# United States Tax Court > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Atax-court%3A7c860db3316bf825 ## Record - **Collection:** Agency decision - **Document type:** Agency decision ## Text United States Tax Court T.C. Memo. 2025-96 JACKSON STONE SOUTH, LLC, JACKSON SOUTH INVESTMENTS, LLC, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent JACKSON STONE NORTH, LLC, JACKSON NORTH INVESTMENTS, LLC, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent __________ Docket Nos. 12271-20, 12274-20. 1 Filed September 23, 2025. __________ Anson H. Asbury, Robert B. Gardner III, Ethan J. Vernon, Lauren H. White, and Andrew R. Vazquez, for petitioners. Chelsey M. Pearson, Olivia H. Rembach, Rachel L. Gregory, Holly L. Dennehy, Elizabeth M. Shaner, and Brian R. Cullin, for respondent. TABLE OF CONTENTS MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION ..................... 5 FINDINGS OF FACT .............................................................................. 6 1 opinion. These cases have been consolidated for purposes of trial, briefing, and Served 09/23/25 2 [*2] I. Subject Properties and Ownership History ..................................... 7 A. Mr. Jackson’s Family and Business in Jones County ............. 7 B. Jackson Family Partnership .................................................... 7 C. Prior Appraisal of Subject Properties ...................................... 8 D. JSS ............................................................................................. 8 E. II. 1. Organization and Interests in JSS ................................... 8 2. Organization and Interests in JS Investments ................ 9 3. JSS Property .................................................................... 10 JSN .......................................................................................... 11 1. Organization and Interests in JSN................................. 11 2. Organization and Interests in JN Investments ............. 12 3. JSN Property ................................................................... 13 Land Evaluation ............................................................................. 14 A. Mr. Wingate............................................................................. 14 B. Jackson-Wingate Agreement .................................................. 16 C. Subject Properties in 2016 ...................................................... 17 1. Drilling and Testing ........................................................ 18 2. Colwell Letter of Intent and Quote ................................. 18 3. Dr. Capps’s Reports ......................................................... 19 III. Jones County .................................................................................. 20 A. Location, Population, and Aggregate ..................................... 20 B. Jones County Zoning............................................................... 21 1. Jones County Zoning Ordinance ..................................... 21 3 [*3] 2. Rezoning Application Standards .................................... 22 3. Jones County’s Comprehensive Land Use Strategy ...... 24 4. Granite Mining in Jones County .................................... 25 IV. Easement Transactions .................................................................. 27 V. A. Marketing ................................................................................ 27 B. Third-Party Investments ........................................................ 27 C. Execution of Conservation Easement Deeds ......................... 28 D. JSN Baseline Report ............................................................... 30 Appraisals ....................................................................................... 32 A. Hayter Appraisals ................................................................... 32 B. Edwards Appraisals ................................................................ 36 VI. Tax Returns and Notices of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment ........................................................... 37 VII. Expert Testimony ........................................................................... 37 A. B. Petitioners’ Experts................................................................. 37 1. Stephen Lee Echols, Jr. ................................................... 38 2. Gregory Stanish ............................................................... 40 3. Michael Wick ................................................................... 41 4. Benjamin Black ............................................................... 44 5. James C. Clanton............................................................. 46 Respondent’s Experts.............................................................. 48 1. Michael J. Chamberlain .................................................. 48 2. Raymond H. Krasinski .................................................... 51 3. Matthew Sullivan ............................................................ 56 4 4. [*4] Andy D. Sheppard ........................................................... 59 OPINION ................................................................................................ 65 I. Burden of Proof ............................................................................... 65 II. Charitable Contribution Deduction ............................................... 66 A. Whether the LLCs Had the Required Donative Intent ......... 67 B. Whether the JSN Baseline Satisfied the Requirements of Treasury Regulation § 1.170A-14(g)(5) .............................. 68 C. 1. Treasury Regulation § 1.170A-14(g)(5)........................... 68 2. JSN Baseline.................................................................... 70 3. Echols Report Discussion of Land Types ........................ 71 4. Chamberlain Report Discussion of Land Types ............. 72 5. Analysis............................................................................ 73 Whether the JSN Conservation Easement Satisfied an Enumerated Conservation Purpose ....................................... 76 1. Protection of a Relatively Natural Habitat .................... 78 2. Preservation of Open Space ............................................ 88 III. Compliance with the Substantiation Requirements ..................... 94 A. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements ............................... 94 B. Whether Mr. Hayter Was a Qualified Appraiser................... 95 C. Whether the Hayter Appraisals Were Qualified Appraisals................................................................................ 99 IV. Valuation of the Conservation Easements .................................. 101 A. Valuation Principles ............................................................. 102 B. Determination of FMV .......................................................... 103 1. Approaches for Determining FMV ................................ 103 5 [*5] V. 2. Determination of HBU .................................................. 105 3. Sales Comparison Methodology .................................... 127 Limiting the Charitable Contribution Deduction to JSS’s Basis .............................................................................................. 135 A. The Parties’ Arguments ........................................................ 135 B. Analysis ................................................................................. 136 VI. Penalties ....................................................................................... 138 VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 145 MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION MARSHALL, Judge: These cases involve noncash charitable contribution deductions claimed for 2016, the tax year at issue. By separate Notices of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAAs), respondent disallowed charitable contribution deductions claimed by Jackson Stone South, LLC (JSS), and Jackson Stone North, LLC (JSN, and together with JSS, LLCs), for their respective deductions for grants of perpetual conservation easements over approximately 288 acres (JSS Conservation Easement) and 253 acres (JSN Conservation Easement and, together with the JSS Conservation Easement, Conservation Easements) of real property located in Jones County, Georgia (Subject Properties), respectively, to Oconee River Land Trust, Inc. (ORLT). Respondent determined that a 40% gross valuation misstatement penalty under section 6662(h) 2 applies or, in the alternative, that a 20% reportable transaction penalty under section 6662A applies with respect to any portions of the understatements to which the section 6662(h) penalty is found not to apply. Additionally, respondent determined that, if the gross valuation misstatement penalty under section 6662(h) and the reportable transaction understatement penalty under section 6662A do not apply, then a 20% accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) and (b)(1) or (2) applies 2 Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C. (Code), in effect at all relevant times, regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Except where otherwise indicated, monetary amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. 6 [*6] for negligence or a substantial understatement of income tax, or a 20% substantial valuation misstatement penalty under section 6662(e)(1)(A) applies. The issues for decision are (1) whether the LLCs satisfied the requirements of section 170 for their claimed charitable contribution deductions with respect to their donations of the Conservation Easements, (2) the fair market values (FMV) of the Conservation Easements, (3) whether any charitable contribution deductions from the Conservation Easements should be limited to basis, (4) whether 40% penalties under section 6662(h) for gross valuation misstatements will be imposed, or, in the alternative, (5) whether accuracy-related penalties pursuant to section 6662(a) will be imposed. 3 FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The First Stipulation of Facts, the Second Stipulation of Facts, the Third Stipulation of Facts, the Fourth Stipulation of Facts, the Fifth Stipulation of Facts, the Sixth Stipulation of Facts, the Seventh Stipulation of Facts, and the accompanying Exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. The LLCs are both limited liability companies treated as partnerships under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. No. 97-248, §§ 401–407, 96 Stat. 324, 648–71, for federal income tax purposes. 4 Petitioners in these cases, Jackson South Investments, LLC (JS Investments), and Jackson North Investments, LLC (JN Investments and together with JS Investments, petitioners), are tax matters partners (TMPs) and managers for JSS and JSN, respectively. Howard Brian Jackson was the only manager of the LLCs during the tax year at issue. The Petitions commencing these cases were 3 In the FPAAs issued to the LLCs, respondent relied on I.R.S. Notice 2017-10, 2017-4 I.R.B 544, in asserting penalties under section 6662A. In Green Valley Investors, LLC v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 80, 103 (2022), we held that imposition of reportable transaction understatement penalties on syndicated conservation easement transactions that are the same as or substantially similar to those described in I.R.S. Notice 2017-10 was prohibited because Notice 2017-10 was issued without the notice and comment required by the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 553. 4 TEFRA, codified at sections 6221 through 6234, was repealed for returns filed for partnership tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. Before its repeal TEFRA governed the tax treatment and audit procedures for many partnerships, including JSS and JSN. 7 [*7] timely filed on October 15, 2020. When the Petitions were filed, each petitioner’s principal place of business was in South Carolina. I. Subject Properties and Ownership History A. Mr. Jackson’s Family and Business in Jones County Mr. Jackson and his family have been in the residential construction business in the South Atlanta region, including Jones County, for over 70 years. They have deep ties to Jones County and to Jasper County, which borders Jones County to the north. Mr. Jackson’s father and all of the members of his father’s family were born and raised in Jones County and Jasper County. Mr. Jackson and his wife, Julia B. Jackson, were married in 1969 and raised three children, Brett Jackson, Scott Jackson, and Amy Jackson Shiver (Jackson children). The Jackson children reached adulthood before 2010. In 2005, Mr. and Mrs. Jackson sold their primary residence in Fayetteville, Georgia, and moved to Jones County. Until Mr. Jackson retired in February 2022, he co-owned and operated Dames Ferry Properties, LLC, in Jones County with his son Brett Jackson. Dames Ferry Properties was engaged in real estate development in Jones County from 2003 through 2022. Mr. Jackson also owns Dames Ferry Communities, LLC, also engaged in real estate development in Jones County. Finally, Mr. Jackson owns Brian Jackson Commercial Family Limited Partnership, which owns vacant land in Jones County. From 2003 through 2016, Mr. Jackson was involved in approximately 150 real estate transactions in Jones County, and his business in Jones County included purchasing, selling, and developing single-family homes on vacant land. During this period and because of his real estate development business, Mr. Jackson was generally aware of whether a property in Jones County sold for market value or was overvalued. As of the time of trial in these cases he was not aware of any property in Jones County selling for $19 million. B. Jackson Family Partnership Mr. Jackson formed the Jackson Family Partnership in 2010 for estate planning and wealth management purposes. In 2010 Mr. and Mrs. Jackson conveyed hundreds of acres of land to the Jackson Family Partnership, 561 acres of which collectively became the real property held by each of JSS and JSN. The Jackson Family Partnership owned the real property that became the property held by each of JSS and JSN 8 [*8] from December 29, 2010, through September 12, 2016, at which point it was conveyed to JSS and JSN. Mr. Jackson was the sole general partner of the Jackson Family Partnership from 2010. Mr. and Mrs. Jackson gave Jackson Family Partnership interests to the Jackson children. Mr. Jackson managed and controlled the Jackson Family Partnership. Along with Mr. Jackson as the general partner, Mrs. Jackson and the Jackson children were limited partners in, and the only members of, the Jackson Family Partnership from 2010. Mrs. Jackson and the Jackson children knew that they were partners in the Jackson Family Partnership. C. Prior Appraisal of Subject Properties In 2013, the Jackson Family Partnership had 200 acres of real property on the north side of Highway 18 West appraised for purposes of securing a loan. Half of the 200 acres that were pledged as collateral became part of the real property that was eventually held by JSN. Gary Stroup, on behalf of Morris Bank, appraised the 200 acres of the Jackson Family Partnership land at an FMV of $460,000, or $2,300 per acre, as of July 25, 2013 (2013 Appraisal). As part of his appraisal, Mr. Stroup determined that the highest and best use (HBU) of the 200 acres was rural residential and recreational timberland. Mr. Jackson received the 2013 Appraisal and was aware of the FMV determined by the 2013 Appraisal. D. JSS 1. Organization and Interests in JSS On May 23, 2016, JSS was organized as a limited liability company under the laws of the State of Georgia with its principal place of business in Gray, Georgia. JSS issued 10,000 membership units to its original members (together, Original JSS Members) in the following proportions: Name of Partner/Member Percentage Interest H. Brian Jackson 39.51% Julia B. Jackson 40.51% Brett H. Jackson 6.66% Scott B. Jackson 6.66% 9 [*9] Amy J. Shiver Total 6.66% 100.00% The JSS Operating Agreement designated Mr. Jackson as the manager and TMP of JSS. 5 Mr. Jackson was the manager of JSS from September 14, 2016, through April 22, 2019. 