the building has an intersecting gable roof clad with standing seam metal while a ca. 1946 addition to the east has a gable roof covered with asphalt shingles pierced by an interior concrete block chimney on the south slope. Windows are paired and independently placed 1-over-1 wood double-hung sash. A modern metal fence has been attached to the east side of the house. Although the Frederick County Commissioner of the Revenue indicates a construction date of 1946, USGS quadrangle maps indicate that this house was on the property by 1938, and its style is indicative of 1920s era construction. No additional historical information was discovered regarding this property. Extensive alterations to this typical vernacular residence, including additions and replacement siding, have destroyed the architectural integrity of this resource. As a result, this house does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) and the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), this property would not be considered contributing to the districts. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 155 Figure 130 Dwelling at 2444 Berryville Pike, north and west elevations, looking southeast 7.3.54 Robert D. Keckley House Address: 1263 Redbud Road VCRIS: 034-1144 Tax Parcel: 8015712 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1920 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible Description: Originally surveyed in 1992, the Robert D. Keckley House located at 1263 Redbud Road (034-1144; Figure 131) is a one-story Bungalow built ca. 1920. Although the Frederick County Commissioner of the Revenue indicates a construction date of 1951, USGS quadrangle maps indicate that this house was on the property by 1938, and the design is typical of 1920s era construction. No additional historical information was discovered regarding this property. This dwelling rests on a two-acre parcel on the northeast side of Redbud Road. Clad with vinyl siding, the largely rectangular residence has a gable roof surfaced with standing seam metal panels pierced by an interior brick chimney along the ridge of the roof. A front porch which was originally open was enclosed ca. 2006 when the building was remodeled with replacement windows and siding. A wood deck with simple wood posts and a lattice balustrade now provides access to the main entrance. The foundation is a combination of brick, concrete block, and parged brick. Windows are a combination of 6-over-6 and 4-over-4 wood double hung sash flanked by fixed louvered shutters. The main entrance has a nine-light paneled door set behind a metal screened door with a cross buck design on the bottom. Both the front enclosed porch and a rear addition have hipped roofs. Two small sheds and a one- story, two-car detached garage, built in 2006, are behind (northeast) of the house. Like the house, the garage (Figure 129) is clad with vinyl siding and features 1-over-1 single-hung sash windows resting on a concrete block foundation. The roof takes a gable form and is surfaced with composition shingles. Alterations to this simple bungalow, including the enclosure of the front porch and replacement siding and windows, have adversely impacted the original design. As a result, this house does not appear NRHP Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 156 eligible under Criterion C. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Opequon Battlefield, Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 131 Dwelling at 1263 Redbud Road, façade, looking northeast Figure 132 Garage at 1263 Redbud Road, west and south elevations, looking north Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 157 7.3.55 1054 Jordan Springs Road Address: 1054 Jordan Springs Road VCRIS: 034-5398 Tax Parcel: 8009166 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1956 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Ineligible Description: The residence located at 1054 Jordan Springs Road (034-5398; Figure 133) is a small wood frame vernacular house constructed in 1956. The house was first shown on a 1964 aerial and the 1965 USGS quadrangle (NETR 1964, 1965). No additional historical information was discovered regarding this property. This dwelling rests on a 1.33-acre parcel on the west side of Jordan Springs Road. This one-story residence clad with hardiplank siding rests on a continuous concrete block foundation. The side-gable roof is surfaced with composition shingles and has an interior brick chimney on the west roof slope. Windows are 1-over-1 single-hung sash vinyl replacement units flanked by paneled shutters. The primary entrance on the northeast elevation has a 15-light French door set behind a screened door accessed by a concrete block stoop. An addition or enclosed porch on the north has a gable roof and an entrance with a 9-light aluminum door. A large addition with a shed roof is on the rear (southwest) elevation. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with events or people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria A or B. Alterations, including replacement siding and windows as well as additions, have impacted the integrity of this simple vernacular building. As a result, this house does not appear NRHP eligible under Criterion C. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Constructed outside of the period of significance for the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), it would not be considered a contributing resource to the district. Figure 133 Dwelling at 1054 Jordan Springs Road, east and north elevations, looking southwest Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 158 7.3.56 J. Clark House and Mill/Jackson Mill/Silent Mills Address: 302 High Banks Road VCRIS: 034-1064 Tax Parcel: 8015963 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1800 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Unknown Description: The J. Clark House and Mill/Jackson Mill/Silent Mills located at 302 High Banks Road (034-1064) rests on a 5-acre parcel on the south side of High Banks Road with Opequon Creek bordering the property on the west. The structures on this property were not visible from the public right-of-way (Figure 134). As a result, all of the building specific information and images in this description are from the prior survey and current aerials; its current condition and integrity remain unknown. Figure 134 View from right-of-way toward 302 High Banks Road, looking southeast The two-story brick residence is associated with a grist mill constructed ca. 1800. The mill was shown on an 1809 map of Frederick, Berkeley, and Jefferson counties by Charles Varle and Benjamin Jones (Figure 135; Varle and Jones 1809). The mill was also depicted on the map of the Third Battle of Winchester which occurred in 1864 as the home and mill of J.E. Jackson (Gillespie 1873). The Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. in 1885 noted the home and grist mill of Fenton Jackson (Lathrop and Dayton 1885). Both maps likely reference John Fenton Jackson, who was listed in the 1860 census as a farmer living adjacent to Thomas Clevenger, the owner of High Banks at 423 High Banks Road (034-0109). At the time, Jackson owned real estate valued at $6,000, while miller Romulus S. T. Rupell lived adjacent. John Fenton Jackson was born in Frederick County in 1818 to Josiah and Rachel Fenton Jackson; he married Mary Grimm in 1840 and one of their daughters, Ann Elizabeth, married neighboring High Banks owner, Benjamin Franklin Clevenger, in 1871. In 1870, Jackson was listed in the census as a miller owning $10,000 in real estate. His grist mill used a water wheel that processed wheat, rye and corn. John Fenton Jackson died in 1889. Although his widow appears to have continued to live on the property until her death in 1903, the mill did not seem to still be in operation by 1900. Their grandson, Roy P. Duvall, appears to have Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 159 inherited the farm following the death of his grandmother and mother (Ancestry.com 1999, 2004b, 2009b, 2009c, 2010a, 2013; Find-a-grave.com, Hopewell Friends Burial Ground). Figure 135 Portion of map of Frederick County showing the John Clark mill and house in 1809 (Varle and Jones 1809) The prior survey, conducted in 1991, noted that the house was “a fine Federal House” (Figure 136; VDHR, VCRIS 034-1064). Although originally recorded as a ca. 1810 building, its inclusion io the Varle and Jones (1809) map indicates an earlier construction date of possibly ca. 1800. The two-story brick structure exhibited a Flemish bond brick pattern, a gable roof surfaced with composition shingles, and interior end brick chimneys. The windows were primarily 6-over-6 wood double-hung sash flanked by louvered shutters, while the primary entrance was situated within a one-story, three-bay wide wood porch. The main block of the building was five bays wide by one bay deep with a two-story brick wing to the rear. Outbuildings on the property included a wood frame bank barn, a large wood frame combination barn/garage/workshop, and an arched roof brick shed in addition to evidence of the mill race south of the house. The archaeological survey performed by Hofstra and Geier (1992:94) recorded the grist mill site (44FK435), but “the mill remains could not be identified with certainty.” There was no evidence remaining of the mill race either. This residence is of historical interest as an early 1800s Federal style house and mill property and may be eligible under Criteria A and/or C for Exploration/Settlement or Architecture. However, the inability to visually inspect this resource as part of this survey leaves the current condition and integrity of this property in question. As a result, this house has an unknown eligibility status for listing in the NRHP at this time. The limited research available did not indicate any association with significant persons so it does not appear eligible under Criterion B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 160 Figure 136 J. Clark House and Mill/Jackson Mill/Silent Mills in 1991 (Kalbian 1999:233) 7.3.57 High Banks Address: 423 High Banks Road VCRIS: 034-0109 Tax Parcel: 8015962, 8009251 Type: Farm Date: 1753 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: NRHP-listed Description: Situated on two parcels comprising approximately 70 acres, the High Banks farm located at 423 High Banks Road incorporates the ca. 1753 Georgian style Helm-Clevenger House (034-0109), the ruins of an icehouse, and two nonhistoric outbuildings. Located on a hill overlooking Opequon Creek, the original house was built by Thomas and Margaret Helm, second generation settlers of Frederick County. The original farm incorporated a sawmill on the south side of the creek as well as a still house. Upon his death in 1778, his youngest son, Thomas, Jr., received the house, sawmill, and still house as well as 589 acres. In 1800, he sold his plantation, but, when the new owner defaulted, the plantation was sold at auction. After passing through several ownerships and subsequent sales due to default, John Clevenger purchased the house in 1819, but then defaulted on the mortgage in 1831, and the ownership transferred to Walter and Abigail Tanqueray. Thomas Clevenger, John Clevenger’s son, purchased the house in 1849 and his family maintained ownership for the following 95 years. Clevenger’s house, the sawmill, and the ford of the creek were shown on a map of the Third Battle of Winchester (Figure 137; Gillespie 1873). The Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. in 1885 noted the residence of B.F. Clevenger at the crossing of Opequon Creek (Lathrop and Dayton 1885). An inventory performed in 1916 following the death of owner Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 161 Benjamin Franklin Clevenger revealed that the farm included a barn, a smokehouse, a corn crib, and granary, all typical outbuildings for the period (Massey and Maxwell 2010). Figure 137 Portion of map of the Third Battle of Winchester depicting troop movements and infrastructure at the point of the battle on September 19, 1864. Clevenger’s house, sawmill and the ford of Opequon Creek were noted on the map (Gillespie 1873). The original construction is a two-story, double-pile stone house with an elevated basement and a center hall plan which measures three bays wide by two bays deep (Figure 138). Constructed of limestone, the central core of the house has a rough-dressed ashlar finish on the façade and dressed rubble on the side and rear elevations. The west wall has a large relieving arch in the stonework. After a partial structure failure ca. 1850, the central portion of the second floor south wall was rebuilt and a new, shallowly pitched gable roof replaced the original steeply pitched gable of the original structure. Two interior brick chimneys anchor both the east and west walls. Around 1858, a Greek Revival style front entry porch with paired Doric columns was added and the interior design was modernized to reflect the current trends. Windows are largely 6-over-6 wood double-hung sash flanked by louvered shutters. The primary entrance set within the Greek Revival style front porch is a six-panel door set under a 3-light transom flanked by 5-light sidelights. A basement entrance with a vertical board door set under a segmental stone arch is situated to the east of the front door on the façade. An addition on the east, built in 2000, is a one-story wood frame structure with a wrap-around porch that replaces an earlier wing which was destroyed by fire in 1929. The east wall of the main house was partially rebuilt with brick after this fire. The rear wing, added in 1978, is a two-story wood frame addition with a one-story porch extending across its west elevation and a brick chimney on the north wall. Both the 1978 and 2000 additions were designed and built by the owner at the time, architect James D. Stillwell (Massey and Maxwell 2010). Few remnants of the original outbuildings remain on the property. A ca. 1980 equipment shed (Figure 139) and garden shed located northeast of the house are of more recent construction and are considered noncontributing. The equipment shed has exterior paneling, three open bays and a side-gable roof surfaced with standing seam metal; aerials indicate that it may have been built on the foundation of an earlier Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 162 outbuilding (NETR 1964). The garden shed, situated directly southeast of the equipment shed, has a side- gable roof surfaced with standing seam metal and an inset two-bay entry porch. When designated, two contributing sites on the property included a stone foundation and partial wall of a post-Civil War bank barn which was converted to a stable and an eighteenth century stone icehouse pit. Aerials indicate that the ruins of the bank barn were removed ca. 2014 and a new barn (Figure 140) was built to the west of the original structure. The new barn features wood frame construction surfaced with board and batten siding, four-light casement windows in the gable ends, and a gable roof surfaced with standing seam metal cladding which extends into a lean-to with a shed roof on the south elevation. Four stable doors open off of the lean-to on the south elevation and sliding wood barn doors provide access to a central aisle at the east and west ends of the building. The ruins of the icehouse were not visible from the right-of-way (Massey and Maxwell 2010). This property is significant under NRHP Criteria A and C in the areas of Architecture and Exploration/Settlement. It represents the growth and development of a farming community along one of the major waterways on Virginia’s western frontier during the eighteenth century. As a largely intact example of Georgian construction, it is a significant example of a distinctive type which characterized building in the Shenandoah Valley blending English and German construction techniques and designs. The limited historical information available does not indicate any significance associated with people so it does not appear NRHP eligible under Criteria B. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. The period of significance extends from its construction, ca. 1753, to the end of the Clevenger family’s ownership in 1944. This property was listed in the NRHP in 2011 and as a Virginia Historic Landmark in 2010 (Massey and Maxwell 2010). Figure 138 Dwelling at 423 High Banks Road, west elevation, looking east Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 163 Figure 139 Equipment Shed at 423 High Banks Road, west elevation, looking northeast Figure 140 Barn at 423 High Banks Road, west elevation, looking northeast with Equipment Shed in background Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 164 7.3.58 Backbone Farm Address: 352 Monastery Ridge Road VCRIS: 034-1114 Tax Parcel: 8028212 Type: Farm Date: 1864 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Unknown Description: The residence located at 352 Monastery Ridge Road (034-1114) is situated on an eight-acre parcel on the south side of Monastery Ridge Road. Lick Run extends through the southern portion of the property which borders on the geological ridge known as Devil’s Backbone to the south. The structures on this property were not visible from the public right-of-way (Figure 141 and Figure 142). As a result, the building specific information and images in this description are from the prior survey and current aerials; its current condition and integrity remain unknown. The prior survey indicated that an older house, built ca. 1796, once occupied this site, but architectural evidence suggests that the current building dates from the mid- to late-nineteenth century. According to the prior survey, the property was owned by George Price in 1796, who conveyed it to Thomas Helm and then to Henry and Hanna Seevers in the same year. The couple then transferred the property to Henry Seevers, Jr. in 1835, and his heirs sold it to Noah W. Solenberger in 1868. Although the house was shown on a map of the Third Battle of Winchester as the home of J. Schwartz (Gillespie 1873), that name did not appear in the chain of title according to the prior survey. In 1878, Noah Solenberger sold the property to James and Sallie Riely, who sold it to Charles E. Clevenger for $2,500 in 1879. The Frederick County Atlas published by D.J. Lake & Co. in 1885 noted the residence at the site belonging to C. E. Clevenger; the property was accessed by a trail leading south from Old Charles Town Road. Charles E. Clevenger was also noted on the map as the owner of a residence along Old Charles Town Road situated immediately west of Opequon Creek. Charles Clevenger was the older brother of Benjamin Franklin Clevenger, who owned High Banks (034-0109) to the south. Charles inherited the family residence on Old Charles Town Road, now known as the Ridgeway-Clevenger House, after the death of his father, David, in 1870; it was part of the inheritance his grandmother, Beulah Clevenger, received from her father Richard Ridgeway in 1812. The house on Monastery Ridge Road stayed in the Clevenger family until 1942 and has changed hands several times since then (VDHR, VCRIS 034-1114; Lathrop and Dayton 1885; Quarles 1999:211-12). The prior survey conducted in 1992 indicated that this was a two-story, asymmetrical wood frame building exhibiting a vernacular design (Figure 143). The original building, set on a continuous stone foundation, was two bays wide by two bays deep with a front-facing gable roof surfaced with standing seam metal and pierced by an interior brick chimney on the east slope. A two-story, gable roofed wing addition extended from the southeast elevation and featured a one-story modern, rear addition with a shed roof. The one- story addition had a large exterior brick chimney attached on the south elevation. An extensive rear wood deck, partially covered with a shed roof, stretched around the south elevation. A one-story, four-bay porch with turned posts reached across most of the façade. Clad with weatherboard, the building had 1-over-1 wood double-hung sash windows. Outbuildings included a ca. 1986 gaarage with a gable roof. Although the limited information available concerning this property does not indicate any significant historical associations in terms of events or persons indicating that this residence may not be eligible under Criteria A or B, additional research may be warranted. The age and design of the building may also indicate some significance in terms of architecture or construction methods. However, the inability to visually inspect this resource as part of this survey leaves the current condition and integrity of this property in question. As Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 165 a result, this house has an unknown eligibility status for listing in the NRHP at this time. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Figure 141 View from right-of-way down driveway toward 352 Monastery Ridge Road, looking southeast Figure 142 Dwelling at 352 Monastery Ridge Road, close-up of west elevation from right-of- way, looking southeast Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 166 Figure 143 Backbone Farm, 1992 survey photos (VDHR, VCRIS 034-1114) 7.3.59 180 Pine Road Address: 180 Pine Road VCRIS: 034-5399 Tax Parcel: 8015841 Type: Single Dwelling Date: 1956 NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Unknown, Noncontributing Description: The residence at 180 Pine Road (034-5399) is located on a parcel of over seven acres on the southeast corner of Pine Road and Woods Mill Road. The structures on this property were not visible from the public right-of-way (Figure 144). As a result, all of the building specific information in this description is from current aerials and the Frederick County Commissioner of Revenue’s website; its current condition and integrity remain unknown. The one-story, irregularly-shaped residence is clad with vinyl siding and rests on a concrete block foundation. Built in 1956, the house has a gable roof surfaced with composition shingles and a chimney. Additional features on the parcel include a two-car detached garage, a shed, a lean-to, and an in-ground pool installed in 2005. The limited historical information available does not indicate that this property is eligible in terms of significant events or persons; therefore, it does not appear NRHP eligible under NRHP Criteria A or B. Additionally, the architecture and method of construction appears to be commonly found throughout the state. However, the inability to visually inspect this resource as part of this survey leaves the current condition and integrity of this property in question. As a result, this house has an unknown eligibility status Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 167 for listing in the NRHP at this time. Buildings are typically not eligible under Criterion D. Although no buildings are located within the boundaries of the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023), part of the parcel is included in the district. However, as the property was constructed outside of the period of significance for the district, it would not be considered a contributing resource. Figure 144 View from right-of-way down driveway toward 180 Pine Road, looking south 7.4 Project Effects As discussed in Section 2.2, the APE encompasses a rural agricultural landscape. The overall visual impression of the APE is of a rolling landscape with expanses of trees interspersed with individual residences and a few farms. The topography and vegetation associated with the Devil’s Backbone, Lick Run, and Redbud Run play a significant role in reducing visibility of the potential solar array within the viewshed. A viewshed analysis was performed based on existing LiDAR data and considering bare ground topography and a presumed solar panel height of 2.5 m (8.2 ft.) (Figure 145). The viewshed analysis indicates the solar panels, based on topography alone, will have limited visibility to the north and south with higher visibility to the east and west at the ½-mile range. The adjacent and surrounding fields and forested areas would continue to be maintained in their present state, which would further obstruct views of the proposed solar farm. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 168 Figure 145 Viewshed analysis Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 169 In addition to the one NRHP-listed property and four resources already determined eligible, Cardno identified an additional four resources that are recommended as potentially eligible for the NRHP during this survey. These include High Banks (034-0109), the Second Winchester Battlefield (034-5023), the Opequon Battlefield of the Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), the Milburn Rural Historic District (034- 5035), Jordan White Sulfur Springs (030-0110), Duvall House (034-0723), Brumley House/Smith Farm (034-0704), Redbud Farm/Wood House (034-1157), and Red Bud United Bretheren Church and Cemetery (034-1147). The two buildings that could contribute to the districts, Jordan White Sulfur Springs (030-0110) and the Redbud Farm/Wood House (034-1157), are already included as potentially individually eligible. Three additional properties, J. Clark House and Mill/Jackson Mill/Silent Mills (034-1064), Backbone Farm (034-1114), and 180 Pine Road (034-5399) were found to have an unknown eligibility as the structures on the parcels were not visible from the public right-of-way; therefore, these three properties were addressed as if they were eligible in this discussion of effects. One additional historic cemetery, Redbud Cemetery (034-1119) on Pine Road, was identified as being ineligible for the NRHP as an historic resource, but is protected under Virgina state law (Virginia Code 18.2-127). This cemetery as well as Red Bud United Bretheren Church Cemetery lie outside of the proposed disturbance zone of the project so they were not addressed as archaeological sites for this project. Only a limited amount of the Second Winchester Battlefield (034-5023) extends into the construction footprint of the project, and it does not contain any contributing resources within the proposed disturbance zone (Figure 145). The parcel on which High Banks (034-0109) is located at 423 High Banks Road is approximately 1,920 ft. from the construction footprint, but the buildings are around 3,380 ft. from the planned project. Topography and currently existing tree canopy outside of the disturbance zone will block views to and from the resources and the solar panels (Figure 146). No mitigation is anticipated due to existing vegetation and topography. Figure 146 View from the High Banks (034-0109) parcel located at 423 High Banks Road toward the project area As previously mentioned, the portion of the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) boundaries flanking Woods Mill Road extends into the western edge of the construction footprint of the project. However, the overall visual integrity of the battlefield district has already been impacted by the construction of numerous modern residences, utilities, and roadway paving and widening (Figure 147). Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 170 However, the solar array will be visible along sections of the roadway not lined by trees on the east side (Figure 148 and Figure 149), but no contributing structures for the district will be within the construction footprint. The two resources within the APE that contribute to the district, Jordan White Sulfur Springs (030- 0110) and the Redbud Farm/Wood House (034-1157), will be about 1,395 ft. and 780 ft. from the construction footprint, respectively. Topography and currently existing tree canopy outside of the disturbance zone will block views to and from the contributing resources and the solar panels (Figure 150 and Figure 151). No mitigation is anticipated due to existing vegetation and topography. Figure 147 View toward the project area from in front of 880 Woods Mill Road within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) Figure 148 View toward the project area from in front of 417 Woods Mill Road within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 171 Figure 149 View toward the project area from in front of 748 Woods Mill Road within the Second Winchester Battlefield Historic District (034-5023) Figure 150 View from the Jordan White Sulfur Springs (030-0110) parcel located at 1160 Jordan Springs Road toward the project area Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 172 Figure 151 View from Redbud Farm/Wood House (034-1157) parcel located at 145 Woods Mill Road toward the project area Although the district boundary for Opequon Battlefield of the Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456) will be approximately 472 ft. from the parcel on which the solar panels will be installed, the only contributing resource in the district, Redbud Farm/Wood House (034-1157), will be about 780 ft. from the construction footprint. Additionally, topography and the existing tree canopy will block views to and from the resource and the solar panels (Figure 151). No mitigation is anticipated due to existing vegetation and topography. Located at the north end of the APE, the Milburn Rural Historic District (034-5035) will be approximately 2,025 ft. from the parcel on which the solar panels will be installed and approximately 1,200 ft. from the nearest access road. However, the only contributing resource within the APE is Jordan White Sulfur Springs (030-0110) parcel which will be 1,395 ft. from the construction footprint with the buildings approximately 1,710 ft. from the construction footprint. Additionally, topography and dense tree canopy between the Jordan White Sulfur Springs and the construction parcel will block all views of the solar panels (Figure 150). No mitigation is anticipated due to existing vegetation and topography. Located at 1681 Jordan Springs Road, the Duvall House (034-0723) will be approximately 1,925 ft. from the parcel on which the solar panels will be installed and approximately 2,010 ft. from the construction footprint. The dense tree canopy between the residence and the proposed solar panels will block all views of its construction (Figure 152). No mitigation is anticipated due to existing vegetation and topography. The parcel on which the Brumley House/Smith Farm (034-0704) is located at 223 Burnt Factory Road will be approximately 730 ft. from the parcel on which the project will be built. However, the Brumley House/Smith Farm is situated on a 45-acre parcel. The house and outbuildings will be approximately 1,990 ft. from the construction footprint for the project. Additionally, the dense tree canopy will block all views of the proposed construction (Figure 153). No mitigation is anticipated due to existing vegetation and topography. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 173 Figure 152 View from the Duvall House (034-0723) parcel located at 1681 Jordan Springs Road toward the project area Figure 153 View from the Brumley House/Smith Farm (034-0704) parcel located at 223 Burnt Factory Road toward the project area Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 174 Located at 1551 Redbud Road, Red Bud United Bretheren Church and Cemetery (034-1147) will be approximately 1,185 ft. from the construction parcel and about 1,405 ft. from the construction footprint. Topography and the existing tree canopy, as well as adjacent new construction, will block the views of the proposed solar array (Figure 154). No mitigation is anticipated due to existing vegetation, new construction, and topography. The parcel on which J. Clark House and Mill/Jackson Mill/Silent Mills (034-1064) is situated at 302 High Banks Road is approximately 1,825 ft. from the proposed construction with the actual buildings about 2,260 ft. from the project. Several residences and extensive tree canopy block view potential solar array from the possibly significant property (Figure 155). No mitigation is anticipated due to existing vegetation and topography. Backbone Farm (034-1114) at 352 Monastery Ridge Road is approximately 2,280 ft. from the proposed access road and around 2,575 ft. from the construction footprint of the nearest solar array. With numerous houses and dense vegetation, the solar array will not be visible from the potentially significant property (Figure 156). No mitigation is anticipated due to existing vegetation and topography. The parcel on which the residence at 180 Pine Road (034-5399) is located approximately 255 ft. from the construction footprint of the solar array. The buildings, however, are set back within dense tree canopy on the parcel and are situated about 770 ft. from the construction footprint. With the dense vegetation, the solar array will not be visible from the property (Figure 157). No mitigation is anticipated due to existing vegetation and topography. Figure 154 View from the Red Bud United Bretheren Church and Cemetery (034-1147) parcel located at 1551 Redbud Road toward the project area Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 175 Figure 155 View from the J. Clark House and Mill/Jackson Mill/Silent Mills (034-1064) parcel at 302 High Banks Road toward the project area Figure 156 View from the Backbone Farm (034-1114) at 352 Monastery Ridge Road parcel toward the project area Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Historical Survey Results 176 Figure 157 View from the 180 Pine Road (034-5399) parcel toward the project area Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Summary and Conclusions 177 8 Summary and Conclusions Between May and November 2021, Cardno conducted a Phase I cultural resources identification survey for the proposed Redbud Run Solar Project in Frederick County, Virginia by Oriden. Oriden is proposing a ~30 MW AC solar project to interconnect to the adjacent Rappahannock Electric Co-op 34.5 kV electric line. The Redbud Run Project is located approximately 2.4 miles east of Winchester, Virginia in northeastern Frederick County. As proposed, the project will consist of approximately 154.3 acres of solar arrays contained within fencing, located on the south side of Woods Mill Road. The disturbance zone for the project consists of various elements including the fenced solar array boundaries, access roads, three staging areas, connection lines, the point of interconnection (POI), and three strips of plantings to create vegetative screening. The Phase I cultural resource survey was completed to fulfill compliance with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) Small Renewable Energy Projects (Solar) Permit by Rule (PBR) regulation (Virginia Code 9VAC15-60). The fieldwork and the resulting report conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (FR48: 190:44716-44742 – U.S. Department of the Interior, 1983) and the current guidelines set forth by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR 2017). The purpose of Phase I archaeological and architectural surveys was to locate and document the presence of all archaeological and historic architectural resources within the project disturbance zone, and provide a recommendation for eligibility for inclusion in the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR) and/or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) for each resource. Additionally, architectural resources within one-half mile of the project disturbance zone were recorded and considered for potential visual effects during the survey. During the Phase I identification survey, three previously recorded sites were revisited and one new archaeological resource was identified. Shovel tests conducted within and surrounding 44FK0383, a 19th century historic farmstead, yielded no cultural material, and no aboveground features were identified. The site boundaries were not updated, and the site remains not eligible for the NRHP. Previously recorded site 44FK0385, a 19th to 20th century farmstead, yielded one additional artifact during this survey, and as a result the original site boundaries were updated. However, the site is recommended not eligible for the NRHP and no further work is warranted. Shovel tests conducted within and surrounding the boundaries of 44FK0423, a mid-19th century historic site, yielded no cultural material. Additionally, no aboveground features were observed. As a result, the original site boundaries were not updated and the site remains not evaluated for the NRHP. Site 44FK1041 was identified as a small, 19th to 20th century domestic site via artifacts collected from the surface and shovel testing. All artifacts were collected from the surface and from the first five centimeters upslope from a creek bed. Due to the paucity of subsurface material and nature of redeposition, this site is not eligible for the NRHP. Metal detecting conducted within survey areas also did not yield any archaeological material that could be related to a Civil War-related resource (034-5023) that is recorded in VCRIS as running along Woods Mill Road adjacent to the project area. During the course of the investigation, Cardno documented 62 properties including three districts in the APE that were more than 50 years old and evaluated these properties to determine potential NRHP eligibility. As a result of this survey, nine resources were identified as significant properties, meaning that they were either NRHP-listed, previously determined NRHP eligible, or this survey found them potentially NRHP eligible. These include: High Banks (034-0109), Opequon Battlefield of the Third Battle of Winchester (034-0456), Second Winchester Battlefield (034-5023), Milburn Rural Historic District (034-5035), Jordan White Sulfur Springs (030-0110), Duvall House (034-0723), Brumley House/Smith Farm (034-0704), Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno Summary and Conclusions 178 Redbud Farm/Wood House (034-1157), and Red Bud United Bretheren Church and Cemetery (034-1147). Three additional properties, J. Clark House and Mill/Jackson Mill/Silent Mills at 302 High Banks Road (034- 1064), Backbone Farm at 352 Monastery Ridge Road (034-1114), 180 Pine Road (034-5399) were found to have an unknown eligibility as the structures on the parcel were not visible from the right-of-way; therefore, they were treated as potentially eligible. Viewshed analysis revealed that the existing topography as well as existing tree canopy and vegetation outside of the construction footprint would shield the eligible properties from adverse visual effects. Provided the existing vegetation outside of the construction footprint is maintained, this project would have no adverse effect on NRHP eligible properties and no mitigation is anticipated. Based on the results of this investigation, it is believed that the development of the current project area will not affect sites or properties that have historical, cultural, or sacred significance, or that otherwise meet the minimum criteria for listing in the NRHP. No further archaeological or historic research is recommended for the project area. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno References Cited 179 9 References Cited Allen, Tim 2001 “First Historic Overlay Zone Sought.” The Winchester Star. October 18. Accessed in July 2021, VCRIS File 034-5035. American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) 2009 Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission’s Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields: Commonwealth of Virginia. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, https://www.nps.gov/abpp/cwsii/CWSACReportVirginiaUpdate.pdf.Accessed March 2018. 2012 Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields. Draft v. 6, for public review. Electronic document, https://www.eenews.net/assets/2012/09/12/ document_gw_03.pdf. Accessed March 2018. Ancestry.com 1999 Virginia, U.S., Compiled Marriages, 1740-1850 [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Provo, Utah. 2004a 1850 U.S. Federal Census – Slave Schedules [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Lehi, Utah. 2004b 1900 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Provo, Utah. 2006 Frederick County, Virginia, Wills & Administrations, 1795-1816 [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Provo, Utah. 2009a 1850 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Lehi, Utah. 2009b 1860 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Provo, Utah. 2009c 1870 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Provo, Utah. 2010a U.S., Selected Federal Census Non-Population Schedules, 1850-1880 [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Provo, Utah. 2010b 1860 U.S. Federal Census – Slave Schedules [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Lehi, Utah. 2010c 1880 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Lehi, Utah. 2011 Virginia, U.S. Deaths and Burials Index, 1853-1917 [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Provo, Utah. 2012 1940 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Provo, Utah. 2013 U.S., Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy, Vol I-VI, 1607-1943 [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Provo, Utah. 2014a U.S., Quaker Meeting Records, 1681-1935 [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Provo, Utah. 2014b Virginia, U.S., Select Marriages, 1785-1940 [database on-line]. Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., Provo, Utah. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno References Cited 180 Anderson, David G., R. Jerald Ledbetter, and Lisa D. O’Steen 1990 Paleoindian Period Archaeology of Georgia. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report No. 28. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Bense, Judith A. 1994 Archaeology of the Southeastern United States. Academic Press, San Diego, California. Bowen, Albert H. 1901 “Littler Home 2: Littler Home at Red Bud in Frederick County, Established Ca. 1741.” Photograph. Albert Bowen Collection. Stewart Bell Jr. Archives, Handley Regional Library, https://handley.pastperfectonline.com/photo/0AFC8DAD-234D-48D8-A659-716943124474. Cartmell, T.K. 1909 Frederick County, Virginia, Shenandoah Valley Pioneers and Their Descendants. Accessed August 2021, www.ancestry.com. Chapman, Jefferson, and Andrea Brewer Shea 1981 The Archaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist VI(1):61-84. Custer, Jay F. 1990 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. Special Publication No. 22 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia. Dent, Richard J., Jr. 1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New York. Dillehay, Thomas C. 1989 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC. Duncan, Richard R. 2007 Beleaguered Winchester: A Virginia Community at War, 1861–1865. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Egloff, Keith T. 1991 Development and Impact of Ceramics in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 243-51. Special Publication No. 23 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia. Egloff, Keith, and Deborah Woodward 2006 First People: The Early Indians of Virginia, Second Edition. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville. Find-a-grave.com 2000 Redbud Cemetery. Accessed August 2021, https://www.findagrave.com/cemetery/51820/redbud- cemetery. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno References Cited 181 2000 Hopewell Friends Burial Ground. Accessed September 2021, https://www.findagrave.com/cemetery/153040/hopewell-friends-burial-ground. 2006 Redbud United Methodist Cemetery. Accessed August 2021, https://www.findagrave.com/cemetery/2177543/memorial-search?page=6#sr-225358677. 2007 Mount Hebron Cemetery. Accessed August 2021, https://www.findagrave.com/cemetery/51259/mount-hebron-cemetery. Frederick County, Virginia n.d. History of Frederick County. Online document, https://www.fcva.us/Home/ShowDocument?id=1154. Accessed May, 2021. Gardner, William M. 1974 The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971-1973 Seasons. Occasional Publication No. 1, Archeology Laboratory, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC. 1977 Flint Run Paleoindian Complex, its Implication for Eastern North American Prehistory. In Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironment in Northeastern North America, edited by W. S. Mewman and B. Salwen, pp. 257-263. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 288. 1981 Paleoindian Settlement Pattern and Site Distribution in the Middle Atlantic. In Anthropological Careers, edited by R. H. Landman, L. A. Bennett, A. Brooks, and P. P. Chock, pp. 51-73. Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, DC. 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. 5-52. Special Publication No. 19 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Geier, Clarence 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. Special Publication No. 22 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia. Gillespie, G.L. 1873 Battlefield of Winchester (Opequon) [September 19, 1864] (map). Electronic document, https://www.loc.gov/item/99446372/. Gray and Pape 1997 Phase I and II Investigations for the Route 37 Bypass, Frederick County, VA. Accessed August 2021, VCRIS File 034-5035. Hantman, Jeffrey L., and Michael J. Klein 1992 Middle and Late Woodland Archaeology in Piedmont Virginia. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 137-64. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia. Historic Jordan Springs 2021 “History.” Accessed August 2021, https://historicjordansprings.com/category/history/. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno References Cited 182 Hofstra, Warren, and Clarence Geier 1992 The Abrams Creek-Redbud Run Project: A Cultural Resource Inventory Study of Archaeological Sites in the Shale Area East of Winchester, Virginia. Prepared for Board of Supervisors – Frederick County and Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Prepared by James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia. Hotchkiss, Jedediah 1863 Sketch of the Second Battle of Winchester, June 13th, 14th, and 15th, 1863 (map). Electronic document, https://www.loc.gov/item/2005625062/. Johnston, Wilbur S. 1990 Weaving a Common Thread. Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society, Winchester, Virginia. 1994 “Thomas Wood House on Morgan Mill Road.” Photograph. June 9. Stewart Bell Jr. Archives, Handley Regional Library, https://handley.pastperfectonline.com/photo/86F58885-4AA8-4A59- 94A3-440666503360. Joint Committee of Hopewell Friends and John W. Wayland, comp. 1936 Hopewell Friends History 1734-1934, Frederick County, Virginia. Shenandoah Publishing House, Inc., Strasburg, Virginia. Electronic document, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015067894199&view=1up&seq=7. Kalbian, Maral S. 1992 “Rural Landmarks Survey Report of Frederick County, Virginia.” Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, and Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Accessed August 2021, https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/pdf_files/SpecialCollections/FK- 022_Rural_Landmarks_Survey_1988-1992_PH_I-III_1988_KALBIAN_report.pdf. 1999 Frederick County, Virginia: History Through Architecture. Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society, Rural Landmarks Publication Committee, Winchester, Virginia. Lathrop, J.M. and A.W. Dayton 1885 An Atlas: Frederick County, Virginia. D.J. Lake & Co., Philadelphia, PA. Accessed August 2021, Historic Map Works, http://www.historicmapworks.com/Atlas/US/10625/ Frederick+County+1885+Copy+2+Microfilm+and+Orig+Mix/. Lauck, T.H. 1921 The Little Corporal’s Story. Confederate Veteran 29(Feb.):180-182. Leithoff, Aimee J. and Ellen M. Brady 2017 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Approximately 6.66 Acres Associated with the Bufflick Road Rebuild Project in Frederick County, Virginia. Manuscript on file with Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Lowe, David W. 1992 “Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.” Washington, DC. Accessed August 2021, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Study_of_Civil_War_Sites_in_the_Shenando/UiF3AAAAM AAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover#spf=1628821940309. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno References Cited 183 Maier, Larry B. 2002 Gateway to Gettysburg: The Second Battle of Winchester. Burd Street Press, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. Massey, James C. and Shirley Maxwell 2010 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: High Banks. Massey Maxwell Associates, Strasburg, Virginia. On file, Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Accessed September 2021. 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. McCary, Ben C. 1951 A Workshop of Early Man in Dinwiddie County, Virginia. American Antiquity 17(1):9-17. 1975 The Williamson Paleoindian Site, Dinwiddie County, Virginia. The Chesopiean 13(3-4):48-131. 1983 The Paleoindian in Virginia. Archeological Society of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin 38(1):43-70. McLearen, Douglas C. 1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Material Culture in Virginia. Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. Edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. Hodges, pp. 89-139. Special Publication No. 23 of the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia. 1992 Virginia’s Middle Woodland Period: A Regional Perspective. Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. Hodges, pp. 39-64. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia. National Park Service (NPS) 2020a “Second Battle of Winchester.” Middletown, VA. Accessed August 2021, https://www.nps.gov/cebe/learn/historyculture/second-battle-of-winchester.htm. 2020b “Third Battle of Winchester.” Middletown, VA. Accessed August 2021, https://www.nps.gov/cebe/learn/historyculture/third-battle-of-winchester.htm. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 1998 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (updated). National Register Bulletin No. 15. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR) Var. Aerials and U.S.G.S. Quadrangle Maps. Tempe, Arizona. http://www.historicaerials.com/. Accessed July, August, and September 2021. Quarles, Garland R. 1999 Some Old Homes in Frederick County, Virginia. Second Revised Edition. Winchester-Frederick County Historical Society, Winchester, Virginia. Republican Constellation [Winchester, Virginia] 1818 “A Miller Wanted.” February 14. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno References Cited 184 Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark J. Brooks, Glen T. Hanson, and David G. Anderson 1990 Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers No. 1. Occasional Papers of the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Staunton Spectator and General Advertiser 1845 “Notice and New Firm.” August 28. 1846 “Wood & Danner.” Advertisement. October 15. Stewart, Michael 1992 Observations on the Middle Woodland Period of Virginia: A Middle Atlantic Region Perspective. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 1-38. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia. Turner, E. Randolph, III 1989 Paleoindian Settlement Patterns and Population Distribution in Virginia. In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark Wittkofski and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 71-94. Special Publication No. 19 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia. 1992 The Virginia Coastal Plain During the Late Woodland Period. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 97-136. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NCRS) 2021 Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed 2021. Unknown 1934 “Red Bud School, 1934.” Frederick Co. VA School System Collection, Stewart Bell Jr. Archives, Handley Regional Library, Winchester, Virginia. https://handley.pastperfectonline.com/photo/86FC24FB-43EB-4B18-90DC-282585682447. 1934 “Red Bud Church Homecoming, 1934.” James L. Prince Collection, Stewart Bell Jr. Archives, Handley Regional Library, Winchester, Virginia. https://handley.pastperfectonline.com/photo/0131D5F5-48C6-4078-96FE-272325263850. Varle, Charles, and Benjamin Jones 1809 Map of Frederick, Berkeley, & Jefferson counties in the state of Virginia (map). Philadelphia. Electronic document, https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3883f.la001258/?r=0.403,0.822,0.188,0.112,0. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation 2016 Overview of the Physiography and Vegetation of Virginia. Virginia DCR Natural Heritage Program, Richmond. https://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural-heritage/natural- communities/document/ncoverviewphys-veg.pdf. Accessed April 2021. Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey Redbud Run Solar Project, Virginia December 2021 Cardno References Cited 185 Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2017 Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia. Revised September 2017. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond. Vorzet, Edward Dumas 1875 Planche XIII. Environs of Corinth (Mississippi), Winchester (Virginie), Suffold (Virginie) (map). Histoire de la Guerre Civile en Amerique par M. Le Comte de Paris, Ancien Aide de Camp du General MacClellan. Electronic document, David Rumsey Map Collection, https://www.davidrumsey.com. Walker, Joan T. and Glenda F. Miller 1992 Life on the Levee: The Late Woodland in the Northern Great Valley of Virginia. Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. N. Hodges, pp. 165-185. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia. Wheelan, Joseph 2012 Terrible Swift Sword: The Life of General Philip H. Sheridan. Da Capo Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Winchester Gazette 1820 “Public Sale.” October 21. Winchester Republican 1857 “Very Valuable Tract of Limestone Land For Sale.” March 20. Wittenberg, Eric J., and Scott L. Mingus, Sr. 2016 The Second Battle of Winchester: The Confederate Victory that Opened the Door to Gettysburg. Savas Beatie, LLC, El Dorado Hills, California. 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. Oriden Redbud Run Solar Project Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey, Frederick County, Virginia APPENDIX A ARTIFACT INVENTORY State # Provenience Lot #Depth (cmbs)Stratum Count Weight (g)South's GroupDescription44FK0385 SF1 1 surface -1 147.0 Kitchen glazed stoneware44FK1041 ST 99-103 1 surface -2 22.6 Kitchen milk glass lid liner44FK1041 ST 99-103 2 surface -1 36.2 Kitchen light aqua bottle glass base44FK1041 ST 99-103 3 surface -1 29.6 Kitchen colorless bottle glass base44FK1041 ST 99-103 4 surface -1 110.6 Kitchen green bottle glass base44FK1041 ST 99-103 5 surface -1 68.9 Kitchen colorless bottle, round44FK1041 ST 99-103 6 surface -1 145.9 Kitchen blue bottle, rectangular44FK1041 ST 99-103 7 surface -1 393.7 Kitchen colorless bottle, round, Coca Cola Soda Water44FK1041 ST 99-103 8 surface -1 383.8 Kitchen light green bottle, round, Coca Cola44FK1041 ST 99-103 9 surface -1 83.0 Kitchen Albany slip stoneware44FK1041 ST 99-103 10 surface -1 57.9 Kitchen Albany-Bristol stoneware44FK1041 ST 99-103 11 surface -1 20.1 Kitchen Bristol glazed stoneware44FK1041 ST 99-103 12 surface -1 12.2 Kitchen salt-glazed sloneware44FK1041 ST 99-103 13 surface -1 26.3 Kitchen undecorated whiteware, teacup44FK1041 ST 99-103 14 surface -1 2.3 Kitchen undecorated whiteware44FK1041 ST 99-103 15 surface -1 6.5 Kitchen mold-decorated whiteware44FK1041 ST 99-118 1 0-5 I1 9.4 Kitchen glazed stoneware44FK1041 ST 99-118 2 0-5 I1 5.0 Architecture window glass44FK1041 ST 99-118 3 0-5 I1 14.3 Kitchen molded milk glass44FK1041 ST 99-118 4 0-5 I1 49.3 Personal iron shoe hornRedbud Run SolarPage 1 of 1 Oriden Redbud Run Solar Project Phase I Cultural Resource Identification Survey, Frederick County, Virginia APPENDIX B RESUMES OF KEY PERSONNEL JAMES AMBROSINO, PHD, RPA Page 1 of 2 www.cardno.com James Ambrosino, PhD, RPA Current Position Senior Project Archaeologist Discipline Areas > Cultural Resource Management > Section 106 NHPA > Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology > Preparation of Research Designs > ICRMP Preparation > GIS Mapping and Analysis > Statistical Analysis > Total Station Mapping > Southeast U.S., Mesoamerica, and Caribbean Years' Experience 30 Joined Cardno 2012 Education > PhD, Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, 2007 > MA, Anthropology, University of Iowa, 1990 > BS, Statistics, University of Delaware, 1988 Certifications > Florida Department of Transportation PD&E Training, 2008 > National Guard Bureau ICRMP Training, 2007 > Section 106 Review, ACHP and University of Nevada, Reno, 2003 Summary of Experience Dr. Ambrosino is a Registered Professional Archaeologist with more than 30 years of experience in conducting archaeological surveys throughout the United States (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia), Mexico, and the Caribbean. Dr. Ambrosino serves as project archaeologist and principal investigator for projects in Florida and throughout the southeastern United States. His duties include archaeological work, preparation of reports, preparation of bids, and geographic information system (GIS) and statistical analysis of archaeological data. Dr. Ambrosino has extensive experience on a variety of archaeological projects, including cultural resource inventories, reconnaissance surveys, large- and small-scale cultural resource assessment surveys, site testing, and archaeological mitigation. He has been principal investigator on over 250 cultural resource projects for pipeline, military, development, transportation, and telecommunications clients. He also has updated and developed cultural resource management plans for various agencies. Dr. Ambrosino has conducted and overseen all aspects of cultural resource projects including linear projects in excess of 300 miles and areas up to 20,000 acres in size. He also has extensive experience in GIS analysis and statistical analysis of archaeological data, as well as site mapping using electronic total stations, ceramic analysis, and macroscopic lithic analysis. Dr. Ambrosino has developed and taught training seminars concerning cultural resource regulations and practices designed for engineering, environmental, and housing professionals. Additionally, he has provided training for archaeological technicians in field methodology, on various computer packages including GIS, and in the use of surveying equipment. Significant Projects Principal Investigator – SNG Dalton Expansion Project – Alabama and Georgia Dr. Ambrosino served as Principal Investigator for cultural resources for a 0.81-mile natural gas pipeline replacement project in Cleburne County, Alabama including meter station modifications in Whitfield County, Georgia. His responsibilities included oversight of archaeological and historical fieldwork, SHPO and Tribal coordination, GIS data maintenance, and data analysis. He also authored FERC Abbreviated Resource Report 4 and the cultural resource reports for the project. Principal Investigator – Gulfstream Natural Gas System Phase VI Expansion Project – Alabama and Florida Dr. Ambrosino served as Principal Investigator for cultural resources for a 4-mile natural gas pipeline expansion project in Mobile County, Alabama including facility modifications in Mobile County, Alabama and Manatee County, Florida. a. His responsibilities included oversight of archaeological and historical fieldwork, SHPO and Tribal coordination, GIS data maintenance, and data analysis. He also authored FERC Resource Report 4 and the cultural resource reports for the project. Principal Investigator – Southeastern Trail Project – Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana Dr. Ambrosino served as Principal Investigator for cultural resources for a 7.5-mile natural gas pipeline in Virginia and facility modifications undertaken by Williams Gas Pipeline in Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. His responsibilities included oversight of JAMES AMBROSINO, PHD, RPA Page 2 of 2 > First Aid/CPR/AED, 2018 Affiliations > Register of Professional Archaeologists > Society for American Archaeology > Florida Archaeological Council (Treasurer) > Florida Anthropological Society > Lambda Alpha, National Anthropology Honors Society archaeological and historical fieldwork, SHPO and Tribal coordination, GIS data maintenance, data analysis, report review, and document preparation. Principal Investigator – Evangeline Pass Expansion Project – Louisiana Dr. Ambrosino served as Principal Investigator for cultural resources for a natural gas pipeline project undertaken by Tennessee Gas Pipe Line Company in St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana. The project included two separate pipeline loops measuring approximately 9 and 3.5 miles each,as well as a new compressor station. Archaeological methodology included survey via conventional terrestrial means and airboat. Dr. Ambrosino oversaw the fieldwork, authored the report of investigations and FERC Resource Report 4, and undertook Tribal consultation. Principal Investigator – Sabal Trail Transmission Project – Florida Dr. Ambrosino served as Principal Investigator and Cultural Resources Field Survey Coordinator for a natural gas pipeline project undertaken by Spectra Energy in Florida. He oversaw all field efforts related to cultural resources for this project, which included over 300 miles of combined mainline and reroutes as well as access roads and ancillary facilities. His responsibilities also included oversight of data analysis, report review, and document preparation. Project Archaeologist and GIS Specialist – Transco Dalton Expansion Project – Georgia The Dalton Expansion Project was a natural gas pipeline project undertaken by Williams Gas Pipeline. It included over 125 miles of greenfield corridor testing and survey of ancillary facilities west of Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Ambrosino contributed to cultural resource reports and was responsible for maintenance of archaeological and historical GIS data generated from the project and production of completed mapbooks for submission to state and federal agencies. Project Manager – Florida Public Utilities (FPU) Escambia County Pipeline – Escambia County, Florida Dr. Ambrosino served as Project Manager and Principal Investigator for a cultural resource assessment survey of an approximately 40-mile natural gas pipeline proposed entirely within Escambia County from northern Pensacola to the Alabama state line. The survey involved archaeological testing according to a probability model developed for the route as well as assessment of potential visual effects to historic structures within 300 feet of the project centerline. The survey was done to meet state permitting requirements. Dr. Ambrosino developed the research design, consulted with the State Historic Preservation Office, oversaw all fieldwork, and authored the report of the investigation. Principal Investigator – Phase I Cultural Resources Survey and Phase II Archaeological Testing of Three Sites, Southeast Supply Header Pipeline Replacement – Claiborne County, Mississippi This project, performed for Spectra Energy, involved Phase I survey of three different alternatives for replacing a section of natural gas pipeline threatened by active erosion of an adjacent river bank. It also included Phase II archaeological testing of three prehistoric sites. Dr. Ambrosino worked closely with Spectra personnel to complete the job quickly and efficiently, including responding to reroute requests and providing feedback to allow project engineers to design temporary workspace areas. Resource Area Lead – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Third-Party Environmental Assessment (EA), Virginia Southside Expansion Project – Virginia Dr. Ambrosino served as the Resource Area Lead for cultural resources as part of a third- party EA for a natural gas pipeline project in Virginia. His responsibilities included data analysis, report review, and document preparation. KIMBERLY HINDER, MHP Page 1 of 2 www.cardno.com Kimberly Hinder, MHP Current Position Senior Architectural Historian Discipline Areas > Section 106 > HABS/HAER > National Register of Historic Places nominations > Tax Exemption and Design Review > Historic Resource Survey and Planning > Heritage Education and Grants Years' Experience 24 Joined Cardno 2016 Education > Master of Historic Preservation, University of Georgia, 1996 > Bachelor of Arts, History, Agnes Scott College, 1992 Affiliations > National Trust for Historic Preservation > Florida Trust for Historic Preservation > Society for Commercial Archaeology Summary of Experience With extensive experience in Cultural Resource Management and Historic Preservation Planning, Kimberly Hinder meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for History and Architectural History. She has over fourteen years of experience in cultural resource management conducting historic and architectural surveys, assessing effects, and preparing mitigation in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. She also served for over ten years as the Senior Historic Preservation Planner with the City of St. Petersburg, Florida. As such, she wrote and implemented local regulations, reviewed architectural and development plans, prepared designations, and managed the City’s tax exemption program. In addition to these experiences, Ms. Hinder has prepared heritage education projects, professional publications, historic structure reports, and documentation in accordance with Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record guidelines. Clients have included federal, state, and local governmental agencies as well as private companies and individual land owners. Transportation Related Experience Ms. Hinder has extensive experience working on transportation related projects with different Federal Agencies and the State Departments of Transportation in Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia. She also has taken additional training on assessing indirect and cumulative impacts of transportation projects; preservation planning and policy development for historic roads; and advanced Section 106 NHPA training hosted by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Special areas of interest include roadside architecture and mid-century modern resources. Significant Projects Streetcar Extension and Modernization Feasibility Study, City of Tampa – Florida Historic structure survey with evaluation of significance and effects; preparation of desktop archaeological/historical analysis for proposed extension of Tampa Historic Streetcar in support of Federal Transit Administration’s environmental review. 2019 – Present. Senior Architectural Historian – Virginia Southeastern Trail Project Cultural Resource Survey, Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company – Fauquier, Prince William, and Pittsylvania Counties, Virginia Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Williams Gas Pipeline, proposed to construct an approximately seven-mile natural gas pipeline in northern Virginia. Ms. Hinder served as the lead architectural historian for the project, completing field survey, historic background research, and authoring historic context, resource descriptions, and the assessment of effects for technical reports prepared in compliance with Section 106 and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulations. 2018 - 2019. Senior Architectural Historian – Widen US 158 from SR 1630 to SR 1103, North Carolina Department of Transportation –Davie and Forsyth Counties, North Carolina The North Carolina Department of Transportation requested the preparation of a historic structures survey report for a project to widen US 158 from SR 1630 (Baltimore Road) to SR 1103 (Lewisville-Clemmons Road) in Davie and Forsyth Counties. Analysis involved the evaluation of National Register of Historic Places eligibility for seven resources including a farm, a historic public park, and a historic district. Ms. Hinder performed extensive research, which included a review of deeds and public records, on the KIMBERLY HINDER, MHP Page 2 of 2 community of Clemmons. In addition, she authored sections of the report and served as chief editor. The draft report was completed and submitted, but the production of the final report is on hold at the request of NCDOT. 2019-2020. Senior Architectural Historian – US 70 from Thurman Road to Havelock Bypass, North Carolina Department of Transportation – Craven County, North Carolina The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposed to upgrade US 70 to a freeway with service roads and for planning purposes requested the preparation of a historic resources inventory for the project. Field work resulted in the identification of 123 historic resources within the area of potential effects with only three proposed for further evaluation for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Hinder served as lead architectural historian for the project conducting and managing the field work and preparing the required PowerPoint presentation for the project. 2019 - 2020. Senior Architectural Historian – US 401/NC 39 Improvements from Burke Boulevard to Main Street, Louisburg, North Carolina Department of Transportation – Franklin County, North Carolina The North Carolina Department of Transportation requested the preparation of a historic resources inventory for a project to change an existing five-lane facility to a four-lane divided highway with bicycle and pedestrian accommodations in Louisburg, North Carolina. Field work involved the identification of 103 historic resources within the area of potential effects and the preliminary evaluation of National Register of Historic Places eligibility for 39 properties. Ms. Hinder assisted with the evaluation and preparation of the required PowerPoint presentation for the project. 2019. Senior Architectural Historian – Widen Poplar Tent Road from Derita Road to NC 73, North Carolina Department of Transportation – Cabarrus and Mecklenburg Counties, North Carolina The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen Poplar Tent Road and requested the preparation of a historic resources inventory for the project. Field survey resulted in the identification of 26 historic resources within the area of potential effects with two proposed for further evaluation for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Hinder served as lead architectural historian for the project conducting and managing the field work and property research. Preparation of the required final PowerPoint presentation for the project is on hold at the request of NCDOT. 2019 - 2020. Senior Architectural Historian – Replace Bridge No. 224 on SR 1510 (Watson Seed Farm Road) Over I-95, North Carolina Department of Transportation – Nash County, North Carolina The North Carolina Department of Transportation requested the preparation of a historic structures survey report for a project to replace Bridge No. 224 on SR 1510 (Watson Seed Farm Road) over I-95 in Nash County. Analysis involved the evaluation of National Register of Historic Places eligibility for four properties including a country store, a tenant house, and two cemeteries. Ms. Hinder served as the lead architectural historian for the project, conducting field survey and historic archival background research. The historic context and resource descriptions she prepared as well as the identified comparable resources were used in determining their eligibility. 2018. VALERIE R. NOBLES, RPA Page 1 of 2 www.cardno.com Valerie R. Nobles, RPA Current Position Staff Archaeologist Discipline Areas > Cultural Resource Management > Project Management > Section 106 NHPA > Historical Archaeology > Historic Preservation > GIS > Database Management > Laboratory Management Years' Experience 9 Joined Cardno 2014 Education > MA, Anthropology, Concentration in Historical Archaeology, East Carolina University, 2014 > BA, Anthropology, Minor in History, North Carolina State University, 2008 Affiliations > Register for Professional Archaeologists > Society for Historical Archaeology > North Carolina Archaeological Society Summary of Experience Ms. Valerie R. Nobles, a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), is a graduate from East Carolina University’s Master of Arts program in Anthropology. She has experience on prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, including Phase I pedestrian surveys, Phase II site testing, Phase III data recovery excavations, and geophysical surveys. She is experienced in cultural resource assessments and desktop surveys, archaeological surveys, data management, and laboratory management. Additionally, Ms. Nobles is experienced in geographic information systems (GIS) mapping and spatial analysis, particularly with ESRI ArcMap/ArcGIS software. She is responsible for the supervision of field personnel, field data collection, artifact analysis and categorization in addition to background research, completion of state site forms, and the production of technical reports. She currently serves as Staff Archaeologist and Laboratory Supervisor for Cardno’s Wake Forest, North Carolina office, which provides archaeological consulting to clients in the Carolinas and Mid-Atlantic states. Significant Projects Principal Investigator – Phase I Archaeological Survey, Proposed Solar Farm – Edgecombe County, North Carolina. Served as principal investigator for a Phase I archaeological survey of 455-acres determined to be high probability in eastern North Carolina. Responsible for all background research, fieldwork supervision, data processing, artifact analysis, GIS data and map production, and authored final report. 2019-present. Principal Investigator – Phase I Archaeological Survey, Virginia Department of Military Affairs – Virginia Served as principal investigator for a 506-acre Phase I archaeological survey in south- central Virginia. Responsible for all background research, fieldwork supervision, data processing, artifact analysis, GIS data and map production, and authored final report. 2019-present. Archaeology Field Lead – Phase I Archaeological Survey, Fauquier County, Virginia Phase I archaeological survey for multiple contractor yards related to proposed pipeline project. Responsible for supervision of field technicians, data collection, and metal detection near known battlefields. 2019. Staff Archaeologist – Water Street Tampa Development Project, Historic Fort Brooke Cemetery – Florida Assisted in excavation of numerous burials and recovery of human remains at the historic Fort Brooke Cemetery. Supervised recovery of fragmentary remains in large soil disturbance. 2019. Principal Investigator – Phase I Archaeological Survey, Virginia Department of Military Affairs – Virginia Served as principal investigator for Phase I archaeological surveys of two readiness center properties in south-western Virginia. Responsible for all background research, fieldwork supervision, data processing, artifact analysis, GIS data and map production, and authored final report. 2019. VALERIE R. NOBLES, RPA Page 2 of 2 Principal Investigator – Phase I Archaeological Survey, Virginia Department of Military Affairs – Virginia Served as principal investigator for a 323-acre Phase I archaeological survey in south- central Virginia. Responsible for all background research, fieldwork supervision, data processing, artifact analysis, GIS data and map production, and authored final report. 2018 – 2019. Principal Investigator – Phase I Archaeological Survey, Virginia Department of Military Affairs – Virginia Served as principal investigator for a 468-acre Phase I archaeological survey in south- central Virginia. Responsible for all background research, fieldwork supervision, data processing, artifact analysis, GIS data and map production, and authored final report. 2018 – 2019. Staff Archaeologist – Phase I Archaeological Survey, New Charlotte Annex and Jonas Modernization Project, Charlotte – North Carolina Served as archaeologist for a small Phase I survey in downtown Charlotte. Archaeology and GPR survey completed to assist in compliance with Section 106 of NHPA. 2018. Staff Archaeologist – Cemetery Resource Survey, Virginia Department of Military Affairs – Virginia Served as archaeologist surveying 14 historic cemetery sites in south-central Virginia. Responsible for fieldwork, monitoring photography, background research, data processing, GIS data and map production, and authored final report. 2018 – Present. Principal Investigator – Phase I Archaeological Survey, Virginia Department of Military Affairs – Virginia Served as principal investigator for a 641-acre Phase I archaeological survey in south- central Virginia. Responsible for all background research, fieldwork supervision, data processing, artifact analysis, GIS data and map production, and authored final report. 2017 – 2018. Principal Investigator – Phase I Archaeological Survey, Virginia Department of Military Affairs – Virginia Served as principal investigator for a 272-acre Phase I archaeological survey in south- central Virginia. Responsible for all background research, fieldwork supervision, data processing, artifact analysis, GIS data and map production, and authored final report. 2017 – 2018. Principal Investigator – Phase I Archaeological Survey, Virginia Department of Military Affairs – Virginia Served as principal investigator for a 280-acre Phase I archaeological survey in south- central Virginia. Responsible for all background research, fieldwork supervision, data processing, artifact analysis, GIS data and map production, and authored final report. 2017 – 2018. Principal Investigator – Phase I Archaeological Survey, Virginia Department of Military Affairs – Virginia Served as principal investigator for a 101-acre Phase I archaeological survey in south- central Virginia. Responsible for all background research, fieldwork supervision, data processing, artifact analysis, GIS data and map production, and authored final report. 2017. Redbud Run Solar LLC Impact Analysis Statement for Conditional Use Permit Application Attachment 4 Economic & Fiscal Contribution Report R E D B U D R U N S O L A R E C O N O M I C & F I S C A L C O N T R I B U T I O N T O F R E D E R I C K C O U N T Y , V I R G I N I A R E D B U D R U N S O L A RREDBUD R U N S O L A R E C O N O M I C & F I S C A LECONOMIC & F I S C A L C O N T R I B U T I O N T OCONTRIBUTION T O F R E D E R I C K F R E D E R I C K C O U N T Y ,C O U N T Y , V I R G I N I AVIRGINIA 4 2 0 1 D O M I N I O N B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 1 4 G L E N A L L E N , V I R G I N I A 2 3 0 6 0 8 0 4 -3 4 6 -8 4 4 6 M A N G U M E C O N O M I C S .C O MNOVEMBER 2 0 2 1 © 2 0 2 1 M A N G U M E C O N O M I C S Prepared for Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar About Mangum Economics, LLC Mangum Economics, LLC is a Glen Allen, Virginia based firm that specializes in producing objective economic, quantitative, and qualitative analysis in support of strategic decision making. Much of our recent work relates to IT & Telecom Infrastructure (data centers, terrestrial and subsea fiber), Renewable Energy, and Economic Development. Examples of typical studies include: POLICY ANALYSIS Identify the intended and, more importantly, unintended consequences of proposed legislation and other policy initiatives. ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENTS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT ANALYSES Measure the economic contribution that businesses and other enterprises make to their localities. WORKFORCE ANALYSIS Project the demand for, and supply of, qualified workers. CLUSTER ANALYSIS Use occupation and industry clusters to illuminate regional workforce and industry strengths and identify connections between the two. The Project Team Martina Arel, M.B.A. Research Director – Economic Development and Renewable Energy A. Fletcher Mangum, Ph.D. Founder and CEO Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 The Project .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Electricity Production in Virginia ................................................................................................................... 3 Overall Market ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Sources of Production ........................................................................................................................... 4 Impact on the Environment .................................................................................................................. 5 Local Economic Profile .................................................................................................................................. 6 Total Employment ................................................................................................................................. 6 Employment and Wages by Major Industry Sector .............................................................................. 8 Unemployment ................................................................................................................................... 10 Economic and Fiscal Impact ........................................................................................................................ 11 Method ................................................................................................................................................... 11 Construction Phase ................................................................................................................................. 12 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 12 Ongoing Operations Phase ..................................................................................................................... 13 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Results – Economic Impact ................................................................................................................. 14 Results – Fiscal Impact ........................................................................................................................ 14 Reassessment of Property .............................................................................................................. 14 Scenario 1: Taxation of Capital Investment .................................................................................... 15 Scenario 1: Total Fiscal Impact ........................................................................................................ 18 Scenario 1: Composite Index .......................................................................................................... 18 Scenario 2: Revenue Share Agreement .......................................................................................... 22 Scenario 2: Total Fiscal Impact ........................................................................................................ 24 Scenario 2: Composite Index .......................................................................................................... 24 Current Agricultural Use ......................................................................................................................... 24 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................ 24 Results – Economic Impact ................................................................................................................. 25 Results – Fiscal Impact ........................................................................................................................ 25 Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 1 Executive Summary This report assesses the economic and fiscal contribution that the proposed Redbud Run Solar project would make to Frederick County, Virginia. The primary findings from that assessment are as follows: 1) Redbud Run Solar is a proposed 30-Megawatt (MW) AC solar photovoltaic power generating facility. The project would be located northeast of the intersection of Woods Mill and Pine Roads in Frederick County, Virginia. The total acreage to be leased for the project encompasses approximately 263 acres of agricultural and forestland. The actively used, fenced-in portion of the solar site would be approximately 154 acres. 2) The proposed Redbud Run Solar project would make a significant economic contribution to Frederick County: • The proposed Redbud Run Solar project would provide an estimated one-time pulse of economic activity to Frederick County during its construction phase supporting approximately: o 111 jobs. o $6.4 million in associated labor income. o $17.2 million in economic output. • The proposed Redbud Run Solar project would provide an estimated annual economic impact to Frederick County during its ongoing operational phase supporting approximately: o 2 jobs. o $89,800 in associated labor income. o $236,100 in economic output. 