5 E Long St, Suite 700 Columbus, OH 43215 edrdpc.com
July 2025
Table
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment
Attachment B Viewpoint Location Map & Viewpoint Photolog
Attachment C Photosimulations and Wireframe
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
3D three-dimensional
DEM digital elevation model
DSM digital surface model
O&M operations and maintenance
poi point of interconnection
pv photovoltaic
VRA Visual Resource Assessment
VSA visual study area
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On behalf of Crossroads Solar I, LLC (the Applicant), Environmental Design and Research, Landscape Architecture, Engineering & Environmental Services, D.P.C. prepared this Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) for the Crossroads Solar Grazing Center, a proposed solar-powered electric generation facility and associated infrastructure (the Facility or Project). This VRA was prepared to satisfy the portions of Ohio Administrative Code 4906-4-08(D) and 4906-4-09(C) related to the potential visual impact of the Project.
The Project is proposed to be located in southwest Morrow County, Ohio, just south of the Village of Cardington. The 5-mile study area for the Project includes four distinct landscape types but is dominated by open agricultural fields. Prolonged views of the Facility will primarily be limited to the scattered, rural residences within 0.5 miles of the Project, and the Applicant has proposed vegetative visual mitigation (i.e., landscaping) in areas where the perimeter of the Facility may be visible from adjacent residences. Intermittent views of the Facility will be available to the public as they travel through the study area, but these views will be narrow and of short duration. There are relatively few scenic, recreational, or other visually sensitive resources within the study area, most of which are not predicted to have potential visibility of the Facility
The potential visibility and visual impact of the Project were evaluated using viewshed analyses, field review, photosimulations of the Facility from representative vantage points, and evaluation of the photosimulations to assess the visual contrast resulting from the Project The results of these analyses indicate the following:
• The proposed solar panels will potentially be visible from approximately 9.2% of the study area.
• Potential visibility diminishes rapidly with distance; approximately half of the estimated extent of visibility within the 5-mile study area occurs within 0.5 miles of the Project.
• The greatest potential for visibility occurs within open, agricultural landscapes; visibility is much more limited within residential clusters, villages, and forested areas
• Thirty-one visually sensitive resources within the 5-mile study area have potential visibility of the Facility, and the anticipated visual effect on all but two of these 31 resources is negligible or minor, with the other two evaluated as moderate; proposed mitigation will further limit visual impacts to these resources.
• The assessment of photosimulations found that open, unobstructed views from approximately 0 to 400 feet are expected to result in the strongest visual contrast, but landscape plantings can be very effective within this viewing range.
The Applicant has effectively sited and designed the Facility to minimize potential visual impacts of the Project to the extent practicable. As demonstrated in this VRA, the location of the Project, combined with the low profile of the Facility equipment, provides limited areas where extended views of the Facility are anticipated. The mitigation measures proposed by the Applicant, including agricultural style perimeter fencing, preservation of existing vegetation on site, and implementation of a robust landscaping plan in areas of highest potential visibility of the Facility will further reduce the visual impact of the Project.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On behalf of Crossroads Solar I, LLC (the Applicant), Environmental Design and Research, Landscape Architecture, Engineering & Environmental Services, D.P.C. (EDR) prepared this Visual Resource Assessment (VRA) for the proposed Crossroads Solar Grazing Center (the Project). The Project will consist of the construction and operation of a solar-powered electric generation and sheep grazing facility and associated infrastructure (the Facility) in Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield townships, Morrow County, Ohio (Figure 1-1). This VRA was prepared to satisfy the portions of Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 4906-4-08(D) and 4906-4-09(C) that relate to the identification of visually sensitive resources (VSRs), likely Facility visibility, and potential visual impacts resulting from the operation of the proposed Facility. Recognizing these requirements, the purposes of this VRA are as follows:
• Describe the appearance of the visible components of the proposed Facility.
• Define the aesthetic character of the visual study area (VSA).
• Inventory and evaluate existing VSRs and viewer groups within the VSA.
• Evaluate potential Facility visibility within the VSA.
• Identify representative views for visual assessment.
• Illustrate the appearance of the proposed Facility from representative locations (photographic simulations).
• Assess visual impacts associated with the proposed Facility
• Describe visual mitigation and minimization measures that are proposed or have been considered to reduce potential visibility and visual impacts of the Project
This VRA was prepared by environmental professionals with education and career experience in the evaluation of visual impact. As described in more detail in subsequent sections, the VRA methodology and content are consistent with policies, procedures, and guidelines contained in established visual impact assessment methodologies developed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM, 1999), United States (U.S.) Forest Service (USFS, 1995), U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT, 1981) (USDOT, 2015), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Smardon et al., 1988), and National Park Service (Sullivan and Meyer, 2014) (Sullivan et al., 2021)
Figure 1-1
2.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION
The proposed Facility is a combined utility-scale solar energy and sheep grazing project with a generating capacity of up to 94 megawatts located in Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield townships, Morrow County, Ohio. The proposed Facility will include the following components, described in greater detail in Section 2.2:
• Rows of photovoltaic (PV) panels mounted on single-axis tracker racking systems
• Inverters to convert direct current electricity generated by the PV panels to alternating current electricity
• A medium-voltage, underground electrical collection system that will aggregate the alternating current output from the inverters
• A collection substation where the Facility’s electrical output will be combined and increased to the transmission line voltage via step-up transformers
• A switchyard to transfer the generated electricity to the existing 69 kV transmission line
• Security fencing and gates around the PV panel arrays, collection substation, and switchyard
• Gravel-surfaced access roads
• An operations and maintenance (O&M) facility
• Pasture for sheep forage and other livestock infrastructure.
2.1 Location of the Project Area
The Facility is proposed to be located on approximately 726 acres of land (Project Area) currently under lease or easement by the Applicant in Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield townships, Morrow County, Ohio. This area is characterized by relatively even terrain, with elevations ranging from approximately 988 to 1,030 feet above mean sea level Land cover is defined predominantly by agricultural land interspersed with woodlots and rural residential development (Figure 2-1). The actual “footprint” of the Facility, as defined by the Facility’s fence line, will occupy no more than 559 acres (Figure 2-2). The Project Area is located approximately 0.3 miles south of the Village of Cardington, 2.8 miles north of the Village of Ashley, and 3.4 miles west of the Village of Fulton, as measured from their closest points.
Figure 2-1. Representative View of the Project Area from County Roads 25 and 165 in Lincoln
Figure 2-2 Project Area and Layout
2.2 Proposed Facility
The following section describes the visible operational components of the proposed Facility. The appearance of temporary, construction-related components and activities are described in Section 5.2.4 of this report. It should be noted that the VRA requires specific assumptions to perform the viewshed analysis and simulations. These assumptions are sufficient to reasonably and accurately determine the potential impacts associated with the Facility. Once the Applicant begins to confirm the detailed design of the Facility, changes to the layout and design are not anticipated to substantively change the results of the VRA.
The Facility is expected to include five PV panel array areas (i.e., separate groups of PV panels mounted on racking systems that are arranged in parallel rows) In total, the PV arrays and surrounding fencing will occupy up to 559 acres within the 726-acre Project Area. For the purposes of the VRA, it is assumed that the Facility will utilize a single-axis tracker racking system. Based upon the preliminary PV panel and racking system specifications provided by the Applicant, the maximum height of the panels when in their most upright positions (i.e., at their maximum orientation to the east or west) will be approximately 12 feet. This height was used to evaluate the greatest potential Facility visibility and visual impact in the photographic simulations (photosimulations) and viewshed analysis. However, the PV panels may be lower than this maximum height due to topographic variation. The PV panel arrays are the Facility component that will be most visible and have the greatest potential to result in visual impacts and, therefore, are the focus of this VRA
For the purposes of the VRA, it is assumed that fencing surrounding the PV arrays will consist of 7-foot-tall, wood fence posts spaced 10 feet apart supporting agricultural box wire mesh The fencing surrounding the substation is expected to consist of 7-foot-tall, galvanized steel fence posts spaced about 10 feet apart and supporting galvanized chain-link mesh that will be topped with 1-foot-tall angle arms strung with three strands of barbed wire. Entrance gates will be installed where access roads enter the fenced areas.
A network of collection cables connecting each individual PV panel will be attached directly to the racking system along each string in the array before being routed underground. Although visible, the exact arrangement of these cables is unknown at this time and therefore not included in the photosimulations. At the end of each string of PV panels, a network underground electric cables collect power from the PV panels and transmit it to the inverters.
Inverters are proposed within or along the perimeter of the PV panel areas and convert the direct current power generated by the PV panels to AC power. For the purposes of this VRA, the inverters consist of steel containers and are assumed to be approximately 20 feet long, seven feet tall, and seven feet wide and they will be mounted on concrete pads or skids Because of their low profile and location primarily in the interior of the PV panel arrays, they are expected to be mostly screened from view by the surrounding PV panels and will not significantly contribute to Facility visibility or visual impact. However, where present and visible, the inverters are illustrated in the photosimulations included in this VRA.
Interconnection Facility
Currently the proposed collection substation and switchyard is expected to be located centrally between proposed PV arrays north of County Road 155 and west of County Road 165 in Westfield Township For the
purposes of the viewshed analysis and simulations, it was assumed that the tallest components of the stations are the shielding masts, expected to be approximately 65 feet tall, and the gantry structures, which range in height from approximately 25 to 55 feet. These structures are expected to be galvanized steel and silver/gray in color.
Operations and Maintenance Facility
An O&M facility that would house the permanent operations staff and maintenance equipment is proposed adjacent to the collection substation The O&M facility site is expected to measure approximately 80 feet long by 50 feet wide. Specific site and architectural design has not been completed for the O&M facility, but it is anticipated to include a gravel parking area and a single-story, metal-clad, pitched-roof structure. The O&M facility is not included in the photosimulations.
3.0 EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER
The existing visual character of the area surrounding the Project is described by defining an appropriate VSA, establishing distance zones based on the visibility and perceived detail of landscape components, and identifying the viewer groups, landscape types, and VSRs within the study area. These steps are detailed further in this section.
3.1 Definition of Visual Study Area
OAC 4906-4-08(D) states that visual impacts to recreational, scenic, and historic resources from a proposed electric generating facility should be evaluated within a 10-mile radius surrounding the Project Area. However, a 10-mile radius would result in an overly inclusive VSA for a solar energy facility due to the relatively low profile of the Facility components, screening by existing topography, forested areas, and structures that serve to limit potential visibility, and the limits of human visual acuity at such viewing distances Based on EDR’s extensive experience with solar facilities in this type of landscape, visual impacts associated with the Facility are anticipated to be contained within 0.5 miles of the major Facility components (i.e., the PV panels, inverters, and fence).
To determine an appropriate extent of the VSA to be used for the visibility analyses presented in this report (i.e., viewshed analysis, field review, and photosimulations), a preliminary viewshed analysis was completed to determine the geographic extent of potential Project visibility. The preliminary viewshed analysis results suggest that the PV panels and interconnection facility will be entirely screened beyond approximately 4.25 miles from the Project Area. Additionally, based on observations of operational projects in Ohio, PV panel arrays become indistinguishable at distance beyond 5 miles due to their low profile, even terrain, the limits of human visual acuity, and/or atmospheric haze. Therefore, the Project’s VSA has been conservatively defined as the area within a 5-mile radius surrounding the Project Area
3.1.1 Localities within the VSA
The 5-mile radius VSA includes approximately 115 square miles within Morrow, Marion, and Delaware counties (Figure 3-1) This VSA was used for all the visual analyses presented herein (i.e., viewshed analysis, field review, and photosimulations). Localities that fall within the VSA are identified in Table 3-1
Figure 3-1 Visual Study Area
Table 3-1. Localities that Occur within the Visual Study Area
1 The calculations summarized in this table were based on unrounded numbers; therefore, the rounded results may not equal the total
2 The VSA includes approximately 115 square miles
3.1.2 Distance Zones
Distance zones are typically defined in visual studies to divide the VSA into distinct sub-areas based on the various levels of landscape and Facility detail that can be perceived by a viewer. EDR consulted several wellestablished agency protocols, including those published by the USFS, BLM, and USDOT, to determine the appropriate boundary of each distance zone. The distance zones recommended by each agency’s protocol were considered in the context of the landscape being addressed in this VSA For example, the BLM (1999) recommends a combined foreground-middle ground zone extending from 0 to 5 miles. While this may be appropriate in a western landscape with frequent, unscreened views over long distances, it does not translate to midwestern, agricultural landscapes where views are often contained within a mile or less of the viewer. Conversely, the USDOT (2015) suggests the foreground be defined as an area within 0.25 to 0.5 miles from the viewer. Due to the characteristics of the landscape and Project being evaluated in this VRA, EDR defined the following four distance zones (as measured from the nearest proposed location of the PV panels and interconnection facility) based largely on the USFS Scenery Management System (USFS, 1995)
Near-Foreground: 0 to 300 feet
At this distance, a viewer can perceive details of parts of objects, such as the leaves of trees, or stones in a gravel road, with clarity. Surface textures, small features, and the full intensity of color values can be seen on near-foreground objects.
