Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP202100006 Studies 2021-02-26Community WER UP Impacts of Noise During Construction Noise Statement The document "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety" published by the US Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") requires that noise levels not exceed those listed in the Table below, except for construction or demolition activities for which the maximum allowable noise level is ninety decibels (90 dBa) during the daytime. Maximum Allowable Noise Commercial / Industrial Residential Indoor - 45 Outdoor 70 55 Source: Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, EPA The standards set in the EPA document are within the noise levels mandated by Section 4.18 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance of 60 dBa during daytime owners of 7:00am—10:00pm. Sound levels for this project are expected to be highest during construction. Construction noise impacts will be minimized and mitigated by requiring that all equipment be maintained in good operating condition and that all motors and engines be muffled according to manufacturer's specifications. No pile driver will be used during the construction of this project, and the greatest levels of noise will be generated by forklifts. Impacts of Noise During Operation Most ongoing noise generated from the electrical equipment at the Project will be from the transformers and inverters at each pad. Subject to final design, the inverters specified for this plant are 125kW Chint Inverters. Applying the inverse square law of sound attenuation, the expected total sound level at 100 feet from the inverters is less than 46 dBA. Note that this value only applies during daytime operation, as the inverter enters standby mode during nighttime hours and produce no noise. The closest homes to this project are approximately 1,000 feet away from the electrical equipment, including Tattershall Farm to the west of the site, and a home on Labrador Lane across Dick Woods Road from the site. Typical transformers utilized for solar plants will be compliant with National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) TR-1 standards for audible sound levels, measured in accordance with American National Standards Institute/Institute of Electrical and Electronics 1 © Community Power Group 2021 Community Noise Statement POWER GROUP Engineers (ANSI/IEEE) C57.12 standards. Table 2 of the NEMA TR-1 standard, "Audible Sound Levels for Liquid -Immersed Network Transformers and Step -Voltage Regulators", defines average sound level decibels based on the equivalent two -winding kVA rating of the component. Components for this plant will be rated somewhere between 1000-2500 kVA, and hence have an average unshielded sound decibel level of 58 to 62 dBA, as measured at five feet per IEEE C57.12 standards. Using the inverse square law of sound attenuation, the expected total sound level at 1,000 feet from the unit will be approximately 15 dBA. Based on this analysis, the Project anticipates a very low level of noise outside of the perimeter fence, no greater than existing noises generated during daily activities at the Rivanna Material Utilization Center. Noise reduction occurs at 6 dB per double the distance. The nearest residence will be approximately 1,000 feet from the closest inverter pad and the dB levels at this location will be well below the 60/55 dB levels identified. Effort will be taken to locate inverters as close to the interior of the solar array or away from nearby residences as is feasible. This will allow the panels themselves to provide shielding and further mitigate equipment noise. © Community Power Group 2021 Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities - SUP Application Exhibit I: Visual Impact Analysis Page 16 of 30 Community 'r POWER GROUP Executive Summary Visual Impact Analysis The purpose of this document is to serve as a Visual Impact analysis as part of the Special Use Permit application for the proposed Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities project, to understand the project's impact on the visual character of the area. A viewshed analysis of the proposed facilities was conducted for a half -mile radius exploring any areas in the nearby vicinity that may be able to view the facilities once constructed based on topography. For several adjacent homes that fall within the half -mile viewshed, a line -of -sight analysis was conducted to determine whether any visual impacts are likely based on existing vegetation. Lastly, several specific representative points of view were also captured to show the impact of the facilities on adjacent roadways including Dick Woods Road and Interstate 64. Based on this analysis and the significant amount of existing vegetation shielding the capped landfill from view, the proposed project is will have no visual impact on the surrounding areas. Half -Mile Viewshed Analysis The area of positive visibility or viewshed of the solar arrays was created using the Viewshed tool (Ready to Use) within Esri's ArcGIS Pro 2.6.2 software (the "Tool"). The Tool uses an underlying digital elevation model called National Elevation Dataset published by the U.S. Geological Survey ("USGS") which serves as the topography which the Tool uses to calculate areas that may be able to "view" the proposed solar field. It is important to note that the Tool does not consider above ground features such as existing buildings or vegetation that would limit the ability to view the Project. The output of the tool, called a "viewshed," was produced for the Project at a half mile radius. 1 © Community Power Group 2021 Community Visual Impact Analysis '0r POWER GROUP Figure 1: Half -Mile Viewshed The resulting viewshed shows potential viewing by properties in the immediate vicinity of the project, including single-family homes to the west and southeast of the project. Because the Viewshed tool selected only takes into account topography, it is important to also consider the significant amount of existing forested areas and other vegetation on the ground. Line of Sight Analysis In order assess whether the immediately adjacent properties will have any potential viewing of the proposed facilities, a line -of -sight analysis was performed for several representative properties in order to determine the project's expected impact. The properties selected are shown below. © Community Power Group 2021 4 • tl`- firMid � � 1 r A,1 it x ram\ 1 r Community 'MP POWER GROUP Line of Sight Observers #2 and #3 Visual Impact Analysis In each case, potential viewing of the solar facilities was blocked by existing vegetation in the area. © Community Power Group 2021 J Community Visual Impact Analysis M POWER GROUP Viewpoints from Surrounding Roadways The following viewpoints were selected as representations of a driver traveling on Interstate 64 and Dick Woods Road near the site. The viewpoints images were taken from Google Earth, towards the project site. Exhibit 3: Selected Representative Points of View from Roadways Interstate 64 Viewpoint #1 © Community Power Group 2021 s� -. _ _ � ,,,� .�. . i t `T i,,,f.: •fir � \ ``\ f !_ - ' _ yy 45 v R - f t j-. v Community '0r POWER GROUP Visual Impact Analysis The existing natural vegetative screening surrounds the entire site where the proposed PV panels will be placed. Due to the site's previous use as a landfill, the site sits up higher than the road, making it virtually impossible to see from any adjoining road. Conclusion Based on the results of the viewshed analysis and only considering underlying topography, there is the potential for viewing of the proposed facilities by the properties immediately surrounding the site. However, based on the line -of -sight analysis, surrounding properties are shielded from viewing the site based on existing vegetation. This was also shown to be the case for representative viewpoints selected on the surrounding roadways. © Community Power Group 2021 Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities - SUP Application Exhibit J: Glare Study Page 17 of 30 Community POWER GROUP Executive Summary Glint and Glare Study Community Power Group ("CPG') is developing three 1.0 MW solar photovoltaic facilities (the "Project") located at Ivy Material Utilization Center at 4576 Dick Woods Rd Charlottesville, VA 22903, to be located on the capped landfill area (see site plan below). The solar panels will be installed for electricity generation on the areas with the most stable topography of the landfill area, to the interior of the site. Figure 1—Site Plan CPG has been asked to prepare a glare study to assess potential effects of glare and glint that could result from the construction of the proposed solar facility in Albemarle County. To assess these potential glare effects, CPG utilized a glare modeling tool developed by the US Department of Energy for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to protect aviation sensitive receptors called ForgeSolar. For this project, we have used the tool to assess sensitive areas along Route 64 and Dick Woods Road using the route receptor modeling which shows a continuum along the entire route. The receptor(s) assumed is a driver traveling in an average size car of 5 ft in height, and assumes NO screening or vegetation. For our assessment, we plotted 2 routes assuming two-way traffic on Dick Woods Road and Route 64. The analysis results identified no potential for glare along these routes. The results of our visual analysis indicate that neighboring houses and properties are all heavily screened by existing vegetation and mature trees, and as a result no glare is expected at these locations. © Community Power Group 2021 Community POWER GROUP Solar Glare Policy Glint and Glare Study On October 23, 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published "Interim Policy, FAA Review of Solar Energy System Projects on Federally -Obligated Airport" in the Federal Register. The Policy sets forth methods for assessing glare and the standards for determining impact for projects proposed on airport property. It also requires the use of glare modeling to assess glare and directs project proposers to the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT) which was developed by the US Department of Energy at the request of the FAA. The US Department of Defense has also adopted SGHAT and the associated requirements to analyze glare under Instruction (DODI) 4165.57. Given the critical safety issues associated with aviation, the model produces a credible result that is being used to evaluate other glare sensitive receptors such as specific road routes relating to vehicular traffic or the glare at specific vantage points. The tool takes topography and the height of the panels and the observation points into account. However, the tool does not have the ability to take into account existing or proposed vegetation. In our analysis we will provide an assessment of any proposed impacts from glare as well as methods to mitigate such glare through the use of vegetative screening. Glare Methodology and Standard of Impact Determination of glare occurrence from a solar PV project requires knowledge of the sun position, observer location, and the characteristics of the solar panels (e.g., tilt, orientation, location, extent, etc.). Vector algebra is then used to determine if glare is visible from the prescribed observation points. Figure 2 provides a simple representation of how the sun can produce glare on an air traffic control tower for a specific time and location. As the sun moves, the incidence of glare ends. The angle of the light source from the sun must be equal to the angle of the reflection on a receptor. Therefore, when receptors are close to the ground (like house or cars), the reflection is only possible when the sun is also close to the ground (i.e., near sunrise or sunset). As the sun moves, the incidence of glare ends. Once areas of potential glare are determined, appropriate vegetative screening can be utilized to mitigate any potential negative impacts. Sun � Hau H Su... Hw L unw w..e H«Im. U. ♦A sun.. H.i _ Lne <�► TTmTTT Figure 2 — Glare Visual 2 © Community Power Group 2021 Community POWER GROUP Glint and Glare Study The SGHAT model is a credible tool for predicting glare based on the characteristics of the project and the identified receptor. It produces results that identify three categories of glare: green (low potential for an after -image), yellow (potential for an after -image), and red (retinal burn). These categories are utilized for strict FAA Policy relating to air traffic controllers and avionic pilots. For non -aviation receptors, like a car, truck or house the results are simply used to determine if glare is predicted or not. SGHAT Model Setup for Proposed Project Regardless of the receptor to be analyzed, the model set-up entails locating the solar project, inputting its design characteristics, and identifying sensitive receptors for analysis. The position and movement of the sun throughout the year is built into the modeling program. For this solar project, the PV project polygon tool was used to draw the footprint of the solar arrays on SGHAT's interactive google map. The specific array attributes including a fixed panel system, 25° tilt angle and a 180° azimuth were input as was the average panel height of feet above ground level (agl), and a panel surface with no anti -reflective coating as a baseline. As the area of interest are segments of highway on either side of the project site with relative straight paths of highway and flatness, we used the "route receptor tool" for this analysis. The observer route was set at 5 feet above ground level for average vehicles on the road. Figure below shows the location of the points and routes relative to the project. Figure 3 — Route and Point Receptors © Community Power Group 2021 Community POWER GROUP Glare Model Results Glint and Glare Study The glare analysis button was activated and the model evaluated glare from various sun angles at 1- minute intervals throughout the year to predict if glare could be observed by the sensitive receptors. The model indicated no potential for glare among the two routes seen in Figure 3 (Figure 4). Glint & Glare Mitigation and Vegetative Screening The ForgeSolar glare analysis tool accounts for many variables, including elevation, kW power, reflective coatings, etc., but it does not account for existing vegetation. The proposed project is surrounded by a mix of existing natural screening that consists of mature trees and thick bushes. The existing vegetation would essentially eliminate the potential for glint and glare completely. CPG will not be removing any of this existing vegetation. Glint is typically defined as a momentary flash of bright light, often caused by a reflection off a moving source. Atypical example of glint is a momentary solar