HomeMy WebLinkAboutSolar Panels in WetlandsSolar Panels in Wetlands, Considering the Proposed Norbut Solar Farm (NSF) on the Nichtman Property (Bald
Hill Rd., tax parcel 710-1-21.122), and Generally Advising on Other Possibilities in the Future
Jonathan Zisk and Margaret Corbit (with input from Town Planner David West) as requested by the Danby Town Board
that the Conservation Advisory Council recommend guidelines for placing solar arrays in wetlands.”
Solar panels can be minimally or entirely nondestructive to the functions of certain types of wetland, if guidelines are
followed. Current research consistently supports this conclusion. A compendium from Vermont DEC, “Literature
Review of Monitoring Methodology and Wetland Impacts from Solar Facilities (2018)” points to the following BMP’s :
1. Soil disruption should be avoided, including compaction, transfer, and/or replacement.
2. Equipment with minimal impact should be used.
3. Design should be chosen to cause the least possible damage.
4. Spacing between rows should be equal to or greater than the “width” of the panels’ projected shadow, in order
that enough vegetation can grow.
5. Zero chemical control of flora, and only mechanical control for sun-blocking height in the spaces between rows—
to allow development (or cultivation if necessary) of appropriate native wetland species.
6. Wildlife corridors to minimize the restricted areas should be built—whether a scrub/vegetative buffer, a
greenway, or some other type of swath that allows wildlife travel between properties.
Not all wetlands are the same. There are large-tract, thriving, biodiverse, rich wetlands, and there are smaller, fragmented,
incomplete wetlands, with much less diversity and ecological value.
The total value of a wetland is its aquifer-filtration, habitat, and aesthetic features. Rating the Nitchman property on these,
it would have importance as filtration for the local aquifers and feeders to Buttermilk. But wetland vegetation is not
extensive (see chart) and very few obligate wetland plants were identified, along with a number of invasive species—this
is a sparse, problematic wetland. The habitats and wildlife supported would be few and transitory. Examples include
Canada goose, redwing blackbird, heron, ducks, migratory passerines, herptiles, coyotes, and mustelids. The scrub, forest,
cattails, low shrubs and sedges/grasses will remain accessible if BMPs are followed. Consideration could be given to
integrating a wildlife corridor in the design, outside of the northern fence but within the boundaries of the property.
Furthermore, on aesthetics, this is a largely inaccessible block of uncultivated fields and fragmented underdeveloped wet
areas, with a few scrubby, early secondary growth forested fragments—so the “recreational value” to the public is
questionable.
This is not a precious wetland; it is not even, strictly speaking, a “natural” wetland. It was originally forest which was cut
for farming, probably largely pasture. The farmer(s) dug several cattle ponds along the streams. The gentle slope
(generally 2-8%) to the streams and the cleared forest promoted a sort of anthropogenic-wetland. The pre-farm forest
would have attenuated wetland development.
An analysis of the Nichtman property by Delta-EAS used the approximate boundaries of the earlier BME Associates
evaluation. It confirmed status and extended the perimeters into the scrubby, forested parts of the tract. It used soil
hydrology, vegetation, and inundation data. The analysis lists much of the wetland as scrub-shrub and forested, with
inherently restricted variety of wetland species. Looking at the history of the tract, these wetlands were probably a
response to accidental, short-term inundations, with attendant vegetation changes, that you will find in other not formally
wetland tracts in Danby (the Sylvan Lane Town property, for example, is an upland secondary growth forest that is so wet
it supports wetland vegetation). For this reason, the borders of Nitchman’s wetlands are not clear.
David West wrote (JZ, 2/10/22 email): “The solar farm avoids the wetlands in the BME delineation and is only impacting
those in grey in the Delta delineation. Much of that is currently forest… It's hard to separate the impact of cutting down
the forest from the impacts associated with it being a wetland …” The areas where NSF wants to build are not thriving
wetland nor rich forest land; and NSF plans to avoid the most distinct wet areas.
In any case, the perimeters are only one part of the equation, particularly since NSF is willing to follow appropriate
BMPs—as in the VT list above, using minimal impact equipment and installation methods/techniques, and sustaining
wetland vegetation with mechanical control only for height above the panels. Even if the disputed perimeters were the
greatest estimate and wetlands of the highest quality, the NSF solar farm could avoid destruction of viability and
ecological functions, if they do adhere to those BMPs.
Incidence of Flora Species at Potential Wetland Sites
See map that follows…
(W) is FACW, facultative wetland, not a strong indicator species; all unmarked are FAC (facultative-either; not
indicators); OBL is obligate wetland, a strong indicator species; (U) is FACU, facultative upland, contra-indication of a
good wetland. Note relatively few OBL and relatively many FACU. Note invasive species, which are more problem-
species than indicator-species. Note how many ostensibly different species are actually very closely related (E.G.: three
species of goldenrod do not imply “rich habitat”).
Stream ID# Wetland ID#
A D E S W Y 3 4 A B C F G H I J K L M N O P Q R T U V X Z
black willow (OBL) X
silky dogwood (W) X X X X
gray dogwood X X X X X X X X
white dogwood (W) X
red maple X X X
European crabapple (INV) X
shagbark hickory (U) X
red oak (U) X X
alder X
sugar maple (U) X X
American elm X X
American hornbeam
honeysuckle, sp? (INV?) X X
multiflora rose (INV, U) X X
broadleaf cattail (OBL) X X X X
narrowleaf cattail(INV, OBL) X
bottlebrush grass X
reed canary grass (INV, W) X X X X X X
tussock sedge (OBL) X
fox sedge (OBL) X X
woolgrass (OBL) X X X
sensitive fern (W) X X X X X X X X X
spotted knapweed (INV) X
giant goldenrod (W) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
grassleaf goldenrod X X X X X X X X
canada goldenrod (U) X
redtop (U) X
mugwort (U) X X X
water pepper X
soft rush X X
poison ivy X
(Map on next page.)