APPLICATION TO THE OHIO POWER SITING BOARD FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY AND PUBLIC NEED FOR THE
Case No. 24-0801-EL -BGN
Visual Resource Assessment
October 4, 2024
Prepared for: Grange Solar, LLC
Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
This document entitled Visual Resource Assessment was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of Open Roads Renewables (the “Applicant”). The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes.
Prepared by
John Guariglia, RLA - Visual Resources Practice Lead
Technical Review by Kaela Johnson - Visual Resources Specialist
Independent Review by Jaclyn Martin – Deputy Project Manager
Appendix A: Site and Project Location
Appendix B: Viewshed Mapping
Appendix C: Photosimulations
Appendix D: Photolog
At the request of Grange Solar, LLC (“Applicant”), Stantec Consulting Services Inc (“Stantec”) has prepared this Visual Resource Assessment for the proposed Grange Solar Project (“Project”) in Logan County, Ohio (Figure 1, Appendix A). This technical report supports the Applicant’s application to the Ohio Power Siting Board (“OPSB”) for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need (“Certificate”) per Ohio Administrative Code (“OAC”) Chapter 4906-4-08(D)(4) and (6). This report includes the following:
• Description of the visible components of the proposed Project;
• Definition of the visual character of the Visual Study Area (“VSA”);
• Inventory and evaluation of the existing visually sensitive resources (VSRs) within the VSA;
• Evaluation of the potential visibility of the Project within the VSA;
• Photographic simulations of the proposed Project from select locations;
• Discussion of the visual impacts associated with the Project; and
• Description of measures proposed to minimize visual impact.
The Project is a combined utility-scale solar energy facility and sheep grazing operation; the Project will use rows of ground-mounted solar panels to supply wholesale power to the existing electric grid while also providing pasture for livestock. All of the Project’s above-ground structures will be situated within vegetated fields enclosed by agricultural-style fences, which will confine the livestock and protect them from predators. The combined area of the fenced fields will be about 2,600 acres (referred to as the “Project Site”), located within a total combined area of approximately 4,566 acres. The proposed Project is generally located west of Township Road 95 and north of County Road 60 within Bloomfield Township, Logan County approximately 7.8 miles northwest of the City of Bellefontaine, Ohio. In addition, the Applicant has meet or exceed the setbacks required by OPSB regulations 1 The proposed Project would include the following major components:
Photovoltaic (PV) solar panels (modules): These panels will be mounted on a fixed-tilt or singleaxis tracking racking system, or both 2 .
Inverters: The required inverters would be installed throughout the Project Site to convert the generated electricity from direct current (“DC”) to alternating current (“AC”), which would be transferred to the collection substation via buried 34.5 kilovolt (“kV”) collection lines.
1 150 feet from public roads and 300 feet from homes.
2 For the purpose of this study, fixed-tilt panels were used for the simulations.
Project Substation: A new collection substation will collect electricity generated from the panels via the underground cables. The voltage from these cables will be stepped up to 765 kV and transferred to the electric transmission grid via a point of interconnection switchyard.
In addition to those components listed above, the Project will also include an operation and maintenance (O&M) building, access roads, temporary laydown yards during construction, and two styles of fencing: agricultural style fencing with galvanized steel posts and chain link fencing around the Project substation. The location of the Project itself (i.e., location of PV panels), is illustrated on Figure A2, Appendix A A short gen-tie line to a future utility substation, and associated point of interconnect is not part of this assessment.
As stated in OAC 4906-4-08(D), the following, except where the Applicant addresses separately, shall be included in this assessment:
(4) Recreation and scenic areas.
(a) A description of the recreation and scenic areas identified under paragraph (D)(1) 3 of this rule in terms of their proximity to the project, population centers, uniqueness, topography, vegetation, hydrology, and wildlife.
(b) An evaluation of the impact of the proposed facility on those identified recreational and scenic areas and describe plans to mitigate any adverse impact.
(6) Visual impact of the facility. The visual impact of the proposed above-ground facility within at least a ten-mile radius from the project area, as conducted or reviewed by a licensed landscape architect or other professional with experience in developing a visual impact assessment.
(a) A description of the visibility of the project, including a viewshed analysis and area of visual effect, shown on a corresponding map of the study area. The viewshed analysis should not incorporate deciduous vegetation, agricultural crops, or other seasonal land cover as viewing obstacles. Viewshed analysis that includes atmospheric conditions should incorporate the atmospheric conditions under which the facility would be most visible.
(b) A description of the visibility of the proposed facility from such sensitive vantage points as residential areas, lookout points, scenic highways, waterways, and landmarks identified in (D)(1) of this rule.
(c) A description of the existing landscape and evaluate its scenic quality including documentation of a review of existing plans, policies, and regulations of the communities within the study area, and list all references to identified visual resources or other indications of the visual preferences of the community.
(d) A description of the alterations to the landscape caused by the facility, including a description and illustration of the scale, form, and materials of all facility structures, and evaluate the impact of those alterations to the scenic quality of the landscape. This description should also include a
3 See Section 2.2 for list of potential resources.
narrative of how the proposed facility will likely affect the aesthetic quality of the site and surrounding area.
(e) An evaluation of the visual impacts to the resources identified in paragraph (D) of this rule, and any such resources within ten miles of the project area that are valued specifically for their scenic quality.
(f) Photographic simulations or artist's pictorial sketches of the proposed facility from public vantage points that cover the range of landscapes, viewer groups, and types of scenic resources found within the study area.
By addressing the stated requirements, this technical report will allow reviewing agencies and the public to understand the anticipated visibility of the Facility, its potential visual impacts, and significance of such impacts.
Under OAC 4906-4-08(D), visual impacts to recreational, scenic, and historic resources from a proposed generating facility must be evaluated within a 10-mile radius. However, the Applicant intends to seek a waiver to this rule, limiting the VSA to five miles As such, it has been requested that this assessment be limited to five miles.
This action is supported by the limited potential visibility of the Project. The five-mile VSA, which is still conservative but better in line with the evaluation of a solar facility, is the focus of this assessment
Characteristics, or physiographic setting, of the existing landscape can be broken into features such as: landform and vegetation, water, and land use (development).
Landform and Vegetation
The VSA appears to be bordering two physiographic regions, namely the Central Ohio Clayey Till Plain and the Bellefontaine Upland The Central Ohio Clayey Till Plain is characteristic of its name, as it exhibits clayey till with moderate relief of approximately 100 feet. The Bellefontaine Upland exhibits moderately high relief (approximately 250 feet) with dissecting topography; this area contains loamy, high-lime Wisconsin-age till over deeply (generally) buried rocks and shale. The elevations within the VSA range from approximately 968 to 1,355 feet above mean sea level. These points are located along the Great Miami River in Pleasant Township, and approximately 0.4 miles east-northeast of the junction of County Road 290 and U.S. Highway 68 in Lake Township, respectively 4 Farms (e.g., dairy and crops) are larger and more intensively cultivated and may be found in the southern portions of the Project Site.
The area in which the Project will be built appears to exhibit a mix of agricultural land and forested areas. Significant clearing has occurred due to development and agricultural uses; hemlock, beech, birch, maples, oak-hickory forests may be now found in the area These species may be found within hedgerows, fallow fields, and those lands found to not be suitable for agriculture or development.
4 Both locations are found close to five miles from the Project Site.
The Project Site is south-adjacent to Indian Lake, formerly known as the Lewiston Reservoir. In addition, rivers (e.g. North Fork Great Miami River, South Fork Great Miami River, Black Hawk Run, and Cherokee Mans Run) and their associated tributaries, creeks (e.g., Van Horn Creek, Jordan Creek), ponds (including private agricultural ponds), and wetlands are found scattered about the VSA.
Land uses within the five-mile VSA, outside of the discussion below, is limited as it is dominated by forest and agriculture. Of note, prominent water resources can draw homeowners and support services; this is the case as much of the development is located around Indian Lake.
• Community and Residential – Most development can be found within the following communities 5:
• Village of Russells Point - The Village (population of 1,320), located within Washington Township (population of 3,351), is situated to the northeast of the Project, with approximately one mile from the intersection of U.S. Route 33 and State Route 708 to the closest proposed solar panels
Development within the Village appears to be centered on side streets extending outward from the intersection of E. Main Street (State Route 366), and North and South Orchard Island Road (State Route 708) (“downtown”). Street patterns within the downtown area are representative of a grid pattern Commercial development is primarily situated along U.S. Route 33, E Main Street, and North and South Orchard Island Drive, or off of connecting side streets.
Housing within the Village contains single and multi-family dwellings and is found in a moderately dense built environment. Housing can be found along State Route 366, North and South Orchard Island Road, E. Main Street, North and South Orchard Drive, E. Elliott Road, and side roads that originate/terminate from these road corridors. Homes (including apartment complexes) are likely to be of varying ages and styles, and one- to two- stories in height.
Recreational activities within the Village include nature areas such as John and Mary Rudolph Nature Area, playgrounds such as Russells Point Playground, and recreational fields such as Russells Point Ball Fields Immediately adjacent to the Village, additional opportunities exist at the Fox Island State Park and Indian Lake.
• Village of Lakeview – The Village of Lakeview (population of 1,184) is located within Stokes Township (population of 4,550) and is situated north of the Project with approximately 0.4 miles from the intersection of State Routes 235 and 720 to the closest proposed solar panels.
Development within the Village appears to be centered on E. Lake Road/South Main Street (State Route 235), North Main Street, and West Lake Road (“downtown”) Street Patterns within the Village are representative of a grid pattern. While commercial
5 These communities are located entirely within the five-mile VSA
development may be found throughout the Village, it appears to be primarily situated along State Route 235.
Housing within the Village contains single and multi-family dwellings and is found in a moderately dense built environment. Housing can be found along State Routes 235 and 366, North Main Street and West Lake Road, and side roads that originate/terminate from these road corridors. Homes (including apartment complexes) are likely to be of varying ages and styles, and one- to two- stories in height
There are few recreation opportunities within the Village, including the Indian Lake Bike Trail, Indian Lake State Park Lakeview Harbor Boat Ramp, Emil Davis Park, and Lakeview Park. Combined, these facilities provide field play (e.g., baseball and soccer fields), playgrounds, and pavilions. Immediately adjacent to the Village, additional opportunities exist on Indian Lake, and is in close proximity to Fox Island State Park and Indian Lake State Park.
• Village of Belle Center – The Village of Belle Center (population of 809) is located within Richland Township (population of 2,645) and is situated northeast of the Project, with approximately 2.9 miles from the intersection of State Route 273 and South Elizabeth Street to the closest proposed solar panels.
Development within the Village appears to be found along State Route 273 (W. Buckeye Street) and seems to be centered on its intersection with North Elizabeth Street (“downtown”). Street Patterns within the Village are representative of a grid pattern. While commercial development may primarily be found in the downtown area, it may also be seen throughout the Village.
Housing within the Village contains single and multi-family dwellings and is found in a moderately dense built environment. Housing can be found along State Routes 273 and North State Street, and side roads that originate/terminate from these road corridors. Homes are likely to be of varying ages and styles, and one- to two- stories in height
There are limited recreation opportunities within the Village, including the Richland Township Park/Richland Township Park These facilities provide field play (e.g., baseball fields), a basketball court, and pavilions. Near the Village, additional opportunities exist on Indian Lake, and is in close proximity to Fox Island State Park and Indian Lake State Park.
• Village of Huntsville – The Village of Huntsville (population of 408) is located within McArthur Township (population of 1,920) and is situated in the center of the VSA, with approximately 1.8 miles from the intersection of State Route 117 and Napoleon Street to the closest proposed solar panels.
Development within the Village appears to be found along State Route 117 (Lima Street) Street Patterns within the Village are representative of a grid pattern, many of which are found at an angle to Lima Street. While commercial development may primarily be found along Route 117, it may also be found in other area of the Village.
Housing within the Village contains single and multi-family dwellings and is found in a low to moderately dense built environment. Housing can be found along State Route 117 and Napoleon Street, and side roads that originate/terminate from these road corridors. Homes are likely to be of varying ages and styles, and one- to two- stories in height
There are limited recreation opportunities within the Village, including the Lions Park. This park provides field play (e.g., baseball and soccer fields), playground, a walking trail, and pavilions.
• Village of Jackson Center - The Village (population of 1,441) is located within Jackson Township (population of 2,414) and is situated to the west of the Project, with approximately three miles from the intersection of State Routes 65 and 274 to the closest proposed solar panels
Development within the Village appears to be centered on State Routes 65 (Main Street) and 274 (Pike Street) (“downtown”). Street Patterns within the Village are representative of a grid pattern. While commercial development may be found throughout the Village, it appears to be primarily situated along State Route 274. Industrial uses may be found along Airstream Drive, Jerry Drive, and State Route 65.
Housing within the Village contains single and multi-family dwellings and is found in a moderately dense built environment. Housing can be found along State Routes 65 and 274, and side roads that originate/terminate from these road corridors. Homes (including apartment complexes) are likely to be of varying ages and styles, and one- to two- stories in height
Recreational activities within the Village include the Wally Byam Memorial Park and at the Jackson Center High School. Combined, these two facilities offer the community a variety of opportunities including a playground, swimming, tennis and basketball courts, field play (e.g., baseball), and a track.
• Once outside of these Villages, the built environment drops substantially as land uses become predominately agricultural that is interspersed with forested land. Residential and commercial development found outside of the community centers identified above is limited and mostly found adjoining roadways and unincorporated communities such as Bloom Center and Lewistown.
• There are a number of corridors found throughout the VSA including U.S. Route 33; State Routes 366, 720, and 235, and County Roads 52, 82, 54, etc. The U.S. and State Routes are two lane roadways with shoulders and outside municipal boundaries provide users with a higher rate of transit (e.g., 55 miles per hour [MPH])
Average annual daily traffic (“AADT”) varies in the area surrounding the Project. For instance, U.S. Route 33 has a two-way AADT of 7,749 to 8,960 (just south of the Village of Russells Point), State Route 366 has an AADT of 4,517 (section within the Village of Russells Point), and State Route 235 has an AADT of 2,373 to 4,359 (just south of the Village of Lakeview). However, outside of these routes, traffic on the roadways significantly drops. For example, State Route 720 has an AADT that
varies between 1,024 and 641 headed west, County Road 52 varies between 307 and 509, and County Road 54 varies between 256 and 512
Four distance zones are used to divide the VSA into distinct areas around the Project Site that are based on the level of landscape detail that can be perceived by a viewer. The distance zones identified below have been defined per agency protocols published by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS 1995), Bureau of Land Management (BLM 1984), and U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT 2015) as a guide for identifying distances at which landscape detail can be perceived by a viewer. Using appropriate adjustments associated with Ohio’s landscape types, the following distance zones have been defined:
Immediate Foreground Distance Zone (0 to 300 feet): At this distance, a perceived visual impact will likely be considered the greatest to an observer. One will be able to clearly see the details of the proposed panels and other components of the Project. Surface textures, small features, and the full intensity and value of color can be seen on objects within this distance. The Project will be seen at a substantial scale contrast and spatial dominance relative to other elements within the landscape.