reflection from a moving car. Glare is defined as a continuous source of bright light. Glare is generally associated with stationary objects, which, due to the slow relative movement of the sun, reflect sunlight for a longer duration. The difference between glint and glare is duration. Industry -standard glare analysis tools evaluate the occurrence of glare on a minute -by -minute basis; accordingly, they generally refer to solar hazards as 'glare'. The ocular impact of solar glare is quantified into three categories (Ho, 2011): • Green - low potential to cause after -image (flash blindness) • Yellow -potential to cause temporary after -image • Red - potential to cause retinal burn (permanent eye damage) These categories assume a typical blink response in the observer however, neither route picked up any glare even without accounting for the existing vegetation that blocks the view from the road to the site from both the front and rear of the facility. Note that retinal burn is typically not possible for PV glare since PV modules do not focus reflected sunlight. Please see CPG's visual impact analysis and line -of -sight analysis (Exhibit 1) for more information on potential viewpoints and potential for glare on neighboring structures and residences. Due to the nature of the glare analysis tool, the existing vegetation that surrounds the site is not calculated into the analysis, therefore excluding a major screened area around the perimeter of property in the glare calculation. To further understand how glare could impact nearby 4 © Community Power Group 2021 Community POWER GROUP Glint and Glare Study residences, we ran a line -of -sight analysis based on the visual analysis of nearby viewsheds, and it demonstrated that there would be little -to -no chance of impact on the residences nearby. PV & Receptor Analysis Results PV array 1 renamed energy output 2, 355.000.0 M(assuming sunny, clear skies) component Green glare (min) Anaee. Ro.1 0 Rome'. Rode 2 0 No glare band PV array 2 EMF President energy adpd- 2,356,000 0 M (assuming sunnt, dear skies) cmnparent Green glare (min) Rode'. Rome 0 Route: Rode2 0 No glare(oand PV array 3 paraded energy output 2,354,0000 M(assuming sunny, dear skies) compomnt Green glare (min) Rode: gone 0 Rode: Rode2 0 No glare Arend °V array and receptor Yellowglam(min) 0 0 Yellow glare(min) 0 0 yellow glare (min) 0 0 Figure 4—Glare analysis results for both route receptors v lJ V 5 © Community Power Group 2021 Special Use Permit Application Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities Albemarle County, VA Community POWER GROUP Applicant: Community Power Group, LLC 4636 Connecticut Ave #42729 Washington, DC 20015 February 2021 Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities - SUP Application Exhibit O: Impact on Adjacent Property Values Page 22 of 30 Ivy Landfill Solar Farm — Property Value Impact Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities project is a 3 Megawatt (MWac) proposed solar project comprised of three 1 MW facilities located at 4576 Dick Woods Road, Charlottesville VA 22903. The facility will use solar photovoltaic technology and fixed tilt ground mounted racking. The project will cover less than 15 acres of the existing capped landfill area. In determining if the solar facility will have any impact on the value of adjacent properties, CPG turned to a Property Value Impact Analysis prepared by Christian P. Kaila & Associates ("Kaila & Associates") in connection with the Round Hill Solar facility ("Round Hill") that is located In Stuarts Draft, Virginia in Augusta County. As noted in the Round Hill study, the primary basis for Kaila & Associates' determination of "No Value Impact" was a literature review of existing studies regarding the effect of solar installations on adjoining properties, as well as an assessment of the subject Round Hill project proposal. To support the notion that the results of the Round Hill Value Impact study is applicable to the Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities Project we noted the following comparisons: • The facility uses similar panel technologies • The Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities Project, at less than 20 acres, is less than 2 % the size of the 886-acre Round Hill project • The Round Hill solar facility is will utilize 10 parcels with many neighbors while the Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities project has fewer neighbors and significant more existing vegetation for screening. The Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities project is also more environmentally friendly by utilizing a previously -developed site than a proposed solar facility on a greenfield. We highlight these points to support our summary assertion that the Property Impact Analysis of Round Hill Solar study indicating that it will have no impact on the value of adjacent properties is applicable to the Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities project. The following map shows the proposed location of the Ivy Landfill Solar facilities and the location of nearby residential properties. J Community ROWER mu Page 1 Private and Confidential Ivy Landfill Solar Farm — Property Value Impact Study As shown in this diagram, only two homes are within 1,000 feet of the proposed solar facilities, and there are several residential homes within 2,000 feet of the proposed solar facilities. Because of this distance and the existing significant vegetation, it is unlikely that any nearby homes would be able to view the proposed facilities, thus having little impact on property value. 1. Additional Information The following is a representative picture of the racking and solar panels to be used on the project. The following provides an overview of the general placement of the Ivy Landfill and Round Hill Projects: LvILkn fill I r F iliti it Plan J Community Page 2 Private and Confidential Ivy Landfill Solar Farm - Property Value Impact Study 2. Property Impact Analysis of Round Hill Solar See attached. Community Page 3 Private and Confidential PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS Of Round Hill Solar Proposed Solar Power Plant Guthrie Road, Stuarts Draft, Augusta County, Virginia For Louis Iannone Site Acquisition and Development Strata Solar, LLC 800 Tylor Street, Suite 200 Durham, North Carolina 27701 DATE OF ANALYSIS June 5, 2020 BY Christian P. Kaila & Associates 6320 Five Mile Center Park, Suite 323 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22407 June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 1 Christian P. Kaila & Associates Real Estate Consultants 6320 Five Mile Centre Park, Suite 323 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22407 Phone: (540) 786-2198 Fax: (540) 786-9652 Email: kailakbestapraisal.com June 16, 2020 Louis Iannone Site Acquisition and Development Strata Solar, LLC 800 Tylor Street, Suite 200 Durham, North Carolina 27701 RE: Round Hill Solar Impact Study Solar Electric Power Plant Guthrie Road, Stuarts Draft, Augusta County, Virginia Dear Mr. Iannone: At your request, I have considered the impact of a solar farm proposed to be constructed on approximately 886 acres located in the area around Guthrie Road (SR 652), Churchmans Mill Road (SR 651), Whitehill Road (SR 64) and Tinkling Spring Road (SR 608) in Stuarts Draft, Augusta County, Virginia. The purpose of the report is to provide our professional opinion on whether the proposed solar farm will have any impact on adjoining property values and whether "the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located". To form an opinion on these issues we have researched and visited the proposed solar farm in Augusta County, Virginia an existing solar farm in Louisa County, a solar farm under construction in Louisa County and existing solar farms in Essex County, VA & Westmoreland County VA. We have researched articles and other published studies and interviewed real estate professionals and county assessors & planners who are active in the market where solar farms are located or planned to gain an understanding of market perceptions. I have not been asked to assign any value to any specific property. June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 Based on my analysis of the neighborhood and properties surrounding the proposed solar site, and my analysis of other existing solar farms in similar locations, it is our professional opinion that the proposed solar electric power plant will not adversely affect the value of adjoining or abutting property. It is also my professional opinion that the location and character of the solar facility, if developed according to the plan as proposed, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located. This letter is a limited report of a real property appraisal consulting assignment and subject to the limiting conditions attached to this letter. My client is Strata Solar, LLC represented to me by Louis Iannone. My findings support the use of the subject area for utility scale solar. The effective date of this consultation is June 5, 2020. Respectfully submitted, Christian P. Kaila, MAI, SRA Appraiser Certified General Real Estate Appraiser Appraiser License Number 4001 000099 George J. Finley, MAI Staff Appraiser Certified General Real Estate License Number 4001 015808 June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 Standards and Methodology As licensed appraisers, we must adhere to certain professional standards so that any statement on property value must be substantiated with support or evidence so that no conclusion or statement made by me, when speaking on property values, is misleading or false. As stated in my certification, the statements made in this report are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I can cite specific reports or resources where I have obtained supporting evidence. Unlike real estate agents who are not licensed as appraisers, I must not make statement based on unsupported claims, bias, or emotions. Our research is both from primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are my firsthand accounts of actual studies or interviews we have conducted. Secondary sources are studies from other appraisers or those knowledgeable on the subject of solar farms and property values. We conducted this analysis using the standards and practices established by the Appraisal Institute, and that conform to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The analyses and methodologies contained in this report are accepted by all major lending institutions, and they are used in Virginia and across the country as the industry standard by certified appraisers conducting appraisals, market analyses, or impact studies and are considered adequate to form an opinion of the impact of a land use on neighboring properties. Determining what is an External Obsolescence The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6t' Edition defines external obsolescence as a type of depreciation; a diminution in value caused by negative external influences and generally incurable on the part of the owner, landlord, or tenant. The external influence may be either temporary or permanent. An external obsolescence is a use of property that, because of its characteristics, might have a negative impact on the value of adjacent or nearby properties because of identifiable impacts. Determining whether a use would be considered an external obsolescence requires studies that isolates that use, eliminates any other causing factors, and then studies the sales of nearby versus distant comparable properties. The presence of one or a combination of key factors does not mean the use will be an external obsolescence, but a combination of these factors tends to be present when market data reflects that a use is an external obsolescence. June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 External obsolescence is evaluated by appraisers based on several factors. These factors include but are not limited to: # Type Examples Solar Farm 1 Traffic This is a very common example of Solar Farms do not generate traffic external obsolescence because we can see it in virtually every community to some extent. Homes on busy corners, on main streets or near freeways suffer from extra noise and traffic, both of which are not friendly to higher values 2 Odor Such as construction of a landfill Solar farms do not produce odor next to a neighborhood: This can impact the entire neighborhood (not just one house) due to the smell. 3 Noise Setting up commercial properties in Solar fauns generate no noise concerns a residential area also contributes to and are silent at night. declining property values. Commercial buildings may accommodate different types of businesses, such as restaurants, casinos, night clubs, etc. The establishments expose residents to high noise levels, which force most tenants to vacate the neighborhoods. 4 Environmental Toxic materials and conditions, such Solar fauns do not produce toxic or as chemical spills, mine tailings, hazardous waste or contain hazardous nuclear waste, and a host of materials or substances. NCDEQ does industrial substances harmful to life not consider the panels to be and health. And in the case of impervious surfaces that impede poultry farms: animal waste. groundwater absorption or cause runoff. A report from George Washington University stated that although thin film photovoltaics do contain some heavy metals, including cadmium, numerous studies have found that these metals do June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 5 not leach from the modules into the environment under normal conditions or anticipated accidents such as stone damage or fires. And that while generating electricity, a solar panel produces no emissions or waste. 