6 Mr. Jackson, Mrs. Jackson, and the Jackson children signed the JSS Operating Agreement. It provided for the members’ contributions of cash or property, as well as their rights to share income, profits, and losses. The Jacksons all became partners in JSS when they contributed real property interests (which they held through the Jackson Family Partnership) to JSS. The JSS Operating Agreement provided that the manager shall review a development plan and develop proposals for either (1) holding property for investment and appreciation pending a future sale of the property to a third-party developer or (2) conveying a conservation easement to ORLT to obtain tax benefits for JSS and its members. 2. Organization and Interests in JS Investments On September 13, 2016, JS Investments was organized as a limited liability company under the laws of the State of Georgia. The original members of JS Investments were: Name of Partner/Member Percentage Interest H. Brian Jackson 39.51% Julia B. Jackson 40.51% Brett H. Jackson 6.66% Scott B. Jackson 6.66% Amy J. Shiver 6.66% Total 100.00% Under the terms of the JS Investments share purchase agreement effective September 30, 2016 (JS Investments Share Purchase Agreement), the Original JSS Members agreed to sell to JS Investments 5 As the manager of JSS, Mr. Jackson had the ultimate authority to manage the business and affairs of JSS. 6 Mr. Jackson was also the TMP of JSS for the tax year at issue. 10 [*10] 9,500 of the 10,000 outstanding membership units of JSS in the same proportions as those in which the Original JSS Members owned the units. The sale contemplated in the JS Investments Share Purchase Agreement closed on December 13, 2016. Mr. Jackson, Mrs. Jackson, and the Jackson children signed the JS Investments Share Purchase Agreement. After the sale, the membership units of JSS were held in the following proportions: Name of Partner/Member JS Investments Percentage Interest 95% H. Brian Jackson 1.9755% Julia B. Jackson 2.0255% Brett H. Jackson 0.333% Scott B. Jackson 0.333% Amy J. Shiver 0.333% Total 100.00% William Wingate served as the manager of JS Investments. 3. JSS Property On December 20, 1976, Howard N. Jackson, Sr., conveyed to Mr. Jackson a one-fourth undivided interest in Parcel 1 (90 acres), Parcel 2 (150 acres), and Parcel 3 (80 acres), totaling 320 acres, all being tracts or parcels of land in Jones County, via warranty deed. On February 17, 1994, the trustees of the Jackson Family Trust conveyed to Mr. Jackson all remaining interest in Parcels 1, 2, and 3, via warranty deed. On August 17, 2009, Mr. Jackson conveyed the 320 acres of land to himself and Mrs. Jackson as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. On December 29, 2010, Mr. and Mrs. Jackson conveyed Parcel 1 (90 acres), Parcel 2 (150 acres), and Parcel 3 (80 acres) less and except a 10-acre tract, along with other property in Jones County, to the H. Brian Jackson Farm Family Limited Partnership (Jackson Family Partnership) 7 via warranty deed. 7 At the time it was organized, the Jackson Family Partnership was named Brian Jackson Farm Family Limited Partnership. The Jackson Family Partnership 11 [*11] A new survey plat was completed for JSS on August 18, 2016, which revised the property description to include 342.87 acres. The survey plat depicted 342.87 acres as including Tract 1 (288.08 acres), Tract 2 (15 acres), Tract 3 (10 acres), and Tract 4 (29.79 acres). On September 12, 2016, the Jackson Family Partnership conveyed Tract 1 (288.08 acres) and Tract 3 (10 acres) (together, JSS Property) to JSS via warranty deed. 8 The JSS Property lies on the south side of a two-lane road, Highway 18 West. 9 As of December 15, 2016, land on the south side of Highway 18 West was largely vacant land that was primarily used for outdoor recreation and hunting, and also included some small areas for timber production. 10 Mr. and Mrs. Jackson’s home is in Tract 2, a parcel that is not owned by JSS but is in the middle of (and so surrounded on all sides by) the JSS property. This has been their primary residence since 2007. The Jones County Tax Commissioner assessed the 2017 FMVs of the two parcels making up the JSS Property at $507,592 and $95,000 (i.e., combined value of approximately $603,000). E. JSN 1. Organization and Interests in JSN On May 23, 2016, JSN was organized as a limited liability company under the laws of the State of Georgia with its principal place of business in Gray, Georgia. JSN issued 10,000 membership units to its original members (together, Original JSN Members) in the following proportions: filed a Certificate of Amendment Name Change on December 29, 2010, changing its name to H. Brian Jackson Farm Family Limited Partnership. 8 Tract 2 (15 acres) was retained by Hunter’s Rest, LLC. Tract 4 (29.79 acres) was retained by the Jackson Family Partnership. The two tracts were not conveyed to JSS. 9 As of December 12, 2016, the JSS Property was the only asset held by JSS. 10 The area surrounding the Subject Properties is primarily agricultural with some homes on small acreage parcels. There are very few traditional residential subdivisions in the area. There is no public water or sewer service in this area. 12 [*12] Name of Partner/Member Percentage Interest H. Brian Jackson 39.51% Julia B. Jackson 40.51% Brett H. Jackson 6.66% Scott B. Jackson 6.66% Amy J. Shiver 6.66% Total 100.00% The Jacksons all became partners in JSN when they contributed real property interests (which they held through the Jackson Family Partnership) to JSN. The JSN Operating Agreement designated Mr. Jackson as the manager and TMP of JSN. 11 Mr. Jackson was the manager of JSN from September 14, 2016, through April 22, 2019. 12 Mr. Jackson, Mrs. Jackson, and the Jackson children signed the JSN Operating Agreement. 2. Organization and Interests in JN Investments On September 13, 2016, JN Investments was organized as a limited liability company under the laws of the State of Georgia. The original members of JN Investments were: Name of Partner/Member Percentage Interest H. Brian Jackson 39.51% Julia B. Jackson 40.51% Brett H. Jackson 6.66% Scott B. Jackson 6.66% Amy J. Shiver 6.66% Total 100.00% 11 As the manager of JSN, Mr. Jackson had the ultimate authority to manage the business and affairs of JSN. 12 Mr. Jackson was also the TMP of JSN for the tax year at issue. 13 [*13] Under the terms of the JN Investments share purchase agreement effective September 30, 2016 (JN Investments Share Purchase Agreement), the Original JSN Members agreed to sell to JN Investments 9,500 of the 10,000 outstanding membership units of JSN in the same proportions as those in which the Original JSN Members owned the units. The sale contemplated in the JN Investments Share Purchase Agreement closed on December 13, 2016. Mr. Jackson, Mrs. Jackson, and the Jackson children signed the JN Investments Share Purchase Agreement. After the sale, the membership units of JSN were held in the following proportions: Name of Partner/Member Percentage Interest JN Investments 95% H. Brian Jackson 1.9755% Julia B. Jackson 2.0255% Brett H. Jackson 0.333% Scott B. Jackson 0.333% Amy J. Shiver 0.333% Total 100.00% Mr. Wingate served as the manager of JN Investments. 3. JSN Property On February 27, 2004, American Natural Resources, LLC, conveyed to High Grove Development, Inc., 340.69 acres in Jones County via special warranty deed. On August 1, 2006, High Grove Development conveyed 340.69 acres in Jones County to Mr. and Mrs. Jackson via warranty deed. On December 29, 2010, Mr. and Mrs. Jackson conveyed the 340.69-acre parcel, along with other property in Jones County, to the Jackson Family Partnership via warranty deed. A survey plat prepared for JSN, dated August 18, 2016, depicted the 340.69-acre parcel as Tract 5 (10 acres), Tract 6 (252.92 acres), and Tract 7 (77.77 acres). On September 12, 2016, the Jackson Family Partnership conveyed Tract 5 (10 acres) and Tract 6 (252.92 acres) 14 [*14] (together, JSN Property) to JSN via Warranty Deed. 13 The JSN Property lies on the north side of Highway 18 West. 14 As of December 15, 2016, the land on the north side of Highway 18 West was largely vacant land that was primarily used for timber production, outdoor recreation, and hunting. The Jones County Tax Commissioner assessed the 2017 FMV of the two tracts making up the JSN Property, at $99,228 and $454,379 (i.e., combined value of approximately $554,000). The JSN Property is adjacent to the Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge (Piedmont Refuge), which sits to the north and east. The Piedmont Refuge is a 35,000-acre tract owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The JSN Property is also near the Oconee National Forest, Cedar Creek Wildlife Management, and the B.F. Grant Wildlife Management Area. Buttlers Creek and its floodplain run approximately 5,280 feet through the middle of the JSN Property. Buttlers Creek flows through the Piedmont Refuge before reaching the JSN Property. It is a tributary of the Ocmulgee River and is in the Upper Ocmulgee Watershed; the waters flow into the greater Altamaha River Basin and then ultimately into the Atlantic Ocean. II. Land Evaluation A. Mr. Wingate Mr. Wingate has extensive experience with conservation easement transactions, including syndicated conservation easement transactions such as those at issue in these cases. He also has experience in real estate and land conservation. In the aughts, Mr. Wingate was a real estate broker who ran the southeastern office of Orvis/Cushman & Wakefield Ranch and Recreational Properties; he was their real estate agent specializing in outdoor properties and conservation properties. From 2009 through 2012, Mr. Wingate worked for the Georgia Conservancy as their vice president of advocacy and land conservation. As of 2016, Mr. Wingate had participated in approximately 100 conservation easement transactions, of which approximately 20% were syndicated. From 2013 through December 29, 2020, Mr. Wingate and Shannon Mayfield co-owned Winfield Conservation Services, LLC (WCS). Mr. Wingate organized, marketed, and executed conservation 13 Tract 7 (77.77 acres) was not conveyed to JSN and was retained by the Jackson Family Partnership. 14 As of December 13, 2016, the JSN Property was the only asset held by JSN. 15 [*15] easement transactions through WCS. In 2016, WCS provided services to multiple landowners resulting in the donation of at least 17 conservation easements. WCS focused on, and sought, properties for syndicated easement transactions where the HBU could be mining. Mr. Wingate was also familiar with the “granite belt” in Georgia and zoning issues in southern Georgia that would be relevant to a mining property. WCS worked on approximately ten syndicated deals a year in 2015, 2016, and 2017, for a total of approximately 30 syndicated deals. From 2015 through 2018, mining was the claimed HBU for every syndicated deal done by WCS, and none of those transactions ultimately yielded a quarry. Instead, they all yielded conservation easements. WCS found investors for their conservation easement transactions by developing relationships with certified public accountants (CPAs). The CPAs knew which of their clients were interested in reducing their taxable income with deductions generated by the conservation easement transactions. Between late 2015 and early 2016, Mr. Jackson contacted Mr. Wingate to learn about conservation easements. Mr. Wingate explained to Mr. Jackson what steps were necessary to effect syndicated deals to donate conservation easements with respect to his properties. Before March 2016, Mr. Jackson knew Mr. Wingate would have to solicit third-party investors to raise money needed for the transactions. As early as March 21, 2016, Mr. Wingate believed Mr. Jackson had enough land to do two syndicated conservation easement projects claiming mining as the HBU. Mr. Wingate made this determination before any drilling took place because he knew that there was a mine operated by Vulcan Materials Co. (Vulcan) nearby and expected that a rock resource would also be present on Mr. Jackson’s properties. Before March 2016, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Wingate negotiated how much money the Jackson Family Partnership would receive if the syndicated conservation easement deals were successful. Mr. Wingate offered Mr. Jackson $1 million per side of Highway 18 West for the land needed for the conservation easement transactions. Mr. Wingate determined that Mr. Jackson would be paid $1 million for each property because that is what Mr. Wingate thought the market would bear and the price for which he thought he could get a potential seller to sell the properties. 16 [*16] Mr. Jackson and Mr. Wingate discussed only effecting syndicated conservation easement transactions and did not discuss otherwise donating easements on the properties. Mr. Jackson pursued syndicated conservation easement transactions because of financial motivations (including Mr. Wingate’s offer of $1 million per side) and because he wanted to conserve the properties, which he loves, forever. Mr. Jackson needed the money at the time, and no conservation easement would have occurred on the Jackson Family Partnership’s land in 2016 unless the target amount of money was raised from third-party investors through a syndicated deal. B. Jackson-Wingate Agreement On March 21, 2016, the Jackson Family Partnership entered into an agreement with WCS (Jackson-Wingate Agreement). Mr. Jackson signed the Jackson-Wingate Agreement as the general partner of the Jackson Family Partnership, and Mr. Wingate signed it on behalf of WCS. The Jackson-Wingate Agreement contemplated that the Jackson Family Partnership would receive $1 to $2 million in exchange for its interest in the securities of the entities that received a portion of the Jackson Family Partnership’s land (i.e., JSS and JSN). In addition to the purchase price for the land, the Jacksons (through the Jackson Family Partnership) would be entitled to a tax deduction of 5% of the value of the conservation easement donation. The entities holding the land would be 95% owned by third-party investors. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, WCS had to (1) pay all costs and expenses for exploring whether the property was appropriate for a conservation easement, (2) raise money for the conservation easement transaction through selling ownership interests in an entity created to hold the property, and (3) form new entities for the syndicated transaction structure. WCS had the option to cancel the Jackson-Wingate Agreement if WCS would not receive a satisfactory return. Mr. Wingate viewed the properties’ qualification for a mining HBU as directly related to WCS’s ability to obtain a satisfactory return. Mr. Jackson did not know, or ask, what the phrase “satisfactory return” meant as contemplated by the Jackson-Wingate Agreement. Mr. Jackson understood that whether the Jackson Family Partnership was paid $1 million, $2 million, or nothing depended on the valuation of the Subject Properties. The Jackson Family Partnership was to receive payment out of the proceeds of the closing. The Jackson-Wingate Agreement defines the 17 [*17] closing as the “closing of the funding under the Syndicated Investment Ownership Structure” and defines the Syndicated Investment Ownership Structure as the Landowner’s agreement that “the Contractor can raise money for a possible Conservation Easement through allowing the sale of their ownership interests in an entity to hold the Property” and the Landowner’s agreement “to cooperate in all aspects with such sales.” If the funds from the sale of securities to third parties were insufficient to pay the owner compensation, then either WCS or the Jackson Family Partnership could elect to not proceed with the closing without penalty. In 2016, the Jackson Family Partnership received $2.5 million from the conservation easement transactions involving JSN and JSS. 15 Mr. Jackson did not tell Mr. Wingate, or appraisers Dale W. Hayter or J. Chad Edwards, about the 2013 Appraisal or its conclusions. C. Subject Properties in 2016 Mr. Wingate engaged multiple professionals to establish values for the properties on the basis of subsurface aggregate, biotite granite gneiss, that is known to be abundant in the area. He retained (1) NOVA Engineering and Environmental, LLC (NOVA), to test for aggregate on the Subject Properties, (2) Richard C. Capps, an economic geologist, to value the aggregate and mine operations, 16 (3) Mr. Hayter and Mr. Edwards to separately appraise the easements, (4) Gregory Stanish, a geologist, to prepare reserve reports for the Subject Properties, (5) Michael F. Wick, an engineer with experience valuing minerals and mineral real estate, to determine the mineral valuation on the Subject Properties, and (6) William “Dolph” Winders from the law firm of Fisher Broyles, LLP, to advise on the tax components of the easement transactions and prepare tax opinion letters for JN Investments and JS Investments. Below, we discuss these professionals’ roles in the easement transactions. 15 Mr. Wingate increased the amount that the Jackson Family Partnership received for the conservation easement transactions to $2.5 million because he felt that Mr. Jackson was a great partner and it was a successful transaction. 16 The parties and their experts refer to the hypothetical activity on the Subject Properties as both a quarry and an aggregate mine. For purposes of this report, we use these terms interchangeably. Similarly, the parties and their experts refer to the hypothetical mining operations on the Subject Properties as granite mining or aggregate mining. For purposes of this report, we use these terms interchangeably as well. 18 [*18] 1. Drilling and Testing In 2016, Wingate Strategies, LLC, hired NOVA to complete a preliminary geotechnical exploration, which ultimately resulted in the production of reports for JSS and JSN (NOVA Reports) dated September 20, 2016. As part of the scope of work, Wingate Strategies directed NOVA to explore the property and search for evidence of subsurface aggregate deposits that, when tested, met Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Group II aggregate standards. 17 NOVA engaged Premier Drilling, LLC, to conduct drilling on the JSS Property from April 25 to 27, 2016, and on the JSN Property from April 27 to May 2, 2016. Premier Drilling drilled four holes on each of the JSS Property and the JSN Property to obtain samples of subsurface materials. NOVA engaged GeoTesting Express (GeoTesting) to determine the physical properties of the drilling samples. After reviewing GeoTesting’s geotechnical test reports for JSS and JSN, NOVA concluded that the rock quality met GDOT Group II, Class A aggregate quality standards for crushed rock aggregate that is used for road construction. GeoTesting and NOVA prepared reports of their findings. After testing, the core hole samples were retained by JSS and JSN. The results of the drilling and testing were sent to Dr. Capps, of Capps Geoscience, LLC. WCS hired Dr. Capps as its geologist to provide a resource valuation report for the JSS and JSN Conservation Easement projects. 18 2. Colwell Letter of Intent and Quote In November 2016, JSN paid $5,000 to Colwell Construction Co. (Colwell)19 for a letter of intent for development and general management services for the operation of a mine on the JSN Property. Colwell provided a separate letter of intent for development and general management services for the operation of a mine on the JSS Property. The identified services included support in procuring necessary licenses 17 Aggregate is crushed stone that is suitable for construction material. It is primarily used for road construction but has other applications. 18 WCS often engaged Dr. Capps for the conservation easement transactions that they worked on during 2015 through 2018. WCS hired Dr. Capps to provide services related to at least 13 conservation easement projects in 2016. 19 Colwell was owned by Curtis Colwell. WCS retained Mr. Colwell to provide mine management price quotes for the conservation easement transactions it worked on during 2015 through 2018. WCS paid Mr. Colwell for mining management agreements and crushing quotes in at least 11 conservation easement projects in 2016. 19 [*19] and permits, quarry design and development, design of crushing operation and equipment needs, equipment procurement, market strategy for sale of mined products, strategic forecast planning of operations, and personnel management analysis and training, for an hourly fee of $250. By separate letter, Colwell provided a quote for rock crushing services of $8.75 per ton for the first year of operations with annual 3% price increases. The quote does not include startup costs or drilling and blasting costs. 3. Dr. Capps’s Reports In December 2016, Dr. Capps prepared an overview of proposed quarries on the JSS and JSN Properties and the profitability of operating the proposed quarries (collectively, Capps Reports). He determined that the net present value of minable aggregate was $23,126,738 for each of the JSS Property and the JSN Property using a discounted cashflow (DCF) analysis. He is not a real estate appraiser and did not provide an FMV of the unencumbered Subject Properties. He determined that on each of the Subject Properties there are total resource reserves of over 20 million short tons of minable aggregate. For his valuation of both the JSS and JSN Properties, he determined that a 40-acre mine on either property could produce 10,524,358 tons of aggregate over 25 years that would sell for $15.75 per ton as follows: 300,000 tons in years 1 and 2 and 400,000 tons in years 3 through 7 with an annual 1% increase in years 8 through 25. 20 In projecting the production figures for each hypothetical mine, Dr. Capps did not take the potential production of the other hypothetical mine into account. He relied on Mr. Colwell’s $8.75-per-ton price quote for operating costs and applied a discount rate of 11% to calculate the net present value. He did not adjust the price of aggregate or the operating costs for inflation and did not account for any startup expenses. Dr. Capps determined that the market for each of the proposed mines encompassed an area within a 50-mile radius of the mines. He 20 In his reports, Dr. Capps erroneously used the terms “mineral reserve” and “mineral resource” to describe the Subject Properties’ aggregate. Both terms have special meanings in the mining industry, and both a mineral reserve and a mineral resource must be identified through a feasibility study. As discussed below, the drilling and testing that NOVA and GeoTesting conducted do not satisfy the industry guidelines for a feasibility study that is required to declare either a mineral resource or a mineral reserve. Thus, it was inappropriate for Dr. Capps to use these terms to refer to the Subject Properties’ aggregate according to industry standards. We find that these mistakes go to the reliability of his reports and the reports of petitioners’ other experts that relied on Dr. Capps’s opinions. 20 [*20] explained that the demand for aggregate is highly dependent on population growth and construction activity. He estimated that for each mine, the 50-mile radius market area had an annual demand for 5.1 million tons of aggregate and the proposed mine could capture at least 5% of the market. He determined that, over the life of each mine, the market would support his full production projection of about 400,000 tons annually. As discussed above, the Capps Reports are dated December 2016; however, they were not finalized until April 2017. The Capps Reports included cost information from Mr. Colwell that was not provided to Dr. Capps until March 2017. The Capps Reports were shared with petitioners’ appraisal experts, Mr. Hayter and Mr. Edwards. Mr. Hayter reviewed the information in Dr. Capps’s reports in preparing his appraisal. III. Jones County A. Location, Population, and Aggregate Jones County is in central Georgia, approximately 10 miles north of Macon and 70 miles south of Atlanta’s Central Business District. It is one of five counties that make up the Macon Metropolitan Statistical Area (Macon MSA). The northern end of Jones County is primarily rural, and the central and southern areas are primarily suburban. The Subject Properties are zoned AG–1, Agricultural District. Permitted uses include (1) single-family dwellings, (2) public and private schools, (3) agricultural, forestry, livestock, and poultry production, (4) tenant dwellings for farm workers when located on the same lot or tract as a principal residence, (5) Type A manufactured homes, and (6) accessory buildings, structures, and uses customarily incidental to any use allowed as permitted or conditional use and located on the same lot as the principal structure or use. To open an aggregate mine in Georgia, the mine’s operator must have an approved surface mining permit from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division (EPD). The LLCs would have been required to obtain EPD permits including permits relating to stormwater and wastewater discharge, surface and ground water withdrawal, and air quality before they could operate mines. Aggregate is abundant in Jones County and in this part of Georgia. The Subject Properties are situated on the granite bedrock side 21 [*21] of the Piedmont “Fall Line,” which is a boundary line where the general geology for the region changes from granite bedrock to a clay and sand base. Aggregate is a heavy, low cost per ton product, and therefore haul distance generally controls the price of aggregate. Because of the high cost of transportation, almost all aggregate produced in Georgia is used in Georgia and the market for aggregate with respect to a Georgia mine is generally limited to the area that is 40 to 50 miles around the mine. Demand for aggregate is driven by population, population growth, and construction activity. The Subject Properties are near various cities in Georgia: approximately 9 miles west of Gray (i.e., the county seat of Jones County), 11 miles northwest of Macon, 90 miles south of Atlanta, 85 miles south of Athens, 100 miles east of Columbus, and 130 miles west of Augusta. The Subject Properties are in central Jones County just east of neighboring Monroe County. In 2016, Jones County had a population of approximately 28,500. From 2010 through 2015, Jones County’s population decreased by 0.6%. In 2016, the population within a 25-mile and a 50-mile radius of the Subject Properties was approximately 280,000 and 1,100,000, respectively. B. Jones County Zoning 1. Jones County Zoning Ordinance The proposed aggregate mines would not have been permitted on the Subject Properties under the existing zoning regulations without a rezoning of, and issuance of a conditional use permit for, the Subject Properties to M–1, Light Industrial. The Comprehensive Land Development Resolution for the Unincorporated Area of Jones County (Zoning Ordinance) establishes permitted uses and conditional uses within each zoning district. Jones County adopted its first zoning ordinance in 1970. Tim Pitrowski has been the Jones County zoning director since 1996 and is responsible for monitoring compliance with zoning requirements and issuing permits for development. In 2016 and 2017, Mr. Pitrowski reviewed permit applications and wrote staff reports related to rezoning and conditional use permit requests that were submitted to the Jones County Planning and Zoning Department (Zoning Department) and the Jones County Commission for consideration. The staff reports written by 22 [*22] Mr. Pitrowski included his recommendations for whether the rezoning and/or conditional use permit should be granted or denied. 21 Permitted uses for each zoning district are established in the Zoning Ordinance and allow a property owner to use the real property without having to receive the approval of the Jones County Commission. Conditional uses for a particular zoning district are established in the Zoning Ordinance and may be exercised by a property owner only after receiving the permission of the Jones County Commission. In 2016 and 2017, mining was a conditional use in two zoning districts, neither of which included the Subject Properties. During 2016 and 2017, to obtain a rezoning or a conditional use permit, first, an application would be submitted to the Zoning Department. Next, a hearing would be held before the Jones County Planning and Zoning Commission (Zoning Commission), which would provide a recommendation to be forwarded to the Jones County Commission. Finally, the Jones County Commission would vote on whether to approve or deny the rezoning and/or conditional use permit application. The Jones County Commission is composed of five members who are elected officials. The Zoning Ordinance requires a Plan of Development to be submitted with any zoning permit application regarding a proposed mine. In 2016 and 2017, mining was not a permitted use or a conditional use in the AG–1 zoning district, in which the Subject Properties were zoned. As discussed, to operate the proposed mines on the Subject Properties the landowner would need approval from the Jones County Commission to rezone the property and for a conditional use permit. 2. Rezoning Application Standards The Zoning Ordinance establishes six standards by which the Zoning Commission and the Jones County Commission evaluate a rezoning request. 22 The standards have been the same since at least 2006. In 2016 and 2017, Mr. Pitrowski applied these standards when 21 Mr. Pitrowski guessed that 90 to 95% of zoning applications applied for in Jones County are approved. 22 The Zoning Ordinance also establishes five standards by which the Zoning Commission and the Jones County Commission evaluate a conditional use permit request. The conditional use permit standards are the same as the rezoning standards except that they do not consider the reasonable economic use of the property as currently zoned. 23 [*23] preparing his staff reports and recommendations on approval or denial of rezoning applications. The standards are whether: 1. The proposed zoning decision will permit a use of property that is suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby property (Suitable Use Standard 23); 2. The proposed zoning decision will adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property (Adverse Effect Standard 24); 3. The property to be affected by the proposed zoning decision has a reasonable economic use as currently zoned (Reasonable Economic Use Standard); 4. The proposed zoning decision will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities, or schools (Negative Infrastructure Impacts Standard 25); 5. The proposed zoning decision is in conformity with the policy and intent of the land use plan (Future Land Use Plan Standard) as set forth in the Future Land Use Map (FLU Map); and 6. There are other existing or changing conditions affecting the use and development of the property which give supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of 23 During 2016 and 2017, when determining whether a proposed rezoning use was suitable, the uses of property surrounding the subject property were evaluated to determine whether the proposed rezoning use was compatible with surrounding property uses. 24 The Adverse Effect Standard considered whether the proposed rezoning use would harm nearby properties. Potential adverse effects on nearby properties from a granite mine include noise, vibrations, dust, excessive light, increased truck traffic, and negative impacts on water wells. Mr. Pitrowski considered these potential adverse effects when making staff recommendations to the Jones County Commission related to rezonings and conditional use permit applications related to granite mines. 25 Granite mines have negative impacts on infrastructure, including increased wear and tear on roads from increased truck traffic and on ground water levels, which may necessitate public water access to offset impacts on ground water and wells. Mr. Pitrowski considered such negative infrastructure impacts when making staff recommendations to the Jones County Commission related to rezonings and conditional use permit applications related to granite mines. 24 [*24] the proposed zoning decision (Changing Conditions Standard). Below, we briefly discuss Jones County’s comprehensive land use strategy as reflected in its comprehensive planning and FLU Map. 3. Jones County’s Comprehensive Land Use Strategy The Jones County Commission has adopted comprehensive plans and FLU Maps to intentionally guide land uses within the county. The Jones County FLU Map is a planning document used in rezoning decisions to guide potential land use changes over time. The Jones County FLU Map is a component of a larger Jones County comprehensive plan. The Jones County Commission adopted a comprehensive plan in 2007 (2007 Comprehensive Plan) that was used from 2007 through mid-2017. Similarly, the Jones County Commission adopted an FLU Map in 2007 (2007 FLU Map) that was used from 2007 through mid-2017. On the 2007 FLU Map, the JSS Property was categorized as Rural Residential. The 2007 Comprehensive Plan listed recommended land uses for the categories listed on the 2007 FLU Map. The 2007 Comprehensive Plan listed site-built dwellings and manufactured homes on individual lots (with a two-acre minimum), agricultural and forestry uses, and light commercial uses as recommended uses for property in the Rural Residential category on the 2007 FLU Map. A granite mine was not a recommended land use in the Rural Residential category on the 2007 FLU Map. On the 2007 FLU Map, the JSN Property was categorized as Agricultural Forestry. The 2007 Comprehensive Plan listed land dedicated to farming, agriculture, commercial timber, or pulpwood harvesting uses as recommended uses for property located in the Agricultural Forestry category on the 2007 FLU Map. In mid-2017, the Jones County Commission adopted a new comprehensive plan (2017 Comprehensive Plan) and FLU Map (2017 FLU Map). The JSS Property was again categorized as Rural Residential, and the JSN Property was categorized as Agricultural Forestry, on the 2017 FLU Map. There was community input when the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, 2007 FLU Map, 2017 Comprehensive Plan, and 2017 FLU Map were created. 25 [*25] The 2017 Comprehensive Plan included a Short-Term Work Program, which was a statement of needs, projects, and goals that the Jones County government wanted to accomplish in the following five years. Work began on the Short-Term Work Program in 2016. The “Economic Development” section of the Short-Term Work Program did not list mining nor mineral extraction. The “Economic Development” section of the Short-Term Work Program explicitly called for the development of a targeted tourism strategy that promotes the ecological assets of Jones County. Paragraph 5 of the “Land Use” section of the Short-Term Work Program included a goal of preventing “the intrusion of incompatible development” along the periphery of national and state forests, wildlife management areas, and public lands in Jones County. The goal of preventing development intrusion along the periphery of public lands was to protect public lands. The effect of this goal was to give additional weight and consideration to the negative impact of development on public lands. During 2016 and 2017, Mr. Pitrowski gave significant weight to the FLU Map when making staff report recommendations to the Jones County Commission regarding proposed rezonings and conditional use permit applications. 4. Granite Mining in Jones County a. Rezoning Applications and Conditional Use Requests for New Granite Mines in Jones County Since at least 1996, no rezonings have been applied for or approved in Jones County for a proposed new granite mine. Since at least 1996, only one conditional use permit has been applied for in Jones County for a proposed new granite mine. That application was submitted by A Mining Group, LLC (A Mining Group), in 2006. The Jones County Commission denied A Mining Group’s application for a conditional use permit. In Jones County and Monroe County it was more difficult to obtain a rezoning for a new mine as opposed to an existing mine that sought to expand. b. Rezoning Applications Related to Mining Since 2000, the Zoning Department has received three applications for rezoning related to mining. It recommended approval of the applications. Two of the applications were for the storage of overburden, and the other application was a rezoning request to expand 26 [*26] an already existing granite mine. As discussed above, the Zoning Department did not recommend approval for any new granite mines. c. Denial of A Mining Group’s Application Like the Subject Properties, the property for which A Mining Group sought a conditional use permit to operate a granite mine was zoned AG–1. Jones County residents broadly opposed A Mining Group’s application. They expressed concerns about increased truck traffic, rail traffic, and dust resulting from the proposed granite mine. The Zoning Department’s staff report regarding the A Mining Group’s conditional use permit identified several factors that led to the denial including negative effects on infrastructure, inconsistency of a granite mine with the FLU Map, and mismatch of a granite mine with nearby properties. The proximity of the Big O Ranch property, owned by one of Otis Redding’s relatives, to the proposed mine was not a factor and did not affect Mr. Pitrowski’s staff report recommending that A Mining Group’s conditional use permit be denied. A Mining Group unsuccessfully appealed the Jones County Commission’s denial of a conditional use permit to operate a granite mine. d. Community Opposition to Granite Mines On May 2, 2006, the Jones County Commission amended the Zoning Ordinance by a unanimous vote, to remove mining as a conditional use in the AG–1 zoning district. Members of the general public filed the application for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to remove mining as a conditional use in the AG–1 zoning district. Residents who lived near the Subject Properties, including in the closeby Tumbling Shoals residential neighborhood, would have been publicly opposed to a granite mine being built on the Subject Properties. They were concerned about dust, noise, the lights at nighttime, and increased heavy truck traffic on nearby roads, including Highway 18 West. These residents would have spoken in opposition to a granite mine at a public meeting. e. Other Granite Mines in Jones County During 2015 and 2016, the Zoning Department did not receive any applications to rezone, or for a conditional use permit for, the Subject Properties. Similarly, it did not receive any Plan of Development for a proposed granite mine on the Subject Properties. In 2016, there were two active operating granite mines in Jones County. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (Martin Marietta), operated one of the mines 27 [*27] (Martin Ruby) and Vulcan operated the other (Vulcan Postell or Lite-n-Tie). Both began operations before Jones County adopted its first zoning ordinance in 1970. These two granite mines were actively operating in Jones County in 2016 and were located in southern Jones County. In 2016 and 2017, industrial land uses were also concentrated in southern Jones County. IV. Easement Transactions A. Marketing As discussed supra Findings of Fact Part I.D.1 and E.1, JSS and JSN were formed on May 23, 2016. After the JS Investments Share Purchase Agreement and the JN Investments Share Purchase Agreement, each of JS Investments and JN Investments held 95% of the membership units in JSS and JSN, respectively. Mr. Jackson, Mrs. Jackson, and their children held the remaining 5% of the membership units in JSS and JSN. Mr. Wingate and his associates, including Bo Schill and Michael Dean, actively marketed the conservation easement transactions with respect to JSS and JSN to CPAs, financial advisors, and potential investors, seeking investment in JS Investments and JN Investments in exchange for membership units in the same. As early as September 2016, nine months before Mr. Hayter and five months before Mr. Edwards issued their respective appraisals of the Subject Properties, and continuing through December 2016, Mr. Wingate and his associates marketed the investment as a naturalresource-based conservation easement producing a deduction of 4.5 to 1 on the potential investors’ investments. B. Third-Party Investments Mr. Winders of Fisher Broyles 26 prepared the Confidential Private Offering Summaries (Private Placement Memorandum or PPM), tax opinion letters, 27 deed transfers, legal structures, formation of investment companies, and other legal documents for JS Investments 2016. 26 Mr. Winders was involved in at least ten easement projects with WCS in 27 The tax opinion letters warned prospective investors: “PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RELY ON THIS OPINION TO ESTABLISH A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT THE TAX TREATMENT OF THE PROPOSED [JSS/JSN CONSERVATION EASEMENT] TRANSACTION WAS PROPER OR FOR ANY OTHER PENALTY PROTECTION PURPOSES.” 28 [*28] and JN Investments. Mr. Wingate and his associates distributed the JS Investments PPM and the JN Investments PPM (together with the JS Investments PPM, PPMs) to prospective investors. The JS Investments PPM offered 9,500 units ($4,000,555 rounded) in JS Investments for $421.11 per unit with a minimum subscription per investor of $50,000. The JN Investments PPM offered 9,500 units ($4,110,270) in JN Investments for $432.66 per unit with a minimum subscription per investor of $50,000. Both offerings were fully subscribed and closed on December 13, 2016. The PPMs state that JSS’s and JSN’s sole assets are their respective easement properties and propose two uses for the land: (1) holding the property for investment, which could include mining the property for granite or selling the property in the future, or (2) granting a conservation easement. Either option had to be approved by a vote of the majority percentage of the holders of shares in each of JSS or JSN. The PPMs also warn investors that the primary purpose of the investments “may not be to maximize profits for members.” The JS Investments PPM states that, based on Mr. Hayter’s preliminary appraisal, the conservation easement option would generate a charitable contribution deduction of $18,950,000, which would inure to the members according to their relative ownership percentages in JS Investments. Similarly, the JN Investments PPM states that, based on Mr. Hayter’s preliminary appraisal, the conservation easement option would generate a charitable contribution deduction of $19,470,000, which would inure to the members according to their relative ownership percentages in JN Investments. Each of the PPMs dedicates 19 pages to discussing the tax implications of a conservation easement. As discussed supra Findings of Fact Part I.D.2 and E.2, after the offerings closed on December 13, 2016, JS Investments and JN Investments purchased 95% of the units of JSS and JSN, respectively, and 9,500 units in each of JSS and JSN were transferred to the new investors. C. Execution of Conservation Easement Deeds Shortly thereafter, shareholders of JSS and JSN approved the conservation easement options, and Mr. Wingate and Mr. Jackson placed Conservation Easements on the Subject Properties by executing easement deeds. On December 15, 2016 (Donation Date), JSS conveyed a conservation easement to ORLT over 288.08 acres of the JSS Property 29 [*29] (JSS Easement Property) via a Deed of Conservation Easement (JSS Easement Deed). On the same day, JSN conveyed a conservation easement to ORLT over 252.92 acres of the JSN Property (JSN Easement Property, and together with the JSS Easement Property, Easement Properties) via a Deed of Conservation Easement (JSN Easement Deed, together with the JSS Easement Deed, Easement Deeds). ORLT is a qualified organization as defined in section 170(h)(3). 