3) The proposed Redbud Run Solar project would also make a significant fiscal contribution to Frederick County. The proposed project would generate approximately:1 • $0.5 million in state and local tax revenue from the one-time pulse of economic activity associated with the project’s construction. • $2.2 million in cumulative county revenue over the facility’s anticipated 30-year operational life assuming revenues are generated from the reassessment of the real property and the taxation of the associated capital investments (Scenario 1); or • $2.2 million in cumulative county revenue over the facility’s anticipated 30-year operational life assuming revenues are generated from the reassessment of the real property and a revenue share agreement between Redbud Run Solar and Frederick County that is based on the project’s generation capacity and includes a 10 percent escalator every five years pursuant to recently passed legislation (Scenario 2). 1 Please note that estimated revenues do not include voluntary payments associated with a siting agreement, which is subject to negotiation between Oriden Power and Frederick County. Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 2 4) The proposed Redbud Run Solar project would have a significantly greater fiscal impact on Frederick County than the property generates in its current agricultural use: • The proposed Redbud Run Solar project would generate approximately $2.2 million in cumulative county revenue over the facility’s anticipated 30-year operational life, as compared to approximately $16,813 in cumulative county revenue in the property’s current agricultural use – a difference of approximately $2.1 million. 5) The proposed Redbud Run Solar project would provide a boost to Frederick County’s construction sector: • At 2,162 jobs, construction is Frederick County’s fifth largest major industry sector.2 • However, the construction sector posted the third largest job loss of any industry sector in the county between the first quarter of 2020 and the first quarter of 2021 (a loss of 74 jobs). • The proposed Redbud Run Solar project could directly support approximately 87 jobs and $5.3 million in labor income in Frederick County’s construction sector. The estimates provided in this report are based on the best information available and all reasonable care has been taken in assessing that information. However, because these estimates attempt to foresee circumstances that have not yet occurred, it is not possible to provide any assurance that they will be representative of actual events. These estimates are intended to provide a general indication of likely future outcomes and should not be construed to represent a precise measure of those outcomes. 2 Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, QCEW. $16,813 $2,167,539 $2,232,672 $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 Current Agricultural Use Proposed Solar Project Use Scenario 1 (Taxation of Capital Investments) Proposed Solar Project Use Scenario 2 (Revenue Share) Estimated Cumulative Frederick County Revenue over 30 Years Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 3 Introduction This report assesses the economic and fiscal contribution that the proposed Redbud Run Solar project would make to Frederick County, Virginia. This report was commissioned by Oriden Power and produced by Mangum Economics. The Project Redbud Run Solar is a proposed 30-Megawatt (MW) AC solar photovoltaic power generating facility. The project would be located northeast of the intersection of Woods Mill and Pine Roads in Frederick County, Virginia. The total acreage to be leased for the project encompasses approximately 263 acres of agricultural and forest land. The actively used, fenced-in portion of the solar site would be approximately 154 acres. Electricity Production in Virginia This section provides a backdrop for the proposed Redbud Run Solar project by profiling Virginia’s electricity production sector and the role that solar energy could play in that sector. Overall Market As shown in Figure 1, in 2019 electricity sales and direct use in Virginia totaled 121.2 million megawatt hours, ranking the state 11th among the fifty states in terms of electricity consumption. However, only 80 percent of that demand was met by in-state utilities, independent producers, and other sources. As a result, Virginia had to import the remaining electricity it consumed from producers in other states. As with all imports, this means that the jobs, wages, and economic output created by that production went to localities in those states, not to localities in Virginia. Figure 1: Demand and Supply of Electricity in Virginia in 2019 (in millions of megawatt-hours)3 3 Data Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. In this chart, “Net Imports” also takes into account losses during transmission. As a result, it does not directly equal the residual of “Total Net Generation” minus “Total Retail Sales and Direct Use.” 121.2 96.8 31.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Total Retail Sales and Direct Use Total Net Generation Net Imports Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 4 Sources of Production Between 2009 and 2019, the total amount of electricity produced in Virginia increased from 70.1 to 96.8 million megawatt hours, while retail and direct consumption of electricity only increased from 110.9 to 121.2 million megawatt hours. Consequently, imports of electricity decreased by 17.7 million megawatt hours (or 36 percent) during this time.4 Figure 2 provides a comparison of the energy sources that were used to produce electricity in Virginia in each of those years. As these data show, the most significant change between 2009 and 2019 was a decrease in the use of coal and an increase in the use of natural gas. Where coal was the state’s second largest source of electricity in 2009, accounting for 25.6 million megawatt hours (or 37 percent) of production, by 2019 production had fallen by 22.2 million megawatt hours, making coal a distant third place source of electricity with only 4 percent of production. In contrast, the share of electricity produced using cleaner-burning low-emissions energy sources increased over the period. Where natural gas accounted for only 12.2 million megawatt hours (or 17 percent) of Virginia’s electricity production in 2009, by 2019 that proportion had more than quadrupled to 58.0 million megawatt hours (or 60 percent of production), making natural gas the state’s largest source of electricity. In addition, solar, which entered the Virginia electricity production market in 2016, increased its share to 0.9 million megawatt hours by 2019. Figure 2: Electricity Generation in Virginia by Energy Source in 2009 and 2019 (in millions of megawatt-hours)5 Figure 3 provides similar data for the U.S. as a whole. A quick comparison of Figures 2 and 3 shows that although the degree of reliance on specific energy sources for electricity production is quite different between the U.S. and Virginia, the trend toward lower-emissions energy sources is the same. Nationally, 4 Imports also takes into account losses during transmission. 5 Data Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. The “Other” category includes hydroelectric, battery, wood, petroleum, other biomass, “other”, and pumped storage. 29.5 3.4 58.0 3.5 1.5 0.9 28.2 25.6 12.2 2.6 1.5 0.0 Nuclear Coal Natural Gas Other Hydroelectric Solar 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 2009 2019 Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 5 between 2009 and 2019 the amount of electricity produced using coal declined by 790.9 million megawatt hours from 44 to 23 percent of production, while in contrast the amount of electricity produced using natural gas increased by 664.6 million megawatt hours from 23 to 38 percent of production. Nationwide, as in Virginia, the reliance on renewable energy sources such as solar increased during this time but at a much faster pace than in Virginia. Between 2009 and 2019, the amount of electricity produced using solar increased by 71.0 million megawatt hours to 2 percent of total electricity production in the nation compared to 1 percent of total electricity production in Virginia. Figure 3: Electricity Generation in the United States by Energy Source in 2009 and 2019 (in millions of megawatt-hours)6 Impact on the Environment In discussing the impact of these trends on the environment, it is important to realize that electricity production is one of the U.S.’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Figure 4 depicts carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production in 2009 and 2019 for both Virginia and the U.S. As these data indicate, between 2009 and 2019, as the share of electricity produced in Virginia by coal fell from 37 to 4 percent, carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production fell from 36.2 to 30.0 million metric tons. Where at the national level, as the share of electricity produced by coal fell from 44 to 23 percent, carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production fell from 2,269.5 to 1,724.4 million metric tons. 6 Data Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Other” includes battery, geothermal, hydroelectric, other, other biomass, other gas, petroleum, pumped storage, wind, and wood. 809.4 965.0 1,585.7 407.0 287.9 71.9 798.9 1,755.9 921.0 200.6 273.4 0.9 Nuclear Coal Natural Gas Other Hydroelectric Solar - 500.0 1,000.0 1,500.0 2,000.0 2009 2019 Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 6 Figure 4: Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Electricity Production (millions of metric tons)7 Virginia U.S. Local Economic Profile This section provides context for the economic and fiscal impact assessments to follow by profiling the local economy of Frederick County. Total Employment Figure 5 depicts the trend in total employment in Frederick County from March 2016 through March 2021. As these data show, employment in the county steadily increased over the period until the decrease in economic activity associated with the COVID-19 pandemic led to a steep decline in employment in April 2020. Since then, total employment in the county has recovered to pre-pandemic levels and stood at 33,661 jobs in March 2021, which represents an overall increase in employment of 13.2 percent (or 3,935 jobs) over the five-year period. To put this number in perspective, over this same period, total statewide employment in Virginia increased by 0.6 percent.8 7 Data Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. 8 Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 36.2 30.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2009 2019 2,269.5 1,724.4 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2009 2019 Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 7 Figure 5: Total Employment in Frederick County – March 2016 to March 20219 To control for seasonality and provide a point of reference, Figure 6 compares the year-over-year change in total employment in Frederick County to that of the state of Virginia over the same five-year period. Any point above the zero line in this graph indicates an increase in employment, while any point below the zero line indicates a decline in employment. As these data show, Frederick County outperformed the statewide trend throughout the majority of the period. The county was also much less adversely impacted by the decrease in economic activity associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and recovered at a faster pace than the state as a whole. As of March 2021, however, Frederick County’s year-over-year change in total employment had dipped back into negative territory at minus 0.5 percent, which is still above the statewide average of minus 3.9 percent. Figure 6: Year-Over-Year Change in Total Employment – March 2016 to March 2021 10 9 Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 10 Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000 32,000 34,000 36,000 -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% Frederick Virginia Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 8 Employment and Wages by Major Industry Sector To provide a better understanding of the underlying factors motivating the total employment trends depicted in Figures 5 and 6, Figures 7 through 9 provide data on private employment and wages in Frederick County by major industry sector. Figure 7 provides an indication of the distribution of private sector employment across major industry sectors in Frederick County in the first quarter of 2021. As these data indicate, the county’s largest industry sector that quarter was Manufacturing (6,175 jobs), followed by Transportation and Warehousing (4,371 jobs), and Retail Trade (3,498 jobs). Figure 7: Private Employment by Major Industry Sector in Frederick County in Qu. 1 2021 11 Figure 8 provides a similar ranking for average private sector weekly wages by major industry sector in Frederick County in the first quarter of 2021. As these data show, the highest paying industry sectors that quarter were Finance and Insurance ($1,856 per week), Utilities ($1,706 per week), and Manufacturing ($1,456 per week). To provide a point of reference, the average private sector weekly wage across all industry sectors in Frederick County that quarter was $1,018 per week. 11 Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data for the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting and the mining, quarrying, oil and gas extraction sectors have been suppressed due to data confidentiality. 88 98 193 245 263 577 743 905 1,214 1,417 1,461 1,946 2,162 2,385 3,498 4,371 6,175 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Utilities Educational Services Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Information Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Management of Companies and Enterprises Other Services Professional and Technical Services Wholesale Trade Administrative and Waste Services Health Care and Social Assistance Accommodation and Food Services Construction Finance and Insurance Retail Trade Transportation and Warehousing Manufacturing Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 9 Figure 8: Average Private Weekly Wages by Major Industry in Frederick County in Qu. 1 2021 12 Figure 9: Change in Private Employment by Major Industry in Frederick County from Qu. 1 2020 to Qu. 1 202113 12 Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data for the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting and the mining, quarrying, oil and gas extraction sectors have been suppressed due to data confidentiality. 13 Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data for the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting and the mining, quarrying, oil and gas extraction sectors have been suppressed due to data confidentiality. $251 $388 $481 $550 $610 $746 $826 $829 $910 $961 $962 $1,018 $1,103 $1,130 $1,195 $1,456 $1,706 $1,856 $0 $300 $600 $900 $1,200 $1,500 $1,800 $2,100 Educational Services Accommodation and Food Services Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Administrative and Waste Services Retail Trade Other Services Health Care and Social Assistance Transportation and Warehousing Information Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Construction Average, All Industries Management of Companies and Enterprises Professional and Technical Services Wholesale Trade Manufacturing Utilities Finance and Insurance -328 -144 -74 -53 -38 -34 -24 -23 -17 -5 14 17 30 82 118 148 655 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 Accommodation and Food Services Administrative and Waste Services Construction Educational Services Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Other Services Management of Companies and Enterprises Health Care and Social Assistance Information Utilities Wholesale Trade Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Professional and Technical Services Finance and Insurance Retail Trade Manufacturing Transportation and Warehousing Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 10 Lastly, Figure 9 details the year-over-year change in private sector employment from the first quarter of 2020 to the first quarter of 2021 in Frederick County by major industry sector. Over this period, a majority of sectors experienced employment losses. The largest employment losses occurred in the Accommodation and Food Services (down 328 jobs), Administrative and Waste Services (down 144 jobs), and Construction (down 74 jobs) sectors. In contrast, the largest employment gains occurred in the Transportation and Warehousing (up 655 jobs), Manufacturing (up 148 jobs) and Retail Trade (up 118 jobs) sectors. Unemployment Figure 10 illustrates the trend in Frederick County’s unemployment rate over the five-year period from August 2016 through August 2021 and benchmarks those data against the statewide trend for Virginia. As these data show, unemployment rates in Frederick County generally tracked closely with statewide trends but at rates on average about 0.4 percentage points below the statewide rate until April 2020 when unemployment in the county and state significantly rose as a result of the labor dislocations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In the months that followed, Frederick County’s recovery was faster than in Virginia as a whole and as of August 2021, unemployment stood at 2.7 percent in Frederick County compared to 3.8 percent statewide. Figure 10: Unemployment Rate – August 2016 to August 202114 14 Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 11.0% 12.0% Frederick County Virginia Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 11 Economic and Fiscal Impact This section quantifies the economic and fiscal contribution that the proposed Redbud Run Solar project would make to Frederick County. The analysis separately evaluates the one-time pulse of economic activity that would occur during the construction phase of the project, as well as the annual economic activity that the project would generate during its ongoing operational phase. Method To empirically evaluate the likely local economic impact attributable to the proposed Redbud Run Solar project, the analysis employs a regional economic impact model called IMPLAN.15 The IMPLAN model is one of the most commonly used economic impact simulation models in the U.S., and in Virginia is used by UVA’s Weldon Cooper Center, the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget, the Virginia Employment Commission, and other state agencies and research institutes. Like all economic impact models, the IMPLAN model uses economic multipliers to quantify economic impact. Economic multipliers measure the ripple effects that an expenditure generates as it makes its way through the economy. For example, as when the Redbud Run Solar project purchases goods and services – or when contractors hired by the facility use their salaries and wages to make household purchases – thereby generating income for someone else, which is in turn spent, thereby becoming income for yet someone else, and so on, and so on. Through this process, one dollar in expenditures generates multiple dollars of income. The mathematical relationship between the initial expenditure and the total income generated is the economic multiplier. One of the primary advantages of the IMPLAN model is that it uses regional and national production and trade flow data to construct region-specific and industry-specific economic multipliers, which are then further adjusted to reflect anticipated actual spending patterns within the specific geographic study area that is being evaluated. As a result, the economic impact estimates produced by IMPLAN are not generic. They reflect as precisely as possible the economic realities of the specific industry, and the specific study area, being evaluated. In the analysis that follows, these impact estimates are divided into three categories. First round direct impact measures the direct economic contribution of the entity being evaluated (e.g., own employment, wages paid, goods and services purchased by the Redbud Run Solar project). Second round indirect and induced impact measures the economic ripple effects of this direct impact in terms of business to business, and household (employee) to business, transactions. Total impact is simply the sum of the preceding two. These categories of impact are then further defined in terms of employment (the jobs that are created), labor income (the wages and benefits associated with those jobs), and economic output (the total amount of economic activity that is created in the economy). 15 IMPLAN is produced by IMPLAN Group, LLC. Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 12 Construction Phase This portion of the section assesses the economic and fiscal impact that the one-time pulse of activity associated with construction of the proposed Redbud Run Solar project would have on Frederick County. Assumptions The analysis is based on the following assumptions: • Total capital investment in the Redbud Run Solar project is estimated to be approximately $43.1 million.16 • Of that total: o Architecture, engineering, site preparation, and other construction and development costs are estimated to be approximately $22.4 million.17 It is estimated that approximately 59 percent of that total could be spent with vendors in Frederick County.18 o Capital equipment costs are estimated to be approximately $20.7 million.19 It is anticipated that no capital equipment would be purchased from vendors in Frederick County.20 • For ease of analysis, all construction expenditures are assumed to take place in a single year. Results Applying these assumptions in the IMPLAN model results in the following estimates of one-time economic and fiscal impact. As shown in Table 1, construction of the proposed Redbud Run Solar project could directly provide a one-time pulse supporting approximately: 1) 87 jobs, 2) $5.3 million in labor income, and 3) $13.2 million in economic output to Frederick County.21 Taking into account the economic ripple effects that direct investment would generate, the total estimated one-time impact on Frederick County could support approximately: 1) 111 jobs, 2) $6.4 million in labor income, 3) $17.2 million in economic output, and 4) $0.5 million in state and local tax revenue. 16 Data Source: Oriden Power. Investment estimate is subject to change based on final design and vendor contracts. 17 Data Source: Oriden Power. 18 Data Source: IMPLAN Group, LLC. 19 Data Source: Oriden Power. 20 Data Source: IMPLAN Group LLC. 21 It is important to note that construction sector jobs are not necessarily new jobs, but the investments made can also support an existing job during the construction of the project. Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 13 Table 1: Estimated One-Time Economic and Fiscal Impact on Frederick County from Construction of the Redbud Run Solar Project Economic Impact Employment Labor Income Output 1st Round Direct Economic Activity 87 $5,301,748 $13,200,000 2nd Round Indirect and Induced Economic Activity 24 $1,141,690 $4,025,497 Total Economic Activity 111 $6,443,438 $17,225,497 Fiscal Impact State and Local Tax Revenue $514,057 *Totals may not sum due to rounding. Ongoing Operations Phase This portion of the section assesses the annual economic and fiscal impact that the proposed Redbud Run Solar project would have on Frederick County during its anticipated 30-year operational phase. Assumptions The analysis is based on the following assumptions: • The Redbud Run Solar project would spend approximately $240,000 each year for maintenance and repair, vegetative control, and other operational expenditures.22 • The Redbud Run Solar project would involve an investment of approximately $43.1 million in capital equipment and improvements to the existing property.23 • The proposed Redbud Run Solar project would be situated on approximately 154 fenced-in acres within an approximate 263-acre tract of leased land.24 • Only the fenced-in acreage would be removed from the land use program and reassessed at a solar use assessment value of $17,500 per acre.25 • Tax rates and locality ratios remain constant throughout the analysis. • The Redbud Run Solar project’s total generation capacity would be 30 MW AC. • The Redbud Run Solar project would become operational in December 2023.26 • The Redbud Run Solar project’s operational life expectancy would be approximately 30 years.27 22 Data Source: Oriden Power. Expenditure estimate is subject to change based on final design and vendor contracts. 23 Data Source: Oriden Power. Investment estimate is subject to change based on final design and vendor contracts. 24 Data Source: Oriden Power. 25 Data Source: Oriden Power. Estimated potential future assessment value based on informal discussion with the Frederick County Commissioner of Revenue’s Office. Actual future assessment value may vary. 26 Data Source: Oriden Power. 27 Data Source: Oriden Power. Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 14 Results – Economic Impact Applying these assumptions in the IMPLAN model results in the following estimates of annual economic impact. As shown in Table 2, annual operation of the proposed Redbud Run Solar project would directly support approximately: 1) < 2 jobs, 2) $73,717 in labor income, and 3) $179,496 in economic output to Frederick County. Taking into account the economic ripple effects that direct impact would generate, the total estimated annually supported impact on Frederick County would be approximately: 1) 2 jobs, 2) $89,822 in labor income, and 3) $236,147 in economic output. Table 2: Estimated Annual Economic Impact on Frederick County from the Ongoing Operation of the Redbud Run Solar Project Economic Impact Employment Labor Income Output 1st Round Direct Economic Activity < 2 $73,717 $179,496 2nd Round Indirect and Induced Economic Activity < 1 $16,104 $56,651 Total Economic Activity 2 $89,822 $236,147 *Totals may not sum due to rounding. Results – Fiscal Impact This portion of the section quantifies the direct fiscal contribution that the proposed Redbud Run Solar project would make to Frederick County. The analysis considers two scenarios. Both scenarios include the additional revenue that the Redbud Run Solar project would generate for Frederick County over a 30-year period from the increased property assessments associated with reassessing the site as solar use property. Scenario 1 then describes the additional revenue Redbud Run Solar would generate for Frederick County from taxes levied on the capital investment, while Scenario 2 assumes tax revenue generated from the capital investment will be replaced with revenue from a revenue share agreement between Redbud Run Solar and Frederick County based on the project’s total generation capacity. Reassessment of Property Table 3 details the increased tax revenue associated with removing the affected acreage from the land use program and reassessing the 154-acre fenced-in site as solar use property. The county real estate tax revenue from the project after reassessment is estimated to be approximately $16,440 per year, for a cumulative total of approximately $493,185 over the project’s anticipated 30-year operational life expectancy.28 Adding one-time rollback taxes of approximately $21,992 increases that cumulative total to approximately $515,177. In contrast, the property currently generates approximately $560 per year in real estate tax revenue for the county, for a cumulative total of approximately $16,813 over 30 years.29 28 Assumes property will be reassessed at $17,500 per acre once it is under solar use. 29 Derived from Frederick County’s GIS Website and property tax cards. Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 15 Table 3: Estimated County Revenue Generated by the Proposed Redbud Run Solar Project over 30 Years from Real Estate Taxes Estimated Increased Appraised Value of Property under Solar Use 30 $2,695,000 Frederick County Real Estate Tax Rate 0.0061 Annual County Real Estate Tax – Solar Use $16,440 Revenue over 30 years $493,185 One-time Rollback Taxes31 $21,992 Total Cumulative Revenue over 30 years $515,177 *Totals may not sum due to rounding. Scenario 1: Taxation of Capital Investment Table 4 separately details the additional annual revenue that the proposed Redbud Run Solar project would generate for Frederick County over a 30-year period from taxes levied on capital investment. This estimate is calculated as: 1) the taxable portion of capital investments based on the stepdown local tax exemption pursuant to Virginia Code §58.1-366032, times 2) the State Corporation Commission’s utility assessment ratio of 0.87 for taxation of public utilities in Frederick County 33, times 4) the State Corporation Commission’s current depreciation guidelines for solar facilities, times 5) Frederick County’s real property tax rate of $0.61 per $100 of assessed value pursuant to Virginia Code §58.1-2606. As the data in Table 4 indicate, based on these calculations the estimated additional county revenue from taxation of capital investments associated with the proposed Redbud Run Solar project would be approximately $40,954 in the project’s first year of operation, with that figure projected to increase to approximately $78,777 in year 11 of the project as the value of the exemption is reduced, and thereafter declining to approximately $26,438 in the project’s 30th year of operation as the value of the proposed capital investments is depreciated, for a cumulative total of approximately $1.7 million. 30 Calculated as 154 acres times $17,500 per acre. 31 Rollback taxes are computed as the difference between the current land use value assessment tax and the tax on the fair market value for the affected acreage for five complete tax years plus the current year (2016-2021). Does not account for changes in assessment values over time. Includes simple interest at 10 percent per year. 32 Virginia Code §58.1-3660 stipulates that solar facilities over 5MW and under 150MW are subject to a stepdown exemption from local property taxes if the interconnection request has been filed on or after January 1, 2019. The amount of the exemption is 80 percent in the first five years, 70 percent in years six through ten, and 60 percent thereafter. 33 Average of county’s locality ratios of the previous five years. Values shown rounded to two digits. Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 16 Table 4: Estimated County Revenue Generated by the Proposed Solar Investment over 30 Years Year Total Capital Investment subject to Exemption 34 Exemption35 Capital Investment Less Exemption 36 Depreciation 37 Depreciated Value of Taxable Capital Investment Additional Annual County Tax Revenue Solar Investment 38 1 $43,100,000 80% $7,459,748 90.0% $6,713,773 $40,954 2 $43,100,000 80% $7,459,748 90.0% $6,713,773 $40,954 3 $43,100,000 80% $7,459,748 90.0% $6,713,773 $40,954 4 $43,100,000 80% $7,459,748 90.0% $6,713,773 $40,954 5 $43,100,000 80% $7,459,748 90.0% $6,713,773 $40,954 6 $43,100,000 70% $11,189,622 90.0% $10,070,660 $61,431 7 $43,100,000 70% $11,189,622 90.0% $10,070,660 $61,431 8 $43,100,000 70% $11,189,622 90.0% $10,070,660 $61,431 9 $43,100,000 70% $11,189,622 89.7% $10,035,972 $61,219 10 $43,100,000 70% $11,189,622 88.2% $9,865,890 $60,182 11 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 86.6% $12,914,316 $78,777 12 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 84.9% $12,660,684 $77,230 13 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 83.1% $12,392,133 $75,592 14 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 81.1% $12,105,679 $73,845 15 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 79.1% $11,802,813 $71,997 16 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 77.0% $11,482,044 $70,040 17 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 74.7% $11,141,880 $67,965 18 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 72.3% $10,782,320 $65,772 34 Data Source: Oriden Power 35 Pursuant to Virginia Code §58.1-3660 solar facilities over 5MW and under 150MW are subject to a stepdown exemption from local property taxes if the interconnection request has been filed on or after January 1, 2019. The amount of the exemption is 80 percent in the first five years, 70 percent in years six through ten, and 60 percent thereafter. 36 Accounts for the State Corporation Commission’s five-year average utility assessment ratio of 0.87 for taxation of public utilities in Frederick County (value shown rounded to second digit). 37 Data Source: State Corporation Commission guidelines. 38 Calculated pursuant to Virginia Code §58.1-2606 which stipulates that capital equipment owned by utilities is taxed as real property and the local tax rate on that capital equipment would be capped at Frederick County’s real property tax rate of $0.61 per $100 of assessed value. Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 17 Table 4: Estimated County Revenue Generated by the Proposed Solar Investment over 30 Years Year Total Capital Investment subject to Exemption 34 Exemption35 Capital Investment Less Exemption 36 Depreciation 37 Depreciated Value of Taxable Capital Investment Additional Annual County Tax Revenue Solar Investment 38 19 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 69.7% $10,398,889 $63,433 20 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 67.0% $9,994,570 $60,967 21 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 64.1% $9,564,889 $58,346 22 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 61.1% $9,109,844 $55,570 23 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 57.8% $8,627,945 $52,630 24 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 54.4% $8,116,206 $49,509 25 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 50.8% $7,574,628 $46,205 26 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 46.9% $6,998,736 $42,692 27 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 42.8% $6,390,020 $38,979 28 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 38.5% $5,744,006 $35,038 29 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 33.9% $5,060,693 $30,870 30 $43,100,000 60% $14,919,496 29.1% $4,334,114 $26,438 CUMULATIVE TOTAL $1,652,363 Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 18 Scenario 1: Total Fiscal Impact Table 5 combines the results from the calculations depicted in Tables 3 and 4 to provide an estimate of the cumulative fiscal contribution that the proposed Redbud Run Solar project would make to Frederick County over its 30-year anticipated operational life under Scenario 1. As these data indicate, that cumulative total is approximately $2.2 million. Table 5: Estimated Cumulative County Tax Revenue from the Proposed Redbud Run Solar Project over 30 Years under Scenario 1 County Real Estate Tax $515,177 County Revenue from Taxation of Capital Investments $1,652,363 TOTAL Cumulative Revenue over 30 Years39 $2,167,539 Scenario 1: Composite Index This portion of the section presents an analysis of the hypothetical upper limit of the impact that the proposed Redbud Run Solar project could have on Frederick County’s Composite Index, the index that the Virginia Department of Education uses to assess the locally funded portion of a locality’s school budget based on “ability to pay.” This analysis is included in the report because it has been a perceived issue in some localities in Virginia when proposed solar projects have been considered. Each locality’s Composite Index is based on three factors – the locality’s total real property tax base, total adjusted real income, and total taxable retail sales. Of these, the total real property tax base receives the highest weight. Therefore, hypothetically, a large capital investment such as a solar facility could increase a locality’s Composite Index and thereby increase the required local contribution to the county’s school budget. However, there are two important issues to keep in mind when evaluating the likely impact of a solar project on a locality’s Composite Index. First, when calculating a locality’s Composite Index, solar projects are treated no differently than manufacturing facilities, residential neighborhoods, or any other large capital investment. The part of the investment that is taxable is included in the real property tax base portion of the calculation. Pursuant to Virginia Code §58.1-3660, that means for solar facilities over 5MW and under 150MW the 20 to 40 percent of the investment that is taxable is considered in the Composite Index, and only that 20 to 40 percent. Second, changes in a locality’s Composite Index are driven by changes in a locality’s total real property tax base (along with total adjusted real income and total taxable retail sales) relative to the changes in all Virginia localities total real property tax base (along with total adjusted real income and total taxable 39 Please note that estimated revenue does not include voluntary payments associated with a siting agreement, which is subject to negotiation between Oriden Power and Frederick County. Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 19 retail sales). As a result, for any one capital investment to have an impact on a locality’s Composite Index, it would have to drive a percentage change in the locality’s total real property tax base that was larger than the percentage change in the total real property tax base across all Virginia localities. Between the Virginia Department of Education’s 2018-20 and 2020-22 Composite Index calculations, the total real property tax base across all Virginia localities increased by 7.3 percent. Even after accounting for both the capital investment in the project itself and the increased property value assessments associated with rezoning the property to solar use, the proposed Redbud Run Solar project would only drive a 0.1 percent increase in Frederick County’s total real property tax base. This means, in and of itself, it is unlikely the proposed Redbud Run Solar project would effect a meaningful change in Frederick County’s Composite Index. However, consistent with reports produced for other Virginia localities, Table 6 provides an estimate of the hypothetical upper limit of the impact that the proposed Redbud Run Solar project could have on Frederick County’s Composite Index and the county’s share of its school budget over a 30-year period, holding all other changes to the county’s property tax base and the property tax base of all other Virginia localities constant. The calculation presented in Table 6 is derived by: 1) using baseline data for Frederick County on County Taxable Real Property, Adjusted Gross Income, Taxable Retail Sales, County School Average Daily Membership (ADM), and County Population from the Virginia Department of Education’s 2020-2022 Composite Index of Local Ability to Pay, 2) adjusting County Taxable Real Property in subsequent years for the estimated net increase in real estate assessments from solar use (the estimated increase in property value from solar use presented in Table 3 less the property’s current assessed value), plus the “Depreciated Value of Taxable Capital Investment” figures from Table 4, and 3) applying those figures to the Virginia Department of Education’s Composite Index formula to compute a revised Composite Index for Frederick County in each subsequent year.40 That revised Composite Index is then applied to Frederick County’s baseline FY 2020 locally funded school budget as reported by the Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts to derive a hypothetical upper limit of the additional local school funding that could be required in each subsequent year relative to the baseline, if one holds all other changes to the county’s property tax base and the property tax base of all other Virginia localities constant. 40 The Virginia Department of Education’s composite index formula is: (0.5*(((0.66)*((County Taxable Real Property/County School ADM)/(State Taxable Real Property/State School ADM))+((0.33)*((County Taxable Real Property/County Population)/(State Taxable Real Property/State Population)))))+(0.4*(((0.66)*((County Adjusted Gross Income/County School ADM)/(State Adjusted Gross Income/State School ADM)))+((0.33)*((County Adjusted Gross Income/County Population)/(State Adjusted Gross Income/State Population)))))+(0.1*(((0.66)*((County Taxable Retail Sales/County School ADM)/(State Taxable Retail Sales/State School ADM)))+((0.33)* ((County Taxable Retail Sales/County Population)/(State Taxable Retail Sales/State Population))))). Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 20 Table 6: Hypothetical Upper Limit to Change in Composite Index and Required Local Contribution to School Budget from the proposed Redbud Run Solar Project over 30 Years Year County Taxable Real Property 41 Increased Property Valuation from Solar Use Taxable Proposed Capital Investment 42 Adj. County Taxable Real Property Adj. Gross Income 43 Taxable Retail Sales 44 County School ADM 45 County Pop.46 Comp. Index 47 Locally Funded School Budget 48 Change in Locally Funded School Budget Baseline $11,631,668,555 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4120 $89,667,433 $0 1 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $6,713,773 $11,640,985,452 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4121 $89,702,024 $34,591 2 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $6,713,773 $11,640,985,452 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4121 $89,702,024 $34,591 3 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $6,713,773 $11,640,985,452 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4121 $89,702,024 $34,591 4 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $6,713,773 $11,640,985,452 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4121 $89,702,024 $34,591 5 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $6,713,773 $11,640,985,452 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4121 $89,702,024 $34,591 6 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $10,070,660 $11,644,342,338 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,714,487 $47,054 7 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $10,070,660 $11,644,342,338 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,714,487 $47,054 8 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $10,070,660 $11,644,342,338 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,714,487 $47,054 9 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $10,035,972 $11,644,307,650 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,714,358 $46,925 10 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $9,865,890 $11,644,137,568 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,713,726 $46,293 11 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $12,914,316 $11,647,185,994 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,725,044 $57,611 12 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $12,660,684 $11,646,932,363 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,724,102 $56,669 13 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $12,392,133 $11,646,663,812 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,723,105 $55,672 14 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $12,105,679 $11,646,377,358 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,722,042 $54,609 15 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $11,802,813 $11,646,074,492 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,720,917 $53,484 16 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $11,482,044 $11,645,753,723 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,719,727 $52,294 41 Data Source: Virginia Department of Education, 2020-22 Composite Index of Local Ability to Pay. 42 Data Source: From Table 4. 