5 Light The inappropriate or excessive use Solar panels are designed to absorb light, of artificial light — known as light pollution — can have serious environmental consequences for humans, wildlife, and our climate. Components of light pollution include: • Glare — excessive brightness that causes visual discomfort • Skyglow — brightening of the night sky over inhabited areas • Light trespass — light falling where it is not intended or needed • Clutter — bright, confusing and excessive groupings of light sources and accordingly reflect only a small amount of the sunlight that falls on them. Solar farms are completely dark at night. Other factors. Based upon the appraiser's research there are no features of solar farms that prevents or impedes neighbors from fully using their homes, farms or forestland for the use intended. June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 Proposed Use Description The proposed solar farm is to be constructed on approximately 886 acres located in the area around Guthrie Road (SR 652), Churchmans Mill Road (SR 651), Whitehill Road (SR 64) and Tinkling Spring Road (SR 608) in Stuarts Draft, Augusts County, Virginia. Tax Mau ID Acres Owner Owner Address 75-8 207.980 Dennis Lee Bradley SR & etal Trustee P.O. Box 1038, Stuarts Draft VA 75-2D 9.020 E. Allen Jr or Linda S. Bocock 12979 State Route 273 E Rushylvania OH 75-5 251.130 E. Allen Jr or Linda S. Bocock 12979 State Route 273 E Rushylvania OH 754A 236.525 E. Allen Jr or Linda S. Bocock 12979 State Route 273 E Rushylvania OH 754C 3.100 E. Allen Jr or Linda S. Bocock 12979 State Route 273 E Rushylvania OH 75-4E 3.240 E. Allen Jr or Linda S. Bocock 12979 State Route 273 E Rushylvania OH 75-6 95.241 E. Allen Jr or Linda S. Bocock 12979 State Route 273 E Rushylvania OH 74-139Y1 29.523 E. Allen Jr or Linda S. Bocock 12979 State Route 273 E Rushylvania OH 74-139Y 38.008 E. Allen Jr or Linda S. Bocock 12979 State Route 273 E Rushylvania OH 075-9E 12.556 E. Allen Jr or Linda S. Bocock 12979 State Route 273 E Rushylvania OH 886.32 June 2020 Christian A Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 7 Preliminary Site Plan t f� I 1 •v° u .s E` ' E9111111ilii1g191p1imiiig 1 !H111 Ig�� I�IEi i l + i i i i `1� 11119 , ,, + ggg Egg E i ii o.6;1 E i1i� EjlgEisE 11 g � 1 ' g i ' � II { i +ill i � i• ,� �si1; I , � aij! � E �; gq°� IE E 'i13! i • • 1 June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 8 Adjoining Properties The adjoining land parcels are a mix of agricultural and rural residential uses. • The majority of the land adjacent to the proposed solar farm is farmland. • There are approximately 19 single-family residences, 10 vacant parcels, 2 commercial structures and 1 church that are either adjoining the subject parcels or are on opposite sides of the street. The homes are on individual lots of one acre or more and are not part of any HOA. • Of the 32 adjoining parcels, five are owned by the same landowners that are seeking to lease their land for the solar farm and one is owned by the Augusta County Landfill Trust. Tax Map ED Owner Property Address Acres Comments 75-7C Anne Ait-Rotenberry 1401 Guthrie Rd 1.237 2,291 SF House 75-7 Gary or Crystal Bradley 1445 Guthrie RD 6.463 3,112 SF House 75-713 Peggy Morgan & Donna Hawkins 47 Brookside Ln 1.733 2,094 SF House 75-6A Richard or Sue Mvers 109 Brookside Ln 16.573 2.921 SF House 75-15 Shyla Mae Ipsen 2011 Tinkling Spring Rd 4.638 25,908 SF Commercial 75-14 Maynard or Shirley Miller 194 Yoder Cir 88.938 2,270 sf house 75-917 Jerry or Sheri Shipman 67 Brenneman Dr 5.185 1,721 SF House 75-9G David or Katie Ding N/A 3.961 Vacant Land 75-911 Anna or Byron Brenneman N/A 4.473 Vacant Land 75-9J Julia Asetha & Ireland Brenneman N/A 4.121 Vacant Land 75-513 E. Allen or Linda Bocock N/A 1.893 Vacant Land 75-9C Casey & Christina Fitzgerald 565 Churchman Mill Rd 1.712 1,740 SF House 74-139K Benjamin & Mary Elizabeth McDonald 1214 White Hill Rd 2.426 3,052 SF House 74-139J Charles or Maureen Varner 1204 White Hill Rd 1.705 1,540 SF House 74-136 William Arehart 1205 White Hill Rd 10.155 1,267 SF House 74-139F Allen Weikert 1183 White Hill Rd 1.099 1,672 SF House 74-139G Carol Demacio 1811 White Hill Rd 1.45 1,480 SF House 74-139H James or Jackie Burke 1159 White Hill Rd 1.16 1,679 SF House 74-139R Dawn Evans 1149 White Hill Rd 1.82 2,995 SF House 74-139S E. Allen or Linda Bocock N/A 8.579 Vacant Land 74-139Z E. Allen or Linda Bocock N/A 44.082 Vacant Land 74-139X E. Allen or Linda Bocock N/A 1.905 Vacant Land 74-139U Darcy or Kasey Knox N/A 8.421 Vacant Land 74-139A E. Allen or Linda Bocock 752 Guthrie Rd 26.811 Vacant Land 74-140 Eduardo Ramirez 796 Guthrie Rd 5.622 1,215 SF House 75-3 Calvary Mennonite Fellowship 1012 Guthrie Rd 1.885 2,453 SF Church 75-413 Larry Awkard 1036 Guthrie Rd 1 1,248 SF Manuf. Home 74-142 Jesse & Mary Ellen Hershberger 214 Churchman Mill Rd 217.48 4,435 SF House 74-141 Trustees of Augusta County Landfill Land Trust N/A 161.67 Various commercial 75-2 Rufus E. Beachv 1589 Christians Creek Rd 302.86 5,854 House June 2020 Christian A Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 9 Demographics The appraiser analyzed areas within a two-mile, three-mile and four -mile radius from the approximate center of the proposed solar farm. As shown in the following table, the proposed solar farm is located in a largely agrarian area in southwestern Augusta County. Population centers are Staunton to the north, Waynesboro to the west and Stuarts Draft to the south. The annual population growth rate through 2024 within four miles of the subject is expected to be less than 1% �n��• US250 F SK 61'<— onoi• US 11 Business �.2!�25 SR 786 Staunton Park d SR 608 225 VA 254 SR 642 9Cg$ SR 785 U r % StaUOtoO VA 254 I SR 608 U32 81 VA 252 Sate Raub 619 VA 252 • SR 796 SR 60 �2 221 US25D SR 782 87 SR 608 SR 828 &� SR Bt3 olivue 220 • SR 795 J t U9 250 VA 254 Fishemville US 340 SR 635 - 803 S 85 SR 795 R 640 SR W 491 • US 250 (( � Waynesboro Q SR hoe $R643 SR 631 I 1 SR 854 SR Ladd 624 SR 6 U 340 — SR 624 _ US 164 ` SR 39 "�- 1 • 99�ikt 1 213B uarts Draft _ 1 S 9 R 635 624 SR 808 R 639 SR SR SR 63 SR 610 � l , C t / f SR 660 SR 810 _— Sherando $R 81 June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 10 2 miles 3 miles 4 miles Popula-I Summary 2000 Total Populatim J,J o,9C[ lu,J/J 2010 Total Population 3,718 6,758 11,215 2019 Total Population 4,061 7,325 12,272 2019 Group Quarters 8 15 68 2024 Total Population 4,204 7,612 12,725 2019-2024 Annual Rate 0.69% 0.77% 0.73% 2019 Total Daytime Population 2,737 7,690 15,447 Workers Residents Household Summary 2000 Households 2000 Average Household Size 2010 Households 2010 Average Household Size 2019 Households 2019 Average Household Size 2024 Households 2024 Average Household Size 2019-2024 Annual Rate 2010 Families 2010 Average Family Size 2019 Families 2019 Average Family Size 2024 Families 2024 Average Family Size 2019-2024 Annual Rate Housing Unit Summary 2000 Housing Units Owner Occupied Housing Units Renter Occupied Housing Units Vaunt Housing Units 2010 Housing Units Owner Occupied Housing Units Renter Occupied Housing Units 705 3,987 9,275 2,032 3,703 6,172 1,384 2,482 3,995 2.55 2.58 2.58 I,S22 2,724 4,505 2.44 2.48 2.48 1,670 2,954 4,954 2.43 2.47 2.46 1,732 3,072 5,138 2.42 2.47 2.46 0.73% 0.79% 0.73% 1,063 1,933 3,233 2.86 2.89 2.88 1,160 2,083 3,523 2.8S 2.89 2.88 1,200 2,161 3,644 2.8S 2.89 2.88 0.68% 0.74% 0.68% 1,481 2,629 4,226 65.6% 68.8% 71.2% 27.8% 25.6% 23.3% 6.5% 5.6% 5.4% 1,654 2,929 4,849 58.9% 63.4% 67.6% 33.1% 29.6% 25.3% 2019 Housing Units 1,841 3,210 5,384 Owner Occupied Housing Units 54.5% 58.8% 62.8% Renter Occupied Housing Units 36.2% 33.3% 29.2% Vaunt Housing Units 9.3% 8.0% 8.0% 2024 Housing Units Owner Occupied Housing Units Renter Occupied Housing Units Vaunt Housing Units 1,92S 3,367 5,632 54.2% 58.5% 62.7% 35.8% 32.8% 28.6% 10.0% 8.8% 8.8% June 2020 Christian A Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 11 Market Analysis of the Impact on Value from Solar Farms It is my opinion, based on my extensive research and past experience as an expert in property valuation, that there is no consistent negative impact to adjacent property that is attributed to proximity to an adjacent solar farm. There is no evidence that there is any negative impact on neighboring property values, despite unsupported claims to the contrary. The studies that have been done on this issue, that I find to be credible, also conclude and agree that there is no negative impact on property value resulting from proximity to solar farms. The following are resources for my conclusions: 1. Department of Energy: There is an article by Megan Day, with National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy dated February 3, 2016 entitled "Top Five Large - Scale Solar Myths". Myth #4 was about property values. The article concluded that while there are no in-depth studies on impacts of a solar farm on neighboring property values, numerous studies found the impact from wind energy generation on neighboring properties values to be negligible. Because these facilities have turbines which cast shadows and cause light flicker, the impacts from solar farms are anticipated to be less than the impact from wind farms. Communities have opted for mitigation measures to reduce visual impacts of solar farms through the use of vegetative screening, berms, etc. and that solar panels are usually mounted less than 7 feet high. I find this source credible because it is from a governmental agency and not commissioned from a solar company. Also, I am personally familiar with wind turbine affects from my own appraisals, and that solar panels are less offensive, but even the wind turbines were not a cause for a significant negative affect. 2. University of Texas at Austin: This is a May 2018 study titled "An Exploration of Property -Value Impacts Near Utility -Scale Solar Installations". The study surveyed residential assessors across the United States. It encompassed a total of 23 states, including one in Virginia. The results indicate that the majority of respondents believe that proximity to a solar installation has either no impact or a positive impact on home values. The study also found that the assessors who responded to the survey believe that some features of solar facilities may be associated with positive impacts. I also find this source credible because it is from an academic institution with no ties to either side of the debate. June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 12 3. Patricia McGarr MAI Studies: I have read four different studies by Patricia McGarr, MAI dated May, August & December 2018 and one from May 2020. All have concluded no consistent negative impact has occurred to adjacent property that could be attributed to proximity to the adjacent solar farm. I found the McGarr reports to be credible and specific. The following are some excerpts from her reports: In total, we analyzed 15 adjoining property sales in Test Areas and 63 comparable sales in Control Areas, collectively, for the Grand Ridge Solar Farm, Portage Solar Farm, Dominion Indy III Solar Farm, IWA Frankton Solar Farm, and the Valparaiso Solar Farms over the past six years. We note that proximity to the solar farms has not deterred sales of nearby agricultural land and residential single- family homes, nor has it impacted the development of new homes. No empirical evidence evolved that indicated a more favorable real estate impact on the Control Area Sales as compared to the adjoining. Test Area Sales with regard to such market elements as: 1. Range of sale prices 2. Differences in unit sale prices 3. Conditions of sale 4. Overall marketability We have also reviewed published methodology for measuring impact on property values as well as published studies that specifically analyzed the impact of solar farms on nearby property values. We have also interviewed market participants including Township Assessors, to give us additional insight as to how the market evaluates farmland and single-family homes with views of the solar farm. These studies found little to no measurable and consistent difference in value between the eTest Area Sales and the Control Area Sales attributed to the proximity to solar farms and are generally considered a compatible use. Considering all of this information, we can conclude that since the Adjoining Property Sales (Test Area Sales) for the existing solar farms analyzed were not adversely affected by their proximity to solar farms, that properties surrounding other solar farms operating in compliance with all regulatory standards with similarly not be adversely affected, in either the short or long term periods. June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 13 There are several properties that, while not adjacent to the subject's proposed solar site, are situated on land that is elevated from the surrounding countryside and may have a view overlooking the solar panels. A May 2020 study by Patricia McGarr, MAI for a proposed solar farm in Hawaii included a paired sale analysis of a high-rise condominium complex where the upper floors have views over the solar panels. The sales analyzed consisted of seven sales, that face toward the solar faun, on the top three floors. The findings indicated that there was no negative impact to property values due to the construction and completion of the solar faun. 4. Richard Kirkland, MAI Studies: • The appraiser has reviewed three impact studies for solar farms in the Shenandoah Valley that were done by Richard Kirkland, MIA. One was October 23, 2018 study done for Community Energy for a proposed solar farm in Augusta County. Two were November 30, 2018 studies for proposed solar farms in Page County, done for the County of Page. All three Kirkland studies concluded there would be no impact to home values due to the proposed adjacent solar projects as well as no impacts to adjacent residential or agricultural land and the proposed use would be in harmony with the land. a. The Augusta County project was rejected by the Augusta Board of Supervisors. The main issue was that much of the land was located within an area of the primary settlement boundary where public utilities are available, and the planned use is for commercial or industrial development. b. One of the Page County projects was approved, and one was rejected. According to zoning administrator Tracey Clatterback the determining issues were size and location. The Dogwood Project was approved. At 360 acres it was smaller and located in a lightly populated area in the southern part of the County. c. The Cape Solar Project, located just north of Luray, was rejected. It was 566 acres and located near to residential neighborhoods and tourist sites. • In the past two years Culpeper County has considered proposals for three solar farms. Impact analyses on all three proposed solar farms were done by Richard Kirkland, MAI. First was a March 2018 report June 2020 Christian A Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 14 for a 465-acre project located near Teleios Lane. The second was a March 2018 report for a 1,000-acre project located south of Stevensburg: known as the Greenwood Solar Project. The third was an October 2018 report for a 1,335-acre project located along Algonquin Trail known as the Cricket Solar project. All three Kirkland studies concluded there would be no impact to home values due to the proposed adjacent solar projects as well as no impacts to adjacent residential or agricultural land. a. The project along Teleios Lane was rejected by the Culpeper Board of Supervisors because it was deemed to be too near to historically significant sites. b. The Greenwood Solar Project was approved by the Board of Supervisors in October 2018 by a 3-2 vote. c. The proposed Cricket Solar Project plan was withdrawn by the solar company in August 2019. • A recent study, dated March 3, 2020, was conducted for a proposed solar farm in Louisa County, Virginia. It was for the Belcher III Solar Farm near Waldrop Church Road. The findings of this study also concluded that there is no impact to home values due to the adjacent solar project. This study did include matched pair analysis from two completed solar farms in Virginia plus an analysis of the sale of a historic home adjacent to a solar farm. In all the cases it was determined that there was no impact on property values from being adjacent to a solar farm. a. The first matched pair from Clarke County Solar in Clarke County VA indicated that there was a positive value for being adjacent to a solar farm. b. The second matched pair from Walker -Correctional Solar, Barham Road, Barhamsville VA indicated no difference in value. Additionally, the buyer indicated that the privacy from being next to a solar farm was viewed as a positive. Note: the property closed for more than the asking price. c. There was an analysis of a sale of an historical home adjoining the Walker -Correctional Solar. The listing agent for the property was interviewed. It was stated that solar farm was not visible from the house and the solar faun had no impact on the marketing of the property. June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 15 Note: I found both the McGarr and Kirkland research to be very credible due to the number of matched pairs of control sales and target sales adjacent to existing solar farms. The match sales methodology is the primary method to determine potential impact on adjoining property values. Paired Data Analysis is outlined in the "The Appraisal of Real Estate" published by the Appraisal Institute. This method is more greatly defined into sub -methods in "Real Estate Damages" by Randall Bell, PhD, MAI, also published by the Appraisal Institute. 5. County Planners & Real Estate Assessors' Data: There were many real estate assessment offices and planners consulted and interviewed concerning this issue of solar farm impact on values. Not one of them reported a negative impact. • Culpeper County. Of particular local note were the findings from Sam McLearen, CZA, CTM, CFM, Director of Planning and Zoning in Culpeper, and their County Assessor, Jason Kilby who concluded there was not enough data available from comparable sales to conclude an impact. Five (5) other assessors were also contacted by Mr. Kilby, who was asked by the Culpeper BOS to conduct their own private study. There was no conclusive evidence. • Louisa County. The appraiser spoke with Tom Egland & Andy Wade with the Louisa County Community Development Department and Richard Gasper, the Louisa County Assessor. Louisa County has an existing solar farm, one that is presently under construction and applications for three others. Richard Gasper indicated that there has been no evidence to indicate any impact on property values. • Augusta County. The appraiser spoke with Leslie Tate, the planner for Augusta County. There has been one previous proposal for a solar farm that was ultimately rejected by the Board of Supervisors. According to Ms. Tate, the primary reasons for not approving the solar farm was that much of the area under consideration was within a primary settlement boundary, where public utilities were available. The Board of Supervisors intended the land for more intensive uses. June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 16 • Page County. The Appraiser spoke with Tracey Clatterbuck, the zoning administrator for Page County. Page County had applications for two solar fauns. One was approved and one was rejected. The difference in the two, according to Ms. Clatterbuck was size and location. The project that was approved was the smaller of the two and was in a more rural area of the County with few neighbors. The other was larger and located near to Luray, close to tourist areas, and adjacent to residential subdivisions. Page County currently has a moratorium on accepting new solar faun applications until new ordinances governing the development of solar farms is added to the County code. • Clarke County. The planning director, Brandon Stidham was interviewed. According to Mr. Stidham there was no issue in obtaining the Special Use Permit. The land where the solar farm is located was marginal for agricultural, it had been used as an unofficial dump, and there were no conservation easements or historical sites nearby. Because of the dump, the neighboring properties viewed a solar farm as an improvement. • Shenandoah County. County planner, Tyler Hinkle was interviewed. There is a proposal for a 200-acre solar farm near Edinburg. Discussion was put on hold until the County established an ordinance governing the development, maintenance, and decommissioning of a solar farm. The application was pulled, however, Shenandoah County did enact a solar ordinance. Mr. Hinkle stated that he has not seen any studies that showed a negative impact from solar farms; everything he read indicated a neutral to positive impact. Two other solar farms with similar locational characteristics were identified; one in Essex County and one in Westmoreland County. • Essex County. The Essex County assessor, Thomas M. Blackwell, was interviewed. According to the Mr. Blackwell there is no data available to support any impact on neighboring parcels. Mr. Blackwell attributed this to the rural nature of the surrounding area where there are generally few sales. Mr. Blackwell said that Essex June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 17 County will soon be undergoing a re -assessment, and, because of the lack of sales, he expects that there would be no effect on the reassessment values. Mr. Blackwell also said that, when considering approval for the solar faun, the County had received no objections from the general population. • Westmoreland County. The Commissioner of Revenue, Carol Gawen, and the solar farm's property owner, Gary Sisson, were interviewed. The next reassessment for Westmoreland County is scheduled for 2022. Ms. Gawen indicated that the majority of the land surrounding the solar farm is family owned and for that reason she does not think that there will be any sales to support an impact to property values. Ms. Gawen did say that, after the solar farm was constructed, the land was taken out land -use and is now being taxed at its full assessed value. Gary Sisson, the landowner for the Westmoreland County solar farm was contacted. He said that there was no objection for neighbors to the solar farm (he also owns much of the adjoining land and had no objection to a solar farm being next to his other properties). There were no complaints from any other neighbors and there have been no issues since the solar farm became operational. Mr. Sisson also stated the he had no issue in getting a special use permit approved. 6. Negative Impact Studies: I have researched long and hard to find a study that concluded that there was a negative impact from solar fauns on property values, especially in light of comments from this opposition to the Spotsylvania sPower Project. Alfred King, who wrote one of several negative editorials in The Free Lance -Star stated, "all the evidence points to a diminution of property values in areas contiguous to planned facilities". I interviewed Mr. King who directed me to the webpage of Concerned Citizens of Spotsylvania County, where the most vocal opposition to the Spotsylvania solar farm comes from. Although I did not find the evidence, I was emailed a study from Kathleen Haden and Mr. King that was written by Fred Beck, MAI, CCIM. His report on a solar faun proposed in Lincoln County, North Carolina was written in 2013. Mr. Beck concluded that a contract fell through because of the announcement of a solar farm and that his research showed property values of higher priced homes were negatively affected. He also concluded that assessments in a nearby county June 2020 Christian A Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 18 were reduced 30%. I read the report and concluded that the Beck Report was outdated, weak, and showed no credible evidence to support his conclusions. In fact, Mr. Beck concluded no effect on moderate priced homes values, and only a 5% change in his limited research of higher priced homes. His one sale that fell through is hardly a reliable sample. It also was misleading on Mr. Beck's part to report the lower re -assessments since the primary cause of the re -assessments were based on the County Official, who lived adjacent to the solar farm, appeal to the assessor for reductions with his own home. Therefore, it appears the only evidence provided by those opposed to solar farms because of claims of lower property values are unsupported and lack real evidence. 7. Personal Interviews: In addition to the County individuals interviewed about solar farms, we interviewed Richard Kirkland, MAI, Patricia McGarr, MAI, Sam McLearen, Culpeper Planner and Nancy Sorrells from the Alliance for Shenandoah County. • Mr. Kirkland stated to me that he had studied the impact of solar farms on neighboring property values for over 10 years and had collected a large database of paired sales which indicate no measurable impact on property value. Mr. Kirkland was also very familiar with the Beck Study which was the only study which suggested a negative influence. Mr. Kirkland cited several flaws and lack of evidence in the Beck Study. • Mr. McLearen, Culpeper Planner, stated that other uses permitted by zoning and the comprehensive plans of most counties in Virginia would be more intrusive to land use and cause more of a financial strain on the county budget, such as residential subdivisions. The appraiser, Chris Kaila, as a former Chairman of the Spotsylvania Economic Development Authority for Spotsylvania County, agrees with Mr. McLearen that the solar project by sPower was an economic benefit to Spotsylvania County and that the real estate taxes could go down instead of up. • Patricia McGann, MAI, who has specialized in valuation impact studies for over 30 years was interviewed by the appraiser. Ms. McGann has performed numerous studies on solar farms, as well as valuation impacts from sanitary landfills, wind turbines, and other possible contaminated or stigmatized properties. Ms. McGann stated June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 19 solar farms are what most localities are seeking in clean industry because they generate tax revenue without putting demands on services that residential developments place on localities. Her studies on solar farms were, like Mr. Kirkland's, supported by matched pair sales "before" and "after" the solar farms were built. • I also interviewed Fred Beck, MAI, who wrote the only resource stating a negative effect. Mr. Beck cited the one contract and buyer who backed out and would not buy because of the faun. This was his primary evidence. Mr. Beck explained the homes were higher priced homes and had full view of the solar farm. I explained the project that I was analyzing in Spotsylvania County was being designed with screening so that the solar faun would not be in full view to adjoining property owners. Mr. Beck said in that case, he would not see any drop in property value. • Nancy Sorrells works for the Alliance for the Shenandoah County. She is a former Augusta County Board of Supervisor and also served on Augusta County's Solar Committee. She is also on the board of the Augusta County Historical Society. Because of the number of applications for utility scale solar in the Shenandoah Valley, the Alliance has created a set of considerations and best -practices to help Valley localities think through potential issues and develop their local response to project proposals. Based upon our discussion, of major importance to citizens is that there be adequate buffering. Ms. Sorrells, like Sam McLaren, did point out that other by right uses such a poultry farm, nursery or residential would be more intrusive on the view from public roadways & public lands than utility scale solar. This is similar to some comments from Shenandoah Valley County officials where residents seemed more concerned with the view rather than property values. Another main point that came from the discussion was the importance of a thorough decommissioning plan. Also, Ms. Sorrells is not aware of any historically significant sites on, or near, to the subject. 8. Real Estate Agent Opinions: As both an appraiser and a real estate agent/broker, I am aware of the difference in their opinion on property values. Appraisers must be careful to site their opinion under penalty of losing their license for lack of support of their professional opinions. Licensed appraisers are recognized by the courts as experts of property June 2020 Christian A Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 20 values. As I stated previously, I have qualified as an expert on property values in many jurisdictions in the state of Virginia. Real estate agents, on the other hand, are not qualified by the courts as experts on value. Agents can attest to marketability and certain selling features; however, an appraiser is better at values. Statements made on this issue concerning lost contracts and other negative results from sales contracts falling out offer no evidence on how property values may be affected. In fact, I believe that it is certainly possible that the lost contracts may have resulted by the agents own negative statements and the negative claims that are not supported that actually cause potential buyers to change their mind about purchasing a property adjacent to a solar farm. These decisions are based on allegations, not actual knowledge of credible studies. The appraiser discussed the sale of a house located in Fawn Lake, Spotsylvania County VA with the selling agent, Ed Duggan. The property is a home near to the solar farm that is currently under construction by S- Power. The house, located at 10905 Cobble Run, sold on January 7, 2020 for $540,000. According to Mr. Duggan, his clients were aware of the solar farm that is being built and it was not an issue. It also did not figure into any of the negotiations. It had been originally listed on 7/23/2019 with an asking price of $590,000 and was put under contract on 11/5/2019 & sold for $540,000. The property was assessed at $536,200. June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 21 Development Patterns The proposed solar farm is located in the southwestern part of Augusta County and is near to the town of Stuarts Draft and the City of Waynesboro. The area surrounding the subject is primarily agricultural. There are some residential but no subdivisions. Based upon the appraiser's interviews with Augusta County there are no nearby sites of historical significance. As with the subject, the adjoining and neighboring parcels are zoned GA; General Agricultural. The subject is outside of the Urban Service Area Boundary. There are sections of the subject that are within the Community Development Area Boundary