28 The Easement Deeds were recorded with the Jones County Clerk of the Court on December 16, 2016. The Easement Deeds state two conservation purposes: first, the “protection of a relatively natural habitat of fish, wildlife, or plants, or similar ecosystem” under section 170(h)(4)(A)(ii); and second, the “preservation of open space” that is pursuant to a clearly delineated governmental conservation policy and “will yield a significant public benefit” under section 170(h)(4)(A)(iii)(II). The specific provision of the JSN Easement Deed that address the open space conservation purpose states that the JSN Conservation Easement ensures the preservation of open space pursuant to the Georgia Conservation Tax Credit Program (GCTCP) and the Georgia Conservation Tax Assessment (GCTA) program. JSN did not apply for, and therefore did not participate in, the GCTCP. The JSN Easement Property was not enrolled in the GCTA program. The JSS Easement Deed permitted (1) general vegetation management; (2) forest management including herbicide application, planting, burning, thinning and harvesting of trees, and other activities necessary for the sale, trade, or removal of forest products; (3) maintenance and use of existing fields, or conducting agricultural activities including planting and cultivating any crop(s), operating a livestock grazing operation in the fields, and boring or drilling wells for water to be used to support agricultural activities on the property; (4) maintenance of existing unpaved roads and construction of additional unpaved roads if approved by ORLT; (5) maintenance, repair, or replacement of existing structures and creation of one new residential envelope no greater than two acres within which the grantor can construct, maintain, repair, remove, or replace one residential dwelling; (6) construction and maintenance of pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle trails for nonmotorized and educational purposes; (7) installation, maintenance, and replacement of any fences; (8) shielded outdoor 2016. 28 WCS worked on at least 11 conservation easement projects with ORLT in 30 [*30] lighting; (9) construction, maintenance, and replacement of utilities including power, water, septic systems and communication to support approved structures or uses on the property; (10) use of the property for scientific and environmental education of the public; (11) use of the property for recreational purposes including bird watching, hunting, fishing, swimming, equestrian use, bicycling, hiking, and the use of off-road and all-terrain vehicles; (12) maintenance and repair of the existing lake and pond dam, including dredging; and (13) construction and maintenance of a waterfowl impoundment no greater than two acres in area. The JSN Easement Deed included all of the reserved rights listed above except for item (12). D. JSN Baseline Report 29 Luke Rushing holds a master of landscape architecture degree and a bachelor of science in environmental design from Auburn University. At the time of trial in these cases, he had worked at Williamson Landscape Architecture, formerly the Jaeger Co., since 2003 and had extensive experience in land conservation and land management. Mr. Rushing wrote the baseline reports for JSS and JSN to establish the conditions of the Easement Properties at the time of the donations. On September 13, 2016, Mr. Rushing visited the JSN Easement Property. In the JSN Baseline JSN and ORLT acknowledge that the “report is an accurate representation of the property as of the date of the conveyance of the conservation easement referenced in this report by the landowner (‘Grantor’) to the Oconee River Land Trust, Inc. (‘Grantee’).” Mr. Jackson signed the JSN Baseline as the managing member of JSN and Smith Wilson signed it as the chair of ORLT. JSN attached the JSN Baseline to its 2016 Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, to establish the condition of the JSN Easement Property at the time of the donation. The JSN Baseline states that Mr. Rushing observed only common wildlife species from the Piedmont Ecoregion of Georgia (Piedmont Ecoregion) on the JSN Easement Property during his site visit. Additionally, the JSN Baseline identifies five land cover types on the JSN Easement Property: (1) open fields, (2) mesic hardwood forest, (3) bottomland hardwood forest, (4) planted pine forest, and 29 The findings of fact in this Part IV.D are limited to the JSN baseline report dated October 14, 2016 (JSN Baseline), and do not address the JSS baseline report because facts about the latter are not necessary to decide these cases. 31 [*31] (5) oak-hickory-pine forests. It separates the JSN Easement Property into four sections: (1) a 200' riparian buffer, (2) special natural areas, (3) forestry envelopes, and (4) fields. The JSN Baseline states that the following land cover types, amounts, and percentage of the overall acreage occur on the JSN Easement Property: (1) 100.9 acres of oakhickory-pine forest that cover 39.8%, (2) 73.16 acres of planted pine forest that cover 28.9%, (3) 37.46 acres of bottomland hardwood forest that cover 14.8%, (4) 24.59 acres of mesic hardwood forest that cover 9.8%, and (5) 16.81 acres of open fields that cover 6.7%. These habitat and land cover types were also identified in the ecological features map included as Attachment 10 to the JSN Baseline. Mr. Rushing created multiple drafts of the JSN Baseline and shared them with Laura Hall, a representative of ORLT. Mr. Rushing and Ms. Hall exchanged several emails regarding Ms. Hall’s proposed revisions to the JSN Baseline. An ecological features map dated September 22, 2016, in a draft JSN Baseline did not reference any mesic hardwood forest on the JSN Easement Property. Instead, the ecological features map in the draft JSN Baseline indicated that the property had four land types: (1) bottomland hardwood forest, (2) oak-hickory-pine forest, (3) planted pine forest, and (4) open fields. 30 Additionally, the photographs that were included in that draft report did not include any captions about the existence of mesic hardwood forest. In October 2016, Ms. Hall provided Mr. Rushing feedback on a draft baseline report. 31 She directed him to change the bottomland hardwood forest that was described in the draft report to a mesic hardwood forest because some of the species described in the draft were not typical of bottomland hardwood forests and, in Ms. Hall’s view, the 30 We note that mesic hardwood forest was also absent from the types of forest stands listed in the Georgia Forestry Commission’s 2010 Forest Stewardship Plan for the land that became the JSN Easement Property and the 2021 Forest Stewardship Plan for the JSN Easement Property. The Georgia Forestry Commission can provide a landowner a forest management plan to manage forestland for timber, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, aesthetics, and soil and water conservation. The 2010 Forest Stewardship Plan stand map listed four types of forest stands on what became the JSN Easement Property: (1) mature planted pine, (2) planted pine, (3) hardwood, and (4) wildlife openings. Similarly, the 2021 Forest Stewardship Plan stand map listed four types of forest stands on the JSN Easement Property: (1) 1970 planted pine, (2) 1988 planted pine, (3) bottomland hardwood, and (4) fields/wildlife openings. 31 Ms. Hall’s feedback consisted of a list of 20 items to be modified or clarified. It ranged from substantive items such as changing the identification and description of certain habitats and types of vegetation to nonsubstantive items such as enlarging the appearance and borders on maps. 32 [*32] topography of the land suggested that it was mesic hardwood forest. She also provided him with photos from the JSN Easement Property that Mr. Schill had sent to her of supposed bottomland forest and directed him to other pictures that she indicated were of mesic hardwood forest. She directed Mr. Rushing to include these photos in the draft report and to change the captions for certain photos. The changes to the captions were to state that picture 17 on page 36 of the JSN Baseline is a view of a mesic hardwood forest and that pictures 15 and 16 on page 35 of the JSN Baseline are of a future duck impoundment location in bottomland forest. In December 2016, Mr. Jackson communicated to ORLT that the special natural areas listed in the JSN Baseline were inaccurate. The areas in question were delineated as special natural areas and oakhickory-pine forest, but Mr. Jackson informed ORLT that the areas were actually pine forests. On December 16, 2016, ORLT raised this discrepancy about the special natural areas and pine forests with Mr. Rushing. Mr. Rushing agreed that he had made a mistake in the JSN Baseline about the distribution of the special natural areas and pine forest on the JSN Easement Property. He also acknowledged to ORLT that the JSN Baseline should be revised for Mr. Jackson’s corrections. Nonetheless, the JSN Baseline was not corrected, and the errors remained in the final version. V. Appraisals A. Hayter Appraisals In 2016, Mr. Wingate hired Mr. Hayter, with whom he had worked previously, 32 to value the Conservation Easements. Mr. Hayter is the owner of Independent Appraisals, LLC, and regularly performed real estate appraisals. Mr. Hayter had more than 25 years of experience as an appraiser and is licensed in the State of Georgia. He is a member 32 In 2016, Mr. Hayter performed 12 appraisals for Mr. Wingate, and from 2014 through 2018 he performed approximately 20 appraisals for Mr. Wingate. All 12 of the 2016 appraisals had an HBU of mining. According to Mr. Hayter, all 12 appraisals “likely” had reports from Dr. Capps and NOVA. All of the appraisals that Mr. Hayter had performed since 2013 likely used the DCF approach for the before value. Generally, the DCF approach estimates the future cashflows from a business and discounts those cashflows to present value. 33 [*33] of the Appraisal Institute, holds its MAI designation, 33 and has the appraisal review designation for commercial properties. Before Mr. Hayter performed his appraisals, Mr. Wingate sent him the NOVA Reports; and he later sent him the Capps Reports. Mr. Hayter’s appraisal notes state that 20 acres (in total) are excluded from the area over which the Conservation Easements were to be granted. The excluded parcels run along Highway 18 West and are composed of woodlands that are a mix of pines and hardwoods of moderate maturity. Each excluded parcel is contiguous to its respective Easement Property. Mr. Hayter performed appraisals for both Subject Properties for the purpose of determining the FMVs of the Conservation Easements (Hayter Appraisals). The Hayter Appraisals include descriptions of the Subject Properties that have sufficient detail for a person unfamiliar with the types of property to ascertain that the Subject Properties that were appraised were the Subject Properties that were contributed. They include the date of contribution of the Conservation Easements. The Hayter Appraisals also include Mr. Hayter’s name, address, identifying number, and qualifications. Finally, the Hayter Appraisals include statements that they were prepared for income tax purposes. In preparing his appraisals 34 he determined that a mine operation was the HBU of the Subject Properties. 35 Mr. Hayter, relying on the Capps Reports, estimated that annual demand for aggregate was 5,085,423 tons based on a population of 1,130,094 and a per capita 33 MAI membership requires certification as a general real property appraiser; a four-year bachelor’s degree; completing courses on valuation standards, fair housing, business practices, and ethics; a passing grade on advanced income capitalization, advanced market analysis and highest and best use, advanced concepts and case studies, quantitative analysis, and the Appraisal Institute’s general comprehensive exam; and a minimum of 4,500 hours of specialized work. See https://www.appraisalinstitute.org/why-join/pursue-a-designation/mai-designation (last visited July 2, 2025) (providing MAI designation requirements). 34 Mr. Winders, the attorney for JS Investments and JN Investments, provided advice on the issue of zoning to Mr. Hayter as Mr. Hayter prepared the Hayter Appraisals. Mr. Hayter also contacted Mr. Winders to discuss other legal issues as he prepared the Hayter Appraisals. 35 Mr. Hayter considered other financially feasible uses of the property and excluded single-family residential use on the Subject Properties because “it is not likely to be financially viable due to very limited demand.” He further stated that his observation of the surrounding area found “virtually no residential subdivision development.” 34 [*34] demand rate of 4.5 tons. He did not perform an analysis to estimate supply in the primary market area. Mr. Hayter estimated that a hypothetical mine on each of the Subject Properties should sell about 500,000 tons of commercial grade granite aggregate and 100,000 tons of specialty product per year on a stabilized basis. 36 Mr. Hayter’s DCF analysis projected that, over the life of the mine (LOM), each mine would produce an estimated 13,135,793 tons of aggregate. This estimate was based on two studies of other mines. The first study was of four aggregate mines in the eastern I–20 corridor that sold in the range of 450,000 to 550,000 tons per mine per year. The second study was of aggregate sales at several mines in north and central Georgia. Based on the second study, he estimated that each of the Subject Properties would sell about 450,000 to 800,000 tons once they reached stabilized operations. He also considered Dr. Capps’s estimate that a hypothetical mine on each of the Subject Properties would sell 300,000 tons per year. After considering these estimates, Mr. Hayter concluded that a hypothetical mine on each of the Subject Properties would sell about 500,000 tons of aggregate and 100,000 tons of specialty products per year. For each of the Easement Properties, Mr. Hayter prepared a DCF analysis estimating future income from a hypothetical mine operation, using various assumptions about recoverable volumes of aggregate, future pricing of aggregate, capital expenses, ordinary business expenses, discount rates, and so on. Mr. Hayter also performed a sales comparison analysis from four mining properties that he deemed comparable to the Easement Properties. Three of the comparables were in Clayton County and Hall County, Georgia, and one was in Talladega County, Alabama. All of the selected comparable mining properties were either working mines with long operating histories, or in one case, an expansion purchase of property that was adjacent to a working mine that had a long operating history. The range of prices per acre for the comparable sales was $12,575 to $133,929 per acre. On the basis of the DCF analysis, Mr. Hayter concluded that the FMV of the JSS Easement Property before the granting of the easement was $19,840,000 (or $68,870 per acre). Additionally, he determined that 36 The Hayter Appraisals explain that “stabilized basis” refers to the mine’s having successfully obtained a sustained customer base and a reputation for quality stone products at reasonable prices. 35 [*35] the value of the excluded ten-acre parcel before the granting of the easement was $32,000. In total, he determined that the FMV of the JSS Property before the granting of the easement was $19,872,000 (or $66,667 per acre). He determined that the FMV of the JSS Easement Property after the granting of the easement was $345,000 rounded (or approximately $1,200 per acre). Additionally, he determined that the value of the excluded 10-acre parcel after the granting of the easement was $46,000. In total, he determined that the FMV of the JSS Property after the granting of the easement was $391,000 (or $1,312 per acre). Subtracting the “after” value from the “before” value, he determined that the rounded and concluded 37 FMV of the JSS Conservation Easement was $19,480,000. Similarly, Mr. Hayter concluded that the FMV of the JSN Easement Property before the granting of the easement was $19,360,000 (or $76,545 per acre). Additionally, he determined that the value of the excluded ten-acre parcel before the granting of the easement was $30,000. In total, he determined that the FMV of the JSN Property before the granting of the easement was $19,390,000 (or $73,749 per acre). He determined that the FMV of the JSN Easement Property after the granting of the easement was $300,000 rounded (or approximately $1,200 per acre). Additionally, he determined that the value of the excluded ten-acre parcel after the granting of the easement was $46,000. In total, he determined that the FMV of the JSN Property after the granting of the easement was $346,000 (or $1,316 per acre). Subtracting the “after” value from the “before” value, he determined that the rounded and concluded FMV of the JSN Conservation Easement was $19,044,000. The appraisals for JSS and JSN each valued the Conservation Easements as of December 15, 2016. The JSS report was dated June 16, 2017, and the JSN report was dated June 17, 2017. Additionally, the Hayter Appraisals stated: Employment of the appraiser was not conditional upon the appraiser producing a specific value or a value within a given range, or a result that is favorable to the client. Future employment prospects are not dependent upon the 37 Mr. Hayter noted that the indicated value of the easement after subtracting the “after” value from the “before” value was $19,481,000 but he rounded that amount to $19,480,000. Even though Mr. Hayter’s appraisal for JSS concluded that the FMV of the easement was $19,480,000, JSS claimed a deduction of only $19,044,000 on the 2016 Form 1065. 36 [*36] appraiser producing a specified value or a result that favors the client. Employment of the appraiser and payment of the fee are not based upon the outcome of a loan application, upon the completion of a purchase/sale transaction, or any outcome that favors the client, or any future event. The Hayter Appraisals also stated that “[n]o portion of the appraisal fee was based on a percentage of the appraised value of the property or the amount allowed as a deduction.” Finally, the Hayter Appraisals stated that Mr. Hayter had no current or prospective interest in the Subject Properties or the parties involved. JSS and JSN attached the Hayter Appraisals to their 2016 Forms 1065. B. Edwards Appraisals Mr. Wingate also hired Chad Edwards to value the Conservation Easements. Like Mr. Hayter, Mr. Edwards had previously worked with WCS on conservation easement transactions. Mr. Schill described the nature of the project and the scope of work to Mr. Edwards. From that description Mr. Edwards understood that he was to determine whether use of each of the Subject Properties as a mine was a viable HBU. When Mr. Edwards accepted the assignment, Mr. Wingate and Mr. Schill referred to his appraisals as second appraisals, and Mr. Edwards was aware that other appraisals were being performed. Before completing his appraisals, Mr. Edwards was provided with a copy of Mr. Hayter’s preliminary appraisal, the NOVA Reports, and the Capps Reports. Mr. Edwards also prepared a DCF analysis to determine the FMV of the Subject Properties. Mr. Edwards’s appraisal reports (Edwards Appraisals) determined that the before values of the JSS Property and the JSN Property were each $20,752,000. However, he did not believe that someone would pay $20,752,000 for either of the Subject Properties. He also determined that the FMV of the charitable contributions for the JSS Property and the JSN Property were $20,195,000, and $20,259,000, respectively. The Edwards Appraisals were dated January 30, 2017; however, Mr. Edwards was still finalizing his reports as late as March 2017. Even though the Edwards Appraisals were higher, WCS used the Hayter Appraisals for purposes of tax return reporting. 37 [*37] VI. Tax Returns and Notices Administrative Adjustment of Final Partnership JSS and JSN each filed Forms 1065 for their short tax year ending December 31, 2016. 38 JSS and JSN attached Forms 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions, to their Forms 1065. JSS’s Form 8283 stated that the basis of the contributed property was $192,500. JSN’s Form 8283 stated that the basis of the contributed property was $857,000. On each of JSS’s and JSN’s Forms 8283, Mr. Hayter signed Section B, Part III, Declaration of Appraiser, and Steffney Thompson signed Section B, Part IV, Donee Acknowledgment, for ORLT. On the returns, JSS and JSN each claimed charitable contribution deductions of $19,044,000 for donating the Conservation Easements over the JSS Easement Property and the JSN Easement Property, respectively, to ORLT. The total deductions claimed by JSS and JSN for the Conservation Easements were based on their alleged “before” FMVs, as determined by Mr. Hayter. On July 9, 2020, respondent issued the FPAAs to the TMPs of JSS and JSN, disallowing the charitable contribution deductions and asserting penalties. VII. Expert Testimony A. Petitioners’ Experts Petitioners did not support the “before” values that Mr. Hayter determined in the Hayter Appraisals for the Subject Properties using a sales comparison approach. Rather, petitioners argue that, consistent with Mr. Hayter’s approach in the Hayter Appraisals, the “before” values of the Subject Properties should be determined by hypothesizing the creation of a commercial granite aggregate business on each of the Subject Properties, estimating the future cashflow from each business, and discounting those cashflows to present value. As discussed supra note 32, this methodology is commonly referred to as a “discounted cash flow” or DCF approach. As discussed above, petitioners hired Mr. Stanish to opine as to the amounts of resources and reserves on the Subject Properties, Mr. Wick to opine as to the associated values of the mineral reserves underlying the Subject Properties, and Benjamin Black to opine on whether the prospective mines were legally permissible (i.e., that the Subject Properties would have received 38 Mr. Wingate engaged Nichols, Cauley & Associates and Robins, Eskew, Smith & Jordan (Robins Eskew) to prepare the returns for JSS and JSN, respectively. 38 [*38] rezoning and conditional use permits) in Jones County. Petitioners hired James C. Clanton to prepare a retrospective appraisal report for the Easement Properties (Clanton Reports). The Clanton Reports address the HBU of the Easement Properties and the “after” value of the Easement Properties and the non-Easement Properties. Petitioners also hired Stephen Lee Echols, Jr., to render an opinion on the conservation values of the JSN Property 39 and the extent to which the JSN Conservation Easement and other supporting documentation protects those values in perpetuity. We discuss each of these experts below starting with Mr. Echols. 1. Stephen Lee Echols, Jr. Mr. Echols is a consulting biologist with Southern Ecological Surveys, LLC. Mr. Echols holds a master of science in plant biology from the University of Georgia and a bachelor of science in ecology and environmental biology from Appalachian State University. He was also the director of conservation from 2020 to 2022, and a senior conservation biologist from 2007 to 2019, for the North American Land Trust. He has specialized knowledge in the fields of botany and ecology, and regularly performs ecological surveys in the southeast United States. We recognized him as an expert in ecology and conservation. Mr. Echols prepared a report (Echols Report) presenting the conservation values that make the JSN property ecologically significant and determining the extent to which the recorded conservation easement and supporting documentation adequately protect those features in perpetuity. In preparing his report, Mr. Echols reviewed (1) an article about priority bird species in the Piedmont Conservation Region, (2) integrated geologic map databases for Georgia from the U.S. Geological Survey, (3) Mr. Jackson’s forest stewardship plan, (4) an online database of bird distribution and abundance, (5) the Georgia State Wildlife Action Plan (Georgia SWAP), (6) the Georgia State Wildlife Georgia Biodiversity Portal, (7) information from the U.S. Geological Survey on the ecoregions of Alabama and Georgia, (8) the Forest Legacy Program Assessment of Needs for the State of Georgia by the Georgia Forestry Commission, (9) NatureServe Explorer, (10) the JSN Easement Deed, (11) the JSN Baseline, (12) Birds of Conservation Concern 2021 published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and (13) certain other databases. Mr. Echols also visited the JSN Easement 39 Respondent did not challenge the declared conservation purposes of the JSS Conservation Easement. 39 [*39] Property nine times throughout late summer and early fall of 2022 and during late 2022 into 2023. In total, he spent between 27 and 54 hours on the JSN Easement Property. In his report, Mr. Echols created a list titled “Table 2. Potentially Occurring Rare Species within the Conservation Area” of 25 animals and plants that he characterized as “species of conservation concern” that potentially occurred within the property. The phrase “species of conservation concern” as used by Mr. Echols included any rare, threatened, or endangered species tracked by the State of Georgia that had the potential to occur on the JSN Easement Property. He initially developed this list using habitat data that was in the JSN Baseline and then further refined it based on his site visits. He noted that some of the species on the list are not rare and instead are common, but that they are experiencing significant enough population declines that they are of conservation concern. However, Mr. Echols did not state in his report that he observed or heard any species on the list of species of conservation concern, or any rare, threatened, or endangered species, while he was on the JSN Easement Property. The Echols Report states that he observed five habitats that the Georgia SWAP designates as “high priority wildlife habitats.” These were (1) bottomland hardwood forest, (2) canebrake, (3) mesic hardwood forest, 40 (4) oak-hickory-pine forest, 41 and (5) streams. For each of these habitats, his report discussed potentially occurring bird species of conservation concern that are known to breed within Jones County. Mr. Echols stated that he observed a G1 habitat, a G2 habitat, and a G3 habitat on the JSN Easement Property. 42 His report does not include a Mr. Echols stated that he observed mesic hardwood forest on the JSN Easement Property but that it is more limited in extent than as described in the JSN Baseline. He also stated that the mesic hardwood forest was adjacent to Buttlers Creek but did not pinpoint it on a map in his report. 40 41 In his report, Mr. Echols stated that he observed an oak-hickory-pine forest on the side slopes adjacent to bottomland forest within the southeast corner of the JSN Easement Property. However, he did not pinpoint it on a map in the report. 42 G1, G2, and G3 habitats refer to definitions from NatureServe Conservation status ranks. NatureServe is a large, umbrella conservation group that relies on reports from biologists around the world to classify natural communities and to track species of conservation concern. A ranking of G1, Globally Critically Imperiled, means that there are five or fewer instances of it worldwide. A ranking of G2, Globally Imperiled, means there are 6–20 instances of it worldwide. A ranking of G3, Globally Vulnerable, means there are 20–80 instances of it worldwide. 40 [*40] map indicating where the G1, G2, or G3 habitat occurs. 43 The Echols Report does not include any photographs of the G1, G2, or G3 habitat on the JSN Easement Property. 44 Mr. Echols did not report his G2 or G3 habitat findings to the EPD or any other reporting body. 45 2. Gregory Stanish Mr. Stanish is director of geological services for John T. Boyd Co. (Boyd), a U.S. and international consultancy that specializes in miningrelated technical, financial, and environmental projects. Mr. Stanish is a licensed geologist in the State of New York with over 16 years of experience in the mining industry. We recognized him as an expert in identification and quantification of mineral resources and reserves, especially construction aggregates. In August 2022, petitioners hired Mr. Stanish and Boyd to determine the amounts of resources and reserves 46 on the Subject Properties. Mr. Stanish reviewed “existing project source data” including (1) the NOVA Reports, (2) the Capps Reports, (3) a survey for each of the properties, and (4) publicly available geologic and miningrelated information for the region. Mr. Stanish collaborated with Michael Wick, petitioners’ expert in valuation of minerals and mineral real estate, to reach his conclusions in written reports (Stanish Reports) regarding amounts of resources and reserves on the Subject Properties. 43 At trial, Mr. Echols was shown a map of the JSN Property, and he stated that he observed mesic hardwood forest on the JSN Property near the Piedmont Refuge. Mesic hardwood forest is classified as a G2 habitat. 44 The parties dispute whether the Echols Report contained photos of a mesic hardwood forest, a G2 habitat. As discussed further infra Opinion Part II.B.5, we find that mesic hardwood forest did not exist on the JSN Property. 45 There was no testimony on whether Mr. Echols reported the existence of a purported G1 habitat on the JSN Easement Property to the EPD or any other reporting body. 46 There is an important distinction between a “mineral resource” and a “mineral reserve” that is relevant to understanding Mr. Stanish’s and Mr. Wick’s reports. A mineral resource is a concentration or occurrence of solid material of economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade, or quality and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for its eventual extraction. Mineral resources can be classified as Inferred, Indicated, or Measured, with an increase in confidence being the differences between those classifications. A mineral reserve is the economically minable part of a measured and/or indicated mineral resource. A mineral reserve includes diluting materials and allowances for losses, which may occur when the material is mined or extracted. Modifying factors that include the variables about how the resource will be mined are applied to convert a mineral resource to a mineral reserve. 41 [*41] Mr. Stanish and Mr. Wick collaborated as a team in an iterative process. Mr. Stanish relied on Mr. Wick to obtain some of the inputs necessary to develop a geologic computer model for the prospective mines, and in turn, the amounts of resources and reserves in the prospective mines. For instance, Mr. Wick determined areas of the Subject Properties that were set aside for placement of a processing plant and overburden. Mr. Wick also provided mining engineering parameters (pit slopes, mining bench height, safety bench width). With these inputs from Mr. Wick, Mr. Stanish was able to determine the total amounts of minable material in the ground on each of the Subject Properties. Mr. Wick then provided Mr. Stanish with an input for acceptable in-pit losses based on the type of material being considered. After applying an in-pit loss amount, Mr. Stanish determined a run-ofmine (ROM) 47 total number of granite tons that may be excavated from the defined pit and brought to a processing plant. Mr. Wick used the ROM amount to conduct an economic market study on what could physically be mined and processed. Mr. Wick’s economic market study demonstrated economic viability of the Subject Properties as mines. Using that determination and the other information in the Stanish Reports, Mr. Stanish estimated that there are approximately 23.3 million ROM tons of probable granite reserves present on the JSS Property, and 22.6 million ROM tons of probable granite reserves present on the JSN Property. 3. Michael Wick Mr. Wick is Boyd’s director of industrial minerals and a vice president of the company. Mr. Wick has over 38 years of experience in engineering, operations, management, and consulting of which 25 years have included exploration, operations, and valuation/business development roles for operating mining companies. We recognized him as an expert in the valuation of minerals and mineral real estate. In August 2022, petitioners hired Mr. Wick and Boyd to complete an independent expert study of the mineral resources underlying the Subject Properties and their associated values. As part of his scope of work, Mr. Wick reviewed (1) the Stanish Reports, (2) available market information and granite stone pricing, volumes, and growth projections 47 ROM tons are the recoverable portion of the minable material that is expected to be removed from the pit and crushed for sale, i.e., the salable product. 42 [*42] for the Macon MSA and surrounding areas as of 2016, (3) market reports, (4) the Hayter Appraisals, (5) the Capps Reports, (6) U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2015 through 2017 for crushed stone pricing and consumption, (7) census data from the U.S. Census Bureau, (8) Mine Safety and Health Administration information, (9) Universal Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions 2016, (10) certain public company websites for financial information to estimate the weighted average cost of capital, (11) Aggflow Stone Processing simulation software, (12) equipment pricing guides, (13) the SME 48 Guide for Reporting Results, Mineral Resources, and Mineral Reserves, (14) the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, and (15) Google Earth. Mr. Wick’s reports stated that their respective conclusions relied upon information in Appendix B of the reports, which included items (4) through (15) above. Mr. Wick collaborated with Mr. Stanish by providing him with certain inputs to determine the mineral reserves for the Stanish Report, and Mr. Wick relied on the Stanish Reports in preparing his written valuation opinion for the minerals and the mineral real estate on the JSS Property (Wick JSS Report) and the JSN Property (Wick JSN Report, and together, Wick Reports). a. Wick JSS Report Mr. Wick performed a DCF analysis for the JSS Property in which he determined that as of the Donation Date, the net present value of the mineral reserves underlying the JSS Property that would be extracted from a mine operating on the JSS Property for 30 years is $18.5 million. He posited that the HBU for the JSS Property was mining. He determined that, from the 23.3 million ROM tons of probable granite reserves present on the JSS Property and after reduction for processing losses and waste, the JSS Property could produce 20,513,000 ROM tons of aggregate granite over 30 years. He priced the aggregate using an average sale price of all salable products that would be produced by the mine and determined that it would sell for $13.50 per ton. 49 He 48 SME refers to the Society for Metallurgy and Mineral Exploration. 49 Mr. Wick acknowledged that the $13.50-per-ton average base price is “considerably below market” but that it would “enable the operation to quickly gain market share.” Mr. Wick’s view that the $13.50-per-ton average base price was considerably below market is supported by other data cited in his report. The crushed granite average market price for 2016 for the State of Georgia in the U.S. Geological Survey’s 2016 Minerals Yearbook was $14.50 per ton freight on board (FOB) quarry 43 [*43] estimated average sales of 250,000 tons beginning in year 2, increasing to 350,000 tons in year 3, 500,000 tons in year 4, 600,000 tons in year 5, and subsequent average sales increasing by 1.7% annually to correlate with GDOT’s 2010 through 2040 yearly population growth projection for the market. 50 Mr. Wick posited that the primary competitors of a hypothetical mine on the JSS Property are mines operated by Vulcan and Martin Marietta. Vulcan operates four of the six mines in the area. He opined that JSS, as a truck-only local supplier, would capture 15% of the target local market over five years and that most of its tonnage would displace that of Vulcan Postell and Martin Ruby. The Wick JSS Report stated that a hypothetical mine on the JSS Property would have an advantage over the large rail mines of Vulcan Postell and Martin Ruby for the Forsyth to McDonough I–75 growth corridor. Moreover, it posited that, because Vulcan Postell and Martin Ruby are predominantly rail focused, they would just ship their tonnage to Florida and markets to the south instead of selling it locally. For his cost analysis, Mr. Wick assumed that JSS would incur initial capital expenses of $13.4 million, including $5.9 million for a processing plant, $3.9 million for mining equipment, $1.2 million to purchase the existing home and property on the JSS Property, and $1 million for initial overburden stripping and site preparation. Additionally, he estimated that the mine would require $8.1 million of additional sustaining capital expenditures over the 30-year life of the project. He also estimated that the mine would have LOM average cost of goods sold of $5.70 per ton. This figure included $4.85 per ton in LOM operating costs, $0.10 per ton in LOM land reclamation costs, and $0.58 cents per ton in LOM overhead costs. He applied a discount rate of 12% to determine the net present value on a pretax, constant dollar basis. (i.e., the sale price does not include transportation and handling). Mr. Wick also reviewed the pricing estimates in the Capps Reports and compared the pricing from two quarries that were in the defined market area whose pricing represented the high and low range of pricing. Mr. Wick averaged the two competitors’ weighted average sale prices. The result was an average sale price of $18.14 per ton FOB in 2016. 50 Mr. Wick relied on the GDOT, Office of Planning, I–75 South Corridor and Subarea Master Planning Study dated June 30, 2015, for population projections in the market. GDOT projected that from 2010 through 2014, the population in Bibb County (the county adjacent to and southwest of Jones County) and Jones County would increase by 9% from 168,657 to 184,037. 44 b. [*44] Wick JSN Report 51 Mr. Wick performed a DCF analysis for the JSN Property in which he determined that, as of the Donation Date, the net present value of the mineral reserves underlying the JSN Property that would be extracted from a mine operating on the JSN Property for 30 years is $20.5 million. He determined that from the 22.6 million ROM tons 52 of probable granite reserves present on the JSN Property and after reduction for processing losses and waste, the JSN Property could produce 20,513,000 tons of aggregate granite over 30 years. Mr. Wick used the same average sale price and estimated average sales (in tons) as in the Wick JSS Report. For his cost analysis, Mr. Wick assumed that JSN would incur initial capital expenses of $11.6 million, including $5.9 million for a processing plant, $3.9 million for mining equipment, and $600,000 for initial overburden stripping and site preparation. The remaining inputs for his cost analysis were the same as those used in the Wick JSS Report. Again, he applied a discount rate of 12% to determine the net present value on a pretax, constant dollar basis. 4. Benjamin Black Mr. Black is a principal engineering geologist for GeoLogic, LLC. He is a professional geologist and a professional engineer. He has over 25 years of experience in geological, hydrogeological, and geotechnical analysis and design. He holds licenses for both disciplines in various states. He is a registered member of SME. We recognized him as an expert in mining feasibility analysis. 51 The determinations in the Wick JSN Report are largely the same as those in the Wick JSS Report. For simplicity, we discuss only those items that differ in the Wick JSN Report. 52 The Wick JSN Report states inconsistent figures for the granite reserves on the JSN Property. Page 31 of the Wick JSN Report states that, based on the Stanish Report, the granite reserves are estimated to be 23.3 million ROM tons; however, page 33 states that the granite reserves are estimated to be 22.6 million ROM tons. The reference to 23.3 million ROM tons on page 31 appears to be a typographical error, as the Stanish Report states that the granite reserves for the JSN Property were estimated to be 22.6 million ROM tons. It is not clear to the Court whether this typographical error had cascading effects on the DCF analysis, but we note that the production figure of 20,513,000 ROM tons for the JSN Property is the same figure as that for the JSS Property even though Mr. Wick estimated that the JSS Property had 23.3 million ROM tons of probable granite reserves while the JSN Property had only 22.6 million ROM tons. 45 [*45] Petitioners engaged Mr. Black to conduct a mining feasibility analysis of the potential for permit approvals necessary to allow quarrying of crushed stone aggregate at the Subject Properties (Black Reports). In preparing the Black Reports, Mr. Black reviewed the NOVA Reports, the Capps Reports, and the survey plats for JSS and JSN. Based on interviews with a current geologist and a former manager of the EPD Surface Mining Unit (SMU), Mr. Black concluded that the LLCs would have received a permit for surface mining from the SMU provided that all of the applicable rules and regulations were followed. 53 Similarly, Mr. Black concluded that the LLCs’ rezoning applications and conditional use permits likely would have been approved based on (1) interviews he conducted with a former Jones County commissioner (who served on the Jones County board of commissioners from 1984 through 2004) and a current member of the Jones County commission (who was not a commissioner in 2016) and (2) his experience rezoning property in neighboring counties. Mr. Black did not communicate with any other current or former Jones County employees in preparing his reports. Nor did he share the specific location of either of the Subject Properties with the current and former Jones County commissioners, even though he testified that the specific location of a property is an important consideration when a county commission is weighing whether to grant a rezoning or conditional use permit. He did not communicate with Mr. Pitrowski, the Jones County planning and zoning director, in preparing his reports. Nor did he communicate with any residents who lived on Highway 18 West near the Subject Properties or in the Tumbling Shoals residential neighborhood, which is close to the Subject Properties. In 2006, the Jones County Commission denied a conditional use permit for a proposed granite mine. Mr. Black was aware of this denial but did not include it in the Black Reports. Mr. Black does not have experience with rezoning property in Jones County but has experience with rezoning and surface mine permitting in nearby counties. 53 Jamie Lancaster, a representative of the SMU, testified that the SMU reviews 40 to 60 surface mining permit applications in a typical year. The SMU has never expressly denied a surface mining permit application; however, not all surface mining applications receive approval and sometimes the SMU requests additional information before a plan can be approved. The fact that the SMU has never expressly denied a surface mining permit application does not mean that every surface mining application is approved. 