43 Data Source: Virginia Department of Education, 2020-22 Composite Index of Local Ability to Pay. 44 Data Source: Virginia Department of Education, 2020-22 Composite Index of Local Ability to Pay. 45 Data Source: Virginia Department of Education, 2020-22 Composite Index of Local Ability to Pay. 46 Data Source: Virginia Department of Education, 2020-22 Composite Index of Local Ability to Pay. 47 Data Source: Baseline data taken from the Virginia Department of Education, 2020-22 Composite Index of Local Ability to Pay. Subsequent annual calculations are based on the Adjusted County Taxable Real Property, Adjusted Gross Income, County School Average Daily Membership (ADM), and County Population data presented for each year. 48 Data Source: Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts. Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 21 Table 6: Hypothetical Upper Limit to Change in Composite Index and Required Local Contribution to School Budget from the proposed Redbud Run Solar Project over 30 Years Year County Taxable Real Property 41 Increased Property Valuation from Solar Use Taxable Proposed Capital Investment 42 Adj. County Taxable Real Property Adj. Gross Income 43 Taxable Retail Sales 44 County School ADM 45 County Pop.46 Comp. Index 47 Locally Funded School Budget 48 Change in Locally Funded School Budget 17 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $11,141,880 $11,645,413,558 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,718,464 $51,031 18 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $10,782,320 $11,645,053,998 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,717,129 $49,696 19 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $10,398,889 $11,644,670,567 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,715,705 $48,272 20 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $9,994,570 $11,644,266,249 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,714,204 $46,771 21 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $9,564,889 $11,643,836,567 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,712,609 $45,176 22 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $9,109,844 $11,643,381,523 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,710,919 $43,486 23 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $8,627,945 $11,642,899,623 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,709,130 $41,697 24 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $8,116,206 $11,642,387,884 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,707,230 $39,797 25 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $7,574,628 $11,641,846,307 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4122 $89,705,220 $37,787 26 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $6,998,736 $11,641,270,414 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4121 $89,703,082 $35,649 27 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $6,390,020 $11,640,661,699 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4121 $89,700,822 $33,389 28 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $5,744,006 $11,640,015,684 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4121 $89,698,423 $30,990 29 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $5,060,693 $11,639,332,372 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4121 $89,695,886 $28,453 30 $11,631,668,555 $2,603,124 $4,334,114 $11,638,605,792 $2,617,118,113 $1,249,749,136 13,343 85,820 0.4121 $89,693,189 $25,756 TOTAL $1,295,621 Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 22 As shown in Table 6, based on these calculations, the hypothetical upper limit of the additional local school funding that could be required as a result of the proposed Redbud Run Solar project’s addition to Frederick County’s real property tax base is estimated to be approximately $34,591 in the project’s first year of operation with that figure projected to increase to approximately $57,611 in year 11 of the project as the value of the exemption is reduced, and thereafter declining to approximately $25,756 in the project’s 30th year of operation as the value of the proposed capital investments is further depreciated for a cumulative total of approximately $1.3 million. Table 7 combines the results from the calculations depicted in Table 5 and 6 to provide an estimate of the fiscal contribution that the proposed Redbud Run Solar project would make to Frederick County over 30 years. As these data indicate, even taking into account the hypothetical upper limit of the additional local school funding that could be required as a result of the proposed Redbud Run Solar project’s increase to Frederick County’s real property tax base, the cumulative net county revenue from the project is estimated to be approximately $0.9 million over its anticipated 30-year operational life expectancy. Table 7: Estimated County Tax Revenue Generated by the Proposed Redbud Run Solar Project over 30 Years, taking into account Hypothetical Upper Limit of Effect on Composite Index Cumulative Revenue over 30 years $2,167,539 Hypothetical Upper Limit of Effect on Composite Index ($1,295,621) Net Revenue over 30 years $871,919 Scenario 2: Revenue Share Agreement The following section describes the additional annual revenue that the proposed Redbud Run Solar project would generate for Frederick County assuming the county adopts an energy revenue share ordinance under Virginia Code §58.1-2636. The Virginia Code currently stipulates that a locality may assess an annual revenue share of up to $1,400 per megawatt (MW) alternating current (AC) generation capacity of a solar facility. However, legislation that was passed in the 2021 General Assembly (SB 1201/HB 2006) and went into effect on July 1, 2021, allows a 10 percent escalator to be applied to the $1,400 per MW revenue share every five years, beginning in 2026. Section 58.1-3660 further stipulates that capital investment associated with the solar project will be exempt from taxation if the county adopts an energy revenue share ordinance. Table 8 details the revenue generated from a revenue share agreement between Redbud Run Solar and Frederick County with the 10 percent escalator. Based on a total generation capacity of 30 MW AC and an assumed commissioning date of December 2023, a revenue share agreement would generate approximately $1.7 million over the anticipated 30-year operational life of the project. Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 23 Table 8: Estimated County Revenue Generated from a Revenue Share Agreement over 30 Years Year MW Revenue Share per MW with Escalator Annual County Revenue 1 30 $1,400 $42,000 2 30 $1,400 $42,000 3 30 $1,540 $46,200 4 30 $1,540 $46,200 5 30 $1,540 $46,200 6 30 $1,540 $46,200 7 30 $1,540 $46,200 8 30 $1,694 $50,820 9 30 $1,694 $50,820 10 30 $1,694 $50,820 11 30 $1,694 $50,820 12 30 $1,694 $50,820 13 30 $1,863 $55,902 14 30 $1,863 $55,902 15 30 $1,863 $55,902 16 30 $1,863 $55,902 17 30 $1,863 $55,902 18 30 $2,050 $61,492 19 30 $2,050 $61,492 20 30 $2,050 $61,492 21 30 $2,050 $61,492 22 30 $2,050 $61,492 23 30 $2,255 $67,641 24 30 $2,255 $67,641 25 30 $2,255 $67,641 26 30 $2,255 $67,641 27 30 $2,255 $67,641 28 30 $2,480 $74,406 29 30 $2,480 $74,406 30 30 $2,480 $74,406 Cumulative Total $1,717,495 Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 24 Scenario 2: Total Fiscal Impact Table 9 combines the results from the calculations depicted in Tables 3 and 8 to provide an estimate of the cumulative fiscal contribution that the proposed Redbud Run Solar project would make to Frederick County over its 30-year anticipated operational life under Scenario 2. As these data indicate, that cumulative total is approximately $2.2 million. Table 9: Estimated Cumulative County Revenue from the Proposed Redbud Run Solar Project over 30 Years under Scenario 2 County Real Estate Tax $515,177 County Revenue from Revenue Share Agreement $1,717,495 TOTAL Cumulative Revenue over 30 Years49 $2,232,672 Scenario 2: Composite Index Under a revenue share agreement, by statute capital investment from the project has no impact on the locality’s Composite Index. Current Agricultural Use This section provides a benchmark for the previous estimates of the economic contribution that the proposed Redbud Run Solar project would make to Frederick County by estimating the economic and fiscal contribution that the site makes to the county in its current agricultural use. Assumptions The analysis is based on the following assumptions: • The proposed Redbud Run Solar project would be situated on an approximate 154-acre tract of pastureland, timberland and agricultural land used to produce hay.50 • Average annual revenue per acre for agricultural land in Frederick County is approximately $130.51 • The current use assessment value of the affected acreage is approximately $91,876.52 49 Please note that estimated revenues do not include voluntary payments associated with a siting agreement, which is subject to negotiation between Oriden Power and Frederick County. 50 Data Source: Oriden Power. 51 Data Source: Estimated based on data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture 2017 Census and industry data from IMPLAN Group, LLC. Assumes equal proportions of land are used for the production of hay, as pastureland, and actively managed timberland. 52 Data Source: Derived from Frederick County’s Property Card database. Excludes value of existing structures as they will not be affected. Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 25 Results – Economic Impact Applying these assumptions in the IMPLAN model results in the following estimates of annual economic impact. As shown in Table 10, in its current use the proposed Redbud Run Solar project site directly supports approximately: 1) <1 job, 2) $739 in labor income, and 3) $19,991 in economic output to Frederick County. Taking into account the economic ripple effects that direct impact generates, on average, the total annually supported impact on Frederick County is approximately: 1) <1 job, 2) $2,939 in labor income, and 3) $25,656 in economic output. Table 10: Total Estimated Annual Economic Impact of the Redbud Run Solar Project Site on Frederick County – Current Agricultural Use Economic Impact Employment Labor Income Output 1st Round Direct Economic Activity < 1 $739 $19,991 2nd Round Indirect and Induced Economic Activity 0 $2,200 $5,665 Total Economic Activity < 1 $2,939 $25,656 *Totals may not sum due to rounding. Results – Fiscal Impact Table 11 details the estimated tax revenue that the proposed Redbud Run Solar site generates for Frederick County in its current agricultural use. As the data in Table 11 indicate, the current county real estate tax revenue from the project site is estimated to be approximately $560 per year, for a cumulative total of approximately $16,813 over 30 years. Table 11: Estimated County Revenue Generated by the Proposed Redbud Run Solar Project Site over 30 Years from Real Estate Taxes – Current Agricultural Use Estimated Assessed Value of Property – Agricultural Use 53 $91,876 Frederick County Current Real Estate Tax Rate 0.0061 Estimated Annual County Real Estate Tax – Agricultural Use $560 Total Cumulative Revenue over 30 years $16,813 *Totals may not sum due to rounding. 53 Data Source: Derived from Frederick County’s Property Card database. Excludes value of existing structures as they will not be affected. Economic and Fiscal Contribution of Redbud Run Solar 26 The estimates provided in this report are based on the best information available and all reasonable care has been taken in assessing that information. However, because these estimates attempt to foresee circumstances that have not yet occurred, it is not possible to provide any assurance that they will be representative of actual events. These estimates are intended to provide a general indication of likely future outcomes and should not be construed to represent a precise measure of those outcomes. Redbud Run Solar LLC Impact Analysis Statement for Conditional Use Permit Application Attachment 5 Property Value Impact Study October 10, 2021 Alessandra Trunzo Oriden Power 106 Isabella Street, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 RE: Redbud Solar Project – Property Value Impact Study Ms. Trunzo At your request, I have considered the impact of a 30 MW solar farm proposed to be constructed on a portion of a 262.99-acre assemblage of land on Woods Mill Road, Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia. Specifically, I have been asked to give my professional opinion on whether the proposed solar farm will have any impact on adjoining property value and whether “the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located.” To form an opinion on these issues, I have researched and visited existing and proposed solar farms in Virginia as well as other states, researched articles through the Appraisal Institute and other studies, and discussed the likely impact with other real estate professionals. I have not been asked to assign any value to any specific property. This letter is a limited report of a real property appraisal consulting assignment and subject to the limiting conditions attached to this letter. My client is Oriden Power, represented to me by Ms. Alessandra Trunzo. My findings support the Application. The effective date of this consultation is October 10, 2021. Conclusion The adjoining properties are well set back from the proposed solar panels and most of the site has good existing landscaping for screening the proposed solar farm. Additional supplemental vegetation is proposed to supplement the areas where the existing trees are insufficient to provide a proper screen. The matched pair analysis shows no impact on home values due to abutting or adjoining a solar farm as well as no impact to abutting or adjacent vacant residential or agricultural land where the solar farm is properly screened and buffered. The criteria that typically correlates with downward adjustments on property values such as noise, odor, and traffic all indicate that a solar farm is a compatible use for rural/residential transition areas and that it would function in a harmonious manner with this area. Data from the university studies, broker commentary, and other appraisal studies support a finding of no impact on property value adjoining a solar farm with proper setbacks and landscaped buffers. Very similar solar farms in very similar areas have been found by hundreds of towns and counties not to have a substantial negative effect to abutting or adjoining properties, and many of those Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI 9408 Northfield Court Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Phone (919) 414-8142 rkirkland2@gmail.com www.kirklandappraisals.com Kirkland Appraisals, LLC 2 findings of no impact have been upheld by appellate courts. Similar solar farms have been approved with adjoining agricultural uses, schools, churches, and residential developments. Based on the data and analysis in this report, it is my professional opinion that the solar farm proposed at the subject property will have no impact on the value of adjoining or abutting properties and that the proposed use is in harmony with the area in which it is located. I note that some of the positive implications of a solar farm that have been expressed by people living next to solar farms include protection from future development of residential developments or other more intrusive uses, reduced dust, odor and chemicals from former farming operations, protection from light pollution at night, it’s quiet, and there is minimal traffic. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI NC Certified General Appraiser #A4359 VA Certified General Appraiser # 4001017291 3 Table of Contents Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 1 I. Proposed Project and Adjoining Uses ....................................................................................... 4 II. Methodology and Discussion of Issues .................................................................................. 11 III. Research on Solar Farms ..................................................................................................... 13 A. Appraisal Market Studies ....................................................................................................... 13 B. Articles ................................................................................................................................... 13 C. Broker Commentary .............................................................................................................. 16 IV. University Studies ................................................................................................................ 16 A. University of Texas at Austin, May 2018 ................................................................................ 16 B. University of Rhode Island, September 2020 ......................................................................... 18 C. Master’s Thesis: ECU by Zachary Dickerson July 2018 ........................................................ 19 D. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, December, 2019 ........................... 20 V. Summary of Solar Projects In Virginia................................................................................... 21 354: Amazon Solar project East (Eastern Shore), Accomack, VA ................................................. 27 364: Remington Solar, 12080 Lucky Hill Rd, Remington, VA ....................................................... 28 373: Woodland Solar, Longview Drive, Smithfield, VA .................................................................. 31 374: Whitehouse Solar, Chalklevel Road, Louisa, VA ................................................................... 32 484: Essex Solar, Tidewater Trail, Center Cross, VA .................................................................... 33 485: Southampton Solar, General Thomas Hwy, Newsoms, VA ................................................... 34 VI. Market Analysis of the Impact on Value from Solar Farms ............................................. 36 A. Virginia Data .......................................................................................................................... 37 B. Southeastern USA Data – Over 5 MW .................................................................................... 56 C. Summary of National Data on Solar Farms ......................................................................... 111 D. Larger Solar Farms .............................................................................................................. 113 VII. Distance Between Homes and Panels ............................................................................... 117 VIII. Topography ......................................................................................................................... 117 IX. Potential Impacts During Construction ........................................................................... 117 X. Scope of Research .................................................................................................................. 118 XI. Specific Factors Related To Impacts on Value ................................................................ 119 XII. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 122 Professional Experience ............................................................................................................... 123 Professional Affiliations ................................................................................................................ 123 Education .................................................................................................................................... 123 Continuing Education.................................................................................................................. 123 4 I. Proposed Project and Adjoining Uses Proposed Use Description This proposed 30 MW solar farm is to be constructed on a portion of a 262.99-acre assemblage of land on Woods Mill Road, Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia. Adjoining Properties I have considered adjoining uses and included a map to identify each parcel’s location. The closest adjoining home will be 150 feet from the closest solar panel and the average distance to adjoining homes will be 529 feet to the nearest solar panel. Adjoining land is a mix of residential and agricultural uses, which is very typical of solar farm sites. There is a small country store that was identified as the only adjoining commercial use. The breakdown of those uses by acreage and number of parcels is summarized below. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 28.42% 83.72% Agricultural 54.92% 9.30% Agri/Res 16.53% 4.65% Religious 0.13% 2.33% Total 100.00% 100.00% 5 6 Surrounding Uses GIS Data Adjoin Adjoin Distance (ft) # MAP ID Owner Acres Present Use Acres Parcels Home/Panel 1 55 A 1 20 JRW Prop. 1.04 Residential 0.23% 2.33% 465 2 55 A 1 21 Williams 2.57 Residential 0.57% 2.33% 310 3 55 A 135 Lee 6.00 Residential 1.34% 2.33% 305 456 A 3 Hallam 54.00 Agri/Res 12.06% 2.33% 695 5 55 5 5 Hawkins 5.07 Residential 1.13% 2.33% 490 6 55 5 6 Frawley 5.12 Residential 1.14% 2.33% 730 7 55 5 8 Hartman 5.04 Residential 1.13% 2.33% 670 8 55 5 9 Pullen 5.13 Residential 1.15% 2.33% 470 9 55 5 10 Brown 5.15 Residential 1.15% 2.33% 760 10 55 8 1 Mitchell 10.00 Residential 2.23% 2.33% 395 11 55 A 137 Adamkiewicz 7.51 Residential 1.68% 2.33% 395 12 55 A 137 McGuire 3.00 Residential 0.67% 2.33% 505 13 55 A 137 A Emanneul Ch 0.56 Religious 0.13% 2.33% N/A 14 55 A 137 C Bennett 1.01 Residential 0.23% 2.33% 245 15 55 A 138 Sempeles 21.50 Agricultural 4.80% 2.33% N/A 16 55 A 139 Sempeles 7.31 Residential 1.63% 2.33% 800 17 55 A 109 A Jenkins 9.44 Residential 2.11% 2.33% N/A 18 55 A 110 Jenkins 1.75 Residential 0.39% 2.33% 285 19 55 A 111 Jenkins 6.18 Residential 1.38% 2.33% 290 20 55 A 112 Jenkins 10.03 Residential 2.24% 2.33% 660 21 55 A 112 A Pearson 1.11 Residential 0.25% 2.33% 150 22 55 A 124 Mengel 7.30 Residential 1.63% 2.33% 420 23 55 A 125 Simkhovitch 5.00 Residential 1.12% 2.33% 335 24 55 A 126 A Spevak 2.45 Residential 0.55% 2.33% N/A 25 55 A 127 B Dunlap 1.12 Residential 0.25% 2.33% 245 26 55 A 127 B JRW Prop. 24.98 Agricultural 5.58% 2.33% N/A 27 55 7 4 Johns 23.22 Agricultural 5.19% 2.33% N/A 28 55 7 3 Comer 20.04 Agri/Res 4.48% 2.33% 435 29 55 A 1 1 Wohl 1.00 Residential 0.22% 2.33% 340 30 55 A 1 2 Myers 1.14 Residential 0.25% 2.33% 450 31 55 A 1 3 Atkinson 1.01 Residential 0.23% 2.33% 505 32 55 A 1 4 Mundy 4.50 Residential 1.00% 2.33% 610 33 55 A 1 8 Welch 1.28 Residential 0.29% 2.33% N/A 34 55 A 1 9 Welch 1.06 Residential 0.24% 2.33% 985 35 55 A 1 10 Shaffer 1.26 Residential 0.28% 2.33% N/A 36 55 A 1 11 Shaffer 1.02 Residential 0.23% 2.33% 1,000 37 55 A 1 12 Shaffer 1.02 Residential 0.23% 2.33% N/A 38 55 A 1 13 Feliner 1.25 Residential 0.28% 2.33% 840 39 rr A 1 14 Russell 1.20 Residential 0.27% 2.33% 790 40 55 A 1 15 Fricke 1.04 Residential 0.23% 2.33% 655 41 55 A 1 16 Borror 1.04 Residential 0.23% 2.33% 635 42 55 A 1 17 Newlin 1.11 Residential 0.25% 2.33% 600 43 44 A 294 A Aitken 176.25 Agricultural 39.36% 2.33% N/A Total 447.810 100.00% 100.00% 529 7 Demographics Around Subject Property I have pulled demographic data around a 1-mile, 3-mile and 5-mile radius from the middle of the project as shown on the following pages. 8 9 10 11 II. Methodology and Discussion of Issues Standards and Methodology I conducted this analysis using the standards and practices established by the Appraisal Institute and that conform to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The analyses and methodologies contained in this report are accepted by all major lending institutions, and they are used in Virginia and across the country as the industry standard by certified appraisers conducting appraisals, market analyses, or impact studies and are considered adequate to form an opinion of the impact of a land use on neighboring properties. These standards and practices have also been accepted by the courts at the trial and appellate levels and by federal courts throughout the country as adequate to reach conclusions about the likely impact a use will have on adjoining or abutting properties. The aforementioned standards compare property uses in the same market and generally within the same calendar year so that fluctuating markets do not alter study results. Although these standards do not require a linear study that examines adjoining property values before and after a new use (e.g. a solar farm) is developed, some of these studies do in fact employ this type of analysis. Comparative studies, as used in this report, are considered an industry standard. The type of analysis employed is a Matched Pair Analysis or Paired Sales Analysis. This methodology is outlined in The Appraisal of Real Estate, Twelfth Edition by the Appraisal Institute pages 438-439. It is further detailed in Real Estate Damages, Third Edition, pages 33-36 by Randall Bell PhD, MAI. Paired sales analysis is used to support adjustments in appraisal work for factors ranging from the impact of having a garage, golf course view, or additional bedrooms. It is an appropriate methodology for addressing the question of impact of an adjoining solar farm. The paired sales analysis is based on the theory that when two properties are in all other respects equivalent, a single difference can be measured to indicate the difference in price between them. Dr. Bell describes it as comparing a test area to control areas. In the example provided by Dr. Bell he shows five paired sales in the test area compared to 1 to 3 sales in the control areas to determine a difference. I have used 3 sales in the control areas in my analysis for each sale developed into a matched pair. Determining what is an External Obsolescence An external obsolescence is a use of property that, because of its characteristics, might have a negative impact on the value of adjacent or nearby properties because of identifiable impacts. Determining whether a use would be considered an external obsolescence requires a study that isolates that use, eliminates any other causing factors, and then studies the sales of nearby versus distant comparable properties. The presence of one or a combination of key factors does not mean the use will be an external obsolescence, but a combination of these factors tends to be present when market data reflects that a use is an external obsolescence. External obsolescence is evaluated by appraisers based on several factors. These factors include but are not limited to: 1) Traffic. Solar Farms are not traffic generators. 2) Odor. Solar farms do not produce odor. 3) Noise. Solar farms generate no noise concerns and are silent at night. 12 4) Environmental. Solar farms do not produce toxic or hazardous waste. Grass is maintained underneath the panels so there is minimal impervious surface area. 5) Appearance/Viewshed. This is the one area that potentially applies to solar farms. However, solar farms are generally required to provide significant setbacks and landscaping buffers to address that concern. Furthermore, any consideration of appearance of viewshed impacts has to be considered in comparison with currently allowed uses on that site. For example if a residential subdivision is already an allowed use, the question becomes in what way does the appearance impact adjoining property owners above and beyond the appearance of that allowed subdivision or other similar allowed uses. 6) Other factors. I have observed and studied many solar farms and have never observed any characteristic about such facilities that prevents or impedes neighbors from fully using their homes or farms or businesses for the use intended. Relative Solar Farm Sizes Solar farms have been increasing in size in recent years. Much of the data collected is from existing, older solar farms of smaller size, but there are numerous examples of sales adjoining 75 to 80 MW facilities that show a similar trend as the smaller solar farms. This is understandable given that the primary concern relative to a solar farm is the appearance or view of the solar farm, which is typically addressed through setbacks and landscaping buffers. The relevance of data from smaller solar farms to larger solar farms is due to the primary question being one of appearance. If the solar farm is properly screened, then little of the solar farm would be seen from adjoining property regardless of how many acres are involved. Larger solar farms are often set up in sections where any adjoining owner would only be able to see a small section of the project even if there were no landscaping screen. Once a landscaping screen is in place, the primary view is effectively the same whether adjoining a 5 MW, 20 MW or 100 MW facility. I have split out the data for the matched pairs adjoining larger solar farms only to illustrate the similarities later in this report. Steps Involved in the Analysis The paired sales analysis employed in this report follows the following process: 1. Identify sales of property adjoining existing solar farms. 2. Compare those sales to similar property that does not adjoin an existing solar farm. 3. Confirmation of sales are noted in the analysis write ups. 4. Distances from the homes to panels are included as a measure of the setbacks. 5. Topographic differences across the solar farms themselves are likewise noted along with demographic data for comparing similar areas. There are a number of Sale/Resale comparables included in the write ups, but most of the data shown is for sales of homes after a solar farm has been announced (where noted) or after a solar farm has been constructed. 13 III. Research on Solar Farms A. Appraisal Market Studies I have also considered a number of impact studies completed by other appraisers as detailed below. CohnReznick – Property Value Impact Study: Adjacent Property Values Solar Impact Study: A Study of Eight Existing Solar Facilities Patricia McGarr, MAI, CRE, FRICS, CRA and Andrew R. Lines, MAI with CohnReznick completed an impact study for a proposed solar farm in Cheboygan County, Michigan completed on June 10, 2020. I am familiar with this study as well as a number of similar such studies completed by CohnReznick. I have not included all of these studies but I submit this one as representative of those studies. This study addresses impacts on value from eight different solar farms in Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Virginia and North Carolina. These solar farms are 19.6 MW, 100 MW, 11.9 MW, 23 MW, 71 MW, 61 MW, 40 MW, and 19 MW for a range from 11.9 MW to 100 MW with an average of 31 MW and a median of 31.5 MW. They analyzed a total of 24 adjoining property sales in the Test Area and 81 comparable sales in the Control Area over a five-year period. The conclusion of this study is that there is no evidence of any negative impact on adjoining property values based on sales prices, conditions of sales, overall marketability, potential for new development or rate of appreciation. Christian P. Kaila & Associates – Property Impact Analysis – Proposed Solar Power Plant Guthrie Road, Stuarts Draft, Augusta County, Virginia Christian P. Kaila, MAI, SRA and George J. Finley, MAI developed an impact study as referenced above dated June 16, 2020. This was for a proposed 83 MW facility on 886 acres. Mr. Kaila interviewed appraisers who had conducted studies and reviewed university studies and discussed the comparable impacts of other development that was allowed in the area for a comparative analysis of other impacts that could impact viewshed based on existing allowed uses for the site. He also discussed in detail the various other impacts that could cause a negative impact and how solar farms do not have such characteristics. Mr. Kaila also interviewed county planners and real estate assessors in eight different Virginia counties with none of the assessor’s identifying any negative impacts observed for existing solar projects. Mr. Kaila concludes on a finding of no impact on property values adjoining the indicated solar farm. Fred Beck, MAI, CCIM – Impact Analysis in Lincoln County 2013 Mr. Fred Beck, MAI, CCIM completed an impact analysis in 2013 for a proposed solar farm that concluded on a negative impact on value. That report relied on a single cancelled contract for an adjoining parcel where the contracted buyers indicated that the solar farm was the reason for the cancellation. It also relied on the activities of an assessment impact that was applied in a nearby county. Mr. Beck was interviewed as part of the Christian Kalia study noted above. From that I quote “Mr. Beck concluded on no effect on moderate priced homes, and only a 5% change in his limited research of higher priced homes. His one sale that fell through is hardly a reliable sample. It also 14 was misleading on Mr. Beck’s part to report the lower re-assessments since the primary cause of the re-assesments were based on the County Official, who lived adjacent to the solar farm, appeal to the assessor for reductions with his own home.” In that Clay County Case study the noted lack of lot sales after announcement of the solar farm also coincided with the recession in 2008/2009 and lack of lot sales effectively defined that area during that time. I further note, that I was present at the hearing where Mr. Beck presented these findings and the predominance of his argument before the Lincoln County Board of Commissioner’s was based on the one cancelled sale as well as a matched pair analysis of high-end homes adjoining a four-story call center. He hypothesized that a similar impact from that example could be compared to being adjacent solar farm without explaining the significant difference in view, setbacks, landscaping, traffic, light, and noise. Furthermore, Mr. Beck did have matched pairs adjoining a solar farm in his study that he put in the back of his report and then ignored as they showed no impact on property value. Also noted in the Christian Kalia interview notes is a response from Mr. Beck indicating that in his opinion “the homes were higher priced homes and had full view of the solar farm.” Based on a description of screening so that “the solar farm would not be in full view to adjoining property owners. Mr. Beck said in that case, he would not see any drop in property value.” NorthStar Appraisal Company – Impact Analysis for Nichomus Run Solar, Pilesgrove, NJ, September 16, 2020 Mr. William J. Sapio, MAI with NorthStar Appraisal Company considered a matched pair analysis for the potential impact on adjoining property values to this proposed 150 MW solar farm. Mr. Sapio considered sales activity in a subdivision known as Point of Woods in South Brunswick Township and identified two recent new homes that were constructed and sold adjoining a 13 MW solar farm and compared them to similar homes in that subdivision that did not adjoin the solar farm. These homes sold in the $1,290,450 to $1,336,613 price range and these homes were roughly 200 feet from the closest solar panel. Based on this analysis, he concluded that the adjoining solar farm had no impact on adjoining property value. MR Valuation Consulting, LLC – The Kuhl Farm Solar Development and The Fischer Farm Solar Development – June 7, 2012 Mr. Mark Pomykacaz, MAI MRICS with MR Valuation Consulting, LLC considered a matched pair analysis for sales near these solar farms. The sales data presented supported a finding of no impact on property value for nearby and adjoining homes and concludes that there is no impact on marketing time and no additional risk involved with owning, building, or selling properties next to the solar farms. Conclusion of Impact Studies Of the five studies noted three included actual sales data to derive an opinion of no impact on value. The only study to conclude on a negative impact was the Fred Beck study based on no actual sales data adjoining solar farms, and he has since indicated that with landscaping screens he would not conclude on a negative impact. I have relied on these studies as additional support for the findings in this impact analysis. 15 B. Articles I have also considered a number of articles on this subject as well as conclusions and analysis as noted below. Farm Journal Guest Editor, March 22, 2021 – Solar’s Impact on Rural Property Values Andy Ames, ASFMRA (American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers) published this article that includes a discussion of his survey of appraisers and studies on the question of property value related to solar farms. He discusses the university studies that I have cited as well as Patricia McGarr, MAI. He also discusses the findings of Donald A. Fisher, ARA, who served six years at the Chair of the ASFMRA’s National Appraisal Review Committee. He is also the Executive Vice President of the CNY Pomeroy Appraiser and has conducted several market studies on solar farms and property impact. He is quoted in the article as saying, “Most of the locations were in either suburban or rural areas, and all of those studies found either a neutral impact, or ironically, a positive impact, where values on properties after installation of solar farms went up higher than time trends.” Howard Halderman, AFM, President and CEO of Halderman Real Estate and Farm Management attended the ASFMRA solar talk hosted by the Indiana Chapter of the ASFMRA and he concludes that other rural properties would likely see no impact and farmers and landowners shown even consider possible benefits. “In some cases, farmers who rent land to a solar company will insure the viability of their farming operation for a longer time period. This makes them better long-term tenants or land buyers so one can argue that higher rents and land values will follow due to the positive impact the solar leases offer.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory – Top Five Large-Scale Solar Myths, February 3, 2016 Megan Day reports form NREL regarding a number of concerns neighbors often express. Myth #4 regarding property value impacts addresses specifically the numerous studies on wind farms that show no impact on property value and that solar farms have a significantly reduced visual impact from wind farms. She highlights that the appearance can be addressed through mitigation measures to reduce visual impacts of solar farms through vegetative screening. Such mitigations are not available to wind farms given the height of the windmills and again, those studies show no impact on value adjoining wind farms. North Carolina State University: NC Clean Energy Technology Center White Paper: Balancing Agricultural Productivity with Ground-Based Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Development (Version 2), May 2019 Tommy Cleveland and David Sarkisian wrote a white paper for NCSU NC Clean Energy Technology Center regarding the potential impacts to agricultural productivity from a solar farm use. I have interviewed Tommy Cleveland on numerous occasions and I have also heard him speak on these issues at length as well. He addresses many of the common questions regarding how solar farms work and a detailed explanation of how solar farms do not cause significant impacts on the soils, erosion and other such concerns. This is a heavily researched paper with the references included. North Carolina State University: NC Clean Energy Technology Center White Paper: Health and Safety Impacts of Solar Photovoltaics, May 2017 Tommy Cleveland wrote a white paper for NCSU NC Clean Energy Technology Center regarding the health and safety impacts to address common questions and concerns related to solar farms. This is a heavily researched white paper addressing questions ranging from EMFs, fire safety, as well as vegetation control and the breakdown of how a solar farm works. 