PSC Case No. 9380 PPRP Exhibit___ (JS-3)

DRAFT

Environmental Review of the Proposed Great Bay Solar Project

14 October 2015

DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background on Solar Energy 2 1.2 State of Solar Energy in Maryland 2 1.3 Report Organization 2

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 Site Description 4 2.2 Transmission Interconnection 6 2.3 Project Components 7 2.4 Construction Details 8 2.5 Maintenance and Inspections 10 2.6 Decommissioning 10

3.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 3.1 Vegetation 12 3.2 Wildlife 13 3.3 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species 14 3.4 Wetlands and Streams 15 3.5 Transmission Interconnection and Critical Area 17

4.0 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS 19 4.1 Economic and Fiscal Impacts 19 4.2 Land Use 22 4.3 Transportation 30 4.4 Visual Impacts 34 4.5 Cultural and Aesthetic Resources 38 4.6 Public Services and Safety 41 4.7 Property Values 43 4.8 Transmission Interconnection 43

5.0 NOISE IMPACTS 44 5.1 Definition of Noise 44 5.2 Summary of Regulatory Requirements 45 5.3 Noise Impact Evaluation 45

6.0 SUMMARY 49

7.0 REFERENCES 53

DNR-PPRP i PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Project Site and Identified Parcels Figure 2 Substation and Critical Area Locations Figure 3 Septics Law Status of Great Bay Solar Parcels and ROWs Figure 4 Preserved Lands in project Area Figure 5 Critical Area in Project Area Figure 6 Priority Funding Areas in Project Area Figure 7 Construction Staging Area Locations Figure 8 Glare Incidence Predictions for Fixed and Single-Axis Arrays Figure 9 Closest Residential Receptor

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Protected Lands in Somerset County Table 2 Typical Sound Levels for Common Sources (dBA) Table 3 Maximum Allowable Noise Levels (dBA) for Receiving Land Use Categories Table 4 Construction Equipment with Highest Emitted Noise Levels (dBA)

DNR-PPRP ii PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Great Bay Solar I, LLC (GBS), a wholly owned subsidiary of Pioneer Green Solar, LLC submitted an application to the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) on 11 May 2015 for approval to construct a nominally rated 150-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic (PV) facility in Somerset County, Maryland. GBS filed an amended CPCN application on 6 July 2015. The Great Bay Solar Project (project) will be located on several discrete parcels of land south of Princess Anne in Somerset County. The project will be constructed on approximately 1,000 acres of easements and leased land owned by various private owners.

The Interconnection Services Agreement that governs GBS’ incorporation of new generating capacity into the regional PJM grid states that a minimum of 50 MW of new capacity must be placed into commercial operation by the end of 2016, with the remaining 100 MW of additional capacity coming on line by the end of 2018. GBS has indicated that it intends to build only 75 MW of the full 150 MW project immediately, to fulfill the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) it has negotiated. PPRP has evaluated impacts based on the entire project scope of 150 MW, which represents GBS’ intended final project build-out. Our recommended license conditions include a requirement for GBS to inform PPRP and the PSC of any changes in the future construction schedule.

Before the facility can be constructed, GBS must obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the PSC. As part of the licensing process, the Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has evaluated the facility’s potential impacts to environmental and cultural resources in Maryland, pursuant to Section 3-304 of the Natural Resources Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland. This environmental and socioeconomic review was performed in coordination with other State agencies.

PPRP uses the analysis of potential impacts as the basis for establishing initial recommended license conditions for constructing and operating the proposed facility, pursuant to Section 3-306 of the Natural Resources Article. PPRP’s recommendations are made in collaboration with other programs within DNR as well as the State’s Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Environment, Planning, and Transportation, and the Maryland Energy Administration. The recommended license conditions are included in PPRP Exhibit (JS-2) for this case.

DNR-PPRP 1 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

1.1 Background on Solar Energy

Currently, there are two primary solar electricity generating technologies — solar PV and concentrating solar power (CSP). Solar PV panels contain rows of solar cells (semiconductor devices made of crystalline silicon or a complex chemical arrangement such as copper-gallium-indium-diselinide thin films) electrically connected together in weatherproof packaging. Multiple solar panels connected together are called an array. A solar PV system consists of the solar panels, a mounting system (roof or ground), and an inverter to convert the direct current (DC) – the form of electrical current produced by the PV panels – to alternating current (AC) for household or commercial consumption. CSP comes in two forms, concentrating PV and concentrating solar thermal. Concentrating PV uses mirrors to focus direct sunlight onto photovoltaic cells or panels to create electricity, and concentrating solar thermal uses direct sunlight and focusing devices to provide high temperature heat to generate steam for use in a steam turbine to generate electricity.

1.2 State of Solar Energy in Maryland

Maryland’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS), enacted in May 2004 and revised in 2007, 2008, and 2010, calls for 20 percent of the electricity sales in Maryland to be supplied by renewable energy sources by 2022. Two percent of electricity sold must come from solar energy sources by 2020, which corresponds to an estimated 1,200 MW of installed solar capacity required. The 2013 RPS compliance requirement necessitated 136.5 MW, which the state surpassed by reaching 158 MW of installed solar capacity by December 2013.

In accordance with the RPS, utilities must purchase solar generation in the form of Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs) or face penalties of up to $400 per megawatt-hour (MWh) (declining through time). This market for SRECs provides a financial incentive to homeowners, businesses, and independent developers to install solar renewable energy systems. The RPS is not the lone policy mechanism providing incentives for the development of solar power in Maryland, as there are several State tax credits, grants, loans, and rebate programs also available (MEA 2015).

1.3 Report Organization

This report summarizes PPRP’s evaluation of the project in the following sections: • Section 2 provides a description of the proposed site and facility components;

DNR-PPRP 2 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

• Section 3 describes the project’s effect on biological resources; • Section 4 presents socioeconomic resources and associated impacts; • Section 5 presents the noise impacts from the project; and • Section 6 summarizes the findings of PPRP’s evaluations.

DNR-PPRP 3 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Site Description

GBS proposes to build a 150 MW AC solar PV project south of Princess Anne in Somerset County, Maryland. The project area will be located approximately 5 miles northwest of Pocomoke City, 10 miles south of the Salisbury, and 12 miles north of Crisfield. The project will comprise approximately 1,000 acres of land under a lease or purchase option, and about 750 acres will be directly impacted. The property is owned by various private owners and will contain several easements to be utilized for buried and overhead electrical collection lines. The collection line easements are located on privately owned property and are mostly adjacent to existing public roads and/or railroad rights of way (ROW). The project will operate for a minimum of 25 years, with land control agreements allowing for operation up to 40 years.

Parcels under lease or purchase option to host the generating facility are located along Old Princess Anne Road, Market Lane, Arden Station Road, Charles Layfield Road, and Sign Post Road. Figure 1 shows the proposed project site layout with parcel IDs. The project site consists of active and fallow agricultural fields, and has been farmed with crops such as corn and soybeans. Large chicken farms and commercial loblolly pine plantations are also common. All land parcels are classified as agriculture land use by the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP).

The site is generally flat with minimal topographical variation. Elevation within a half-mile of the site ranges between 18 and 21 feet above sea level, and the site lies within the Atlantic Coastal Plan physiographic region. The soils are generally brown to yellowish interbedded sand, silt, and boulder gravel. The site is approximately 5 miles east of the Chesapeake Bay and is roughly bounded by the Manokin River to the north, Dividing Creek to the east, and Annemessex Creek to the south. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) designates the site as a part of the Pocomoke Watershed. Various smaller tributaries pass through the study area and drain into Kings Creek, Taylor Branch, Jones Creek, and Back Creek.

A network of access roads will be needed to the proposed project. A main access driveway of about 20 feet in width will be constructed, along with narrower lateral driveways for maintenance access to the rest of the solar fields.

DNR-PPRP 4 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

Figure 1 Project Site and Identified Parcels

Source: Pioneer Great Bay Solar Second ERD Amendment, September 2015

DNR-PPRP 5 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

2.2 Transmission Interconnection

The project will connect to the PJM grid at the existing Delmarva Power and Light (DPL) Kings Creek substation. Collection lines from each array will converge at a proposed GBS substation on the southern portion of the parcel. GBS will construct two substations in this area. The main proposed substation will be located outside of any RCA critical areas, but a smaller substation facility will extend 0.2 acres into the outer edge of the critical area. The bases of the three support poles for this substation will be located in the critical area. The whole substation will cause impacts to about 2 acres. This substation will connect to the Kings Creek substation via a 138 kV overhead generation tie line, with a maximum length of 500 feet. Figure 2 shows the two substations and critical areas.

Figure 2 Substation and Critical Area Locations

Source: Pioneer Great Bay Solar Amended CPCN Application, July 2015

DNR-PPRP 6 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

2.3 Project Components

The project will utilize either fixed panels or a single-axis tracking system. Both fixed and tracking panels are held on post-driven racking structures. Design varies by manufacturer, but tracking systems generally consist of a series of mechanically linked horizontal steel support beams known as torque tubes with a drive train system usually located in the center of the rows, dividing the array into sections. If a tracking system is chosen, the panels will be arranged on an axis that runs from north to south, and the panels will track the sun’s motion over the course of the day from east to west. If a fixed system is chosen, the rows would be aligned east to west, with the panels tilted to the south for maximum exposure. The number of rows within a tracker block is typically limited by the drive system’s ability to move multiple torque tube assemblies. Tracking systems are up to 35 percent more efficient than standard fixed tilt solar panels. The panels are just over six feet wide, and the space between the rows will be approximately 7 to 10 feet. The PV panels will be secured on the racking system and supported by galvanized steel posts with galvanized steel or aluminum structures driven or screwed into the ground by a pile-driving machine to a depth of approximately five to eight feet.

Panels will be grouped into a series of circuits (strings). These strings are subsequently wired in parallel through electrical harnesses that travel through the cable to trays to combiner boxes. The number of combiner boxes varies with final tracker design and will be sized to accommodate the electrical design. The solar system will most likely be constructed in blocks made up of 1-2 MW each, varying from 5 to 10 acres in size. The power stations are mounted on concrete slabs. A DC collection system will collect electrical power from the panels and transmit it to DC-to-AC inverters located in the power conversion stations for each block. The project will contain about 100 power inverters.

The project’s power centers will be mounted on concrete slabs, which will each hold one or two inverters, a medium voltage transformer, and a control cabinet. The project conceptual layout assumes the use of Power- One Ultra 1500-TL-OUTD inverters or equivalent combination of 1,500 kW and 750 kW inverters. The inverter selection will be finalized based upon final design parameters. The inverter converts the DC power from the panels into three-phase AC power for distribution to the point of interconnection. Cables are buried 36 to 48 inches below grade in compliance with standard National and International Electrical code.

In response to PPRP Data Request No. 1-3, GBS stated that the proposed solar panel layout will maintain a minimum 20 foot setback from the

DNR-PPRP 7 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

property line. (PPRP is recommending that the minimum setback be increased to at least 50 feet; see further discussion in Section 4.4.) A 7- to 10-foot high chain link perimeter fence will be installed around the perimeter of each project parcel. The project will have security lighting operated by motion detectors. To support maintenance of the facility, a perimeter gravel drive with interior connectors will be constructed inside the fence. There is no planned need for sewer or water for the project since there will be no planned operations and/or maintenance facilities as part of this project.

2.4 Construction Details

Following CPCN approval, construction of the project is anticipated to begin in March 2016 with completion and operational startup in December 2016. The project Limit of Disturbance (LOD) is anticipated at a maximum of 1000 acres and a minimum of 750 acres. It includes extra temporary staging areas and perimeter stone access roads with interior connector access roads as part of the calculated area. These improvements and the individual racking systems that hold the solar modules constitute the total area of disturbance for the project.

A temporary project trailer will be required during construction, but no additional building structures will be added to the site as the project requires no full-time personnel. No water or sewer lines will be required for the temporary project trailer.

A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit is required for planned construction activities with a planned total disturbance of one acre or greater. Projects greater than three acres, including this project, require a 90-day notice prior to construction. Coverage under the General Permit is obtained by filing a completed NOI form with the Maryland Department of the Environment, Water Management Administration (MDE-WMA). The completed NOI form is considered a formal application for coverage and intent to comply with the terms of the General Permit. GBS intends to submit an NOI to MDE during the construction drawing plan review phase.

The State of Maryland COMAR 26.17.02.01-1B.(1) requires stormwater quality and quantity controls be implemented. The project proposes to use a combination of controls to meet the MDE Environmental Site Design (ESD) required treatment levels. Aggregate roads will be required to access the actual panels. Ground surfaces beneath and between panels will be managed grass. On-site stormwater control and grounds maintenance associated with operating the project should be adequately

DNR-PPRP 8 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT addressed through Somerset County’s Offices of Planning & Zoning and Soil Conservation District as part of the Site Development Plan process, as well as adherence to MDE and COMAR requirements.