Foreground Distance Zone (300 feet to 0.5 miles): At this distance, a perceived visual impact may also be considered by an observer to be high. A high level of detail, but not at the clarity of being in the Immediate Foreground, will be seen of the proposed panels and other Project components. Individual landscape forms are dominant, and the scale of the proposed Project when compared to the adjacent landscape is at its highest. Visibility within the Foreground (including the Immediate Foreground) is likely to be the greatest.
Middleground Distance Zone (0.5 to 2 miles): At this distance, it is possible to discern individual tree forms and buildings. However, the Middleground is the point where elements begin to merge, visual details begin to be harder to perceive, and the texture and form of individual plants are no longer visibly acute. Atmospheric conditions can reduce visibility and result in a bluish hue visible on the distant landscape. The Middleground provides enough distance for the viewer to relate individual elements to the larger landscape. Solar panels seen at this distance will lose detail and be seen as a contiguous mass of form and/or color.
Background Distance Zone (2 to 5 miles to the horizon): At this distance, textures will disappear, and colors will appear flat. Landscape features will be simplified and are viewed in groups or patterns. Patterns and shapes of vegetation or open land are distinguishable; with ridgelines and the horizon line being dominant characteristics. Atmospheric conditions will continue to reduce visibility and result in a blue-gray hue visible on the distant landscape. Solar panels can be detected as a distant form and color change but are not as discernible.
For the purpose of this report, the visual conditions described in these distance zones depict potential perspectives for viewers during periods of peak visual clarity and do not account for variations in environmental factors such as haze or other atmospheric conditions, time of day, or background composition/coloration.
Those participating in various activities are likely to view or perceive their surrounding environment differently. These individuals comprise a viewer group, or constituency, and those that may be found in the VSA are described below. These descriptions will aid the reader in understanding the potential sensitivity and response one may experience because of the visual change caused by the Project to the surrounding landscape.
Local Constituency: This group includes individuals who would observe the Project from their homes, places of employment, or from roadways. Views would likely be stationary and be frequent or of an extended period of time; however, those travelling the roads would experience views that would be moving and temporary in nature.
Although individuals in this group may be sensitive to change in specific views that are important to them, sensitivity may be minimized, or diminished, due to repeated exposure that will occur over time.
Workers spend their time indoors and/or outdoors. Those conducting indoor tasks will have less exposure to the surrounding landscape and will therefore be less likely to be affected by changes to the surrounding landscape. When outdoors, individuals’ sensitivity to the landscape may vary, but they will likely give some degree of thought to their surroundings as they focus on job responsibilities.
Commuter Constituency: This group consists of individuals who travel through the VSA on highways (they may also be referred to as “travelers”). Views that may be encountered would typically be moving and at a higher rate of speed. Individuals will likely be focused on the road in front of them, resulting in views to the adjacent landscape that are mostly peripheral, intermittent and of relatively brief duration due to rate of travel. However, unlike those driving, passengers will have the opportunity for more direct views to the adjacent landscape and be more likely to view changes in the landscape. For those who are not familiar with or infrequently experience the landscape, sensitivity to changes may be low.
Recreational and Visitor Constituency: This group (local, regional, or of national origin) includes those who visit the VSA to enjoy the cultural, recreational, and open spaces. Activities may be land based or on the open waters. Sensitivity and duration of views to the Project are contingent on the engaged activity.
This assessment includes a viewshed analysis, identification of visual and aesthetic resources within the VSA, representative visual simulations of the Project, and the assessment of the Project’s visual impacts. The methods for each of these are further described in the following sections.
2.1.1
As required by the OPSB, a topography only, or “bare-earth”, viewshed was performed. Since this viewshed does not account for intervening vegetation or structures, it represents a conservative assessment.
A viewshed analysis is a GIS-based map that accounts for the heights of the proposed components and the surrounding landscape, identifying areas of potential visibility of the Project within the VSA. In its most basic form, a viewshed is a line-of-sight analysis between Project components and ground elevations Typically, a topography-only viewshed serves as an initial step in defining the Project’s visibility. Since a topography-only viewshed is likely unrealistic, a second viewshed which accounts for screening elements such as vegetation and buildings was developed. This screened viewshed was completed for the area found within five miles of the Project (Figure B1, Appendix B).
Light detection and ranging (“Lidar”) data obtained from the United States Geological Survey (“USGS”) and State of Ohio Office of Information Technology 6 was used to develop a digital elevation model (“DEM”) for the topography-only viewshed out to five miles around the Project. This dataset also provided a digital surface model (“DSM”) for the screened viewshed (accounts for topography, vegetation, and structures [including the screening caused by the proposed solar panels]) viewshed. ESRI ArcGIS Pro® software with the Spatial Analyst extension was used in developing the viewsheds; this software considered the coordinates and dimensions of the array, a maximum panel height of 12 feet, and an assumed viewer height of 1.8 meters (six feet). The solar arrays in all buildable areas were represented in the viewshed model by 290 uniformly distributed points, resulting in a 400-foot by 400-foot grid pattern.
The figures found in Appendix B illustrate the results of these viewshed analyses. They are presented on a 1:25,000 scale topographic base map, with areas of “more” or “less” visibility indicated by color shade.
Although the viewshed analysis provides a useful representation of Project visibility, certain conditions that can affect visibility are not included in this analysis (e.g., color, distance from viewer, and atmospheric/weather conditions). Therefore, some areas within the VSA may not always have actual visibility of the Project.
6 For the DEM viewshed, countywide topography data was obtained from Ohio Geographically Referenced Information Program (OGRIP). For the DSM, Lidar point cloud tiles were collected for the 5-mile VSA from the following LIDAR surveys via the USGS National Map Downloader (OH_StatewideP3_4_B21, Ohio_North_Phase1, and USGS_OH_StatewideP3_3_B21). All cell sizes were processed to be 10 feet by 10 feet.
In addition to the viewsheds completed for the proposed PV panels, a separate five-mile viewshed was also developed for the Project substation. The process followed that which is described above and is based on seven points which included six static/lightning masts (125.5 feet above grade) and one AFrame dead end structure (175.5 feet above grade). The viewshed also took into account the screening effects of the proposed PV panels.
The analysis of the potential visibility of the Project, based on the screened viewshed, is summarized in Table 1, and the potential visibility is illustrated in Figure B1, Appendix B. The results of the analysis indicate the Project would be screened in views from 85.59 percent of the five-mile VSA due to topography, existing vegetation, and physical structures. For informational purposes, visibility based on topography-only is also presented in Table 1 and Figure B1. Topography-only visibility is an overly conservative analysis and not comparable to real-life conditions.
1: Viewshed Summary – Five Miles Around the Project
The geographic area(s) that will experience theoretical visibility of the PV panels, based on the completed screened viewshed, are illustrated on Figure B1. Areas that have “more visibility” or “less visibility” within the viewshed are indicated by the exhibited color shade. This figure shows that visibility of the panels is expected to be limited, with most of the visibility occurring within two miles of the panels.
PV Panel Screened Viewshed Analysis Per Each Distance Zone: Up to File Miles Around the Project Site.
