Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP202000007 Resubmittal 2020-06-17FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# Bv: Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit orA, Zoning Map Amendment �l�N;PN PROJECT NUMBER: SP202000007 PROJECT NAME: Rappahannock Electric Cooperative ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ X Resubmittal Fee is Not Required Scott Clark Valerie Long for Rappahannock Electric Cooperative 434-951-5709 Community Development Project Coordinator Name of Applicant Phone Number Valerie W. Lo-vtg May 4, 2020 Signature Date Signature Date FEES Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,075 ❑ X First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $538 Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,150 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,075 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,344 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,881 ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request — Add'l notice fees will be required $194 To be paid after staff review for public notice: Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $215 + actual cost of first-class postage Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.00 for each additional notice + actualcost of first-class postage Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost minimum of $280 for total of 4publications) WILLIAMS MULLEN Direct Dial: 434.951.5709 vlong@williamsmullen.com May 4, 2020 VIA EMAIL: sclarkaalbemarle.or Scott Clark Senior Planner Planning Division Albemarle County Department of Community Development Re: SP 2020-00007 Rappahannock Electric Cooaerative Dear Mr. Clark, Thank you for your staff review comment letter of April 3, 2020 regarding SP 2020-00007, Rappahannock Electric Cooperative. This letter addresses the comments and suggestions contained in your letter. Planning (Scott Clark) • Clarification question —would the proposed upgraded transmission line provide power to distribution lines in the entire Albemarle portion of the REC service area show on Exhibit A, or just to a portion? Response: Under typical conditions, this upgraded line will power a substation that delivers distribution service to approximately one-fourth of REC's Members in Albemarle County. These Members are normally served from distribution lines out of our substation in Quinque, located in Greene County. Importantly, however, during times of outage or large maintenance projects, this line would serve all of Albemarle's REC Members from an alternate source: the REC substation in Pratts, located in Madison County. Please refer to Exhibit C to our original SUP application, which includes a diagram of the proposed system. • Please clarify the situation with the right-of-way on the east side of the corridor. The application states that the expanded right-of-way overlaps with the VDOT right-of-way. Discussions with VDOT staff indicates that utilities would typically not acquire overlapping right-of-way, but would simply apply for clearing permits in VDOT right-of-way as needed. Is that what is anticipated in this case? Response: That is correct, REC will not acquire land from VDOT, but rather will apply for and secure a permit from VDOT that will allow REC to clear and maintain the additional utility easement area within the VDOT right-of-way. • Also regarding the right-of-way on the east side — can you confirm that it is reasonable to expect that all trees in the existing VDOT right-of-way would be removed to provide the required clearance for the proposed upgrade? 321 East Main Street, Suite 400 Charlottesville, VA 22902 T 434.951.5700 F 434.817.0977 will iamsmullen.com I A Professional Corporation May 4, 2020 Page 2 Response: That is a reasonable assumption; however, because it is VDOT's right-of-way, REC must confer with VDOT in order to determine whether clearing or trimming is necessary, and any clearing would be subject to the terms and conditions of REC's permit with VDOT. • The ARB supplement states that the type of vegetation clearing proposed for the wider right- of-way `frequently develops into native species pollinator habitat. "Staff has significant concerns that clearing without subsequent management, especially along a major road corridor that is likely to be a source of invasive species, is more likely to result in an unplanned increase in undesirable non-native species. Many roadside native planting projects are based on intentional plantings, rather than unmanaged volunteer vegetation. Please provide more details on vegetation management in the existing and expanded rights -of -way. Response: First, we want to reiterate that the purpose of all REC's vegetation management efforts is solely about public safety and reducing risks to the reliability and security of REC's electric system, which requires that clearance between trees and transmission lines in the right- of-way be maintained at all times. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") designated the North American Electric Reliability Corporation ("NERC"), a non-profit international regulatory authority, to develop and enforce standards to ensure the reliability of the electrical system, including standards that address vegetation management covering tree trimming in rights -of -way. These standards, known as the Vegetation Management Reliability Standard, apply to the proposed 115-kV transmission line, and require that trees and other vegetation growing in or adjacent to the 115-kV power line right-of-way be trimmed to prevent power outages caused by tree contact with a transmission line. A link to these standards is provided on page 5 of this letter. The width of the REC right-of-way corridor is established by industry engineering and construction standards. Second, we want to let you know that REC has an International Society of Arboriculture -certified arborist and utility -certified arborist on staff who serves as its Director of Vegetation Management and who has contributed to the content in this letter, and is an active member of the application project team. Ms. Cindy Musick holds a Bachelor of Science in Forest Resources Management from West Virginia University and a Master of Science in Environmental Science and Policy from Johns Hopkins University. She is currently pursuing a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Forestry from West Virginia University. More information about Ms. Musick is available in the link below, and she is available to address any further questions or comments you may have about REC's standards and practices for vegetation management. Ms. Musick is also available to lead any staff visits to REC's existing utility corridor in Albemarle County. httos:Hwww. mvrec.cooD/newsroom/CindvMusick.cfm To satisfy the federal safety Vegetation Management Reliability Standard standards, REC utilizes an Integrated Vegetation Management approach, which is the industry standard, and that approach will be implemented in the year following initial clearing of the corridor. Non-native and invasive plants will be selectively treated with herbicide. In addition, tall growing trees will also be treated. In this manner, only native low growing species are promoted and maintained, increasing habitat for pollinators and a variety of native birds, amphibians and reptiles. May 4, 2020 Page 3 Integrated Vegetation Management is a standard approach for land management for most federal agencies, state and local parks, and other land managers. The work is performed by a licensed applicator supervising a crew of workers who walk up to tall growing trees with backpacks and use a small amount of herbicide to stop tall growing trees from growing. All of the work is managed by REC's team of foresters and arborists, all of whom are certified by the international Society of Arboriculture. Many of REC's arborists are also certified utility arborists. There are no volunteers involved in the Integrated Vegetation Management program at REC. • The following paragraph mentions "selective tree trimming and removal as well as promotion of native species pollinator gardens in the 17. S feet of addition right of way. " o This paragraph appears to refer to just the VDOT right-of-way on the east side of the corridor. Please see the questions above regarding the nature of REC's legal right to access the VDOT right-of-way. If REC will not be acquiring overlapping right-of-way, how will they control the character and management of vegetation to the east of the existing utility corridor? Response: As noted earlier, REC will apply for and secure a permit from VDOT to manage the portion of the expanded easement corridor that will overlap with VDOT's right-of-way, which it does regularly in many locations within REC's service area. As part of that process REC will work in conjunction with VDOT and landowners to develop a long-term plan and maintenance of the right-of-way for this project area. The Integrated Vegetation Management approach, which will be used in all portions of the REC easement corridor (both existing and expanded), will encourage native plants to regenerate on their own, and will control invasive plants and tall growing trees. o Are such native plantings not proposed for the existing utility right-of-way or for the proposed expanded right-of-way on the west side of the corridor? Response: As noted above, the Integrated Vegetation Management approach, which will be used in all portions of the REC easement corridor (both existing and expanded), will encourage native plants to regenerate on their own, and will control invasive plants and tall growing trees. However, even with the Integrated Vegetation Management approach, because REC will only have an easement over the privately -owned portions of the easement corridor, it must, and will, work with all landowners for this area to develop a long-term plan for how that Integrated Vegetation Management approach will be managed. o The term "gardens " suggests small, defined plots rather than a management plan for the vegetation of the entire cleared corridor. Please clarify what is intended. Response: The management plan for the vegetation is to manage it as a linear corridor meadow and low -growing shrub habitat. Initially, the easement corridor will be cleared edge -to -edge, but following that, REC will maintain the easement corridor with the Integrated Vegetation