 Hey, Lions. Good morning. How are you? Good. How are you? Oh, good. I got my I got over COVID. Yeah, I got over COVID. I seem to have found a cold, but not doing fine. Yeah. A lot going around. Yeah, there is. Um, we were Amy and I were just talking a little bit this morning that, um, you know, maybe we take public comment first. We just started, you know, adds a little something I wanted to say in the beginning, but then we could take public comment. And then have the committee discuss after we take public comment, just let members of the public, you know, have their say, we'll see if we get we have one already. That's fine. Yeah. And then. So that's the only structure I was thinking of really. And I'm ready to share anything that needs to be shared. I've got the red line version and I've got all the comments and stuff too so. Yep, you sent me a note. Why aren't these in the right order? So weird. You sent me a note saying that here's a statement you need to read at the beginning of the meeting. Yes. Yeah, that's just the statement about having a meeting virtual. Oh, here it is. I got. Are we ready. No, no, it's not eight and it's not eight o'clock. We don't have all of our members. Morning, Amy. Jason. I can't see who else is here. Hey, Beth, just like structurally to avoid having all of our chat at the beginning of the meeting recording. Do you want to stop the recording now and then right before we call to order started again. Yeah, I think most of the members are here I see Hannah and Brian, Jack Lyons. Morning everyone. Linda and Dave are missing at the moment. Oh, and John Tobias and who just emailed me. And what about Christie and Franny and Chris. We have a large group. Do we need quorum today or anything? I think it'd be, yeah, it'd be good to have quorum to vote on the paper on approving the paper. And let me just see what John just said. I guess I'm the link. Anyway, the number. We have seven members. Okay, so we're good. Yeah. So we're good to go. What did John say? I'm searching for the email with the zoom link. So I'm just going to send him the agenda link. I don't, I can't send him his panelists link and then I can just let him in. I'm going to get started. I have until nine o'clock. I'm happy to facilitate the meeting. I have until a couple of minutes before nine and then I need to duck out and join, join a whole new group and nine o'clock. Another subject. So pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapters 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022. This meeting will be conducted by remote means members of the public which to access the meeting may do so via zoom or telephone. The attendance of the members of the public will be permitted but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time by a technological means. The ones we are now using. Good morning everyone. Morning. Morning. So we're going to take comments from the public first and then address those. And then the committee will discuss the paper and the comments and we'll go from there. And I just say before we take public comment, I just want to thank all the groups that did submit comments. You know, we took comments from a number of staff and some boards and committees and I just want to thank them and and say that you know their work definitely made the paper a better paper. A lot of people had input and put a lot of work into it so. Excellent. Yeah. Good morning, John. So, if we're going to start with comments from the public does that mean that if folks from the public want to be heard they can raise their hand and we can unmute them and then that's kind of how the process will go. That's fine I can't see any of them so that will be up to Beth. All right, so we do have some, we have a raised hand. Jeremy, I'm going to give you your unmuted. Yeah, hi good morning. Morning. I was trying to see if you can hear me or not. Yeah, hi. So I live at 34 High Point Drive in Amherst on a private well. And one thing that I am very concerned about is contamination from any potential developments. So I was wondering what the current recommendation that you have is for setbacks from private wells. And I think, yeah, I just so I'm interested in what your thoughts are at the moment. All right, so Jack, do you want to answer that. Yeah, correct me if I'm wrong, but for the solar panels, I believe we adopted what is suitable for a septic system or an underground storage tank on the property and that would be 100 feet and for a battery facility we extended it I think we doubled the distance to 200 feet. So that, you know, adequate protections to, you know, from known contaminants sources like a septic system and tanks seemed more appropriate seemed appropriate for a solar panel installation which which does not have is not a source of contamination. And then, you know, batteries a separate argument there but again that's why we increase the distance to 200 versus 100. I'm sorry I don't know how this works so can I keep. I can respond. So, and what about for public wells. Public wells have a 400 foot. Nothing happens radius. In the zone one. So, there's nothing allowed within four feet of a public well. After that you're either in a song to or or not. And we didn't have any additional recommendations for that. I guess. I mean, just thinking on a like precautionary approach shouldn't private wells be given the same protection as as as a public well it seems like, I mean, yeah, the solar panels themselves don't seem like a contaminant but any type of flame retardants that are used on them or cleaning I don't know what is used but it just feel like having the same protections for private and public wells seems like a, you know, it's not done for, it's not done for known contaminant sources other than the zone one for public wells and 100 feet for private wells. I mean I'll just clarify a little bit Jeremy that kind of how the hydrology works of these wells is the more you pump out of the ground the bigger the zone of influence is around a well, and it's why a private well that's only pumping a much