Foreground: 300 feet to 0.5 miles
The foreground is the predominant distance zone in which landscapes are viewed in the study area, considering the flat nature of the VSA Within the foreground, the color value, texture, and detail of landscape features are generally clear. A viewer can perceive parts of objects, such as the boughs and trunks
of large trees or the windows of a house At the limit of this distance zone, trees lining a field begin to merge into a hedgerow, and herbaceous vegetation begins to merge into a field For most landscape features, viewers cannot clearly perceive the full details of parts of objects, such as leaves on trees. Features within the foreground may obscure the view of objects in the middle ground and background distance zones
Middle Ground: 0.5 to 4.0 miles
At this distance, individual objects in the landscape merge together; individual hills become a range, individual trees merge into a forest, and buildings appear as simple geometric forms Lines and edges become blurred, and colors will be distinguishable but characterized by a bluish cast and softer tone than those in the foreground. Contrast in texture between landscape elements is also reduced.
Background: Over 4.0 miles
The background defines the broader regional landscape within which a view occurs. Within this distance zone, the landscape is simplified; only broad landforms are discernable, and atmospheric conditions often render the landscape an overall bluish color. Texture has generally disappeared, and color has flattened, but large patterns of vegetation are discernable. Silhouettes of one land mass set against another and/or the skyline are often the dominant visual characteristics in the background. The background contributes to scenic quality by providing a softened backdrop for foreground and middle ground features, an attractive vista, or a distant focal point.
These distance zones will be referenced throughout this report (and indicated in various figures) when evaluating the Facility’s viewshed and its viewing distance from various viewpoints. The percentage of the 5-mile radius VSA that is occupied by each distance zone is identified in Table 3-2.
1 The calculations summarized in this table were based on unrounded numbers; therefore, the rounded results may not equal the total
2 The VSA includes approximately 114.6 square miles.
3.2 Viewer/User Groups
Three categories of viewer/user groups were identified within the VSA based on their activity, duration of views/exposure to the Facility, and likely sensitivity to visual change, as described in this section. In addition, this section includes a review of documented plans and community preferences related to scenic resources within the VSA.
Table 3-2. Distance Zones within the Visual Study Area
3.2.1 Local Residents
Local residents include those who live and work within the VSA These individuals generally view the landscape from their yards, homes, local roads, schools, and places of employment. Except when involved in local travel, residents are likely to be stationary and have frequent and prolonged views of the landscape from ground level or elevated vantage points (typically upper floors/stories of homes) within their homes and yards. Residents’ sensitivity to visual quality is variable. However, it is assumed that residents will likely be sensitive to visual changes that can be seen from their homes, yards, and local communities. Relatively high concentrations of residential development occur in the villages of Cardington, Ashley, and Fulton, as well as in the portions of the Villages of Mount Gilead and Edison that fall within the northern VSA boundary. Smaller concentrations of residences are also found within the unincorporated communities of Westfield, South Woodbury, Russell, and Shawtown. Low-density residential development is scattered along roadways throughout the rest of the VSA.
To determine which areas are likely to have the highest number of residential viewers and therefore, may have a high level of viewer exposure, EDR conducted a building density analysis based upon publicly available national building footprint data (Microsoft, 2021) to determine the density of buildings per quarter mile of the VSA. As shown in Figure 3-4, density of buildings within the VSA ranges from 1 to 121 buildings per square quarter mile, with many areas where there are no buildings. These results indicate that the highest density of development occurs in the villages of Cardington, Ashley, and Mount Gilead. However, due to the dispersed nature of settlement in this region, residential development also occurs along roadways scattered throughout the VSA.
3.2.2 Through-Travelers
Travelers passing through the VSA view the landscape from motor vehicles on their way to work or other destinations. These viewers are typically moving, have a narrow field of view, and are destination-oriented. Drivers on major roads in the area will generally be focused on the road and traffic conditions but do have the opportunity to observe roadside scenery. Passengers in moving vehicles will have greater opportunities for prolonged off-road views than will drivers and, accordingly, may have greater perception of changes in the visual environment. However, because they are moving, the duration of any given view is brief and constantly changing. Travelers’ sensitivity to visual quality is variable. However, it is assumed that local commuters may be sensitive to changes in views of areas that they travel through on a regular basis, while those traveling to and from more distant locations will generally be less aware and less concerned with visible changes to the landscape.
To determine which roads are likely to have the highest number of travelers and, therefore, may experience a high level of viewer exposure, EDR reviewed traffic count data available from the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT, 2017). As indicated in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-4, the most heavily traveled road in the VSA is Interstate 71, with traffic counts that average approximately 57,400 vehicles per day. Other roadways in the VSA receive significantly less traffic than Interstate 71, with the next most-trafficked road being U.S. Route 42, which receives an average traffic count of approximately 2,900 to 9,900 vehicles per day on the segments of the route within the VSA.
Table 3-3. Traffic Count for Heavily Traveled Roadways in Visual Study Area
1 Based upon ODOT 2017 traffic count data for segments of these roadways that fall within the
3.2.3 Tourists/Recreational Users
Tourists and recreational users include residents as well as out-of-town visitors involved in recreational activities. This group includes hunters, fishers, hikers, bicyclists, and those involved in more passive recreational activities such as picnicking, sightseeing, and walking. Tourists and recreational users are typically focused on the activities in which they are engaged but may have continuous but changing views of landscape features over extended periods of time. Visual quality may or may not be an important part of recreational activities for these viewers. However, for many, scenery will serve to enhance their recreational experience.
Tourists and recreational users are assumed to be viewing the landscape from publicly accessible recreational or tourist sites within the VSA, which are identified as VSRs (Section 3.5). Visitor count information for these VSRs is not readily available through publicly accessible data sources. Morrow County Fairgrounds in the Village of Mount Gilead likely receives the highest visitation in the VSA because it hosts the annual Morrow County Fair, which drew 2,297 visitors over the course of eight days in 2019 (Conchel, 2019). Tourists and recreational users may also occasionally visit other VSRs in the VSA, such as rural cemeteries, historic homes, local parks and wildlife areas, or the aforementioned fishing destinations Visitation at these sites is assumed to be lower due to limited or lack of accessibility to the public and/or lack of recreational amenities. This study assumes that sightseers and other tourist/recreational users traveling through the area will be concentrated to major roads in the VSA identified in Table 3-3
Figure 3-2. Viewer Exposure
3.2.4 Other Documented Resources and Community Preferences
EDR also reviewed local plans, policies, and regulations to identify any scenic resources or visual and aesthetic preferences expressed by the communities within the VSA. A total of three counties, eight townships, and five villages intersect the VSA. Provisions contained within the available plans for these communities are summarized herein
Marion County 2011 Land Use Plan
The southeastern corner of Marion County overlaps the VSA, as shown on Figure 3-1. The Marion County 2011 Land Use Plan (Marion County Regional Planning Commission, 2011) offers a detailed analysis of demographic and land use trends. Building on the smart-growth land use policies established in the 1977 Land Use Plan, the 2011 plan includes an analysis of the physical characteristics of the county and a review of trends related to population, housing, employment, business, and land use changes on a subdivision basis from 1995 to 2009 (Marion County Regional Planning Commission, 2011). Goals reflected in the plan recognize that the long-standing commitments established in the 1977 Land Use Plan remain valid today, including preparing the county for constructive absorption of the population and economic growth which will occur in the coming decades; preservation of agricultural development opportunities; and taking the steps necessary to strengthen Marion County as the major center of employment, trade, education, and culture in its seven-county region. These goals are further upheld by new commitments to minimize both public and private expenses by reducing conflicts between landowners and society, and promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Marion County. Overarching goals addressing the dominating agricultural land use include preserving areas of prime farmland for agricultural use and supporting industries using agricultural products, with specific short-term goals in support of this to focus on the implementation of zoning measures. Long-term goals include encouraging state enabling legislation to allow counties to preserve prime and unique farmland, with additional measures to increase protections of agricultural operations by participation in established programs, as well as heightened zoning measures at the township level.
Richland Township is the subdivision of Marion County that overlaps the VSA. A detailed examination of the land use (i.e., land cover) patterns of Richland Township was included in the Marion County 2011 Land Use Plan, comparing land uses from 1995 to 2009. Overall, land use across the township has remained relatively stable from 1995 to 2009 (Marion County Regional Planning Commission, 2011) Land cover is dominated by cropland, followed by woods, then residential, with remaining land cover categories comprising 1% of the township’s land area in both time periods. During this time, the township experienced residential growth and a loss of cropland, woods, and brush/pasture.
The 2011 plan notes that the most scenic areas in the county are along the rivers that flow through the county, specifically the Scioto River, Little Scioto River, and Olentangy River (Marion County Regional Planning Commission, 2011, p. 1). None of these rivers are within the VSA. No other specific scenic resources are identified in the 2011 plan.
Morrow County Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2012
The Project is proposed to be located in Morrow County, and the county occupies most of the VSA. The Morrow County Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2012 (Morrow County Regional Planning Commission, 2012) was developed to anticipate the needs of residents and plan for the future of the county in light of urban expansion, economic concerns, limited community resources, and declining agricultural use. Agricultural growth is the noted priority, although the plan documents the need for expanded industrial and commercial growth. Expansions would be limited to areas with the infrastructure to support it, unless advancements to wastewater treatment are made. Other plan recommendations encompass wide-ranging, measured goals for future development, including addressing the challenges of an aging population, careful planning of transportation infrastructure improvements, preserving waterways through efficient utility expansion, incubating local businesses, providing for wildlife with new or preserved green space, efficient expansion of public safety services, attracting a post-secondary institution, and collaborative community events.
The plan highlights that the Morrow County region is considered an “Infrastructure Forward Area” offering excellent access to the power grid, with electric transmission lines crossing the county at several locations. The plan further states, “Morrow County’s physical location and its relationship to regional, state and national infrastructures dictates a future of rapid land use succession and robust development.” Energy production offers a promising avenue toward beneficial economic growth, given the need for “sustained affordable energy production [that] is critical to the continued economic success of the Country, State, and County,” coupled with the advantages of the “topography, geography, and social location of Morrow County” (Morrow County Regional Planning Commission, 2012). While solar was not specifically listed as a potential source of energy production, the plan suggests that “the appropriate oversight in the location and construction” with ”clear policies and directive to guide employees with the implementation of these facilities” of energy generating operations, specifically to ensure that operations limit impact on local roadways as strategies to support the vision. According to the plan, policies in areas that are primarily agricultural should aim to conserve prime farmland and soils to ensure the long-term viability of working farms and maintain the traditional agricultural values The Facility is proposed to be located on rural parcels within Morrow County. Farmland will be utilized by the Facility; however, the land can be restored to agricultural use at the time of the Facility’s decommissioning. Additionally, the presence of the Facility will eliminate the possibility that farmland will be permanently converted to residential or light industrial uses. Setbacks from residences, public roadways, and parcel boundaries, in addition to vegetative screening and adherence to lighting standards will be utilized to reduce and minimize visual impacts.
Woodlands and forests were broadly identified as unique scenic resources within the county. While no specific scenic resources were identified in the 2012 plan, it included goals to encourage the extension of the designated scenic river status of the Kokosing River into Morrow County and developing and implementing a Scenic Byway Plan for State Routes 314, 95, and 42 to maintain the aesthetic character of rural roads and surroundings State Route 42 runs through the east portion of the VSA, and State Route 95 overlaps the northern portion of the VSA, as shown on Figure 3-1.
Oxford Township Comprehensive Plan (2006)
The northeastern corner of Oxford Township in Delaware County overlaps the VSA, as shown Figure 3-1
The Oxford Township Comprehensive Plan succeeds the 1991 Delaware County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which was replaced by individual township plans orchestrated by the county and is no longer being followed or enforced. The plan addresses the rapid growth anticipated within the region, noting that it is important for the township to plan for the future in light of surrounding areas reaching their build-out population. The plan notes that the township is seated in one of the fastest growing regions in the nation, with Delaware County experiencing a 64.3% increase in growth between 1990 and 2000, making it the fastest growing county in Ohio and the 15th-fastest growing county in the U S. at the time of the plan adoption. Within the plan, Oxford Township expresses the goal to “retain our rural character, with conservation of agriculture and natural resources with lower density residential development.” This is planned to be accomplished by making major efforts to retain green space with pathway connections between developments; for agricultural uses, the plan notes that this should be encouraged through conservation easements and open space dedication. The 2006 plan does not include any specific scenic resources; however, preserving scenic views of creeks was noted among the goals supporting the conservation of natural resources (Delaware County Regional Planning Commission, 2006).
Village of Ashley, Ohio 2005 Comprehensive Plan
The Village of Ashley is completely within the VSA, in the southwestern portion of the middle ground distance zone, as shown on Figure 3-1. The goals of the Village of Ashley, Ohio 2005 Comprehensive Plan focus on retaining the historical village character with a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly downtown that offers green space and prioritizes higher density and growth at the “heart” of the village. This is echoed by the village residents’ preferences to preserve Ashley’s rural village character as a matter of “vital importance to the Village’s successful evolution.” In addition to specific goals targeting the preservation of vernacular streetscapes and historic structures, the plan also commits to preventing excessive density by avoiding development of environmentally sensitive areas, which are further detailed as floodplains, wetlands, woods, dense vegetation, natural drainage and bodies of water (Delaware County Regional Planning Commission, 2005) Similar to the Oxford Township Comprehensive Plan 2006, the 2005 plan does not include any specific scenic resources; however, preserving scenic views of creeks was noted among the goals supporting the conservation of natural resources.