A building permit will be applied for after the Construction Drawing approval. The Applicant will work in close coordination with the County to file the appropriate and necessary building permits as required by the Somerset County Offices of Planning & Zoning, and Soil Conservation District.

Because it is a non-combustion process relying on the direct conversion of solar energy into electrical energy, the operation of a solar PV facility does not produce air emissions. This differs drastically from conventional fossil-fired electric power plants. Electricity generated by solar PV facilities represents a way of meeting the region’s growing demand for electric power without emitting combustion-related air pollutants.

The only sources of emissions from the project will be those associated with construction activities, including site clearing, grading, and the use of construction equipment, which will be for a temporary period. The project will be required to comply with the following State regulations during construction activities, including:

• COMAR 26.11.06.03D ― Particulate Matter from Materials Handling and Construction – A person may not cause or permit any material to be handled, transported, or stored, or a building, its appurtenances, or a road to be used, constructed, altered, repaired, or demolished without taking reasonable precautions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne.

• COMAR 26.11.06.08 ― Nuisance – An installation or premises may not be operated or maintained in such a manner that a nuisance or air pollution is created. Nothing in this regulation relating to the control of emissions may in any manner be construed as authorizing or permitting the creation of, or maintenance of, a nuisance or air pollution.

• COMAR 26.11.06.09 ― Odors – A person may not cause or permit the discharge into the atmosphere of gases, vapors, or odors beyond the property line in such a manner that a nuisance or air pollution is created.

DNR-PPRP 9 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

2.5 Maintenance and Inspections

The level of frequency for routine inspections of the solar panels, and routine maintenance, has not been determined at this time. The project will be monitored remotely, with system operators identifying needed inspections and associated maintenance. It is anticipated that the solar PV panels will require routine cleaning. De-mineralized water will likely be transported by trucks to the project site for cleaning the solar PV panels. It should be noted that normal rain events will keep manual cleanings to a minimum.

2.6 Decommissioning

In response to PPRP Data Request 1-1, GBS provided a decommissioning plan in Attachment DR1-A. The facility is expected to operate for a minimum of 25 years, with land control agreements in place for operation up to 40 years. The plan describes the approach for removal and/or proper abandonment of facilities and equipment associated with the project and describes anticipated land restoration activities to take place following the end of the project’s life. Full decommissioning of the project will take place over a period of 10 to 14 months.

The following activities will occur according to the Decommissioning Plan:

• Removal of solar module structures and all associated aboveground equipment;

• Severing the electrical connections at the project substation and sealing the conduit at the point where the line is severed so as not to disturb the easements or any currently farmed agricultural areas;

• Removal of inverter pads, generation equipment, solar panels and brackets, and any above ground electrical lines and equipment;

• Removal of project fencing and restoration of disturbed soil on the site to a condition consistent with the land condition at the time of project construction; and

• Restoration or reclamation of the project roads to their pre- construction condition unless the property owner elects to retain the improved roads for access.

DNR-PPRP 10 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

The Decommissioning Plan is based upon the site being returned to a condition consistent with preconstruction use. The specific use will be determined at the time of the closure, subject to relevant permits and approvals at that time.

DNR-PPRP 11 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

3.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The following sections provide a review of the potential environmental effects relating to the proposed Great Bay Solar Project on biological resources, including vegetation; wildlife; rare, threatened and endangered (RTE) species; and wetlands and streams. Also included are specific biological impacts to the Critical Area due to the transmission line interconnection. Information on these resources was derived from the applicant’s environmental review document; other pertinent documents, such as data request responses; and a site visit conducted by PPRP on 16 June 2015.

3.1 Vegetation

Much of the drier ground within the study area is in agricultural production. The dominant crops produced on agricultural lands in the study area include soybeans and corn. Large-scale chicken farming is also common. All project site parcels consist of agricultural fields that are currently active or recently fallowed. The local topography is nearly flat. The project parcels are bordered either by forested land or by developed/disturbed areas. The Environmental Review Document submitted by GBS with its CPCN application in May 2015 states that no forested land would be cleared (page 54); however, comments made at the site during the June 2015 site visit indicated that some trees may need to be removed during construction activities.

The Maryland Forest Conservation Act (FCA) establishes standards for land development that make the identification and protection of forests and other sensitive areas an integral part of the site planning process. Although development projects that clear land for public utility rights-of- way or electric generating stations are exempted from FCA, the project must be permitted through the CPCN licensing process and must minimize forest loss during site development. If any individual trees are removed for construction and operation of the facility, that activity may require mitigation under the FCA. In addition, the development of agricultural land may be subject to FCA requirements, including a forest stand delineation and a forest conservation plan. FCA compliance is delegated to Somerset County and the Applicant is working with the County to develop an approved plan.

DNR-PPRP 12 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

3.2 Wildlife

The proposed Great Bay Solar project site currently offers little wildlife habitat. The farmed lands are intensively managed, limiting nesting by birds or occupancy by other wildlife (i.e., amphibians and reptiles, mammals). The substation and all of the PV panels will be located within active agricultural land, which only provides habitat for a limited number of wildlife species. The few birds and mammals that may forage within these fields will be able to vacate areas that are being disturbed by construction. On a landscape scale, there is abundant availability of similar agricultural fields within the study area and beyond. To avoid impacts to aquatic resources resulting from construction-related siltation and sedimentation, an approved sediment and erosion control plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be implemented. In addition, a Spill Prevention, Containment and Counter Measures (SPCC) Plan will be developed and implemented to minimize the potential for unintended releases of petroleum and other hazardous chemicals during project construction and operation.

Additionally, the development of the proposed Great Bay Solar facility could provide benefits to wildlife. Following the installation of the solar panel arrays, PPRP recommends that the areas below and between the solar panels be planted with native, warm season grasses such as switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), and indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans). Although warm season grasses may take longer to establish, they offer a number of ecological benefits aside from providing wildlife forage. Warm season grasses, which can grow well on low fertility soils, have strong root systems that hold soil in place and act as a filter of stormwater runoff by removing sediment. They remain standing throughout the winter, thereby providing cover for wildlife. PPRP recommends a CPCN license condition requiring a minimum vegetation height of 16 inches on all part of the site (including under the solar panels) during the ground-nesting bird season, from the beginning of May through August of the year.

In response to PPRP Data Request No. 2-3, GBS addressed concerns regarding solar panels being an avian mortality risk. A study published by the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory addressed mortality at solar facilities in the western portion of the United States. In its data response, GBS notes that this study was for a different type of facility, in a different part of the country and therefore not comparable to the proposed project. In addition, the PV facility in the study was attractive to waterbirds due to sources of water being present at the site. The proposed project is not near large open waters and has avoided areas

DNR-PPRP 13 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

that could be attractive for many bird species. Additionally, the angle and height of the solar panels at the GBS facility will reduce the likelihood of collisions. In fact, GBS states that the conversion of farmland to a solar facility may actually reduce avian mortality due to the reduction in the use of neonicotinoid insecticides on that land.

3.3 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

In response to a letter requesting environmental review of the proposed Great Bay Solar Project, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service (WHS) indicated in an 8 May 2015 letter that several RTE species were located in the vicinity of the project site.

In an area known as the Princess Anne Marshes, in the northern portion of the study area, there are records for Tickseed Sunflower, Small-fruited Beggar-ticks, and Sensitive Joint Vetch associated with Wesley Branch, west of Route 13. Associated with Loretto Branch, east of Route 13, are records for the Banded Sunfish, Swamp Darter, and Mud Sunfish. Manokin Branch, east of Route 13, supports an occurrence of the Banded Sunfish. Taylor Branch and Jones Creek support records of Sensitive Joint Vetch as well. Where the project site crosses Kings Creek, there are records in close proximity for Leafy Pond and Long’s Bittercress. In the Dublin area of the project site, there are records for Swamp Darter and Banded Sunfish in Moore Branch.

In the Dublin Swamp area, the wetland is designated as a Wetland of Special State Concern (WSSC) and contains a record for Button Sedge. There is also a record for Big Carpet Grass along MD 413, near the intersection with MD 361.

On the west side of MD 413, there is riparian habitat known for the state and federally listed Delmarva Fox Squirrel; these habitats are not located on any of the proposed project areas. In addition, WHS also indicated in its letter that the forests adjacent to the Great Bay Solar site may provide habitats for forest interior-dwelling species (FIDS), and gave specific recommendations for minimizing project impacts on FIDS. Most of these recommendations, however, apply to minimizing the clearing of existing forest and trees. These would not be applicable to the proposed facility, as no interior forest will be cleared.

The applicant also contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for information regarding the presence of federally listed species on the Great Bay Solar site. In a response letter dated 4 May 2015, the USFWS indicated that in addition to the two federally listed species mentioned by

DNR-PPRP 14 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

WHS (Sensitive Joint Vetch and the Delmarva Fox Squirrel), the Northern Long-Eared Bat has been identified as potentially occurring in the project area. The project site does not contain any of the mature, interior forests with the species composition typically preferred by this species.

As there are no direct impacts to aquatic resources, there will be no impacts to the RTE fish species listed by WHS.

In general, agricultural fields do not provide habitat for RTE plant species, but while many of the drainage ditches were determined to be non- jurisdictional by MDE, these features may still provide habitat for RTE species. GBS states in its CPCN application that it will conduct a rare plant survey in the wetland/drainage habitats located within the project site during the months of August and September of 2015 when the species identified by WHS are most easily identified. GBS will expand its search to grassy roadsides, ditches, and transmission lines in order to cover the habitat preferences for Big Carpet Grass. The applicant will report its findings to WHS, PPRP, and the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission (CAC) and if any RTE species is identified, appropriate avoidance and/or minimization measures will be instituted (e.g., fencing or flagging, the presence of an environmental monitor, or appropriate time of year restrictions).

3.4 Wetlands and Streams

The project site is located approximately 5 miles east of the Chesapeake Bay and is roughly bounded by the Manokin River to the north, Dividing Creek to the east, and Annemessex Creek to the south. Kings Creek, Taylor Branch, Jones Creek, and Back Creek are the dominant hydrologic features within the study area. Various smaller tributaries pass through the study area and drain to these streams. Kings Creek flows west through the project site, draining into the Manokin River approximately 1.2 miles west of the study area. Jones Creek drains into Taylor Branch near the northwestern edge of the study area; Taylor Branch subsequently drains into Kings Creek shortly before it merges with Manokin River. Back Creek flows west, draining into the Manokin River approximately 3.5 miles west of the study area. The Manokin River flows southwest, draining into Tangier Sound, and, ultimately, the Chesapeake Bay. Streams in the study area, both named and unnamed, are primarily low-gradient drainage features that meander through wetlands, forestland, and agricultural fields. Most of these streams are less than 10 feet wide with variable substrates and vegetative cover characteristics. Some have well-defined and abrupt banks, while the banks of others transition into adjacent wetland vegetation. The proposed project has been designed to avoid

DNR-PPRP 15 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

direct impacts to streams. In addition, to prevent adverse effects from construction-related stormwater runoff, the applicant will obtain an NPDES general permit for construction activities over one acre and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that contains appropriate stormwater quality and quantity control measures.

Due to the relatively flat, low topography of the Delmarva Peninsula, effective drainage of the land is vital to the economic well-being of the region. There are approximately 821 miles of drainage ditches maintained by 101 public drainage associations (PDAs) and four public watershed associations (PWAs) in Caroline, Queen Anne’s, Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester counties. PDAs are regulated under Article 25 (County Commissioners) sections 52-95 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. PDAs and PWAs are independent entities of government and possess rights-of- way and easements for construction and maintenance purposes. The current role of PDAs and PWAs has expanded to provide support for storm drainage from urban town centers, state highways and county roads, and new commercial and residential development. PDA/PWAs administer drainage ditches on lands acquired by easement from the original landowners. These ditches function as water conveyance outlets for the farm ditches constructed by landowners on their private holdings. Multiple PDAs occur in the vicinity of the project site and include some of the wetlands on the project site deemed non-jurisdictional by MDE. PPRP recommends that GBS make every attempt possible to contact the PDA responsible for the drainage ditches on or in the vicinity of the site to ensure the management of these ditches is consistent with management requirements of the PDA.