smaller volume. It's why the zone of influence the the area in which something that falls on the ground may impact the well is much smaller than for a public well where we're pumping a million gallons a day out of the ground. And so that's why those zones are different sized for different situations. Yeah, I mean that I understand that and that does. I mean I get it from a, you know, purely, you know gallons of water that are being moved through the through the system, but it just seems like on a private well, you know, I'm responsible for all the costs. If there's a solar development in our neighborhood which is one of the areas that are being proposed, then I'm going to have to pay for testing or is the town going to pay for testing if there's contamination, am I going to pay to put it a whole house filtration system is the town going to bring public water. I just feel like having the same protections for private and public seems like a very, you know, a very cautionary approach to this solar development. And there's a release of some kinds at a development of any kind, solar or otherwise, then the, the owner of that development where the release occurred is responsible for testing and clean up on your property. And so then, I mean, those are those are property line blind. Being that PFAS or what are, you know, are in the news frequently for groundwater contamination. And what happens if the wells get contaminated in a neighborhood like High Point or flat hills. And then what happens. There isn't a known PFAS source in solar developments that we have flame retardation we have researched it and we haven't found such a link. Yeah, Jeremy we specified that there would be no PFAS within, you know, any sort of fire suppression activities. That's what we've recommended. And also in the panel construction that the panels themselves. It would be PFAS free. Yeah, would be PFAS free. Okay, so I mean I just I would just like it to be, you know, my point is I just think private and public wells should have similar protections and I think you can leave it at that. Yep. Thank you for your comment. Eric, Eric back right. I'm just allowed you to talk. Thank you so much and good morning to all and I wanted to thank you for your, your deep commitment to preserving our great water in Amherst. I'm not a hydrologist. I'm not even a lay hydrologist but I'm a voracious reader. And I wanted to kind of ask, generally speaking what has changed in the water protection policy in Amherst. One of the first sources that I went to in Googling watershed protection is derived from the trust for public land in a 55 page document entitled land conservation and the future of America's drinking water. And a small excerpt from this document is in the executive summary section says watershed protection is the first and most fundamental step in a multi barrier approach to protecting drinking water. Healthy functioning watersheds naturally filter pollutants and moderate water quantity by slowing surface runoff and increasing infiltration of water into the soil. The result is less flooding and soil erosion cleaner water downstream and greater groundwater reserves, and I'm not purporting to be didactic here or instructive I'm just wondering what has changed. The second document I'm going to quote from is the watershed protection policy developed on that is by the town of Amherst and is cited on the watershed protection homepage. It says management philosophy approaches, even with a large amount of preserved land surrounding Amherst surface water supplied minimal changes in the land use impervious surface coverage and forested land within a watershed can greatly alter water quality. Scattered development and frontage lot construction threatened Amherst drinking water. The conservation commission aware of the need to protect the town's water supplies, actively supports appropriate measures that will preserve both underground aquifers and their recharge areas, and above ground reservoirs. What what what inspired me to do a lot of the research was initially a comment by a fresh water ecologist at this meeting but it was in January. And a compact that was orderly to be reached between the town of Amherst and the town of shoots very in which many pieces of the watershed that that supply the nurse and Dean Brooks and flowing that flow into the the Akins reservoir were supposed to have been protected. And I'm just wondering if you could just tell me what has changed in the last 17 years, and certainly not nothing that has changed since you've published the, the citation that I mentioned from the watershed section policy of the town itself. I will start by saying that one thing that's changed in 17 years is that the town has acquired large tracts of land within the watershed I would defer to Dave Zomek's memory as to how much that might be. Both as a member of town meeting and, and this body. I recall numerous acquisitions of land within the watershed. So the town and the various bodies within the town represented here. I've been working quite hard. As long as I've been in town to increase the watershed protection by acquiring Lance Dave you have any idea roughly how much land has been acquired in the last 17 years. Yeah, I honestly don't know the number of acres but yeah I would just concur and you know Beth and Amy can jump in anytime but you know we over the last 20 or so years that I've been with the town, you know, lions is right that we have strategically picked up acquired and preserved a number of parcels in in the various watersheds that we draw from and we continue to do that. You know where we're in direct contact with landowners, you know like coals and other landowners that own land in our watersheds that we think are our high priority for protection. So that that work is ongoing, you know there are DEP grants that we've acquired applied for and and received over the years to help pay for that. And the town has put in money for things like appraisals and other other studies to kind of document which which parcels are the most