16 C. Broker Commentary In the process of working up the matched pairs used later in this report, I have collected comments from brokers who have actually sold homes adjoining solar farms indicating that the solar farm had no impact on the marketing, timing, or sales price for the adjoining homes. I have comments from 12 such brokers within this report including brokers from Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina. I have additional commentary from other states including New Jersey and Michigan that provide the same conclusion. IV. University Studies I have also considered the following studies completed by four different universities related to solar farms and impacts on property values. A. University of Texas at Austin, May 2018 An Exploration of Property-Value Impacts Near Utility-Scale Solar Installations This study considers solar farms from two angles. First it looks at where solar farms are being located and concludes that they are being located primarily in low density residential areas where there are fewer homes than in urban or suburban areas. The second part is more applicable in that they conducted a survey of appraisers/assessors on their opinions of the possible impacts of proximity to a solar farm. They consider the question in terms of size of the adjoining solar farm and how close the adjoining home is to the solar farm. I am very familiar with this part of the study as I was interviewed by the researchers multiple times as they were developing this. One very important question that they ask within the survey is very illustrative. They asked if the appraiser being surveyed had ever appraised a property next to a solar farm. There is a very noticeable divide in the answers provided by appraisers who have experience appraising property next to a solar farm versus appraisers who self-identify as having no experience or knowledge related to that use. On Page 16 of that study they have a chart showing the responses from appraisers related to proximity to a facility and size of the facility, but they separate the answers as shown below with appraisers with experience in appraising properties next to a solar farm shown in blue and those inexperienced shown in brown. Even within 100 feet of a 102 MW facility the response from experienced appraisers were -5% at most on impact. While inexperienced appraisers came up with significantly higher impacts. This chart clearly shows that an uninformed response widely diverges from the sales data available on this subject. 17 Furthermore, the question cited above does not consider any mitigating factors such as landscaping buffers or screens which would presumably reduce the minor impacts noted by experienced appraisers on this subject. The conclusion of the researchers is shown on Page 23 indicated that “Results from our survey of residential home assessors show that the majority of respondents believe that proximity to a solar installation has either no impact or a positive impact on home values.” This analysis supports the conclusion of this report that the data supports no impact on adjoining property values. 18 B. University of Rhode Island, September 2020 Property Value Impacts of Commercial-Scale Solar Energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island The University of Rhode Island published a study entitled Property Value Impacts of Commercial- Scale Solar Energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island on September 29, 2020 with lead researchers being Vasundhara Gaur and Corey Lang. I have read that study and interviewed Mr. Corey Lang related to that study. This study is often cited by opponents of solar farms but the findings of that study have some very specific caveats according to the report itself as well as Mr. Lang from the interview. While that study does state in the Abstract that they found depreciation of homes within 1-mile of a solar farm, that impact is limited to non-rural locations. On Pages 16-18 of that study under Section 5.3 Heterogeneity in treatment effect they indicate that the impact that they found was limited to non-rural locations with the impact in rural locations effectively being zero. For the study they defined “rural” as a municipality/township with less than 850 population per square mile. They further tested the robustness of that finding and even in areas up to 2,000 population per square mile they found no statistically significant data to suggest a negative impact. They have not specifically defined a point at which they found negative impacts to begin, as the sensitivity study stopped checking at the 2,000-population dataset. Where they did find negative impacts was in high population density areas that was largely a factor of running the study in Massachusetts and Rhode Island which the study specifically cites as being the 2nd and 3rd most population dense states in the USA. Mr. Lang in conversation as well as in recorded presentations has indicated that the impact in these heavily populated areas may reflect a loss in value due to the scarce greenery in those areas and not specifically related to the solar farm itself. In other words, any development of that site might have a similar impact on property value. Based on this study I have checked the population for the Stonewall District of Frederick County, which has a population of 17,328 population for 2021 based on ESRI SiteToDoBusiness, which gets this data from the US Census. HomeTownLocator also reports a population of 17,328 as of July 2021. The total area of this district is 48.54 square miles. This indicates a population density of 357 people per square mile which puts this well below the threshold indicated by the Rhode Island Study. I therefore conclude that the Rhode Island Study supports the indication of no impact on adjoining properties for the proposed solar farm project. 19 C. Master’s Thesis: ECU by Zachary Dickerson July 2018 A Solar Farm in My Backyard? Resident Perspectives of Utility-Scale Solar in Eastern North Carolina This study was completed as part of a Master of Science in Geography Master’s Thesis by Zachary Dickerson in July 2018. This study sets out to address three questions: 1. Are there different aspects that affect resident satisfaction regarding solar farms? 2. Are there variations in satisfaction for residents among different geographic settings, e.g. neighborhoods adjacent to the solar farms or distances from the solar farms? 3. How can insight from both the utility and planning sectors, combined with knowledge gained from residents, fill gaps in communication and policy writing in regard to solar farms? This was done through survey and interview with adjacent and nearby neighbors of existing solar farms. The positive to neutral comments regarding the solar farms were significantly higher than negative. The researcher specifically indicates on Page 46 “The results show that respondents generally do not believe the solar farms pose a threat to their property values.” The most negative comments regarding the solar farms were about the lack of information about the approval process and the solar farm project prior to construction. 20 D. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, December, 2019 The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis This study addresses wind farms and not solar farms but it is a reasonable consideration. The activity on a wind farm is significantly different in terms of the mechanics and more particularly on the appearance or viewshed as wind farms cannot be screened from adjoining property owners. This study was commissioned by the Department of Energy and not by any developer. This study examined 7,500 home sales between 1996 and 2007 in order to track sales prices both before and after a wind energy facility was announced or built. This study specifically looked into possible stigma, nuisance, and scenic vista. On page 17 of that study they conclude “Although the analysis cannot dismiss the possibility that individual homes or small numbers of homes have been or could be negatively impacted, it finds that if these impacts do exist, they are either too small and/or too infrequent to result in any widespread, statistically observable impact.” Given that solar farms are a similar use, but with a lower profile and therefore a lower viewshed than the wind farms, it is reasonable to translate these findings of no impact to solar farms. 21 V. Summary of Solar Projects In Virginia I have researched the solar projects in Virginia. I identified the solar farms through the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) Major Projects List and then excluded the roof mounted facilities. I focused on larger solar farms over 10 MW though I have included a couple of smaller solar farms as shown in the chart below I was able to identify and research 50 solar farms in Virginia as shown below. These are primarily over 20 MW in size with adjoining homes as close as 100 feet and the mix of adjoining uses is primarily agricultural and residential. 22 On the following pages I have included summary data on the constructed solar farms indicated above. Similar information is available for the larger set of solar farms in the adjoining states in my files if requested. Avg. Dist Closest Adjoining Use by Acre Parcel # Name County City Output Total Acres Used Acres to home Home Res Agri Agri/Res Com (MW) 115 Buckingham I Buckingham Cumberland 19.8 481.18 N/A N/A 8% 73% 18% 0% 121 Scott Powhatan Amelia Court Hou 20 898.4 1,421 730 29% 28% 44% 0% 204 Walker-Correctional New Kent Barhamsville 20 484.65 484.65 516 103 13% 68% 20% 0% 205 Sappony Sussex Stony Creek 20 322.68 322.68 2% 98% 0% 0% 216 Beetle Southampton Boykins 40 422.19 422.19 1,169 310 0% 10% 90% 0% 222 Grasshopper Mecklenburg Chase City 80 946.25 946.25 6% 87% 5% 1% 226 Belcher Louisa Louisa 88 1238.11 1238.11 150 19% 53% 28% 0% 228 Bluestone Farm Mecklenburg Chase City 4.99 332.5 332.5 0% 100% 0% 0% 257 Nokesville Prince WilliamNokesville 331.01 331.01 12% 49% 17% 23% 261 Buckingham II Buckingham Buckingham 19.8 460.05 460.05 6% 79% 15% 0% 262 Mount Jackson Shenandoah Mount Jackson 15.65 652.47 652.47 21% 51% 14% 13% 263 Gloucester Gloucester Gloucester 20 203.55 203.55 508 190 17% 55% 28% 0% 267 Scott II Powhatan Powhatan 701 701 41% 25% 34% 0% 272 Churchview Middlesex Church View 20 567.91 567.91 9% 64% 27% 0% 303 Turner Henrico Henrico 20 463.12 463.12 N/A N/A 21% 37% 0% 42% 311 Sunnybrook Farm Halifax Scottsburg 527.88 527.88 N/A N/A 15% 59% 26% 0% 312 Powell Creek Halifax Alton 513 513 N/A N/A 7% 71% 22% 0% 339 Crystal Hill Halifax Crystal Hill 628.67 628.67 1,570 140 6% 41% 35% 18% 354 Amazon East Accomack Oak Hall 80 1000 1000 645 135 8% 75% 17% 0% 355 Alton Post Halifax Alton 501.96 501.96 749 100 2% 58% 40% 0% 364 Remington Fauquier Remington 20 277.2 277.2 2,755 1,280 10% 41% 31% 18% 365 Greenwood Culpepper Stevensburg 100 2266.58 2266.58 788 200 8% 62% 29% 0% 367 Culpeper Sr Culpeper Culpeper 12.53 12.53 N/A N/A 15% 0% 86% 0% 370 Cherrydale Northampto n Kendall Grove 20 180.17 180.17 N/A N/A 5% 0% 92% 3% 373 Woodland,VA Isle of Wight Smithfield 19.7 211.12 211.12 606 190 9% 0% 91% 0% 374 Whitehouse Louisa Louisa 20 499.52 499.52 1,195 110 24% 55% 18% 4% 402 Cedar Park Henrico Richmond 13.93 13.93 57% 0% 0% 43% 407 Foxhound Halifax Clover 91 1311.78 1311.78 885 185 5% 61% 17% 18% 415 Stagecoach II Halifax Nathalie 16.625 327.87 327.87 1,073 255 5% 66% 29% 0% 484 Essex Solar Center Essex Center Cross 20 106.12 106.12 693 360 3% 70% 27% 0% 485 Southampton Southampto n Newsoms 100 3243.92 3243.92 - - 3% 78% 17% 3% 487 Augusta Augusta Stuarts Draft 125 3197.4 1147 588 165 16% 61% 16% 7% 490 Cartersville Powhatan Powhatan 2945 1358 1,467 105 6% 14% 80% 0% 495 Walnut King and Que Shacklefords 110 1700 1173 641 165 14% 72% 13% 1% 497 Piney Creek Halifax Clover 80 776.18 422 523 195 15% 62% 24% 0% 511 UVA Puller Middlesex Topping 15 120 120 1,095 185 59% 32% 0% 10% 519 Fountain Creek Greensville Emporia 80 798.3 798.3 - - 6% 23% 71% 0% 557 Winterpock 1 Chesterfield Chesterfield 518 308 2,106 350 4% 78% 18% 0% 577 Windsor Isle of Wight Windsor 85 564.1 564.1 572 160 9% 67% 24% 0% 579 Spotsylvania Spotsylvania Paytes 500 6412 3500 9% 52% 11% 27% 586 Sweet Sue King William Aylett 77 1262 576 1,617 680 7% 68% 25% 0% 591 Warwick Prince GeorgeDisputanta 26.5 967.62 442.05 555 115 12% 68% 20% 0% 621 Loblolly Surry Spring Grove 150 2181.92 1000 1,860 110 7% 62% 31% 0% 622 Woodridge Albemarle Scottsville 138 2260.87 1000 1,094 170 9% 63% 28% 0% 633 Brunswick Greensville Emporia 150.2 2076.36 1387.3 1,091 240 4% 85% 11% 0% 642 Belcher 3 Louisa Louisa 749.36 658.56 598 180 14% 71% 14% 1% 649 Endless Caverns Rockingham New Market 31.5 355 323.6 624 190 15% 27% 51% 7% 664 Watlington Halifax South Boston 20 240.09 137 536 215 24% 48% 28% 0% 671 Spout Spring Appomattox Appomattox 60 881.12 673.37 836 335 16% 30% 46% 8% 703 Lily Pond Dinwiddie Carson 80 2197.74 1930 723 115 13% 60% 27% 0% Total Number of Solar Farms 50 Average 66.76 1006.61 755.54 1003.2 253.5 13% 53% 29% 5% Median 31.50 566.01 520.44 788.0 185.0 9% 60% 24% 0% High 500.00 6412.00 3500.00 2755.0 1280.0 59% 100% 92% 43% Low 4.99 12.53 12.53 508.0 100.0 0% 0% 0% 0% 23 115: Buckingham Solar, E. James Anderson Hwy, Buckingham, VA This project was proposed in 2017 and located on 460 acres with the closest home proposed to be 150 feet from the closest solar panel. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 5.95% 71.79% Agricultural 78.81% 20.51% Agri/Res 15.24% 7.69% Total 100.00% 100.00% 24 121: Scott Solar Project, 1580 Goodes Bridge Rd, Powhatan, VA This project was built in 2016 and located on 165 acres out of 898 acres for a 17 MW with the closest home proposed to be 730 feet from the closest solar panel. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 28.83% 78.57% Agri/Res 43.52% 3.57% Agricultural 27.65% 17.86% Total 100.00% 100.00% 25 204: Walker-Correctional Solar, Barham Road, Barhamsville, VA This project was built in 2017 and located on 484.65 acres for a 20 MW with the closest home at 110 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 500 feet. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 12.59% 76.92% Agricultural 67.71% 15.38% Agri/Res 19.70% 7.69% Total 100.00% 100.00% 26 205: Sappony Solar, Sussex Drive, Stony Creek, VA This project was built in 2017 and located on 484.65 acres for a 20 MW with the closest home at 110 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 500 feet. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 12.59% 76.92% Agricultural 67.71% 15.38% Agri/Res 19.70% 7.69% Total 100.00% 100.00% 27 354: Amazon Solar project East (Eastern Shore), Accomack, VA This project was built in 2016 for a solar project on a 1,000-acre assemblage for an 80 MW facility. The closest home is 135 feet from the closest panel. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 8.18% 63.74% Agricultural 75.16% 30.77% Agri/Res 16.56% 3.30% Substation 0.08% 1.10% Church 0.01% 1.10% Total 100.00% 100.00% 28 364: Remington Solar, 12080 Lucky Hill Rd, Remington, VA This project was built in 2017 for a solar project on a 125-acre tract for a 20 MW facility. There were some recent home sales adjoining this project, but it was difficult to do any matched pairs. One sale was an older home in very poor condition according to the broker and required crossing railroad tracks on a private road to get access to the home and located across from a large industrial building. The other sale is a renovated historic home on a large tract of land just one parcel north of the large industrial building. These sales essentially have too much static around them to isolate any impacts separate from these other factors. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 10.24% 65.38% Agricultural 40.79% 19.23% Agri/Res 30.87% 7.69% Warehouse 0.82% 3.85% Substation 17.28% 3.85% Total 100.00% 100.00% 29 370: Cherrydale Solar, Seaside Road, Kendall Grove, VA This project was built in 2017 and located on 180.17 acres for a 20 MW facility. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 5.44% 80.77% Agricultural 92.01% 15.38% Warehouse 2.55% 3.85% Total 100.00% 100.00% 30 371: Clarke County Solar, Double Tollgate Road, White Post, VA This project was built in 2017 and located on a portion of a 234.84-acre tract for a 20 MW facility. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 13.70% 74.19% Agricultural 38.89% 6.45% Agri/Res 46.07% 6.45% Commercial 0.19% 6.45% Warehouse 0.85% 3.23% Substation 0.30% 3.23% Total 100.00% 100.00% 31 373: Woodland Solar, Longview Drive, Smithfield, VA This project was built in 2016 for a solar project on a 211.12-acre tract for a 19.7 MW facility. The closest single-family home is 190 feet away from the closest solar panel. The average distance is 606 feet. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 8.85% 46.15% Agricultural 91.08% 46.15% Cell Tower 0.07% 7.69% Total 100.00% 100.00% 374: Whitehouse Solar, Chalklevel Road, Louisa, VA This project was built in 2016 for a solar project on a 499.52-acre tract for a 20 MW facility. The closest single-family home is 110 feet away from the closest solar panel. The average distance is 1,195 feet. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 23.55% 70.27% Agricultural 54.51% 10.81% Agri/Res 18.22% 2.70% Commercial 2.49% 13.51% Industrial 1.22% 2.70% Total 100.00% 100.00% 484: Essex Solar, Tidewater Trail, Center Cross, VA This project was built in 2017 for a solar project on a 106.12-acre tract for a 20 MW facility. The closest single-family home is 360 feet away from the closest solar panel. The average distance is 693 feet. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 3.13% 57.89% Agricultural 69.65% 26.32% Agri/Res 26.99% 10.53% Religious 0.23% 5.26% Total 100.00% 100.00% 485: Southampton Solar, General Thomas Hwy, Newsoms, VA 35 This project was built in 2017 for a solar project on an assemblage of 3,244 acres for a 100 MW facility. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Residential 2.56% 53.33% Agricultural 77.99% 36.67% Agri/Res 16.56% 8.33% Industrial 2.89% 1.67% Total 100.00% 100.00% 36 VI. Market Analysis of the Impact on Value from Solar Farms I have researched hundreds of solar farms in numerous states to determine the impact of these facilities on the value of adjoining property. This research has primarily been in North Carolina, but I have also conducted market impact analyses in Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Oregon, Mississippi, Maryland, New York, California, Missouri, Florida, Montana, Georgia, Louisiana, and New Jersey. Wherever I have looked at solar farms, I have derived a breakdown of the adjoining uses to show what adjoining uses are typical for solar farms and what uses would likely be considered consistent with a solar farm use similar to the breakdown that I’ve shown for the subject property on the previous page. A summary showing the results of compiling that data over hundreds of solar farms is shown later in the Scope of Research section of this report. I also consider whether the properties adjoining a solar farm in one location have characteristics similar to the properties abutting or adjoining the proposed site so that I can make an assessment of market impact on each proposed site. Notably, in most cases solar farms are placed in areas very similar to the site in question, which is surrounded by low density residential and agricultural uses. In my over 700 studies, I have found a striking repetition of that same typical adjoining use mix in over 90% of the solar farms I have looked at. Matched pair results in multiple states are strikingly similar, and all indicate that solar farms – which generate very little traffic, and do not generate noise, dust or have other harmful effects – do not negatively impact the value of adjoining or abutting properties. On the following pages I have considered matched pair data specific to Virginia and Kentucky. In the next section I have considered matched pair data throughout the Southeast of the United States as being the most similar states that would most readily compare to Virginia. This includes data from Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Maryland. I focused on projects of 5 MW and larger though I have significant supplemental data on solar farms just smaller than that in North Carolina that show similar results. This data is available in my files. I have additional supporting information from other states in my files that show a consistent pattern across the United States, but again, I have focused on the Southeast in this analysis. 37 A. Virginia Data I have identified matched pairs adjoining 3 of the 27 solar farms noted above. I have also included data from a solar farm in Kentucky that does a good job of illustrating distant views of solar panels in relation to adjoining housing. The following pages detail the matched pairs and how they were derived. 38 1. Matched Pair – Clarke County Solar, Clarke County, VA This project is a 20 MW facility located on a 234-acre tract that was built in 2017. 39 I have considered two recent sales of Parcel 3. The home on this parcel is 1,230 feet from the closest panel as measured in the second map from Google Earth, which shows the solar farm under construction. This home sold in January 2017 for $295,000 and again in August 2019 for $385,000. I show each sale below and compare those to similar home sales in each time frame. The significant increase in price between 2017 and 2019 is due to a major kitchen remodel, new roof, and related upgrades as well as improvement in the market in general. The sale and later resale of the home with updates and improvements speaks to pride of ownership and increasing overall value as properties perceived as diminished are less likely to be renovated and sold for profit. I note that 102 Tilthammer includes a number of barns that I did not attribute any value in the analysis. The market would typically give some value for those barns but even without that adjustment there is an indication of a positive impact on value due to the solar farm. The landscaping buffer from this home is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 3 Adjoins 833 Nations Spr 5.13 8/18/2019 $385,000 1979 1,392 $276.58 3/2 Det Gar Ranch UnBsmt Not 167 Leslie 5.00 8/19/2020 $429,000 1980 1,665 $257.66 3/2 Det2Gar Ranch Not 2393 Old Chapel 2.47 8/10/2020 $330,000 1974 1,500 $220.00 3/1.5 Det Gar Ranch Not 102 Tilthammer 6.70 5/7/2019 $372,000 1970 1,548 $240.31 3/1.5 Det Gar Ranch UnBsmt Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance $385,000 1230 -$13,268 -$2,145 -$56,272 -$5,000 $50,000 $402,315 -4% -$9,956 $25,000 $8,250 -$19,008 $5,000 $50,000 $389,286 -1% $3,229 $16,740 -$29,991 $5,000 $366,978 5% 0% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 3 Adjoins 833 Nations Spr 5.13 1/9/2017 $295,000 1979 1,392 $211.93 3/2 Det Gar Ranch UnBsmt Not 6801 Middle 2.00 12/12/2017 $249,999 1981 1,584 $157.83 3/2 Open Ranch Not 4174 Rockland 5.06 1/2/2017 $300,000 1990 1,688 $177.73 3/2 2 Gar 2-story Not 400 Sugar Hill 1.00 6/7/2018 $180,000 1975 1,008 $178.57 3/1 Open Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance $295,000 1230 -$7,100 $25,000 -$2,500 -$24,242 $5,000 $50,000 $296,157 0% $177 -$16,500 -$42,085 -$10,000 $50,000 $281,592 5% -$7,797 $3,600 $54,857 $10,000 $5,000 $50,000 $295,661 0% 1% 40 2. Matched Pair – Walker-Correctional Solar, Barham Road, Barhamsville, VA This project was built in 2017 and located on 484.65 acres for a 20 MW with the closest home at 110 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 500 feet. I considered the recent sale identified on the map above as Parcel 19, which is directly across the street and based on the map shown on the following page is 250 feet from the closest panel. A 41 limited buffering remains along the road with natural growth being encouraged, but currently the panels are visible from the road. Alex Uminski, SRA with MGMiller Valuations in Richmond VA confirmed this sale with the buying and selling broker. The selling broker indicated that the solar farm was not a negative influence on this sale and in fact the buyer noticed the solar farm and then discovered the listing. The privacy being afforded by the solar farm was considered a benefit by the buyer. I used a matched pair analysis with a similar sale nearby as shown below and found no negative impact on the sales price. Property actually closed for more than the asking price. The landscaping buffer is considered light. I also spoke with Patrick W. McCrerey of Virginia Estates who was marketing a property that sold at 5300 Barham Road adjoining the Walker-Correctional Solar Farm. He indicated that this property was unique with a home built in 1882 and heavily renovated and updated on 16.02 acres. The solar farm was through the woods and couldn’t be seen by this property and it had no impact on marketing this property. This home sold on April 26, 2017 for $358,000. I did not set up any matched pairs for this property since it is a unique property that any such comparison would be difficult to rely on. The broker’s comments do support the assertion that the adjoining solar farm had no impact on value. The home in this case was 510 feet from the closest panel. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 5241 Barham 2.65 10/18/2018 $264,000 2007 1,660 $159.04 3/2 Drive Ranch Modular Not 17950 New Kent 5.00 9/5/2018 $290,000 1987 1,756 $165.15 3/2.5 3 Gar Ranch Not 9252 Ordinary 4.00 6/13/2019 $277,000 2001 1,610 $172.05 3/2 1.5-Gar Ranch Not 2416 W Miller 1.04 9/24/2018 $299,000 1999 1,864 $160.41 3/2.5 Gar Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist Adjoins 5241 Barham $264,000 250 Not 17950 New Kent -$8,000 $29,000 -$4,756 -$5,000 -$20,000 -$15,000 $266,244 -1% Not 9252 Ordinary -$8,310 -$8,000 $8,310 $2,581 -$10,000 -$15,000 $246,581 7% Not 2416 W Miller $8,000 $11,960 -$9,817 -$5,000 -$10,000 -$15,000 $279,143 -6% Average Diff 0% 42 3. Matched Pair – Sappony Solar, Sussex County, VA This project is a 30 MW facility located on a 322.68-acre tract that was built in the fourth quarter of 2017. I have considered the 2018 sale of Parcel 17 as shown below. This was a 1,900 s.f. manufactured home on a 6.00-acre lot that sold in 2018. I have compared that to three other nearby manufactured homes as shown below. The range of impacts is within typical market variation with an average of -1%, which supports a conclusion of no impact on property value. The landscaping buffer is considered medium. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 12511 Palestine 6.00 7/31/2018 $128,400 2013 1,900 $67.58 4/2.5 Open Manuf Not 15698 Concord 3.92 7/31/2018 $150,000 2010 2,310 $64.94 4/2 Open Manuf Fence Not 23209 Sussex 1.03 7/7/2020 $95,000 2005 1,675 $56.72 3/2 Det Crpt Manuf Not 6494 Rocky Br 4.07 11/8/2018 $100,000 2004 1,405 $71.17 3/2 Open Manuf Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance $128,400 1425 $0 $2,250 -$21,299 $5,000 $135,951 -6% -$5,660 $13,000 $3,800 $10,209 $5,000 $1,500 $122,849 4% -$843 $4,500 $28,185 $131,842 -3% -1% 43 4. Matched Pair – Spotsylvania Solar, Paytes, VA 44 This solar farm is being built in four phases with the area known as Site C having completed construction in November 2020 after the entire project was approved in April 2019. Site C, also known as Pleinmont 1 Solar, includes 99.6 MW located in the southeast corner of the project and shown on the maps above with adjoining parcels 111 through 144. The entire Spotsylvania project totals 617 MW on 3500 acres out of a parent tract assemblage of 6,412 acres. I have identified three adjoining home sales that occurred during construction and development of the site in 2020. The first is located on the north side of Site A on Orange Plank Road. The second is located on Nottoway Lane just north of Caparthin Road on the south side of Site A and east of Site C. The third is located on Post Oak Road for a home that backs up to Site C that sold in September 2020 near the completion of construction for Site C. Spotsylvania Solar Farm Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 12901 Orng Plnk 5.20 8/27/2020 $319,900 1984 1,714 $186.64 3/2 Drive 1.5 Un Bsmt Not 8353 Gold Dale 3.00 1/27/2021 $415,000 2004 2,064 $201.07 3/2 3 Gar Ranch Not 6488 Southfork 7.26 9/9/2020 $375,000 2017 1,680 $223.21 3/2 2 Gar 1.5 Barn/Patio Not 12717 Flintlock 0.47 12/2/2020 $290,000 1990 1,592 $182.16 3/2.5 Det Gar Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist 12901 Orng Plnk $319,900 1270 8353 Gold Dale -$5,219 $20,000 -$41,500 -$56,298 -$20,000 $311,983 2% 6488 Southfork -$401 -$20,000 -$61,875 $6,071 -$15,000 $283,796 11% 12717 Flintlock -$2,312 $40,000 -$8,700 $17,779 -$5,000 -$5,000 $326,767 -2% Average Diff 4% Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 9641 Nottoway 11.00 5/12/2020 $449,900 2004 3,186 $141.21 4/2.5 Garage 2-Story Un Bsmt Not 26123 Lafayette 1.00 8/3/2020 $390,000 2006 3,142 $124.12 3/3.5 Gar/DtG 2-Story Not 11626 Forest 5.00 8/10/2020 $489,900 2017 3,350 $146.24 4/3.5 2 Gar 2-Story Not 10304 Pny Brnch 6.00 7/27/2020 $485,000 1998 3,076 $157.67 4/4 2Gar/Dt2 Ranch Fn Bsmt Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist 9641 Nottoway $449,900 1950 26123 Lafayette -$2,661 $45,000 -$3,900 $4,369 -$10,000 -$5,000 $417,809 7% 11626 Forest -$3,624 -$31,844 -$19,187 -$5,000 $430,246 4% 10304 Pny Brnch -$3,030 $14,550 $13,875 -$15,000 -$15,000 -$10,000 $470,396 -5% Average Diff 2% Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 13353 Post Oak 5.20 9/21/2020 $300,000 1992 2,400 $125.00 4/3 Drive 2-Story Fn Bsmt Not 9609 Logan Hgt 5.86 7/4/2019 $330,000 2004 2,352 $140.31 3/2 2Gar 2-Story Not 12810 Catharpian 6.18 1/30/2020 $280,000 2008 2,240 $125.00 4/2.5 Drive 2-Story Bsmt/Nd Pnt Not 10725 Rbrt Lee 5.01 10/26/2020 $295,000 1995 2,166 $136.20 4/3 Gar 2-Story Fn Bsmt 45 All three of these homes are well set back from the solar panels at distances over 1,000 feet and are well screened from the project. All three show no indication of any impact on property value. Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist 13353 Post Oak $300,000 1171 9609 Logan Hgt $12,070 -$19,800 $5,388 -$15,000 $15,000 $327,658 -9% 12810 Catharpian $5,408 -$22,400 $16,000 $5,000 $15,000 $299,008 0% 10725 Rbrt Lee -$849 -$4,425 $25,496 -$10,000 $305,222 -2% Average Diff -4% 46 5. Matched Pair – Crittenden Solar, Crittenden, KY This solar farm was built in December 2017 on a 181.70-acre tract but utilizing only 34.10 acres. This is a 2.7 MW facility with residential subdivisions to the north and south. I have identified five home sales to the north of this solar farm on Clairborne Drive and one home sale to the south on Eagle Ridge Drive since the completion of this solar farm. The home sale on Eagle Drive is for a $75,000 home and all of the homes along that street are similar in size and price range. According to local broker Steve Glacken with Cutler Real Estate these are the lowest price range/style home in the market. I have not analyzed that sale as it would unlikely provide significant data to other homes in the area. Mr. Glacken is currently selling lots at the west end of Clairborne for new home construction. He indicated that the solar farm near the entrance of the development has been a complete non-factor and none of the home sales are showing any concern over the solar farm. Most of the homes are in the $250,000 to $280,000 price range. The vacant residential lots are being marketed for $28,000 to $29,000. The landscaping buffer is considered light, but the rolling terrain allows for distant views of the panels from the adjoining homes along Clairborne Drive. The first home considered is a bit of an anomaly for this subdivision in that it is the only manufactured home that was allowed in the community. It sold on January 3, 2019. I compared that sale to three other manufactured home sales in the area making minor adjustments as shown on the next page to account for the differences. After all other factors are considered, the adjustments show a -1% to +13% impact due to the adjacency of the solar farm. The best indicator is 1250 Cason, which shows a 3% impact. A 3% impact is within the normal static of real estate transactions and therefore not considered indicative of a positive impact on the property, but it strongly supports an indication of no negative impact. 47 I also looked at three other home sales on this street as shown below. These are stick-built homes and show a higher price range. This set of matched pairs shows a minor negative impact for this property. I was unable to confirm the sales price or conditions of this sale. The best indication of value is based on 215 Lexington, which required the least adjusting and supports a -7% impact. The following photograph shows the light landscaping buffer and the distant view of panels that was included as part of the marketing package for this property. The panels are visible somewhat on the left and somewhat through the trees in the center of the photograph. The first photograph is from the home, with the second photograph showing the view near the rear of the lot. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 250 Claiborne 0.96 1/3/2019 $120,000 2000 2,016 $59.52 3/2 Drive Manuf Not 1250 Cason 1.40 4/18/2018 $95,000 1994 1,500 $63.33 3/2 2-Det Manuf Carport Not 410 Reeves 1.02 11/27/2018 $80,000 2000 1,456 $54.95 3/2 Drive Manuf Not 315 N Fork 1.09 5/4/2019 $107,000 1992 1,792 $59.71 3/2 Drive Manuf Adjustments Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance Adjoins 250 Claiborne $120,000 373 Not 1250 Cason $2,081 $2,850 $26,144 -$5,000 -$5,000 $116,075 3% Not 410 Reeves $249 $0 $24,615 $104,865 13% Not 315 N Fork -$1,091 $4,280 $10,700 $120,889 -1% 5% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 300 Claiborne 1.08 9/20/2018 $212,720 2003 1,568 $135.66 3/3 2-Car Ranch Brick Not 460 Claiborne 0.31 1/3/2019 $229,000 2007 1,446 $158.37 3/2 2-Car Ranch Brick Not 2160 Sherman 1.46 6/1/2019 $265,000 2005 1,735 $152.74 3/3 2-Car Ranch Brick Not 215 Lexington 1.00 7/27/2018 $231,200 2000 1,590 $145.41 5/4 2-Car Ranch Brick Adjustments Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance Adjoins 300 Claiborne $213,000 488 Not 460 Claiborne -$2,026 -$4,580 $15,457 $5,000 $242,850 -14% Not 2160 Sherman -$5,672 -$2,650 -$20,406 $236,272 -11% Not 215 Lexington $1,072 $3,468 -$2,559 -$5,000 $228,180 -7% -11% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 350 Claiborne 1.00 7/20/2018 $245,000 2002 1,688 $145.14 3/3 2-Car Ranch Brick Not 460 Claiborne 0.31 1/3/2019 $229,000 2007 1,446 $158.37 3/2 2-Car Ranch Brick Not 2160 Sherman 1.46 6/1/2019 $265,000 2005 1,735 $152.74 3/3 2-Car R/FBsmt Brick Not 215 Lexington 1.00 7/27/2018 $231,200 2000 1,590 $145.41 5/4 2-Car Ranch Brick Adjustments Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance Adjoins 350 Claiborne $245,000 720 Not 460 Claiborne -$3,223 -$5,725 $30,660 $5,000 $255,712 -4% Not 2160 Sherman -$7,057 -$3,975 -$5,743 $248,225 -1% Not 215 Lexington -$136 $2,312 $11,400 -$5,000 $239,776 2% -1% 48 This set of matched pairs shows a no negative impact for this property. The range of adjusted impacts is -4% to +2%. The best indication is -1%, which as described above is within the typical market static and supports no impact on adjoining property value. 49 This set of matched pairs shows a general positive impact for this property. The range of adjusted impacts is -5% to +10%. The best indication is +7%. I typically consider measurements of +/-5% to be within the typical variation in real estate transactions. This indication is higher than that and suggests a positive relationship. The photograph from the listing shows panels visible between the home and the trampoline shown in the picture. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 370 Claiborne 1.06 8/22/2019 $273,000 2005 1,570 $173.89 4/3 2-Car 2-Story Brick Not 2160 Sherman 1.46 6/1/2019 $265,000 2005 1,735 $152.74 3/3 2-Car R/FBsmt Brick Not 2290 Dry 1.53 5/2/2019 $239,400 1988 1,400 $171.00 3/2.5 2-Car R/FBsmt Brick Not 125 Lexington 1.20 4/17/2018 $240,000 2001 1,569 $152.96 3/3 2-Car Split Brick Adjustments Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance Adjoins 370 Claiborne $273,000 930 Not 2160 Sherman $1,831 $0 -$20,161 $246,670 10% Not 2290 Dry $2,260 $20,349 $23,256 $2,500 $287,765 -5% Not 125 Lexington $9,951 $4,800 $254,751 7% 4% 50 This set of matched pairs shows a general positive impact for this property. The range of adjusted impacts is -3% to +6%. The best indication is +6%. I typically consider measurements of +/-5% to be within the typical variation in real estate transactions. This indication is higher than that and suggests a positive relationship. The landscaping buffer on these is considered light with a fair visibility of the panels from most of these comparables and only thin landscaping buffers separating the homes from the solar panels. The five matched pairs considered in this analysis includes two that show no impact on value, one that shows a negative impact on value, and two that show a positive impact. The negative indication supported by one matched pair is -7% and the positive impacts are +6% and +7%. The two neutral indications show impacts of -1% and +3%. The average indicated impact is +0% when all five of these indicators are blended. Furthermore, the comments of the local real estate broker strongly support the data that shows no negative impact on value due to the proximity to the solar farm. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 330 Claiborne 1.00 12/10/2019 $282,500 2003 1,768 $159.79 3/3 2-Car Ranch Brick/pool Not 895 Osborne 1.70 9/16/2019 $249,900 2002 1,705 $146.57 3/2 2-Car Ranch Brick/pool Not 2160 Sherman 1.46 6/1/2019 $265,000 2005 1,735 $152.74 3/3 2-Car R/FBsmt Brick Not 215 Lexington 1.00 7/27/2018 $231,200 2000 1,590 $145.41 5/4 2-Car Ranch Brick Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance Adjoins 330 Claiborne $282,500 665 Not 895 Osborne $1,790 $1,250 $7,387 $5,000 $0 $265,327 6% Not 2160 Sherman $4,288 -$2,650 $4,032 $20,000 $290,670 -3% Not 215 Lexington $9,761 $3,468 $20,706 -$5,000 $20,000 $280,135 1% 1% 51 6. Matched Pair – White House Solar, Louisa, VA This project was built in 2016 for a solar project on a 499.52-acre tract for a 20 MW facility. The closest single-family home is 110 feet away from the closest solar panel. The average distance is 1,195 feet. I have identified one recent adjoining home sale to the north of this project that sold in 2020. I spoke with the broker, Stacie Chandler, who represented the buyer in that transaction. She indicated that the solar farm had no impact on the price that they negotiated on that home. That is supported by the matched pair shown below. The adjustments shown below make no adjustment for the difference in acreage for the smaller parcels. One of these is on a smaller lot, but located in a golf course community with rear exposure to the golf course. The other is in Mineral and while the lots are not the same size, they are similarly valued. I also adjusted this property upward by $50,000 for the condition/lack of renovation. This adjustment is based on the fact that this home was renovated following the 2020 purchase and then resold in 2021 for $75,000 more than the 2020 value. Comparing the 2021 renovated price at $144/s.f. to the subject property and adjusting on the same rates would require a downward adjustment to the comparable of $10,400 for time, upward by $8,325 for year built, and downward by $5,000 for the extra half bathroom for an indicated adjusted value of $252,925 which suggests a 5% reduction in value due to the solar farm. Either way this comparable requires significant adjustments and suggests a range of -5% to 0% impact. The Woodger comparable required less 52 adjustment and suggests an 11% enhancement due to proximity to the solar farm and that is without any consideration of this home having a superior exposure to a golf course. These matched pairs are generally challenging in that one is shown before and after a renovation suggesting impacts of -5% to 0%. The comparable requiring the least adjustment is on a golf course but it also was not recently renovated which makes it less reliable. Finally, the Carsons property was similar, but older and is not brick. While I adjusted for those factors it really does not make for a great matched pair. The best indication by the matched pairs is -5% to 0%. The broker involved in the transaction indicated that the solar farm had no impact on property value. Given those comments and the range of impacts shown, I conclude that this home sale near the White House solar project indicates no impact on property value. Whitehouse Solar Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 127 Walnut Wds 4.09 3/27/2020 $240,000 1984 1,824 $131.58 3/2 2 Gar Br Rnch Reno Not 126 Woodger 0.63 4/29/2019 $240,000 1992 1,956 $122.70 3/2+2 2 Gar Br Rnch Golf Not 808 Virginia 0.51 3/16/2020 $185,000 1975 1,806 $102.44 3/2.5 2 Gar Br Rnch Not 273 Carsons 3.94 9/29/2018 $248,500 1985 2,224 $111.74 4/3 Drive Ranch Not Brck Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist 127 Walnut Wds $240,000 1400 126 Woodger $6,569 -$9,600 -$12,957 -$10,000 $214,012 11% 808 Virginia $167 $8,325 $1,475 -$5,000 $50,000 $239,967 0% 273 Carsons $11,131 -$1,243 -$35,755 -$10,000 $15,000 $12,425 $240,059 0% Average Diff 4% 53 Conclusion The solar farm matched pairs shown above have similar characteristics to each other in terms of population, but with several outliers showing solar farms in far more urban areas. The median income for the population within 1 mile of a solar farm among this subset of matched pairs is $80,778 with a median housing unit value of $320,076. Most of the comparables are under $500,000 in the home price, with $483,333 being the high end of the set, though I have matched pairs in other states over $1,000,000 in price adjoining large solar farms. The predominate adjoining uses are residential and agricultural. These figures are in line with the larger set of solar farms that I have looked at with the predominant adjoining uses being residential and agricultural and similar to the solar farm breakdown shown for Virginia and adjoining states as well as the proposed subject property. Based on the similarity of adjoining uses and demographic data between these sites and the subject property, I consider it reasonable to compare these sites to the subject property. On the following page is a summary of the matched pairs for all of the solar farms noted above. They show a pattern of results from -7% to +7% with an average of 0% and a median finding of +1%. As can be seen in the chart of those results below, most of the data points are between -3% and +5%. This variability is common with real estate and consistent with market “static.” I therefore conclude that these results strongly support an indication of no impact on property value due to the adjacent solar farm. Matched Pair Summary Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius (2010-2020 Data) Topo Med. Avg. Housing Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com/Ind Population Income Unit Veg. Buffer 1 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 234 20.00 70 14% 39% 46% 1%578 $81,022 $374,453 Light 2 Walker Barhamsville VA 485 20.00 N/A 12% 68% 20% 0%203 $80,773 $320,076 Light 3 Sappony Stony Crk VA 322 20.00 N/A 2% 98% 0% 0%74 $51,410 $155,208 Medium 4 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 160 37% 52% 11% 0%74 $120,861 $483,333 Med to Hvy 5 Crittenden Crittenden KY 34 2.70 40 22% 51% 27% 0%1,419 $60,198 $178,643 Light 6 White House Louisa VA 500 20.00 N/A 24% 55% 18% 3%409 $57,104 $209,286 Medium Average 846 116.62 90 19% 61% 20% 1%460 $75,228 $286,833 Median 404 20.00 70 18% 54% 19% 0%306 $70,486 $264,681 High 3,500 617.00 160 37% 98% 46% 3%1,419 $120,861 $483,333 Low 34 2.70 40 2% 39% 0% 0%74 $51,410 $155,208 Redbud 1-Mile 263 30.00 50 29% 55% 16% 0%892 $102,220 $329,545 3-Mile 263 30.00 50 29% 55% 16% 0%24,654 $84,006 $268,328 54 I have further broken down these results based on the MWs, Landscaping, and distance from panel to show the following range of findings for these different categories. This breakdown shows no homes between 100-200 homes. Solar farms up to 75 MW show homes between 201 and 500 feet with no impact on value. Most of the findings are for homes between 201 and 500 feet. Light landscaping screens are showing no impact on value at any distances, though solar farms over 75.1 MW only show Medium and Heavy landscaping screens in the 3 examples identified. Residential Dwelling Matched Pairs Adjoining Solar Farms Approx Adj. Sale Veg. Pair Solar Farm City State Area MW Distance Tax ID/Address Date Sale Price Price % Diff Buffer 1 Clarke Cnty White Post VA Rural 20 1230 833 Nations Spr Jan-17 $295,000 Light 6801 Middle Dec-17 $249,999 $296,157 0% 2 Walker Barhamsville VA Rural 20 250 5241 Barham Oct-18 $264,000 Light 9252 Ordinary Jun-19 $277,000 $246,581 7% 3 Clarke Cnty White Post VA Rural 20 1230 833 Nations Spr Aug-19 $385,000 Light 2393 Old Chapel Aug-20 $330,000 $389,286 -1% 4 Sappony Stony Creek VA Rural 20 1425 12511 Palestine Jul-18 $128,400 Medium 6494 Rocky Branch Nov-18 $100,000 $131,842 -3% 5 Spotsylvania Paytes VA Rural 617 1270 12901 Orange Plnk Aug-20 $319,900 Medium 12717 Flintlock Dec-20 $290,000 $326,767 -2% 6 Spotsylvania Paytes VA Rural 617 1950 9641 Nottoway May-20 $449,900 Medium 11626 Forest Aug-20 $489,900 $430,246 4% 7 Spotsylvania Paytes VA Rural 617 1171 13353 Post Oak Sep-20 $300,000 Heavy 12810 Catharpin Jan-20 $280,000 $299,008 0% 8 Crittenden Crittenden KY Suburban 2.7 373 250 Claiborne Jan‐19 $120,000Light 315 N Fork May‐19 $107,000 $120,889 ‐1% 9 Crittenden Crittenden KY Suburban 2.7 488 300 Claiborne Sep‐18 $213,000Light 1795 Bay Valley Dec‐17 $231,200 $228,180 ‐7% 10 Crittenden Crittenden KY Suburban 2.7 720 350 Claiborne Jul‐18 $245,000 Light 2160 Sherman Jun‐19 $265,000 $248,225 ‐1% 11 Crittenden Crittenden KY Suburban 2.7 930 370 Claiborne Aug‐19 $273,000 Light 125 Lexington Apr‐18 $240,000 $254,751 7% Avg.Indicated MW Distance Impact Average 176.53 1,003 Average 0% Median 20.00 1,171 Median -1% High 617.00 1,950 High 7% Low 2.70 250 Low -7% 55 MW Range 4.4 to 10 Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ Average N/A -4% 3% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Median N/A -4% 3% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A High N/A -1% 7% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Low N/A -7% -1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10.1 to 30 Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ Average N/A 7% -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A Median N/A 7% -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A High N/A 7% 0% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A Low N/A 7% -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A 30.1 to 75 Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ Average N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Median N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A High N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Low N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 75.1+ Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ Average N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1% N/A N/A N/A Median N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1% N/A N/A N/A High N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4% N/A N/A N/A Low N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -2% N/A N/A N/A 56 B. Southeastern USA Data – Over 5 MW 1. Matched Pair – AM Best Solar Farm, Goldsboro, NC This 5 MW solar farm adjoins Spring Garden Subdivision which had new homes and lots available for new construction during the approval and construction of the solar farm. The recent home sales have ranged from $200,000 to $250,000. This subdivision sold out the last homes in late 2014. The solar farm is clearly visible particularly along the north end of this street where there is only a thin line of trees separating the solar farm from the single-family homes. Homes backing up to the solar farm are selling at the same price for the same floor plan as the homes that do not back up to the solar farm in this subdivision. According to the builder, the solar farm has been a complete non-factor. Not only do the sales show no difference in the price paid for the various homes adjoining the solar farm versus not adjoining the solar farm, but there are actually more recent sales along the solar farm than not. There is no impact on the sellout rate, or time to sell for the homes adjoining the solar farm. I spoke with a number of owners who adjoin the solar farm and none of them expressed any concern over the solar farm impacting their property value. The data presented on the following page shows multiple homes that have sold in 2013 and 2014 adjoining the solar farm at prices similar to those not along the solar farm. These series of sales indicate that the solar farm has no impact on the adjoining residential use. The homes that were marketed at Spring Garden are shown below. The homes adjoining the solar farm are considered to have a light landscaping screen as it is a narrow row of existing pine trees supplemented with evergreen plantings. 57 Matched Pairs As of Date:9/3/2014 Adjoining Sales After Solar Farm Completed TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 3600195570 Helm 0.76 Sep-13 $250,000 2013 3,292 $75.94 2 Story 3600195361 Leak 1.49 Sep-13 $260,000 2013 3,652 $71.19 2 Story 3600199891 McBrayer 2.24 Jul-14 $250,000 2014 3,292 $75.94 2 Story 3600198632 Foresman 1.13 Aug-14 $253,000 2014 3,400 $74.41 2 Story 3600196656 Hinson 0.75 Dec-13 $255,000 2013 3,453 $73.85 2 Story Average 1.27 $253,600 2013.4 3,418 $74.27 Median 1.13 $253,000 2013 3,400 $74.41 Adjoining Sales After Solar Farm Announced TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 0 Feddersen 1.56 Feb-13 $247,000 2012 3,427 $72.07 Ranch 0 Gentry 1.42 Apr-13 $245,000 2013 3,400 $72.06 2 Story Average 1.49 $246,000 2012.5 3,414 $72.07 Median 1.49 $246,000 2012.5 3,414 $72.07 Adjoining Sales Before Solar Farm Announced TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 3600183905 Carter 1.57 Dec-12 $240,000 2012 3,347 $71.71 1.5 Story 3600193097 Kelly 1.61 Sep-12 $198,000 2012 2,532 $78.20 2 Story 3600194189 Hadwan 1.55 Nov-12 $240,000 2012 3,433 $69.91 1.5 Story Average 1.59 $219,000 2012 2,940 $74.95 Median 1.59 $219,000 2012 2,940 $74.95 Nearby Sales After Solar Farm Completed TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 3600193710 Barnes 1.12 Oct-13 $248,000 2013 3,400 $72.94 2 Story 3601105180 Nackley 0.95 Dec-13 $253,000 2013 3,400 $74.41 2 Story 3600192528 Mattheis 1.12 Oct-13 $238,000 2013 3,194 $74.51 2 Story 3600198928 Beckman 0.93 Mar-14 $250,000 2014 3,292 $75.94 2 Story 3600196965 Hough 0.81 Jun-14 $224,000 2014 2,434 $92.03 2 Story 3600193914 Preskitt 0.67 Jun-14 $242,000 2014 2,825 $85.66 2 Story 3600194813 Bordner 0.91 Apr-14 $258,000 2014 3,511 $73.48 2 Story 3601104147 Shaffer 0.73 Apr-14 $255,000 2014 3,453 $73.85 2 Story Average 0.91 $246,000 2013.625 3,189 $77.85 Median 0.92 $249,000 2014 3,346 $74.46 Nearby Sales Before Solar Farm Announced TAX ID Owner Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA Style 3600191437 Thomas 1.12 Sep-12 $225,000 2012 3,276 $68.68 2 Story 3600087968 Lilley 1.15 Jan-13 $238,000 2012 3,421 $69.57 1.5 Story 3600087654 Burke 1.26 Sep-12 $240,000 2012 3,543 $67.74 2 Story 3600088796 Hobbs 0.73 Sep-12 $228,000 2012 3,254 $70.07 2 Story Average 1.07 $232,750 2012 3,374 $69.01 Median 1.14 $233,000 2012 3,349 $69.13 58 I note that 2308 Granville Drive sold again in November 2015 for $267,500, or $7,500 more than when it was purchased new from the builder two years earlier (Tax ID 3600195361, Owner: Leak). The neighborhood is clearly showing appreciation for homes adjoining the solar farm. The Median Price is the best indicator to follow in any analysis as it avoids outlying samples that would otherwise skew the results. The median sizes and median prices are all consistent throughout the sales both before and after the solar farm whether you look at sites adjoining or nearby to the solar farm. The average size for the homes nearby the solar farm shows a smaller building size and a higher price per square foot. This reflects a common occurrence in real estate where the price per square foot goes up as the size goes down. So even comparing averages the indication is for no impact, but I rely on the median rates as the most reliable indication for any such analysis. I have also considered four more recent resales of homes in this community as shown on the following page. These comparable sales adjoin the solar farm at distances ranging from 315 to 400 feet. The matched pairs show a range from -9% to +6%. The range of the average difference is -2% to +1% with an average of 0% and a median of +0.5%. These comparable sales support a finding of no impact on property value. Matched Pair Summary Adjoins Solar Farm Nearby Solar Farm Average Median Average Median Sales Price $253,600 $253,000 $246,000 $249,000 Year Built 2013 2013 2014 2014 Size 3,418 3,400 3,189 3,346 Price/SF $74.27 $74.41 $77.85 $74.46 Percentage Differences Median Price -2% Median Size -2% Median Price/SF 0% 59 I have also considered the original sales prices in this subdivision relative to the recent resale values as shown in the chart below. This rate of appreciation is right at 2.5% over the last 6 years. Zillow indicates that the average home value within the 27530-zip code as of January 2014 was $101,300 and as of January 2020 that average is $118,100. This indicates an average increase in the market of 2.37%. I conclude that the appreciation of the homes adjoining the solar farm are not impacted by the presence of the solar farm based on this data. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 103 Granville Pl 1.42 7/27/2018 $265,000 2013 3,292 $80.50 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story 385 Not 2219 Granville 1.15 1/8/2018 $260,000 2012 3,292 $78.98 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 634 Friendly 0.96 7/31/2019 $267,000 2018 3,053 $87.45 4/4.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 2403 Granville 0.69 4/23/2019 $265,000 2014 2,816 $94.11 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 103 Granville Pl $265,000 -2% Not 2219 Granville $4,382 $1,300 $0 $265,682 0% Not 634 Friendly -$8,303 -$6,675 $16,721 -$10,000 $258,744 2% Not 2403 Granville -$6,029 -$1,325 $31,356 $289,001 -9% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 104 Erin 2.24 6/19/2017 $280,000 2014 3,549 $78.90 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story 315 Not 2219 Granville 1.15 1/8/2018 $260,000 2012 3,292 $78.98 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 634 Friendly 0.96 7/31/2019 $267,000 2018 3,053 $87.45 4/4.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 2403 Granville 0.69 4/23/2019 $265,000 2014 2,816 $94.11 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 104 Erin $280,000 0% Not 2219 Granville -$4,448 $2,600 $16,238 $274,390 2% Not 634 Friendly -$17,370 -$5,340 $34,702 -$10,000 $268,992 4% Not 2403 Granville -$15,029 $0 $48,285 $298,256 -7% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 2312 Granville 0.75 5/1/2018 $284,900 2013 3,453 $82.51 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story 400 Not 2219 Granville 1.15 1/8/2018 $260,000 2012 3,292 $78.98 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 634 Friendly 0.96 7/31/2019 $267,000 2018 3,053 $87.45 4/4.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 2403 Granville 0.69 4/23/2019 $265,000 2014 2,816 $94.11 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 2312 Granville $284,900 1% Not 2219 Granville $2,476 $1,300 $10,173 $273,948 4% Not 634 Friendly -$10,260 -$6,675 $27,986 -$10,000 $268,051 6% Not 2403 Granville -$7,972 -$1,325 $47,956 $303,659 -7% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 2310 Granville 0.76 5/14/2019 $280,000 2013 3,292 $85.05 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story 400 Not 2219 Granville 1.15 1/8/2018 $260,000 2012 3,292 $78.98 4/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 634 Friendly 0.96 7/31/2019 $267,000 2018 3,053 $87.45 4/4.5 2-Car 2-Story Not 2403 Granville 0.69 4/23/2019 $265,000 2014 2,816 $94.11 5/3.5 2-Car 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 2310 Granville $280,000 1% Not 2219 Granville $10,758 $1,300 $0 $272,058 3% Not 634 Friendly -$1,755 -$6,675 $16,721 -$10,000 $265,291 5% Not 2403 Granville $469 -$1,325 $31,356 $295,500 -6% 60 Initial Sale Second Sale Year % Apprec. Address Date Price Date Price Diff Apprec. Apprec. %/Year 1 103 Granville Pl 4/1/2013 $245,000 7/27/2018 $265,000 5.32 $20,000 8.16% 1.53% 2 105 Erin 7/1/2014 $250,000 6/19/2017 $280,000 2.97 $30,000 12.00% 4.04% 3 2312 Granville 12/1/2013 $255,000 5/1/2015 $262,000 1.41 $7,000 2.75%1.94% 4 2312 Granville 5/1/2015 $262,000 5/1/2018 $284,900 3.00 $22,900 8.74%2.91% 5 2310 Granville 8/1/2013 $250,000 5/14/2019 $280,000 5.79 $30,000 12.00% 2.07% 6 2308 Granville 9/1/2013 $260,000 11/12/2015 $267,500 2.20 $7,500 2.88%1.31% 7 2304 Granville 9/1/2012 $198,000 6/1/2017 $225,000 4.75 $27,000 13.64%2.87% 8 102 Erin 8/1/2014 $253,000 11/1/2016 $270,000 2.25 $17,000 6.72% 2.98% Average 2.46% Median 2.47% 61 2. Matched Pair – Mulberry, Selmer, TN This 16 MW solar farm was built in 2014 on 208.89 acres with the closest home being 480 feet. This solar farm adjoins two subdivisions with Central Hills having a mix of existing and new construction homes. Lots in this development have been marketed for $15,000 each with discounts offered for multiple lots being used for a single home site. I spoke with the agent with Rhonda Wheeler and Becky Hearnsberger with United County Farm & Home Realty who noted that they have seen no impact on lot or home sales due to the solar farm in this community. I have included a map below as well as data on recent sales activity on lots that adjoin the solar farm or are near the solar farm in this subdivision both before and after the announced plan for this solar farm facility. I note that using the same method I used to breakdown the adjoining uses at the subject property I show that the predominant adjoining uses are residential and agricultural, which is consistent with the location of most solar farms. 62 I have run a number of direct matched comparisons on the sales adjoining this solar farm as shown below. These direct matched pairs include some of those shown above as well as additional more recent sales in this community. In each of these I have compared the one sale adjoining the solar farm to multiple similar homes nearby that do not adjoin a solar farm to look for any potential impact from the solar farm. The best matched pair is 35 April Loop, which required the least adjustment and indicates a -1% increase in value due to the solar farm adjacency. The best matched pair is 191 Amelia, which was most similar in time frame of sale and indicates a +4% increase in value due to the solar farm adjacency. Adjoining Use Breakdown Acreage Parcels Commercial 3.40% 0.034 Residential 12.84% 79.31% Agri/Res 10.39% 3.45% Agricultural 73.37% 13.79% Total 100.00% 100.00% Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other 3 Adjoins 491 Dusty 6.86 10/28/2016 $176,000 2009 1,801 $97.72 3/2 2-Gar Ranch Not 820 Lake Trail 1.00 6/8/2018 $168,000 2013 1,869 $89.89 4/2 2-Gar Ranch Not 262 Country 1.00 1/17/2018 $145,000 2000 1,860 $77.96 3/2 2-Gar Ranch Not 35 April 1.15 8/16/2016 $185,000 2016 1,980 $93.43 3/2 2-Gar Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Parcel Solar Address r Time Site YB GLA Park Other Total % Diff Distance 3 Adjoins 491 Dusty $176,000 480 Not 820 Lake Trail -$8,324 $12,000 -$3,360 -$4,890 $163,426 7% Not 262 Country -$5,450 $12,000 $6,525 -$3,680 $154,396 12% Not 35 April $1,138 $12,000 -$6,475 -$13,380 $178,283 -1% Average 6% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other 12 Adjoins 57 Cooper 1.20 2/26/2019 $163,000 2011 1,586 $102.77 3/2 2-Gar 1.5 Story Pool Not 191 Amelia 1.00 8/3/2018 $132,000 2005 1,534 $86.05 3/2 Drive Ranch Not 75 April 0.85 3/17/2017 $134,000 2012 1,588 $84.38 3/2 2-Crprt Ranch Not 345 Woodland 1.15 12/29/2016 $131,000 2002 1,410 $92.91 3/2 1-Gar Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Parcel Solar Address Sales Price Time Site YB GLA Park Other Total % Diff Distance 12 Adjoins 57 Cooper $163,000 $163,000 685 Not 191 Amelia $132,000 $2,303 $3,960 $2,685 $10,000 $5,000 $155,947 4% Not 75 April $134,000 $8,029 $4,000 -$670 -$135 $5,000 $5,000 $155,224 5% Not 345 Woodland $131,000 $8,710 $5,895 $9,811 $5,000 $160,416 2% Average 4% 63 The best matched pair is 53 Glen, which was most similar in time frame of sale and required less adjustment. It indicates a +4% increase in value due to the solar farm adjacency. The average indicated impact from these three sets of matched pairs is +4%, which suggests a mild positive relationship due to adjacency to the solar farm. The landscaping buffer for this project is mostly natural tree growth that was retained as part of the development but much of the trees separating the panels from homes are actually on the lots for the homes themselves. I therefore consider the landscaping buffer to be thin to moderate for these adjoining homes. I have also looked at several lot sales in this subdivision as shown below. These are all lots within the same community and the highest prices paid are for lots one parcel off from the existing solar farm. These prices are fairly inconsistent, though they do suggest about a $3,000 loss in the lots adjoining the solar farm. This is an atypical finding and additional details suggest there is more going on in these sales than the data crunching shows. First of all Parcel 4 was purchased by the owner of the adjoining home and therefore an atypical buyer seeking to expand a lot and the site is not being purchased for home development. Moreover, using the SiteToDoBusiness demographic tools, I found that the 1-mile radius around this development is expecting a total population increase over the next 5 years of 3 people. This lack of growing demand for lots is largely explained in that context. Furthermore, the fact that finished home sales as shown above are showing no sign of a negative impact on property value makes this data unreliable and inconsistent with the data shown in sales to an end user. I therefore place little weight on this outlier data. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other 15 Adjoins 297 Country 1.00 9/30/2016 $150,000 2002 1,596 $93.98 3/2 4-Gar Ranch Not 185 Dusty 1.85 8/17/2015 $126,040 2009 1,463 $86.15 3/2 2-Gar Ranch Not 53 Glen 1.13 3/9/2017 $126,000 1999 1,475 $85.42 3/2 2-Gar Ranch Brick Adjoining Sales Adjusted Parcel Solar Address Sales Price Time Site YB GLA Park Other Total % Diff Distance 15 Adjoins 297 Country $150,000 $150,000 650 Not 185 Dusty $126,040 $4,355 -$4,411 $9,167 $10,000 $145,150 3% Not 53 Glen $126,000 -$1,699 $1,890 $8,269 $10,000 $144,460 4% Average 3% 4/18/2019 4/18/2019 Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Adj for Time $/AC Adj for Time 4 Adjoins Shelter 2.05 10/25/2017 $16,000 $16,728 $7,805 $8,160 10 Adjoins Carter 1.70 8/2/2018 $14,000 $14,306 $8,235 $8,415 11 Adjoins Cooper 1.28 9/17/2018 $12,000 $12,215 $9,375 $9,543 Not 75 Dusty 1.67 4/18/2019 $20,000 $20,000 $11,976 $11,976 Not Lake Trl 1.47 11/7/2018 $13,000 $13,177 $8,844 $8,964 Not Lake Trl 1.67 4/18/2019 $20,000 $20,000 $11,976 $11,976 Adjoins Per Acre Not Adjoins Per Acre % DIF/Lot % DIF/AC Average $14,416 $8,706 $17,726 $10,972 19% 21% Median $14,306 $8,415 $20,000 $11,976 28% 30% High $16,728 $9,543 $20,000 $11,976 16% 20% Low $12,215 $8,160 $13,177 $8,964 7%9% 64 3. Matched Pair – Leonard Road Solar Farm, Hughesville, MD This 5 MW solar farm is located on 47 acres and mostly adjoins agricultural and residential uses to the west, south and east as shown above. The property also adjoins retail uses and a church. I looked at a 2016 sale of an adjoining home with a positive impact on value adjoining the solar farm of 2.90%. This is within typical market friction and supports an indication of no impact on property value. I have shown this data below. The landscaping buffer is considered heavy. Leonardtown Road Solar Farm, Hughesville, MD Nearby Residential Sale After Solar Farm Construction Address Solar Farm Acres Date Sold Sales Price*Built GBA $/GBA Style BR/BA Bsmt Park Upgrades Other 14595 Box Elder Ct Adjoins 3.00 2/12/2016 $291,000 1991 2,174 $133.85 Colonial 5/2.5 No 2 Car Att N/A Deck 15313 Bassford Rd Not 3.32 7/20/2016 $329,800 1990 2,520 $130.87 Colonial 3/2.5 Finished 2 Car Att Custom Scr Por/Patio *$9,000 concession deducted from sale price for Box Elder and $10,200 deducted from Bassford Adjoining Sales Adjusted Adjustments Address Date Sold Sales Price Time GLA Bsmt Upgrades Other Total 14595 Box Elder Ct 2/12/2016 $291,000 $291,000 15313 Bassford Rd 7/20/2016 $329,800 -$3,400 -$13,840 -$10,000 -$15,000 -$5,000 $282,560 Difference Attributable to Location $8,440 2.90% This is within typical market friction and supports an indication of no impact on property value. 65 4. Matched Pair – Gastonia SC Solar, Gastonia, NC This 5 MW project is located on the south side of Neal Hawkins Road just outside of Gastonia. The property identified above as Parcel 4 was listed for sale while this solar farm project was going 66 through the approval process. The property was put under contract during the permitting process with the permit being approved while the due diligence period was still ongoing. After the permit was approved the property closed with no concerns from the buyer. I spoke with Jennifer Bouvier, the broker listing the property and she indicated that the solar farm had no impact at all on the sales price. She considered some nearby sales to set the price and the closing price was very similar to the asking price within the typical range for the market. The buyer was aware that the solar farm was coming and they had no concerns. This two-story brick dwelling was sold on March 20, 2017 for $270,000 for a 3,437 square foot dwelling built in 1934 in average condition on 1.42 acres. The property has four bedrooms and two bathrooms. The landscaping screen is light for this adjoining home due to it being a new planted landscaping buffer. I also considered the newer adjoining home identified as Parcel 5 that sold later in 2017 and it likewise shows no negative impact on property value. This is also considered a light landscaping buffer. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 609 Neal Hawkins 1.42 3/20/2017 $270,000 1934 3,427 $78.79 4/2 Open 2-Brick Not 1418 N Modena 4.81 4/17/2018 $225,000 1930 2,906 $77.43 3/3 2-Crprt 2-Brick Not 363 Dallas Bess 2.90 11/29/2018 $265,500 1968 2,964 $89.57 3/3 Open FinBsmt Not 1612 Dallas Chry 2.74 9/17/2018 $245,000 1951 3,443 $71.16 3/2 Open 2-Brick Unfin bath Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 609 Neal Hawkins $270,000 225 1418 N Modena $7,319 $2,700 $32,271 -$10,000 $257,290 5% 363 Dallas Bess $746 -$27,081 $33,179 -$10,000 $53,100 $262,456 3% 1612 Dallas Chry $4,110 -$12,495 -$911 $10,000 $235,704 13% 7% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Adjoins 611 Neal Hawkins 0.78 7/6/2017 $288,000 1991 2,256 $127.66 5/3 2-Gar 1.5 Brick Not 1211 Still Frst 0.51 7/30/2018 $280,000 1989 2,249 $124.50 3/3 2-Gar Br Rnch Not 2867 Colony Wds 0.52 8/14/2018 $242,000 1990 2,006 $120.64 3/3 2-Gar Br Rnch Not 1010 Strawberry 1.00 10/4/2018 $315,000 2002 2,330 $135.19 3/2.5 2-Gar 1.5 Brick Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 611 Neal Hawkins $288,000 145 1211 Still Frst $1,341 $2,800 $697 $284,838 1% 2867 Colony Wds $7,714 $1,210 $24,128 $275,052 4% 1010 Strawberry -$4,555 -$17,325 -$8,003 $5,000 $290,116 -1% 2% 67 5. Matched Pair – Summit/Ranchlands Solar, Moyock, NC 68 This project is located at 1374 Caritoke Highway, Moyock, NC. This is an 80 MW facility on a parent tract of 2,034 acres. Parcels Number 48 and 53 as shown in the map above were sold in 2016. The project was under construction during the time period of the first of the matched pair sales and the permit was approved well prior to that in 2015. I looked at multiple sales of adjoining and nearby homes and compared each to multiple comparables to show a range of impacts from -10% up to +11% with an average of +2% and a median of +3%. These ranges are well within typical real estate variation and supports an indication of no impact on property value. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance 48 Adjoins 129 Pinto 4.29 4/15/2016 $170,000 1985 1,559 $109.04 3/2 Drive MFG 1,060 Not 102 Timber 1.30 4/1/2016 $175,500 2009 1,352 $129.81 3/2 Drive MFG Not 120 Ranchland 0.99 10/1/2014 $170,000 2002 1,501 $113.26 3/2 Drive MFG Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 129 Pinto $170,000 -3% Not 102 Timber $276 $10,000 -$29,484 $18,809 $175,101 -3% Not 120 Ranchland $10,735 $10,000 -$20,230 $4,598 $175,103 -3% Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 105 Pinto 4.99 12/16/2016 $206,000 1978 1,484 $138.81 3/2 Det G Ranch Not 111 Spur 1.15 2/1/2016 $193,000 1985 2,013 $95.88 4/2 Gar Ranch Not 103 Marshall 1.07 3/29/2017 $196,000 2003 1,620 $120.99 3/2 Drive Ranch Not 127 Ranchland 0.00 6/9/2015 $219,900 1988 1,910 $115.13 3/2 Gar/3Det Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 105 Pinto $206,000 980 111 Spur $6,747 $10,000 -$6,755 -$25,359 $177,633 14% 103 Marshall -$2,212 $10,000 -$24,500 -$8,227 $5,000 $176,212 14% 127 Ranchland $13,399 $10,000 -$10,995 -$24,523 -$10,000 $197,781 4% 11% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance 15 Adjoins 318 Green View 0.44 9/15/2019 $357,000 2005 3,460 $103.18 4/4 2-Car 1.5 Brick 570 Not 195 St Andrews 0.55 6/17/2018 $314,000 2002 3,561 $88.18 5/3 2-Car 2.0 Brick Not 336 Green View 0.64 1/13/2019 $365,000 2006 3,790 $96.31 6/4 3-Car 2.0 Brick Not 275 Green View 0.36 8/15/2019 $312,000 2003 3,100 $100.65 5/3 2-Car 2.0 Brick Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 318 Green View $357,000 4% Not 195 St Andrews $12,040 $4,710 -$7,125 $10,000 $333,625 7% Not 336 Green View $7,536 -$1,825 -$25,425 -$5,000 $340,286 5% Not 275 Green View $815 $3,120 $28,986 $10,000 $354,921 1% 69 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance 29 Adjoins 164 Ranchland 1.01 4/30/2019 $169,000 1999 2,052 $82.36 4/2 Gar MFG 440 Not 150 Pinto 0.94 3/27/2018 $168,000 2017 1,920 $87.50 4/2 Drive MFG Not 105 Longhorn 1.90 10/10/2017 $184,500 2002 1,944 $94.91 3/2 Drive MFG Not 112 Pinto 1.00 7/27/2018 $180,000 2002 1,836 $98.04 3/2 Drive MFG Fenced Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 164 Ranchland $169,000 -10% Not 150 Pinto $5,649 -$21,168 $8,085 $5,000 $165,566 2% Not 105 Longhorn $8,816 -$10,000 -$3,875 $7,175 $5,000 $191,616 -13% Not 112 Pinto $4,202 -$3,780 $14,824 $5,000 $200,245 -18% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 358 Oxford 10.03 9/16/2019 $478,000 2008 2,726 $175.35 3/3 2 Gar Ranch 635 Not 276 Summit 10.01 12/20/2017 $355,000 2006 1,985 $178.84 3/2 2 Gar Ranch Not 176 Providence 6.19 5/6/2019 $425,000 1990 2,549 $166.73 3/3 4 Gar Ranch Brick Not 1601 B Caratoke 12.20 9/26/2019 $440,000 2016 3,100 $141.94 4/3.5 5 Gar Ranch Pool Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 358 Oxford $478,000 5% Not 276 Summit $18,996 $3,550 $106,017 $10,000 $493,564 -3% Not 176 Providence $4,763 $38,250 $23,609 -$10,000 -$25,000 $456,623 4% Not 1601 B Caratoke -$371 $50,000 -$17,600 -$42,467 -$5,000 -$10,000 $414,562 13% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Nearby 343 Oxford 10.01 3/9/2017 $490,000 2016 3,753 $130.56 3/3 2 Gar 1.5 Story Pool 970 Not 287 Oxford 10.01 9/4/2017 $600,000 2013 4,341 $138.22 5/4.5 8-Gar 1.5 Story Pool Not 301 Oxford 10.00 4/23/2018 $434,000 2013 3,393 $127.91 5/3 2 Gar 1.5 Story Not 218 Oxford 10.01 4/4/2017 $525,000 2006 4,215 $124.56 4/3 4 Gar 1.5 Story VG Barn Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 343 Oxford $490,000 3% Not 287 Oxford -$9,051 $9,000 -$65,017 -$15,000 -$25,000 $494,932 -1% Not 301 Oxford -$14,995 -$10,000 $6,510 $36,838 $452,353 8% Not 218 Oxford -$1,150 $26,250 -$46,036 -$10,000 -$10,000 $484,064 1% 70 6. Matched Pair – Tracy Solar, Bailey, NC This project is located in rural Nash County on Winters Road with a 5 MW facility that was built in 2016 on 50 acres. A local builder acquired parcels 9 and 10 following construction as shown below 71 at rates comparable to other tracts in the area. They then built a custom home for an owner and sold that at a price similar to other nearby homes as shown in the matched pair data below. The retained woods provide a heavy landscaped buffer for this homesite. The comparables for the land show either a significant positive relationship or a mild negative relationship to having and adjoining solar farm, but when averaged together they show no negative impact. The wild divergence is due to the difficulty in comping out this tract of land and the wide variety of comparables used. The two comparables that show mild negative influences include a property that was partly developed as a residential subdivision and the other included a doublewide with some value and accessory agricultural structures. The tax assessed value on the improvements were valued at $60,000. So both of those comparables have some limitations for comparison. The two that show significant enhancement due to adjacency includes a property with a cemetery located in the middle and the other is a tract almost twice as large. Still that larger tract after adjustment provides the best matched pair as it required the least adjustment. I therefore conclude that there is no negative impact due to adjacency to the solar farm shown by this matched pair. The dwelling that was built on the site was a build-to-suit and was compared to a nearby homesale of a property on a smaller parcel of land. I adjusted for that differenced based on a $25,000 value for a 1-acre home site versus the $70,000 purchase price of the larger subject tract. The other adjustments are typical and show no impact due to the adjacency to the solar farm. Adjoining Land Sales After Solar Farm Completed # Solar Farm TAX ID Grantor Grantee Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price $/AC Other 9 &10 Adjoins 316003 Cozart Kingsmill 9162 Winters 13.22 7/21/2016 $70,000 $5,295 & 316004 Not 6056 Billingsly 427 Young 41 10/21/2016 $164,000 $4,000 Not 33211 Fulcher Weikel 10533 Cone 23.46 7/18/2017 $137,000 $5,840 Doublewide, structures Not 106807 Perry Gardner Claude Lewis 11.22 8/10/2017 $79,000 $7,041 Gravel drive for sub, cleared Not 3437 Vaughan N/A 11354 Old 18.73 Listing $79,900 $4,266 Small cemetery,wooded Lewis Sch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Time Acres Location Other Adj $/Ac % Diff $5,295 $0 $400 $0 $0 $4,400 17% -$292 $292 $0 -$500 $5,340 -1% -$352 $0 $0 -$1,000 $5,689 -7% -$213 $0 $0 $213 $4,266 19% Average 7% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Completed #Solar Farmn Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GLA $/GLA BR/BA Style Other 9 &10 Adjoins gs 9162 Winters 13.22 1/5/2017 $255,000 2016 1,616 $157.80 3/2 Ranch 1296 sf wrkshp Not ow 7352 Red Fox 0.93 6/30/2016 $176,000 2010 1,529 $115.11 3/2 2-story Adjoining Sales Adjusted Time Acres YB GLA Style Other Total % Diff $255,000 $0 $44,000 $7,392 $5,007 $5,000 $15,000 $252,399 1% 72 The closest solar panel to the home is 780 feet away. I note that the representative for Kingsmill Homes indicated that the solar farm was never a concern in purchasing the land or selling the home. He also indicated that they had built a number of nearby homes across the street and it had never come up as an issue. 73 7. Matched Pair – Manatee Solar Farm, Parrish, FL This solar farm is located near Seminole Trail, Parrish, FL. The solar farm has a 74.50 MW output and is located on a 1,180.38-acre tract and was built in 2016. The tract is owned by Florida Power & Light Company. I have considered the recent sale of 13670 Highland Road, Wimauma, Florida. This one-story, concrete block home is located just north of the solar farm and separated from the solar farm by a railroad corridor. This home is a 3 BR, 3 BA 1,512 s.f. home with a carport and workshop. The property includes new custom cabinets, granite counter tops, brand-new stainless-steel appliances, updated bathrooms and new carpet in the bedrooms. The home is sitting on 5 acres. The home was built in 1997. I have compared this sale to several nearby homesales as part of this matched pair analysis as shown below. The landscaping separating the home from the solar farm is considered heavy. 74 The sales prices of the comparables before adjustments range from $220,000 to $254,000. After adjustments they range from $225,255 to $262,073. The comparables range from no impact to a strong positive impact. The comparables showing -3% and +4% impact on value is considered within a typical range of value and therefore not indicative of any impact on property value. This set of matched pair data falls in line with the data seen in other states. The closest solar panel to the home at 13670 Highland is 1,180 feet. There is a wooded buffer between these two properties. I have included a map showing the relative location of these properties below. Solar TAX ID/Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Note Adjoins 13670 Highland 5.00 8/21/2017 $255,000 1997 1,512 $168.65 3/3 Carport/Wrkshp Ranch Renov. Not 2901 Arrowsmith 1.91 1/31/2018 $225,000 1979 1,636 $137.53 3/2 2 Garage/Wrkshp Ranch Not 602 Butch Cassidy 1.00 5/5/2017 $220,000 2001 1,560 $141.03 3/2 N/A Ranch Renov. Not 2908 Wild West 1.23 7/12/2017 $254,000 2003 1,554 $163.45 3/2 2 Garage/Wrkshp Ranch Renov. Not 13851 Highland 5.00 9/13/2017 $240,000 1978 1,636 $146.70 4/2 3 Garage Ranch Renov. Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar TAX ID/Address Time Acres YB GLA BR/BA Park Note Total % Diff Adjoins 13670 Highland $255,000 Not 2901 Arrowsmith $2,250 $10,000 $28,350 -$8,527 $5,000 -$10,000 $10,000 $262,073 -3% Not 602 Butch Cassidy -$2,200 $10,000 -$6,160 -$3,385 $5,000 $2,000 $225,255 12% Not 2908 Wild West $0 $10,000 -$10,668 -$3,432 $5,000 -$10,000 $244,900 4% Not 13851 Highland $0 $0 $31,920 -$9,095 $3,000 -$10,000 $255,825 0% Average 3% 75 8. Matched Pair – McBride Place Solar Farm, Midland, NC This project is located on Mount Pleasant Road, Midland, North Carolina. The property is on 627 acres on an assemblage of 974.59 acres. The solar farm was approved in early 2017 for a 74.9 MW facility. I have considered the sale of 4380 Joyner Road which adjoins the proposed solar farm near the northwest section. This property was appraised in April of 2017 for a value of $317,000 with no consideration of any impact due to the solar farm in that figure. The property sold in November 76 2018 for $325,000 with the buyer fully aware of the proposed solar farm. The landscaping buffer relative to Joyner Road, Hayden Way, Chanel Court and Kristi Lane is considered medium, while the landscaping for the home at the north end of Chanel Court is considered very light. I have considered the following matched pairs to the subject property. The home at 4380 Joyner Road is 275 feet from the closest solar panel. I also considered the recent sale of a lot at 5800 Kristi Lane that is on the east side of the proposed solar farm. This 4.22-acre lot sold in December 2017 for $94,000. A home was built on this lot in 2019 with the closest point from home to panel at 689 feet. The home site is heavily wooded and their remains a wooded buffer between the solar panels and the home. I spoke with the broker, Margaret Dabbs, who indicated that the solar farm was considered a positive by both buyer and seller as it ensures no subdivision will be happening in that area. Buyers in this market are looking for privacy and seclusion. The breakdown of recent lot sales on Kristi are shown below with the lowest price paid for the lot with no solar farm exposure, though that lot has exposure to Mt Pleasant Road South. Still the older lot sales have exposure to the solar farm and sold for higher prices than the front lot and adjusting for time would only increase that difference. The lot at 5811 Kristi Lane sold in May 2018 for $100,000 for a 3.74-acre lot. The home that was built later in 2018 is 505 feet to the closest solar panel. This home then sold to a homeowner for $530,000 in April 2020. I have compared this home sale to other properties in the area as shown below. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 4380 Joyner 12.00 11/22/2017 $325,000 1979 1,598 $203.38 3/2 2xGar Ranch Outbldg Not 3870 Elkwood 5.50 8/24/2016 $250,000 1986 1,551 $161.19 3/2.5 Det 2xGar Craft Not 8121 Lower Rocky 18.00 2/8/2017 $355,000 1977 1,274 $278.65 2/2 2xCarprt Ranch Eq. Fac. Not 13531 Cabarrus 7.89 5/20/2016 $267,750 1981 2,300 $116.41 3/2 2xGar Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Time Acres YB Condition GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff $325,000 $7,500 $52,000 -$12,250 $10,000 $2,273 -$2,000 $2,500 $7,500 $317,523 2% $7,100 -$48,000 $4,970 $23,156 $0 $3,000 -$15,000 $330,226 -2% $8,033 $33,000 -$3,749 $20,000 -$35,832 $0 $0 $7,500 $296,702 9% Average 3% Adjoining Lot Sales After Solar Farm Built Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price $/AC $/Lot Adjoins 5811 Kristi 3.74 5/1/2018 $100,000 $26,738 $100,000 Adjoins 5800 Kristi 4.22 12/1/2017 $94,000 $22,275 $94,000 Not 5822 Kristi 3.43 2/24/2020 $90,000 $26,239 $90,000 77 After adjusting the comparables, I found that the average adjusted value shows a slight increase in value for the subject property adjoining a solar farm. As in the other cases, this is a mild positive impact on value but within the typical range of real estate transactions. I also looked at 5833 Kristi Lane that sold on 9/14/2020 for $625,000. This home is 470 feet from the closest panel. The average difference is 0% impact and the differences are all within a close range with this set of comparables and supports a finding of no impact on property value. I have also looked at 4504 Chanel Court. This home sold on January 1, 2020 for $393,500 for this 3,010 square foot home built in 2004 with 3 bedrooms, 3.5 bathrooms, and a 3-car garage. This home includes a full partially finished basement that significantly complicates comparing this to other sales. This home previously sold on January 23, 2017 for $399,000. This was during the time that the solar farm was a known factor as the solar farm was approved in early 2017 and public discussions had already commenced. I spoke with Rachelle Killman with Real Estate Realty, LLC the buyer’s agent for this transaction and she indicated that the solar farm was not a factor or consideration for the buyer. She noted that you could see the panels sort of through the trees, but it wasn’t a concern for the buyer. She was not familiar with the earlier 2017 sale, but indicated that it was likely too high. This again goes back to the partially finished basement issue. The basement has a fireplace, and an installed 3/4 bathroom but otherwise bare studs and concrete floors with different buyers assigning varying value to that partly finished space. I also reached out to Don Gomez with Don Anthony Realty, LLC as he was the listing agent. I also looked at the recent sale of 4599 Chanel Court. This home is within 310 feet of solar panels but notably does not have a good landscaping screen in place as shown in the photo below. The plantings appear to be less than 3-feet in height and only a narrow, limited screen of existing hardwoods were kept. The photograph is from the listing. According to Scott David with Better Homes and Gardens Paracle Realty, this property was under contract for $550,000 contingent on the buyer being able to sell their former home. The former home was apparently overpriced and did not sell and the contract stretched out over 2.5 months. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Built Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 5811 Kristi 3.74 3/31/2020 $530,000 2018 3,858 $137.38 5/3.5 2 Gar 2-story Cement Ext Not 3915 Tania 1.68 12/9/2019 $495,000 2007 3,919 $126.31 3/3.5 2 Gar 2-story 3Det Gar Not 6782 Manatee 1.33 3/8/2020 $460,000 1998 3,776 $121.82 4/2/2h 2 Gar 2-story Water Not 314 Old Hickory 1.24 9/20/2019 $492,500 2017 3,903 $126.18 6/4.5 2 Gar 2-story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 5811 Kristi $530,000 5% Not 3915 Tania $6,285 $27,225 -$3,852 -$20,000 $504,657 5% Not 6782 Manatee $1,189 $46,000 $4,995 $5,000 $517,183 2% Not 314 Old Hickory $10,680 $2,463 -$2,839 -$10,000 $492,803 7% Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Nearby 5833 Kristi 4.05 9/14/2020 $625,000 2008 4,373 $142.92 5/4 3-Car 2-Brick Not 4055 Dakeita 4.90 12/30/2020 $629,000 2005 4,427 $142.08 4/4 4-Car 2-Brick 4DetGar/Stable Not 9615 Bales 2.16 6/30/2020 $620,000 2007 4,139 $149.79 4/5 3-Car 2-Stone 2DetGar Not 9522 Bales 1.47 6/18/2020 $600,000 2007 4,014 $149.48 4/4.5 3-Car 2-Stone Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 5833 Kristi $625,000 470 4055 Dakeita -$9,220 $5,661 -$6,138 -$25,000 $594,303 5% 9615 Bales $6,455 $1,860 $28,042 -$10,000 -$15,000 $631,356 -1% 9522 Bales $7,233 $1,800 $42,930 -$5,000 $646,963 -4% 0% 78 The seller was in a bind as they had a home they were trying to buy contingent on this closing and were about to lose that opportunity. A cash buyer offered them a quick close at $500,000 and the seller accepted that offer in order to not lose the home they were trying to buy. According to Mr. David, the original contracted buyer and the actual cash buyer never considered the solar farm as a negative. In fact Mr. David noted that the actual buyer saw it as a great opportunity to purchase a home where a new subdivision could not be built behind his house. I therefore conclude that this property supports a finding of no impact on adjoining property, even where the landscaping screen still requires time to grow in for a year-round screen. I also considered a sale/resale analysis on this property. This same home sold on September 15, 2015 for $462,000. Adjusting this upward by 5% per year for the five years between these sales dates suggests a value of $577,500. Comparing that to the $550,000 contract that suggests a 5% downward impact, which is within a typical market variation. Given that the broker noted no negative impact from the solar farm and the analysis above, I conclude this sale supports a finding of no impact on value. 