Management approach using best management practices, as a linear corridor meadow and low - growing shrub habitat. May 4, 2020 Page 4 REC's right-of-way corridors are managed by circuits on a five-year cycle. Following the initial clearing, there will be a low volume foliar treatment (application directly to the plant leaves) the following year. Then trimming and clearing would be carried out again five years later, again using Integrated Vegetation Management approach. Below is a link to a video that provides more information about utility vegetation management for transmission line rights -of -ways, and a fact sheet prepared by the Utility Arborist Association about backpack foliar treatments is enclosed with this letter. https://www.bin2.com/videos/search?q=utility+row+management+video&docid=608037085 255828092&mid=761 E120BE3890CD802F6761 E 120BE3890CD802F6&view=detail&FOR M=VIRE o Please clarify what if any commitment is being made to establish the pollinator -supporting plantings for the long term. Is this apart of the special use permit proposal, or just a statement of future intentions? This needs to be clarified, so that we know how to evaluate the overall proposal. Response: REC commits to maintaining the newly cleared land using an Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM) approach that will promote grasses, forbs, and other pollinator -friendly habitat to the full extent as permitted by the individual landowners and VDOT. REC manages its right-of-way in a scheduled, systematic approach on a five-year cycle. Many of its rights -of - way are excellent examples of what habitat can look like. REC would be pleased to host you and other interested staff members on a field visit if you are interested, which may help to better demonstrate how the IVM approach works. Please let us know and we can arrange to schedule it, which can be carried out in a manner that complies with current social -distancing requirements. • Just in case they are helpful in your planning, here are a couple of useful federal guidance documents on roadside native plantings that include further sources for research: 2—Technical—Ref 093011.pdittps://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Documents/R2ES/Pollinators/7- PollinatorsAndRoadsides_Guideline_Xerces_2014.pdf https://www. environment. fhwa. dot. gov/env topic s/eco systems/Pollinators_Roadsides/BMPs_pol linators_landscapes_hi-rez.pdf Response: Thank you. These guidelines align with REC's existing integrated vegetation management program. We do note that the materials staff provided apply to roadsides generally, and do not specifically address the particular safety needs, challenges, and other considerations associated with a utility corridor. Among other requirements, REC must have access to its utility corridor 24-hours a day, 365 days a year, and in all weather conditions. If the lines are down, REC's crews must be able to access the lines quickly, easily, and safely, regardless of weather conditions. As additional information on the important distinctions involved, we have provided materials regarding two established best management practices specific to utility corridor habitat: May 4, 2020 Page 5 US EPA website on the benefits of integrated vegetation management in utility rights -of -way: https:Hl 9manuary2017snapshot.epa.gov/pesp/benefits-integrated-vegetation-management-ivm- rights-way .htmI NERC Transmission Vegetation Management — Standard FAC-003-2 Technical Reference: https://www. nerc.com/pa/Stand/Project%20200707%2OTransmission%2OVegetation%20Manag ement/Transmission Veg Man Standard FAC-003- Emailed questions from April 8:h: For a transmission line like the one that's proposed, how much vegetation height above ground level is considered safe in the utility right-of-way? Is it the same for the entire width (75 feet, in this case), or are there "inner" and "outer" zones where different heights of vegetation are acceptable under typical management? Response: As previously stated, REC's right-of-way corridors are managed by circuits on a five-year cycle. Within the easement area, a general rule of thumb is to maintain brush and grasses under six feet, along with a completely clear area for walking and vehicle/equipment access. Anything above that height is susceptible to interference from energized lines that sag due to wind, heat, and accumulation of snow or ice. As such, prudent right-of-way maintenance necessitates a greater clearance distance between power lines and trees than may occasionally appear to be necessary. This is how REC already manages its right-of-way corridor in Albemarle County, and this approach would merely be expanded into the wider easement area required by the 115-kV line. The safety standards that warrant this approach are applicable across the entire easement corridor. As such, initially REC is proposing to clear the entire right-of-way and maintain it as a shrub/scrub ecosystem using Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM). This allows for access and also promotes a myriad of wildlife. For land that's immediately adjacent to a power -line easement like this, is intruding vegetation (branches, etc.) at all heights of equal concern? For