3.3 Physiographic/Visual Setting
3.3.1
Landform and Land Cover
The physiography of the VSA broadly defines visual characteristics, ecological composition, topography, and landcover which provides an indication of the natural processes and human influences that shape a landscape into its present condition. The VSA is located primarily within the Eastern Corn Belt Plains ecoregion, and, more specifically, the Clayey, High Lime Till Plains subregion, which extends across most of northwest Ohio, northeast Indiana, and a small portion of southeast Michigan. This subregion is characterized by its flat terrain and humid, continental climate. Though once covered with closed/canopy forest, this region has been almost completely cleared for agriculture, especially corn, soybean, wheat, and livestock. As is the case in the VSA, the remaining forest cover generally occurs in small, isolated woodlots, though larger contiguously wooded areas are found along streams (BPlant, 2025a) A narrow sliver of Low
Lime Drift Plain subregion also occurs along the eastern boundary of the VSA. This subregion is part of the Erie/Ontario Drift and Lake Plain ecoregion and extends across northeast Ohio, northwest Pennsylvania, and southwest New York. In contrast to the level plains to the west, the Low Lime Drift Plain is defined by rolling terrain, broad valleys, and abundant glacial features such as terminal moraines, kettles, and wetlands While these topographic features are mostly absent from the VSA, the eastern boundary of the VSA contains relatively large contiguous areas of forest, which is another defining feature of the Low Lime Drift Plain subregion (BPlant, 2025b)
Land cover in the VSA consists primarily of agricultural land including cultivated row crops and pastureland. Forested land occurs in small, discrete woodlots dispersed between agricultural land. Larger contiguous areas of forest are more abundant in the eastern VSA surrounding Alum Creek. Development mostly occurs as widely scattered rural homes and farm complexes, with more concentrated settlement within the villages of Cardington, Mount Gilead, and Ashley.
Elevations within the VSA range from 919 to 1,208 feet above mean sea level and average approximately 1,021 feet. Lower elevations are associated with drainage corridors and waterbodies such as Whetstone Creek in the southwestern portion of the VSA, while the highest elevation is located in the northeastern portion of the VSA, south of Mount Gilead. Based on this 289-foot elevation change over 12 miles (the distance from the highest to lowest points in the VSA), the landscape appears flat and only small, localized topographic variations are apparent within the VSA.
3.3.2 Water Features
The most significant water features in the VSA are Whetstone Creek, Alum Creek, and Big Walnut Creek These resources are frequented by recreational users engaged in fishing at public fishing rights access points Along the banks of Whetstone Creek, Heimlich Park and Maxwell Park are popular destinations in the Village of Cardington for fishing, picnicking, and hiking Farther north in the Village of Mount Gilead, Whetstone Creek also runs along the northern boundary of the Morrow County Fairgrounds, which hosts the annual Morrow County Fair. In the Village of Ashley, the reservoir next to Newman Park is a popular destination for trout fishing Multiple small ponds, wetlands, and creeks are also located in the VSA. These water features contribute to the forested/rural character of the VSA in certain views. However, due to their small size and/or the infrequent opportunities for public access and recreational activities, they are a relatively minor component of the visual landscape.
3.4 Landscape Types
Defining distinct landscape types within a given study area provides a useful framework for the analysis of a project’s potential visual effects. Landscape types within the VSA were defined based on the similarity of various landscape characteristics including landform, vegetation, water, and land use patterns, in accordance with established visual assessment methods, notably, USFS (1995), Smardon et al. (1988), USDOT (1981), and BLM (1999). The following four landscape types were identified within the VSA:
• Agricultural/Open
• Forest
• Residential Cluster
• Village
Landscape types were mapped and classified using Geographic Information System (GIS). The landscape type classifications are based on aerial imagery, mapped land cover, and proximity to various landscape or land use features. The mapping and classification of landscape types is intended for use at the scale of the entire study area. Therefore, it is possible that field review at a given location would change the initial GISderived landscape type classification based on observed landscape characteristics that are beyond the scale of the GIS analysis. The classification analysis is subtractive, meaning that a given criterion is used to classify a portion of the VSA as a particular landscape type, and then the next criterion is applied to classify portions of the remaining land, and so forth until the entire area is mapped. The landscape types within the VSA were classified and mapped in the following order:
• Forest landscape type areas were classified based on areas labeled “Trees” in the 2023 Esri Land Use/Land Cover Data
• Agricultural/Open landscape type areas were classified based on areas labeled “Crops” or “Rangeland” in the 2023 Esri Land Use/Land Cover Data.
• Developed areas were classified based on areas labeled “Built Area” in the 2023 Esri Land Use/Land Cover Data. Structure density analysis was used to determine the number of structures present in developed areas. Isolated areas classified as “Built Area” with greater than 20 structures present were classified as one of the following two landscape types:
o Village landscape type areas were classified by identifying clusters of contiguous developed areas within and near a village boundary.
o Residential Cluster landscape type areas were classified by identifying remaining developed areas with greater than 20 structures present within the isolated “Built Area,” indicating housing developments along roads.
• Remaining developed areas (i.e., those with fewer than 20 structures present) were classified as Agricultural/Open landscape type areas.
The extent of each landscape type within the VSA is summarized in Table 3-4 and depicted in Figure 3-5. As indicated in this table and figure, Agricultural/Open and Forest are the predominant landscape types within the VSA.
1 The calculations summarized in this table were based on unrounded numbers; therefore, the rounded results may not equal the total
Table 3-4. Landscape Types
The area of each landscape type falling within the various distance zones in the VSA is summarized in Table 3-5 As indicated in this table, the Agricultural/Open and Forest landscape types are distributed fairly evenly throughout the distance zones. Due to the low density of development near the Project Area, the Residential Cluster landscape type occurs only within the middle ground and background distance zones The Village landscape type is also primarily concentrated in these outer distance zones, with only a small percentage occurring in the foreground. Descriptions of the visual characteristics of each landscape type, along with representative photographs, are provided in Sections 3.4.1 through 3.4.4
Table 3-5. Distance Zones by Landscape Type
Area1 (square miles) and Percentage of Landscape Type in each Distance Zone
Landscape Type
1 The calculations summarized in this table were based on unrounded numbers; therefore, the rounded results may not equal the total
Figure 3-3 Landscape Types
3.4.1 Agricultural/Open
The Agriculture/Open landscape type covers approximately 77.0% of the VSA and is characterized by agricultural lands (hayfields, fields of planted row crops, fallow fields dominated by successional vegetation) on flat to gently rolling terrain with farm complexes and low-density residential development along roadways (Figure 3-6) Views typically include open agricultural fields in the foreground backed or bordered by farm complexes and woodlots. However, hedgerows, woodlots, and roadside vegetation or structures often frame or limit views in a particular direction. In some conditions, such as before harvest, views may be short range due to screening provided by roadside crops. Viewer/user groups within this landscape type are primarily local residents. However, through-travelers are also likely to be present on the federal and state highways that cut through this zone, including U.S. Route 42 and State Routes 61, 229, and 529.
3-4. Representative Photographs of the Agricultural/Open Landscape Type
3.4.2
Forest
The Forest landscape type covers approximately 16.9% of the VSA and is characterized by contiguous areas of mixed deciduous and coniferous tree species interspersed with small fields and residential development along roadways. While this zone occurs throughout the VSA, larger areas of contiguous forest occur in the eastern VSA surrounding Alum Creek and Big Walnut Creek. Typical views within this landscape type are short range and include substantial foreground screening. Where long-range views are available in places, they are often tightly enclosed by trees and other vegetation, such as views along roadway corridors or in small clearings (Figure 3.4-3). Vantage points near the forest edge and where terrain is steep may occasionally offer more open, expansive views of the surrounding landscape, particularly during leaf-off conditions. This is particularly the case in views from small woodlots and narrow hedgerows. Due to the limited extent of publicly accessible forested areas in the VSA, users of this landscape type are primarily local residents engaged in various outdoor activities on their properties or travelers driving through wooded areas on local roadways and state highways. Tourists/recreational users may also be present along trails in the forested areas of the Delaware-Whetstone Wildlife Area and rivers/streams with public fishing rights access
Figure
View from County Road 159 in Westfield Township, Viewpoint 47.
View from County Road 166 in Lincoln Township, Viewpoint 42
3.4.3 Residential Cluster
The Residential Cluster landscape type covers approximately 3.3% of the VSA and is characterized by singlefamily housing arranged in linear clusters along highways and smaller rural roads. This landscape type occurs in higher concentrations in the eastern portion of the VSA, featuring development patterns that are denser than in the Agricultural/Open landscape type, but less dense and lacking in commercial features compared to the Village landscape type. Typical views include landscaped yards, trees, and shrubbery in the foreground backed by houses displaying a mix of traditional rural and more modern architectural styles. Long-distance views across adjacent agricultural fields may be available from locations on the periphery of this landscape type, particularly in areas of newer development that lack mature landscape vegetation. However, for older residential developments, long-distance views are generally more limited due to screening provided by buildings, woodlots, and mature landscaping.
Figure 3-5 Representative Photographs of the Forest Landscape Type
View from County Road 166 in Lincoln Township
View from Township Road 167 (Coomer Road) in Lincoln Township
Figure 3-6. Representative Photographs of the Residential Cluster Landscape Type
View from U S Route 42 in Westfield Township, Viewpoint 50
View from Township Road 254 (Greenbelt Lane) in Lincoln Township
3.4.4 Village
The Village landscape type covers 2.9% of the VSA and includes the villages of Cardington, Edison, and Mount Gilead in the northern VSA, the Village of Fulton in the east, and the Village of Ashley in the south. The Village landscape type is characterized by moderate to high-density commercial, cultural, and municipal development along an arterial main street. Views along the main streets are typical of small-town commercial corridors, featuring storefronts, residences, and public buildings constructed close to the street and pedestrian amenities such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and streetlamps. Residential development is generally organized along gridded side streets featuring a higher density than is found in other landscape types. In some Village areas, especially in the Village of Cardington, residential development is more suburban in nature, featuring larger homes along curvilinear streets and cul-de-sacs. Along the outer edges of Village landscape type areas, residential development is more rural, with larger yards organized along major roads. Outward views may occasionally be available across large, landscaped yards, parking lots, recreational fields, or when adjacent to agriculture land. However, open, long-distance views are generally limited due to vegetation and closely situated buildings
Figure 3-7. Representative Photographs of the Village Landscape Type
3.5 Visually Sensitive Resources
VSRs were identified based on the requirements of OAC 4906-4-08(D). In addition, EDR conducted a search for other resources that could be considered visually sensitive based on the type or intensity of use they receive.
A review of local and regional planning documents and publicly available geospatial databases resulted in the identification of 231 VSRs within the VSA. A complete listing of the resources used in the identification of VSRs is included in the References section of this report. The categories of resources considered in this study and number of resources identified in each category are summarized in Table 3-6. The location of these resources is illustrated in Figure 3-10 and in greater detail in the viewshed map included as Attachment A. A list of all VSRs identified within the VSA with additional location information and resource identification numbers is also included in Attachment A.
View from East High Street in the Village of Ashley
View from the intersection of Tralee Trail and Kinsale Drive in the Village of Cardington, Viewpoint 36
Table 3-6. Summary of Visually Sensitive Resources Identified in the Visual Study Area
Visually Sensitive Resource Category
Properties of Historic Significance
National Historic Landmarks (NHL)
None identified
National or State Historic Sites None identified
Properties/Districts
Ohio
Designated Scenic Resources
Rivers Designated as National or State Wild, Scenic, or Recreational None identified
Sites, Areas, Lakes, Reservoirs, or Highways Designated or Previously
Determined Eligible for Designation as Scenic
None identified
Other Designated Scenic Resources (Easements, Roads, Districts, Overlooks) None identified Public Lands and Recreational Resources
National Parks, Recreation Areas, Seashores, and/or Forests
National Natural Landmarks
National Wildlife Refuges
None identified
None identified
None identified
Heritage Areas None identified
State Parks None identified
State Nature Preserves
identified
Wildlife Areas 1
State Forests None identified
State Fishing/Waterway Access Sites None identified
Other State Lands None identified
State and Federal Trails None identified
Snowmobile/ATV Trails None identified
Bike Trails/Routes
None identified
Other Trails None identified
Local Parks and Recreation Areas 6
Publicly Accessible Conservation Lands/Easements
None identified
Rivers and Streams with Public Fishing Access 3
Named Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs None identified High-Use
1 Derived from the cultural resources investigations conducted by EDR for the Project.
Figure 3-8 Visually Sensitive Resources
4.0 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The specific techniques used to assess potential Facility visibility and visual impacts are described in the following subsections
4.1 Facility Visibility Methodology
A desktop viewshed analysis and field review was undertaken to identify locations within the VSA where there is potential for the proposed PV panels and interconnection facility to be seen from ground-level vantage points, as described further herein.
4.1.1 Viewshed Analysis
Due to the differences in height, form, and scale, separate viewshed analyses were conducted for the PV panels and the interconnection facility
PV Panel Viewshed Analysis
A digital surface model (DSM) viewshed analysis was conducted to identify areas where the proposed PV panels may be visible. This viewshed analysis was based upon the maximum height of the PV panels in their most upright position and therefore represents the greatest possible extent of potential PV panel visibility.