which the County's Comprehensive Plan identifies for a future use as Low Density Residential. In 2018 Augusta County's Zoning Ordinance was amended to include Solar Energy Systems. Chapter 25. Zoning. Division A. In General. Article VI.D. Other Counties in the Shenandoah Valley have already adopted similar ordinances or are in the process of developing one. The area is primarily farmland. The appraiser estimates that there are approximately 19 residential lots either adjacent to, or on the opposite side of the street from the proposed solar farm. Because of the zoning, there are no subdivision developments; all the homes are built on private lots not subject to any HOA. The subject is a proposed solar farm. There are only a couple recorded residential sales in the area. It is the appraiser's opinion that there is insufficient local information to determine any effect on property values because the subject solar farm has not be approved or built yet. Refer to the table below. Residential # Tax Map Location Sale Date Sale Price Home Size $/SF 1 75-116 1594 Tinkling Spring Rd. 10/18/2019 $292,339 2,183 $133.92 2.38 Acres 2 75-44A 2390 Tinkling Spring Rd 4/11/2019 $366,800 2,200 $166.73 3.21 Acres June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 22 Jo Ilk A � V S tivv°i The Subject is Outside of the Urban Service Area (Red) Sections of the Subject are within the Community Development Area (Orange) Conclusion: The land around the subject is largely agrarian and rural residential. The subject area is likely to retain its rural characteristics for the foreseeable future. It is outside of the Stuarts Draft urban services area but is partially within the County's planning area. It is the appraiser's opinion that the G-A zoning, lack of public utilities, the slow population growth in the area, and the availability of land within the USA will help ensure that there will be no demand for large-scale residential development in the subject's location. Industrial and commercial development will be located on the southern end of Stuarts Draft where there is zoning for industrial & commercial uses. June 2020 Christian A Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 24 Specific Factors on Harmony with the Area In addition to determining the impact on adjoining property values, the appraiser was also asked to determine whether "the location and character of the use, if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved, will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located". Studies have indicated that the most common areas for impact on adjoining properties are those shown in the following table. Each of these categories and how they relate to a solar farm will be discussed. # Catego 1 Hazardous Materials 2 Odor 3 Noise 4 Traffic 5 Stielma 6 Appearance 1. Hazardous material PV modules are constructed with the solar cells laminated into polymers and the minute amounts of heavy metals used in some panels cannot mix with water or vaporize into the air. Even in the case of module breakage, there is little to no risk of chemicals releasing into the environment. The most common type of PV panel is made of tempered glass, which is quite strong. They pass hail tests and are regularly installed in Arctic & Antarctic conditions. Only in the event of a sufficiently hot fire is there a slight chance that chemicals could be released. Most residential fires are not hot enough to melt PV components.' 2. Odor Numerous articles researched for this report indicate that solar farms do not create any odors or output any chemicals. 3. Noise Temporary elevated noise levels can be expected during the construction phase of a solar farm from truck and vehicle traffic, earth -moving equipment, and other construction 1 "Clean Energy Results, Questions and Answers, Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Systems " Energy Center, June 2015. http://www.mass.goy/eea/docs/doer/renewables/solar/solar-ov-guide.pdf June 2020 Christian A Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 25 equipment or infrastructure. The duration of the construction phase is dependent upon the generating capacity of the solar farm and generally ranges from 6 months to one year. During this period, the site is an active construction zone and noise can result and emanate off the site, particularly from the driving of posts into the ground for panel mounting. Once operational, ground mounted solar PV array inverters and transformers make a humming noise during daytime, when the array generates electricity. At 50 to 150 feet from the boundary of the arrays, any sound from the inverters is inaudible.' Whether discussing passive fixed solar panels, or single -axis trackers, there is no negative impact. The appraisers visited the solar farms in Louisa, Westmoreland & Essex Counties and stood along the side of the roads. No noise from the solar farms could be heard. The appraiser also visited the solar farm under construction off of Waldrup Church Road in Louisa County. The construction activity was far enough from the road such that no noise could be discerned, however, there were intermittent trucks entering & leaving the site. It was the appraiser's impression that this had no impact on the neighboring properties. 4. Traffic The proposed solar farm is in an agricultural area of Augusta County and is generally accessible by small, narrow two-lane country roads. Guthrie Road is an unpaved gravel road. During the appraiser's inspection, around mid -morning there was virtually no traffic along any of the roads and, as mentioned earlier, the area is lightly populated. Traffic along tow roads around the subject, Tinkling Spring Road and Whitehill Road, are more used routes, but traffic was still light. The completed solar farm will have no onsite staff. There will be scheduled maintenance; planned in advance and aimed at fault prevention and unscheduled maintenance; carried out in response to failures. It is the appraiser's opinion that the traffic due to maintenance activity will be insignificant. 2 Ibid June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 26 ■ Roads in Subject's Area Guthrie Road Churchmans Mill Road June 2020 Christian A Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 27 5. Stigma The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6' Edition define stigma as: An adverse public perception regarding a property, commonly the identification of a property with a condition such as environmental contamination or other detrimental condition, such as a violent crime, that penalizes the marketability of the property and may also result in a diminution in value. While homeowners adjacent to proposed solar farms may voice concerns about the effect of a solar farm may have on their property's marketability & value, the research the appraisers have studied show that solar farms do not adversely impact neighboring properties. Therefore, there is no basis for an impact from stigma due to a solar farm. 6. Appearance The parcels where the proposed solar farm is to be located is zoned GA — General Agricultural. A large solar power facility is allowable with a special exception permit. In 2018 Augusta County adopted an ordinance regulating the development of utility scale solar. Section 25-70.6 of the ordinance outlines the requirements for the appearance of a project site. A copy of the ordinance is included in the addenda. Residents and community officials often cite glare or blinding from solar facilities as a primary concern. Most solar farms use PV modules to generate electricity. PV modules use non -reflective glass and are designed to absorb rather than reflect the light that hits the panels in order to convert solar energy into electricity. Photovoltaic panels actually cause less glare than standard home window glass. And research has shown that they reflect less light than snow, white concrete and energy -efficient white rooftops. Solar modules are coated with anti -reflective materials that maximize light absorption. Plus, the panel glass is often stippled, or textured with tiny indentations, to lessen the amount of sunlight that is reflected. Some solar panels are also designed with additional light -trapping properties that help boost energy production while reducing glare. Solar farms are a passive use of the land. And because a solar power facility is an allowable use, with a special exemption permit, it is considered in keeping with the purpose and intent of the G-A, General Agricultural zoning. Additionally, solar farms are comparable to greenhouses, which are allowable with an administrative permit under the current zoning. As mentioned, the solar panels are maximum 15 feet high, which means that the visual impact of the solar panels will be similar in height to a typical greenhouse. June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 28 Greenhouse Aerial As noted earlier in this report, a Department of Energy article concluded that the impact from wind turbines, which are more intrusive than solar farms, have a negligible effect on neighboring properties values. Other Concerns In addition to the above six categories, the appraiser's research has also identified two additional categories that are often raised as areas that should be discussed when considering if a plan is "in harmony with the area in which it is to be located". These are: • Erosion caused by the clearing and grading. • Proximity to historical sites. Erosion Caused by Clearing & Grading The subject is zoned GA General Agricultural. Most of the subject is used for farmland and during the winter months is the land is generally clear of vegetation. The development of a solar farm is a construction project and will be managed in a manner consistent with any other large construction project in the County and will be revegetated. Proximity to Historical Sites Virginia is rich in history. It has been the center of many of our nation's most historic moments; from the founding of the Jamestown Colony, to the Colonial Era & the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War. Concerns are often raised about development in proximity to historical sites and the worry that such development will detract from the solemnity of the site or lessen the experience of the visitors. These concerns are not restricted to solar farms but involve any form of commercial scale development. A solar project in Culpeper was rejected by the June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 29 Board of Supervisors because it was deemed to be too close to an historically significant area. Several years ago, plans for a Walmart in Orange County were changed because the original location was viewed as being too close to the Wilderness Battlefield. Pressure was such that Walmart eventually ended up moving to a site approximately four miles west. Based upon a discussion with the Augusta County Planning Department and Nancy Sorrells from The Alliance for Shenandoah Valley , there are no historic sites either on, or near to the subject site. Notes on By Right Uses Agriculture uses, as deemed by the Augusta County Zoning Ordinance, includes Forestry and Poultry Farms. Forestry Forestry is the science or skill of growing and taking care of trees in forests, especially in order to obtain wood. Therefore, the practice of clear -cutting a forested parcel to harvest the timber is a by -right use of the land. Generally, forested lands are harvested on approximately a 20-year rotation, which means that clear cut conditions are not out of the ordinary, and future clear cuts would be anticipated if the property stays in current land use. The appraiser spoke with Steve Harp, a representative of Pardee Virginia Timber 2 LLC. Pardee owns 1,362 acres for a planned solar project in Culpeper County. The appraiser discussed the process of harvesting timber. For Pardee, timber is harvested on a 15-17 year cycle. Depending on the need, the harvest could involve pine in any given year with an additional harvest of hardwoods 2-3 years later. The land could also be clear-cut for wood pulp. Generally after a clear cut they will let the area sit for several years before treating with an herbicide and then replanting trees. Mr. Harp was asked about soil erosion concerns. He said that it is not an issue. Best practices leave a buffer around streams and care is taken with vehicles not to leave ruts. Also Pardee does not do their own harvesting, they do contract it out. June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 30 View of a Clear Cut (Not Subject Property) Poultry Farms Poultry Farms are where domesticated birds are raised. Poultry include chickens, turkey, ducks, and geese. Chickens are the most common bird raised for both meat and eggs. Several points have been associated with the operation of a poultry farm. • Environmental. There is biological waste; manure & chicken carcasses. • Odor/Pollution: Dust caused by exhaust fans and odor from biological waste. • Insects. Flies and other pests. • Energy Consumption: Poultry house energy gets used for housing and feed. More specifically, this breaks down into five main categories: �. Lighting, which is on 24 hours straight at certain points of flock growth ii. Ventilation— keeping the air circulated Heating in the winter iv. Cooling in the summer V. Feed lines • Industrial level traffic June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 31 Summary: On the basis of the factors described above, it is my professional opinion that the proposed solar farm will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be developed. Conclusion These analyses show no impact in home values due to abutting or adjoining a solar farm as well as no impact to abutting or adjacent vacant residential or agricultural land. The criteria that typically correlates with downward adjustments on property values such as noise, odor, and traffic all indicate that a solar farm is a compatible use for rural areas and that it would function in a harmonious manner with this area. Research of similar solar farms in similar areas have been found not to have a substantial injury to abutting or adjoining properties. This conclusion was proved by matched pairs analysis. Similar solar farms have been approved adjoining agricultural uses, schools, churches, and residential developments. Agricultural uses rarely absorb negative impacts from adjoining uses. Based on the data and analysis in this report, it is my professional opinion that the utility scale solar proposed at the subject property in Augusta County will have no impact on the value of adjoining or abutting property and that the proposed use will be in harmony with the area in which it is planned to be located. Some of the positive implications of a solar farm that have been expressed by people living next to solar farms include protection from future development of residential developments or other more intrusive uses, reduced dust, odor and chemicals from former farming operations, protection from light pollution at night, it is quiet, and there is no traffic. June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 32 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDUIONS 1. The basic limitation of this and any appraisal is that the appraisal is an opinion of value, and is, therefore, not a guarantee that the property would sell at exactly the appraised value. The market price may differ from the market value, depending upon the motivation and knowledge of the buyer and/or seller, and may, therefore, be higher or lower than the market value. The market value, as defined herein, is an opinion of the probable price that is obtainable in a market free of abnormal influences. 