example, it's clear that canopy -level branches up near the transmission lines would be cleared by the utility if they intruded into the easement, but what about shrub- or small -tree branches at lower heights (e.g, 5, 10, 15, 20 feet)? Response: As noted earlier, REC will manage the right-of-way corridor as a linear corridor meadow and low -growing shrub habitat. Initially, the easement corridor will be cleared edge -to -edge, but following that, REC will maintain the easement corridor with the Integrated Vegetation Management approach using best management practices. Vegetation inside the corridor will be trimmed, but if it is not a danger long-term, it will be otherwise left alone. However, if a large tree or branch leans over into REC's right-of-way and presents a danger to the integrity of the electric line and could affect reliability to its Members, REC would trim it back or remove it if it is a tall -growing species. However, any lower compatible (i.e., low -growing ) species would be fine to remain. May 4, 2020 Page 6 Because the corridor management is on a 5-year cycle, it is possible that some vegetation will grow to the heights referenced in your comment during that period, but would then need to be trimmed during the following management cycle. Tall growing trees will generally be treated selectively, but lower growing trees can remain, in an effort to keep vegetation below the 6-foot height. This is important for safety and line of sight. REC's maintenance and repair teams must be able to see the terrain and the power lines at all times and in all weather conditions, and be able to safely walk and drive repair vehicles within the easement corridor at all times and in all weather conditions to ensure prompt maintenance and repair. REC implements this balanced IVM approach, often leaving low vegetation that is not interfering with these safety and line of sight requirements in place. This pro -active maintenance approach is consistent with industry best practices and standards. The longer that REC's repair crews have to spend cutting through bushes and other tall vegetation (such as blackberry thorns), the longer that it takes them to reach the repair site, and the longer it takes REC to restore service to its members. Entailed Comment from April 10`h: • At certain locations along the utility ROW where it crosses Water Protection Ordinance buffers (e.g., TMP 21-7A and TMP 21-15/21-15G), the scale of the conceptual plan does not make it clear whether or not tree clearing is proposed in the expanded west -side easement where it passes through those WPO buffers. Please map out and quantify the area of the currently wooded areas of WPO buffer that would fall in the proposed ROW expansion. Response: Any clearing within these areas will be subject to the terms of REC's Annual Standards and Specifications Permit with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Nevertheless, REC appreciates the importance of the WPO buffers, and applicable local regulations. REC utilizes herbicides that are approved for buffers along waterways, and would only use those formulas in the buffers. With regard to herbicides generally, however, REC notes that its use is carried out in a very controlled and individual manner to avoid any movement of the materials off -site or into streams. Typical application involves a single REC employee individually applying it to individual tree stumps or to tall growing species that can threaten the line, for example. Zoning (Francis MacCall) • I have no objection or additional comments for this application. I would like to review the conditions with you once they have been formed. Response: No comment required, but we would also want to review the draft conditions with staff prior to publication in the Planning Commission staff report. Historic Preservation/Architectural Review (Margaret Maliszewski) • ARB review of this proposal is scheduled for April 20, 2020. Comments will be provided after that meeting. May 4, 2020 Page 7 Response: As of the date of this letter, the ARB hearing has still not been scheduled due to COVID-19 related delays. Please let us know as soon as possible when this hearing can be held. • Sheet 5 of the Transmission Line Improvement Plan shows that the expanded right-of-way abuts the abandoned, but historic, Estes House on parcel 21-7C. The house is significant as a representative house of local building traditions. It may have been built by local carpenter James Dickerson. Greater threat of vandalism due to increased exposure following tree clearing/limbing increases the threat already posed by the vacant condition and the situation close to the road. Documentation of the house following tree clearing/limbing is recommended. Historic Preservation Committee members may be available to perform this work. Response: REC will share the County's interest in documenting the house following vegetation clearing with the owner of that parcel. While REC cannot have others working on behalf of REC without the proper contracts and insurance in place; REC has no objections to such documentation by the County, subject to the landowner's express permission. Transportation Plannin,- (Daniel Butch) • Please