The DSM is a representation of topography as well as natural and built features on the land (e.g., structures, trees, powerlines) By comparison, a digital elevation model (DEM) is a representation of a bare earth topographic surface only. Because it is based on bare earth topography only, a DEM viewshed analysis does not accurately represent areas of potential Facility visibility because it does not consider the screening effects of existing vegetation or structures. Therefore, only a DSM viewshed analysis, which considers the height and location of all surface features, was conducted. The DSM viewshed analysis was prepared using the following data and parameters:
• A 1-meter resolution DSM derived from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2018 and 2019 lidar data for Morrow, Marion, and Delaware counties
• Sample points representing the proposed PV panels, spaced approximately 200 feet apart in a grid pattern throughout all proposed PV panel areas, for a total of 662 points
• A maximum height of 12 feet applied to each of the 662 PV panel sample points
• An assumed eye-level viewer height of 6 feet
• Esri ArcGIS Pro® software with the Spatial Analyst extension.
To avoid misleading results, some modifications to the DSM were made prior to conducting the viewshed analyses. Existing overhead transmission lines and roadside utility lines are generally misrepresented in the DSM as solid structures that extend from the top of these lines to the ground surface and therefore will be incorrectly interpreted as solid features with the potential to screen views. In order to correct this inaccuracy, all above-ground surface features within transmission line and road corridors (defined as areas within 50 feet of transmission line and state, U S , and interstate highway centerlines, and areas within 30 feet of local road centerlines) were removed using bare earth (DEM) elevation values within these corridors A number of hedgerows located in the Project vicinity were cleared from the DSM as well. While these hedgerows will
provide some degree of screening of the Facility components and are anticipated to remain in place, their presence in the DSM would have caused the viewshed results to inaccurately indicate complete screening of potential visibility by these hedgerows. It is important to note that this removal of surface features within road and transmission corridors may also eliminate legitimate screening features that occur in these areas, potentially resulting in an overstatement of proposed PV panel visibility within and adjacent to road and transmission line corridors. All vegetation within the Facility’s limit of disturbance was also removed and replaced with bare earth elevation values to account for proposed clearing
Once the viewshed analyses were complete, PV panel visibility was set to zero in locations where existing surface features exceed the bare earth elevation value by 6 feet or more, indicating the presence of vegetation or structures that exceed the assumed viewer height. This was done for two reasons: 1) in locations where trees or structures are present in the DSM, the viewshed results would reflect visibility from treetops or building roofs, which is not the intent of this analysis, and 2) to reflect the fact that the PV panels will generally be screened from view at ground-level vantage points within buildings or areas of vegetation that exceed viewer height.
Because it accounts for screening provided by topography, vegetation, and structures, DSM viewshed analysis is the best available representation of potential visibility of the proposed PV panels. However, because certain characteristics of the Facility and the VSA that may serve to limit visibility (e.g., color, atmospheric/weather conditions, distance from the viewer) are not taken into consideration in the analysis, being located in an area indicated to have potential PV panel visibility does not necessarily equate to actual Facility visibility, nor does it indicate that adverse visual impacts will occur within these geographic locations. There is also the possibility of the DSM overstating screening, and therefore underestimating actual visibility, in locations where views are available through trees during the dormant season. However, such views will typically be significantly screened by bare tree branches and trunks. The viewshed analysis does not consider the screening effects of the Applicant’s perimeter landscape mitigation and therefore, in areas where mitigation is being proposed, the viewshed may overstate potential visibility of the Facility.
Interconnection Facility Viewshed Analysis
An additional DSM viewshed analysis was conducted to identify areas where the proposed interconnection facility may be visible This viewshed analysis was prepared using nine sample points representing the bounding dimensions of the proposed interconnection facility. These sample points were assigned heights of 65 feet to represent the maximum height of the tallest substation component, the lightning mast. All other data sources and assumptions used in this viewshed analysis are as described above for the PV panel viewshed analysis.
4.1.2 Field Review
EDR personnel conducted field review within the VSA and surrounding area on December 19, 2025, and January 31, 2025 During field review, EDR staff members traveled public roads and visited public vantage points throughout the VSA to confirm the results of the viewshed analysis and obtain photographs to document existing visual character and representative views for subsequent development of photosimulations The determination of potential Facility visibility was based on the proposed locations and
dimensions of Facility components, viewshed analysis results, and prominent landscape features near within or near the Project Area that served as location and scale references. To assist with viewer orientation and determination of potential Facility visibility in the field, global positioning system (GPS) units were combined with mapping in the Esri ArcGIS Field Maps® mobile application. The field mapping included Facility components, VSR locations, viewshed analysis results, a topographic and aerial base map, and the current viewer location. At each viewpoint, the GPS unit was used to document the location, time, and observations regarding potential Facility visibility.
Field review resulted in documentation of potential Facility visibility from 52 representative viewpoints within the VSA. At each viewpoint, multiple photographs were taken to capture the full extent of the Facility and the surrounding landscape context. These photographs were taken using a digital SLR camera with a resolution of 24 megapixels and DX (24 mm) camera sensor Single-frame photographs included in the photolog and used for photosimulations were obtained with a lens setting (focal length) of approximately 50 millimeters (mm). A 50 mm focal length (35 mm camera sensor equivalent) is typically used in visual studies because it is generally agreed amongst visual professionals that it provides accurate scale and perspective between close and distant elements in a view. The location of viewpoints selected for photosimulations is illustrated in Figure 4-1 A complete map of viewpoint locations and representative photographs from each viewpoint are included in Attachment B. The photographs for each viewpoint include a panorama composition illustrating the view context and a single-frame photograph illustrating the most open, unobstructed view available toward the proposed Facility.
Figure 4-1. Viewpoint Locations
4.2 Facility Visual Impact Methodology
EDR examined the potential visual impact associated with the proposed Facility from identified landscape types, VSRs, and viewer/user groups within the VSA. This assessment involved preparing photographic simulations of the proposed Facility from representative viewpoints. These photosimulations illustrate the appearance of the operational Facility and were then evaluated by EDR environmental professionals with education and career experience in the evaluation of visual impact to determine the type and extent of visual contrast resulting from operation of the proposed Facility. Visual impact assessment procedures are summarized in the following subsections.
4.2.1 Viewpoint Selection
Based on the outcome of EDR’s VSR research and field review, a total of six viewpoints were identified as candidates for development of photosimulations. These candidate viewpoints were selected based upon one or more of the following criteria:
• They could provide open views of the PV panel areas or other Facility components.
• They could illustrate different amounts of PV panel visibility from a variety of viewing distances and geographic locations to represent the range of visual change that will occur within the VSA with the Facility in place.
• They could illustrate views from significant locations including o VSRs and landscape types where open views will be available
o Locations with a high degree of visual exposure for viewer/user groups, such as densely populated areas, more highly traveled roadways, or high-use recreation areas, where open views will be available
• As required for solar facilities by OAC 4906-4-09(C)(5), the Applicant must provide photosimulations “from at least one vantage point in each area of three square miles within the project area, showing views to the north, south, east, and west ”
The viewpoints that were used for the development of photosimulations, along with locational details and the characteristics of each viewpoint, are presented in Table 4-1. Additional information regarding each viewpoint is included on the context sheet for each photosimulation included in Attachment C
Table 4-1. Viewpoints Selected for Photosimulation
It is worth noting that all viewpoints selected for photosimulations occur within the Agricultural/Open landscape type This reflects the geographic distribution of visibility and landscape types within the VSA, which is concentrated in the Agricultural/Open landscape type. In these areas, the number of viewers is expected to be low
Areas of high use by residents, through-travelers, and tourist/recreational users are generally not predicted to have potential Facility visibility, as determined by the Facility viewshed or confirmed during field review and/or the photosimulation preparation process. The limited overlap between high-use areas and the Facility viewshed is demonstrated in Figure 4-2, which includes the viewshed analysis results overlaid with the viewer exposure analysis results described in Section 3.2 (building density analysis and traffic count).
4.2.2 Photosimulations
To show anticipated visual changes associated with the proposed Facility, three-dimensional (3D) modeling software was used to create realistic photographic simulations of the proposed Facility from each of the 12 views. The photosimulations were developed by using Autodesk 3ds Max Design® to create a simulated perspective (3D camera view) to match the location, bearing, and focal length of each existing conditions photograph. A 3D model of the lidar data (point cloud) used to generate the DSM was created to represent existing landscape features such as roads, buildings, terrain, and vegetation. The 3D camera’s orientation, location, roll (tilt), and focal length were then adjusted to match the modeled landscape features in the lidar data with the corresponding landscape features in the photograph. This process ensures that any elements introduced to the model space (e.g., the PV panel areas) will be shown in proper proportion, perspective, and relation to the existing landscape features in the view. Consequently, the alignment, elevations, dimensions, and locations of the proposed Facility structures in the photosimulations will be accurate.
Computer models of the proposed PV panels and racking system, inverters, substations, transmission structures and conductors, and access roads were prepared based on layout information and specifications provided by the Applicant (see Section 2.2 for a description of the dimensions, materials, and color of the various Facility components). The modeled Facility components were imported into the landscape model space described above and set at the proper geographic location. The PV panels were then rotated on the tracking axis to accurately represent their orientation as would have occurred on the date and time of the photograph for each view. With the proposed Facility in place, a daylight system was created based on the date, time, and location of each photograph in order to accurately represent light reflection, highlights, color casting, and shadows. The Facility was then rendered and superimposed over the existing photograph in Adobe Photoshop®. Using lidar data and the proposed limits of disturbance as guides, portions of the Facility that would fall behind vegetation, structures, or topography were then masked out and any vegetation that is proposed to be cleared was removed from the photograph. Finally, any shadows cast on the ground by the proposed structures were rendered using a separate “shadow pass” and placed over the terrain with the proper fall-off and transparency using Photoshop®
Figure 4-2. Viewer Exposure and PV Panel Visibility
Proposed landscaping (mitigation plantings) was also incorporated into the photosimulations where they would be visible. To model the proposed mitigation, EDR prepared 3D models of each of the proposed plant species, representing the plants during leaf-on conditions and reflecting their size at five to seven years of plant growth, based on the installation size specified in the conceptual planting plan and regionspecific species growth rates. The 3D plant models were then placed into the landscape model space in the general arrangement specified in the conceptual planting plan, rendered, and superimposed using the same process described above. The five-to-seven-year range of plant growth was selected for this study to illustrate the plantings at their established size and intended screening effectiveness. The projections of plant growth are based on documented annual growth rates of the selected species multiplied by five. This is stated as a five-to-seven-year period to account for potential reduced growth during plant establishment and drought years. It should be noted that many factors may influence the success of living plant material. The photosimulations assume successful growth resulting from healthy nursery stock that was established following specific planting instructions and required care of the installed materials Documentation of the requirements should be included in late-stage construction documentation completed by a licensed landscape architect.
A graphic illustration of the photosimulation process is included in Figure 4-3 The photosimulations, along with existing view photographs and additional contextual information for each viewpoint, are included in Attachment C.
“Wireframe” Renderings
For viewpoints where the Facility components were determined to be substantially screened during the camera alignment process, wireframe renderings were prepared to illustrate the degree of screening provided by existing landscape features from these viewpoints. In these wireframe renderings, the 3D computer model of the proposed Facility components (shown in bright green for illustrative purposes) is overlaid on top of the photograph(s) that are oriented toward the proposed Facility. Wireframe renderings are included in Attachment C
Figure 4-3. Photosimulation Methodology
4.2.3 Visual Contrast Evaluation
To evaluate the anticipated visual change associated with the proposed Facility, photosimulations of the operational Facility at installation (without landscaping) and following five to seven years of plant growth were compared to photographs of the 12 existing views. These “before” and “after” photographs, identical in every respect except for the proposed Facility components and vegetation clearing shown in the photosimulation views, were evaluated by EDR visual professionals with experience conducting visual assessments to determine the visual contrast of the Facility for each view. The contrast ratings are expressed as insignificant, minimal, moderate, appreciable, or strong based on contrasts with existing landscape features and viewer activity. Landscape, viewer, and Facility-related factors considered in the evaluation included the following:
• Form, Line, Color, and Texture
• Landscape Features and Viewer Activity
• Order
• Focal Point
• Landscape Composition
• Atmospheric Conditions
• Project Scale
• Spatial Dominance
• Lighting Direction
• Movement
• Scenic or Recreational Value
5.0 VISUAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT RESULTS
5.1 Facility Visibility Results
The results of the analysis of Facility visibility were used to identify locations within the VSA where there is potential for the proposed Facility to be seen from ground-level vantage points, including potential visibility from within each distance zone, landscape type, and from each VSR within the VSA.
5.1.1 PV Panel Viewshed Analysis Results
The PV panel DSM viewshed analysis indicates that the PV panels will potentially be visible from approximately 9.2% (10.5 square miles) of the VSA (i.e., the PV panels would be entirely screened from approximately 90.8% [104.0 square miles] of the VSA). The limited extent of potential PV panel visibility is due to the low profile of the panels, the flat topography of the VSA, and screening provided by woodlots in the surrounding area. As indicated in Figure 5-2, potential visibility is concentrated in agricultural fields, rural residential areas, and along roadway corridors where there is little or no forest areas or other landscape features that screen views. As discussed in Section 5.1.3, actual visibility may be more limited than indicated by the viewshed analysis due to the removal of existing roadside screening features in the viewshed analysis and the effects of distance. In addition, the proposed perimeter landscaping was not considered in the viewshed analysis. In many instances, portions of the Facility will be screened once the landscape plantings are established.
