Subject: Public Comments on Proposed Amendments to 9 VAC 15-60 related to Small Renewable Energy Projects and Impacts to Natural Resources
Dear Ms. Tripp,
I write on behalf of Chesapeake Conservancy, a non-profit organization with an office and staff in the Commonwealth of Virginia, committed to preserving water quality, forest ecosystems, and wildlife habitat in the Chesapeake Bay region. We recognize the importance of renewable energy, including solar projects, in combating climate change and meeting our collective goals toward a clean energy economy. The Chesapeake Conservancy urges the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to strengthen its proposed amendments to 9 VAC 15-60 to better mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of solar energy development.
The Chesapeake Conservancy is grateful for the opportunity to provide the following comments on the permit by rule (“PBR”) regulations proposed by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. We provide these comments with the dual goals of protecting the health and safety of Virginia citizens, and protecting water quality, wildlife habitat, prime agricultural soils and forest resources.
Below, we outline our concerns regarding the proposed regulations and provide recommendations for strengthening their provisions to ensure greater alignment with Chesapeake Bay goals.
I. Concerns Regarding Forest Loss and Habitat Fragmentation
Impact on Forest Ecosystems and Water Quality
The loss of contiguous forest lands for solar development has significant implications for the Chesapeake Bay’s water quality and regional biodiversity. Forests act as critical buffers that reduce sedimentation and nutrient runoff into waterways, protecting the Chesapeake Bay from pollution. The threshold set by statute is 50 acres of contiguous forest lands before requiring mitigation. This threshold is high, allowing for the loss of substantial forest areas without any compensatory measures.
2
Depending on the location of the forest, its impact on water quality and wildlife habitat value can vary greatly. Projects located within 300 feet of streams and wetlands could have a significant impact on water quality. In cases where projects may be located proximate to stream and wetland resources, the size of project may be less important than its location.
Habitat Fragmentation
The proposed 1:1 mitigation ratio for forest disturbance fails to adequately account for the ecosystem services provided by forests. A higher ratio for C1 and C2 ecological cores (7:1 and 2:1, respectively) is appropriate, as these cores serve as critical wildlife corridors. However, for general forest lands, we recommend increasing the ratio to at least 1.5:1 (and better, 2:1) to better reflect their ecological importance. This is more consistent with other mitigation frameworks in Virginia and nationally.
Recommendation: Set a higher standard mitigation ratio (e.g., 2:1) for all forest land disturbances to minimize habitat loss and fragmentation. For projects located within 300 feet of any stream or wetland, additional mitigation should be required. Mandate the inclusion of riparian buffers of at least 35-feet in width and strict erosion control measures as part of all solar project designs to protect water quality.
II. Protection of Prime Agricultural Soils
Solar projects often target flat, open lands, which overlap with prime agricultural soils. The regulation requires mitigation only if more than 10 acres of prime soils are impacted. Given the increasing threats to food security and soil health, this threshold is insufficient. Future regulations should consider a lower threshold. There is insufficient incentive to prioritize brownfields or other marginal lands over prime agricultural soils.
Recommendation: Incentivize the siting of solar projects on marginal lands, such as brownfields or previously disturbed areas, with lower and more flexible mitigation requirements, to preserve agricultural productivity.
III. Impacts on Wildlife and Pollinator Habitats
Threatened and Endangered Species
Expanding the definition of “wildlife” to include threatened and endangered (T&E) insects is a positive step. However, mitigation measures must ensure that solar developers adopt comprehensive strategies to avoid and minimize impacts on all listed T&E species.
Pollinator-Friendly Solar Projects
The inclusion of the Pollinator-Smart Scorecard is a commendable initiative. Pollinator-friendly practices can enhance biodiversity and provide ecosystem services. However, the proposed regulation does not require adherence to the scorecard’s recommendations, which limits its effectiveness.
Recommendation: Make compliance with the Pollinator-Smart Scorecard mandatory for projects exceeding a specified size threshold (e.g., 5 MW). This will ensure that solar developments contribute positively to biodiversity.
3
IV. In-Lieu Fees and Conservation Easements
The proposed use of in-lieu fees and conservation easements to offset impacts is promising but must be structured to ensure meaningful conservation outcomes. The current $3,000 per acre minimum for in-lieu fees may undervalue the ecological and economic contributions of prime agricultural and forest lands in some areas of the state.
Recommendation: Adjust in-lieu fees to reflect the true conservation value of the impacted lands, using metrics such as ecosystem service valuation. Additionally, prioritize the use of easements within the same watershed to maintain local ecological integrity. Last, conservation easements protect lands that, in general, are not imminently threatened by conversion. Conservation easements that include a restoration project or that can document an imminent threat of conversion should be given higher priority as approved mitigation.
V. General Recommendations for Strengthening the Regulation
1. Cumulative Impact Assessment: Require developers to evaluate the cumulative impacts of multiple solar projects within the same region, particularly on water quality and wildlife corridors.
2. Stakeholder Engagement: Enhance opportunities for public participation by extending the 45-day comment period for mitigation plans to 60 days.
3. Data Transparency: Publish annual reports on mitigation outcomes, including the acreage of conserved lands and the status of restored habitats, to ensure accountability.
While we support renewable energy initiatives, including solar development, we emphasize the need to balance these efforts with robust environmental protections. Strengthening the proposed amendments to 9 VAC 15-60 will ensure that Virginia can achieve its clean energy goals while safeguarding the Chesapeake Bay’s ecosystems.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on this critical issue and welcome further engagement with the Department of Environmental Quality to refine these regulations.
Sincerely,
EJ Amyot
Chief Operating Officer
Chesapeake Conservancy