The completed viewshed analysis is summarized by distance zone in Table 1. The three distance zones with the greatest amount of visibility are found within 1) the Immediate Foreground distance zone where the screened viewshed indicates that 2.02 square miles (76.90 percent of the distance zone area) will have potential to view some portion of the proposed PV panels, 2) the Foreground distance zone where the screened viewshed indicates that 11.49 square miles (63.51 percent of the distance zone area) will have the potential to view some portion of the proposed PV panels, and 3) the Middleground distance zone where there is 14.82 square miles, or 27.29 percent, with visibility. The Background distance zone will have 2.79 square miles, or 1.96 percent, of visibility 7 . It should be noted that visibility occurring within the fence line of the Project Site itself consists of areas not accessible to the public and are therefore not included in this analysis
Visibility of the PV panels will occur on 31.30 square miles of the total 217.29 square miles found within the five-mile VSA. The limited visibility is due to the low profile of the panels, and the presence of forested land (including hedgerows and property landscaping) found within the VSA. The combination of vegetation and topography screen most distant views.
As expected, the viewshed map indicates visibility along adjacent roads that include State Routes 117, 274, 708 and 720, and along U.S. Route 33 In addition, there are multiple county and town roads having visibility (e.g., County Highway 21; County Roads 52, 53, 54, 60 and 61, and Township Roads 52, 53, 83 and 94). Visibility will also be found on private lands where there are cleared fields in the direction of the Project Site. Due to the relatively flat land, visibility radiates in all directions from the Project Site, with the highest concentration of visibility within two miles. Between two and file miles, there is a noticeable decrease in overall visibility , specifically, visibility is not found beyond two miles to the north, northeast, east and southeast; limited visibility is found to the south southwest, west, and northwest
It should be recognized that per OAC 4906-4-08(D), the completed Project viewshed should be based on topography-only. While this may be misleading in representing the potential visibility of the Project, those areas highlighted with visibility based on the screened viewshed would also be visible in considering a topography only viewshed. Figure B1 shows both conditions, and therefore satisfactorily addresses OAC 4906-4-08(D).
Based on the screened viewshed analysis, Table 3 and Figure B2 illustrates that a portion of the proposed substation would theoretically be visible from approximately 12.0 percent of the 79.10 square miles found within the five-mile radius, and that approximately 88.0 percent of this area would likely have no visibility of the proposed Project substation. There is a higher concentration of visibility within 0.5 mile of the substation, radiating outwards in multiple directions. In addition, there is visibility of varying size extending beyond two miles; this would include a sizable amount of Indian Lake 8
7 Percentages are based on the amount of visibility within each identified distance zone. Within the five-mile VSA, percentages are lower due to the overall amount of land.
8 Depending on mapping, Indian Lake may also be referred to as Lucys Pond or Dunns Pond
Table 2. Viewshed Analysis for the Proposed Project Substation
VSRs within the VSA were identified per the requirements of OAC 4906-4-08(D)(1). Below are the potential VSR categories that may be present within the VSA. In addition, other aesthetic resources were considered for evaluation based on the type of resource or its prominence within the VSA. Typical VSRs include the following:
• Landmarks such as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are recognized by, registered with, or identified as eligible for registration by the national registry of natural landmarks, the state historical preservation office, or the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR);
• Recreation areas that are formally adopted land and water recreation areas, recreational trails, scenic rivers, scenic routes or byways;
• Registered landmarks of historic, religious, archaeological, scenic, natural, or other cultural significance; and
• Other public areas such as state, federal, and interstate highways; schools; cities; and villages.
Those resources found within five miles of the Project are contained in Table 3 and annotated on Figure B1, Appendix B. Additional information may be found on the Landmark Map completed as part of the Applicants application.
Properties of Historic Significance
National Historic Landmarks (NHL)
None within VSA.
Sites Listed on National or State Registers of Historic Places (NRHP/SRHP)
Sites Eligible for Listing on NRHP or SRHP
National/State Historic Sites
None within VSA.
Ohio Historic Structures
None within VSA.
Designated Scenic Resources
Rivers Designated as National or State Wild, Scenic or Recreational
Sites, Areas, Lakes, Reservoirs or Highways Designated or Eligible for Designation as Scenic
None within VSA.
Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance [Article 42 of Executive Law]
None within VSA.
Visually Sensitive Resources (0-5 Miles from the Project) Location
Other Designated Scenic Resources (Easements, Roads, Districts, and Overlooks)
None within VSA.
Public Lands and Recreational Resources
National Parks, Recreation Areas, Seashores, and/or Forests [16U.S.C. 1c]
None within VSA.
National Natural Landmarks [36 CFR Part 62]
None within VSA.
National Wildlife Refuges [16 U.S.C. 668dd]
None within VSA.
Heritage Areas [Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law Section 35.15]
None within VSA.
State Parks [Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law Section 3.09] Indian
Wildlife Areas
None within VSA.
State Forest
None within VSA.
Other State Lands
None within VSA.
Designated Trails
Clay, Harrison, Lake, McArthur, Stokes and Washington / Auglaize and Logan
State Route
U.S.
Cities, Villages
None within VSA.
Roundhead, Stokes and Washington / Hardin and Logan
Villages of Lakeview and Russells Point, Clay, Stokes and Washington / Auglaize and Logan
Clay, Goshen, Harrison, Lake, McArthur, Stokes and Washington / Auglaize and Logan
Table 3 indicates that 28 of the 101 VSRs identified within the VSA (27.7 percent) may have some level of visibility of the solar modules. The 28 VSRs with potential visibility of the Project include:
• One historical marker (Indian Reservation),
• Eight OGS Cemeteries (Dillon, Rea, Pence, Parr, Taylor, Pleasant Hill, Harrod and Lewistown),
• Six state/local recreational resources (Top of Ohio Trail, Great Miami River Water Trail, State Bicycle Route 54, Indian Lake State Park, Emil Davis Park, and Russells Point and Al Leppich Ball Fields),
• Two U.S. Routes (U.S. Routes 33 and 68),
• Seven State Routes (Ohio State Routes 65, 117, 235, 274, 366, 708, and 720),
• One school campus (Indian Lake Elementary, Middle, and High Schools), and
• Three Villages (Lakeview, Russells Point, and Huntsville)
The locations of the mapped VSRs within the five-mile VSA are illustrated in Figure B1 and listed individually in Table 3.
There are a total of 49 resources, see Table B1 in Appendix B, within a five-mile VSA of the proposed Project substation; 19 of these have some level of visibility of this facility. Those with visibility include:
• Rea Cemetery,
• Indian Lake Elementary, Middle, and High Schools,
• Ohio State Routes 235, 274, 366, 368, 708, and 720,
• U.S. Route 33,
• Top of Ohio Trail (planned),
• Great Miami River Water Trail,
• State Bicycle Route 54,
• Cree Park Campground,
• Village of Lakeview,
• Cherokee Landing RV Resort,
• Indian Lake State Park,
• Emil Davis Park,
• Village of Russells Point, and
• Lewiston Cemetery.
2.3.1
Stantec personnel visited the site on July 11 and 17, 2024, to document views toward the Project from adjacent roadways. Clear atmospheric conditions were encountered during this visit. Viewpoint locations were documented using coordinates from a hand-held global positioning system (“GPS”) device, or similar. Photograph orientation was based on the layout current at the time of the site visit.
Photography was conducted with a high-resolution, full-frame, 35-millimeter (mm) Digital Single-LensReflex (DSLR) camera with a lens setting of approximately 50mm; this setting is widely accepted as an industry standard for approximating the field of vision of the human eye. That is, a photograph of a landscape shot with a full-frame camera with a 50mm lens generally replicates what a person would see in a single frame of view.