In an initial wetlands review, GBS ecologists identified a total of four wetlands and 24 streams/ditches within the proposed project site. After consultation with MDE, these areas were deemed jurisdictional. In addition, EDR identified an additional number of non-jurisdictional drainage ditches on the project parcels. After changes to the initial proposed project, GBS conducted a supplemental wetlands investigation, but no formal wetlands delineation on these parcels took place. Due to the siting of project facilities, wetlands impacts have been avoided to the greatest extent possible. The use of overhead collection lines where possible will minimize ground disturbance and impacts to wetlands. Directional bores will be used to minimize impacts for any underground collection lines. The total acreage of impact to wetlands and their buffers will be provided to MDE and the USCOE in the Applicant’s Joint Application for Permit upon completion of final project engineering. In addition, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be employed during construction to avoid significant wetland impacts.

DNR-PPRP 16 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

WHS points out that there are several Wetlands of Special State Concern in the vicinity of the proposed project based on a 0.5-mile study area. There are multiple streams that are part of a Habitat Protection Area (Wesley Branch, Loretto Branch, and Manokin Branch), but will not be impacted by the project. Specifically, no project facilities will be located in the Princess Anne Marshes. After receipt of the WHS letter, one of the land parcels that abuts the Dublin Swamp was removed from the project, so no impacts to Dublin Swamp are expected. The WSSC associated with Taylor Branch and Jones Creek are intersected by several overhead connection lines. The poles that support these lines will be positioned to avoid impacts to these wetlands. The route of the these lines now intersects will Taylor Branch and Jones Creek only one time each. In addition, the southern limits of the First Horizon Homeloans parcel include wetlands and the 100-foot buffer area associated with the Jones Creek WSSC. The Applicant has revised the project layout so that no project facilities are located within the 100-foot buffer around the WSSCs or the approximately determined limits of associated wetland areas extended north from the mapped limits of the WSSC.

3.5 Transmission Interconnection and Critical Area

The project includes construction of a 138 kV generator tie-in line, no more than 500 feet in length, from the project substation to the point of interconnection at the Kings Creek substation; this tie-in line will be constructed and owned by Delmarva Power. The northern portion of the parcel is classified as a Critical Area as designated by the Critical Area Act of 1984. In order to minimize negative impacts to this Critical Area, the Applicant plans to build the project substation on the southern portion of the switchyard parcel, necessitating a short line to span the majority of the Critical Area. Approximately 0.25 acres of the project substation will extend into the Critical Area, with one or two utility posts placed within the Critical Area. In order to accommodate restrictions placed on the length of the overhead line by Delmarva Power, an additional, smaller substation facility will be placed within the outer edge of the Critical Area (see Figure 2).

The pole bases will be the only permanent impacts to Critical Areas associated with overhead collection line installation. Underground collection lines will be installed via direct burial methods. All areas will be returned to pre-construction grades through the use of a small excavator or small bulldozer to replace sidecast materials. Disturbed soils will be stabilized, as necessary, and plants allowed to regenerate naturally. There will be no permanent impacts to Critical Areas as a result of buried collection line installation.

DNR-PPRP 17 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

The Applicant intends to avoid impacts to the Critical Area as much as possible and states that construction and operation of the project is anticipated to result in overall improvement to environmental conditions, specifically stormwater runoff, within the Critical Area. Conversion of the land from agricultural land use will reduce the amount of phosphorus fertilizers in stormwater runoff and the design of the substation could incorporate additional stormwater controls which will be evaluated during design and engineering stages of this process.

Additionally, and unrelated to the generator tie-in line, one of the generating site parcels (Parcel #3) includes portions of the designated Critical Areas associated with both Jones Creek and Kings Creek. Approximately 9 acres in the northwest portion of the parcel are designated as an RCA, while in the southeast corner, approximately 0.8 acres are designated as an RCA and approximately 1.6 acres as Intensely Developed Areas (IDAs). Development of solar PV panels is allowed within designated IDAs. No PV panels, access roads, or other project components will be located in RCA portions of the Critical Area on the Miller property.

The Critical Area Commission (CAC) has reviewed the project. At its meeting on 6 August 2015, the CAC approved the solar project with conditions related to evaluation and mitigation of any impacts to Critical Area resources. These conditions are incorporated into PPRP’s recommended license conditions in this case.

DNR-PPRP 18 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

4.0 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

4.1 Economic and Fiscal Impacts

The project will install up to 150 MW of solar power capacity on land totaling approximately 1,000 acres, most of which is currently used for agriculture. Construction will involve limited grading for site preparation, trenching for cables, driving posts for PV support tables, attaching PV modules to support tables, and connecting the system to the grid. Construction will occur over a 6 to 9 month period beginning in March 2016. During construction, and depending on the final design and equipment specification, PPRP estimates the project will create 600 to 800 direct full-time equivalent (FTE) design, management and construction jobs. Based on the Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) model1 and project data, PPRP estimates that construction of the project could generate between 1,300 and 1,700 total full-time equivalent (FTE) direct, indirect and induced2 jobs in the state.

Apart from construction managers and civil engineers who design and supervise construction activities, most construction jobs associated with PV energy development do not require highly specialized skills. Generally, occupational requirements comprise construction equipment operators, welders, structural iron and steelworkers, and construction laborers (BLS 2011). As a result, the local labor pool could be the source of many construction jobs if area subcontractors competitively bid for the work from the project’s EPC contractor.

Somerset is Maryland’s second least populated county. Its estimated civilian labor force is less than 9,300 (FRED 2015), with most jobs in State and local government, services and trade. In 2013, full and part-time construction jobs numbered 612 in Somerset County (MDP 2014a), with most earnings in the specialty trade contractors segment (MDP 2014b).3 Only 67 construction establishments, with an average annual employment of 243 on payrolls, were operating in the county (DLLR 2014). Most

1 The JEDI model is a product of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) of the U.S. Department of Energy. 2 Indirect jobs are associated with the sales to the project for goods and services by other companies. Induced jobs are associated with the consumption expenditures by project workers, indirect industry workers, etc. 3 The Specialty Trade Contractors industry comprises specific, usually sub-contracted activities (e.g. pouring concrete, site preparation, plumbing, painting and electrical work) involved in building or other construction. It excludes Construction of Buildings and Heavy & Civil Engineering Construction.

DNR-PPRP 19 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

construction firms in the county are sole proprietorships or “non- employers” (CBP 2015a), or are small businesses with between one and four employees on payroll. According to the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (DLLR), major construction industry employers in Somerset County are Rommel Cranston LLC and Somerset Well Drilling Company, both specialty trade contractors, each with less than 100 employees (DLLR 2015a). Employment data therefore suggest that Somerset County may not have the economic capacity to capture some of the direct employment benefits from project construction that are usually captured locally.

Somerset County is within the Lower Shore Workforce Investment Area (WIA) that also includes Wicomico and Worcester counties. The State of Maryland identifies a WIA to be a region with 200,000 or more residents and a common labor pool (DLLR 2012b). There are 12 WIAs in the state, each administered by a Local Workforce Investment Board which develops training programs to meet local employment needs. The labor force in the Lower Shore WIA averaged 81,907 over the first four months of 2015 (BLS 2015). Within the Lower Shore WIA, there were 100,528 full and part time jobs in 2013, and more than 5,600 construction jobs, although the latter has been trending down since 2007 (MDP 2014a). DLLR data for 2013 show 3,137 construction employees on payroll in 596 establishments in the Lower Shore WIA (25 establishments in heavy and civil engineering construction), and 1,659 non‐employers. Firms with more than four employees on payroll numbered 153, although most are associated with residential construction. Major employers in Wicomico and Worcester counties that DLLR classifies within the construction industry include Conectiv Resource Partners, Delaware Elevator, Bay Shore Development Corporation and Royal Plus, although only one falls within the Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction sector. No solar EPC contractor serving the utility market is based on the Eastern Shore of Maryland (Solar Power World 2015).

If, as the data suggest, the Lower Shore’s construction industry cannot internalize the substantial investment associated with the project, economic benefits could distribute themselves over a wider geographic area. In fact, PPRP expects a large proportion of the construction labor force will commute or temporarily migrate to the Lower Shore. While the Lower Shore will still benefit from non-resident consumption expenditures for lodging, food and other needs, the influx could pressure the seasonal rental market, particularly if construction peaks in the summer months. There is also some evidence to suggest that Somerset County’s service economy, and to a lesser extent that of the Lower Shore, may be less able than more diversified regional economies in Maryland to

DNR-PPRP 20 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

capture the direct and indirect economic benefits that renewable energy development projects typically provide.

PPRP does not anticipate permanent population and housing impacts given the short duration of the construction schedule. In the short term, construction workers from outside the Lower Shore area seeking transient accommodation could stress the rental housing market, particularly in Somerset County, increasing housing costs temporarily or reducing seasonal availability and, potentially, tourism revenues. Wicomico County may absorb many of the short-term indirect benefits from construction that flow to the Lower Shore. Overall, PPRP expects no long- term impact on the Lower Shore economy from project construction.

The project will have an operations and maintenance staff of from 4 to 12 workers who will monitor the project at an offsite facility. The location of the off-site facility has not been determined, but GBS has stated that a third-party company specializing in remote monitoring of similar facilities will operate and monitor the project. On-site activities will consist of periodic maintenance and cleaning.

Fiscal benefits will be in the form of corporate income tax revenues to the State, income tax revenues to the State and county on lease payments to landowners, and personal property tax revenues. Maryland imposes a corporate income tax rate of 8.25% on taxable income. Maryland’s personal tax rates begin at 2% on the first $1,000 of taxable income and increase up to a maximum of 5.75% on incomes exceeding $250,000 (or $300,000 for taxpayers filing jointly). Somerset County’s income tax rate is 3.15%. Somerset County taxes real property at a rate of $.915 per $100 valuation.4 The State taxes real property at a rate of $.112 per $100 valuation. Somerset County assesses a tax rate of $2.2875 per $100 valuation to business owned personal property.

Under the Maryland Property Tax Code §7-237, machinery and equipment used directly to generate electricity for sale is granted a 50% exemption on assessed value. For solar facilities, machinery and equipment used directly to generate electricity for resale includes PV panels, supports and mounting equipment, electrical materials and inverters (Kittel 2014). PPRP has estimated that business personal property taxes from the project could be in the neighborhood of $1.1 to $1.7 million in the first year of operations, declining to between $424,000

4 http://www.dat.state.md.us/sdatweb/taxrate.html

DNR-PPRP 21 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

and $647,000 in Year 20, assuming full build-out and depending on the final design and equipment specification.

4.2 Land Use

The project (including the substation) will occupy 16 land parcels comprising up to 1,000 acres roughly between Princess Anne and Westover in Somerset County, Maryland, mostly on land currently cultivated for agriculture. Parcels within the project’s scope are zoned AR – Agricultural Residential, I-2 – General Industrial, and R-1 – Low Density Residential. AR zoning is designed to protect agricultural land from encroachment by incompatible land uses, but also permits low-density residential and commercial service uses. By contrast, the R-1 zone encourages uncongested residential neighborhoods at a relatively low density. The I-2 district permits manufacturing and some commercial activities. Except for wind, solar and similar facilities, electrical generation facilities are not permitted in the AR and R-1 zones, but are permitted by Special Exception Use (approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals) in the I-2 zone. The county’s zoning ordinance does not specifically address wind, solar and other facilities. Under §7.8 of the Zoning Ordinance entitled “Similar Uses and Uses Not Addressed by this Ordinance,” §7.8.b states that if a use is not permitted by right or by Special Exception in any district, then the use is prohibited, except that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) may allow that use as a Special Exception if the following conditions are met:

• the use would be closely similar or less intensive in external impacts and nuisances compared to uses that are permitted in that district; • the use would not create a significant hazard to the public health and safety; • the use is not specifically prohibited in that district; and • the use is similar in character to uses permitted in that district.

Somerset County’s position is that the BZA would allow a use such as a solar farm by Special Exception if the conditions in Section 7.8.b were met, consistent with the Board’s position on the Chesapeake Renewable Energy Project near Pokomoke City that was approved by the BZA in 2011 (Pusey 2015). While Maryland’s CPCN process would preempt local zoning, PPRP has concluded that the project satisfies the conditions specified in §7.8.b and agrees that the facility would be allowed by Special Exception from the BZA.

DNR-PPRP 22 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

Somerset County’s 1996 Comprehensive Plan recognizes the historical transition from its traditional agricultural/fisheries base. Since then, the number of farms in the county has declined further, from 314 in 1997 to 286 in 2012 even though acres of land in farms has increased from 56,424 to 65,212 (MDP 2014c; MDP 2014d). Of Somerset’s total 2012 acreage, 36,307 were in crops, 1,365 in pasture, 18,778 in woodlands and 8,662 in farmsteads and other buildings, the last reflecting the sizable poultry industry in the county (MDP 2014e).