important. So, we're in, I would say we're not done with that effort and it's ongoing we're always on the lookout for those parcels that might be important to protect the the water quality and well in our wells as well as our reservoirs and Pelham and and that's great. But happy to defer to Amy or Beth if they have anything to add. Yeah, I can just add that I'd say I don't know is it five years ago that we purchased Romer Woods, which was over over 100 acres that was a very large purchase in Pelham, and a wonderful acquisition for the town. Can I ask a further question. Just in response to your responses to my question. Thank you. Thank you very much. My, my concern of course is the three parcels that are were proposed for development upstream from the Atkins reservoir, through which the Dean and nurse Brooks flow the, the solar projects that are east, west and south, and why those those are the watersheds that were cited in 2005 to be protected. As the compact was suggested to be reached by the Hampshire regional governments, why they weren't why we would they were never, ever. The, the protection of those watersheds just went by the wayside. And secondly, the watersheds and I'm specifically referring to I'm sure that the town is sedulously looked at acquiring watershed, other watershed areas, but the watershed areas that I'm specifically referring to are ones that are don't seem to be protected yet. Well, I don't know if you were at the meeting where we, we did show some maps showing all the coals lands at the parcels that you're talking back are owned by coals and they're within an area that coals just put a huge conservation restriction on the and not to say that this does anything for the particular little the parcels that you're talking about the areas that they almost excluded from their conservation restriction, but they put a conservation restriction on over 2000 acres, mostly in shoots very mostly in the Akins reservoir watershed, and all of that land can never be developed it can still be forested by coals. But that whole 2000 acres can never be developed and they sort of specifically excluded these little areas that they may potentially be looking at for solar. And if I could just follow up just one question. That was triggered by the previous commenters Jeremy Anderson I think his name was question and concern. Based on the draft white paper, an estimate of almost four and a half percent of the households and Amherst are derived their water from private wells. And most of those those households are in North Amherst. I understand that there is a proposed setback for a house. From from any kind of development. But what happens to the net it's a four and a half percent of the town's households derive water from well water and and they're primarily in the same area. We're talking about a single house we're talking about several neighborhoods hundreds and hundreds of homes. Is that a condition that might be different from a single house, deriving its water from a from a well back or lions or anyone want to respond to that. In terms of setbacks I don't see that it's any, any different. A private wells a private well. And I understand your concern, but it's not entirely within, or at all within the town's ability to tell people what they can and can't do with their property. On the outside of providing zoning and guidance in the form of what we're trying to do here to lay out some guidelines that tell people how they need to design their solar projects so that they have as little impact as possible. That's what we're trying to do. If several names. Hold on. Amy, I more just kind of want to be clear as we're talking about private wells which certainly are important to talk about but to be clear, the jurisdiction of the water supply Protection Committee is for public water sources, and not private wells and we did and we tried to explain this in the paper as we do talk a little bit about private wells but we're very clear that we that's that's not our charge. That's not the charge of the public work so even Jason and Beth and myself sitting here as people from public works. Private wells aren't under our jurisdiction so we're offering our recommendations that can be taken or not be taken by the solar bylaw working group. Private wells and we encouraged the Board of Health who do have the jurisdiction over private wells to input their guidance because that that is their jurisdiction on that. So I just want to be clear as we're talking about some of the stuff that we're acknowledging that that's outside of the scope or our expertise when it comes to private private wells and different assets of that. Yeah, I definitely understood that as of the January meeting because it was I raised, not the same question but a similar question, and I was told that it was the Board of Health that is responsible for the regulation and protection of private drinking water. And I had assumed that because nobody on the Board of Health is represented on the solar bylaw working group that that kind of protection and the regulation of drinking water overall was seated from the board to the to the water supply protection committee from the Board of Health by the Board of Health Board of Health. So I'm concerned that we're kind of in a catch 22 position here. That is, frankly, I need to correct you because nothing was ceded to anyone from the Board of Health to this committee. Yeah, okay. Well, whatever. Valid statement. I okay that I would then it would attract that that invalid statement but I would say that as a as a as a private well owner. I'm concerned that that I'm not sure who then is looking after the the protection of private drinking water well based water and Amherst. That's a good question. Thank you. Do we have other public comments, Beth. No, no one else has raised their hand at the moment to talk. Well, Jeremy, let me ask my unmute Jeremy. Real quick, I just wanted to follow up with Amy and what Eric we're saying and just, I think, even if these are recommendations coming from a precautionary angle. And even even if it's outside of the jurisdiction of this, this group. I think having a recommendation saying, you know, as the same protections would be, you know, would make me a lot more comfortable as a homeowner with a private well. I just appreciate your time and effort. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, we have no more rates hands at the moment. Okay. We have comments from panelists. I want to discriminate. Brian. Sure, I think I just wanted to speak a little bit to the rationale and sort of considerations that that went into it from the stamp from our standpoint, we were working on it. And a few consider, I mean, there were many considerations that they informed us, but one that is important. Well, to I think that are important to raise. One is that there already exists solar panels all across town watershed and across areas with private wells. We've closed them around people's roots, but the fundamental chemistry that affects runoff from the solar panels to the ground and then from them doesn't change whether it's a ground mount or root mount system. And we just didn't see any major risks. We look to a variety of sources, including large private bottled water companies who have decided that they wanted to go green and installed solar panels. And these large private water companies, including Nestle or Poland Springs on my Nestle, and still huge arrays in direct proximity to their number one capital asset, their private groundwater supply. And with the extensive funds available to them by a huge multinational corporation they didn't find any risk. And so that was one of many things that informed us. The second thing is that the current state of energy supply in our area is liquid hydrocarbon sprinkled across both the public water supply and around people's private wells. At least one member of this committee working in as a private contractor has responded to number two fuel oil spills indirect proximity to other people's wells and I can reservoir. And the larger picture is that the current state of things involves considerable risk. We know that fuel oil and other hydrocarbons are incredibly cancerous incredibly dangerous. And we don't have failproof solutions to those. And so someone one of the larger picture concerns was that there are no energy suppliers without risk, but the current state of things involves substantial risks. So any move away from using hydrocarbons and spreading them all across our watersheds in our opinion is that it should be not not we shouldn't be putting up barriers to that. Other comments. Thank you Brian thank you everyone to put in so much work here. I've got a couple of little things that I will I will send along. I have two questions I want to thank you guys for putting in the much more language in this around the battery sweat because that was something that I hadn't been thinking about before. And I had just a quick question about the front front page and I'm just curious. Amherst policies include a near net zero requirement I thought it was like just a net zero requirement. So what why did the near net zero requirement get get in there just on the very it's like this second sentence. I think that is from a document and I can I can verify that I can verify if it should be near net zero or if it should be exactly net zero. And that that came from one of one of the climate action documents I'm not sure but I will, I will figure that out. Thank you. Sure. Sorry, other questions comments. Seeing none. We want to see if the kitty really wants to make a recommendation on. Yeah, I was going to make a recommendation that we go ahead. I see a raise hand from Michael D. Chiara. Oh, sorry. Hi, Michael. Thanks. Thank you, Beth. So I'm Michael Dick here. I live in shoots very actually I'm on the planning board and the chair of the ecac for shoots very and I just wanted to quickly respond to what Brian had said because the planning board is just updated our solar bylaw for the fourth time. And the primary issue is in terms of risk to water as we see it is batteries, it's not panels. And that panel to its, it's pretty well documented with the amount of batteries which is the technology is now has the ability to catch fire. And it's not be put out by water. So, and the chemicals that are released in combustion from lithium ion batteries, even though it's doused in water will then go into the ground. So I think just to sort of refocus the I think the concern on contamination of groundwater is less about runoff from panels, and more about the possibility if not likelihood that at some point some of these batteries might catch fire and the reason that's important is that every large scale solar project in Massachusetts it's going to get state subsidies through the smart program has been required for the last year and a half to have on site lithium ion batteries or battery storage, which at this point de facto is lithium ion batteries so I think that's really the issue that the states requiring me the bundling solar and batteries and the batteries have a risk for combustion combustion then is that containment of heat and fire process creates runoff into the ground. So, thank you, I appreciate it. Yeah. I'm sure Jack might want to respond to we certainly we we've we've dealt pretty deep into the battery, battery topic, and we've added more since we've gotten comments from Amherst fire department and other. So, but yeah, no, that's absolutely that's where the concern is. Did you want to add anything. Yeah, I think you you hit the nail on the head. We have covered everything I think that you spoke of Mike within the recommendations provided within the white paper. Yeah. So, appreciate it. Yeah, I think Jeremy might want to talk again. I'm sorry to comment again. Tell if your hand just gets left up or if you actually want to say something. I'm sorry, you'd think by now I don't understand how to use zoom, but I'm still working at it. I definitely want to just echo what Michael saying and you know just keep the focus on the the chemicals that are used as flame