PV Panel Viewshed Results by Distance Zone
Potential visibility of the proposed PV panels within each distance zone is summarized in Table 5-1 and illustrated in Figure 5-1. The greatest potential for PV panel visibility occurs in the near-foreground distance zone (96.7% of this zone [1.3 square miles]). However, 1.1 square miles of the PV panel visibility within the near-foreground distance zone (i.e., within 300 feet of a PV panel area) occurs within the Project Area itself, leaving only 0.2 square miles of off-site visibility within the near-foreground. The foreground and middle ground distance zones have fairly similar amounts of visibility in terms of geographic area (4.0 and 5.2 square miles, respectively). However, potential PV panel visibility occurs in only 7.2% of the middle ground distance zone area, whereas 87.4% of the foreground distance zone has potential Facility visibility. Potential visibility in the background distance zone totals less than 0.1 square miles, or less than 0.1% of the area in this zone.
Table 5-1
PV Panel Viewshed Results by Distance Zone
1 The calculations summarized in this table were based on unrounded numbers; therefore, the rounded results may not equal the total
2 The VSA includes approximately 114.6 square miles.
PV Panel Viewshed Results by Landscape Type
Potential visibility of the proposed PV panels within each landscape type is summarized in Table 5-2. The greatest potential for PV panel visibility occurs within the Agricultural/Open landscape type (10.3 square miles or 11.6% of this zone with potential visibility). This is due to the limited presence of forested areas and other landscape features that serve to screen views in this zone and the predominance of the Agricultural/Open landscape type within the VSA (77.0% [88.2 square miles] of the VSA). The viewshed analysis suggests that the Village landscape type has approximately 0.2 square miles of potential visibility, which is approximately 5.6% of this landscape type within the VSA Most of this potential visibility is in the Village of Cardington, a portion of which occurs within the foreground distance zone.
Potential PV panel visibility is much more limited within the Forest and Residential Cluster landscape types, with only 0.1 square miles (0.4%) occurring within the Forest landscape type and less than 0.1 square miles (0.4%) occurring within the Residential Cluster landscape type. Visibility in the Forest landscape type occurs in areas where hedgerows were cleared from the DSM (as described in Section 4.1.1) and within cleared transmission rights-of-way that were broadly classified as Forest. Potential visibility within the Residential Cluster landscape type occurs in residential areas along U.S. Route 42 in Westfield Township, north of Township Road 155 and Township Road 169 in Lincoln Township. All of these Residential Cluster areas occur in the middle ground distance zone.
1 The calculations summarized in this table were based on unrounded numbers; therefore, the rounded results may not equal the total.
2 The VSA includes approximately 114.6 square miles.
Table 5-2 PV Panel Viewshed Results by Landscape Type
As described in Section 4.1.1, a separate DSM viewshed analysis was conducted to determine the geographic extent of visibility of the proposed interconnection facility components, which include the collection substation, switchyard, and associated equipment. Potential visibility of the proposed interconnection facility is illustrated in Figure 5-3 Interconnection Facility DSM Viewshed Analysis. Viewshed analysis results indicate that a portion of the interconnection facility could be visible from approximately 4.5% (5.1 square miles) of the VSA (i.e., the interconnection facility would be entirely screened from approximately 95.5% of the study area [109.5 square miles]). The limited extent of interconnection visibility is primarily due to the relatively flat topography and screening provided by woodlots in the surrounding area. The largest areas of contiguous visibility are concentrated in open agricultural/rural residential areas and roadway corridors in the near-foreground and foreground distance zones Beyond the foreground, the potential visibility extends into the middle ground as narrow corridors These narrow corridors extend in to the Village of Cardington to the north and south into Westfield Township. As discussed in Section 5.1.3 and 5.2.1, actual visibility may be more limited than indicated by the viewshed analysis due to viewing distance, screening by intervening vegetation or topography, as well as the narrow profile of the upper components of the interconnection facility.
Figure
5.1.3 Field Review Results
As discussed in Section 4.1.2, field verification of potential Facility visibility was conducted by experienced field teams that were provided with digital mapping indicating their position relative to the Project Area and geographic areas of potential Facility visibility, as determined by the viewshed analysis. Field review was conducted during leaf-off conditions in December 2024 and January 2025 when existing vegetation was dormant, and screening was at its most limited. Field review resulted in the documentation of views from 52 viewpoint locations. All photographs referenced in this summary can be found in the Viewpoint Photolog (Attachment B)
During field review, it was confirmed that large, contiguous areas of potential PV panel visibility throughout agricultural areas in the near-foreground distance zone provided the most open views toward the Project Area This viewing condition was documented at Viewpoints 1–4, 11, 13, and 17. In the foreground distance zone, hedgerows and woodlots between PV panel areas or slight topographic changes within/surrounding the Facility would also limit potential visibility to smaller portions of the PV arrays from many vantage points, as documented in Viewpoints 21, 23, 39, and 41
From agricultural areas in the middle ground distance zone, it was observed that open views towards the Project Area were more limited compared to the near-foreground and foreground distance zones due to screening by intervening structures and/or vegetation. From most locations, it was observed that the Project Area was heavily screened and only a small portion of the PV panel areas would be visible, where they would appear as background features in views. This viewing condition was documented at Viewpoints 16, 49, 42, and 51 Due to viewing distance and the limited extent of visibility, the Facility would likely appear subordinate to other more proximate landscape features and focal points
The greater presence of buildings, streetscape elements, roadside and yard vegetation, as well as distance from the Facility were observed to result in greater screening of views towards the Project Area from the Village landscape type. From the Village of Cardington, views towards the Project Area were tightly framed by buildings and streetscape features, and views would be limited to a small portion of the Facility, as documented at Viewpoints 31, 33, 35, 36, and 37. Slightly more open views were available towards the Project Area from locations on the outskirts of the village, as documented at Viewpoint 30. However, the Project Area was still observed to be substantially screened from view at these locations by intervening hedgerows and small topographic features
Field review confirmed that views from beyond the foreground distance zone would likely be substantially screened from view by hedgerow vegetation, small topographic features, and due to the low profile of the PV panels combined with the relatively flat terrain.
Because the interconnection facility is proposed to be located in the middle of the PV arrays, several viewpoints documented potential visibility. However, during the development of the photosimulations, it was determined that the PV arrays would substantially screen the lower portions of the interconnection facility. Viewpoint 3, 4, 8, 15, 17, and 18 include potential views toward the interconnection facility, but it was determined that Viewpoint 4 would provide the most open, unobstructed view of the substation and interconnection poles.
Field observations largely confirmed the accuracy of the viewshed results. It was observed that visibility was more limited in views down roadway corridors than indicated by the viewshed analysis. This overestimation in the viewshed analysis was likely due to the removal of roadside screening features during the viewshed analysis process, as described in Section 4.1.1. This viewing condition was documented from Viewpoints 32 and 37 from the Village of Cardington
5.1.4 Potential Visibility from Visually Sensitive Resources
A total of 231 VSRs were identified within the VSA, and the viewshed results indicate that 31 of these resources have potential visibility of the PV panels and/or interconnection facility, as summarized in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3. Identified Visually Sensitive Resources with Potential Facility Visibility
1 Derived from the cultural resources investigations conducted by EDR for the Project.
Attachment A includes figures with the identified VSRs overlaid with the viewshed results and viewpoint locations, as well as a list of all VSRs within the VSA, with additional information on potential PV panel and interconnection facility visibility. Potential visual effects associated with the proposed Facility based upon the viewshed results, field review, line-of-sight cross section analysis, and photosimulation evaluation are discussed in Section 5.2.2
5.2 Facility Visual Impact Results
To evaluate the anticipated visual change associated with the proposed Facility, EDR environmental professionals with education and career experience in the evaluation of visual impact compared photosimulations of the operational Facility to photographs of the existing views from 12 representative viewpoints. The results of this evaluation are presented herein
5.2.1 Photosimulation Results
The photosimulations were evaluated to assess the existing conditions and then the potential visual contrast resulting from the Facility with and without proposed landscaping. Viewpoints 1 and 3 include multidirectional photosimulations to represent four cardinal directions. In some instances, if no Facility components were visible in a given direction, the direction was adjusted to include some portion of the Facility. These multidirectional views are grouped and described as a single viewpoint. Full-sized images of all photosimulations are presented in Attachment C and are in sequential order corresponding with the descriptions in this section.
Viewpoint 1 – Existing View
Viewpoint 1 is located on County Road 166 in Cardington Township, Morrow County. This viewpoint is representative of the Agriculture/Open landscape type and provides a typical view that would be experienced by local residents in the area. Four photosimulations were produced from Viewpoint 1 representing views to the west (Viewpoint 1A), northeast (Viewpoint 1B), east (Viewpoint 1C), and southsoutheast (Viewpoint 1D) The existing photographs illustrate large dormant agricultural fields, barns, residences, landscaped yards along County Road 166, and woodlot vegetation. Generally, views to the west, east, and south-southeast feature flat, open agricultural fields that extend from the immediate foreground into the background, where distant tree lines define the horizon. Mostly devoid of any foreground vegetation or built structures, views in these directions result in low visual interest and scenic quality. The view to the northeast is representative of rural residential development in this area; a white barn and portions of a white farmhouse introduce color contrast to the landscape, which is predominantly green and brown. These built structures and yard vegetation contribute to moderate scenic quality in this direction. The transmission line pictured in views to the northeast and south-southeast also helps to break up the otherwise flat, featureless agricultural landscape
Viewpoint 1 – Proposed View
In the view looking west with the Facility in place (Viewpoint 1A), the proposed PV panels are faintly visible at the base of the distant background tree line, about 0.5 miles from the viewer The PV panels introduce a narrow strip of lighter-colored objects to an area that was previously vegetated, though at this distance, it is not clear that these objects are solar panels. While the proposed landscaping does not achieve complete concealment of the PV panels, the plantings break up the horizontal line formed by the panels, thus reducing the degree of visual contrast of panels that were already difficult to perceive at this distance Due to the small scale of the panels, visual contrast is insignificant in this direction.
Turning toward the northeast at Viewpoint 1B, proposed PV panels are 335 feet from the viewer in the field behind the farmhouse and barn. Near the road, dark brown areas of tilled soil have been replaced by light green grass. The orange-brown fence posts introduce new color and form to the field, though they are not entirely incompatible with other vertical structures toward the left of the view, such as the playground, barn, and roadside utility pole. The panels block views beyond the foreground, where previously the viewer could see back through the background hedgerow into the adjacent agricultural field. These changes, in addition to the distinct change in land use, result in strong line, form, and color contrast in this direction. The
proposed landscaping begins to screen some of the stacking associated with the racking system, somewhat reducing the visual contrast
Looking east at Viewpoint 1C, the proposed PV panels are 300 feet from the viewer Bands of dark brown tilled soil are replaced with light green grass, and the orange-brown fence posts introduce warm tones to the otherwise cool-hued field. The proposed PV panels prevent views into the background of the previously expansive agricultural field Though the panels are a similar color to the background trees above them, they introduce a rigid horizontal pattern that stands out against the distant tree branches With the mitigation in place and after five to seven years of growth the seed mix and intermittent shrubs begin to soften the appearance of the fence and racking system. With continued growth, this plant material would effectively reduce the visual contrast resulting
PV panels are proposed 383 feet from the viewer looking toward the south-southeast (Viewpoint 1D). With the proposed Facility in place, brown tilled soil turns to light green grass, and the fence and PV panel support columns introduce a vertical form matched only by the utility pole on the right side of the view. Prior to the installation of landscape mitigation, the Facility results in appreciable visual contrast. However, proposed landscaping breaks up the rigid lines of the PV panels, softening the visual contrast of the proposed Facility to a moderate level.
In summary, the Facility would likely result in insignificant to appreciable visual contrast from Viewpoint 1. West of County Road 166, the panels’ visual contrast is insignificant due to their small scale. However, east of County Road 166, PV panels are proposed within the near-foreground and foreground of the viewer. At this close distance, the structural details of the PV panels become more apparent, creating a stark contrast in color and line against the previously open, agricultural fields. The proposed panels obstruct views into the field, contributing to a shift in visual character The proposed landscaping on the arrays east of County Road 166 effectively reduce the visual contrast. This is particularly apparent in viewpoint 1D, looking southsouthwest were the landscaping reduces the contrast from appreciable to moderate. Overall, static viewer of the Facility may still experience appreciable contrasts, but as the proposed landscaping establishes, the degree of visual contrast will diminish It should be noted that the travelling public will be the most likely viewers at this viewpoint location and therefore their exposure will be of short duration and fleeting. Residents adjacent to this KOP are participants in the Project.
Viewpoint 3 – Existing View
Viewpoint 3 is located on County Road 25 in Lincoln Township, Morrow County. This viewpoint is representative of the Agricultural/Open landscape type and provides typical views that would be experienced by local residents. Four photosimulations were produced from Viewpoint 3 representing views to the south-southwest (Viewpoint 3A), west-southwest (Viewpoint 3B), north-northwest (Viewpoint 3C), and east-southeast (Viewpoint 3D) Views toward the south-southwest and west-southwest include the intersection of County Road 25 and County Road 165 Large agricultural fields surround the intersection, bordered in all directions by dark blue-gray tree lines. Views to the west-southwest and north-northwest lack any foreground vegetation or built structures aside from black and white road signs and a transmission line on the north side of County Road 25, resulting in relatively low scenic quality. A cluster of white residences to the east-southeast and red farm buildings to the south-southwest add visual interest to these
views by introducing variety in color and form to the agricultural fields while maintaining the rural scenic character.
Viewpoint 3 – Proposed View
With the Facility in place, the red barn and siloes that previously served as the focal point of the view to the south-southwest (Viewpoint 3A) are almost entirely covered by rows of PV panels, 300 feet from the viewer at their closest point. The white roofs of the farm structures are similar in color to the PV panels, but the blue/gray treetops extending above the panels near the center of the view result in strong color contrast with the lighter slate gray of the panels. On the right side of the view where the panels almost fully cover the background trees, the panels form a rigid horizontal line against the bright overcast sky. The PV panel support columns also appear dark against the green grass With the landscaping in place, the visual clutter and color contrast is substantially reduced, and the shrubs break up some of the hard lines introduced by the PV arrays. The overall contrast is reduced to appreciable as a result of the proposed landscaping.
Looking toward the west-southwest from Viewpoint 3B, the proposed Facility (360 feet distant) prevents views beyond the foreground of a previously expansive field. The fence posts impose an obvious, repeated vertical pattern, and the panels block the background tree line in many areas, forming a harshly straight horizon line against the sky The color contrast of the dark panels against the bright sky intensifies this line contrast. Prior to the installation of the landscaping, the Facility resulting in appreciable visual contrast. With the landscaping in place, the proposed vegetation minimizes the visibility of the Facility, especially toward the right side of the view. Overall color and line contrast is reduced, softening the view significantly. Given the lack of any previous foreground features aside from road signs and utility poles, the introduction of the Facility and landscape plantings add visual interest to the landscape, but the rural character and openness of the view is now enclosed and less expansive For these reasons, the proposed Facility results in moderate visual contrast with the landscaping in place.
As illustrated in the wireframe rendering of the view to the north-northwest (Viewpoint 3C), the proposed Facility would be 0.8 miles from the viewer, situated behind a hedgerow and not visible. The Facility results in insignificant visual contrast in this direction.
To the east-southeast (Viewpoint 3D), the fence posts introduce a new vertical pattern to the landscape, and the panels almost entirely screen views of the houses and woodlot vegetation in the background In the immediate foreground, brown tilled soil is replaced by lush green grass, but the panels introduce a monolithic block of dark brown/gray on top of it. Where the panels cover background trees on the right side of the view, they form a jagged horizon that appears unnatural compared to the previous tree line. The Facility results in strong visual contrast from Viewpoint 3D. With the proposed landscaping in place, the line contrast of the PV panels is softened considerably. However, the panels still dominate the foreground and horizon line on the right side of the panels, resulting in appreciable visual contrast.
In summary, the Facility would likely result in insignificant to appreciable visual contrast from Viewpoint 3. One of the directions has almost no visibility of Facility components due to distance and screening by intervening vegetation. The proposed Facility occurs in the foreground and thus becomes a major focal point of the remaining directions. The proposed landscaping softens the line and color contrast of the
panels, especially to the south-southwest, where the mitigated Facility imposes only a moderate visual contrast on the otherwise featureless landscape. However, the panels cause a distinct shift in visual character resulting in appreciable visual contrast in two of the directions. Overall, the proposed facility results in moderate impacts at Viewpoint 3. Although the panels are in the near-foreground or foreground in three directions, the proposed plantings help to mitigate color, line, and form contrast, and toward the westsouthwest, the mitigated Facility actually enhances visual interest in a landscape with relatively low existing scenic quality Greater impacts occur toward the south-southwest due to the lack of screening features and the shift in visual character from rural agriculture to industrial land use. However, this viewpoint is located at an intersection mostly lacking residential development, so views of the proposed Facility would be brief and transitory.
Viewpoint 4 – Existing View
Viewpoint 4 is located on County Road 25 in Westfield Township, Morrow County. This viewpoint is representative of the Agriculture/Open landscape type and provides a typical view that would be experienced by residents in the area. The existing view looking south features a moderately sized cultivated crop field extending from the foreground to the background. A transmission line supported on wood poles extends from the foreground to the background and then jogs left until it becomes obscured by trees. The right and left sides of the field contain small woodlots that frame the view and create focal emphasis on the transmission line. A home and a farm complex are discernable in the background along with several utility poles running along County Road 155 A large woodlot forms the background horizon with the gray, overcast sky.
Viewpoint 4 – Proposed View
With the Facility in place at a distance of approximately 354 feet, the foreground field is now occupied by PV panels. The agricultural fence proposed for the Facility matches the vernacular fencing found throughout the Project Area. From this vantage point, the access road and gate are also visible in the foreground. The PV panels are nearly in table-top position since this photograph was taken around noon. As such, the racking system appears as an array of orderly posts extending out of the ground. This effect, along with the fence posts, results in a degree of visual clutter and appreciable line and form contrast. Beyond the PV panels, the upper portions of the interconnection facility extend into the sky. However, the interconnection facility results in minimal visual contrast due to the partial screening by the PV panels, racking, and fence, and the similarity to the vertical elements associated with the existing transmission line on the right side of the view. The PV arrays also conceal the previously visible homes in the background, substantially foreshortening and enclosing the view. While the colors of the Facility contrast minimally with the existing elements in the view, the scale, form, and line contrasts range from moderate to appreciable from this foreground vantage point. The PV panels compete as the focal point of the view.
After five to seven years, the established landscape plantings effectively breakup to the hard lines and form resulting from the PV arrays. The transmission line present in the existing view remains the focal point of the view and the mitigated Facility results in moderate visual contrast.
Viewpoint 13 – Existing View
Viewpoint 13 is located on County Road 151 in Westfield Township, Morrow County. This viewpoint is representative of the Agriculture/Open landscape type, and since it is located near a linear cluster of five residences on the north side of County Road 151, Viewpoint 13 provides a typical view that would be experienced by residents.
The existing view looking northeast features a road edge leading to a bare agricultural field in the foreground. In the left foreground, portions of an active railroad right-of-way are visible along a strip of early successional vegetation. On the right side of the view, the field and a manicured residential lawn are divided by a dense row of mid-stage evergreen trees. The trees nearly completely obscure views of the structure at the far side of the field. Beyond the trees, the agricultural field continues to the right side of the image and extends into the background of the view. Beyond the field, small clusters of homes are visible amongst woody vegetation. This vegetation forms the horizon with a cloudy sky. Multiple focal points exist in the view, but the evergreen trees in the foreground likely draw viewer attention.
Viewpoint 13 – Proposed View
With the Facility in place at a distance of approximately 890 feet, the middle ground of the crop field is now occupied by PV panels. The PV panels appear as a dark band across the majority of the middle ground until they become obscured by the evergreen trees The dark line created by the PV panels aligns well with the background tree line, resulting in minimal line contrast. The PV array also presents minimal form and color contrast with the surrounding landscape elements under the lighting conditions presented in the view. At a different tilt angle and brighter conditions, it is possible the color contrast could become moderate. Due to its low profile, the PV array presents minimal scale contrast. Overall, the Facility results in minimal visual contrast regardless of the lighting conditions and tilt angle.
After five to seven years, the established landscaping effectively breaks up the dark band across the landscape. Even though the PV panels are still visible beyond the new trees and shrubs, the landscaping effectively reduces and minimizes the visual contrast, and the mitigated Facility still results in minimal visual impact at Viewpoint 13
Viewpoint 17 – Existing View
Viewpoint 17 is located on County Road 155 in Lincoln Township, Morrow County. This viewpoint is representative of the Agriculture/Open landscape type and provides a typical view that would be experienced by residents and drivers in the area. The existing view looking west-northwest features a managed grass field edge leading to an expansive, harvested agricultural field backed by a dense woodlot. The variable heights of the trees in the woodlot give the impression of variable terrain, but the scene is essentially flat. A transmission line supported on wood structures cuts across the center of the view in the middle ground and several small residences and farm complexes are partially visible in the middle ground along County Road 155 on the left side of the view. The road extends from the foreground to the background of the image before extending out of view becoming obscured by homes, hedgerows, and woodlots. Numerous utility poles of variable heights and colors flank the left side of County Road 155. The colors consist of shades of brownish reds, greens, yellows, and blues interspersed with whites associated with homes and some remnant snow patches The residences and farm complexes on the left side of the view form the strongest focal point due to their geometric shapes and high color contrast.
Viewpoint 17 – Proposed View
With the Facility in place at a distance of approximately 610 feet, the middle ground crop field is now occupied by PV panels. From this vantage point and time of day, the PV panels are facing the viewer, and the dark face of the panels is divided by the light-colored panel frame. Due to their distance from the viewer and the dividing lines of the panel frames, the array results in minimal form contrast with the existing landscape features. However, the tops of the PV panels align to create a solid line across the field, which results in moderate line contrast Due to the light-colored frame on the panels and a small degree of sky reflection, they present moderate color contrast. Due to the relatively minimal scale contrast, the PV array competes weakly with the existing focal points of the view. Overall, the Facility results in moderate visual contrast with the existing landscape and moderate visual impacts
After five to seven years, the established landscaping provides an intermittent buffer along the Facility fence line. The taller plant material breaks the line formed by the tops of the panels, effectively segmenting it and reducing the line contrast. The lower plant material conceals portions of the racking system and reduces the degree of visual clutter presented by this component of the array. While the landscaping will increase in effectiveness over time and continued growth, the Facility results in minimal impacts.
Viewpoint 23 – Existing View
Viewpoint 23 is located on County Road 168 in Lincoln Township, Morrow County. This viewpoint is representative of the Agricultural/Open landscape type and provides a typical view that would be experienced by residents in the area. The existing view looking west from Viewpoint 23 features a road edge leading up to a grassy shoulder and open harvested corn field in the immediate foreground The field gradually rises before dropping in elevation and forming a horizon in the foreground. Beyond this foreground horizon and the corn stubble, the upper portions of a middle ground hedgerow appear as an undulating linear form against the partly cloudy sky. In the background, additional woody vegetation can be seen against the sky. The brown and yellow hues of the landscape, indicative of the season, provide some visual interest, but due to the truncated nature of this view, the scenic quality is relatively low.
Viewpoint 23 – Proposed View
With the Facility in place at a distance of approximately 0.4 miles, the PV array is visible as a dark, linear feature, just above the field surface. The PV panels are small in scale and result in minimal contrast with the background vegetation. The Facility presents moderate color contrast because the panels are tilted toward the viewer, presenting the full, dark face of the panels. The low profile of the PV panels minimizes their vertical scale contrast across most of the view and because the panels follow the existing topography. The PV array appears as a low, dark line cutting across a portion of the agricultural fields, resulting in moderate line contrast. However, it is anticipated that the foreground field will remain in agricultural use and the presence of crops, corn stubble, or cover crops could substantially screen the proposed Facility. Considering the line, form, scale, and color contrasts presented by the PV array, it is anticipated that the Facility will result in minor visual impacts from Viewpoint 23.
After five to seven years, the established landscaping provides minimal screening and softening of the Facility components due to the distance of the Facility and the already minor visual impacts However, the
vegetation, in the leaf-on condition, serves to break up the hard line produce by the PV array With the landscaping in place, the visual impacts have been minimally reduced, and the Facility results in insignificant visual impacts.
A summary of visual contrast and overall visual impacts is provided in Table 5-4. As summarized in the table, the visual contrasts were effectively reduced in eight views (Viewpoints 1B, 1D, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4, 17, and 23) as a result of the proposed application of landscape plantings In one view (Viewpoint 13), the landscaping had a contrast-reducing effect, but it was not sufficient to reduce the visual contrast or overall impact rating However, this view had minimal contrast with or without landscaping.
Table 5-4.
Viewpoints Selected for Photosimulation
1A
Road 166
4 County Road 25
13 County Road 151
17 County Road
In summary, the Facility will result in negligible to strong visual contrast depending on viewer position relative to the PV arrays. Open, unobstructed views from approximately 0 to 400 feet are expected to result in the strongest visual contrast, but landscape plantings can be very effective within this viewing range. When viewed from distances of more than 400 feet, the mitigated views of the Facility are anticipated to result in moderate visual contrast, and from greater than 1,000 feet, the mitigated Facility is expected to result in minimal to insignificant visual contrast.
5.2.2 Potential Effect on Visually Sensitive Resources
EDR evaluated the Facility’s potential visual effect on each of the 31 VSRs with potential PV panel or interconnection facility visibility within the VSA, based on the results of the viewshed analysis, field review, and photosimulation visual contrast evaluation conducted for the Facility Other factors that were considered in this evaluation include the viewer’s likely sensitivity to changes in the visual environment at each resource and the amount and type of use it receives. Table 5-5 identifies VSRs with potential visibility by resource name and identification number, the distance zones within the VSR where potential visibility occurs, the geographic extent of potential Facility visibility within each VSR as a percentage of its total area within the VSA, and potential visual effect.
Table 5-5 Visibility from Visually Sensitive Resources
1 Percent of VSR area with visibility is based upon the geographic extent or linear miles of the VSR within the VSA that overlaps the PV panel and/or interconnection facility viewshed
2 Distance zone is based upon where potential PV panel or interconnection visibility occurs within the VSR boundary.
3 Whetstone Creek only overlaps with the viewshed of the interconnection facility. All other resources are within the area of potential PV panel visibility or both potential PV panel and interconnection facility visibility
Visual impacts are anticipated to be highest for resources within the near-foreground distance zone with a high percent of proposed PV panel visibility and views of multiple PV areas. However, there are no resources within this zone; therefore, no resources are anticipated to experience major visual impacts as a result of the Project VSRs with a high percentage of proposed PV panel visibility and views of multiple PV areas in the foreground ground distance zone are anticipated to have a moderate degree of visual effects. Potential visual effects are anticipated to be moderate for the Center Methodist Episcopal Church Cemetery (VSR ID
#164) and Old Center Cemetery (VSR ID #184) The two cemeteries will experience use by local residents, but visual effects are anticipated to be limited due to significantly lower visitation compared to other resources and lack of recreational amenities.
