Loading...
2024.01.25 Staff Report.pdf December 14 2023 Staff Report To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley RE: Staff Report, January 25 2024 Commission Meeting 5:30 PM Notice of Intent for construction of 9 solar panel canopies within riverfront (Mill River), buffer zone, and bordering land subject to flooding. Parallel Products Solar Energy. 182 Mt Tom Rd, Map ID 39-1 Application Overview: The application proposes installation of nine solar canopies over an existing junkyard, along with . The junkyard is located immediately adjacent to the Mill River’s bank, and within BLSF, riverfront, and buffer zone. The junkyard operation is proposed to continue as it currently exists. DEP Comments (Staff additions in italic): [1] The work is subject to MESA review only, not 310 CMR 10.59 Noted. While a ‘no-take’ determination has been provided by NHESP regarding state-listed plants, their review did not include the proposed plantings, which were provided in a later plan revision set. NHESP review of any revised plans would be necessary. [2] The NOI is unclear under which part of the Riverfront definition the MAHWL was determined. It appears that at least in some areas, the MAHWL will be determined per 310 CMR 10.58(2)(a)2.b. The Wetlands Regulations provide two options for identification of the mean annual high water. “In most rivers, the first observable break in slope is coincident with bankfull conditions and the mean annual high-water line.” In some river reaches, the mean annual high-water line is represented by bankfull field indicators that occur above the first observable break in slope, or if no observable break in slope exists, by other bankfull field indicators. These river reaches are characterized by at least two of the following features: low gradient, meanders, oxbows, histosols, a low-flow channel, or poorly-defined or nonexistent banks. Due to the characteristics of the Mill River in this location, the latter method would likely be necessary. The delineation memo (2022) notes that both of these were used, but provides no indication of what method was used in any instance, or what other bankfull indicators were used as factors. The accuracy of the delineation cannot be verified. Additionally, Staff could not locate wetland flagging on a site visit. [3] The commission should carefully review the performance standards for work in BLSF. The basin for the proposed compensatory storage does not comply as it does not provide an unrestricted connection to the water body. The wetland delineation report states that exact flood information is not available for this site, which is not correct. Both the FIRM and the FIS have a regulatory Base Flood Elevation for here. What vertical elevation datum are the plans based upon? Hampshire County FEMA January 25 2024 Staff Report 2 mapping uses the NGVD29 datum and if the plans are based on NAVD88, there is a conversion factor that must be used. Regarding compliance with the BLSF standards, what about all the trailers and possible permanent structures that aerial photos show being brought onsite over time? Please provide a cut and fill table to the commission for each 1 foot incremental elevation. What will the elevation of the solar panels be when constructed, at or below or above the flood plain elevation? Noted. Staff requested a revised planset that included the floodplain elevation clearly , and a revised plan for cuts that met performance standards for BLSF and any other involved resource areas. The intial planset proposed flood mitigation as a hole on the southern portion of the site, which both increased riverfront impacts and did not meet the foot-for-foot standard Revised plans show the flood elevation on solar panel cross sections, but it is unclear where the flood storage mitigation cuts are being provided on the site, or whether all of the proposed impacts (such as the raised equipment pad), are included in the mitigation table. Additionally, there is a great deal of material onsite as DEP notes that affects the site’s flood storage and for which no permits were ever sought or received and which this proposal does not take into account. [4] Insufficient information has been submitted showing how the work complies with the Riverfront Redevelopment standards or the extent of RFA impacts proposed. Several areas on the property show significant encroachment and clearing of vegetation in the Riverfront area (and likely BLSF) since 2001, apparently without any permitting by the Northampton Conservation Commission. That square footage should be taken into account for calculating any required restoration and/or mitigation. For Riverfront and solar projects, WERO usually considers the total work area as that area within a fence line or that area below the panels. Removal of vehicles could be considered an improvement or mitigation, but not restoration. An improvement over existing conditions is always required, which is over and above any restoration and/or mitigation requirement. Staff compared aerial photographs of the site from each year they were available, from prior to the WPA . It was not possible to accurately delineate the extent of alteration on the site at any given point. Developed areas of the junkyard are located within extensive segments of riverfront, BLSF and buffer zone, with piles of tires and other material located within RFA, and in segments extending into other resource areas. The application did not include an accurate existing conditions plan indicating where existing disturbance occurs, but is located immediately adjacent to resource areas. The application does not propose cleanup of degraded areas, pulling work away from resource areas, stormwater treatment, revegetation of riverfront that has been altered, removal of fill, or any other improvement. All existing operations and degradations of resource areas are proposed to continue, with new additional resource atleration from the panels and related sitework. A revised planset was provided that proposes plantings The plantings proposed, which are immediately adjacent to resource areas, within the least disturbed areas on the site, does not meet the 10.58(5) standard that the work “shall result in an improvement over existing conditions of the capacity of the riverfront area to protect the interests” of the Act [5] One cannot create a stormwater management report without a competent soils professional determining actual soil type as NRCS data alone is not sufficient. However, without a point source discharge, the stormwater standards themselves do not apply. While the work does not propose a point source discharge, stormwater management is integral to the overall function of the site. The application indicates only that existing stormwater conditions will not be changed. The site is unpaved, packed dirt, lacking any type of stormwater structures, infiltration, retention, treatment, nutrient removal, or other best management practices. January 25 2024 Staff Report 3 Stormwater flows untreated directly into adjacent resource areas. The application indicates that the proposed work will ‘mimic existing conditions.’ However, addition of large solar panels will shift existing drainage patterns, in addition to concentrating flow along drip edges, onto dirt. The applicant indicated that vehicles will be placed under panel edges and that there will be no erosion of the existing grades resulting from runoff from the solar panels since salvage automobiles will be in place below the proposed canopies.” This is not an appropriate stormwater mitigation strategy. [6] To help ensure that conservation commissions have sufficient expertise available to address specific issues regarding an applicant's filing, M.G.L. c. 44, section 53g gives Commissions authority to charge a fee for the employment of outside consultants that allow for the use of the fee to ensure that they have the necessary information for them to make a decision pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L. c. 131, sec. 40 and 310 CMR 10.00 Noted Consistency with the WPA and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance, Staff Recommendations: The application and the work do not meet relevant performance standards. Issue a denial under the WPA and the Northampton Wetlands Protection Ordinance.