be aware of a potential VDOT project at Frays Mills/US 29 intersection for an R-Cut. A concept sketch is attached. It is being submitted this year and may or may not get funded. The U-turn segment of the R-Cut for potential southbound traffic would be within this project's area. [Planning note: Please coordinate with VDOT during right-of-way discussions and verify that no right-of-way conflicts are expected --smcl Response: Thank you for this information, it is helpful to be aware of. REC will coordinate with VDOT to address any potential conflicts. Vir,-inia Department of Transportation (Max Greene/Adam Moore) • Please see attached memo. Response: REC will apply for and obtain a land use permit prior to carrying out any work within the VDOT right-of-way. Community Meeting: As you know, the Community Meeting for this application was originally scheduled for March 191", but had to be cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We understand the challenges associated with hosting and conducting such gatherings at this time, but we would appreciate your guidance and direction as to holding such a meeting virtually using video platforms similar to that being utilized by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. May 4, 2020 Page 8 Should you require anything further in connection with this application, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 951-5709 or vlong(a)williamsmullen.com. We appreciate your assistance with this application. Sincerely, ?& Z"5� Valerie W. Long cc: Rappahannock Electric Cooperative Project Team Enclosure: Fact Sheet on Backpack Foliar Treatment (Utility Arborist Association) 42483677_3 Backpack Foliar Treatment In the interest of environmental stewardship, herbicides and herbicide application methods for controlling trees on rights -of -way have been developed and refined to minimize disturbance to the desired/desirable/compatible plant community and associated ecosystem. Various herbicide application methods are matched to the specific site based on existing site conditions, plant species, social concerns, and potential impacts on aesthetics. Backpack foliar treatment is a customary herbicide application method used by utility companies to selectively control trees and other undesirable vegetation on electric and pipeline rights -of -way. Backpack foliar treatments (Photo 1) are appropriate over a wide range of undesirable plant densities - from a relatively low to a very high number of stems per acre, and are ideal when: 1. Plants are in full leaf 2. Undesirable plants need to be controlled completely (above- and below ground) 3. Undesirable plant stems are generally small (1 - 12 feet in height) 4. The site is sufficiently removed Photo 1: A hand -powered (pictured) or motorized backpack tank and spray gun with a two-way nozzle is used to apply either a cone or stream pattern of herbicide spray from sensitive areas such as croplands, waterways and high visibility areas. (NOTE: drift can be controlled with proper equipment calibration, adjuvants and awareness to current wind and humidity readings). Potential Negative Effects of Backpack Foliar Treatments • Aesthetics - Brownout (Photo 2): A term used to describe the browning of leaves on plants, potentially within days of application, as a result of the plan reacting to the active ingredient of the herbicide. While brownout is a clue to the effectiveness of treatment it can also be a negative effect if large numbers of dead stems are readily observable to the passerby - The treated stem, while dead, may remain standing for a year or more If aesthetics is a critical concern, then other treatments such as mowing or hand -cutting (with follow-up herbicide application) or dormant applications may be more suitable. Non -target herbicide deposition (Photo 3) - Foliar treatments can potentially affect non -target vegetation up to 13 feet from the target stem* - Non -target impact generally increases with increased stem height* Benefits of Backpack Foliar Treatments Overall, less herbicide entering the system - Although non -target deposition may be broader than with other techniques there is still less herbicide entering the Photo 2: (left) Brownout, or the browning of leaves, occurs on stems treated with backpack foliar. Some brownout can occur on non -target vegetation. These elatively short-lived effects can have a negative impact on visuals, especially when stem density is high. Photo 3: (right) Unnecessary non -target kill - spray pattern clearly shows worker was not getting close enough to target stem environment due to lower rates of active ingredient. Up to 200 times less herbicide when compared to basal or cut -stump treatment* Non -target effect can be minimized by employing trained professionals and using industry standard best practices such as; applying within 10 feet of target, applying only to point of run- off, halting application in windy and/or rainy conditions * Off -target herbicide deposition associated with treating individual trees; CA Nowak, BD Ballard - Environmental management, 2005 ,C4 AR@O Fw %ice FS 109.01 E U� 04-2017 'ySS.00S� Provided by the Utility Arborist Association. Photos by Gary O-Neil, Center Point Energy