2. No responsibility is assumed for legal or title considerations. Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated in this report. 3. The property is appraised free and clear of any or all liens and encumbrances unless otherwise stated in this report. 4. Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed unless otherwise stated in this report. 5. The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable. However, no warranty is given for its accuracy. 6. All engineering is assumed to be correct. Any plot plans and illustrative material in this report are included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property. It is assumed that there are no hidden conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuation. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them. 8. It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws unless otherwise stated in this report. 9. It is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions have been complied with, unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in this appraisal report. 10. It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national governmental or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimates contained in this report are based. 11. Any sketch in this report may show approximate dimensions and is included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. Maps and exhibits found in this report are provided for the reader's reference purposes only. No guarantee as to accuracy is expressed or implied unless otherwise stated in this report. No survey has been made for the purpose of this report. 12. It is assumed that the utilization of the land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless otherwise stated in this report. June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 33 13. The appraiser is not qualified to detect hazardous waste and/or toxic materials. Any such comment by the appraiser that might suggest the possibility of the presence of such substances should not be taken as confirmation of the presence of hazardous waste and/or toxic materials. Such determination would require investigation by a qualified expert in the field of environmental assessment. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea -formaldehyde foam insulation or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The appraisers value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value unless otherwise stated in this report. No responsibility is assumed for any environmental conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The appraiser's descriptions and resulting comments are the result of the routine observations made during the appraisal process. 14. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the subject property is appraised without a specific compliance survey having been conducted to determine if the property is or is not in conformance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The presence of architectural and communications barriers that are structural in nature that would restrict access by disabled individuals may adversely affect the property's value, marketability, or utility. 15. Any proposed improvements are assumed to be completed in good workmanlike manner in accordance with the submitted plans and specifications. 16. The distribution, if any, of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate allocations for land and buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. 17. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and in any event, only with proper written qualification and only in its entirety. 18. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news sales, or other media without prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 34 CERTIFICATION We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and is our personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. 4. We have performed no other services, as an appraiser, or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding the acceptance of this assignment. 5. We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. 6. Our compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. 7. This appraisal was not based on a required minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan. 8. Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 9. We have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. 10. No one provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing this report. 11. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. 12. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 13. As of the date of this report, Christian P. Kaila & George J. Finley have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. 14. As of the date of this report, George J. Finley has completed the Standards and Ethics Education Requirements of the Appraisal Institute for Designated Members. Respectfully submitted, Christian P. Kaila, MAI, SRA President Certified General Real Estate Appraiser License Number 4001 000099 � George J. Finley, MAI Certified General Real Estate Appraiser State License Number 4001 015808 June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2069 35 Appraiser Licenses C©MI' iON WEALTH of VIRGINIA aawR�aR 13"n WO1 of PFOfMional and OccapalfotW RegWetlon 9pa0 t4.YlaYl nova Saib4IIO,RicMan44'A7J773 RUWiR 10-31-M Tkpbo .laa0 367-M 4001ODDO99 REAL ESTATE APPRAISER BOARD CERTIFIED GENERAL REAL ESTATE APPRAISER CHRISTIAN PAUL KAILA BASIN 10711 TEALVANG COVE FREDERICKSBURG. VA 22407-OODO SYM [M M m:M1M:I nM.OMwW.Jw.. +�9Ml.W� 11iONWEALTH of VIIRGINIA and Occupational Regulation land Oicupati IXpanmea[ of PrxwW witt oflyy eonpa ON D.ssion Dnsional 3233 VA 232J7 YUYBER 10.31-2020 TcI Plw, (AW f .40 K;%a. 400 0015605 REAL ESTATE APPRAISER BOARD CERTIFIED GENERAL REAL ESTATE APPRAISEF eu, , GEORGE JOSEPH FINLEY t , 5818 EAST COPPER MOUNTAIN DRIVE SPOTSYLVANIA, VA 22553 s,aru:w MrM�RMatnRpMww.aporHpw9ov .ass wvcoac.nl .n..r.. rrc.un r.wu•.wv: tR'OG.UC apfpnl June 2020 Christian P. Kaila & Associates, File #C2O69 49 Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities - SUP Application Exhibit P: Economic Impact Analysis Page 23 of 30 Ivy Landfill Solar Farm — Economic Impact Study 1. Executive Summary The purpose of this document is to serve as an Economic Impact Analysis of the proposed solar project at the Ivy Material Utilization Center in Albemarle County, VA. The proposed project developed by Community Power Group LLC ("CPG") in partnership with Rivanna Solid Waste Authority will be comprised of three 1MWac solar facilities located on the capped landfill. At the request of the Albemarle County Zoning Administrator, this report is prepared to detail the expected impacts of the proposed project on the following: • the value of the subject property, • expected construction employment, • expected impact on countys tax revenues, • estimated costs to county in the form of additional services. The solar project on the Ivy landfill is not expected to have any negative impacts on property value. In fact, given that this was previously a landfill with no other alternative uses, the solar should actually increase the value of the property since it will provide the property with long term lease revenue. Regarding employment during the construction phase of the project, CPG expects that a construction crew of 10-15 individuals will be employed for 3-4 months for site mobilization and the installation of the solar panels and equipment. Certified electricians will also be contracted for system wiring up to the interconnection point. The solar facility will not be subject to any real or personal property taxes, as provided in Albemarle County Code Section 15-1303. Lastly, the project is not expected to cause any burden to the County in the form of public service needs or traffic impacts. 2. Property Information The subject property is located in Albemarle County at 4576 Dick Woods Road. The subject property is abutted by Dick Woods Road to the south and Interstate 64 to the north. At its narrowest point, the wooded area between the landfill area and nearby properties is 500 feet wide. © Community Power Group 2021 Ivy Landfill Solar Farm — Economic Impact Study The property is almost completely surrounded by large wooded areas. The neighboring parcels to the west of the property and to the south across Dick Woods Road contain residential homes, but these are obscured from viewing the existing landfill by the vegetation. The proposed project will occupy approximately 13 acres of the subject property, which is 112 acres in total, in the form of three 1MWac solar facilities located in the capped landfill area. © Community Power Group 2021 Ivy Landfill Solar Farm — Economic Impact Study 3. Expected Impact on Subject Property's Value According to the Albemarle County property tax records accessed in January 2021, the Ivy Material Utilization Center has a current assessment value of $2,200,900 as a capped landfill. Other noted existing property improvements include office buildings, material sheds, and repair garages. The property has been a retired landfill for several decades and has limited alternative uses. Various studies have shown that solar facilities have little to no impact on the neighboring property values (See Exhibit O). It is reasonable to predict that solar on a landfill will actually increase the value of the property because it will generate incremental revenue on land that otherwise had no alternative uses. 4. Employment Impact During Construction Phase It is expected that the construction phase for this project to take approximately three to four months after the appropriate building permits have been received. This timeframe includes site mobilization and delivery of materials, installation of facility equipment, and interconnection and inspection. During the construction period, it is expected that local labor will be used for the installation of equipment and preliminary electrical work. A local subcontractor will be hired to accept the materials delivered to the site, place panels and other system equipment, as well as perform initial system wiring. It is expected during the site mobilization and installation phase that a crew of 10-15 individual laborers, a fork-lift driver, and a site foreman will be contracted for this project for approximately 3-4 months. Licensed electricians will also be hired to install wiring into the connector boxes, inverters, and above- ground conduit up to the interconnection point, at which point the electric utility will undertake the interconnection. The electricians will also assist in the final energization of the system. S. Impact on County Tax Revenues Solar facilities have been deemed exempt from local taxation as provided in Virginia Code 58.1-3661 and Albemarle County Code Section 15-1303. 6. Additional Costs to County This proposed solar facility project is not expected to result in any additional costs to the county during its permitting, construction, and operation excepting staff time to review and process this special use permit application, and the appropriate construction permits. In addition to the reasons mentioned above, Community Power Group expects no impact to the following elements of public infrastructure: • This facility will not be connected to any public facilities including public water, stormwater, or sewage. • There will be no traffic impact as a result of the project because the solar facilities do not require onsite staff, and the facility will be serviced twice annually by a crew of 1-2 individuals who may utilize existing public parking on site. 7. Benefits to the County There are several benefits to Albemarle County expected as result of the Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities project. In addition to the wider regional benefits of increasing renewable energy and reducing environmental pollution, the county will receive lease revenue and by utilizing a previously -developed site within the Rural Areas zoning district, surrounding greenfield land and agricultural parcels will not be developed with 3 0 Community Power Group 2021 Ivy Landfill Solar Farm — Economic Impact Study solar and therefore preserved for other uses. In addition, solar facilities help to increase the resilience of local power infrastructure, and serve as a model for sustainable development. 8. Conclusion The proposed solar facilities projects will not have any negative impact on property values, and may have a positive impact on the subject property value. The project will also have several benefits for the surrounding Albemarle County including local employment during construction and operation of the proposed facilities, increasing the resilience of the local electric grid, and increasing the value of the subject property. 4 © Community Power Group 2021 Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities - SUP Application Exhibit Q: Wildlife Impact Report Page 24 of 30 Co m m u n ity Wildlife Impact Report POWER GROUP This report represents the findings of wildlife species within a 3-mile radius of the proposed project site located at 4576 Dick Woods Rd, Charlottesville, VA 22903 prepared by the online VaFWIS Search Report tool. The tool identified several land and aquatic species that are known or likely to occur within a 3-mile radius of the project. It is important to note that the proposed project does not incorporate any hazardous materials, and any stormwater that falls onto the site is channeled into existing on -site stormwater basis. Therefore, no aquatic wildlife species would be affected by the project. Also, due to the nature of the fencing and the character of a ground -mounted solar facility, smaller mammals and wildlife species will be able to pass through the game fencing and migrate through the solar facility fairly easily. The wildlife species search online was accompanied by a review by the Virginia Ecological Services Field Office of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This review determined that there is one species that could be impacted by the project area, the Northern Long-eared Bat, but no critical habitats existing within the project area. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries online Nothern Long-eared bat map confirmed no bat locations or roost trees in the project area. In addition, the Department of Conservation and Recreation's Division of Natural Heritage searched its Biotics Data system for any natural heritage resources within the project area, and no resources have been documented within the project boundary or a 100-foot buffer. © Community Power Group 2020 12/3/2020 VAFWIS Seach Report VaFWIS Search Report Compiled on 12/3/2020, 3:38:56 PM Help Known or likely to occur within a 3 mile radius around point 38.0178889-78.6890278 in 003 Albemarle County, VA View MaMf Site Location 493 Known or Likely Species ordered by Status Concern for Conservation (displaying first 26) (26 species with Status* or Tier I** or Tier II** ) BOVA Code Status* Tier** Common Name Scientific Name 060017 FESE Ia S}Linymussel, James Parvaspina collina 050022 FTST Ia Bat, northern long-eared Myotis septentrionalis 060029 FTST IIa Lancey le low Elliptic, lanceolata 050020 SE Ia 1Da, little brown Myotis lucifugus 050027 SE Ia Bdl, tri-colored Perimyotis subflavus 060006 SE Ib Floater, brook Alasmidonta varicosa 040096 ST Ia Falcon,-pgrggri� Falco peregrinus 040293 ST Ia Shrike,lQgg re head Lanius ludovicianus 060173 FPST Ia Piglgg, Atlantic Fusconaia mason 100155 ST Ia Skigpgr, Appalachian grizzled Pyrgus wyandot 060081 ST IIa Floater,_green Lasmigona subviridis 040292 ST Shrike, migranLlQggtrhtaj Lanius ludovicianus migrans 030063 CC IIIa Tu tlg,-5notted Clemmys guttata 030012 CC IVa Rattlesnake, im r Crotalus horridus 030040 Ia Pinesnake, n rn Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus 040092 Ia Eaglg,_golden Aquila chrysaetos 040306 Ia Warbler,_g l n- ingtd- Vermivora chrysoptera 050024 Ia MyDjija, eastern small -footed Myotis leibii 100248 Ia Fri ill ry., regal Speyeria idalia idalia 040213 Ic Qom, northern saw -whet Aegolius acadicus 040052 IIa Duck, American black Anas rubripes 040320 IIa Warbler, cerulean Setophaga cerulea 040140 IIa Woodcock, American Scolopax minor 040203 IIb Cuckoo, black -billed Coccyzus erythropthalmus 040105 IIb RLil, king_ Rallus elegans 040304 IIe Warbler, Swainson's Limnothlypis swainsonii To view All 493 species View 493 *FE=Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened; FP --Federal Proposed; FC=Federal Candidate; CC=Collection Concern https://vafv is.dgitvirginia.govttwis/NewPagesIVaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.asp?pf-l&Title=VaFWIS+GeographicSelect+Options&pf-O&place... 1/5 12/3/2020 VAFWIS Seach Report **I=VA Wildlife Action Plan -Tier I -Critical Conservation Need; II=VA Wildlife Action Plan -Tier II -Very High Conservation Need; III=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier III - High Conservation Need; IV=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier IV - Moderate Conservation Need Virginia Widlife Action Plan Conservation Opportunity Ranking: a - On the ground management strategies/actions exist and can be feasibly implemented.; b - On the ground actions or research needs have been identified but cannot feasibly be implemented at this time.; c - No on the ground actions or research needs have been identified or all identified conservation opportunities have been exhausted. Anadromous Fish Use Streams N/A Impediments to Fish Passage ( 4 records ) View Map of All Fish Im im n ® Name River View Map 912 CROZET SPORTSMAN CLUB DAM TR-DOLLINS CREEK 307 MILLER SCHOOL DAM MILLER BRANCH 915 PEACOCK HILL DAM TR-BROAD AXE CREEK 826 SEGO DAM MIDDLE BRANCH HARDWARE RIVER Threatened and Endangered Waters ( 24 Reaches - displaying first 20) Mew Map of All Threatened and Endangered Waters T&E Waters Species Stream Name View Highest TE* BOVA Code, Status*, Tier**, Common & Scientific Name Map Mechums River in Smussel, Parvas ma (0130592) FESE 060017 FESE Ia Jams collina Yes Mechums River FESE 060017Spines FESE la mussel, Parvas ma Yes (0130783) Jam collinap Mechums River FESE 060017 FESE Ia � m mussel, Parvas ma Yes (0131772) Jams collina Mechums River Spinymussel, Parvaspina (0131889) FESE 060017 FESE la James collina Mechums River FESE 060017 FESE Ia Sin mussel, s Parvasma (0131914) Jain collina Mechums River FESE 060017 FESE [1a]Jain Sin mussel, s Parvasma Yes (0132162) co ma Mechums River Sin mussel, Parvasma (0133106) FESE 060017 FESE Ia Jams collina Yes Mechums River FESE 060017 FESE [1a]James m mussel, Parvasma Yes (0133208) collinap Mechums River FESE 060017 FESE Ia � m mussel, Parvas ma Yes (0133231) Jams collina Mechums River FESE 060017 FESE Ia Spinymussel, Parvaspina Yes hfps://vafv is.dgitvirginia.govKv is/NewPagesIVaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.asp?pf-l&Title=VaFWIS+GeographicSelect+Options&pf-O&place... 215 12/3/2020 VAFWIS Seach Report (0133359) collina Mechums River Sin mussel, ma(0134255) FESE 060017 FESE Ia Jams nap N Yes Mechums River FESE 060017 FESE Ia S m mussel, Parvasma Yes (0134480) James collina Mechums River FESE 0017 FESE Ia S m mussel, J�arvaspina Yes (0135964) Jams ollina Mechums River Parvaspina (0135967) FESE 060017 FESEESpinymussel, James collina Y Mechums River FESE 060017 FESE Ia Sin mussel, s Parvas ma (0137364) Jarn collinaYu Mechums River FESE 060017 FESE Ia Sin mussel, Ema Yes (0137374) Japms Mechums Mechums River Sin mussel, Parvas ma FESE 060017 FESE la] �James collina Yes Mechums River FESE 060EHEJames S m mussel, Parvas ma Yes (0137489) collina Mechums River FESE F60EEFIESE][Ia]� S m mussel, rvas ma rco Yes (0141125) Jams llina Mechums River Spinymussel, Parvaspina (0141184) FESE 060017 FESE la James collina Mechums River FESE 060017 FESE [la]Jams Sin mussel, rvas ma rco Yes (0141440) llina Mechums River FESE 060EHEJames Sin mussel, Parvas ma Yes (0145276) collina Mechums River Sin mussel, Parvas ma (0145281) FESE 060017 FESE Ia Jams collina Yes To view All 24 Threatened and Endangered Waters records View 24 Managed Trout Streams N/A Bald Eagle Concentration Areas and Roosts N/A Bald Eagle Nests https://vafv is.dgitvirginia.govttwis/NewPagesIVaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.asp?pf-l&Title=VaFWIS+GeographicSelect+Options&pf-O&place... 3/5 12/3/2020 VAFWIS Seach Report N/A Habitat Predicted for Aquatic WAP Tier I & II Species (s Reaches ) View Map Combined Reaches from Below of Habitat Predicted for WAP Tier I & II Aquatic S ep Gies Stream Name Highest TE* Broad Axe Creek FESE (20802042) Lickinghole Creek FESE (20802041) Lickinghole Creek (20802042) FESE Mechums River FESE (20802041) Mechums River (20802041) FESE Mechums River FESE (20802042) Stony Rum (20802041) FESE tributary (20802042) FESE tributary (20802042) FESE tier species BOVA Code, Status*, Tier**, Common & Scientific Name EHE� Spinymussel, Parvaspina m collina EE 0081 E FFESE]Fla]Spiny IEEE mussel, James oater,_green Parvaspina collina Lasmigona subviridis EE 0081 E FESE IEEE Ia Spinymussel, James oater,_green Parvaspina collina Lasmigona subviridis EE E FFESE]Fla]pSinymussel, IEEE James oater,_green Parvaspina collina Lasmigona subviridis EEHE� Spinymussel, James Parvaspina collina EEHE� SIZy�di, James Parvaspina collina EEHE� SiZy�Ll' James Parvaspina collina EEHE� Spinymussel, James Parvaspina collina E060O17][;ESE Ia Spinymussel, m Parvaspina collina View Map Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yta YU Yes Habitat Predicted for Terrestrial WAP Tier 1 & 11 Species N/A Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas Blocks ( 4 records) View Map of A11 Query Results Lirginia Breeding Bird Atlas Blocks BBA ID Atlas Quadrangle Block Name Breeding Bird Atlas Species View Map Different Species F___7_�n hfps://vafv is.dgitvirginia.govttwis/NewPages/VaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.asp?pf-l&Title=VaFWIS+GeographicSelect+Options&pf=0&place... 4/5 12/3/2020 VAFWIS Seach Report "1 11 Highest TE* Highest Tier** � I 41134 Crozet, CE 000 Yes 41133 Crozet, CW 00 III Yes 41136 Crozet, SE 71 0 II Yes 41135 Crozet, SW 000 Yes Public Holdings: N/A Summary of BOVA Species Associated with Cities and Counties of the Common, FWS Co ICity and County Name Different Species Highest TE Highest Tier 003 Albemarle 428 FESE 0 USGS 7.5' Quadrangles: Covesville Crozet USGS NRCS Watersheds in Virginia: N/A vealth of Virginia: USGS National 6th Order Watersheds Summary of Wildlife Action Plan Tier I, H, III, and IV Species: HU6 Co JUSGS 6th Order Hydrologic Unitj Highest Tier JM46 INorth Fork Hardware River 61 FESE I� JRO1 IMechunts River -Stockton Creek 71 FESE 0 JR02 IMechums River -Beaver Creek 72 FESE �I JR07 Ivy Creek -Little Ivy Creek 62 FESE �I C—p,I:Zl2/32020,338:56PM V10649630 mWm V wuch`ry —R disc-4828032po 380178889-78.6890278 https://vafv is.dgitvirginia.govttwis/NewPagesIVaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.asp?pf=1&Title=VaFWIS+GeographicSelect+Options&pf=0&place... 5/5 �ENf Of"l a'ps hF� United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1 ,• Virginia Ecological Services Field Office ,ACN 3 �0 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, VA 23061-4410 Phone: (804) 693-6694 Fax: (804) 693-9032 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/ In Reply Refer To: December 03, 2020 Consultation Code: 05E2VA00-2021-SLI-0956 Event Code: 05E2VA00-2021-E-02718 Project Name: Community Power Group, LLC - Ivy Solar Farm Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Any activity proposed on National Wildlife Refuge lands must undergo a'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered 12/03/2020 Event Code: 05E2VA00-2021-E-02718 species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/ eagle—guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats. Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http:// www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http:// www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurTentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/ comtow.html. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Attachment(s): • Official Species List • USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries 12/03/2020 Event Code: 05E2VA00-2021-E-02718 Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, VA 23061-4410 (804) 693-6694 12/03/2020 Event Code: 05E2VA00-2021-E-02718 2 Project Summary Consultation Code: 05E2VA00-2021-SLI-0956 Event Code: 05E2VA00-2021-E-02718 Project Name: Community Power Group, LLC - Ivy Solar Farm Project Type: POWER GENERATION Project Description: This project is being conducted to define the threatened and endangered species for the purposes of hosting a solar photovoltaic facility on the property of Ivy landfill at 4576 Dick Woods Rd, Charlottesville, in Albemarle County, VA 22903. Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https: www.google.com/maps/place/38.024242685944785N78.65301002279901W 000 Counties: Albemarle, VA 12/03/2020 Event Code: 05E2VA00-2021-E-02718 Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 1 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. 1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. Mammals NAME STATUS Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: b=s://ecos.fws.pov/eW/species/9045 Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. 12/03/2020 Event Code: 05E2VA00-2021-E-02718 USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Lands And Fish Hatcheries Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA. r i t'h Matthew J. Strickler Secretary ofNatmal Resources 'f a�� a Clyde E. Crismam Director COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION Whitney Hughes Community Power Group, LLC 5636 Connecticut Ave, #42729 Washington, D.C. 20015 Re: Ivy Solar Farm Dear Ms. Hughes: Rochelle Altholz Deputy Director of Administration and Finance Russell W. Baxter Deputy Director of Dam Safety & Floodplam Management and Soil & Water Conservation Nathan Bartell Deputy Director of Government and Community Relations Thomas L. Smith Deputy Director of Operations December 23, 2020 The Department of Conservation and Recreation's Division of Natural Heritage (DCR) has searched its Biotics Data System for occurrences of natural heritage resources from the area outlined on the submitted map. Natural heritage resources are defined as the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species, unique or exemplary natural communities, and significant geologic formations. According to the information currently in Biotics, natural heritage resources have not been documented within the submitted project boundary including a 100 foot buffer. The absence of data may indicate that the project area has not been surveyed, rather than confirm that the area lacks natural heritage resources. In addition, the project boundary does not intersect any of the predictive models identifying potential habitat for natural heritage resources. DCR recommends the development of an invasive species management plan for the project and the planting of Virginia native pollinator plant species that bloom throughout the spring and summer, to maximize benefits to native pollinators. DCR recommends planting these species in at least the buffer areas of the planned facility, and optimally including other areas within the project site. Guidance on plant species can be found here: http://www.dcr.vir lginia.gov/natural-heritage/solar-site-native-plants-finder. In addition, Virginia native species alternatives to the non-native species listed in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (Third Edition 1992), can be found in the 2017 addendum titled "Native versus Invasive Plant Species", here: https://www.deg.vir ig nia.gov/Portals/0/DEO/Water/Publications/NativelnvasiveFAQ.pd£ Page 3 ofthe addendum provides a list of native alternatives for non -natives commonly used for site stabilization including native cover crop species (i.e. Virginia wildrye). Under a Memorandum of Agreement established between the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) and the DCR, DCR represents VDACS in comments regarding potential impacts on state - listed threatened and endangered plant and insect species. The current activity will not affect any documented state -listed plants or insects. There are no State Natural Area Preserves under DCR's jurisdiction in the project vicinity. 600 East Main Street, 24' Floor I Richmond, Virginia 23219 1 804-786-6124 State Parks • Soil and Water Conservation • Outdoor Recreation Planning Natural Heritage • Dam Safety and Boodplain Management • Land Conservation New and updated information is continually added to Biotics. Please re -submit a completed order form and project map for an update on this natural heritage information if the scope of the project changes and/or six months (June 23, 2021) has passed before it is utilized. A fee of $390.00 has been assessed for the service of providing this information. Please find attached an invoice for that amount. Please return one copy of the invoice along with your remittance made payable to the Treasurer of Virginia, DCR Finance, 600 East Main Street, 241 Floor, Richmond, VA 23219. Payment is due within thirty days of the invoice date. Please note late payment may result in the suspension of project review service for future projects. The VDWR maintains a database of wildlife locations, including threatened and endangered species, trout streams, and anadromous fish waters that may contain information not documented in this letter. Their database may be accessed from htto://vafwis.org✓fwis/ or contact Ernie Aschenbach at 804-367-2733 or Emie.Aschenbach@dwr.virginia.gov. Should you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me at 804-371-2708. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, �fC.t ►rc. %� S. Rene Hypes Natural Heritage Project Review Coordinator Cc: Mary Major, DEQ Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities - SUP Application Exhibit R: Statement on Pollinator Impact Page 25 of 30 ,O oommo pity Pollinator Impact Statement The purpose of this document is to discuss the potential impact of this project on pollinators, and pollinator habitats at the site. Because this project is located on a capped landfill, extra care needs to be taken to ensure no ground disturbance in the landfill area. Due to this limitation, CPG will not be installing pollinator -friendly groundcover beneath the panels. CPG is also prevented from installing additional vegetative screening near to the panel area, though there is significant existing vegetation as documented in Exhibit M. The attached Virginia Pollinator -Smart Bird Habitat Scorecard demonstrates this limitation through a low score. Invasive species management does take place currently on site. 1 © Community Power Group 2020 VIRGINIA POLLINATOR -SMART/ BIRD HABITAT SCORECARD Proposed or Retrofit Solar Sites A successful Pollinator -Smart habitat will provide benefits to the environment and the solar site owner/operator in a number of key areas, including: 1. Pollinator services, 2. Biodiversity and habitat enhancement, 3. Carbon sequestration, 4. Erosion and sediment control, and; S. Reduced vegetation maintenance overtime. The Virginia Solar Site Pollinator/Bird Habitat Scorecard is used to establish target conditions and/or evaluate the effectiveness of Pollinator - Smart measures once implemented. If the score thresholds are met, a site is deemed Pollinator -Smart provided the activities described herein are implemented over at least 10%of the project area. DEFINITIONS Open Area: Any area beyond the panel zone, within the property boundary. Panel Zone: The area underneath the solar arrays, including inter -row spacing. Project Area: Open Area +Panel Zone+ Screening Zone. Screening Zone: A vegetated visual harder. Solar Native Plant Finder: The Virginia Solar Site Native Plant Finder (link , an online research tool developed bythe DCR Natural Heritage Program. Virginia Pollinator -Smart Seed Mix: Aseed mix that includes native local ecotypes and conforms with the Solar Native Plant Finder. RESOURCES Virginia Solar Site Native Plant Finder Vireinia's Pollinator -Smart Solar Portal Comprehensive Manual Monitoring Plan INSTRUCTIONS For detailed instructions on how to implement the scorecard, please refer to the Comprehensive Manual. 1. All questions and fields must be filled out. 2. Submit your scorecard and associated documents via email to: pollinator, smart0dcrvir ig nia.gov 3. A Proposed or Retrofit Solar Site Scorecard should be submitted during the initial plantingyear. To remain certified, an Established Sites Scorecard should be submitted in years 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. A long-term management plan should also be submitted with the Established Sites Scorecard duringyear 10. If all criteria are met duringyear 10, the site will be considered polli nator- friend ly for the life of the project. ATTACHMENTS PROVIDED O Project Vicinity Map/Planting Plan O Seed Mix and Seeding Rates O Vegetation Management Plan O Vegetation Monitoring Plan O Invasive Species Mapping O Research Collaboration Documentation O Site Photos OPEN AREA -- -- FENCELINE - - - -, i PANEL ZONE i i 1 OPEN AREA r OPEN AREA Forquestions, comments, and feedback, please contact oollinotor..smortradcr.virginio.goov 0DCR MWNIA DE n, ol: ENVFP MENTAI.Ou, ITY ft,4D wumldfaaewlbnAPeueyYn PROJECT DETAILS & CONTACT INFORMATION DATE: 2.16.21 SITE OWNER OR DESIGNEE: Rivanna Solid Waste Authority/CPG PROJECT ADDRESS: 4576 Dick Woods Rd Charlottesville, VA 22903 PROJECT SIZE (ACS AND MW): 15 acres, 3MW POINT OF CONTACT: Amberli Young EMAIL/PHONE: amberli@communitypowergroup.com 202-844-6424 VEGETATION CONSULTANT: SEED SUPPLIER (IF KNOWN): TARGET SEEDING DATE: VIRGINIA POLLINATOR -SMART/ BIRD HABITAT SCORECARD Proposed or Retrofit Solar Sites VEGETATION PANEL ZONE 1. Percent of panel zone to be planted with a seed mix of native species developed using the Solar Native Plant Finder (max 15 pts) Q <5 percent (0) Q 5-25 percent (5) Q 26-50 percent (8) Q 51-75 percent (10) Q greater than 75 percent (15) 2. Planned native grass diversity in panel zone (max5 pts) Q 1 or fewer species (0) 2 species (2) Q 3 or more species (5) OPEN AREA 3. Percent of open area to be planted with Virginia Pollinator -Smart Seed Mix developed using the Solar Plant Finder (max 15 pts) Q <5 percent (0) O 5-25 percent (5) Q 26-50 percent (8) Q 51-75 percent (10) Q greater than 75 percent (15) a. Total number of Solar Native Plant Finder species in the seed mix to be used within the open area (max 15 pts) 4 or fewer species (0) Q 5-9 species (5) Q 10-14 species (8) Q 15-19 species (10) Q 20 or greater species (15) 5. For the seed mix to be used within the open area, seasons with at least three (3) Solar Native Plant Finder species in Flower (max 10 pts) [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] O Spring (March -May) (2) O Early Summer (June -July 15) (2) O Late Summer (July 15-August) (4) O Fall (September -November) (2) SCREENING ZONE 6. Within the screening zone, percent to be planted with Solar Native Plant Finder species (max 15 pts) Q <5 percent (0) Q 5-25 percent (5) Q 26-50 percent (8) Q 51-75 percent (10) Q greater than 75 percent (15) NRGPAgT` n, ol: 0DCR EWFI MENTALQL ITY ft,4D�dfaaewlbnAPeueyYn SITE MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND MAINTENANCE PRACTICES 7. [CHECK ALL THAT APPLYI (max 25 pts) O Site has an Approved' Vegetation Management Plan (15) O Vegetation monitoring is proposed annually (5) a Invasive species mapping and control proposed annually (5) O Planned on -site use of insecticide or pre -planting seed/plant insecticide treatment (excluding buildings/electrical boxes, etc.) (-40) INVASIVE SPECIES RISK 8. [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] (-20 pts possible) O Combined cover of tall fescue across all three zones planned to be>10 percent (-10) O Combined cover of species on DNH Virginia Invasive Plant Species List across all three zones planned to be>10 percent (-10) PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND RESEARCH 9. [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] (max 10 pts) O 2 or more legible and accessible signs identifying pollinator and bird habitat proposed on -site (2.5) O Accessible bench and educational display proposed on -site (2.5) O Research collaboration with college, university, school, or research institute (5) POLLINATOR/BIRD NESTING HABITAT ON -SITE 10. [CHECK ALL FEATURES THAT ARE PRESENT ON -SITE] (20* pts) O Existing bare ground patches one square foot or larger, with undisturbed and well -drained soil (2) 9 Preserved upland forested communities orforestedge habitatthat includes native floweringshrubs and youngtrees (8) O Cavity nestingsites (e.g. dead trees, snags, fallen logs, shrubs, plants with pithy -stemmed twigs such as native sumacs, roses, blackberries) (2) O Created bee/bird nesting habitatfeatures (e.g., boxes, tunnels, etc.)(0.2pts per feature)'tifeatures: x0.2=0 pts. O Preserved wetland communities/presence of clean water source(s) (8) ' See guidelines for development of a Vegetation Management Plan here. Vegetation Management Plans forsolorsites are approved by the Virginia Pollinator-Smort Solar Industry Review Board. Vegetation Management Plans may be submitted here. 2Vegetation monitoring should be conducted in accordance with the methods described here. For the purposes of compliance, monitoring is only required every two years, therefore, annual monitoring is incentivized with additional points in the Scorecard. 3 Up to a maximum of 10 points (50 features) Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities - SUP Application Exhibit S: Technology Statement Page 26 of 30 ,O oommo pity Technology Statement The proposed Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities project is unique from other ground -mounted solar facilities in that it utilizes a previously -developed site in the form of a capped landfill. Partnering with a previously -developed site means that the project can take advantage of existing infrastructure and a cleared area, and it provides benefits to the community by preserving greenfield sites for agriculture and other uses. Capped landfills present additional challenges because it is very important to protect the cap from any disturbance or penetrations. GameChange Solar and other solar racking companies have developed innovated racking solutions for ground -mounted solar systems that require zero ground penetrations. These systems are fully ballasted above ground so no ground -ties or piles are necessary to secure the panels, which is ideal for brownfield installations. 1 © Community Power Group 2021 Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities - SUP Application Exhibit T: Statement on Landfill Soils and Project Impact Page 27 of 30 Community POWER GROUP Landfill Soils Impact Project Description This proposed solar facility project is unique in that it designed on a previously -developed site as opposed to open space or a greenfield parcel. CPG is fortunate to partner with Rivanna Solid Waste Authority on the installation of these three solar facilities at the Ivy Material Utilization Center, which is a capped landfill. The most recently closed cell at the site was capped in 2002, though the site has served as a landfill for multiple decades and currently operates a recycling and hazardous waste center. Due to the critical importance of protecting the landfill cap, CPG is prevented from doing any penetrating groundwork, including grading, installation of piles for solar racking, or vegetation planting during the construction and operation of the project. As such, CPG will take advantage of GameChange Solar's ground -mounted, fully -ballasted solar racking system that does not require any ground penetrations. General Impact of Solar In general, solar facilities have minimal impact on the soils located at a project area because no hazardous chemicals are used during project construction or operation, ground penetration if necessary is typically limited, and minimal personnel are needed to operate the system. Current Soil and Groundwater Conditions Under the requirements of 9VAC-20-80-310 and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality ("VA DEQ"), The Ivy Material Utilization Center is required to publish a Corrective Action Plan ("CAP") describing the remediation efforts to protect surrounding human health and the environment. VA DEQ has also issued Permit No 125 for the Ivy Site as a capped landfill. The most recent CAP for the Ivy Site was revised on April 30', 2004. As part of the CAP, Rivanna has several monitoring systems in place to minimize and to mitigate any effects of the landfill on groundwater, nearby surface waters, and surrounding flora and fauna. Stormwater is currently management on site through channeling stormwater that falls onto the capped landfill area into stormwater basins. These on -site basins hold the water until it settles into the surrounding groundwater. An existing stormwater permit from DEQ exists for the entire site. Expected Project Impact at Ivy Site Because this project is on a capped landfill, CPG Is prevented from doing any penetrating ground work. These solar facilities will be mounted on ground -based racking that will be ballasted with concrete blocks at the surface to keep the system in place. Because the solar facilities will be installed on the capped areas of the landfill, stormwater flows on the site will not be impacted as any stormwater that falls on the panels or equipment will be channeled into the existing stormwater basis. © Community Power Group 2021 Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities - SUP Application Exhibit U: Statement on Transmission Capacity Page 28 of 30 ,O oommo p ity Transmission Capacity The Community Power Group has ongoing conversations with Dominion Energy regarding interconnection of the three solar facilities proposed for this project. A capacity check request was completed with Dominion in September 2020, and a Contract Administrator informed CPG that there are zero connected projects and zero projects in study on the 34.5kV three-phase line running along Dick Woods Road. The interconnection request for these three projects were submitted in December 2020 and accepted by Dominion in January 2021. A scoping call was held with Dominion on February 10tn 2021, to discuss the interconnection study process. These project hold 11` 2nd and 3'd place positions in the interconnection queue on the closed substation, and the interconnection study will proceed for the projects in early 2021 and take approximately 12 months. 1 © Community Power Group 2021 Ivy Landfill Solar Facilities - SUP Application Exhibit V: Emergency Services Information Page 29 of 30 Community POWER GROUP Emergency Services Information CPG will ensure that the proposed solar facilities when installed will be 2014 National Electrical Code and 2015 International Fire Code compliant. This will include warning labels applied to all equipment associated with the solar facilities, as well as labels showing the locations of emergency shut -down switches. Emergency contact information will be posted near the interconnection point of the facilities on the southern end of the site, and the contact information and Operations and Maintenance Manual will be shared and stored at the on -site office. In the event of a fire emergency, fire trucks and personnel can access the solar facilities through the existing site entrance off of Dick Woods Road. The site entrance is connected to a paved access run that runs through the center of the three proposed solar facilities allowing fire trucks to access the facilities. There are no material hazards associated with the facility. © Community Power Group 2021