Although still dominated by agriculture, forest and other natural areas, rural resource lands in Somerset County are vulnerable to subdivision and development due to permissive zoning (MDP 2013a). The county does participate in MALPF, MET, Rural Legacy and Green Print programs, but does not have a local easement program. Although §5.9 of the Zoning Ordinance allows for a TDR Program, it has never been used (Pusey 2015). Somerset County also does not participate in Maryland’s Certification Program for local agricultural land preservation programs. Created by the Maryland General Assembly in 1990, and jointly administered by MALPF and MDP, the Certification Program allows counties to retain greater portions of the Agricultural Transfer Tax and designate a Priority Preservation Area for concentrating efforts and funds for the preservation of large contiguous parcels of land (MALPF 2013).

With the implementation of the State’s Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012 (the “Septics Law”), Somerset County’s land preservation policies have become more protective with the adoption of a septic tier map that classifies most of the rural county within Tier IV5, and by changing its definition of a minor subdivision from five lots to seven (MDP 2013b). Parts of the project will be located in Tier IV lands (Figure 3).

5 Tier IV areas are planned for preservation and conservation, and prohibit residential major subdivisions.

DNR-PPRP 23 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

Figure 3 Septics Law Status of Great Bay Solar Parcels and ROWs

Source: Maryland Department of Planning

Nearly 65,000 acres of land in Somerset County are preserved through State, federal, county or private conservation easements, ownership or management (Table 1). The Dividing Creek Rural Legacy Area, which contains all of the county’s Rural Legacy easements and other preserved lands, is to the east of the project area. The project will not be located on preserved lands. However, collection lines from Parcels 15 and 16 will be routed along an abandoned rail corridor which bisects the Chesapeake Forest Lands, a DNR property (Figure 4). The rail corridor is the property of the Maryland Transit Administration. PPRP has recommended an initial license condition requiring GBS to satisfy all permit requirements for the occupancy of the abandoned rail ROW.

Table 1 Protected Lands in Somerset County

Protection Acres MALPF Easements 4,743 County Owned Property 771 DNR Property 48,009 Federal Property 4,437 Maryland Environmental Trust Easements 4,080 Maryland Historical Trust Easements 103 Private Conservation Easements 1,925 Rural Legacy Easements 877 Total 64,945 Source: Maryland DNR

DNR-PPRP 24 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

Figure 4 Preserved Lands in Project Area

Source: Maryland Department of Planning; Great Bay Solar I, LLC

As noted earlier, GBS will construct PV arrays on land currently cultivated for agriculture. Utility-scale solar energy facilities exclude, until decommissioned, most other surface uses of the lands they occupy (BLM 2012). This is in contrast to other renewables such as wind, which typically maintains a small spatial footprint (OSU 2012). As a result, siting guidance for solar PV systems typically emphasize the utilization of previously developed land such as abandoned industrial sites, fallow agricultural fields or former mining sites (DOE 2012; BRE 2013).

However, because slope is an important consideration in PV facility siting and development costs are lower on previously cleared land, solar project developers have targeted productive agricultural lands in Maryland, particularly on the Eastern Shore. In general, Maryland’s agriculture industry has been supportive. The Maryland Farm Bureau (MFB 2014), for example, “support[s] the use of on-farm wind and solar energy production to provide electric energy for the farm and to be sold to the energy grid.” The Somerset County Farm Bureau seconded this policy during Pioneer Green’s initial consultations with stakeholders for its since withdrawn wind generation project (Johnson 2012). The meat-chicken industry showed similar support for the wind project after an initial briefing by the developer (DPI 2012). Combined with a declining interest in family farming from one generation to another, rising costs and declining profits for farmers, among other factors (DCPC 2015), solar developers have found willing participants within the State’s agricultural community to convert farmlands to utility-scale solar energy systems.

DNR-PPRP 25 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

Solar developers in other states and countries have also targeted agricultural lands.

With land requirements in the range of 5 to 10 acres per MW (NREL 2013a), displacement of agriculture from regional economies, loss of prime farmlands and the security of the nation’s food supply are increasingly seen as issues in utility-scale solar PV systems, a trend that has started to affect siting policy (Odens 2013; Souza 2011). Starting in 2015, for example, the U.K.’s Common Agricultural Policy has eliminated subsidies for solar farms on agricultural lands through its Basic Payments Scheme even if the land between, under and around the panels is being grazed or is accessible for grazing (DEFRA 2014a; DEFRA 2014b). Closer to home, the Dorchester County Planning Commission recently considered, but subsequently rejected, a recommendation to amend its Zoning Ordinance to allow utility scale solar energy systems only on commercial and industrial properties within the county (DCPC 2015).

Loss of productive agricultural lands to solar PV development has been less of a concern in the United States in part because of the country’s vast land area. Under the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) SunShot scenario, direct utility-scale PV land requirements for the U.S., much of which would be sited on non-agricultural lands in the Southwest, are projected to range from 667,000 to 2.1 million acres in 2030, and from 1.4 to 4.4 million acres in 2050 (DOE 2012). As a point of reference, approximately 2.5 million acres are currently dedicated to golf courses nationwide, and acreage for other land uses associated with development, such as roads and airports consume even more (Denholm & Margolis 2007; Denholm & Margolis 2008). Maryland’s direct land requirements for an estimated 13.3 GW of installed PV capacity by 2050 in the SunShot scenario amount to approximately 1.7% of the State’s total land area. Farmed land constituted approximately 32% of Maryland’s total land area in 2014 (MSA 2015).

Based on 2014 statistics, the Great Bay Solar Project will preempt traditional agricultural activities from no more than about 1.5 percent of Somerset County’s total 2012 acreage of land in farms, or about 2.75 percent of cropland acreage. Much of Maryland’s farmland is not under threat of solar PV development simply because it is not proximate to transmission capacity, is under preservation easement, or has poor terrain quality (Skyline Energy 2015). A representative for one solar PV developer in Maryland has suggested that only about one-tenth of a percent of the state’s agricultural land is suitable due to conditions and standards for a solar farm (DCPC 2015). Projected agricultural land losses to solar farms in Maryland are small in this context.

DNR-PPRP 26 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

This is not to say that agriculture and solar farms cannot coexist. Throughout Europe and the United Kingdom, small livestock (sheep, chickens) graze on utility-scale, ground-mounted solar farms, and other productive options such as beekeeping have been demonstrated. Through its “10 Commitments”, which encourages continued agricultural activity and agri-environmental measures that support biodiversity on solar farms (STA 2015), the UK Solar Trade Association enjoys the support of Britain’s National Farmers Union and other organizations concerned with agriculture and land management (NFU 2013; BRE 2014). In the United States, some agricultural organizations, such as the Maryland Farm Bureau, have articulated policy to “encourage solar energy facilities constructed on public lands to be built in a manner to allow for continued agricultural production” (MFB 2014). However, the potential for continuing agricultural practices on land dedicated to utility-scale solar PV systems has yet to gain much visibility within domestic solar trade organizations, such as the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), or State and federal agricultural agencies.

Somerset County’s Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (CBCA) Program regulates land development within 1,000 feet of tidal waters and wetlands of Chesapeake Bay, a requirement of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Act of 1984. Somerset’s CBCA program is implemented in §6.13 of its Zoning Ordinance. The Critical Area recognizes three types of management areas where different uses are allowed: Intensely Developed Area (IDA), Limited Development Area (LDA) and Resource Conservation Area (RCA). The Critical Area buffer, which lies within 100 feet of tidal waters, wetlands and tributary streams, and Habitat Protection Areas afford additional protection.

Parts of the project, primarily overhead transmission lines to the Delmarva Power substation, the underground collection system, and the substation, will be within the Critical Area. The lines will traverse both RCA and LDA management areas. In addition, a portion of the project substation will occupy land designated RCA, and solar panels in the Somerset Farms solar field will lie within an IDA management area (Figure 5). As a “State and local agency action" under COMAR 27.02.01.01(B)(53), the project requires full Critical Area Commission (CAC) review. Following staff review and recommendations, the CAC approved, with conditions, the Great Bay Solar Project, as proposed to the PSC. PPRP has included the CAC conditions within its recommended license conditions for the project.

DNR-PPRP 27 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

Figure 5 Critical Area in Project Area

Source: Maryland DNR; Great Bay Solar I, LLC

Maryland’s Smart Growth initiative is a set of policies designed to protect rural areas by targeting development toward designated growth areas. One of the requirements of the 1997 Smart Growth Act on Maryland’s counties is to delineate Priority Funding Areas (PFAs). PFAs provide the focus for development by directing state and local resources to areas where there is public infrastructure that can support it. When local governments initially submitted PFA boundaries to the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP), Somerset was one of several Eastern Shore counties that drew PFAs larger than necessary to accommodate growth projections, according to MDP comments. Because of this, portions of PFAs (including parts of the PFA straddling US 13 south of Princess Anne) are “comment areas,” meaning they are ineligible for funding from State agencies for growth related projects (Lewis et al. 2009). Most parcels hosting solar arrays in the proposed GBS project are outside Somerset’s designated PFA while most collection lines, which mostly follow transportation corridors, are within it (Figure 6).

DNR-PPRP 28 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

Figure 6 Priority Funding Areas in Project Area

Source: Maryland Department of Planning; Great Bay Solar I, LLC

Located on scattered land parcels south of Princess Anne, the GBS project is mostly set back from residential areas. The northernmost two parcels (Parcels 1 & 2) are just outside Princess Anne’s municipal boundary. These properties lie about 1,700 feet east of Old Princess Anne Road, where several residences on large lots are located, and about 1,700 feet south of a neighborhood centered on Hampden Avenue. Agricultural fields and farm and commercial buildings separate residences from the project. Parcels 15 and 16 are near the unincorporated community of Westover, but are set back from residences by agricultural fields, forested lands and commercial structures.

Construction will involve minimal excavation to reduce slopes and optimize production from the PV modules, as well as trenching for cables and grading for access roads. The project will use land temporarily for construction staging areas. GBS has identified three central construction staging areas for secure materials storage and for vehicle and equipment parking. These will be located at the northeast corner of the Westover Farms property (Parcel 15), the northern end of the Seinkbeil property (Parcel 6), and off Arden Station Road (see Figure 7).

DNR-PPRP 29 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

Figure 7 Construction Staging Area Locations

Source: Great Bay Solar I, LLC

Post construction, the project will not influence land uses of other properties in the area. PPRP has recommended a license condition requiring GBS to certify to the PSC and to PPRP that it has designed the facility in substantial conformity to Somerset County’s Site Plan review requirements as described in §6.14 of the Somerset County Zoning Ordinance, and has received Site Plan approval by the Somerset County Planning Commission.

4.3 Transportation

Transportation impacts associated with the project will occur mainly during the construction period. Construction workers will commute to the project site over major roadways such as US 50 and US 13 and distribute themselves either to construction staging areas or sites under development from US 13 south of Princess Anne. Access to individual parcels will be via farm lanes from local roads or State highways. All materials for project construction will be delivered by truck.

US 13, a federal highway around which the project is centered, is part of Maryland’s Primary Highway System. It connects to US 50 in Salisbury 12 miles north of Princess Anne. US 50 is the Eastern Shore’s primary transport link to the Northeast Corridor. From Princess Anne (MD 675) to MD 413 near Westover, US 13 is a four-lane divided highway with 10-foot shoulders and a 55 mph speed limit. Other local State highways that will

DNR-PPRP 30 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

bear construction traffic include segments of MD 675 (Somerset Avenue), MD 920 (Market Lane), and MD 413 (Crisfield Highway).

Construction worker traffic will add to background traffic volumes at the beginning and end of each workday, primarily on weekdays. GBS did not estimate on-site construction worker counts, but 600 FTE jobs estimated by the JEDI model translates into between 900 and 1,200 design, management, and construction workers on-site over a 6- to 9-month construction period in a full build-out scenario. In 2014, the average annual daily traffic (AADT) on US 13 ranged from 19,472 and 23,262 between MD 675 and MD 413, slightly higher on weekdays (SHA 2014). SHA data indicate that traffic generally peaks from 7-8 am and from 5-6 pm with about 10 percent of the AADT in each peak hour. Peak hour traffic includes employees of the Eastern Correctional Institution (ECI), located off US 13 between Princess Anne and Westover. ECI is a major employer in Somerset County where several hundred security and administrative personnel report to work at ECI and ECI Annex between 6:30am and 9:00am (DPSCS 2015).