Resources within approximately 0.5 miles to 1.0 mile of the Facility may experience minor visual effects. These resources include the American Legion Park (VSR ID #201), the Cardington-Lincoln Elementary School (VSR ID #218), Cardington-Lincoln High School (VSR ID #219), Cardington-Lincoln Middle School (VSR ID #220), and the Village of Cardington (VSR ID #224), which provide recreational opportunities and are likely to receive some level of visitation by tourist/recreational users and local residents. In addition, throughtravelers along State Route 529 and U.S. Route 42 will experience views within 1 mile of the Facility. At this distance, individual objects in the landscape begin to merge together, so viewers/users will likely experience a minor visual effect Eight properties from the OHI (VSR IDs #16, 29, 62, 83, 87, 90, 133, and 144) and two cemeteries (VSR IDs #165 and 187) will also experience minor visual effects. The OHI structures that are private residences will receive no public use or visitation. The OHI commercial buildings and cemeteries may experience use by local residents, but visual effects are anticipated to be limited due to distance from the Facility and intervening topography and vegetation.
For all other VSRs with potential visibility, visual effects of the Facility are expected to be more limited due to a lower percentage of PV panel visibility in terms of geographic area and/or where visibility is limited to beyond 1 mile within the middle ground distance zone. There will be negligible visual effects for recreational users of Whetstone Creek (VSR ID #209), as views of the PV panels are not anticipated from this resource and a very small percentage (<0.1%) of the resource area may experience views of the interconnection facility. Given the distance of the Facility and small percentage of resource area with potential views from the Village of Ashley (VSR ID #223), State Route 229 (VSR ID #211), and State Route 746 (VSR ID #214), viewer/user groups will likely not experience significant views of the Facility or be able to discern Project components. In addition, one NRHP-listed building (VSR ID #3), five OHI structures (VSR ID #15, 43, 53, 75, and 78), and two cemeteries (VSR ID #155 and 181) will also experience negligible impacts resulting from the Facility due to distance and/or small area of resource visibility
5.2.3 Nighttime Impacts
It is anticipated that the only permanent lighting required for the Facility is safety/security lighting at the collection substation and POI switchyard. These Facility components are expected to utilize full cut-off light fixtures with no drop-down optical elements. In these areas, it is anticipated that lighting will be kept to the minimum intensity required to assure safety and security. Additionally, all lighting is expected to be operated manually or placed on an auto-off switch to further minimize the impacts of off-site light trespass. It is anticipated that temporary lighting associated with Facility maintenance will only be switched on for the duration of maintenance activities. Any potential visual impacts associated with maintenance lighting is expected to be of short duration and intermittent in nature, and nighttime visual impacts associated with these facilities should be minor
5.2.4 Visual Impacts During Construction
Visual impacts during construction are short term and associated with the presence of construction personnel and equipment, and temporary disturbance of vegetation and soil in certain locations Representative photographs of construction activities are included in Figure 5-4. As shown in these photographs, anticipated impacts during construction include the following:
• An increase in truck traffic on area roadways, including pick-up trucks, gravel haulers, and semitrailers.
• Temporary laydown yards, which will be occupied by vehicles, equipment, construction trailers, and/or stockpiled materials for the duration of construction of the Facility.
• Erosion control measures consisting of silt fencing, staked haybales, and other such measures.
• Vegetation clearing, topsoil stripping and stockpiling, grubbing of stumps, and grading as necessary.
• Trenching for the underground collection lines and associated stripping and stockpiling of topsoil and subsoil, where needed. Note that underground collection lines are typically installed with the use of a cable plow or rock saw to minimize soil disturbance, although open trenching may be used in places. However, such work will often occur in the middle of fields, relatively far from public view.
• Horizontal direct drilling and the associated staging area and equipment in certain areas where cable plowing or open trenching is not possible due to environmental or construction constraints
• PV racking assembly and associated installation of steel piles (I-beams) or screw anchors to support the racking, primarily involving light equipment
The construction process is typically completed in sections, thus limiting the extent and duration of visual impact in any one location during the construction period. Following construction activities, it is anticipated that temporary gravel and erosion controls will be removed, trenches will be filled, and topsoil will be respread, and temporarily disturbed areas will be re-seeded to reestablish vegetative cover. Except in areas of tree clearing, restoration is expected to eliminate visual impacts resulting from vegetative clearing and soil disturbance during construction
Figure 5-4. Representative Photographs of a Solar Facility During Construction
Vegetation clearing
Access road and erosion control measures
PV racking piles and construction vehicles
Racking system installation
Open trench underground collection line installation
Soil restoration and solar facility post-installation
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
The Project has been sited in an area with few existing scenic or otherwise VSRs, and the surrounding flat terrain limits views of the Facility from beyond the Project Area and foreground distance zone. As a result, the potential visibility and visual impact of the proposed Facility has been minimized, and the Applicant has proposed additional measures to further mitigate impacts.
6.1 Visibility and Visual Impact Conclusions
The viewshed analysis indicates that PV panel visibility would be limited to 9.2% (10.5 square miles) of the VSA, and a portion of the interconnection facility could be visible from approximately 4.5% (5.1 square miles) of the VSA Based on these results, the vast majority of areas within the VSA would not experience visibility of the Facility and therefore would not experience any visual impacts. In addition, the area of potential visibility diminishes quickly with increased distance from the Facility, as demonstrated by the percentage of each distance zone within the Facility viewsheds (Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-3)
The greatest potential for proposed PV panel visibility area occurs within the Agricultural/Open landscape type (11.6% or 10.3 square miles of potential visibility) Due to the fact that the Facility is proposed to be located on relatively flat, agricultural land and the existence of screening features between agricultural fields and other landscape types in the VSA, potential PV panel visibility is much more limited within the Residential Cluster, Village, and Forest landscape types, which all have less than 0.3 square miles of potentially visible area. Field review largely confirmed the accuracy of the viewshed results or indicated a likely reduction in visibility of the Facility in some locations.
Of the 231 VSRs identified within the VSA, the viewshed results indicate that only 31 have potential visibility of the PV panels and/or interconnection facility. The anticipated visual effect on all but two of these 31 resources is negligible or minor, with the other two evaluated as moderate. Proposed landscaping will further limit visual impacts to these resources.
To evaluate anticipated visual change associated with the proposed Facility, a visual assessment specialist compared photosimulations of the operational Facility to photographs of the existing views from 12 photosimulations taken from six unique viewpoint locations The results of this assessment found that the Facility will result in insignificant to appreciable visual contrast depending on the viewer position relative to the PV arrays. Open, unobstructed views from approximately 0-400 feet are expected to result in the greatest degree of visual contrast, but landscape plantings are very effective within this viewing range. When viewed from distances of more than 400 feet, the mitigated views of the Facility are anticipated to result in moderate visual contrast. Views of the Facility from greater than 1,000 feet, the mitigated Facility is expected to result in minimal to insignificant visual contrast. The proposed perimeter landscape plantings effectively reduced the degree of visual contrast in eight of the views.
6.2 Mitigation of Visual Impacts
In accordance with OAC 4906-4-08, mitigation measures that could further reduce potential visibility and visual impacts of the Project include the following.
Facility Design
Options to substantially alter the design and relocate/rearrange the Facility components within the Project Area are limited by environmental and construction constraints. The Applicant has met or exceeded all OPSB recommended residential setbacks and further mitigation through setbacks would not meet the needs of the Facility performance requirements.
Facility Equipment
Solar energy generation technology and equipment are fairly standard and do not offer variations in design or materials that would significantly decrease the visibility or visual impact of the Project. Alternate panel colors do not exist, and there is minimal flexibility in the use of alternative design and materials for the racking system. The expected PV panel configuration for the Project is a “one-in-portrait” configuration, meaning that a single row of panels is fixed on the racking system in portrait orientation. This configuration is advantageous because it results in a low profile compared to other common configurations, such as twoin-portrait. Two-in-portrait configurations (and other configurations that result in greater heights than onein-portrait) may allow for a significantly smaller footprint to achieve the same energy production as the currently proposed layout/configuration. However, these configurations may result in greater scale contrast when viewed from nearby vantage points due to the increased height, which could result in increased visual impacts in the surrounding area and therefore offset any advantage provided by a smaller footprint. Other components of the Facility, such as the electrical collection equipment and interconnection facility, are also fairly standardized in their design and/or materials, with few alternatives
Perimeter Fencing
The Applicant is proposing the use of agricultural style fencing in lieu of galvanized chain-link fence for the perimeter fencing around the PV arrays. This choice of material for the Facility fencing has a considerable mitigating effect on visual impact and helps the Facility to blend with the surrounding agricultural setting
Vegetative Protection and Mitigation
The Applicant has completed a Landscape Maintenance Plan, which outlines measures to protect existing trees and woodlots within the Project Area In addition, the Applicant has completed a Preliminary Landscape Plan, which includes proposed perimeter landscaping (visual mitigation) along the Facility fence line in areas of visual sensitivity. As discussed in Section 5.2.1, the photosimulations demonstrate that the proposed mitigation plantings effectively reduce the potential visual impacts associated with the Facility. In addition, the protection and management of the existing and proposed site vegetation will further minimize views of the Facility and will help maintain healthy native vegetation in the Project Area.
REFERENCES
BLM. (1999). Visual Resource Management. Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior Government Printing Office.
BPlant. (2025a). Clayey High Lime Till Plains. Retrieved April 2025, from BPlant: https://bplant.org/region/749
BPlant. (2025b). Low Lime Drift Plain. Retrieved April 2025, from Bplant: https://bplant.org/region/831
Conchel, A. (2019, September 5). An Awesome Fair Week. The Morrow County Sentinel. Retrieved April 2025, from https://www.morrowcountysentinel.com/2019/09/05/an-awesome-fair-week/
Delaware County Regional Planning Commission. (2005). Village of Ashley, Ohio 2005 Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved April 30, 2025, from https://regionalplanning.co.delaware.oh.us/wpcontent/uploads/sites/17/2018/03/AshleyCompPlan.pdf
Delaware County Regional Planning Commission. (2006). Oxford Township Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved April 30, 2025, from https://regionalplanning.co.delaware.oh.us/wpcontent/uploads/sites/17/2018/03/OxfordTwpComPlan2006.pdf
Fairfield County Regional Planning Commission. (2012). Morrow County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Retrieved from https://www.fairfieldcountyohio.gov/rpc/pdf/Fairfield-CompPlan_As.Adopted.by.RPC.pdf
Marion County Regional Planning Commission. (2011). Marion County 2011 Land Use Plan. Retrieved April 30, 2025, from https://www.co.marion.oh.us/agencies/regional_planning/land_use.php
Microsoft. (2021). Country Wide Open Building Footprint Datasets. Retrieved from https://github.com/microsoft/USBuildingFootprints
Morrow County Regional Planning Commission. (2012). Morrow County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Retrieved April 30, 2025, from https://cms9files.revize.com/morrowcooh/Zoning/morrow%20county%20comprehensive%20land %20use%20plan%202012.pdf
ODOT. (2017). Historic Bridge Inventory. Retrieved December 19, 2024, from Ohio Department of Transportation: https://gis.dot.state.oh.us/tims_classic/Data/Download
Smardon et al., R. J. (1988). Visual Resources Assessment Procedure for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Instruction Report EL-88-1. Washington, DC: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Sullivan and Meyer. (2014). Guide to Evaluating Visual Impact Assessments for Renewable Energy Projects. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved October 25, 2024, from https://blmwyomingvisual.anl.gov/docs/NRR_VIAGuide-RenewableEnergy_2014-08-08_large.pdf
Sullivan et al., M. M. (2021). Evaluating Photosimulations for Visual Impact Assessments for Renewable Energy Projects. Lakewood, Colorado: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved June 6, 2024, from https://blmwyomingvisual.anl.gov/docs/PhotoSimulation_Review_Guide_ASLA.pdf
USDOT. (1981). Visual Impact Assessment for Highway. U>S. Department of Transportation.
USDOT. (2015). Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects. U.S. Department of Transportation. Retrieved August 21, 2023
USFS. (1995). Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. U.S. Forest Service. Retrieved August 3, 2021
Attachment A
Visually Sensitive Resource Visibility Analysis
Attachment A. Visually Sensitive Resources and Viewshed Results
4
3
2
Crossroads
Solar Grazing Center
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Attachment
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington,
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Crossroads
Solar Grazing Center
Attachment
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Crossroads
Solar Grazing Center
Attachment A: Visually Sensitive Resource Table
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Rivers and Streams with Public Fishing Access
Named Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs
1 Identified viewpoints are within 150 feet of the visually sensitive resource boundary. If no viewpoint number is indicated, no photos were obtained near this resource during fieldwork.
2 Distance to nearest major Facility component is measured from the closest location within the resource boundary.
3 Potential PV panel visibility is broken down by the distance zone area within each resource boundary. If a distance zone column includes a grey dot, the resource does not fall within this distance zone.