46 [*46] 5. James C. Clanton James C. Clanton is a founding member of MVC Consulting, Inc. He is a licensed real property appraiser in the State of Georgia. He is a member of the Appraisal Institute and holds its MAI designation. He has experience performing valuations of vacant land, conservation easements, and quarries, among other types of property. We recognized him as an expert in real estate appraisals. Petitioners engaged Mr. Clanton to prepare a retrospective appraisal of the “after” FMV of the Easement Properties and the “after” value of the excluded tracts from the Easement Properties as of the Donation Date. In preparing the Clanton Reports, Mr. Clanton reviewed (1) tax cards and tax bills, (2) a boundary survey, (3) the Easement Deeds, (4) the baseline reports, (5) a FEMA map of Jones County, (6) the Jones County zoning ordinance Article VII Use Requirements by District, and (7) information on the demographics of Jones County. Mr. Clanton performed an HBU analysis of the Easement Properties and the excluded tracts from the Easement Properties after the granting of the Conservation Easements. After evaluating the physically possible, legally permissible, financially feasible, and maximally productive uses of each of the Easement Properties and the excluded tracts, he concluded that the HBU of the Easement Properties after granting the conservation easement was light recreational and forestry purposes. 54 He further concluded that the HBU of the excluded tracts was to hold the tracts vacant under the same ownership as the Easement Properties. Mr. Clanton applied the sales comparison approach to determine the FMV of the Easement Properties and the excluded tracts. He identified sales of similar encumbered land for comparison with the Easement Properties. He stated that these types of properties are rare and so he included properties that were outside of the Easement Properties’ “immediate neighborhood” but had been transferred in the last 40 months before the effective date of the Clanton Reports and were restricted by similar encumbrances. Mr. Clanton made qualitative adjustments for the percentage interest conveyed, financing, conditions of sale, market conditions, location/visibility, size, zoning, and site conditions, among others. Because of the lack of transfers of perpetually 54 For the JSN Easement Property, Mr. Clanton also determined that the HBU included agriculture. 47 [*47] encumbered land in the local market, he also compared the Easement Properties to large, unencumbered properties in the local market and then applied an implied discount to the sales of the comparables. The range of the implied discount was 67% to 82%. Comparable land sale 1 involved 63 acres of rural/agricultural land in Walker County, Georgia, that sold for $1,283 per acre in February 2014. Comparable land sale 2 involved 254 acres of rural/agricultural land in Chatham County, Georgia, that sold for $2,249 per acre in April 2015. Comparable land sale 3 involved 135 acres of rural/agricultural land in Jackson County, Georgia, that sold for $866 per acre in April 2014. Comparable land sale 4 involved 210 acres of rural/agricultural land in Elbert County, Georgia, that sold for $843 per acre in August 2013. Comparable land sale 5 involved 105 acres of rural/agricultural land in Morgan County, Georgia, that sold for $1,350 per acre in February 2015. Mr. Clanton applied adjusted value indications and opined that the rounded per-acre values of the JSS Easement Property and the JSN Easement Property were $1,389 per acre and $1,265 per acre, respectively. He then applied an implied sale discount based on the sale of local unencumbered land in Jones County to reach a reconciled rounded FMV of the JSS Easement Property and the JSN Easement Property of $370,000, or $1,284 per acre, and $300,000, or $1,186 per acre, respectively, as of the Donation Date. Mr. Clanton also applied the sales comparison approach to determine the FMV of the excluded tracts. He identified sales of similar unencumbered land in Jones County for comparison to the excluded tracts. Comparable land sale 1 involved 20 acres of agricultural/rural land in Jones County that sold for $3,546 per acre in December 2016. Comparable land sale 2 involved 13 acres of agricultural/rural land in Jones County that sold for $3,704 per acre in January 2016. Comparable land sale 3 involved 20 acres of agricultural/rural land in Jones County that sold for $3,500 per acre in April 2016. Comparable land sale 4 involved 23 acres of agricultural/rural land in Jones County that sold for $3,277 per acre in February 2015. Mr. Clanton made adjustments for interest conveyed, financing, condition of sale, expenditure after sale, time/market conditions, location, size, zoning, and other factors. After applying the adjustments, he opined that the excluded tract from the JSS Easement Property, and the excluded tract from the JSN Easement Property, each had a rounded FMV of $50,000, or $5,000 per acre, as of the Donation Date. 48 [*48] B. Respondent’s Experts Respondent’s expert Michael J. Chamberlain prepared a report (Chamberlain Report) evaluating whether the JSN Conservation Easement provides for the protection of a significant, relatively natural habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants. Raymond H. Krasinski prepared a Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) compliance review of the Hayter Appraisals (Krasinski Review Reports). The Krasinski Review Reports address aspects of the Hayter Appraisals that Mr. Krasinski asserts were not in conformity with USPAP and that, in Mr. Krasinski’s opinion, render the Hayter Appraisals’ analyses and conclusions not credible. Matthew Sullivan prepared mineral economist rebuttal reports to the Capps Reports (Sullivan Reports). Finally, Andy D. Sheppard prepared retrospective appraisal reports for the Subject Properties (Sheppard Reports). The Sheppard Reports address the HBU of the Subject Properties and the “before” and “after” values of the Subject Properties. We discuss each of these experts below. 1. Michael J. Chamberlain 55 Dr. Chamberlain is the Terrell Distinguished Professor of Wildlife Ecology and Management at the University of Georgia’s Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources. He holds a Ph.D. in forest resources with a major in wildlife ecology from Mississippi State University. He is also an adjunct professor at Louisiana State University and the University of Tennessee. We recognized him as an expert in wildlife ecology and conservation. Dr. Chamberlain’s scope of work for his report was to evaluate whether the JSN Conservation Easement that is described in the JSN Easement Deed (1) provides a habitat for threatened or endangered species of plants and animals, (2) provides protection of a significant, relatively natural habitat, (3) contributes to the ecological viability of a local, state, or national park, nature preserve, wildlife refuge, wilderness area, or other similar area, (4) has reserved rights that are consistent with the conservation purposes of the conservation easement, and (5) contributes a significant public benefit. In preparing the Chamberlain Report, Dr. Chamberlain reviewed (1) the JSN Easement Deed, (2) the JSN Baseline, (3) an excerpt from an article on high 55 As discussed supra Findings of Fact Part VII.A, because respondent did not challenge the declared conservation purposes for the JSS Conservation Easement, our findings of fact with respect to Dr. Chamberlain’s expert report will address only the JSN Conservation Easement. 49 [*49] priority habitats in Georgia from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, (4) information from the U.S. Geological Survey on watersheds in the South Atlantic Gulf Region, (5) information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Piedmont Refuge, (6) articles on red cockaded woodpeckers and their use of pines for foraging, (7) the JSS and JSN Forest Land Management Plans, (8) the Georgia Biodiversity Portal, (9) an article on pine plantations and wildlife in the southeastern United States, (10) an article on open forest structural characteristics for high conservation priority wildlife species in southeastern United States pine plantations, (11) an article on soil ecology, (12) an article on simulating the consequences of roads for wildlife population dynamics, and (13) Georgia biodiversity conservation data. Dr. Chamberlain visited the JSN Easement Property on September 21, 2022. In the Chamberlain Report, Dr. Chamberlain determined that the land cover types delineated in the JSN Baseline were inaccurate. He stated that there is neither evidence of, nor suitable habitat for, state or federally listed threatened and endangered species. Specifically, after touring the JSN Easement Property, Dr. Chamberlain determined that it supported only three terrestrial land cover types: (1) pine-dominated forest, (2) bottomland hardwood forest, and (3) open fields. He also visited the approximate areas documented as photo locations in the JSN Baseline to verify the land cover types and habitats that were asserted in the JSN Baseline. After visiting the photo locations in the JSN Baseline for the mesic hardwood forest, oak-hickory-pine forest, and pine forest, Dr. Chamberlain concluded that the mesic hardwood forest and the oak-hickory-pine forest described in the JSN Baseline did not exist. Instead, the mesic hardwood forest and oak-hickory-pine forest were pine plantations that had been thinned and contained pines of varying ages. Dr. Chamberlain stated that pine forests and pine plantations are readily found in the Piedmont Ecoregion and in the southeastern United States and provide only a minimal contribution to generalist species adapted to using pine forests and pine plantations. He noted that the plant communities (overstory and understory of the trees) in the photo locations were similar, and he “failed to find any evidence that either oak-hickory-pine and/or mesic hardwood forest existed anywhere on the conservation easement.” 56 Accordingly, he opined that “78.5% of the conservation easement is pine plantation and pine forest that are softwoods, rather than hardwood forests.” As discussed infra Opinion Part II.B.5, we find as fact that mesic hardwood forests did not 56 Dr. Chamberlain did not observe a G1, G2, or G3 habitat on the JSN Conservation Easement. 50 [*50] exist on the JSN Easement Property. Thus, we find that the JSN Easement Property is 14.8% bottomland hardwood forest and 78.5% pine forest and manmade pine plantation. Dr. Chamberlain investigated the potential for state and federally listed threatened and endangered plants and animals to occur on the JSN Easement Property and reviewed rare species and species of conservation concern documented in the Piedmont Ecoregion via the Georgia Biodiversity Portal maintained by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources – Wildlife Resources Division. He found no records documenting high priority species on the JSN Conservation Easement and found no evidence during his site visit and subsequent research that any rare, threatened, or endangered species occurred on the JSN Conservation Easement. In the Chamberlain Report, he opined that the JSN Conservation Easement does not provide a habitat for threatened or protected species, but instead provides land cover types used by generalist species that are common throughout the Piedmont Ecoregion and the southeastern United States. Additionally, Dr. Chamberlain concluded that the JSN Easement Property did not provide a significant, relatively natural habitat for two nonmutually exclusive reasons. First, the JSN Baseline was inaccurate regarding the delineation of primary habitats and land cover types; and second, the actual observed habitats and land cover types on the JSN Conservation Easement were pine-dominated forests and pine plantations that have been thinned and which are common in the Piedmont Ecoregion and the southeastern United States. He noted that, because pine plantations are planted in a way that does not mimic natural forest regeneration and succession, they are not significant natural habitats or land cover types. Dr. Chamberlain agreed with the JSN Baseline that the JSN Conservation Easement contains bottomland hardwood forests along Buttlers Creek. However, he stated that the value of the bottomland hardwood forests along Buttlers Creek was “greatly marginalized” because they are surrounded by areas of pine plantation and poorly managed pine forest. 57 Thus, “the wildlife species 57 Dr. Chamberlain explained that pine forests and pine plantations can be beneficial to certain wildlife species if they are managed properly. Generally, this is accomplished with prescribed fire to maintain understory vegetation (vegetation that is beneath the tree canopy), which provides quality early successional vegetation (grasses and forbs) that is valuable to many wildlife species. He noted that two of the eight locations that he visited in the pine-dominated land cover types were managed with prescribed fire intensely enough to create quality early successional vegetation 51 [*51] that use pine forests and pine plantations such as those that dominate the conservation easement are ubiquitous to nearly every land cover type found in the Piedmont Ecoregion.” Dr. Chamberlain thus concluded that the bottomland hardwood forests did not constitute a significant, relatively natural habitat. Similarly, Dr. Chamberlain opined that the JSN Conservation Easement did not contribute to the ecological viability of other conservation lands, such as the Piedmont Refuge, because it provided only modest value to the generalist species that use the JSN Conservation Easement. He also noted that the value of the JSN Conservation Easement is diminished by the fact that, except for the bottomland hardwood forests and the streams, the property contains only pine-dominated forests and nonmanaged open areas that could just as easily be found on other properties that border the Piedmont Refuge and throughout the Piedmont Ecoregion. Dr. Chamberlain conducted research in the Piedmont Ecoregion for 11 years, on public and private lands that border the Piedmont Refuge and the other nearby state and federal lands, and concluded that pine-dominated forests and open areas similar to those on the JSN Easement Property are common on properties surrounding the Piedmont Refuge and throughout the Piedmont Ecoregion. Finally, Dr. Chamberlain concluded that the JSN Conservation Easement provides only marginal contributions to public benefit because the land cover types and recreational activities that occur on the property are consistent with other private conservation programs in the area. He further stated that recreational hunting and timber harvesting are common in these private conservation programs. Lastly, he concluded that the property is not unique to the area and the general public has little opportunity to view the property with the exception of approximately 600 feet on Highway 18 West, and no opportunity to use [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Atax-court%3A7c860db3316bf825. Public record. Not legal advice.