Assuming between 900 and 1,200 on-site workers, PPRP estimates that between 780 and 1,050 additional automobiles and light trucks will traverse local roads during the construction period, assuming typical vehicle occupancy rates for construction projects.6 GBS anticipates hours of construction workforce activity to be from 7:00am to 6:00pm, Monday through Saturday, which will put construction worker traffic on local roads before and after morning and afternoon non-construction peak hour traffic near Princess Anne (SHA 2015a). As only half the proposed capacity of the project has been obligated through a PPA, the construction workforce could be considerably smaller than this. Given all these considerations, PPRP does not expect construction worker traffic to affect the LOS of roads operating under normal conditions near the project.

One State road project is planned for 2016 that could potentially affect traffic flows near the project area. Engineering is underway for the replacement of the existing superstructure of a bridge on US 13 southbound over King’s Creek (SHA 2015c). SHA proposes to maintain one southbound lane open to traffic during construction at all times through the work zone. Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in Spring 2016 and be completed by Fall 2016. This project will potentially affect traffic to project parcels south of King’s Creek and the proposed substation site. PPRP has recommended a license condition requiring GBS

6 1.15 construction workers per vehicle.

DNR-PPRP 31 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT to consult with SHA regarding the timing of the bridge rehabilitation project, monitor traffic congestion through the work zone if construction periods coincide, and develop appropriate traffic management strategies to mitigate, to the extent practicable, delays through the work zone caused by the project’s construction worker traffic.

GBS estimates the project will generate between 2,500 and 2,900 truck deliveries over the construction period, depending on the final design and specific equipment selected. Initial deliveries will consist of heavy construction equipment used for site preparation and temporary facilities, followed by pile foundations, structural steel, PV modules, and electrical equipment. PV modules will constitute about 60 percent of total deliveries. Truck deliveries are expected to peak at about the mid-point of the construction schedule.

Trucks will traverse federal and State highways to deliver project components from distribution points to construction staging areas. From the north, most trucks will enter Somerset County via US 13 utilizing bypasses around Salisbury and Princess Anne. Between 2012 and 2014, trucks constituted about 6 percent (about 1,200 per day) of the vehicular traffic on US 13 between Princess Anne and Westover, most of which were combination vehicles (SHA 2015b). From information provided by the Applicant, PPRP has estimated that truck traffic is likely to peak at around 150 per week if the majority of deliveries occur within the middle two months of the construction schedule, around 30 deliveries or 60 total truck trips per weekday. On this basis, PPRP has concluded that the project is not expected to add significantly to existing truck traffic volumes on US 13 near the project area. PPRP has recommended a license condition requiring GBS to mitigate disruptions to commuter traffic to the extent practicable by scheduling the transport of materials and equipment to staging areas and construction sites during non-peak hours.

During early stages of construction, trucks will deliver heavy construction equipment to project parcels for site preparation. Some of these deliveries could be oversize or overweight loads. To the extent that any loads of materials or equipment for the project are oversize or overweight, the SHA requires hauling permits if transported on Maryland highways. Title 24, Subtitle 1 of the Transportation Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland defines an oversize or overweight vehicle. Somerset County does not require permits for oversize or overweight loads, nor does it require bonding before oversize or overweight vehicles can use county roads. However, an Easement Agreement between GBS and the county for the occupancy of seven county road ROWs includes a clause pertaining to repairs for road damage caused by construction activities

DNR-PPRP 32 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

(Somerset County 2015). PPRP has recommended a license condition requiring GBS to comply with all permit requirements for use of State and Somerset County roads and obtain appropriate approvals as necessary.

Post construction, the facility will not generate significant traffic. Most traffic to the project site during operations will be light vehicles.

Federal Regulation Title 14 Part 77 establishes standards and notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace, including determining the potential hazardous effect of the proposed construction on air navigation. Part 77 also provides the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with the authority to conduct aeronautical studies of proposed activities that could affect airspace. These studies review physical incursions of proposed structures into airspace, interference with radar communications, and any other conditions such as glare that might negatively affect air traffic. Regardless of height or location, all solar projects at airports must submit to the FAA a Notice of Proposed Construction Form (Form 7460-1) to ensure the project does not penetrate the imaginary surfaces around the airport or cause radar interference or glare. For off-airport projects, local governments, solar developers, and other stakeholders near an airport have the responsibility to inform the FAA about proposed projects so that the agency can determine if the project presents any safety or navigational problems (FAA 2010).

In 2013, the FAA issued interim policy for the review of solar energy projects on federally obligated airports7 (FAA 2013). The policy adopted the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Plot as the standard for measuring the ocular impact of any proposed solar energy system. Furthermore, to obtain FAA approval for a solar installation and/or a “no objection” to a Notice of Proposed Construction Form, an airport sponsor is required to demonstrate that the proposed solar energy system meets the following standards:

• No potential for glint or glare in the existing or planned airport traffic control tower.

• No potential for glare or “low potential for after-image” along the final approach path8 for any existing landing threshold or future

7 A federally obligated airport is a public airport that has accepted federal assistance, either in the form of grants or property conveyances. 8 The final approach path is defined as two miles from fifty feet above the landing threshold using a standard three-degree glide path.

DNR-PPRP 33 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

landing thresholds as shown on the current FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan.

Ocular impact must be analyzed over the entire calendar year in one- minute intervals from sunrise to sunset. FAA interim policy requires the use of the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT), a web-based application, to determine whether a proposed solar energy project will result in a potential ocular impact. Solar energy systems located on an airport that is not federally obligated or located outside the property of a federally obligated airport are not subject to FAA interim policy. However, the FAA strongly urges proponents of solar energy systems located on off-airport property or on non-federally obligated airports to consider the policy’s requirements when siting such systems (FAA 2013).

The closest airport to the GBS site is Le Champ Airport, about 0.75 mile south of Parcel 11 and one mile north of Parcel 10. Le Champ Airport is a private use airport with a turf runway. Crisfield Municipal Airport is the closest public use airport, nearly nine miles southeast of the nearest project array field. Salisbury-Ocean City Wicomico Regional Airport, the region’s commercial airport, is nearly 14 miles from the project. PPRP has concluded the project will not affect flight operations at nearby public use airports.

4.4 Visual Impacts

The terrain of Somerset County exhibits little variability. Elevations within various parcels of the project vary no more than about 4 or 5 feet. All but four of the project properties have frontage on State or county roads. In many cases, views from other directions are mitigated by vegetated bufferyards and/or distance.

Sitting up to 10 feet above ground, the physical structures associated with solar arrays will have a low visual profile. A 7- to 10-foot chain link fence topped with three strands of barbed wire will enclose PV arrays for security. Somerset County does not specify bufferyard requirements specifically for solar energy systems, but does require landscape or screening buffers for new principal commercial or industrial uses that abut a “primarily residential lot” within the AR, R-1, R-2, R-3 or MRC9 district. Specific landscaping requirements are set out in §6.12 of the Somerset County Zoning Ordinance.

9 Maritime-Residential-Commercial District

DNR-PPRP 34 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

While most adjacent land uses are agricultural, industrial/commercial, or infrastructure (e.g. roads), a small number of residential lots abut parcels hosting solar arrays. Photographic inspection suggests that existing woodlands or other features visually buffer views from some of these properties. Lessors of land leased or sold to the project occupy some of these residences. Views from some locations, such as those from the Wilson Landing Mobile Home Park, which overlook Parcel 3, are likely to require mitigation.

PPRP also recognizes that the Lower Eastern Shore’s landscape as a whole is the region’s primary asset (LESHC 2002). Between Princess Anne and Westover, US 13 is part of the Chesapeake Country State Scenic Byway and the Beach to Bay Indian National Recreation Trail, both within the Blue Crab Scenic Byway Corridor (LESHC 2004). While industrial, commercial, and institutional land uses, and high traffic volumes are in the forefront of the landscape along this segment of the corridor, views from minor roads that bypass project parcels are distinctly characteristic of the Lower Eastern Shore and are largely still intact.

As noted earlier, and in contrast to other Maryland counties where PPRP has reviewed proposed solar facilities, Somerset County’s Zoning Ordinance does not address bufferyard requirements for utility-scale solar energy systems. Queen Anne’s County, in contrast, requires a minimum 25-foot landscaped strip to provide screening from adjacent residential uses and public or private roads (QAC 2011). Utility-scale solar energy systems in Dorchester County must be screened from the ground floor of any adjacent residential dwelling unit by a vegetated buffer of at least 50 feet wide, with specific requirements determined as part of the site plan review process (Dorchester County 2015). Setback and bufferyard requirements are similar in Charles County (Charles County 2014).

PPRP has concluded that Somerset County’s bufferyard requirements for new industrial uses, as defined in §6.12 of its Zoning Ordinance, are both inadequate for screening solar facilities from adjacent residences and inconsistent with the region’s goals for preserving and highlighting its natural and historic landscapes. As a result, PPRP has recommended a license condition requiring GBS to set back its facilities, defined as facilities within perimeter fencing, at least 50 feet from any adjacent property line or public road. Where the project abuts a primarily residential property, or a public or private road, GBS will be required to design a landscape buffer within the setback and outside the fence line that will effectively screen, to a minimum 8 feet above ground level, views of the solar facility. The landscape screening requirements may be waived by the Somerset County Department of Technical and Community

DNR-PPRP 35 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

Services where GBS can demonstrate that conditions on adjacent land are present, such as forest, woodland, wetlands, open fields, or cropland, such that the landscaped buffer serves no purpose. The plan must be submitted to the Maryland PSC, PPRP, and the Somerset County Department of Technical and Community Services for review and approval prior to construction.

Glare from a solar PV array results from light reflecting off some of the front surfaces of the panels that make up the array. Reflectance is a function of the index of refraction of the front surface of the panel (a property of the glass) and the angle at which the sunlight is incident to the panel. Texturing the glass and/or applying anti-reflective coating reduces specular reflectance from PV panels – reflection that can cause a brief loss of vision. While textured glass and anti-reflective coating produce more diffuse reflections with lower solar intensities compared to non-treated glass, glare is spread over a larger surface area of the array (Ho 2013). Furthermore, for any given surface treatment, reflection is greater at large incidence angles. For ground-mounted PV installations, large incidence angles produce glare close to eye-level and therefore have the greatest impact upon stationary observers and moving traffic. The ocular impact of glare declines with increased distance from the source due to atmospheric attenuation (Ho et al. 2011).

Located primarily within an agricultural setting, few residential properties are adjacent to the project’s land parcels. Other surrounding land is in farms, forest or hosts commercial/industrial activities. One or more State or county roads bypass most sites. PPRP undertook a preliminary glare analysis of the project estimating the intensity, time-of-day and duration of reflective glare upon stationary observation points representing views from nearby residential receptors. Because GBS has not yet selected a tracking technology for the project, PPRP analyzed the glare potential from both fixed and single-axis tracking configurations. In all cases, PPRP assumed that array surfaces will be treated to reduce solar reflections, but did not take existing vegetative screening into consideration.

Simulation results from the SGHAT model suggest that glare will affect a small number of adjacent and/or nearby properties if fixed tracking arrays are installed (Figure 8). Some glare could also spill onto US 13 from Parcels 3 and 18. In all cases, glare will be temporary, experienced over short time periods, either shortly after sunrise (properties to the west) or in the early evening (properties to the east) during the spring and summer months of the year. In most cases, the glare will be relatively minor , meaning that the image induced by glare, to the extent it is experienced, would not be bright enough to remain in one’s vision after

DNR-PPRP 36 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT the exposure to the original image has ceased. However, some adjacent residential properties could experience glare bright enough to cause a temporary after-image, although only if the facility is comprised of fixed track panels. No glare is predicted if single-axis tracking systems are installed.

Figure 8 Glare Incidence Predictions for Fixed and Single-Axis Arrays

Although SGHAT simulations predict a moderate intensity of glare upon some locations10, the results must be qualified by the fact that the model considers terrain in its calculations, but not landscaping or other vegetative screening. As a result, predictions of glare from the project are conservative, likely overstating the potential impact upon nearby receptors. Field and aerial photographic inspection suggest mature vegetation either in close proximity to receptor locations or along property lines shared with the project buffers some affected properties from glare. Where existing buffers are inadequate, PPRP has concluded that its recommended setback and landscaping condition will mitigate glare upon affected properties and roads. In recognition of the uncertainties associated with the SGHAT model, PPRP has recommended a license condition requiring GBS to develop a process to document and address complaints related to potential solar reflections. If it is determined that mitigation is warranted, GBS will be required to prepare a screening plan to mitigate impacts from reflective glare upon affected properties.