Stantec collected multiple photographs from each of the 23 viewpoints (VPs) visited within the VSA Multiple photos from each location ensured a suitable photograph for use in the simulation process and provided some context of the landscape from each observation point. All photographs serve to document existing conditions of the Project Site.
2.3.2
To demonstrate how the Project will appear within the landscape, photo-realistic simulations were created from five key observation points (“KOPs”). These specific locations were selected in coordination with the Applicant and address the following:
• They provide open views to the Project within the Immediate Foreground and Foreground distance zone.
• They illustrate typical views of different sections of the Project from a variety of directions to illustrate varying panel positions and colors
• They illustrate typical views of the Project for those viewers that will encounter the facility most often, namely local residents and workers.
The selected KOPs for simulation, in relation to the Project, are presented on Figure C1, Appendix C.
2.3.3
Select photographs from the identified KOPs were used to generate a photo-realistic simulation of the Project as proposed. These simulations provide clear before-and-after images of the location, scale, and visual appearance of the features affected by and associated with the Project. The simulations were developed through an objective analytical and computer-modeling process and are accurate within the constraints of the available data (a 3-dimensional [3D] computer model was created using a combination of AutoCAD files and GIS layers and exported to Autodesk’s 3Ds Max for production). Design data consisting of site engineering data, assumed elevations based on module and inverter specifications, site and topographical contour plans, and concept diagrams were used as a platform from which digital models were created.
The Applicant proposes to place vegetation in strategic locations along the perimeter of the Project to screen, or soften, views of the Project from nearby residences and roadways. The proposed plantings have been incorporated into the photosimulations, where applicable, and are based on information presented in the Preliminary Landscape Plan, which also was prepared by Stantec.
In selecting KOPs, Stantec provided simulations with north, east, south, and west views to the Project. Locations of these are found within a series of three-by-three-mile squares around the Project. The intent was not to provide simulations in each cardinal direction in each square, but rather to ensure that there was a photosimulation in each box, resulting in simulations of varying orientations and locations throughout
This section describes the view from each KOP, first under existing conditions and then with the proposed Project simulated with vegetation planted at seven years post-construction. Please note that the attached simulation exhibits include simulations with plantings at three, and seven years; for discussion purposes the later mitigation simulations were used
The existing and simulated images of the simulations are included in Appendix C.
2.4.1
KOP 1 is located on County Road 60, within the southwest portion of the Project area. This northeast looking KOP demonstrates a view along the roadway and is representative of residents and travelers. From this vantage point, the observer is exposed to what appears to be a relatively flat field that is slowly rising in elevation; the crest of this landform is higher than the elevation of the road. The farmland is seen against the sky (left side of the view), or with mature vegetation rising above. There is a visible horizontal line where the crops are seen against the sky and vegetation; it appears stronger where vegetation is lacking. There are no human made or vertical elements within view.
The vegetation has little overall variation in color (greens), and the texture of the elements appears varying from smooth to lightly coarse. This view consists of few colors including green, and blue/white (sky). Long distance views are restricted by the landform and vegetation.
After installation, the Project will be seen at a distance of approximately 200 11 feet from the observer. The addition of the Project will introduce a new, smooth appearing, clearly human-made land-use to the open farmland. Portions of the open farmland are now occupied by the Project; as seen in the simulation, there is ample land between the road and Project. Although various angles are seen within the solar panels, the Project creates a strong horizontal line that is seen against the sky and distant vegetation. With the addition of the fence, there are now a series of vertical lines that are introduced into the landscape; additional vertical lines are seen because of the racking system. The introduction of the horizontal and vertical lines tends to be unique in this setting.
The perceived height of the panels is reduced when compared to the existing vegetation in the background of the view, and to a lesser extent, the distance from the observer. The colors of the panels are somewhat similar to that of the sky, but when seen against the green vegetated backdrop, the color of the panels is noticeable. Overall, they are a slight contrast to the overall landscape setting. When considering the proposed fence posts, the lighter color is in contrast to the proposed panels and the green colors found in the field and vegetation.
The proposed Project will also include landscape mitigation from this view. When considering the vegetation at seven years after installation, a significant amount of screening is established adjacent to the fence line. As the plantings mature, their screening value will continue to evolve. Overall, these plantings will appear similar or complimentary to that which is seen in this view.
KOP 2 is located on Township Road 53, within the southwestern portion of the Project area. This north looking view is representative of residents and travelers. From this vantage point, an observer is exposed to a relatively flat appearing farmland, bisected by Route 53, at it extends into the distance. The farmland contains low-lying crops (i.e., soybeans) in the foreground of the view, which is adjacent to taller crops of corn. In between the road and row crops is a shoulder of maintained grass. In the distance, white residential/agricultural structures are seen against a backdrop of mature vegetation. The far distant field boundary appears to be bounded by mature vegetation. Generally, the farmland and tree line form a horizontal line compared to the sky.
Overall, the view has limited variations in color (greens) due to the amount of vegetation; however, additional colors that are found include white (several structures) and the gray (asphalt). Overall, the
11 This distance represents the Project whether in view or not.
asphalt road is a co-dominant element as this linear feature extends into the distance, making it a strong vertical element.
After installation, the Project will be seen at a distance of approximately 375 feet from the observer. The addition of the Project will introduce a new, smooth appearing, clearly human-made land-use to the open farmland. In this instance, the PV panels will be located on both sides of Route 53 A moderate portion of the overall field is perceived to be occupied by the Project; as seen in the simulation, there is ample land between the road and Project. Due to distance, Project details tend to merge as a combination of distance and shading begins to limit the visibility of components (e.g., vertical posts of the mounting rack). The Project creates a horizontal line that is seen against the distant vegetation; with the addition of the fence, there are a series of repetitive vertical lines that are introduced into the landscape. These horizontal and vertical lines are not unique in this setting.
The perceived height of the panels is reduced due to the Project’s distance from the observer and the existing vegetation that forms the backdrop of the Project is seen protruding above the panels further reducing the perceived scale of the Project.
The colors of the panels have a slight contrast to the existing landscape, but it appears to be absorbed into the overall scene and is like those colors seen in the sky. When considering the proposed fence posts, the lighter color is similar to the PV panels, Route 53, and sky
The proposed Project will be mostly mitigated with plantings from this view. When considering the vegetation at seven years after installation, a significant amount of screening is established. In this view, the proposed plantings are seen adjacent to the fence line. As the plantings mature, their screening value will continue to evolve. Overall, these plantings will appear as similar or complimentary to that which is seen in the distance.
KOP 3 is located on County Road 54, within the central portion of the Project area. This east looking KOP demonstrates a view representative of travelers. From this vantage point, an observer is exposed to a variety of elements and landscape conditions. In the foreground of the view is a low-lying crop of soybean; just beyond there are masses of mature trees along with a high-voltage transmission structure (with additional structures receding into the background). Towards the background of the image is a line of mature vegetation, along with residential/agricultural structures and wind turbines. Overall, the mature vegetation provides a series of horizontal lines when compared to the sky; the human made elements along with the edges of the middleground vegetation stands provide vertical lines within the landscape.
Notwithstanding the blue-white sky, this flat landscape has little variation in color (varying shades of greens). The human-made elements are also of varying colors (gray and white). Overall, textures vary from smooth to lightly coarse. There is a moderately long distant view to the stand of mature looking trees; these trees screen the beyond landscape.
