 Good morning. Hey, could you, could you join as a panelist? I thought I did that. No, it's. Did you use the, I sent the email. I used the, yeah, sure. I use the. The link on the agenda. The link on the agenda. Yeah, so I sent you a. You know, I'll go, I'll go find it. Okay, thanks. Okay. That was more difficult than it should have been. I'm glad you found it. Yeah, I put it in a special place so it wouldn't get lost. Of course. Yeah, I'm just, yeah, so I'm sure there's a way to bring attendees in as panelists, but just, just easier to find the actual email. Yeah, I have a, I put together just a little PowerPoint for that watershed section and it has the maps that I shared with you guys that those other maps I sent yesterday. So I think, I think we're good with at least just, you know, showing the watershed showing where. Conserved lands are and showing where the solar sites are. Yeah, so I think that's good. You know what, I want to make you. Make you a co host, if I can do that. I can, I'm making you a co host that way. As we're going through, like if I'm presenting or whatever, and then you see some attendees that maybe raised their hands. Now that now that you're a co host, I think if you click on the attendees column, you can allow them to speak. So it just might be easier if both of us can allow people to speak. Yeah, panelists, we don't have to do that. That just, they can speak in whenever. Right. Yep. Yeah. Morning, Jason. Morning. Morning, guys. I had the video lost. Impending storm in many ways. Multiple levels. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And I have another one at 10 o'clock. Oh, wow. Appending storm with a client. Gotcha. It was interesting though, this like this snow storm coming over the weekend that's who even knows, but we, we inevitably like first snowstorm that's going to give us any number of inches. We always get a call from the local paper where they want to do an article. And I'm like, I don't, I don't know what to tell you. Like we put on the plows and we plow until there's no more snow on the road. Yeah. If it comes down, we'll, we'll push it away. Exactly. Yeah. It's just doesn't well, you know, we're ready. Yeah. Yeah. Just it's, it's interesting that every year, like they, they kind of do the same, the same article. I have a neighbor who last week wanted. You know, our local buildings and grounds committee who takes care of snow here at our complex. To consider using less salt. Cause it's the right thing to do. So, you know, I feel like five years this comes up. Yeah. Long email about how we tried to the beer and molasses. You know, it works, but the delivery system's really challenging. Right. You know, if, if I had a warm garage with a floor drain and hot water, and I could rinse the system when we're done using it every single time, that'd be great. Right. But I don't. All I have is cold water and a driveway where it's all going to freeze. And you really don't want that. Right. You know, so we do this and so we do that. And there's this kind of storm and there's that kind of storm. And then there's, there's just the storm that's a complete mess. And you think you got it all figured out and you plan for it. And it just, it all ends up. Happening the wrong way. And all you get is ice. And there's nothing you can do about it. Absolutely nothing you can do about it. Except put down more salt. Right. After the fact. Yeah. Yeah. I just finished writing that email yesterday. Well received by some. Yeah. Offensive to others. I feel like we could take some of that and plug that right into some of our response to citizens as well, because it's, you know, it's the same challenges that we all have. How do you. Yeah. Yeah. That's exactly what it is. Without too much, but also making sure that the roads are safe without wasting material. You know, it's just, it's such a delicate balancing act. In general. I have your job on a very local level. And that was my response to the public. Exactly. Jason, did you see my question about. You being a speaker at Rotary. I did. Yeah, I prefer to decline if possible. Go for different spearheads, most of those projects. So he might be a better one to. To have at it. Okay. Understood. I'm going to look to Beth for notice on this as we're kind of chattering and waiting for the meeting to start, but I believe that we have several people that we don't see on the screen, but that are watching in right now. As well, just for us to know. Correct. Yes. Hi, so I made lines of co-hosts so that, so the attendees. You know, when we get to public comment, if the attendees and lines, you should probably say it's in the beginning that people should raise their hands. If they have questions during public comment. And when we see the hands raised, you know, we can go into the attendee column and allow those people to speak and we'll do it in order of who raised their hands first and all, all those normal meeting procedures. Okay. So it's a, now after eight o'clock and I am going to get this meeting started. So the first thing I need to do is read you the following notice. Because this is a virtual meeting. We're so into chapter 20 of the acts of 2021. This meeting will be conducted by a remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so by a zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of the members of the public will be permitted, and every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. If you can hear me, you're doing that. Hopefully everyone who wants to has been able to join. So our next order of business is, I'm going to lay out the agenda shortly for those who can't see it, although if you're joining us, you've probably seen it. We're going to talk about the drinking water regulations, the proposed drinking water regulations. Then we'll talk about water supply status. Then water infrastructure project updates. The Hadley interconnection. Then we'll talk about watershed activities. Then we'll talk about water supply activities within the watershed. And then we'll have some closing business related to next meetings and any other items that didn't make it on the agenda. So with that, let's