79 9. Matched Pair – Mariposa Solar, Gaston County, NC This project is a 5 MW facility located on 35.80 acres out of a parent tract of 87.61 acres at 517 Blacksnake Road, Stanley that was built in 2016. I have considered a number of recent sales around this facility as shown below. The first is identified in the map above as Parcel 1, which is 215 Mariposa Road. This is an older dwelling on large acreage with only one bathroom. I’ve compared it to similar nearby homes as shown below. The landscaping buffer for this home is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Adjoins 215 Mariposa 17.74 12/12/2017 $249,000 1958 1,551 $160.54 3/1 Garage Br/Rnch Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3/1/2019 $153,000 1974 1,792 $85.38 4/2 Garage Br/Rnch Not 110 Airport 0.83 5/10/2016 $166,000 1962 2,165 $76.67 3/2 Crprt Br/Rnch Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9/20/2018 $242,500 1980 2,156 $112.48 3/2 Drive 1.5 Not 1201 Abernathy 27.00 5/3/2018 $390,000 1970 2,190 $178.08 3/2 Crprt Br/Rnch 80 The average difference after adjusting for all factors is +9% on average, which suggests an enhancement due to the solar farm across the street. Given the large adjustments for acreage and size, I will focus on the low end of the adjusted range at 4%, which is within the typical deviation and therefore suggests no impact on value. I have also considered Parcel 4 that sold after the solar farm was approved but before it had been constructed in 2016. The landscaping buffer for this parcel is considered light. The average difference after adjusting for all factors is +6%, which is again suggests a mild increase in value due to the adjoining solar farm use. The median is a 4% adjustment, which is within a standard deviation and suggests no impact on property value. I have also considered the recent sale of Parcel 13 that is located on Blacksnake Road south of the project. I was unable to find good land sales in the same 20-acre range, so I have considered sales of larger and smaller acreage. I adjusted each of those land sales for time. I then applied the price per acre to a trendline to show where the expected price per acre would be for 20 acres. As can be seen in the chart below, this lines up exactly with the purchase of the subject property. I therefore conclude that there is no impact on Parcel 13 due to proximity to the solar farm. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Time YB Acres GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Adjoins 215 Mariposa 17.74 12/12/2017 $249,000 $249,000 Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3/1/2019 $153,000 -$5,583 -$17,136 $129,450 -$20,576 -$10,000 $229,154 8% Not 110 Airport 0.83 5/10/2016 $166,000 $7,927 -$4,648 $126,825 -$47,078 -$10,000 $239,026 4% Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9/20/2018 $242,500 -$5,621 -$37,345 $95,475 -$68,048 -$10,000 $5,000 $221,961 11% Not 1201 Abernathy 27.00 5/3/2018 $390,000 -$4,552 -$32,760 -$69,450 -$60,705 -$10,000 $212,533 15% Average 9% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 242 Mariposa 2.91 9/21/2015 $180,000 1962 1,880 $95.74 3/2 Carport Br/Rnch Det Wrkshop Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3/1/2019 $153,000 1974 1,792 $85.38 4/2 Garage Br/Rnch Not 110 Airport 0.83 5/10/2016 $166,000 1962 2,165 $76.67 3/2 Crprt Br/Rnch Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9/20/2018 $242,500 1980 2,156 $112.48 3/2 Drive 1.5 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Time YB Acres GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Adjoins 242 Mariposa 2.91 9/21/2015 $180,000 $180,000 Not 249 Mariposa 0.48 3/1/2019 $153,000 -$15,807 -$12,852 $18,468 $7,513 -$3,000 $25,000 $172,322 4% Not 110 Airport 0.83 5/10/2016 $166,000 -$3,165 $0 $15,808 -$28,600 $25,000 $175,043 3% Not 1249 Blacksnake 5.01 9/20/2018 $242,500 -$21,825 -$30,555 -$15,960 -$40,942 $2,000 $25,000 $160,218 11% Average 6% Adjoining Residential Land Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Tax/Street Acres Date Sold Sales Price $/Ac Time $/Ac Adjoins 174339/Blacksnake 21.15 6/29/2018 $160,000 $7,565 $7,565 Not 227852/Abernathy 10.57 5/9/2018 $97,000 $9,177 $38 $9,215 Not 17443/Legion 9.87 9/7/2018 $64,000 $6,484 -$37 $6,447 Not 164243/Alexis 9.75 2/1/2019 $110,000 $11,282 -$201 $11,081 Not 176884/Bowden 55.77 6/13/2018 $280,000 $5,021 $7 $5,027 81 Finally, I have considered the recent sale of Parcel 17 that sold as vacant land. I was unable to find good land sales in the same 7-acre range, so I have considered sales of larger and smaller acreage. I adjusted each of those land sales for time. I then applied the price per acre to a trendline to show where the expected price per acre would be for 7 acres. As can be seen in the chart below, this lines up with the trendline running right through the purchase price for the subject property. I therefore conclude that there is no impact on Parcel 13 due to proximity to the solar farm. I note that this property was improved with a 3,196 square foot ranch built in 2018 following the land purchase, which shows that development near the solar farm was unimpeded. Adjoining Residential Land Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Tax/Street Acres Date Sold Sales Price $/Ac Time Location $/Ac Adjoins 227039/Mariposa 6.86 12/6/2017 $66,500 $9,694 $9,694 Not 227852/Abernathy 10.57 5/9/2018 $97,000 $9,177 -$116 $9,061 Not 17443/Legion 9.87 9/7/2018 $64,000 $6,484 -$147 $6,338 Not 177322/Robinson 5.23 5/12/2017 $66,500 $12,715 $217 -$1,272 $11,661 Not 203386/Carousel 2.99 7/13/2018 $43,500 $14,548 -$262 -$1,455 $12,832 82 10. Matched Pair – Clarke County Solar, Clarke County, VA This project is a 20 MW facility located on a 234-acre tract that was built in 2017. 83 I have considered two recent sales of Parcel 3. The home on this parcel is 1,230 feet from the closest panel as measured in the second map from Google Earth, which shows the solar farm under construction. This home sold in January 2017 for $295,000 and again in August 2019 for $385,000. I show each sale below and compare those to similar home sales in each time frame. The significant increase in price between 2017 and 2019 is due to a major kitchen remodel, new roof, and related upgrades as well as improvement in the market in general. The sale and later resale of the home with updates and improvements speaks to pride of ownership and increasing overall value as properties perceived as diminished are less likely to be renovated and sold for profit. I note that 102 Tilthammer includes a number of barns that I did not attribute any value in the analysis. The market would typically give some value for those barns but even without that adjustment there is an indication of a positive impact on value due to the solar farm. The landscaping buffer from this home is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 3 Adjoins 833 Nations Spr 5.13 8/18/2019 $385,000 1979 1,392 $276.58 3/2 Det Gar Ranch UnBsmt Not 167 Leslie 5.00 8/19/2020 $429,000 1980 1,665 $257.66 3/2 Det2Gar Ranch Not 2393 Old Chapel 2.47 8/10/2020 $330,000 1974 1,500 $220.00 3/1.5 Det Gar Ranch Not 102 Tilthammer 6.70 5/7/2019 $372,000 1970 1,548 $240.31 3/1.5 Det Gar Ranch UnBsmt Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance $385,000 1230 -$13,268 -$2,145 -$56,272 -$5,000 $50,000 $402,315 -4% -$9,956 $25,000 $8,250 -$19,008 $5,000 $50,000 $389,286 -1% $3,229 $16,740 -$29,991 $5,000 $366,978 5% 0% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 3 Adjoins 833 Nations Spr 5.13 1/9/2017 $295,000 1979 1,392 $211.93 3/2 Det Gar Ranch UnBsmt Not 6801 Middle 2.00 12/12/2017 $249,999 1981 1,584 $157.83 3/2 Open Ranch Not 4174 Rockland 5.06 1/2/2017 $300,000 1990 1,688 $177.73 3/2 2 Gar 2-story Not 400 Sugar Hill 1.00 6/7/2018 $180,000 1975 1,008 $178.57 3/1 Open Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance $295,000 1230 -$7,100 $25,000 -$2,500 -$24,242 $5,000 $50,000 $296,157 0% $177 -$16,500 -$42,085 -$10,000 $50,000 $281,592 5% -$7,797 $3,600 $54,857 $10,000 $5,000 $50,000 $295,661 0% 1% 84 11. Matched Pair – Simon Solar, Social Circle, GA This 30 MW solar farm is located off Hawkins Academy Road and Social Circle Fairplay Road. I identified three adjoining sales to this tract after development of the solar farm. However, one of those is shown as Parcel 12 in the map above and includes a powerline easement encumbering over a third of the 5 acres and adjoins a large substation as well. It would be difficult to isolate those impacts from any potential solar farm impact and therefore I have excluded that sale. I also excluded the recent sale of Parcel 17, which is a farm with conservation restrictions on it that similarly would require a detailed examination of those conservation restrictions in order to see if there was any impact related to the solar farm. I therefore focused on the recent sale of Parcel 7 and the adjoining parcel to the south of that. They are technically not adjoining due to the access road for the flag-shaped lot to the east. Furthermore, there is an apparent access easement serving the two rear lots that encumber these two parcels which is a further limitation on these sales. This analysis assumes that the access easement does not negatively impact the subject property, though it may. The landscaping buffer relative to this parcel is considered medium. 85 The range of impact identified by these matched pairs are -12% to +14%, with an average of 0% impact due to the solar farm. The best matched pair with the least adjustment supports a -2% impact due to the solar farm. I note again that this analysis considers no impact for the existing access easements that meander through this property and it may be having an impact. Still at -2% impact as the best indication for the solar farm, I consider that to be no impact given that market fluctuations support +/- 5%. Adjoining Land Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price $/AC Type Other 7+ Adjoins 4514 Hawkins 36.86 3/31/2016 $180,000 $4,883 Pasture Esmts Not HD Atha 69.95 12/20/2016 $357,500 $5,111 Wooded N/A Not Pannell 66.94 11/8/2016 $322,851 $4,823 Mixed * Not 1402 Roy 123.36 9/29/2016 $479,302 $3,885 Mixed ** * Adjoining 1 acre purchased by same buyer in same deed. Allocation assigned on the County Tax Record. ** Dwelling built in 1996 with a 2016 tax a ssessed value of $75,800 deducted from sales price to reflect land value Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Time Size Type Other Total/Ac % Diff % Diff $4,883 $89 $256 $5,455 -12% -$90 $241 $4,974 -2% -$60 $389 $4,214 14% 0% 86 12. Matched Pair – Candace Solar, Princeton, NC This 5 MW solar farm is located at 4839 US 70 Highway just east of Herring Road. This solar farm was completed on October 25, 2016. 87 I identified three adjoining sales to this tract after development of the solar farm with frontage on US 70. I did not attempt to analyze those sales as they have exposure to an adjacent highway and railroad track. Those homes are therefore problematic for a matched pair analysis unless I have similar homes fronting on a similar corridor. I did consider a land sale and a home sale on adjoining parcels without those complications. The lot at 499 Herring Road sold to Paradise Homes of Johnston County of NC, Inc. for $30,000 in May 2017 and a modular home was placed there and sold to Karen and Jason Toole on September 29, 2017. I considered the lot sale first as shown below and then the home sale that followed. The landscaping buffer relative to this parcel is considered medium. Following the land purchase, the modular home was placed on the site and sold. I have compared this modular home to the following sales to determine if the solar farm had any impact on the purchase price. The best comparable is 1795 Bay Valley as it required the least adjustment and was therefore most similar, which shows a 0% impact. This signifies no impact related to the solar farm. The range of impact identified by these matched pairs ranges are therefore -3% to +26% with an average of +8% for the home and an average of +4% for the lot, though the best indicator for the lot shows a $5,000 difference in the lot value due to the proximity to the solar farm or a -12% impact. Adjoining Land Sales After Solar Farm Approved Adjoining Sales Adjusted Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Other Time Site Other Total % Diff 16 Adjoins 499 Herring 2.03 5/1/2017 $30,000 $30,000 Not 37 Becky 0.87 7/23/2019 $24,500 Sub/Pwr -$1,679 $4,900 $27,721 8% Not 5858 Bizzell 0.88 8/17/2016 $18,000 $390 $3,600 $21,990 27% Not 488 Herring 2.13 12/20/2016 $35,000 $389 $35,389 -18% Average 5% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other 16 Adjoins 499 Herring 2.03 9/27/2017 $215,000 2017 2,356 $91.26 4/3 Drive Modular Not 678 WC 6.32 3/8/2019 $226,000 1995 1,848 $122.29 3/2.5 Det Gar Mobile Ag bldgs Not 1810 Bay V 8.70 3/26/2018 $170,000 2003 2,356 $72.16 3/2 Drive Mobile Ag bldgs Not 1795 Bay V 1.78 12/1/2017 $194,000 2017 1,982 $97.88 4/3 Drive Modular Adjoining Residential Sales Af Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Parcel Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 16 Adjoins 499 Herring $215,000 488 Not 678 WC -$10,037 -$25,000 $24,860 $37,275 -$5,000 -$7,500 -$20,000 $220,599 -3% Not 1810 Bay V -$2,579 -$20,000 $11,900 $0 $159,321 26% Not 1795 Bay V -$1,063 $0 $21,964 $214,902 0% 8% 88 13. Matched Pair – Walker-Correctional Solar, Barham Road, Barhamsville, VA This project was built in 2017 and located on 484.65 acres for a 20 MW with the closest home at 110 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 500 feet. I considered the recent sale identified on the map above as Parcel 19, which is directly across the street and based on the map shown on the following page is 250 feet from the closest panel. A 89 limited buffering remains along the road with natural growth being encouraged, but currently the panels are visible from the road. Alex Uminski, SRA with MGMiller Valuations in Richmond VA confirmed this sale with the buying and selling broker. The selling broker indicated that the solar farm was not a negative influence on this sale and in fact the buyer noticed the solar farm and then discovered the listing. The privacy being afforded by the solar farm was considered a benefit by the buyer. I used a matched pair analysis with a similar sale nearby as shown below and found no negative impact on the sales price. Property actually closed for more than the asking price. The landscaping buffer is considered light. I also spoke with Patrick W. McCrerey of Virginia Estates who was marketing a property that sold at 5300 Barham Road adjoining the Walker-Correctional Solar Farm. He indicated that this property was unique with a home built in 1882 and heavily renovated and updated on 16.02 acres. The solar farm was through the woods and couldn’t be seen by this property and it had no impact on marketing this property. This home sold on April 26, 2017 for $358,000. I did not set up any matched pairs for this property since it is a unique property that any such comparison would be difficult to rely on. The broker’s comments do support the assertion that the adjoining solar farm had no impact on value. The home in this case was 510 feet from the closest panel. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 5241 Barham 2.65 10/18/2018 $264,000 2007 1,660 $159.04 3/2 Drive Ranch Modular Not 17950 New Kent 5.00 9/5/2018 $290,000 1987 1,756 $165.15 3/2.5 3 Gar Ranch Not 9252 Ordinary 4.00 6/13/2019 $277,000 2001 1,610 $172.05 3/2 1.5-Gar Ranch Not 2416 W Miller 1.04 9/24/2018 $299,000 1999 1,864 $160.41 3/2.5 Gar Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Solar Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist Adjoins 5241 Barham $264,000 250 Not 17950 New Kent -$8,000 $29,000 -$4,756 -$5,000 -$20,000 -$15,000 $266,244 -1% Not 9252 Ordinary -$8,310 -$8,000 $8,310 $2,581 -$10,000 -$15,000 $246,581 7% Not 2416 W Miller $8,000 $11,960 -$9,817 -$5,000 -$10,000 -$15,000 $279,143 -6% Average Diff 0% 90 14. Matched Pair – Innovative Solar 46, Roslin Farm Rd, Hope Mills, NC This project was built in 2016 and located on 532 acres for a 78.5 MW solar farm with the closest home at 125 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 423 feet. I considered the recent sale of a home on Roslin Farm Road just north of Running Fox Road as shown below. This sale supports an indication of no impact on property value. The landscaping buffer is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 6849 Roslin Farm 1.00 2/18/2019 $155,000 1967 1,610 $96.27 3/3 Drive Ranch Brick 435 Not 6592 Sim Canady 2.43 9/5/2017 $185,000 1974 2,195 $84.28 3/2 Gar Ranch Brick Not 1614 Joe Hall 1.63 9/3/2019 $145,000 1974 1,674 $86.62 3/2 Det Gar Ranch Brick Not 109 Bledsoe 0.68 1/17/2019 $150,000 1973 1,663 $90.20 3/2 Gar Ranch Brick Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 6849 Roslin Farm $155,000 5% Not 6592 Sim Canady $8,278 -$6,475 -$39,444 $10,000 -$5,000 $152,359 2% Not 1614 Joe Hall -$2,407 -$5,075 -$3,881 $10,000 -$2,500 $141,137 9% Not 109 Bledsoe $404 $10,000 -$4,500 -$3,346 -$5,000 $147,558 5% 91 15. Matched Pair – Innovative Solar 42, County Line Rd, Fayetteville, NC 92 This project was built in 2017 and located on 413.99 acres for a 71 MW with the closest home at 135 feet from the closest solar panel with an average distance of 375 feet. I considered the recent sales identified on the map above as Parcels 2 and 3, which is directly across the street these homes are 330 and 340 feet away. Parcel 2 includes an older home built in 1976, while Parcel 3 is a new home built in 2019. So the presence of the solar farm had no impact on new construction in the area. The matched pairs for each of these are shown below. The landscaping buffer relative to these parcels is considered light. Both of these matched pairs adjust to an average of +3% on impact for the adjoining solar farm, meaning there is a slight positive impact due to proximity to the solar farm. This is within the standard +/- of typical real estate transactions, which strongly suggests no impact on property value. I noted specifically that for 2923 County Line Road, the best comparable is 2109 John McMillan as it does not have the additional rental unit on it. I made no adjustment to the other sale for the value of that rental unit, which would have pushed the impact on that comparable downward – meaning there would have been a more significant positive impact. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 2923 County Ln 8.98 2/28/2019 $385,000 1976 2,905 $132.53 3/3 2-Car Ranch Brick/Pond 340 Not 1928 Shaw Mill 17.00 7/3/2019 $290,000 1977 3,001 $96.63 4/4 2-Car Ranch Brick/Pond/Rental Not 2109 John McM. 7.78 4/25/2018 $320,000 1978 2,474 $129.35 3/2 Det Gar Ranch Vinyl/Pool,Stable Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 2923 County Ln $385,000 3% Not 1928 Shaw Mill -$3,055 $100,000 -$1,450 -$7,422 -$10,000 $368,074 4% Not 2109 John McM. $8,333 -$3,200 $39,023 $10,000 $5,000 $379,156 2% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Distance Adjoins 2935 County Ln 1.19 6/18/2019 $266,000 2019 2,401 $110.79 4/3 Gar 2-Story 330 Not 3005 Hemingway 1.17 5/16/2019 $269,000 2018 2,601 $103.42 4/3 Gar 2-Story Not 7031 Glynn Mill 0.60 5/8/2018 $255,000 2017 2,423 $105.24 4/3 Gar 2-Story Not 5213 Bree Brdg 0.92 5/7/2019 $260,000 2018 2,400 $108.33 4/3 3-Gar 2-Story Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 2935 County Ln $266,000 3% Not 3005 Hemingway $748 $1,345 -$16,547 $254,546 4% Not 7031 Glynn Mill $8,724 $2,550 -$1,852 $264,422 1% Not 5213 Bree Brdg $920 $1,300 $76 -$10,000 $252,296 5% 93 16. Matched Pair – Sunfish Farm, Keenebec Rd, Willow Spring, NC This project was built in 2015 and located on 49.6 acres (with an inset 11.25-acre parcel) for a 6.4 MW project with the closest home at 135 feet with an average distance of 105 feet. I considered the 2017 sale identified on the map above, which is 205 feet away from the closest panel. The matched pairs for each of these are shown below followed by a more recent map showing the panels at this site. The average difference in the three comparables and the subject property is +3% after adjusting for differences in the sales date, year built, gross living area, and other minor differences. This data is supported by the comments from the broker Brian Schroepfer with Keller Williams that the solar farm had no impact on the purchase price. The landscaping screen is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Adjoins 7513 Glen Willow 0.79 9/1/2017 $185,000 1989 1,492 $123.99 3/2 Gar BR/Rnch Not 2968 Tram 0.69 7/17/2017 $155,000 1984 1,323 $117.16 3/2 Drive BR/Rnch Not 205 Pine Burr 0.97 12/29/2017 $191,000 1991 1,593 $119.90 3/2.5 Drive BR/Rnch Not 1217 Old Honeycutt 1.00 12/15/2017 $176,000 1978 1,558 $112.97 3/2.5 2Carprt VY/Rnch Adjustments Avg Solar Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Adjoins 7513 Glen Willow $185,000 Not 2968 Tram $601 $3,875 $15,840 $10,000 $185,316 0% Not 205 Pine Burr -$1,915 -$1,910 -$9,688 -$5,000 $172,487 7% Not 1217 Old Honeycut t -$1,557 $9,680 -$5,965 -$5,000 $5,280 $178,438 4% 3% 94 17. Matched Pair – Sappony Solar, Sussex County, VA This project is a 30 MW facility located on a 322.68-acre tract that was built in the fourth quarter of 2017. I have considered the 2018 sale of Parcel 17 as shown below. This was a 1,900 s.f. manufactured home on a 6.00-acre lot that sold in 2018. I have compared that to three other nearby manufactured homes as shown below. The range of impacts is within typical market variation with an average of -1%, which supports a conclusion of no impact on property value. The landscaping buffer is considered medium. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 12511 Palestine 6.00 7/31/2018 $128,400 2013 1,900 $67.58 4/2.5 Open Manuf Not 15698 Concord 3.92 7/31/2018 $150,000 2010 2,310 $64.94 4/2 Open Manuf Fence Not 23209 Sussex 1.03 7/7/2020 $95,000 2005 1,675 $56.72 3/2 Det Crpt Manuf Not 6494 Rocky Br 4.07 11/8/2018 $100,000 2004 1,405 $71.17 3/2 Open Manuf Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance $128,400 1425 $0 $2,250 -$21,299 $5,000 $135,951 -6% -$5,660 $13,000 $3,800 $10,209 $5,000 $1,500 $122,849 4% -$843 $4,500 $28,185 $131,842 -3% -1% 95 18. Matched Pair – Camden Dam, Camden, NC This 5 MW project was built in 2019 and located on a portion of 49.83 acres. Parcel 1 noted above along with the home on the adjoining parcel to the north of that parcel sold in late 2018 after this solar farm was approved but prior to construction being completed in 2019. I have considered this sale as shown below. The landscaping screen is considered light. The comparable at 548 Trotman is the most similar and required the least adjustment shows no impact on property value. The other two comparables were adjusted consistently with one showing significant enhancement and another as showing a mild negative. The best indication is the one requiring the least adjustment. The other two sales required significant site adjustments which make them less reliable. The best comparable and the average of these comparables support a finding of no impact on property value. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 122 N Mill Dam 12.19 11/29/2018 $350,000 2005 2,334 $149.96 3/3.5 3-Gar Ranch Not 548 Trotman 12.10 5/31/2018 $309,000 2007 1,960 $157.65 4/2 Det2G Ranch Wrkshp Not 198 Sand Hills 2.00 12/22/2017 $235,000 2007 2,324 $101.12 4/3 Open Ranch Not 140 Sleepy Hlw 2.05 8/12/2019 $330,000 2010 2,643 $124.86 4/3 1-Gar 1.5 Story Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 122 N Mill Dam $350,000 342 548 Trotman $6,163 -$3,090 $35,377 $5,000 $352,450 -1% 198 Sand Hills $8,808 $45,000 -$2,350 $607 $30,000 $317,064 9% 140 Sleepy Hlw -$9,258 $45,000 -$8,250 -$23,149 $5,000 $30,000 $369,343 -6% 1% 96 19. Matched Pair – Grandy Solar, Grandy, NC This 20 MW project was built in 2019 and located on a portion of 121 acres. Parcels 40 and 50 have sold since construction began on this solar farm. I have considered both in matched pair analysis below. I note that the marketing for Parcel 40 (120 Par Four) identified the lack of homes behind the house as a feature in the listing. The marketing for Parcel 50 (269 Grandy) identified the property as “very private.” Landscaping for both of these parcels is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 120 Par Four 0.92 8/17/2019 $315,000 2006 2,188 $143.97 4/3 2-Gar 1.5 Story Pool Not 102 Teague 0.69 1/5/2020 $300,000 2005 2,177 $137.80 3/2 Det 3G Ranch Not 112 Meadow Lk 0.92 2/28/2019 $265,000 1992 2,301 $115.17 3/2 Gar 1.5 Story Not 116 Barefoot 0.78 9/29/2020 $290,000 2004 2,192 $132.30 4/3 2-Gar 2 Story Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 120 Par Four $315,000 405 102 Teague -$4,636 $1,500 $910 $10,000 $20,000 $327,774 -4% 112 Meadow Lk $4,937 $18,550 -$7,808 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $320,679 -2% 116 Barefoot -$12,998 $2,900 -$318 $20,000 $299,584 5% 0% 97 Both of these matched pairs support a finding of no impact on value. This is reinforced by the listings for both properties identifying the privacy due to no housing in the rear of the property as part of the marketing for these homes. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 269 Grandy 0.78 5/7/2019 $275,000 2019 1,535 $179.15 3/2.5 2-Gar Ranch Not 307 Grandy 1.04 10/8/2018 $240,000 2002 1,634 $146.88 3/2 Gar 1.5 Story Not 103 Branch 0.95 4/22/2020 $230,000 2000 1,532 $150.13 4/2 2-Gar 1.5 Story Not 103 Spring Lf 1.07 8/14/2018 $270,000 2002 1,635 $165.14 3/2 2-Gar Ranch Pool Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 269 Grandy $275,000 477 307 Grandy $5,550 $20,400 -$8,725 $5,000 $10,000 $272,225 1% 103 Branch -$8,847 $21,850 $270 $243,273 12% 103 Spring Lf $7,871 $22,950 -$9,908 $5,000 -$20,000 $275,912 0% 4% 98 20. Matched Pair – Champion Solar, Lexington County, SC This project is a 10 MW facility located on a 366.04-acre tract that was built in 2017. I have considered the 2020 sale of an adjoining home located off 517 Old Charleston Road. Landscaping is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 517 Old Charleston 11.05 8/25/2020 $110,000 1962 925 $118.92 3/1 Crport Br Rnch Not 133 Buena Vista 2.65 6/21/2020 $115,000 1979 1,104 $104.17 2/2 Crport Br Rnch Not 214 Crystal Spr 2.13 6/10/2019 $102,500 1970 1,025 $100.00 3/2 Crport Rnch Not 1429 Laurel 2.10 2/21/2019 $126,000 1960 1,250 $100.80 2/1.5 Open Br Rnch 3 Gar/Brn Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 517 Old Charleston $110,000 505 133 Buena Vista $410 $17,000 -$9,775 -$14,917 -$10,000 $97,718 11% 214 Crystal Spr $2,482 $18,000 -$4,100 -$8,000 -$10,000 $10,000 $110,882 -1% 1429 Laurel $3,804 $18,000 $1,260 -$26,208 -$5,000 $5,000 -$15,000 $107,856 2% 4% 99 21. Matched Pair – Barefoot Bay Solar Farm, Barefoot Bay, FL This project is located on 504 acres for a 704.5 MW facility. Most of the adjoining uses are medium density residential with some lower density agricultural uses to the southwest. This project was built in 2018. There is a new subdivision under development to the west. I have considered a number of recent home sales from the Barefoot Bay Golf Course in the Barefoot Bay Recreation District. There are a number of sales of these mobile/manufactured homes along the eastern boundary and the lower northern boundary. I have compared those home sales to other similar homes in the same community but without the exposure to the solar farm. Staying within the same community keeps location and amenity impacts consistent. I did avoid any comparison with home sales with golf course or lakefront views as that would introduce another variable. The six manufactured/double wide homes shown below were each compared to three similar homes in the same community and are consistently showing no impact on the adjoining property values. Based on the photos from the listings, there is limited but some visibility of the solar farm to the east, but the canal and landscaping between are providing a good visual buffer and actually are commanding a premium over the non-canal homes. Landscaping for these adjoining homes is considered light, though photographs from the listings show that those homes on Papaya that adjoin the solar farm from east/west have no visibility of the solar farm and is effectively medium density due to the height differential. The homes that adjoin the solar farm from north/south along Papaya have some filtered view of the solar farm through the trees. 100 Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 14 Adjoins 465 Papaya Cr 0.12 7/21/2019 $155,000 1993 1,104 $140.40 2/2 Drive Manuf Canal Not 1108 Navajo 0.14 2/27/2019 $129,000 1984 1,220 $105.74 2/2 Crprt Manuf Canal Not 1007 Barefoot 0.11 9/3/2020 $168,000 2005 1,052 $159.70 2/2 Crprt Manuf Canal Not 1132 Waterway 0.11 7/10/2020 $129,000 1982 1,012 $127.47 2/2 Crprt Manuf Canal Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 465 Papaya Cr $155,000 765 1108 Navajo $1,565 $5,805 -$9,812 $126,558 18% 1007 Barefoot -$5,804 -$10,080 $6,643 $158,759 -2% 1132 Waterway -$3,859 $7,095 $9,382 $141,618 9% 8% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 19 Adjoins 455 Papaya 0.12 9/1/2020 $183,500 2005 1,620 $113.27 3/2 Crprt Manuf Canal Not 938 Waterway 0.11 2/12/2020 $160,000 1986 1,705 $93.84 2/2 Crprt Manuf Canal Not 719 Barefoot 0.12 4/14/2020 $150,000 1996 1,635 $91.74 3/2 Crprt Manuf Canal Not 904 Fir 0.17 9/27/2020 $192,500 2010 1,626 $118.39 3/2 Crprt Manuf Canal Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 455 Papaya $183,500 750 938 Waterway $2,724 $15,200 -$6,381 $171,542 7% 719 Barefoot $1,770 $6,750 -$1,101 $157,419 14% 904 Fir -$422 -$4,813 -$568 $186,697 -2% 6% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 37 Adjoins 419 Papaya 0.09 7/16/2019 $127,500 1986 1,303 $97.85 2/2 Crprt Manuf Green Not 865 Tamarind 0.12 2/4/2019 $133,900 1995 1,368 $97.88 2/2 Crprt Manuf Green Not 501 Papaya 0.10 6/15/2018 $109,000 1986 1,234 $88.33 2/2 Crprt Manuf Not 418 Papaya 0.09 8/28/2019 $110,000 1987 1,248 $88.14 2/2 Crprt Manuf Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 419 Papaya $127,500 690 865 Tamarind $1,828 -$6,026 -$5,090 $124,613 2% 501 Papaya $3,637 $0 $4,876 $5,000 $122,513 4% 418 Papaya -$399 -$550 $3,878 $5,000 $117,930 8% 5% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 39 Adjoins 413 Papaya 0.09 7/16/2020 $130,000 2001 918 $141.61 2/2 Crprt Manuf Grn/Upd Not 341 Loquat 0.09 2/3/2020 $118,000 1985 989 $119.31 2/2 Crprt Manuf Full Upd Not 1119 Pocatella 0.19 1/5/2021 $120,000 1993 999 $120.12 2/2 Crprt Manuf Green Not 1367 Barefoot 0.10 1/12/2021 $130,500 1987 902 $144.68 2/2 Crprt Manuf Green/Upd Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 413 Papaya $130,000 690 341 Loquat $1,631 $9,440 -$6,777 $122,294 6% 1119 Pocatella -$1,749 $4,800 -$7,784 $5,000 $120,267 7% 1367 Barefoot -$1,979 $9,135 $1,852 $139,507 -7% 2% 101 I also identified a new subdivision being developed just to the west of this solar farm called The Lakes at Sebastian Preserve. These are all canal-lot homes that are being built with homes starting at $271,000 based on the website and closed sales showing up to $342,000. According to Monique, the onsite broker with Holiday Builders, the solar farm is difficult to see from the lots that back up to that area and she does not anticipate any difficulty in selling those future homes or lots or any impact on the sales price. The closest home that will be built in this development will be approximately 340 feet from the nearest panel. Based on the closed home prices in Barefoot Bay as well as the broker comments and activity at The Lakes at Sebastian Preserve, the data around this solar farm strongly indicates no negative impact on property value. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 48 Adjoins 343 Papaya 0.09 12/17/2019 $145,000 1986 1,508 $96.15 3/2 Crprt Manuf Gn/Fc/Upd Not 865 Tamarind 0.12 2/4/2019 $133,900 1995 1,368 $97.88 2/2 Crprt Manuf Green Not 515 Papaya 0.09 3/22/2018 $145,000 2005 1,376 $105.38 3/2 Crprt Manuf Green Not 849 Tamarind 0.15 6/26/2019 $155,000 1997 1,716 $90.33 3/2 Crprt Manuf Grn/Fnce Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 343 Papaya $145,000 690 865 Tamarind $3,566 -$6,026 $10,963 $142,403 2% 515 Papaya $7,759 -$13,775 $11,128 $150,112 -4% 849 Tamarind $2,273 -$8,525 -$15,030 $5,000 $138,717 4% 1% Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 52 Nearby 335 Papaya 0.09 4/17/2018 $110,000 1987 1,180 $93.22 2/2 Crprt Manuf Green Not 865 Tamarind 0.12 2/4/2019 $133,900 1995 1,368 $97.88 2/2 Crprt Manuf Green Not 501 Papaya 0.10 6/15/2018 $109,000 1986 1,234 $88.33 2/2 Crprt Manuf Not 604 Puffin 0.09 10/23/2018 $110,000 1988 1,320 $83.33 2/2 Crprt Manuf Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 335 Papaya $110,000 710 865 Tamarind -$3,306 -$5,356 -$14,721 $0 $110,517 0% 501 Papaya -$542 $545 -$3,816 $5,000 $110,187 0% 604 Puffin -$1,752 -$550 -$9,333 $5,000 $103,365 6% 2% 102 22. Matched Pair – Miami-Dade Solar Farm, Miami, FL This project is located on 346.80 acres for a 74.5 MW facility. All of the adjoining uses are agricultural and residential. This project was built in 2019. I considered the recent sale of Parcel 26 to the south that sold for over $1.6 million dollars. This home is located on 4.2 acres with additional value in the palm trees according to the listing. The comparables include similar homes nearby that are all actually on larger lots and several include avocado or palm tree income as well. All of the comparables are in similar proximity to the subject and all have similar proximity to the Miami-Dade Executive airport that is located 2.5 miles to the east. These sales are showing no impact on the value of the property from the adjoining solar farm. The landscaping is considered light. Adjoining Residential Sales After Solar Farm Approved Parcel Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GLA BR/BA Park Style Other 26 Adjoins 13600 SW 182nd 4.20 11/5/2020 $1,684,000 2008 6,427 $262.02 5/5.5 3 Gar CBS Rnch Pl/Guest Not 18090 SW 158th 5.73 10/8/2020 $1,050,000 1997 3,792 $276.90 5/4 3 Gar CBS Rnch Not 14311 SW 187th 4.70 10/22/2020 $1,100,000 2005 3,821 $287.88 6/5 3 Gar CBS Rnch Pool Not 17950 SW 158th 6.21 10/22/2020 $1,730,000 2000 6,917 $250.11 6/5.5 2 Gar CBS Rnch Pool Adjoining Sales Adjusted Avg Address Time Site YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff % Diff Distance 13600 SW 182nd $1,684,000 1390 18090 SW 158th $2,478 $57,750 $583,703 $30,000 $1,723,930 -2% 14311 SW 187th $1,298 $16,500 $600,178 $10,000 $1,727,976 -3% 17950 SW 158th $2,041 $69,200 -$98,043 $10,000 $1,713,199 -2% -2% 103 23. Matched Pair – Spotsylvania Solar, Paytes, VA 104 This solar farm is being built in four phases with the area known as Site C having completed construction in November 2020 after the entire project was approved in April 2019. Site C, also known as Pleinmont 1 Solar, includes 99.6 MW located in the southeast corner of the project and shown on the maps above with adjoining parcels 111 through 144. The entire Spotsylvania project totals 617 MW on 3500 acres out of a parent tract assemblage of 6,412 acres. I have identified three adjoining home sales that occurred during construction and development of the site in 2020. The first is located on the north side of Site A on Orange Plank Road. The second is located on Nottoway Lane just north of Caparthin Road on the south side of Site A and east of Site C. The third is located on Post Oak Road for a home that backs up to Site C that sold in September 2020 near the completion of construction for Site C. Spotsylvania Solar Farm Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 12901 Orng Plnk 5.20 8/27/2020 $319,900 1984 1,714 $186.64 3/2 Drive 1.5 Un Bsmt Not 8353 Gold Dale 3.00 1/27/2021 $415,000 2004 2,064 $201.07 3/2 3 Gar Ranch Not 6488 Southfork 7.26 9/9/2020 $375,000 2017 1,680 $223.21 3/2 2 Gar 1.5 Barn/Patio Not 12717 Flintlock 0.47 12/2/2020 $290,000 1990 1,592 $182.16 3/2.5 Det Gar Ranch Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist 12901 Orng Plnk $319,900 1270 8353 Gold Dale -$5,219 $20,000 -$41,500 -$56,298 -$20,000 $311,983 2% 6488 Southfork -$401 -$20,000 -$61,875 $6,071 -$15,000 $283,796 11% 12717 Flintlock -$2,312 $40,000 -$8,700 $17,779 -$5,000 -$5,000 $326,767 -2% Average Diff 4% Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 9641 Nottoway 11.00 5/12/2020 $449,900 2004 3,186 $141.21 4/2.5 Garage 2-Story Un Bsmt Not 26123 Lafayette 1.00 8/3/2020 $390,000 2006 3,142 $124.12 3/3.5 Gar/DtG 2-Story Not 11626 Forest 5.00 8/10/2020 $489,900 2017 3,350 $146.24 4/3.5 2 Gar 2-Story Not 10304 Pny Brnch 6.00 7/27/2020 $485,000 1998 3,076 $157.67 4/4 2Gar/Dt2 Ranch Fn Bsmt Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist 9641 Nottoway $449,900 1950 26123 Lafayette -$2,661 $45,000 -$3,900 $4,369 -$10,000 -$5,000 $417,809 7% 11626 Forest -$3,624 -$31,844 -$19,187 -$5,000 $430,246 4% 10304 Pny Brnch -$3,030 $14,550 $13,875 -$15,000 -$15,000 -$10,000 $470,396 -5% Average Diff 2% Solar Address Acres Date Sold Sales Price Built GBA $/GBA BR/BA Park Style Other Adjoins 13353 Post Oak 5.20 9/21/2020 $300,000 1992 2,400 $125.00 4/3 Drive 2-Story Fn Bsmt Not 9609 Logan Hgt 5.86 7/4/2019 $330,000 2004 2,352 $140.31 3/2 2Gar 2-Story Not 12810 Catharpian 6.18 1/30/2020 $280,000 2008 2,240 $125.00 4/2.5 Drive 2-Story Bsmt/Nd Pnt Not 10725 Rbrt Lee 5.01 10/26/2020 $295,000 1995 2,166 $136.20 4/3 Gar 2-Story Fn Bsmt 105 All three of these homes are well set back from the solar panels at distances over 1,000 feet and are well screened from the project. All three show no indication of any impact on property value. Adjoining Sales Adjusted Address Time Ac/Loc YB GLA BR/BA Park Other Total % Diff Dist 13353 Post Oak $300,000 1171 9609 Logan Hgt $12,070 -$19,800 $5,388 -$15,000 $15,000 $327,658 -9% 12810 Catharpian $5,408 -$22,400 $16,000 $5,000 $15,000 $299,008 0% 10725 Rbrt Lee -$849 -$4,425 $25,496 -$10,000 $305,222 -2% Average Diff -4% 106 Conclusion – SouthEast Over 5 MW The solar farm matched pairs shown above have similar characteristics to each other in terms of population, but with several outliers showing solar farms in farm more urban areas. The median income for the population within 1 mile of a solar farm is $60,037 with a median housing unit value of $231,408. Most of the comparables are under $300,000 in the home price, with $483,333 being the high end of the set, though I have matched pairs in multiple states over $1,000,000 adjoining solar farms. The adjoining uses show that residential and agricultural uses are the predominant adjoining uses. These figures are in line with the larger set of solar farms that I have looked at with the predominant adjoining uses being residential and agricultural and similar to the solar farm breakdown shown for Virginia and adjoining states as well as the proposed subject property. Based on the similarity of adjoining uses and demographic data between these sites and the subject property, I consider it reasonable to compare these sites to the subject property. I have pulled 56 matched pairs from the above referenced solar farms to provide the following summary of home sale matched pairs and land sales next to solar farms. The summary shows that the range of differences is from -10% to +10% with an average of +1% and median of +1%. This means that the average and median impact is for a slight positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm. However, this +1 to rate is within the typical variability I would expect from real estate. I therefore conclude that this data shows no negative or positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm. While the range is seemingly wide, the graph below clearly shows that the vast majority of the data falls between -5% and +5% and most of those are clearly in the 0 to +5% range. This data strongly supports an indication of no impact on adjoining residential uses to a solar farm. I therefore conclude that these matched pairs support a finding of no impact on value at the subject property for the proposed project, which as proposed will include a landscaped buffer to screen adjoining residential properties. Southeast USA Over 5 MW Matched Pair Summary Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius (2010-2020 Data) Topo Med. Avg. Housing Veg. Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com/Ind Pop. Income Unit Buffer 1 AM Best Goldsboro NC 38 5.00 2 38% 0% 23% 39% 1,523 $37,358 $148,375 Light 2 Mulberry Selmer TN 160 5.00 60 13% 73% 10% 3% 467 $40,936 $171,746 Lt to Med 3 Leonard Hughesville MD 47 5.00 20 18% 75% 0% 6% 525 $106,550 $350,000 Light 4 Gastonia SC Gastonia NC 35 5.00 48 33% 0% 23% 44% 4,689 $35,057 $126,562 Light 5 Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 4 4% 0% 94% 2% 382 $79,114 $281,731 Light 6 Tracy Bailey NC 50 5.00 10 29% 0% 71% 0% 312 $43,940 $99,219 Heavy 7 Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 20 2% 97% 1% 0%48 $75,000 $291,667 Heavy 8 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 12% 10% 78% 0% 398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Med 9 Mariposa Stanley NC 36 5.00 96 48% 0% 52% 0% 1,716 $36,439 $137,884 Light 10 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 234 20.00 70 14% 39% 46% 1% 578 $81,022 $374,453 Light 11 Simon Social Circle GA 237 30.00 71 1% 63% 36% 0% 203 $76,155 $269,922 Medium 12 Candace Princeton NC 54 5.00 22 76% 24% 0% 0% 448 $51,002 $107,171 Medium 13 Walker Barhamsville VA 485 20.00 N/A 12% 68% 20% 0% 203 $80,773 $320,076 Light 14 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 83% 0% 0% 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 Light 15 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 59% 0% 0% 568 $60,037 $276,347 Light 16 Sunfish Willow Spring NC 50 6.40 30 35% 35% 30% 0% 1,515 $63,652 $253,138 Light 17 Sappony Stony Crk VA 322 20.00 N/A 2% 98% 0% 0%74 $51,410 $155,208 Light 18 Camden Dam Camden NC 50 5.00 0 17% 72% 11% 0% 403 $84,426 $230,288 Light 19 Grandy Grandy NC 121 20.00 10 55% 24% 0% 21% 949 $50,355 $231,408 Light 20 Champion Pelion SC 100 10.00 N/A 4% 70% 8% 18% 1,336 $46,867 $171,939 Light 21 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 504 74.50 0 11% 87% 0% 3% 2,446 $36,737 $143,320 Lt to Med 22 Miami-Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 0 26% 74% 0% 0% 127 $90,909 $403,571 Light 23 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 160 37% 52% 11% 0%74 $120,861 $483,333 Md to Hvy Average 485 57.04 38 24% 48% 22% 6% 923 $63,955 $237,700 Median 234 20.00 20 17% 59% 11% 0% 467 $60,037 $231,408 High 3,500 617.00 160 76% 98% 94% 44% 4,689 $120,861 $483,333 Low 35 5.00 0 1% 0% 0% 0%48 $35,057 $99,219 107 108 Residential Dwelling Matched Pairs Adjoining Solar Farms Approx Adj. Sale Veg. Pair Solar Farm City State MW Distance Tax ID/Address Date Sale Price Price % Diff Buffer 1 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600195570 Sep-13 $250,000 Light 3600198928 Mar-14 $250,000 $250,000 0% 2 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600195361 Sep-13 $260,000 Light 3600194813 Apr-14 $258,000 $258,000 1% 3 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600199891 Jul-14 $250,000 Light 3600198928 Mar-14 $250,000 $250,000 0% 4 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600198632 Aug-14 $253,000 Light 3600193710 Oct-13 $248,000 $248,000 2% 5 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600196656 Dec-13 $255,000 Light 3601105180 Dec-13 $253,000 $253,000 1% 6 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600182511 Feb-13 $247,000 Light 3600183905 Dec-12 $240,000 $245,000 1% 7 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600182784 Apr-13 $245,000 Light 3600193710 Oct-13 $248,000 $248,000 -1% 8 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 280 3600195361 Nov-15 $267,500 Light 3600195361 Sep-13 $260,000 $267,800 0% 9 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 400 0900A011 Jul-14 $130,000 Light 099CA043 Feb-15 $148,900 $136,988 -5% 10 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 400 099CA002 Jul-15 $130,000 Light 0990NA040 Mar-15 $120,000 $121,200 7% 11 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 480 491 Dusty Oct-16 $176,000 Light 35 April Aug-16 $185,000 $178,283 -1% 12 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 650 297 Country Sep-16 $150,000 Medium 53 Glen Mar-17 $126,000 $144,460 4% 13 Mulberry Selmer TN 5 685 57 Cooper Feb-19 $163,000 Medium 191 Amelia Aug-18 $132,000 $155,947 4% 14 Leonard Rd Hughesville MD 5.5 230 14595 Box Elder Feb-16 $291,000 Light 15313 Bassford Rd Jul-16 $329,800 $292,760 -1% 15 Neal Hawkins Gastonia NC 5 225 609 Neal Hawkins Mar-17 $270,000 Light 1418 N Modena Apr-18 $225,000 $242,520 10% 16 Summit Moyock NC 80 1,060 129 Pinto Apr-16 $170,000 Light 102 Timber Apr-16 $175,500 $175,101 -3% 17 Summit Moyock NC 80 980 105 Pinto Dec-16 $206,000 Light 127 Ranchland Jun-15 $219,900 $198,120 4% 18 Tracy Bailey NC 5 780 9162 Winters Jan-17 $255,000 Heavy 7352 Red Fox Jun-16 $176,000 $252,399 1% 19 Manatee Parrish FL 75 1180 13670 Highland Aug-18 $255,000 Heavy 13851 Highland Sep-18 $240,000 $255,825 0% 20 McBride Place Midland NC 75 275 4380 Joyner Nov-17 $325,000 Medium 3870 Elkwood Aug-16 $250,000 $317,523 2% 21 McBride Place Midland NC 75 505 5811 Kristi Mar-20 $530,000 Medium 3915 Tania Dec-19 $495,000 $504,657 5% 22 Mariposa Stanley NC 5 1155 215 Mariposa Dec-17 $249,000 Light 110 Airport May-16 $166,000 $239,026 4% 23 Mariposa Stanley NC 5 570 242 Mariposa Sep-15 $180,000 Light 110 Airport Apr-16 $166,000 $175,043 3% 24 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 20 1230 833 Nations Spr Jan-17 $295,000 Light 6801 Middle Dec-17 $249,999 $296,157 0% 25 Candace Princeton NC 5 488 499 Herring Sep-17 $215,000 Medium 1795 Bay Valley Dec-17 $194,000 $214,902 0% 26 Walker Barhamsville VA 20 250 5241 Barham Oct-18 $264,000 Light 9252 Ordinary Jun-19 $277,000 $246,581 7% 27 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 385 103 Granville Pl Jul-18 $265,000 Light 2219 Granville Jan-18 $260,000 $265,682 0% 28 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 315 104 Erin Jun-17 $280,000 Light 2219 Granville Jan-18 $265,000 $274,390 2% 29 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 400 2312 Granville May-18 $284,900 Light 2219 Granville Jan-18 $265,000 $273,948 4% 109 Residential Dwelling Matched Pairs Adjoining Solar Farms Approx Adj. Sale Veg. Pair Solar Farm City State MW Distance Tax ID/Address Date Sale Price Price % Diff Buffer 30 AM Best Goldsboro NC 5 400 2310 Granville May-19 $280,000 Light 634 Friendly Jul-19 $267,000 $265,291 5% 31 Summit Moyock NC 80 570 318 Green View Sep-19 $357,000 Light 336 Green View Jan-19 $365,000 $340,286 5% 32 Summit Moyock NC 80 440 164 Ranchland Apr-19 $169,000 Light 105 Longhorn Oct-17 $184,500 $186,616 -10% 33 Summit Moyock NC 80 635 358 Oxford Sep-19 $478,000 Light 176 Providence Sep-19 $425,000 $456,623 4% 34 Summit Moyock NC 80 970 343 Oxford Mar-17 $490,000 Light 218 Oxford Apr-17 $525,000 $484,064 1% 35 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 78.5 435 6849 Roslin Farm Feb-19 $155,000 Light 109 Bledsoe Jan-19 $150,000 $147,558 5% 36 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 71 340 2923 County Line Feb-19 $385,000 Light 2109 John McMillan Apr-18 $320,000 $379,156 2% 37 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 71 330 2935 County Line Jun-19 $266,000 Light 7031 Glynn Mill May-18 $255,000 $264,422 1% 38 Sunfish Willow Sprng NC 6.4 205 7513 Glen Willow Sep-17 $185,000 Light 205 Pine Burr Dec-17 $191,000 $172,487 7% 39 Neal Hawkins Gastonia NC 5 145 611 Neal Hawkins Jun-17 $288,000 Light 1211 Still Forrest Jul-18 $280,000 $274,319 5% 40 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 20 1230 833 Nations Spr Aug-19 $385,000 Light 2393 Old Chapel Aug-20 $330,000 $389,286 -1% 41 Sappony Stony Creek VA 20 1425 12511 Palestine Jul-18 $128,400 Medium 6494 Rocky Branch Nov-18 $100,000 $131,842 -3% 42 Camden Dam Camden NC 5 342 122 N Mill Dam Nov-18 $350,000 Light 548 Trotman May-18 $309,000 $352,450 -1% 43 Grandy Grandy NC 20 405 120 Par Four Aug-19 $315,000 Light 116 Barefoot Sep-20 $290,000 $299,584 5% 44 Grandy Grandy NC 20 477 269 Grandy May-19 $275,000 Light 103 Spring Leaf Aug-18 $270,000 $275,912 0% 45 Champion Pelion SC 10 505 517 Old Charleston Aug-20 $110,000 Light 1429 Laurel Feb-19 $126,000 $107,856 2% 46 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 765 465 Papaya Jul-19 $155,000 Medium 1132 Waterway Jul-20 $129,000 $141,618 9% 47 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 750 455 Papaya Sep-20 $183,500 Medium 904 Fir Sep-20 $192,500 $186,697 -2% 48 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 690 419 Papaya Jul-19 $127,500 Medium 865 Tamarind Feb-19 $133,900 $124,613 2% 49 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 690 413 Papaya Jul-20 $130,000 Medium 1367 Barefoot Jan-21 $130,500 $139,507 -7% 50 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 690 343 Papaya Dec-19 $145,000 Light 865 Tamarind Feb-19 $133,900 $142,403 2% 51 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 74.5 710 335 Papaya Apr-18 $110,000 Light 865 Tamarind Feb-19 $133,900 $110,517 0% 52 Miami-Dade Miami FL 74.5 1390 13600 SW 182nd Nov-20 $1,684,000 Light 17950 SW 158th Oct-20 $1,730,000 $1,713,199 -2% 53 Spotsylvania Paytes VA 617 1270 12901 Orange Plnk Aug-20 $319,900 Medium 12717 Flintlock Dec-20 $290,000 $326,767 -2% 54 Spotsylvania Paytes VA 617 1950 9641 Nottoway May-20 $449,900 Medium 11626 Forest Aug-20 $489,900 $430,246 4% 55 Spotsylvania Paytes VA 617 1171 13353 Post Oak Sep-20 $300,000 Heavy 12810 Catharpin Jan-20 $280,000 $299,008 0% 56 McBride Place Midland NC 75 470 5833 Kristi Sep-20 $625,000 Light 4055 Dakeita Dec-20 $600,000 $594,303 5% Avg.Indicated MW Distance Impact 64.91 612 Average 1% 20.00 479 Median 1% 617.00 1,950 High 10% 5.00 145 Low -10% 110 I have further broken down these results based on the MWs, Landscaping, and distance from panel to show the following range of findings for these different categories. Most of the findings are for homes between 201 and 500 feet. Most of the findings are for Light landscaping screens. Light landscaping screens are showing no impact on value at any distances, including for solar farms over 75.1 MW. MW Range 4.4 to 10 Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ # 1192012001 Average 5% 2% 3% N/A 0% 4% N/A N/A 1% Median 5% 1% 3% N/A 0% 4% N/A N/A 1% High 5% 10% 4% N/A 0% 4% N/A N/A 1% Low 5% -5% 3% N/A 0% 4% N/A N/A 1% 10.1 to 30 Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ # 032001000 Average N/A 4% -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A Median N/A 5% -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A High N/A 7% 0% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A Low N/A 0% -1% N/A N/A -3% N/A N/A N/A 30.1 to 75 Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ # 023004000 Average N/A 1% 0% N/A N/A 0% N/A N/A N/A Median N/A 1% 0% N/A N/A 0% N/A N/A N/A High N/A 2% 2% N/A N/A 9% N/A N/A N/A Low N/A 1% -2% N/A N/A -7% N/A N/A N/A 75.1+ Landscaping Light Light Light Medium Medium Medium Heavy Heavy Heavy Distance 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ 100-200 201-500 500+ # 025002001 Average N/A -3% 2% N/A N/A 1% N/A N/A 0% Median N/A -3% 4% N/A N/A 1% N/A N/A 0% High N/A 5% 5% N/A N/A 4% N/A N/A 0% Low N/A -10% -3% N/A N/A -2% N/A N/A 0% 111 C. Summary of National Data on Solar Farms I have worked in 19 states related to solar farms and I have been tracking matched pairs in most of those states. On the following pages I provide a brief summary of those findings showing 37 solar farms over 5 MW studied with each one providing matched pair data supporting the findings of this report. The solar farms summary is shown below with a summary of the matched pair data shown on the following page. Matched Pair Summary Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius (2010-2020 Data) Topo Med. Avg. Housing Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com/Ind Popl. Income Unit Veg. Buffer 1 AM Best Goldsboro NC 38 5.00 2 38% 0% 23% 39% 1,523 $37,358 $148,375 Light 2 Mulberry Selmer TN 160 5.00 60 13% 73% 10% 3%467 $40,936 $171,746 Lt to Med 3 Leonard Hughesville MD 47 5.00 20 18% 75% 0% 6%525 $106,550 $350,000 Light 4 Gastonia SC Gastonia NC 35 5.00 48 33% 0% 23% 44% 4,689 $35,057 $126,562 Light 5 Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 4 4% 0% 94% 2%382 $79,114 $281,731 Light 7 Tracy Bailey NC 50 5.00 10 29% 0% 71% 0%312 $43,940 $99,219 Heavy 8 Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 20 2% 97% 1% 0%48 $75,000 $291,667 Heavy 9 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 12% 10% 78% 0%398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Med 10 Grand Ridge Streator IL 160 20.00 1 8% 87% 5% 0%96 $70,158 $187,037 Light 11 Dominion Indianapolis IN 134 8.60 20 3% 97% 0% 0% 3,774 $61,115 $167,515 Light 12 Mariposa Stanley NC 36 5.00 96 48% 0% 52% 0% 1,716 $36,439 $137,884 Light 13 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 234 20.00 70 14% 39% 46% 1%578 $81,022 $374,453 Light 14 Flemington Flemington NJ 120 9.36 N/A 13% 50% 28% 8% 3,477 $105,714 $444,696 Lt to Med 15 Frenchtown Frenchtown NJ 139 7.90 N/A 37% 35% 29% 0%457 $111,562 $515,399 Light 16 McGraw East Windsor NJ 95 14.00 N/A 27% 44% 0% 29% 7,684 $78,417 $362,428 Light 17 Tinton Falls Tinton Falls NJ 100 16.00 N/A 98% 0% 0% 2% 4,667 $92,346 $343,492 Light 18 Simon Social Circle GA 237 30.00 71 1% 63% 36% 0%203 $76,155 $269,922 Medium 19 Candace Princeton NC 54 5.00 22 76% 24% 0% 0%448 $51,002 $107,171 Medium 20 Walker Barhamsville VA 485 20.00 N/A 12% 68% 20% 0%203 $80,773 $320,076 Light 21 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 83% 0% 0% 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 Light 22 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 59% 0% 0%568 $60,037 $276,347 Light 23 Demille Lapeer MI 160 28.40 10 10% 68% 0% 22% 2,010 $47,208 $187,214 Light 24 Turrill Lapeer MI 230 19.60 10 75% 59% 0% 25% 2,390 $46,839 $110,361 Light 25 Sunfish Willow Spring NC 50 6.40 30 35% 35% 30% 0% 1,515 $63,652 $253,138 Light 26 Picture Rocks Tucson AZ 182 20.00 N/A 6% 88% 6% 0%102 $81,081 $280,172 None 27 Avra Valley Tucson AZ 246 25.00 N/A 3% 94% 3% 0%85 $80,997 $292,308 None 28 Sappony Stony Crk VA 322 20.00 N/A 2% 98% 0% 0%74 $51,410 $155,208 Medium 29 Camden Dam Camden NC 50 5.00 0 17% 72% 11% 0%403 $84,426 $230,288 Light 30 Grandy Grandy NC 121 20.00 10 55% 24% 0% 21%949 $50,355 $231,408 Light 31 Champion Pelion SC 100 10.00 N/A 4% 70% 8% 18% 1,336 $46,867 $171,939 Light 32 Eddy II Eddy TX 93 10.00 N/A 15% 25% 58% 2%551 $59,627 $139,088 Light 33 Somerset Somerset TX 128 10.60 N/A 5% 95% 0% 0% 1,293 $41,574 $135,490 Light 34 DG Amp Piqua Piqua OH 86 12.60 2 26% 16% 58% 0% 6,735 $38,919 $96,555 Light 45 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 504 74.50 0 11% 87% 0% 3% 2,446 $36,737 $143,320 Lt to Med 36 Miami-Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 0 26% 74% 0% 0%127 $90,909 $403,571 Light 37 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 160 37% 52% 11% 0%74 $120,861 $483,333 Med to Hvy Average 362 42.05 32 24% 52% 19% 6% 1,515 $66,292 $242,468 Median 150 17.80 10 16% 59% 7% 0%560 $62,384 $230,848 High 3,500 617.00 160 98% 98% 94% 44% 7,684 $120,861 $515,399 Low 35 5.00 0 1% 0% 0% 0%48 $35,057 $96,555 112 From these 37 solar farms, I have derived 94 matched pairs. The matched pairs show no negative impact at distances as close as 105 feet between a solar panel and the nearest point on a home. The range of impacts is -10% to +10% with an average and median of +1%. While the range is broad, the two charts below show the data points in range from lowest to highest. There is only 3 data points out of 94 that show a negative impact. The rest support either a finding of no impact or 9 of the data points suggest a positive impact due to adjacency to a solar farm. As discussed earlier in this report, I consider this data to strongly support a finding of no impact on value as most of the findings are within typical market variation and even within that, most are mildly positive findings. Avg. MW Distance Average 44.80 569 Median 14.00 400 High 617.00 1,950 Low 5.00 145 Indicated Impact Average 1% Median 1% High 10% Low ‐10% 113 D. Larger Solar Farms I have also considered larger solar farms to address impacts related to larger projects. Projects have been increasing in size and most of the projects between 100 and 1000 MW are newer with little time for adjoining sales. I have included a breakdown of solar farms with 20 MW to 80 MW facilities with one 617 MW facility. The breakdown of adjoining uses, population density, median income and housing prices for these projects are very similar to those of the larger set. The matched pairs for each of these were considered earlier and support a finding of no negative impact on the adjoining home values. I have included a breakdown of solar farms with 50 MW to 617 MW facilities adjoining. The breakdown of adjoining uses, population density, median income and housing prices for these projects are very similar to those of the larger set. The matched pairs for each of these were considered earlier and support a finding of no negative impact on the adjoining home values. The data for these larger solar farms is shown in the SE USA and the National data breakdowns with similar landscaping, setbacks and range of impacts that fall mostly in the +/-5% range as can be seen earlier in this report. Matched Pair Summary - @20 MW And Larger Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius (2010-2019 Data) Topo Med. Avg. Housing Veg. Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com/Ind Popl. Income Unit Buffer 1 Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 4 4% 0% 94% 2% 382 $79,114 $281,731 Light 2 Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 20 2% 97% 1% 0%48 $75,000 $291,667 Heavy 3 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 12% 10% 78% 0% 398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Med 4 Grand Ridge Streator IL 160 20.00 1 8% 87% 5% 0%96 $70,158 $187,037 Light 5 Clarke Cnty White Post VA 234 20.00 70 14% 39% 46% 1% 578 $81,022 $374,453 Light 6 Simon Social Circle GA 237 30.00 71 1% 63% 36% 0% 203 $76,155 $269,922 Medium 7 Walker Barhamsville VA 485 20.00 N/A 12% 68% 20% 0% 203 $80,773 $320,076 Light 8 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 83% 0% 0% 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 Light 9 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 59% 0% 0% 568 $60,037 $276,347 Light 10 Demille Lapeer MI 160 28.40 10 10% 68% 0% 22% 2,010 $47,208 $187,214 Light 11 Turrill Lapeer MI 230 19.60 10 75% 59% 0% 25% 2,390 $46,839 $110,361 Light 12 Picure Rocks Tucson AZ 182 20.00 N/A 6% 88% 6% 0% 102 $81,081 $280,172 Light 13 Avra Valley Tucson AZ 246 25.00 N/A 3% 94% 3% 0%85 $80,997 $292,308 None 14 Sappony Stony Crk VA 322 20.00 N/A 2% 98% 0% 0%74 $51,410 $155,208 None 15 Grandy Grandy NC 121 20.00 10 55% 24% 0% 21% 949 $50,355 $231,408 Medium 16 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 504 74.50 0 11% 87% 0% 3% 2,446 $36,737 $143,320 Lt to Med 17 Miami-Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 0 26% 74% 0% 0% 127 $90,909 $403,571 Light 18 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 160 37% 52% 11% 0%74 $120,861 $483,333 Med to Hvy Average 640 76.03 19% 64% 17% 4% 721 $69,501 $262,659 Median 335 29.20 12% 68% 2% 0% 293 $72,579 $273,135 High 3,500 617.00 75% 98% 94% 25% 2,446 $120,861 $483,333 Low 121 19.60 1% 0% 0% 0%48 $36,737 $110,361 Matched Pair Summary - @50 MW And Larger Adj. Uses By Acreage 1 mile Radius (2010-2019 Data) Topo Med. Avg. Housing Veg. Name City State Acres MW Shift Res Ag Ag/Res Com/Ind Popl. Income Unit Buffer 1 Summit Moyock NC 2,034 80.00 4 4% 0% 94% 2% 382 $79,114 $281,731 Light 2 Manatee Parrish FL 1,180 75.00 20 2% 97% 1% 0%48 $75,000 $291,667 Heavy 3 McBride Midland NC 627 75.00 140 12% 10% 78% 0% 398 $63,678 $256,306 Lt to Med 4 Innov 46 Hope Mills NC 532 78.50 0 17% 83% 0% 0% 2,247 $58,688 $183,435 Light 5 Innov 42 Fayetteville NC 414 71.00 0 41% 59% 0% 0% 568 $60,037 $276,347 Light 6 Barefoot Bay Barefoot Bay FL 504 74.50 0 11% 87% 0% 3% 2,446 $36,737 $143,320 Lt to Med 7 Miami-Dade Miami FL 347 74.50 0 26% 74% 0% 0% 127 $90,909 $403,571 Light 8 Spotyslvania Paytes VA 3,500 617.00 160 37% 52% 11% 0%74 $120,861 $483,333 Med to Hvy Average 1,142 143.19 19% 58% 23% 1% 786 $73,128 $289,964 Median 580 75.00 15% 67% 0% 0% 390 $69,339 $279,039 High 3,500 617.00 41% 97% 94% 3% 2,446 $120,861 $483,333 Low 347 71.00 2% 0% 0% 0%48 $36,737 $143,320 114 On the following page I show 81 projects ranging in size from 50 MW up to 1,000 MW with an average size of 111.80 MW and a median of 80 MW. The average closest distance for an adjoining home is 263 feet, while the median distance is 188 feet. The closest distance is 57 feet. The mix of adjoining uses is similar with most of the adjoining uses remaining residential or agricultural in nature. This is the list of solar farms that I have researched for possible matched pairs and not a complete list of larger solar farms in those states. 115 Output Total Used Avg. Dist Closest Adjoining Use by Acre Parcel # State City Name (MW) Acres Acres to home Home Res Agri Ag/R Com 78 NC Moyock Summit/Ranchland 80 2034 674 360 4% 94% 0% 2% 133 MS Hattiesburg Hattiesburg 50 1129 479.6 650 315 35% 65% 0% 0% 179 SC Ridgeland Jasper 140 1600 1000 461 108 2% 85% 13% 0% 211 NC Enfield Chestnut 75 1428.1 1,429 210 4% 96% 0% 0% 222 VA Chase City Grasshopper 80 946.25 6% 87% 5% 1% 226 VA Louisa Belcher 88 1238.1 150 19% 53% 28% 0% 305 FL Dade City Mountain View 55 347.12 510 175 32% 39% 21% 8% 319 FL Jasper Hamilton 74.9 1268.9 537 3,596 240 5% 67% 28% 0% 336 FL Parrish Manatee 74.5 1180.4 1,079 625 2% 50% 1% 47% 337 FL Arcadia Citrus 74.5 640 0% 0% 100% 0% 338 FL Port Charlotte Babcock 74.5 422.61 0% 0% 100% 0% 353 VA Oak Hall Amazon East (ern sh 80 1000 645 135 8% 75% 17% 0% 364 VA Stevensburg Greenwood 100 2266.6 1800 788 200 8% 62% 29% 0% 368 NC Warsaw Warsaw 87.5 585.97 499 526 130 11% 66% 21% 3% 390 NC Ellerbe Innovative Solar 34 50 385.24 226 N/A N/A 1% 99% 0% 0% 399 NC Midland McBride 74.9 974.59 627 1,425 140 12% 78% 9% 0% 400 FL Mulberry Alafia 51 420.35 490 105 7% 90% 3% 0% 406 VA Clover Foxhound 91 1311.8 885 185 5% 61% 17% 18% 410 FL Trenton Trenton 74.5 480 2,193 775 0% 26% 55% 19% 411 NC Battleboro Fern 100 1235.4 960.71 1,494 220 5% 76% 19% 0% 412 MD Goldsboro Cherrywood 202 1722.9 1073.7 429 200 10% 76% 13% 0% 434 NC Conetoe Conetoe 80 1389.9 910.6 1,152 120 5% 78% 17% 0% 440 FL Debary Debary 74.5 844.63 654 190 3% 27% 0% 70% 441 FL Hawthorne Horizon 74.5 684 3% 81% 16% 0% 484 VA Newsoms Southampton 100 3243.9 - - 3% 78% 17% 3% 486 VA Stuarts Draft Augusta 125 3197.4 1147 588 165 16% 61% 16% 7% 491 NC Misenheimer Misenheimer 2018 80 740.2 687.2 504 130 11% 40% 22% 27% 494 VA Shacklefords Walnut 110 1700 1173 641 165 14% 72% 13% 1% 496 VA Clover Piney Creek 80 776.18 422 523 195 15% 62% 24% 0% 511 NC Scotland Neck American Beech 160 3255.2 1807.8 1,262 205 2% 58% 38% 3% 514 NC Reidsville Williamsburg 80 802.6 507 734 200 25% 12% 63% 0% 517 VA Luray Cape 100 566.53 461 519 110 42% 12% 46% 0% 518 VA Emporia Fountain Creek 80 798.3 595 862 300 6% 23% 71% 0% 525 NC Plymouth Macadamia 484 5578.7 4813.5 1,513 275 1% 90% 9% 0% 526 NC Mooresboro Broad River 50 759.8 365 419 70 29% 55% 16% 0% 555 FL Mulberry Durrance 74.5 463.57 324.65 438 140 3% 97% 0% 0% 560 NC Yadkinville Sugar 60 477 357 382 65 19% 39% 20% 22% 561 NC Enfield Halifax 80mw 2019 80 1007.6 1007.6 672 190 8% 73% 19% 0% 577 VA Windsor Windsor 85 564.1 564.1 572 160 9% 67% 24% 0% 579 VA Paytes Spotsylvania 500 6412 3500 9% 52% 11% 27% 582 NC Salisbury China Grove 65 428.66 324.26 438 85 58% 4% 38% 0% 583 NC Walnut Cove Lick Creek 50 1424 185.11 410 65 20% 64% 11% 5% 584 NC Enfield Sweetleaf 94 1956.3 1250 968 160 5% 63% 32% 0% 586 VA Aylett Sweet Sue 77 1262 576 1,617 680 7% 68% 25% 0% 593 NC Windsor Sumac 120 3360.6 1257.9 876 160 4% 90% 6% 0% 599 TN Somerville Yum Yum 147 4000 1500 1,862 330 3% 32% 64% 1% 602 GA Waynesboro White Oak 76.5 516.7 516.7 2,995 1,790 1% 34% 65% 0% 603 GA Butler Butler GA 103 2395.1 2395.1 1,534 255 2% 73% 23% 2% 604 GA Butler White Pine 101.2 505.94 505.94 1,044 100 1% 51% 48% 1% 605 GA Metter Live Oak 51 417.84 417.84 910 235 4% 72% 23% 0% 606 GA Hazelhurst Hazelhurst II 52.5 947.15 490.42 2,114 105 9% 64% 27% 0% 607 GA Bainbridge Decatur Parkway 80 781.5 781.5 1,123 450 2% 27% 22% 49% 608 GA Leslie-DeSoto Americus 1000 9661.2 4437 5,210 510 1% 63% 36% 0% 616 FL Fort White Fort White 74.5 570.5 457.2 828 220 12% 71% 17% 0% 621 VA Spring Grove Loblolly 150 2181.9 1000 1,860 110 7% 62% 31% 0% 622 VA Scottsville Woodridge 138 2260.9 1000 1,094 170 9% 63% 28% 0% 625 NC Middlesex Phobos 80 754.52 734 356 57 14% 75% 10% 0% 628 MI Deerfield Carroll Road 200 1694.8 1694.8 343 190 12% 86% 0% 2% 633 VA Emporia Brunswick 150.2 2076.4 1387.3 1,091 240 4% 85% 11% 0% 634 NC Elkin Partin 50 429.4 257.64 945 155 30% 25% 15% 30% 116 Output Total Used Avg. Dist Closest Adjoining Use by Acre Parcel # State City Name (MW) Acres Acres to home Home Res Agri Ag/R Com 638 GA Dry Branch Twiggs 200 2132.7 2132.7 - - 10% 55% 35% 0% 639 NC Hope Mills Innovative Solar 46 78.5 531.87 531.87 423 125 17% 83% 0% 0% 640 NC Hope Mills Innovative Solar 42 71 413.99 413.99 375 135 41% 59% 0% 0% 645 NC Stanley Hornet 75 1499.5 858.4 663 110 30% 40% 23% 6% 650 NC Grifton Grifton 2 56 681.59 297.6 363 235 1% 99% 0% 0% 651 NC Grifton Buckleberry 52.1 367.67 361.67 913 180 5% 54% 41% 0% 657 KY Greensburg Horseshoe Bend 60 585.65 395 1,394 63 3% 36% 61% 0% 658 KY Campbellsville Flat Run 55 429.76 429.76 408 115 13% 52% 35% 0% 666 FL Archer Archer 74.9 636.94 636.94 638 200 43% 57% 0% 0% 667 FL New Smyrna BeaPioneer Trail 74.5 1202.8 900 1,162 225 14% 61% 21% 4% 668 FL Lake City Sunshine Gateway 74.5 904.29 472 1,233 890 11% 80% 8% 0% 669 FL Florahome Coral Farms 74.5 666.54 580 1,614 765 19% 75% 7% 0% 672 VA Appomattox Spout Spring 60 881.12 673.37 836 335 16% 30% 46% 8% 676 TX Stamford Alamo 7 106.4 1663.1 1050 - - 6% 83% 0% 11% 677 TX Fort Stockton RE Roserock 160 1738.2 1500 - - 0% 100% 0% 0% 678 TX Lamesa Lamesa 102 914.5 655 921 170 4% 41% 11% 44% 679 TX Lamesa Ivory 50 706 570 716 460 0% 87% 2% 12% 680 TX Uvalde Alamo 5 95 830.35 800 925 740 1% 93% 6% 0% 684 NC Waco Brookcliff 50 671.03 671.03 560 150 7% 21% 15% 57% 689 AZ Arlington Mesquite 320.8 3774.5 2617 1,670 525 8% 92% 0% 0% 692 AZ Tucson Avalon 51 479.21 352 - - 0% 100% 0% 0% 81 Average 111.80 1422.4 968.4 1031 263 10% 62% 22% 6% Median 80.00 914.5 646.0 836 188 7% 64% 17% 0% High 1000.00 9661.2 4813.5 5210 1790 58% 100% 100% 70% Low 50.00 347.1 185.1 343 57 0% 0% 0% 0% 117 VII. Distance Between Homes and Panels I have measured distances at matched pairs as close as 105 feet between panel and home to show no impact on value. This measurement goes from the closest point on the home to the closest solar panel. This is a strong indication that at this distance there is no impact on adjoining homes. However, in tracking other approved solar farms across Virginia, North Carolina and other states, I have found that it is common for there to be homes within 100 to 150 feet of solar panels. Given the visual barriers in the form of privacy fencing or landscaping, there is no sign of negative impact. I have also tracked a number of locations where solar panels are between 50 and 100 feet of single- family homes. In these cases the landscaping is typically a double row of more mature evergreens at time of planting. There are many examples of solar farms with one or two homes closer than 100- feet, but most of the adjoining homes are further than that distance. VIII. Topography As shown on the summary charts for the solar farms, I have been identifying the topographic shifts across the solar farms considered. Differences in topography can impact visibility of the panels, though typically this results in distant views of panels as opposed to up close views. The topography noted for solar farms showing no impact on adjoining home values range from as much as 160-foot shifts across the project. Given that appearance is the only factor of concern and that distance plus landscape buffering typically addresses up close views, this leaves a number of potentially distant views of panels. I specifically note that in Crittenden in KY there are distant views of panels from the adjoining homes that showed no impact on value. General rolling terrain with some distant solar panel views are showing no impact on adjoining property value. IX. Potential Impacts During Construction Any development of a site will have a certain amount of construction, whether it is for a commercial agricultural use such as large-scale poultry operations or a new residential subdivision. Construction will be temporary and consistent with other development uses of the land and in fact dust from the construction will likely be less than most other construction projects given the minimal grading. I would not anticipate any impacts on property value due to construction on the site. I note that in the matched pairs that I have included there have been a number of home sales that happened after a solar farm was approved but before the solar farm was built showing no impact on property value. Therefore the anticipated construction had no impact as shown by that data. 118 X. Scope of Research I have researched over 750 solar farms and sites on which solar farms are existing and proposed in Virginia, Illinois, Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky as well as other states to determine what uses are typically found in proximity with a solar farm. The data I have collected and provide in this report strongly supports the assertion that solar farms are having no negative consequences on adjoining agricultural and residential values. Beyond these references, I have quantified the adjoining uses for a number of solar farm comparables to derive a breakdown of the adjoining uses for each solar farm. The chart below shows the breakdown of adjoining or abutting uses by total acreage. I have also included a breakdown of each solar farm by number of adjoining parcels to the solar farm rather than based on adjoining acreage. Using both factors provide a more complete picture of the neighboring properties. Both of the above charts show a marked residential and agricultural adjoining use for most solar farms. Every single solar farm considered included an adjoining residential or residential/agricultural use. Percentage By Adjoining Acreage Closest All Res All Comm Res Ag Res/AG Comm Ind Avg Home Home Uses Uses Average 19% 53% 20% 2% 6% 887 344 91% 8% Median 11% 56% 11% 0% 0% 708 218 100% 0% High 100% 100% 100% 93% 98% 5,210 4,670 100% 98% Low 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%90 25 0% 0% Res = Residential, Ag = Agriculture, Com = Commercial Total Solar Farms Considered: 705 Percentage By Number of Parcels Adjoining Closest All Res All Comm Res Ag Res/AG Comm Ind Avg Home Home Uses Uses Average 61% 24% 9% 2% 4% 887 344 93% 6% Median 65% 19% 5% 0% 0% 708 218 100% 0% High 100% 100% 100% 60% 78% 5,210 4,670 105% 78% Low 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%90 25 0% 0% Res = Residential, Ag = Agriculture, Com = Commercial Total Solar Farms Considered: 705 119 XI. Specific Factors Related To Impacts on Value I have completed a number of Impact Studies related to a variety of uses and I have found that the most common areas for impact on adjoining values typically follow a hierarchy with descending levels of potential impact. I will discuss each of these categories and how they relate to a solar farm. 1. Hazardous material 2. Odor 3. Noise 4. Traffic 5. Stigma 6. Appearance 1. Hazardous material A solar farm presents no potential hazardous waste byproduct as part of normal operation. Any fertilizer, weed control, vehicular traffic, or construction will be significantly less than typically applied in a residential development and even most agricultural uses. The various solar farms that I have inspected and identified in the addenda have no known environmental impacts associated with the development and operation. 2. Odor The various solar farms that I have inspected produced no odor. 3. Noise Whether discussing passive fixed solar panels, or single-axis trackers, there is no negative impact associated with noise from a solar farm. The transformer reportedly has a hum similar to an HVAC that can only be heard in close proximity to this transformer and the buffers on the property are sufficient to make emitted sounds inaudible from the adjoining properties. No sound is emitted from the facility at night. The various solar farms that I have inspected were inaudible from the roadways. 4. Traffic The solar farm will have no onsite employee’s or staff. The site requires only minimal maintenance. Relative to other potential uses of the site (such as a residential subdivision), the additional traffic generated by a solar farm use on this site is insignificant. 5. Stigma There is no stigma associated with solar farms and solar farms and people generally respond favorably towards such a use. While an individual may express concerns about proximity to a solar farm, there is no specific stigma associated with a solar farm. Stigma generally refers to things such as adult establishments, prisons, rehabilitation facilities, and so forth. Solar panels have no associated stigma and in smaller collections are found in yards and roofs in many residential communities. Solar farms are adjoining elementary, middle and high schools as well as churches and subdivisions. I note that one of the solar farms in this report not only adjoins a church, but is actually located on land owned by the church. Solar panels on a roof are often cited as an enhancement to the property in marketing brochures. 120 I see no basis for an impact from stigma due to a solar farm. 6. Appearance I note that larger solar farms using fixed or tracking panels are a passive use of the land that is in keeping with a rural/residential area. As shown below, solar farms are comparable to larger greenhouses. This is not surprising given that a greenhouse is essentially another method for collecting passive solar energy. The greenhouse use is well received in residential/rural areas and has a similar visual impact as a solar farm. The solar panels are all less than 15 feet high, which means that the visual impact of the solar panels will be similar in height to a typical greenhouse and lower than a single-story residential dwelling. Were the subject property developed with single family housing, that development would have a much greater visual impact on the surrounding area given that a two-story home with attic could be three to four times as high as these proposed panels. Whenever you consider the impact of a proposed project on viewshed or what the adjoining owners may see from their property it is important to distinguish whether or not they have a protected viewshed or not. Enhancements for scenic vistas are often measured when considering properties that adjoin preserved open space and parks. However, adjoining land with a preferred view today conveys no guarantee that the property will continue in the current use. Any consideration of the impact of the appearance requires a consideration of the wide variety of other uses a property already has the right to be put to, which for solar farms often includes subdivision development, agricultural business buildings such as poultry, or large greenhouses and the like. Dr. Randall Bell, MAI, PhD, and author of the book Real Estate Damages, Third Edition, on Page 146 “Views of bodies of water, city lights, natural settings, parks, golf courses, and other amenities are considered desirable features, particularly for residential properties.” Dr. Bell continues on Page 147 that “View amenities may or may not be protected by law or regulation. It is sometimes argued that views have value only if they are protected by a view easement, a zoning ordinance, or covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs), although such protections are relatively 121 uncommon as a practical matter. The market often assigns significant value to desirable views irrespective of whether or not such views are protected by law.” Dr. Bell concludes that a view enhances adjacent property, even if the adjacent property has no legal right to that view. He then discusses a “borrowed” view where a home may enjoy a good view of vacant land or property beyond with a reasonable expectation that the view might be partly or completely obstructed upon development of the adjoining land. He follows that with “This same concept applies to potentially undesirable views of a new development when the development conforms to applicable zoning and other regulations. Arguing value diminution in such cases is difficult, since the possible development of the offending property should have been known.” In other words, if there is an allowable development on the site then arguing value diminution with such a development would be difficult. This further extends to developing the site with alternative uses that are less impactful on the view than currently allowed uses. This gets back to the point that if a property has development rights and could currently be developed in such a way that removes the viewshed such as a residential subdivision, then a less intrusive use such as a solar farm that is easily screened by landscaping would not have a greater impact on the viewshed of any perceived value adjoining properties claim for viewshed. Essentially, if there are more impactful uses currently allowed, then how can you claim damages for a less impactful use. 7. Conclusion On the basis of the factors described above, it is my professional opinion that the proposed solar farm will not negatively impact adjoining property values. The only category of impact of note is appearance, which is addressed through setbacks and landscaping buffers. The matched pair data supports that conclusion. 122 XII. Conclusion The matched pair analysis shows no negative impact in home values due to abutting or adjoining a solar farm as well as no impact to abutting or adjacent vacant residential or agricultural land. The criteria that typically correlates with downward adjustments on property values such as noise, odor, and traffic all support a finding of no impact on property value. Very similar solar farms in very similar areas have been found by hundreds of towns and counties not to have a substantial injury to abutting or adjoining properties, and many of those findings of no impact have been upheld by appellate courts. Similar solar farms have been approved adjoining agricultural uses, schools, churches, and residential developments. I have found no difference in the mix of adjoining uses or proximity to adjoining homes based on the size of a solar farm and I have found no significant difference in the matched pair data adjoining larger solar farms versus smaller solar farms. The data in the Southeast is consistent with the larger set of data that I have nationally, as is the more specific data located in and around Virginia. Based on the data and analysis in this report, it is my professional opinion that the solar farm proposed at the subject property will have no negative impact on the value of adjoining or abutting property. I note that some of the positive implications of a solar farm that have been expressed by people living next to solar farms include protection from future development of residential developments or other more intrusive uses, reduced dust, odor and chemicals from former farming operations, protection from light pollution at night, it’s quiet, and there is no traffic. 123 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Professional Experience Kirkland Appraisals, LLC, Raleigh, N.C. 2003 – Present Commercial appraiser Hester & Company, Raleigh, N.C. Commercial appraiser 1996 – 2003 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Professional Affiliations MAI (Member, Appraisal Institute) designation #11796 2001 NC State Certified General Appraiser # A4359 1999 VA State Certified General Appraiser # 4001017291 SC State Certified General Appraiser # 6209 FL State Certified General Appraiser # RZ3950 IL State Certified General Appraiser # 553.002633 KY State Certified General Appraiser # 5522 Education Bachelor of Arts in English, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 1993 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Continuing Education Florida Appraisal Laws and Regulations 2020 Michigan Appraisal Law 2020 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2020 Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Yellow Book) 2019 The Cost Approach 2019 Income Approach Case Studies for Commercial Appraisers 2018 Introduction to Expert Witness Testimony for Appraisers 2018 Appraising Small Apartment Properties 2018 Florida Appraisal Laws and Regulations 2018 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2018 Appraisal of REO and Foreclosure Properties 2017 Appraisal of Self Storage Facilities 2017 Land and Site Valuation 2017 NCDOT Appraisal Principles and Procedures 2017 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2016 Forecasting Revenue 2015 Wind Turbine Effect on Value 2015 Supervisor/Trainee Class 2015 Business Practices and Ethics 2014 Subdivision Valuation 2014 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2014 Introduction to Vineyard and Winery Valuation 2013 Appraising Rural Residential Properties 2012 Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI 9408 Northfield Court Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Mobile (919) 414-8142 rkirkland2@gmail.com www.kirklandappraisals.com Kirkland Appraisals, LLC 124 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2012 Supervisors/Trainees 2011 Rates and Ratios: Making sense of GIMs, OARs, and DCFs 2011 Advanced Internet Search Strategies 2011 Analyzing Distressed Real Estate 2011 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2011 Business Practices and Ethics 2011 Appraisal Curriculum Overview (2 Days – General) 2009 Appraisal Review - General 2009 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2008 Subdivision Valuation: A Comprehensive Guide 2008 Office Building Valuation: A Contemporary Perspective 2008 Valuation of Detrimental Conditions in Real Estate 2007 The Appraisal of Small Subdivisions 2007 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2006 Evaluating Commercial Construction 2005 Conservation Easements 2005 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice Update 2004 Condemnation Appraising 2004 Land Valuation Adjustment Procedures 2004 Supporting Capitalization Rates 2004 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, C 2002 Wells and Septic Systems and Wastewater Irrigation Systems 2002 Appraisals 2002 2002 Analyzing Commercial Lease Clauses 2002 Conservation Easements 2000 Preparation for Litigation 2000 Appraisal of Nonconforming Uses 2000 Advanced Applications 2000 Highest and Best Use and Market Analysis 1999 Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches 1999 Advanced Income Capitalization 1998 Valuation of Detrimental Conditions in Real Estate 1999 Report Writing and Valuation Analysis 1999 Property Tax Values and Appeals 1997 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, A & B 1997 Basic Income Capitalization 1996 Redbud Run Solar LLC Impact Analysis Statement for Conditional Use Permit Application Attachment 6 Visualizations Prepared by Pennoni Redbud Run Solar Visualizations Woods Mill Road, Frederick County, Virginia Redbud Run Solar Woods Mill Road – Location 1 Prepared by Pennoni Redbud Run Solar Woods Mill Road – Location 1 Prepared by Pennoni Redbud Run Solar Woods Mill Road – Location 2 Prepared by Pennoni Redbud Run Solar Woods Mill Road – Location 2 Prepared by Pennoni Redbud Run Solar Woods Mill Road – Location 3 Prepared by Pennoni Redbud Run Solar Woods Mill Road – Location 3 Prepared by Pennoni