4 National Historic Landmarks are also NRHP-Listed. However, these resources are only included in the NHL category to avoid duplication.
5 Derived from the eligibility recommendations from the Historic Resources Survey Report prepared for the proposed Facility.
6 State trails that occur within state lands are not identified individually, and are evaluated as part of the overall resource.
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Attachment B
Viewpoint Location Map & Viewpoint Photolog
Attachment B. Viewpoint Photolog
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio Visual Resource Assessment
Attachment B. Viewpoint
Viewpoint 1A | Panorama
Panorama composition panning southwest to northeast
Viewpoint 1A | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking west from Road 166 in the Township of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.48332°N, 82.89501°W
Elevation: 1,014 feet
Viewpoint selected for simulation development
Viewpoint 1B | Panorama
Panorama composition panning northwest to south
1B | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking northeast from Road 166 in the Township of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.48332°N, 82.89501°W
Elevation: 1,014 feet
Viewpoint selected for simulation development
Viewpoint
Viewpoint 1C | Panorama
Panorama composition panning northwest to south
1C | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking east from Road 166 in the Township of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.48332°N, 82.89501°W
Elevation: 1,014 feet
Viewpoint selected for simulation development
Viewpoint
Viewpoint 1D | Panorama
Panorama composition panning northwest to south
1D | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking southeast from Road 166 in the Township of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.48332°N, 82.89501°W
Elevation: 1,014 feet
Viewpoint selected for simulation development
Viewpoint
Viewpoint 2 | Panorama Panorama composition panning north to south
Viewpoint 2 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking northeast from Road 166 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.47978°N, 82.89539°W
Elevation: 1,012 feet
Viewpoint 3A | Panorama
Panorama composition panning northeast to west
3A | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking southeast from intersection of Road 165 and Road 25 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.46757°N, 82.90427°W
Elevation: 1,000 feet
Viewpoint selected for simulation development
Viewpoint
Viewpoint 3B | Panorama Panorama composition panning northeast to west
3B | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking southwest from intersection of Road 165 and Road 25 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.46757°N, 82.90427°W
Elevation: 1,000 feet
Viewpoint selected for simulation development
Viewpoint
Attachment B. Viewpoint
3C | Panorama Panorama composition panning northeast to west
3C | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking west from intersection of Road 165 and Road 25 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.46757°N, 82.90427°W
Elevation: 1,000 feet
Viewpoint selected for simulation development
Viewpoint
Viewpoint
Attachment B. Viewpoint
Viewpoint 3D | Panorama
Panorama composition panning northeast to west
3D | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking west from intersection of Road 165 and Road 25 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.46757°N, 82.90427°W
Elevation: 1,000 feet
Viewpoint selected for simulation development
Viewpoint
Attachment B. Viewpoint
Viewpoint 4 | Panorama Panorama composition panning west to east
Viewpoint 4 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking south from Road 25 in the Township of Westfield, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.46786°N, 82.91177°W
Elevation: 996 feet
Viewpoint selected for simulation development
Attachment B. Viewpoint
Viewpoint 5 | Panorama
Panorama composition panning south to north
Viewpoint 5 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking southwest from Road 165 in the Township of Westfield, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.47181°N, 82.90409°W
Elevation: 1,001 feet
Attachment B. Viewpoint
Viewpoint 6 | Panorama Panorama composition panning south to north
Viewpoint 6 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking northwest from Road 165 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.48095°N, 82.90311°W
Elevation: 999 feet
Viewpoint 7 | Panorama Panorama composition panning east to west
Viewpoint 7 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking southwest from Road 165 in the Township of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.48473°N, 82.90277°W
Elevation: 1,001 feet
Viewpoint 8 | Panorama Panorama composition panning west to east
Viewpoint 8 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking north from Road 155 in the Township of Westfield, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.45211°N, 82.91389°W
Elevation: 991 feet
Viewpoint 9 | Panorama Panorama composition panning south to north
Viewpoint 9 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking northwest from Road 165 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.45442°N, 82.90544°W
Elevation: 998 feet
Viewpoint 10 | Panorama Panorama composition panning west to east
Viewpoint 10 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking northeast from Road 165 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.46064°N, 82.90496°W
Elevation: 1,001 feet
Viewpoint 11 | Panorama
Panorama composition panning south to northwest
Viewpoint 11 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking southwest from Road 25 in the Township of Westfield, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.46815°N, 82.91793°W
Elevation: 995 feet
Viewpoint 12 | Panorama Panorama composition panning east to west
Viewpoint 12 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking southwest from Road 165 in the Township of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.48475°N, 82.90283°W
Elevation: 1,002 feet
Attachment B. Viewpoint
Viewpoint 13 | Panorama Panorama composition panning west to east
Viewpoint 13 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking northeast from Road 151 in the Township of Westfield, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.47742°N, 82.91075°W
Elevation: 1,001 feet
Viewpoint selected for simulation development
Viewpoint 14 | Panorama Panorama composition panning north to southeast
Viewpoint 14 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking east from Road 166 in the Township of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.48166°N, 82.89496°W
Elevation: 1,016 feet
Attachment B. Viewpoint
Viewpoint 15 | Panorama
Panorama composition panning south to north
Viewpoint 15 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking west from Road 165 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.46213°N, 82.90490°W
Elevation: 1,003 feet
Viewpoint 16 | Panorama Panorama composition panning north to south
Viewpoint 16 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking northeast from Road 155 in the Township of Westfield, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.45281°N, 82.92930°W
Elevation: 985 feet
Attachment B. Viewpoint
Viewpoint 17 | Panorama Panorama composition panning southwest to north
Viewpoint 17 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking northwest from Road 155 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.45182°N, 82.90550°W
Elevation: 999 feet
Viewpoint selected for simulation development
Viewpoint 18 | Panorama Panorama composition panning south to north
Viewpoint 18 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Resource Assessment
View looking west from Road 165 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.45821°N, 82.90519°W
Elevation: 1,001 feet
Viewpoint 19 | Panorama Panorama composition panning southeast to northwest
Viewpoint 19 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking southwest from Road 165 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.47121°N, 82.90402°W
Elevation: 1,001 feet
Viewpoint 20 | Panorama Panorama composition panning north to south
Viewpoint 20 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Resource Assessment
View looking northeast from intersection of Road 165 and Road 151 in the Township of Westfield, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.47705°N, 82.90357°W
Elevation: 1,005 feet
Viewpoint 21 | Panorama
Panorama composition panning south to northwest
Viewpoint 21 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking south from Park Street in the Village of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.49100°N, 82.90182°W
Elevation: 1,003 feet
Viewpoint 22 | Panorama Panorama composition panning north to south
Viewpoint 22 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Resource Assessment
View looking southeast from Road 166 in the Township of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.48786°N, 82.89460°W
Elevation: 1,010 feet
Attachment B. Viewpoint
Viewpoint 23 | Panorama Panorama composition panning south to north
Viewpoint 23 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking west from Road 168 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.47958°N, 82.87921°W
Elevation: 1,026 feet
Viewpoint selected for simulation development
Viewpoint 24 | Panorama Panorama composition panning south to north
Viewpoint 24 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking west from Road 169 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.47755°N, 82.86942°W
Elevation: 1,036 feet
Viewpoint 25 | Panorama Panorama composition panning east to west
Viewpoint 25 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Resource Assessment
View looking southwest from State Route 529 in the Village of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.49544°N, 82.88223°W
Elevation: 1,028 feet
Viewpoint 26 | Panorama Panorama composition panning east to west
Viewpoint 26 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Resource Assessment
View looking south from Road 143 in the Township of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.51634°N, 82.88680°W
Elevation: 1,025 feet
Viewpoint 27 | Panorama Panorama composition panning east to west
Viewpoint 27 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Resource Assessment
View looking southwest from intersection of E Williams Street and Railroad Street in the Village of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.50606°N, 82.89269°W
Elevation: 1,020 feet
Viewpoint 28 | Panorama Panorama composition panning southeast to southwest
Viewpoint 28 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking south from N Marion Street in the Village of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.50257°N, 82.89509°W
Elevation: 1,016 feet
Viewpoint 29 | Panorama Panorama composition panning southeast to southwest
Viewpoint 29 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking south from US Route 42 in the Village of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.50057°N, 82.89594°W
Elevation: 1,012 feet
Viewpoint 30 | Panorama Panorama composition panning east to west
Viewpoint 30 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking south from S 4th Street in the Village of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.49620°N, 82.90476°W
Elevation: 1,006 feet
Viewpoint 31 | Panorama Panorama composition panning south to north
Viewpoint 31 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Resource Assessment
View looking south from S 3rd Street in the Village of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.49540°N, 82.90190°W
Elevation: 1,002 feet
Viewpoint 32 | Panorama Panorama composition panning north to south
Viewpoint 32 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Resource Assessment
View looking south from intersection of Park Street and Midland Street in the Village of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.49325°N, 82.90035°W
Elevation: 1,004 feet
Viewpoint 33 | Panorama Panorama composition panning east to west
Viewpoint 33 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio Visual Resource Assessment
View looking south from Midland Street in the Village of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.49318°N, 82.89917°W
Elevation: 1,005 feet
Viewpoint 34 | Panorama Panorama composition panning north to south
Viewpoint 34 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking southeast from S Marion Street in the Village of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.49087°N, 82.89431°W
Elevation: 1,018 feet
Viewpoint 35 | Panorama Panorama composition panning southeast to southwest
Viewpoint 35 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking south from intersection of Kinsale Drive and Waterford Place in the Village of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.49389°N, 82.88831°W
Elevation: 1,021 feet
Viewpoint 36 | Panorama Panorama composition panning east to west
Viewpoint 36 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Resource Assessment
View looking south from intersection of Tralee Trail and Kinsale Drive in the Village of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.49461°N, 82.88822°W
Elevation: 1,022 feet
Viewpoint 37 | Panorama Panorama composition panning east to west
Viewpoint 37 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio Visual Resource Assessment
View looking south from intersection of Kinsale Drive and Bantry Bay Boulevard in the Village of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.49502°N, 82.88817°W
Elevation: 1,022 feet
Viewpoint 38 | Panorama Panorama composition panning southeast to northwest
Viewpoint 38 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Resource Assessment
View looking southeast from New Street in the Village of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.49770°N, 82.89773°W
Elevation: 1,012 feet
Viewpoint 39 | Panorama Panorama composition panning northwest to southeast
Viewpoint 39 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking north from Road 166 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.46619°N, 82.89496°W
Elevation: 1,004 feet
Viewpoint 40 | Panorama Panorama composition panning south to north
Viewpoint 40 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Resource Assessment
View looking west from Road 25 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.46720°N, 82.89779°W
Elevation: 995 feet
Viewpoint 41 | Panorama Panorama composition panning south to north
Viewpoint 41 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking northwest from Road 166 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.45938°N, 82.89555°W
Elevation: 1,008 feet
Viewpoint 42 | Panorama Panorama composition panning southwest to northeast
Viewpoint 42 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking northwest from Road 166 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.45116°N, 82.89613°W
Elevation: 1,007 feet
Viewpoint 43 | Panorama Panorama composition panning south to northeast
Viewpoint 43 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking northwest from Road 166 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.44299°N, 82.89663°W
Elevation: 1,006 feet
Viewpoint 44 | Panorama Panorama composition panning southwest to northeast
Viewpoint 44 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking northwest from Road 159 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.43645°N, 82.88620°W
Elevation: 1,006 feet
Viewpoint 45 | Panorama Panorama composition panning west to east
Viewpoint 45 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Resource Assessment
View looking northwest from Road 166 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.43109°N, 82.89767°W
Elevation: 1,002 feet
Viewpoint 46 | Panorama Panorama composition panning southwest to north
Viewpoint 46 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking northwest from Road 159 in the Township of Lincoln, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.43659°N, 82.90400°W
Elevation: 995 feet
Viewpoint 47 | Panorama Panorama composition panning northwest to southeast
Viewpoint 47 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking northeast from Road 159 in the Township of Westfield, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.43777°N, 82.92818°W
Elevation: 986 feet
Viewpoint 48 | Panorama Panorama composition panning northeast to southwest
Viewpoint 48 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking northeast from Road 162 in the Township of Westfield, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.44493°N, 82.93690°W
Elevation: 981 feet
Viewpoint 49 | Panorama Panorama composition panning northwest to south
Viewpoint 49 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking northeast from Road 155 in the Township of Westfield, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.45307°N, 82.93860°W
Elevation: 985 feet
Viewpoint 50 | Panorama Panorama composition panning southeast to northwest
Viewpoint 50 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking southeast from US Route 42 in the Township of Westfield, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.46236°N, 82.94986°W
Elevation: 977 feet
Viewpoint 51 | Panorama Panorama composition panning northeast to southwest
Viewpoint 51 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking east from intersection of Road 152 and US Route 42 in the Township of Westfield, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.47392°N, 82.93890°W
Elevation: 985 feet
Viewpoint 52 | Panorama Panorama composition panning north to south
Viewpoint 52 | Single Frame
Crossroads Solar Grazing Center
Cardington, Lincoln, and Westfield Townships, Morrow County, Ohio
Visual Resource Assessment
View looking east from Road 150 in the Township of Cardington, Morrow County
Coordinates: 40.48518°N, 82.92888°W
Elevation: 992 feet
Attachment C
Photosimulations and Wireframe Renderings
Attachment C. Photosimulations and Wireframe Renderings