10 Glare with a potential to induce a temporary after-image within the receptor’s vision.

DNR-PPRP 37 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

GBS has stated that security lighting, operated by motion sensors, will be the only sources of outdoor lighting for the project. Outdoor lighting may also be necessary to satisfy OSHA statutory requirements for worker safety. General requirements for non-residential outdoor lighting found in model lighting ordinances seek to minimize the amount of off-site impacts or light trespass (IES 2011). Somerset County’s Zoning Ordinance does not contain specific outdoor lighting regulations, but does require the identification of locations of outdoor lighting fixtures in a development’s Site Plan (in §6.14). Outdoor lighting guidance for a specific use – Small Wind Energy Systems – was introduced into the Zoning Ordinance in 2010 and requires the shielding of light from adjoining properties. PPRP has concluded that Somerset County’s Site Plan review process will adequately address outdoor lighting impacts from the project.

4.5 Cultural and Aesthetic Resources

There are 16 properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) that are within one-half mile of the project parcels, collection lines, or the proposed substation. No NR-listed property abuts project components, although Cedar Hill (NR-1081) will have unobstructed views over cultivated agricultural fields of an overhead collection line connecting Parcels 15 and 16 to the proposed substation. Cedar Hill is a farmstead dating back to 1793; the structure is significant for its architectural character. The property, as nominated to the NRHP, includes 3.2 acres of surrounding land that provide for a protected and undisturbed landscape along tidal Back Creek (in a direction away from the proposed collection line) and excludes other surrounding areas that do not contain resources historically associated with the house.

There are several properties listed in the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) in the vicinity, including numerous farmsteads, parts of the Princess Anne Historic District, and the Westover Survey District. The proposed substation for the project is immediately adjacent to the King’s Creek Canning Company building, one of a handful of tomato processing plants operating in Somerset County. The canning industry on the Eastern Shore was a major employer of African-American migratory workers in the first half of the 20th century. The building was abandoned and the company ceased operations several years ago due to market conditions. Elsewhere, Parcel 13 surrounds the Ross Farmhouse on three sides. Solar PV arrays will occupy farm fields historically associated with the property. The farmhouse, considered a significant mid-19th century dwelling, is in deteriorated condition. Other historic properties are more distant or are not within the project’s visual footprint and thus will not be adversely affected by project construction or operation.

DNR-PPRP 38 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

In its review of the project, the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) noted the proximity of Cedar Hill to Parcels 15 and 16, and requested photographs showing the relationship between the NR-listed property and the proposed arrays in addition to detailed information illustrating the proposed construction on these parcels (Henry 2015). MHT also requested that the Applicant complete Determination of Eligibility (DOE) forms (for National Register listing) for both the King’s Creek Canning Company building and Ross Farmhouse along with supporting photographic documentation showing the relationship of these properties to adjacent project structures.

Several archeological sites (both prehistoric and historic) have been identified within the project’s area of potential effect, including the NR- listed Somerset Academy Archeological Site, an 18th century school. Some of these sites are associated with historic properties listed in the NRHP or the MIHP. MHT notes that many of the project sites are in areas that are archeologically sensitive (along Taylor Branch, Kings Creek, and Back Creek, for example) and may impact significant sites that have not yet been identified (Henry 2015). As such, MHT believes that the project may have a moderate to high potential for adversely affecting significant archeological resources. In its request for Phase I survey work, MHT took into consideration minimal ground disturbance and limited grading expected from project construction and past agricultural practices on some parcels that have likely compromised their archeological potential. The applicant has recently undertaken Phase I archeological surveys on Parcels 3, 13, 15 and 16, and the proposed substation site. After MHT completes its review of the survey results, additional Phase II investigations of identified sites may be necessary.

Overhead collector lines are near one easement held by MHT containing a post-Revolutionary era plantation (“Beverly”). The property is spatially separated from the collector lines by the US 13 corridor and will have no adverse effect on the property. Other nearby easements are within the Princess Anne Historic District and will be unaffected by the project.

MHT has not yet completed its review of the requested DOE forms and photographic documentation for identified historical properties, nor has it commented on Phase I archeological survey results from the Applicant. Prior to construction, consultation between GBS and MHT will be required to determine if additional investigations are warranted. Until then, MHT cannot provide definitive comments or recommendations regarding effects on cultural resources or possible mitigation measures. Once its review is completed, MHT will be able to work with all interested parties to evaluate the potential adverse effects and make appropriate

DNR-PPRP 39 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

recommendations regarding measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any such effects. PPRP has recommended a license condition requiring GBS to consult with MHT to determine whether additional cultural resource investigations will be required within areas of the project that will be disturbed by permanent or temporary construction activities. To the extent that subsequent investigations determine that cultural resources would be adversely affected by the project, the resolution of all adverse effects will require the negotiation and execution of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between MHT and GBS stipulating the agreed-upon mitigation measures that will be implemented by GBS prior to construction.

In the event that construction activities unearth relics from unforeseen archeological sites, PPRP has recommended a license condition requiring GBS, in consultation with and as approved by MHT, to develop and implement a plan for avoidance and protection, data recovery, or destruction without recovery of such relics or sites.

The Maryland Heritage Areas Program preserves the State’s historical, cultural, archeological, and natural resources for sustainable economic development through heritage tourism. Local designation and State certification of Heritage Areas define a distinct focus or theme that makes a place or region different from other areas of Maryland. A management plan governs activities in each Heritage Area, setting forth the strategies, projects, programs, actions, and partnerships that will be involved in achieving its goals. Once certified, a Heritage Area management entity becomes eligible for State-matching grants for operating assistance and marketing activities. Local jurisdictions and nonprofit organizations in a Heritage Area may also qualify for State matching grants for planning, design interpretation, and programming. The Maryland Heritage Areas Authority (MHAA), within the Division of Historical and Cultural Programs of MHT, is responsible for administering Maryland’s Heritage Areas program.

There are 13 Certified Heritage Areas (CHAs) in Maryland, including the Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Area (LESHA). The LESHA is located in Wicomico, Worcester, and Somerset counties, and extends from the Nanticoke River to the Atlantic Ocean. Two spokes of the Lower Eastern Shore Primary Scenic Network are part of LESHA and bypass some parcels associated with the project site. Parcels 3 and 18 abut US 13 between Princess Anne and Westover, while MD 361 (Fairmont Road) passes south of Parcels 15 and 16 west of MD 413 (Crisfield Highway). As noted earlier, this stretch of US 13 is part of the Chesapeake Country State Scenic Byway and the Beach to Bay Indian National Recreation Trail.

DNR-PPRP 40 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

However, industrial, commercial, and institutional land uses degrade the landscape here. Mature woodlands south of Parcels 15 and 16 block most views toward the project from MD 361. In fulfillment of its statutory requirement, PPRP consulted with the Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Area Council Inc., the heritage area’s management unit, about the GBS Project. PPRP has concluded the project will have no adverse effect upon the LESHA or scenic byways.

No designated bicycle or recreational trail within the Lower Eastern Shore bypasses any planned project facility.

4.6 Public Services and Safety

During construction and operation, no additional public services will be required to support the project under normal conditions. In the event of a fire or accident at the facility, Somerset Central within the Somerset County Department of Emergency Services would dispatch emergency responders to the scene. Somerset Central transfers 9-1-1 calls to eight fire companies, two emergency medical services (EMS) companies, and three police agencies. With the exception of Station 5 – Princess Anne Fire Department (FD)/EMS employs an Advanced Life Support (ALS) provider 24 hours a day – fire and EMS companies are staffed by volunteers. Most of the project site is within the primary response area of Station 5. Parcels 15 and 16, however, are in the first due area of the Fairmount Volunteer Fire Company (VFC). For parcels in the Station 5 primary response area, backup support would be from one or more volunteer companies from Wicomico County, the Fairmount VFC, or Pocomoke City Volunteer Fire Department (Worcester County), depending on location. The Princess Anne FD provides backup response for the Fairmount VFC. Somerset Central dispatches the Princess Anne Police Department and the Somerset County Sheriff’s Department 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and the Crisfield Police Department from midnight to 8:00 am except for a 24-hour dispatch schedule on Sunday.

Solar panels and associated electrical equipment are largely free of flammable materials. Modules for the project will be comprised of crystalline solar cells. Although potential health hazards have been associated with toxic materials released during fires from cadmium telluride, copper indium diselenide, and gallium arsenide PV modules (Moskowitz and Fthenakis 1990), crystalline solar cells, which are primarily made of silicon, are not considered to be hazardous to the environment (Alchemie 2013). Still, respiratory exposure to combustion products associated with PV components should be avoided (FPRF 2013, UCS 2015). With respect to other components, some modern transformers

DNR-PPRP 41 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

use mineral oil as a coolant while others use dry-type cooling. The flashpoint of mineral oil is 335°F, significantly higher than the OSHA standard, which defines a flammable liquid as any liquid having a flashpoint at or below 199.4°F (29 CFR §1910.106(a)(19)).

Post construction, the risk of fire from ground-mounted PV systems would be low if site preparation and maintenance has removed potential fuels from under and around solar arrays (Planning Solutions 2014). Fire prevention guidance for ground-mounted PV installations is contained within the National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 1 Fire Code Handbook (NFPA 2015) and NFPA 70 National Electrical Code (NFPA 2014). PPRP has recommended a license condition requiring GBS to design, install, and maintain the project to meet the minimum standards set forth in NFPA 1 and NFPA 70.

Although the likelihood of fire is low, a challenge facing firefighters during fireground operations at PV facilities is the risk of electrical shock (FPRF 2013). This is because PV panels generate electricity when exposed to sunlight. Even at night, apparatus-mounted scene lighting may produce enough light to generate an electrical hazard. Under a continuous electrical load, any conduit or components between PV modules and disconnect switches will remain energized. Inverters may also provide voltage during daylight hours for several minutes on both sides of a disconnect even when the circuit is opened (FPRF 2013). The Fire Protection Research Foundation also recommends the use of respiratory protection during fireground operations involving PV systems.

While there are several guidelines for fire operations at PV facilities (NREL 2013b, CalFire 2010, Orange County 2010), PPRP notes that Somerset County’s fire and rescue (and those of neighboring counties) is a mostly volunteer system where Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) or Standard Operating Guidelines (SOGs) may not currently address fireground operations at PV facilities. PPRP has recommended a license condition requiring GBS to contact the Princess Anne Fire Department/EMS, Fairmount VFC and the Somerset County Department of Emergency Services to establish points of contact and timely response options, facilitate emergency vehicle access throughout the sites, create a consistent marking protocol for the identification of system components that require special attention during an emergency, and develop appropriate SOPs or SOGs for addressing on-site emergencies.

DNR-PPRP 42 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

4.7 Property Values

Little in the way of research is evident on the impact of utility-scale solar PV systems on nearby property values. This may be partly because utility-scale PV land requirements favor rural locations where adjacency issues are not as prevalent, or because repeat sales data, which might capture such effects, are simply not available. Limited evidence from real estate appraisal methods has not revealed any influence on property values from solar farm development. Expert opinion from a recent siting case in Massachusetts, for example, concluded that utility-scale PV energy systems that are not visible from surrounding properties would have no impact on their market values (Franklin County 2014).

With a minimal vertical profile and recommended buffering along the perimeter of the site, the project will be largely out of sight from nearby properties. Post-construction views toward the project from nearby dwellings will essentially be unchanged. The project’s operation will not emit significant noise, air or water pollutants, create traffic, or generate any hazardous waste that could potentially affect public health. At the end of the facility’s useful life, a decommissioning plan will return the project site to its original state. In other words, the local environment will be minimally affected by the project. That the proposed facility will have a moderately benign local presence once the facility is operational suggests that property values will be unaffected by the project.

4.8 Transmission Interconnection

As noted earlier, the transmission interconnection will pass over the CBCA. The CAC has approved, with conditions, the Great Bay Solar Project. These conditions are incorporated into PPRP’s recommended license conditions for the project. PPRP anticipates no other significant socioeconomic impacts from construction or operation of the interconnection.

DNR-PPRP 43 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

5.0 NOISE IMPACTS

This licensing review incorporates an evaluation of noise impacts to ensure compliance with State noise regulations. The analysis of potential noise impacts focuses on the potential for sound pressure from generating equipment to exceed numerical limitations at the nearby noise sensitive areas.

5.1 Definition of Noise

Noise generally consists of many frequency constituents of varying loudness. Three decibels (dB) is approximately the smallest change in sound intensity that can be detected by the human ear. A tenfold increase in the intensity of sound is expressed by an additional 10 units on the dB scale, a 100-fold increase by an additional 20 dB. Because the sensitivity of the human ear varies according to the frequency of sound, a weighted noise scale is used to determine impacts of noise on humans. This A- weighted decibel (dBA) scale weights the various components of noise based on the response of the human ear. For example, the ear perceives middle frequencies better than low or very high frequencies; therefore, noise composed predominantly of the middle frequencies is assigned a higher loudness value on the dBA scale. Subjectively, a tenfold increase in sound intensity (10 dB increase) is perceived as an approximate doubling of sound. Typical A-weighted sound levels for various noise sources are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Typical Sound Levels for Common Sources (dBA)

Typical Sound Noise Source Pressure Level Lowest sound audible to human ear 10 Soft whisper in a quiet library 30-40 Light traffic, refrigerator motor, gentle breeze 50 Air conditioner at 6 meters, conversation 60 Busy traffic, noisy restaurant, freight train moving 30 mph at 30 meters 70 Subway, heavy city traffic, factory noise 80 Truck traffic, boiler room, lawnmower 90 Chain saw, pneumatic drill 100 Rock concert in front of speakers, sand blasting, thunder clap 120 Gunshot, jet plane 140

DNR-PPRP 44 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

Sound energy dissipates with increasing distance from the noise source. For every doubling of the distance, the sound pressure level produced by a given noise source decreases by approximately 6 dBA.

5.2 Summary of Regulatory Requirements

Maryland noise regulations specify maximum allowable noise levels, shown in Table 3 (COMAR 26.02.03). The maximum allowable noise levels specified in the regulations vary with zoning designation and time of day. The noise limit for residential areas is 55 dBA during nighttime hours and 65 dBA during daytime hours. A noise source should not create noise that exceeds the allowable levels, as measured at the receiving property.

Table 3 Maximum Allowable Noise Levels (dBA) for Receiving Land Use Categories

Zoning Designation

Industrial Commercial Residential

Day 75 67 65

Night 75 62 55

Source: COMAR 26.02.03 Note: Day refers to the hours between 7 am and 10 pm; night refers to the hours between 10 pm and 7 am.

The State regulations exempt certain noise sources and noise generating activities. For example, motor vehicles on public roads are exempt from Maryland noise regulations; however, while on industrial property, trucks are considered part of the industrial source and are regulated as such. The regulations also allow for construction activity to generate noise levels up to 90 dBA during daytime hours, but the nighttime standard may not be exceeded during construction.

While the State has established target levels for noise, enforcement authority for noise regulations rests with local government (in this case, Somerset County).

5.3 Noise Impact Evaluation

Operational noise from photovoltaic (PV) facilities is typically low. The PV panels and support equipment do generate some noise, primarily associated with the power inverters and electrical transformers. While there is some audible noise associated with the motors in the solar panel tracking mechanism, a 2013 report from Argonne National Laboratory

DNR-PPRP 45 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

concluded that such mechanical noise was not a significant source of noise for off-site receptors (ANL 2013).

Regarding noise generated by the power inverters and electrical transformers, a recent study conducted for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (2012) found that operational noise is inaudible at moderate distances. The measured noise levels from the PV arrays included in the study declined to ambient background noise levels at distances between 50 and 150 feet.

PPRP evaluated each parcel location associated with the project site and identified noise receptors that could experience noise impacts. The closest noise receptor that could potentially experience the greatest noise impacts is a residential trailer park community, located approximately 60 feet south of the boundary of Parcel 3 (see Figure 9). All other receptor locations are located at least 100 feet from parcel boundaries and therefore will not be significantly affected by operational noise.

DNR-PPRP 46 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

Figure 9 Closest Residential Receptor

The applicant anticipates using ULTRA inverters. The applicant supplied a noise survey conducted by Acoustics Group, Inc, which showed sound pressure measurements generated by the ULTRA inverters ranging from 70.1 to 73.9 dBA at a distance of 2 feet from the inverters (Response to PPRP Data Request 1-2).

Sound attenuates with increased distance from the source. According to information provided by the applicant, the project will include setbacks of varying lengths ranging from 20 to 100 feet or more depending on the particular parcel (Response to PPRP Data Request 1-3). As discussed earlier in this document, to minimize potential visual impacts, PPRP is

DNR-PPRP 47 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

recommending a minimum setback of 50 feet. Furthermore, the power conversion stations where the inverters are installed will be centrally located within each block of PV panels rather than at the parcel edges (i.e., further away from nearby residences). Taking these distances into account, PPRP concludes that the operational sound pressures levels will be below the applicable noise limits at all receiving properties.

Construction noise impacts to the surrounding area will be temporary and intermittent. The applicant supplied a list of the anticipated construction equipment and associated noise levels at 50 feet. Table 4 lists the construction equipment associated with the highest emitted noise levels. The applicant states that construction noise impacts will be minimized and mitigated by requiring all equipment to be maintained in good operating condition and that all motors and engines are muffled. Noise impacts will also be mitigated by limiting construction activities to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm.

Table 4 Construction Equipment with Highest Emitted Noise Levels (dBA) Equipment Noise Level at 50 feet

Bulldozer 86 dBA

Chain Saw 84 dBA

Grader 82 dBA

Roller-Compactor 83 dBA

Auger Rig 84 dBA

Jackhammer 89 dBA

Tracked Dozer 86 dBA

PPRP’s recommended license conditions will require that the construction and operation of the proposed solar facility comply with the State’s regulatory standards of 65 dBA (day) and 55 dBA (night), and the 90 dBA level during daytime construction. It is anticipated that noise from the project, as proposed, will meet these construction and operational noise limits.

DNR-PPRP 48 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

6.0 SUMMARY

PPRP concludes that there will be no significant impacts to environmental or socioeconomics resources if the Great Bay Solar Project adheres to the recommended license conditions put forth in PPRP__Exhibit (JS-2).

Because it is a non-combustion process relying on the direct conversion of solar energy into electrical energy, the operation of a solar PV facility does not produce air emissions. This differs drastically from conventional fossil-fired electric power plants. Electricity generated by solar PV facilities represents a way of meeting the region’s growing demand for electric power without emitting combustion-related air pollutants. Therefore, there will be no significant impact to air quality.

Overall, biological impacts due to the construction and operation of the proposed Great Bay Solar Project will be minimal. The majority of the project was designed to avoid sensitive resources and is located on existing agricultural fields, with little to no permanent impact to biological resources including wetlands, streams, forested land, and wildlife. Where appropriate, the Applicant will conform to Best Management Practices in order to reduce any impacts to these resources. The Applicant will also comply with any applicable local, state, or federal laws or regulations, including the MDE Joint Waterways permit and the Forest Conservation Act.

In addition, the impacts to biological resources from construction and operation of the overhead transmission line are minimal. The line will be less than 500 feet and will be located in the Critical Area. The Applicant has worked with the Critical Area Commission in order to avoid or minimize impacts from the transmission line.

The project will create temporary construction jobs and generate fiscal benefits to the State and Somerset County. However, PPRP expects a large proportion of the construction labor force will commute or temporarily migrate to the region, diluting the impact to the Somerset and Lower Shore economies. PPRP does not anticipate permanent population and housing impacts given the short duration of the construction schedule. In the short term, construction workers from outside the Lower Shore area seeking transient accommodation could stress the rental housing market, particularly in Somerset County, increasing housing costs temporarily or reducing seasonal availability and, potentially, tourism revenues. Fiscal benefits will be in the form of corporate income tax

DNR-PPRP 49 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

revenues to the State, income tax revenues to the State and county on lease payments to landowners, and property tax revenues.

In terms of land use, the project will be located within 16 land parcels comprising up to 1,000 acres mostly on land currently cultivated for agriculture. PPRP has estimated that the Great Bay Solar Project will preempt traditional agricultural activities from no more than about 1.5 percent of Somerset County’s total 2012 acreage of land in farms, or about 2.75 percent of cropland acreage. Parcels within the project’s scope are zoned Agricultural Residential, General Industrial, and Low Density Residential. Maryland’s CPCN process preempts local zoning, but PPRP has concluded that the project would be allowed by Special Exception from the BZA if it were under local jurisdiction.

Parts of the project, primarily overhead transmission lines to the Delmarva substation, underground collection system and the substation, will be within the Critical Area. Following staff review and recommendations, the CAC approved, with conditions, the Great Bay Solar Project, as proposed to the PSC. PPRP has included the CAC conditions into its recommended license conditions for the project.

Post construction, the project will not influence land uses of other properties in the area. PPRP has recommended a condition requiring GBS to certify to the PSC and to PPRP that it has designed the facility in substantial conformity to Somerset County’s Site Plan review requirements and has received Site Plan approval by the Somerset County Planning Commission.

Construction worker traffic will add to background traffic volumes at the beginning and end of each workday, primarily on weekdays. GBS anticipates hours of construction workforce activity to be from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, which will put construction worker traffic on local roads before and after morning and afternoon non- construction peak hour traffic near Princess Anne. As only half the proposed capacity of the project has been obligated through a power purchase agreement, the construction workforce could be considerably smaller than this. Given all these considerations, PPRP does not expect construction worker traffic to affect the level of service of roads operating under normal conditions near the project.

Replacement of the existing superstructure of a bridge on US 13 southbound is currently scheduled to occur at the same time the solar facility is being constructed. The SHA will close one southbound lane through the work zone during bridge replacement. This could potentially

DNR-PPRP 50 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

affect traffic to project parcels south of King’s Creek. PPRP has recommended a condition requiring GBS to consult with the SHA regarding the timing of the bridge rehabilitation project and mitigate delays to traffic if construction periods coincide.

Between 2,500 and 2,900 truck deliveries to the project site are expected over the construction period, peaking at about the mid-point of the construction schedule. PPRP has concluded that the project will not add significantly to existing truck traffic volumes near the project area, but has recommended a license condition requiring GBS to mitigate disruptions to commuter traffic to the extent practicable by scheduling the transport of materials and equipment during non-peak hours. To the extent that any loads of materials or equipment for the project are oversize or overweight, PPRP has recommended a condition requiring GBS to comply with all permit requirements for use of State and Somerset County roads. Post construction, the facility will not be a significant traffic generator.

The project will have a low visual profile. Most adjacent land uses to project are agricultural, industrial/commercial or infrastructure. However, some nearby lots are residential properties. While woodlands or other features visually buffer the project, views from some properties and public roads are unobstructed and may require mitigation. PPRP has recommended a condition requiring GBS to set back its facilities at least 50 feet from any adjacent property line or public road and, where necessary, design a landscape buffer to screen views of the solar facility and prevent glare from trespassing onto other properties.

Several historic and archeological sites have been identified within the project’s area of potential effect, some of which may have a moderate to high potential for being adversely affected by construction activities. At the request of MHT, GBS is currently undertaking surveys of these sites. PPRP has recommended a condition requiring GBS to continue consultations with MHT to determine whether additional cultural resource investigations will be required within areas of the project that will be disturbed by permanent or temporary construction activities. The resolution of all adverse effects will need to be undertaken by GBS prior to construction.

Two spokes of the Lower Eastern Shore Primary Scenic Network, part of the LESHA Certified Heritage Area, bypass some parcels associated with the project site. PPRP has concluded the project will have no adverse effect upon the LESHA or scenic byways. No bicycle routes or other recreational trails will be affected by the project.

DNR-PPRP 51 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

PPRP has included license conditions to ensure that the project conforms to national fire and electrical codes and that emergency response protocols are in place in the unlikely event of a fire or other emergency at the site. Overall, the project’s operation will not emit significant traffic, noise, air or water pollutants, or generate any hazardous waste that could potentially affect public health. At the end of the facility’s useful life, a decommissioning plan will return the project site to its original state. In other words, the local environment will be minimally affected by the project. That the proposed facility will have a moderately benign local presence once the facility is operational suggests that property values will be essentially unchanged.

All of the noise sources associated with the project must comply with State noise regulations, as listed in COMAR 26.02.03. The available information provided by GBS indicates that the project will comply with both the construction and operational noise limits.

DNR-PPRP 52 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

7.0 REFERENCES

Alchemie 2013. Solar Facts and Advice. Alchemie Ltd. http://www.solar-facts-and-advice.com/monocrystalline.html. Accessed January 6, 2015.

ANL 2013. An Overview of Potential Environmental, Cultural, and Socioeconomic Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development. Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory. ANL/EVS/R-13/5. June 2013.

BLM 2012. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States. Volume 1. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management andU.S. Department of Energy. FES 12-24· DOE/EIS-0403. July 2012.

BLS 2011. Careers in Solar Power. James Hamilton. June 2011 – Report 2. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Occupantional Statistics and Employment projections. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/green/solar_power/ on June 9, 2015.

BLS 2015. Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Published by Maryland Office of Workforce Information & Performance. Release date: 6/3/2015/

BRE 2013. Planning Guidance for the Development of Large Scale Ground Mounted Solar PV Systems. BRE National Solar Centre. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.bre.co.uk/nsc/page.jsp?id=3429 on June 19, 2015.