After installation, the Project will be seen at a distance of approximately 0.55 miles from the observer. The addition of the Project will introduce a new, smooth appearing, clearly human-made land-use to the open farmland. Because of the distance from the observer, Project details are not visible, and seem to take up little overall land and field of view. Little detail of the PV panels is seen but do create a white and black horizontal band across the landscape; some induvial components of the light-colored Project substation is visible, much of which is still seen as a small concentration of varying equipment. The Project introduces additional horizontal and vertical lines that are mostly seen against the distant vegetation. These introduced horizontal and vertical lines are not unique in this setting as there are various lines seen in the existing structures, including the transmission and wind turbines.
The perceived height of the panels and substation is reduced due to the distance from the observer and the existing vegetation, heights of the existing transmission structures and wind turbines. These elements are seen protruding above the Project, thus reducing the Project’s perceived height.
The colors of the Project are similar to that of the sky or vegetation. However, when the lighter colored PV panels are seen against the green vegetated backdrop, they are slightly more noticeable. The transmission structures seen against the sky are similar in color, therefore they are not seen in contrast. No Project elements are seen in stark contrast to the overall landscape setting.
The proposed Project will be partially mitigated with plantings from this view. When considering the vegetation seven years after installation, varying amounts of screening is visible. In this view, the proposed plantings are seen adjacent to the fence line and either 1) screen portions of the fencing, or 2) interrupt or soften the appearance of the Project. The tall elements seen in the substation are partially screened by existing vegetation; as the mitigation plantings continue to mature, additional screening of this facility will be noticeable, but it is unlikely to be completely screened from view. As the plantings mature, their screening value will continue to evolve. Overall, these plantings will appear as similar or complimentary to that which is seen in the distance.
KOP 4 is located at the southern end of Emil Davis Park (near the outfield fence) within the northern portion of the Project area. This south looking view is representative of recreationalists. From this vantage point, an observer is exposed to a variety of existing elements and landscape conditions. In the immediate foreground of the view is a manicured lawn. Adjacent to the lawn is a low-lying crop of
soybean; just beyond are mature trees that are seen as masses or individual forms. Towards the center and right of the image are a variety of human-made elements such as a communications tower, substation and transmission infrastructure, and buildings of varying sizes.
Notwithstanding the blue-white sky, this flat landscape has little variations in color (varying shades of greens). However, the human-made elements are of varying colors (gray, white, and brown). Overall, textures vary from smooth to lightly coarse. The view is generally focused on the center of view, with a moderately long distant view to the stand of mature looking trees
After installation, the Project will be seen at a distance of approximately 970 feet from the observer. The addition of the Project will result in the construction of additional, smoothly appearing, clearly humanmade elements within the open farmland; as a result of the existing energy/communication infrastructure, the Project is not seen as a unique land use. A portion of the field is now occupied by the Project; however, as visible, there is ample land between the observer and Project. Due to distance, Project details tend to merge as a combination of distance and shading begins to limit the visibility of components (e.g., vertical posts of the mounting rack). The Project creates a dark horizontal line that is seen against the background of vegetation and existing energy/communication infrastructure; with the addition of the fence, there are a series of repetitive light-colored vertical lines that are introduced into the landscape. These horizontal and vertical lines are not unique in this setting and are in keeping with those already visible
The perceived height of the panels is reduced due to the distance from the observer, and the existing background elements (e.g., vegetation backdrop, substation) of the Project; the existing elements are seen protruding above the panels reducing the perceived scale of the Project.
The colors of the panels are not seen as being in contrast with the existing landscape as they appear to be absorbed into the overall scene.
The proposed Project will be significantly mitigated with plantings from this view. When considering the vegetation seven years after installation, a substantial amount of screening is established. In this view, the proposed plantings are seen adjacent to most of the fence line – the plantings to the right of the Project look to form a hedge screening that which is behind, and those to the left are more separated from one another but should fill in over time As the plantings mature, their screening value will continue to evolve. Overall, these plantings will appear as similar or complimentary to that which is seen in the distance.
KOP 5 is located on State Route 235, within the east-central portion of the Project area. This southwest looking view is representative of travelers and residents. Extending into the background of the image is a low-lying crop of soybean; clusters of trees may be found towards the middleground of the view. Just beyond are residential/agricultural structures that are located closer to the mature treeline in the background This view also contains an asphalt roadway (Route 235) bisecting the lower quarter of the image; this element results in a strong horizontal line. Overall, the vegetation provides a series of horizontal lines when compared to the sky. A strong vertical element is visible with the presence of the tall high voltage transmission structure
Notwithstanding the cloudy white-blue sky, this flat landscape has little variation in color (varying shades of greens). The human-made elements are also of varying colors (gray and white). Overall, textures vary from smooth to lightly coarse.
After installation, the Project will be seen at a distance of approximately 1,500 feet from the observer. The addition of the Project will introduce a new, smooth appearing, clearly human-made land-use to the open farmland. Portions of the open farmland are now occupied by the Project; as seen in the simulation, there is ample land between Route 235 and the Project. With the Project in place, there is low visibility of the PV solar panels in the background of the view, with the proposed substation closer to the observer. The substation is a dominating element within view. There are various angles introduced into the landscape, resulting in strong human-made vertical and horizontals elements that are seen against the sky.
The perceived height of the panels is reduced due to the distance from the observer, the existing vegetation in the distance, and as a result of the proposed substation. The proposed substation is seen as a dominating element; however, it is in keeping with the existing energy infrastructure (i.e., transmission towers) and nearby substation(s) (see Image 1, below)
The thin dark color of the panels is noticeable but is a minor element in the overall setting; the substation is similar to the existing transmission towers and overcast sky. Neither element is seen in stark contrast to the overall landscape setting.
Image 1: Existing substation at the intersection of T-52 and State Route 235. (Photograph supplied by Grange Solar, LLC.)
The proposed Project will also include landscape mitigation from this view. When considering the vegetation seven years after installation, a significant amount of screening is established for the PV panels and base of the substation. As the plantings mature, their screening value will continue to evolve; however, it should be noted that the taller elements found within the compound of the substation may not be totally screened from view. Overall, these plantings will appear as similar or complimentary to that which is seen in this view.
2.4.6 KOP 6 – State Route 274
Existing View
KOP 6 is located on State Route 274, within the south-central portion of the Project area. This west looking view is representative of residents and travelers. From this vantage point, an observer is exposed to relatively flat farmland extending into the background of the image. This farmland contains scattered tall grasses near the roadway, rows of corn, and is bordered with mature vegetation in the distance. The middleground of the image is occupied by various farm and residential structures; additional human-made elements include the gray road and adjacent brown-gray utility poles and conductors. The far distant field boundary appears to be bounded by mature vegetation. The distant tree line forms a strong horizontal line compared to the sky.
The farmland and vegetation, located on either side of Route 274, has little variation in color (greens). The texture of the elements appears varying from smooth to lightly coarse. The asphalt road is a codominant element as the linear feature extends into the distance, making it a strong vertical element. In addition, the repetitive roadside utility poles add a series of vertical lines that extend into the distance. Long distance views are restricted by the vegetation.
After installation, the Project will be seen at a distance of approximately 195 feet from the observer. The addition of the Project will introduce a new, smooth appearing, clearly human-made land-use to the open farmland. A significant portion of the open farmland is now occupied by the Project; as seen in the simulation, there is ample land between the road and Project. Although various angles are seen within the Project, the Project creates a strong diagonal band/line that is seen against the darker background vegetation. With the addition of the fence, there are a series of vertical lines that are introduced into the landscape; additional vertical lines are seen because of the racking system and fence posts. The introduction of these lines is not highly unique to this setting.
The perceived height of the panels is reduced as the taller existing vegetation forms the backdrop of the Project, and to varying degrees, the distance between the observer and Project further reduces the Projects perceived scale.
