Amherst Conservation Commission has questions on solar facility

Nov. 3, 2021 | Trent Levakis
tlevakis@thereminder.com

AMHERST – The Amherst Conservation Commission met on Oct. 27 to discuss the status of the construction of a solar photovoltaic energy generation facility.

While nothing was decided on at the meeting, protecting water resources and the wetlands involved in a project like this was the focus of concern. The proposed land that will be the site of this project is located on Shutesbury Road in Amherst.

In an overview presentation of the status of the current project the commission was joined by Andrew Chabot, senior manager of Amp Energy and Maria Firstenberg, project manager and wetland scientist at TRC Companies, Inc. Amp Energy is a “global energy transition platform” as described on their website and develop, own and operate clean energy assets throughout core markets around the world. TRC Companies is an environmentally-focused firm that assists in project conception and completion.

Both Chabot and Firstenberg have worked directly with the commission in developing the proposal of the new solar facility and assessing factors like environmental footprint of the project and complying to state conservation regulations. A big focus for them is utilizing space for the solar array and avoiding wetlands in placement, as seen on their diagram presented at the meeting.

Public comments raised a lot of possible red flags for the Commission to consider in a grander scope of the situation. Lenore Bryck, whose experience comes working with an organization connected to Climate Action Now, brought up about how the deforestation to put in solar would be a major blow to the ecosystem there.

“Forests are intimately connected with water. Resources are multifaceted and connected, when we disturb one part we are disturbing the whole ecosystem no matter what we think we are protecting every time we cut and clear,” said Bryck.

Bryck also brought up the importance of soil structure for protecting forests and how while the project has good intentions, it will ultimately be very damaging.

“The purpose of the project is supposedly to provide solar as an energy source but to sacrifice a part of a forest ecosystem is hurting something that helps with climate change,” said Bryck.  

Eric Bachrach seconded the concerns and brought up the possibilities of significant water life issues with the project. He mentioned how this project stretches to an area near Adam’s brook and neighboring community members that rely on wells as their source of water. His fear is that this project may be creating a big issue for the different water systems near it.

“I insist on independent environmental impact studies of this project,” said Bachrach.

Jenny Kallick, a resident on Shutesbury Road, agreed with the concerns in losing so much forest and was concerned about the wetlands and many species that would be affected by the project. She mentioned how vernal pools within the site are a resource for so many species and that must be kept in mind during this process. She also asked the Conservation Commission to look for other resources and an independent peer report to make sure all guidelines were being followed in this project.

Michael Lipinski questioned the soil map within the report from Firstenberg and TRC saying erosion is already such an issue on the site that it is really critical to know what is going on and that map may not be the most reliable. He also suggested a slope analysis map would be beneficial to this project as the concern of water runoff is directly related to that.

These are all issues brought up with which the commission agreed their validity. There were some concerns from the commission after hearing public comment that they needed more information from Firstenberg to definitively decide on the project and bring in an independent peer review. The deforestation of 45 acres could be a cause for concern depending on any of the factors brought up during the hearing, such as depth to ground water of the area, a design for storm water on site, soil map of the site and slope analysis of the project.

Maria Firstenberg responded to some of the comments and tried to add some clarification to attendees of the meeting, as she had just released a report to the commission of over 400 pages. She will be working on finding some of the information requested by the commission before the commission can decide on the next steps including bringing in an independent party to come in and give an assessment of the project.

Director of Conservation David Ziomek also mentioned he would like to hear more about the phasing of projects for the next meeting regarding runoff controls and irrigation. Ziomek also clarified in the meeting that this project is not before the zoning board of appeals yet and that the town at this time does still not have any zoning bylaws on the books.

The commission is working with protecting the resource under the water protections act, as well as finding ways to help mitigate impacts to water like storm water impacts and irrigation.

The commission agreed to continue the public hearing to their Nov. 10 meeting at which time they hope some of their questions will have answers.

Share this: