Shutesbury Road Solar Project Hits Roadblock
Photo: istock
Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Conservation Committee, December 4, 2024
This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.
Present
Michelle Labbe (Chair), Jason Dorney, Andrey Guidera, Alex Hoar, Rachel Loeffler, and Bruce Stedman. Absent: Laura Pagliarula
Staff: Erin Jacques (Wetlands Administrator) and David Ziomek (Assistant Town Manager)
The Conservation Commission unanimously denied the siting of an access road to the proposed 9.6-megawatt solar installation with associated battery storage off of Shutesbury Road. The access road was within the 100-foot buffer zone for nearby wetlands. The applicants asked for and were denied a waiver to build the road with a 50-foot buffer.
Matt Moyen, an engineer for Tetra Tech, the firm designing the project stated that the proposed access road was the only feasible way to provide access to the eastern solar array, one of three arrays on the 41-acre site, without crossing a resource area or buffer zone. However, members of the Conservation Commission who spent two hours on a site visit with Moyen noted that there was a vernal pool near the access road with evidence of frog and salamander activity. Although Wetlands Administrator Erin Jacques informed the commission that, due to the ongoing level 3 drought, the commission cannot evaluate wetlands, the wetlands in this area were mapped earlier.
Commission member Jason Dorney was concerned about the amount of truck traffic that would be associated with constructing and operating the solar project, further disturbing the sensitive area.
In addition to the infringement into the buffer zone, the project has yet to provide a complete survey of animals and amphibians on the site. In public comment, wildlife biologist Scott Jackson stated that the plans as drawn isolate areas of amphibian habitat from each other. Pelham Planning Board Chair Judith Eiseman noted possible adverse effects on larger animals as well. The project borders Pelham and Shutesbury.
A letter from several residents urged the commission to delay any decision on the project until the resource area can be accurately mapped in the spring. They warned of setting a precedent for allowing infringement on wetlands. The local bylaw for wetlands states that, in certain circumstances, more than a 100-foot buffer may be needed to protect vernal pools or other sensitive areas.
The commission decided to continue the hearing on the project until February 12, although a detailed wildlife survey cannot be completed until spring. Commissioner Rachel Loeffler suggested that Tetra Tech develop a list of species known to be on the site and the buffer that each species needs, and to develop several plans that will accommodate those needs, and offer several potential routes for the access road, which the commission can evaluate when the hearing continues in 60 days.
The Resource Delineation Area (RDA) hearing on the Shutesbury Road Solar also could not be decided at this meeting due to the time of year and the ongoing drought. Jacque noted that there are areas of previous flooding areas, vernal pools, and intermittent streams that have not yet been accurately mapped, and that some of those areas may extend beyond the property borders, possibly into Pelham. The RDA will also be discussed at the February 12 meeting.
Details Still Pending for Hickory Ridge Solar Project
The Hickory Ridge Solar Project by Pure Sky Energy is still waiting for the state’s Natural Heritage and Endangered Species division to render a judgement on the protection of the endangered turtles and other species at the site.
In addition, the commission could not come to an agreement on the herbicide to be used to control invasive plant species on the former golf course. The herbicide company wanted to use a limited amount of glyphosate, arguing that glyphosate is the most effective agent and does not stay in the soil as long as some of the alternatives. Commissioner Alex Hoar strongly objected to the use of glyphosate when alternatives are available.
Pure Sky’s representative, Attorney Tom Reidy of Bacon, Wilson LLC, also presented a revised grading plan for the area under the solar panels and battery storage. The grading and fill were needed to level the area and protect against flooding. Hoar noted that when the Conservation Commission originally approved the project, it was for solar only. He objected to having pads installed for battery storage on the new plans.
No vote was taken on the herbicide or grading plan at this meeting.
Thank you Mr. Hoar . As you stated the project was initially presented as Solar only , now pads for battery storage is added . It shouldn’t be allowed .
This is very similar strategy that was used with the Dormitory in downtown.
Present and approve one concept, and then alter its use .
Electricity is the key to modern life. Without it we are living in the 19th century. Old Sturbridge Village illustrates what our lives would be like. The choices to generate electricity are nuclear (remember Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima), fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas which are finite resources) or renewables (wind, water and sun). With renewables, battery storage is necessary to accommodate differences between times of power generation and use, a need currently filled by gas-fired electric generating plants. With renewable electricity sources, we and our descendants can live on this earth as long as the sun shines, wind blows and water flows. Of course wetland protection laws must be respected and hopefully that issue will be resolved to the Amherst Conservation Commission’s reasonable satisfaction so the proposed solar project can move forward.
I agree with the need for alternate energy, and the importance of solar . Of course . I drive an EV.
I was pointing out the pattern of the style of presentation ,that we see before our boards.
Get one concept approved,and then it is altered at the end . This puts our boards in a position for compromise , when it may not be right .
How about just being upfront ,and clear with the communication ? Instead it looks like the town is being gamed .
Glad to see construction is finally proceeding at Hickory Ridge. When did battery storage get added to the project? I don’t recall that in the initial plans. How many KWH hours? What is the emergency response / fire access/plan for those batteries?
And what about goats and (solar-charged) electric lawnmowers instead of glyphosate? Both are readily available.