The colors of the panels are like that of the sky and built structures, but when seen against the green vegetated backdrop, the color of the panels is noticeable. They are not in stark contrast to the overall landscape setting The color of the fence is compatible with the proposed PV panels
The proposed Project will also include landscape mitigation from this view. When considering the vegetation seven years after installation, a significant amount of screening is established adjacent to the fence line. As the plantings mature, their screening value will continue to evolve. Overall, these plantings will appear as similar or complimentary to that which is seen in this view.
2.4.7 KOP 7 – U.S. Route 33
KOP 7 is located on U.S. Route 33, within the eastern portion of the Project area. This southwestern looking view demonstrates a view representative of travelers. From this vantage point, the observer is exposed to what appears to be a relatively flat field covered with tall grasses (found adjacent to the road) and taller flowering herbaceous plant material; the field appears to be at a higher elevation than the road. The background of this view contains mature vegetation, forming a fairly strong horizontal line when seen against the sky
The view contains few human made elements that include a roadside utility pole, a series of conductors, and an asphalt roadway bisecting the lower quarter of the image. These objects add a series of horizontal lines, as well as a vertical element into the overall image.
This view essentially consists of various colors including green, blue (sky), white (sky and road markings), brown (utility pole), variations of gray (road and conductors), and small spots of color from the herbaceous plants in the foreground of the view. The texture of the elements appears varying from smooth to lightly coarse. Long distance views are restricted by the vegetation seen in the distance.
After installation, the Project will be at a distance of approximately 245 feet from the observer. As the placement of the Project is sited beyond the visible roadside vegetation (pollinators) and that which is found adjacent the existing transmission right-of-way, it does not appear that the Project will be visible from this KOP.
In order to highlight the location of the Project, a wireframe rendering has been provided as guidance. Should the existing vegetation be removed, this wire frame provides representation as to the potential magnitude of visibility.
KOP 8 is located on Township Road 94, within the south-eastern portion of the Project area. This southsouthwest looking view is representative of travelers and residents. Extending into the background of the image is a low-lying crop of soybean; a cluster of trees may be found towards the left middleground of the view. Just beyond are a number of residential/agricultural structures. Towards the background of the image is a line of mature vegetation. Overall, the vegetation provides a horizontal line when compared to the sky.
Notwithstanding the blue-white sky, this flat landscape has little variation in color (varying shades of greens and browns). The human-made elements are also of varying colors (gray and white). Overall, textures vary from smooth to lightly coarse.
After installation, the Project will be seen at a distance of approximately 325 feet from the observer. The addition of the Project will introduce a new, smooth appearing, clearly human-made land-use to the open farmland. A portion of the open farmland is now occupied by the Project; however, as seen in the simulation, there is fairly significant amount of undeveloped land between the observer and Project. Although various angles are seen within the Project, it does create a horizontal line that is seen against the sky, and vegetation to a lesser extent. With the addition of the fence, there are a series of vertical lines that are also introduced into the landscape; additional repetitive vertical lines are seen as a result of
the panels, and racking system. The introduction of the horizontal and vertical lines tends to be unique in this setting.
The perceived height of the panels is reduced due to the distance from the observer; the existing vegetation that also forms the backdrop of the Project further reduces the Project’s perceived scale.
The colors of the panels are similar to that of the visible distant vegetation but are seen as a contrast with the blue sky. Although in contrast with the overall landscape setting, it is not a significant stark contrast. The color of the fence posts is compatible with the proposed PV panels, poles and vegetation seen within this view.
The proposed Project will also include landscape mitigation from this view. When considering the vegetation seven years after installation, the appearance of the Project is softened. As the plantings mature, their screening value will continue to evolve. Overall, these plantings will appear as similar or complimentary to that which is seen in this view.
KOP 9 is located on State Route 366, within the south-central portion of the Project area. This northeast looking view is representative of travelers. Extending into the background of the image is a low-lying crop of soybean; a cluster of trees may be found towards the middleground of the view. Just beyond are residential/agricultural structures and a well-formed mature treeline. Off in the distance, towards the right side of the view, is a third layer of vegetation consisting of a mature tree line. Overall, the vegetation provides a horizontal line when compared to the sky.
The view contains few human made elements that include the asphalt roadway bisecting the lower quarter of the image and residential/farm structures in the distance. These objects, to a lesser extent add a series of horizontal light-colored lines into the overall image.
Notwithstanding the cloudy gray-blue sky, this flat landscape has little variation in color (varying shades of greens). The human-made elements add spots of coloring (red, gray, and white). Overall, textures vary from smooth to lightly coarse.
After installation, the Project will be seen at a distance of approximately 775 feet from the observer. The addition of the Project will introduce a new, clearly human-made land-use to the open farmland. Portions of the open farmland are now occupied by the Project; as seen in the simulation, there is ample land between the road and Project. Although various angles are seen within the solar panels, the Project creates a human-made horizontal line that is seen against the distant vegetation. With the addition of the fence, there are a now a series of light-colored vertical lines that are also introduced into the landscape due to the posts. The introduction of the horizontal and vertical lines is not highly unique in this setting.
The perceived height of the panels is reduced due to the distance from the observer; the existing vegetation forms the backdrop of the Project, further adding the perceived scale of the Project.
The dark color of the panels is similar to that of the distant vegetation. They are not in stark contrast to the overall landscape setting. The color of the fence is compatible with the proposed PV panels and sky within this view.
The proposed Project will also include landscape mitigation from this view. When considering the vegetation seven years after installation, the appearance of the Project is softened. As the plantings mature, their screening value will continue to evolve. Overall, these plantings will appear as similar or complimentary to that which is seen in this view.
The Grange Solar Grazing Center will place solar modules on about 2,600 acres of farmland, currently used for row-crop production. Based on the screened viewshed analysis, the Project would be obstructed or otherwise not visible in views from most of the five-mile VSA (85.59 percent). Although visibility is primarily concentrated within two miles of the Project Site, there is a potential to view a higher concentration of panels the closer one gets to the Project Site itself (i.e., adjacent to the open agricultural fields that host the PV panels). Between two and five miles, there is a noticeable decrease in overall visibility, specifically, visibility is not found beyond two miles to the north, northeast, east and southeast; limited visibility is found to the south southwest, west and northwest. Visibility of the Project is further limited in the Background distance zone due to the clusters of dense vegetation and structures found in the Foreground and Middleground distance zones These observations are based on the screened viewshed, when considering the topography only viewshed, 75.89 percent of the VSA would have visibility
A total of 101 resources were identified within the five- mile VSA. Based on the screened viewshed analysis, 28 of these resources (27.7 percent) will have some level of visibility. The photosimulations indicate that the solar modules will be highly visible from the adjacent roadways but would be screened to varying degrees with the proposed mitigation plantings. These plantings are located in strategic locations along the perimeter of the Project Site to reduce views (screen or soften) from nearby residences and roadways.