retardants. Because I just picture fires in large solar fields as some as an inevitable, not as a, you know, it might happen. And just that that seems to me the biggest risk for contamination of drinking water. And then just to follow up on Brian's comment. I just Googled, you know, and always a good statement to start with, but consumer reports has an recent article from 2020 saying what's in your bottled water. And companies like Nestle have PFAS have heavy metals in their drinking water so I think just saying that Oh well Nestle is doing this doesn't mean this the right thing to be doing and we should be protecting our water as you know as as much as possible it's it's so it's just like such a fundamental thing is protect our water. Absolutely, which is what we're trying to do. We're all in agreement about that. I believe I saw or heard, I guess it was saw a comment from the Amherst fire chief saying that if there was a fire at a battery facility and Amherst their number one strategy would be to let it burn and not try to put it out that it's just too hot and too dangerous and their, their goal would be to protect a, you know, anything that's nearby. But not to try to put the actual battery fire out it would just let it burn. There's a couple panelists with with their hands up. I'm the wrong list again. Dave, did you have your hand up. Yeah, yeah thanks lions. No, no I just wanted to kind of put a put a, you know highlight this last part of this conversation I'm coming off last night's conservation commission meeting, which went pretty long and had a very robust discussion of the town's first 100% battery storage project which is currently going through the permitting process on Sunderland Road out. This is the former site of Annie's garden store, just south of Bob's barbecue. And most of the discussion, you know, and I was reminded from last evening that most of the discussion was about containment. What are the containment systems. And again, you know, as as the gentleman from shoots very referenced I think, you know, all new and proposed projects solar projects will have battery storage. But this one in fact is our first complete battery storage there are no panels there it's all about battery storage and the conservation commission is, is grappling with what, what jurisdiction do they have what authority do to have to require containment in the event of a fire. So it's not clear this is kind of new ground for Amherst and I think the zoning board of appeals will be having similar discussion so I think I'm glad I have not reviewed the latest draft of your paper but I'm glad that there is, you know, more emphasis on on battery and battery storage and, and those parts of solar projects. So thanks. Jack. Yeah, I'm just going to say that, you know, within our treatment of the topic of the battery energy systems that provided what went wrong, like historically, and they're there, there were some catastrophic, you know, burns at at battery storage facilities in the past. The technology and the National Fire Protection Association is on top of this, but what has happened it has evolved the technology has evolved. And there's a lot of sense of sensing where there might be a thermal runaway, and there's, you know, many sensors that are now equipped within these battery energy storage devices. So, you know, they're sensing heat, and they there's a power down that's kind of hardwired in there. And it's just a total different situation than, you know, the nightmare situations that that, you know, we all have read of where these things go on fire. And the, the probability of a fire at these things are is much reduced than it was a, you know, 10 years ago. I just wanted to make that point. So just looking at that section of the paper, you know, we, we list what what can what the fire department but also National Fire Protection are recommending detection notification suppression systems adequate adequate spacing between the batteries themselves, certainly containment. You know, that's all sort of the most up to date recommendations from these groups as to how to to deal with, with the situation and it's changing all the time really. I don't see. Right, so I will make a recommendation that we accept the white paper with the one potential clarification of the word nearly on the first page. So I'll go to Beth. Research is where that came from. Any discussion on that, Jack. So moved. Second. Thank you. All in favor. Okay. All right. Thank you all. All right. So we'll leave. We have any other business this morning. No, this was just a special meeting just for this white paper, you know, our next meeting will be in January and maybe we can actually do it in person. That's what I'm kind of hoping actually. I forget the date but I think I sent you guys, if I didn't send you a calendar invite I will for the, for the January meeting. And, and yeah, so this, so this paper now will be finalized as is and forwarded on to the solar bylaw working group. For them. And then it's also, it exists. Also for. For the tree and palim planning boards or Amherst, you know, planning board zoning concom, whoever are interested in opinions about solar in terms of drinking water. I kind of foresee. And I think it's a huge barrier and palim if, if these projects come forward to them and they're in a, and some kind of a land use review process. Their boards are that they'll look to Amherst for just our opinion on, you know, our watershed lands. So that's where I see it going. And good. Good job. The subcommittee. Good job. All right. Thank you everyone. Right. Thank you. Thank you. See you in January. John has a stand up. Oh gosh. John Tobias and John. There we go. Technology. Can you hear me now? Yes. Yeah. Hey, I just want to say thank you to everybody who worked on this so hard. And I'll just apologize for being less engaged in this issue as I have in others. Just the way life has gone. So thank you. And this is from Idaho rate at the moment. So thank you very much. Oh, lovely. All right. Thank you all. Bye everyone. Thank you.