BRE 2014. Agricultural Good Practice Guidance for Solar Farms. Ed J. Scurlock. BRE National Solar Centre. 2014. Retrieved from http://www.bre.co.uk/nsc/page.jsp?id=3429 on June 19, 2015.

CalFire 2010. Fire Operations for Photovoltaic Emergencies. Office of the State Fire Marshall. November 2010.

CBP 2015a. 2013 Nonemployer Statistics, Somerset, Maryland, Construction. Retrieved from http://censtats.census.gov/cgi- bin/nonemployer/nondetl.pl on June 8, 2015.

DNR-PPRP 53 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

CBP 2015b. 2013 County Business Patterns (NAICS), Somerset, Maryland, Construction. Retrieved from http://censtats.census.gov/cgi- bin/cbpnaic/cbpsect.pl on June 8, 2015.

Charles County 2014. Solar Energy and Wind Energy Systems. Bill No. 2014-02. 2014 Legislative Session. Introduced by Charles County Commissioners. April 1, 2014.

DCPC 2015. Minutes – March 4, 2015. Dorchester County Planning Commission. Retrieved from http://docogonet.com/index.php?page=planning_commission on June 19, 2015.

Denholm & Margolis 2007. The Regional Per-Capita Solar Electric Footprint for the United States. P. Denholm & R. Margolis. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Technical Report NREL/TP-670-42463. December 2007.

Denholm & Margolis 2008. Impacts of Array Configuration on Land-Use Requirements for Large-Scale Photovoltaic Deployment in the United States. Paul Denholm & Robert M. Margolis, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Conference Paper NREL/CP-670- 42971. May 2008.

DEFRA 2014a. The New Common Agricultural Policy Schemes in England: October 2014 Update. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. CAPLF004v0.2. October 2015. Retrieved from www.gov.uk/cap-reform on June 19, 2015.

DEFRA 2014b. “Subsidies for solar farms to be cut to help safeguard farmland.” Press release from Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and Elizabeth Truss MP. 19 October 2014. Retrieved from www.tov.uk/government/news/subsidies-for- solar-famrs-to-bu-cut-to-help-safeguard-farmland on June 19, 2015.

DLLR 2014. Employment and Payrolls – County Industry Series – Somerset County 2013. Division of Workforce Development and Adult Learning. Marylnad Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation. Retrieved from http://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/emppay/some2013ep.shtml on June 8, 2015.

DLLR 2015a. Somerset County – Major Employer Lists – March 2013. Retrieved from

DNR-PPRP 54 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

https://mwejobs.maryland.gov/admin/gsipub/htmlarea/upload s/Major Employer_Somerset 2013.htm on June 4, 2015.

DLLR, 2015b. Workforce Investment Act System. Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation. Retrieved from http://www.dllr.state.md.us/employment/jtpa.shtml#lwibs. on June 8, 2015.

DLLR, 2015c. Civilian Labor Force, Employment & Unemployment by Place of Residence (LAUS), Lower Shore Workforce Investment Area. Updated June 4, 2015. . Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation. Retrieved from http://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/areas/lowerwia.shtml12 on June 8, 2015.

DOE 2012. SunShot Vision Study. U.S. Department of Energy. February 2012.

Dorchester County 2015. Dorchester County Code. Chapter 155. Zoning. §155-50. Supplementary Use Regulations.

DPI 2012. Letter to President Rex D. Simpkins and Somerset County Commissioners from Andrew McLean, President, Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc. December 11, 2012. As published in Draft Application for a Certificate of Public convenience and Necessity for the Great Bay Wind Energy Center, Somerset County, Maryland. Prepared by Tetra Tech Inc. for Great Bay Wind I, LLC. May 9, 2013.

DPSCS 2015. RE: Great Bay Solar, LLC. Letter to John Sherwell, Power Plant Research Program from Kathleen S. Green, Warden ECI, ECI- Annex. August 17, 2015.

FAA 2010. Technical Guidance for Evaluating Selected Solar Technologies on Airports. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airports, Office of Airport Planning and Programming. Washington, DC. November 2010.

FAA 2013. Interim Policy, FAA Review of Solar Energy System projects on Federally Obligated Airports. Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation. Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 205. October 23, 2013.

DNR-PPRP 55 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

FPRF 2013. Fire Fighter Safety and Emergency Response for Solar Power Systems. Final Report. Prepared by Casey C. Grant, P.E. The Fire Protection Research Foundation. May 2010. Revised October 2013.

Franklin County 2014. Commissioner’s Agenda Information Sheet. Item: Request for Special Use Permit – Sarah Solar, LLC, Parts 2 and 3. June 16, 2014.

FRED 2015. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Civilian Labor Force in Somerset County, MD [MDSOME9LFN], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MDSOME9LFN/, June 8, 2015.

Ho et al., 2011. “Methodology to Assess Potential Glint and Glare Hazards from Concentrating Solar Power Plants: Analytical Models and Experimental Validation”. Clifford K. Ho, Cherl M. Ghanbari, Richard B. Diver. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering. August, 2011, Vol. 133.

Ho 2013. “Relieving a Glaring Problem.” Clifford K. Ho. Solar Today. April 2013.

IES 2011. Joint IDA-IES Model Lighting Ordinance with User’s Guide. Illuminating Engineering Society and International Dark Sky Association. June 15, 2011.

Johnson 2012. Letter from Eddie Johnson, President of Somerset County Farm Bureau. March 19, 2012. As published in Draft Application for a Certificate of Public convenience and Necessity for the Great Bay Wind Energy Center, Somerset County, Maryland. Prepared by Tetra Tech Inc. for Great Bay Wind I, LLC. May 9, 2013.

Kittel 2014. Personal communication re: Rockfish Solar Array project from Laura Kittel, Franchise Tax and Utility Valuation Manager, Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation, July 15, 2014.

LESHC 2002. Management Plan for the Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Area. The Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Committee. Prepared by John Milner Associates, Inc. et al. June 2002.

LESHC 2004. Blue Crab Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan. Lower Eastern Shore Heritge Committee. December 2004.

DNR-PPRP 56 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

Lewis et al 2009. “Managing Growth with Priority Funding Areas”. Rebecca Lewis, Gerrit-Jan Knaap and Jungyul Sohn. Journal of the American Planning Association. Autumn 2009. Vol. 75, No. 4.

Massachusetts Clean Energy Center 2012. Study of Acoustic and EMF Levels from Solar Photovoltaic projects. Prepared by Tech Environmental, Inc., Waltham, MA, for Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. December 2012.

MALPF 2013. Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2013. Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation, Maryland Department of Agriculture, Annapolis Maryland. November 21, 2013.

MDP 2013a. Maryland Scenic Byways Analysis of Rural Resource Lands: Status, Vulnerability, Threat and Stability. Prepared by the Maryland Department of Planning, Planning Data Services. November 2013.

MDP 2013b. Report to the General Assembly on Implementation of Senate Bill 236, the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2013. Maryland Department of Planning. February 2013.

MDP 2014a. Total full and part‐time jobs (by place of work) by type and industry, 2001‐2013. Prepared by the Maryland Department of Planning, from U.S. BEA Table CA‐25N, November 2014.

MDP 2014b. Personal Income by Major Source & Earnings by Industry (Thousands of constant $2009). Prepared by the Maryland Department of Planning from U.S. BEA Table CA05N, November 2014.

MDP 2014c. Number of Farms in Maryland and its Jurisdictions. Prepared by the Maryland Department of Planning. Extracted from 1997, 2002, 2007 and 2012 Census of Agriculture. August 2014.

MDP 2014d. Acres of Land in Farms for Maryland and its Jurisdictions. Prepared by the Maryland Department of Planning. Extracted from 1997, 2002, 2007 and 2012 Census of Agriculture. August 2014.

MDP 2014e. Major Land Uses in Farms by Acre for Maryland and its Jurisdictions. Prepared by the Maryland Department of Planning.

DNR-PPRP 57 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

Extracted from 1997, 2002, 2007 and 2012 Census of Agriculture. August 2014.

MEA 2015. “Solar Energy Progress.” Maryland Energy Administration. http://energy.maryland.gov/solar.html.

MFB 2014. Maryland Farm Bureau Policy for 2015. As Approved by the MFB Delegates at the 2014 Annual Meeting – December 9, 2014. Retrieved from http://mfbb.informz.net/MFBB/data/images/MFBPolicy2015%20 Final%20Draft%20(1).pdf on August 11, 2015.

Moskowitz and Fthenakis 1990. “Toxic materials released from photovoltaic modules during fires: health risks.” Paul D. Moskowitz and Vasilius M. Fthenakis. Solar Cells, January 1990, Vol. 29, No. 1, p. 63-71.

MSA 2015. Maryland Manual Online. Maryland State Archives. April 13, 2015. Retrieved on June 23, 2015 from http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/01glance/html/agri.h tml

NFPA 2014. NFPA 70: National Electrical Code Handbook. National Fire Protection Association. Quincy, Massachusetts.

NFPA 2015. 2015 NFPA 1: Fire Code Handbook. Chapter 11 Building Services, Section 11.12 Photovoltaic Systems. National Fire Protection Association. Quincy, Massachusetts.

NFU 2013. “Solar photovoltaic electricity in agriculture – on your roofs and in your fields.” NFU Briefing. National Farmers Union. December 2013. Retrieved from http://www.nfuonline.com/solarpv_nfubriefing4/ on June 15, 2015.

NREL 2013a. Land-Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-56290. June 2013.

NREL 2013b. On-site PV Guidance. Prepared jointly by the General Services Administration and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. October 2013.

DNR-PPRP 58 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

Odens 2013. “A New Crop for Agricultural Land: The Renewable Energy Mandate and its Potential to Turn Farm Lands into Energy Fields.” Amy Odens. 44 McGeorge L. Rev. 1037, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.mcgeorge.edu/Documents/Publications/MLRVolum e44_4_07_Odens%20Final.pdf on June 19, 2015.

Orange County 2010. Guideline for Fire Safety Elements of Solar Photovoltaic Systems. Orange County Fire Chiefs Association. July 17, 2008. Revised January 1, 2010.

OSU 2012. The Effect of Renewable Energy projects on Current Agricultural Use Value. Eric Romich & Chris Bruynis. Fact Sheet. The Ohio State University Extension. CDFS-4003-12. 2012.

Pusey 2015. Re: Great Bay Solar discussion. Email to John Sherwell, PPRP from Gary R. Pusey. August 19, 2015.

Planning Solutions 2014. Kahe Utility-Scale Photovoltaic project. Draft Environmental Assessment. Prepared by Planning Solutions for Hawaiian Electric Company Inc. May 2014.

QAC 2011. County Ordinance No. 11-07. Queen Anne’s County, Maryland. December 13, 2011.

SHA 2014. Highway Location Reference, Somerset County. Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration, Data Services Engineering Division. Data as of December 31, 2014.

SHA 2015a. Volume Count Detail Report. US 13 - .50 Mi. N of MD 413. Date Range: 06/17/2015 to 06/18/2015. Maryland State Highway Administration, Highway Information Services Division.

SHA 2015b. Somerset County Truck Volume Map, 2012-2014. Prepared by the Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration, Data Services Engineering Division. Published Date: 3-23-15.

SHA 2015c. US 0013 Ocean Highway Bridge 1900302 Over Kings Creek. Project No. SO201_21. Retrieved from http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectInfo rmation.aspx?projectno=SO2012119 September 16, 2015.

DNR-PPRP 59 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT DRAFT

Skyline Energy 2013. Farm Land for Solar Generation. Retrieved from http://skylineenergyusa.com/Solar%20farm%20Land%20Lease%2 0Program on August 21, 2015.

Solar Power World 2015. 2015 Top Maryland Solar Contractors. Retrieved from http://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2015- top-maryland-solar-contractors/ on August 20, 2015.

Somerset County 2015. Minutes. Somerset County Roads Board. May 26, 2015.

Souza 2011. “Energy mandates touch off a rush for open farmland.” By Christine Souza. AgAlert. September 14, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.agalert.com/story/?id=2510 on June 19, 2015.

STA 2015. The STA 10 Commitments for Solar Farms. Web Page. Retrieved from http://www.solar-trade.org.uk/sta-solar-farms-10- commitments/ on June24, 2015.

UCS 2015. Environmental Impacts of Solar Power. Union of Concerned Scientists. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy- choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-solar- power.html#bf-toc-2. Accessed January 7, 2015.

DNR-PPRP 60 PSC CASE 9380 – GREAT BAY SOLAR PROJECT