Placement of the solar modules on farmland will alter the Project area’s rural agricultural character, particularly within the Immediate Foreground and Foreground distance zones; the Project Site would be segmented with portions frequently appearing compartmented by stands of trees. To mitigate the perceived visual impact of the Project, particularly in these areas, a vegetative screen consisting of a mixture of trees and shrubs would be implement throughout the entire Project perimeter. This vegetative screening seeks to mimic the adjacent woodlands and hedgerows that are also characteristic of the landscape through the use of regionally native plant species, helping to blend with that which is found in the Foreground distance zones with the natural aesthetics of the locale (please refer to the Preliminary Landscape Plan prepared by Stantec). As a result of this, and of the Project vicinity’s relatively flat topography, the total scale of the Project’s overall footprint would not be evident from a distance; Project visibility will diminish as the distance between an observer and the proposed Project increases, due to topography, vegetation, crops (during the growing season), and structures
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1984. Visual resource management, BLM Manual Handbook 8400, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
National Park Service (NPS). 2016. National Historic Landmarks. Accessed July 2024. Available at: https://www.nps.gov
NPS. 2018. National Natural Landmarks by State: Ohio. Accessed July 2024. Available at: https://www.nps.gov
NPS. 2019. National Scenic Trails. Accessed July 2024. Available at: https://www.nps.gov
Ohio Department of Development. 2021. Accessed August 2024. Population and Household Counts for Governmental Units: 2020, 2010, 2000. https://dam.assets.ohio.gov
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2016. ODNR Statewide GIS Information. Accessed June 2024. Available at: https://apps.ohiodnr.gov
Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2018. Assets and Environmental Shapefiles. Accessed August 2024. Available at: https://gis.dot.state.oh.us
Ohio Division of Wildlife. Trees if Ohio Field Guides. Accessed August 2024. https://ohio.gov
United States Census Bureau Population Data. Accessed August 2024. https://data.census.gov/
United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. 2015. Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects. (FHWA-HEP-15-029.)
United Sates Environmental Protection Agency. Department of Natural Resources. Physiographic Regions of Ohio. Accessed August 2024. https://www.epa.gov
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. National Wildlife Refuge Locator. Accessed July 2024. Available at: http://www.fws.gov
United States Forest Service (USFS). 1995. Landscape aesthetics: a handbook for scenery management, rev. ed. Agriculture Handbook 701. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Agriculture. 264 p. http://blmwyomingvisual.anl.gov
Location
Visually Sensitive Resources (0-5 Miles from the Project Substation)
Properties of Historic Significance
National Historic Landmarks (NHL)
None within VSA.
Sites Listed on National or State Registers of Historic Places (NRHP/SRHP)
Sites Eligible for Listing on NRHP or SRHP
None within VSA.
National/State Historic Sites
None within VSA.
Ohio Historic Structures
None within VSA.
Historic Bridges
None within VSA.
OGS Cemeteries
from the Project
Project Visibility (Viewshed Results) and Viewer Group
+ Visible - Not Visible +/- Partially Visible Based on the DEM Viewshed (Topography Only)
Ohio Historic State Markers
None within VSA.
Designated Scenic Resources
Rivers Designated as National or State Wild, Scenic or Recreational
None within VSA.
Visually Sensitive Resources (0-5 Miles from the Project Substation)
Map ID
Location
Township (or City/Village) / County
Project Visibility (Viewshed Results) and Viewer Group
Miles from the Project Substation + Visible - Not Visible +/- Partially Visible Based on the DEM Viewshed (Topography Only)
Sites, Areas, Lakes, Reservoirs or Highways Designated or Eligible for Designation as Scenic ([ECL Article 49 Title 1] or equivalent)
None within VSA.
Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance [Article 42 of Executive Law]
None within VSA.
Other Designated Scenic Resources (Easements, Roads, Districts, and Overlooks)
None within VSA.
Public Lands and Recreational Resources
National Parks, Recreation Areas, Seashores, and/or Forests [16U.S.C. 1c]
None within VSA.
National Natural Landmarks [36 CFR Part 62]
None within VSA.
National Wildlife Refuges [16 U.S.C. 668dd]
None within VSA.
Heritage Areas [Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law Section 35.15]
None within VSA.
State Parks [Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law Section 3.09]
None within VSA.
State Nature and Historic Preserve Areas [Section 4 of Article XIV of the State Constitution]
None within VSA.
Wildlife Areas
None within VSA
State Forest
None within VSA.
Other State Lands
None within VSA.
Designated Trails
Top of Ohio Trail (Planned)
Great Miami River Water Trail
State Bicycle Route 54
Village of Lakeview, City of Bellefontaine, Harrison, Lake and Washington / Logan
Village of Russells Point, Bloomfield, Pleasant, Stokes and Washington / Logan
Village of Lakeview, City of Bellefontaine, Clay, Harrison, Lake, McArthur, Stokes
Focal Length:
Focal Length:
KOP Location: County Road 54
Photography Date / Time: July 11, 2024, 2:31 p.m.
Focal Length:
Focal Length:
Focal
Focal Length:
Focal
KOP Latitude / Longitude:
KOP Location: State Route 366
Photography Date / Time: July 17, 2024, 12:12 p.m.
Focal Length: 46mm Photographer: Stantec
Notes:
1. Inclusion of photos in this photolog does not guarantee visibility.
2. A different photo may be utilized from the selected viewpoint location to ensure “worst-case” visibility based on a single frame photograph.
Client/Project
Title Grange Solar, LLC Grange Solar Grazing Center Logan County, Ohio
Notes:
1. Inclusion of photos in this photolog does not guarantee visibility.
2. A different photo may be utilized from the selected viewpoint location to ensure “worst-case” visibility based on a single frame photograph.
Client/Project
Notes:
1. Inclusion of photos in this photolog does not guarantee visibility.
2. A different photo may be utilized from the selected viewpoint location to ensure “worst-case” visibility based on a single frame photograph.
Client/Project
Notes:
1. Inclusion of photos in this photolog does not guarantee visibility.
2. A different photo may be utilized from the selected viewpoint location to ensure “worst-case” visibility based on a single frame photograph.
Notes:
1. Inclusion of photos in this photolog does not guarantee visibility.
2. A different photo may be utilized from the selected viewpoint location to ensure “worst-case” visibility based on a single frame photograph.
Client/Project
Notes:
1. Inclusion of photos in this photolog does not guarantee visibility.
2. A different photo may be utilized from the selected viewpoint location to ensure “worst-case” visibility based on a single frame photograph.
Client/Project
Grange Solar Grazing Center Logan County, Ohio
Notes:
1. Inclusion of photos in this photolog does not guarantee visibility.
2. A different photo may be utilized from the selected viewpoint location to ensure “worst-case” visibility based on a single frame photograph.
Client/Project
Notes:
1. Inclusion of photos in this photolog does not guarantee visibility.
2. A different photo may be utilized from the selected viewpoint location to ensure “worst-case” visibility based on a single frame photograph.
Client/Project
Notes:
1. Inclusion of photos in this photolog does not guarantee visibility.
2. A different photo may be utilized from the selected viewpoint location to ensure “worst-case” visibility based on a single frame photograph.
Client/Project
Notes:
1. Inclusion of photos in this photolog does not guarantee visibility.
2. A different photo may be utilized from the selected viewpoint location to ensure “worst-case” visibility based on a single frame photograph.
Notes:
1. Inclusion of photos in this photolog does not guarantee visibility.
2. A different photo may be utilized from the selected viewpoint location to ensure “worst-case” visibility based on a single frame photograph.
Client/Project
Notes:
1. Inclusion of photos in this photolog does not guarantee visibility.
2. A different photo may be utilized from the selected viewpoint location to ensure “worst-case” visibility based on a single frame photograph.
Client/Project
Notes:
1. Inclusion of photos in this photolog does not guarantee visibility.
2. A different photo may be utilized from the selected viewpoint location to ensure “worst-case” visibility based on a single frame photograph.
Client/Project
Notes:
1. Inclusion of photos in this photolog does not guarantee visibility.
2. A different photo may be utilized from the selected viewpoint location to ensure “worst-case” visibility based on a single frame photograph.
Client/Project