get started with the drinking water proposed drinking water regulations. So listen. Well, and this, this is just kind of going back to, if you guys recall in, in January, 2020, so right before COVID, we had sent out the drink, the proposed drinking water regulations for the town to adopt. Because the, before it goes forward to town council, the town council, the town council, the town council knows the business better. They like to have them put a set of eyes on it and just kind of review and comment or, you know, kind of recommend it to them. So you guys looked at this back in 2020 and then COVID hit. And so the conversation that was going to have with town council kind of got kicked down the road. So long that it's going to come before town council in 2020 and just see if there was, you know, if everyone's okay with, you know, holding with the, you know, approval that you guys gave in 2020, or if there was any additional conversation or comment on that before it gets discussed with the town council level. So I know lion sent the draft, those draft regulations around to you guys. With the, with the meeting announcements. And again, they're the same as what we looked at in 2020. So does anyone have any additional comments on. On those draft regulations, any updates or. Things you see differently now than our discussions over a year ago. I do not. So then I guess. I don't see any so. We reviewed them. We reviewed them. We discussed it again today. There was no. No need to change. Anything. Based on our input. Okay. So, you know, with that, that's. Good. So. And do we know when it's going to be discussed that town council. Yep. Do they have a. The date has changed the most recent date. Is February 28th. So it got pushed back a couple of weeks from when we were initially talking about it. And what I believe the outcome of this is going to be lions as we discussed was, you know, you'll write a memo to the town council saying the water supply and protection committee has reviewed this and, you know, it's going to be, it's going to be, it's going to be, it's going to be, it's going to be, it's going to be, it's going to be. Accepted or however we want to word that and then kind of offer that if they. Have questions because it's going to get. It's going to go to a committee. It's going to get referred to a committee. And so I don't know when, when what conversations are going to happen and when it's useful for you to be there, but certainly putting that offer out there that you're willing to be involved in those conversations. So. Right. So end of February at the earliest. At this point. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know on this topic this morning. I think one attendee has, has a question on the reg. So let me just let her. Speak. Judy, you can, you can ask your question. Yes, thank you. Because I only recently discovered that you were a committee. I haven't been paying much attention to this, but Pelham has a very strong interest in understanding. And how, and how, and if we should comment on what you want to do in watershed areas in Pelham, because we are trying to protect as much forest land as possible. So I was, I just wanted a little bit of recap, but if it can wait until February, that's okay. I just want you to be aware that we are. Following this now, even if we haven't before. Okay. So we're going to go to the next slide. Do you have any questions? Do you have any questions? Do you have any questions? Do you have any questions? Do you have any questions? Do you have any questions? Do you have any questions? Have you seen the. The draft regulations. No, I have not. I only just discovered that you were having this meeting. And so I tuned in just to, to learn basically, and I'm happy to sit here quietly, but it's not a usual posture for me. But I'm happy to do a copy that you can review. And. They're fairly. In my opinion, fairly straightforward. I don't think there's anything particularly controversial in them, but. Maybe you have. Things that, that you'd like to propose or add. And, and those could be. Submitted to the town. So that's fine. I'll put my email into the chat. For you to copy down. Okay. Okay. Amy. Yeah, I was just going to Judy to your point. These are regulations that it's, it's kind of like the contract between. The town of Amherst as a water supplier and the water users in town. And so I think the point of what you're curious about, that's not what these regulations are. They're the water supply protection piece. So, okay. You can hold your comments to later on when we're talking about water supply. Okay. Thank you very much. Yes. All right. Anything else on. The drinking water regulations. Great. Then we will move on to the status of the water supply. Beth. I haven't. Yeah, I just want to let everybody know John Tobias and this trying to find his link. I don't know if he'll be joining us shortly too. But yeah, let me share my screen. I'll just do our usual look through the, the webpage and look at the water supply. All right. Can everybody see my screen? Yes. All right. So here's the water supply status. Web page. It's updated through the end of December. So in December. We were so relying primarily on the Akins reservoir. And that's due to the continued. At least 50% of our drinking water was coming from the reservoir. And that's due to the continued. Slow production of well, number four. Number four is down to 10%. And again, we're looking at December. But the distribution of where the water is coming from is very similar to the, to the last meeting that we had. Things haven't really changed very much. So we're looking at, we're looking at, we're looking at, we're looking at Akins itself. This is nice because it shows the whole year. And everybody knows we had a. Very wet year. So 2021 is the dark blue line. Comes along right here. Kind of following the 15 year average. And then here we are at the end of December. So that's good. So we're in a good place at the end of December for the Akins reservoir. It's been in the last five years. Right. Yeah, exactly. I spent the last five years a little bit above the 15 year average. 2006 to 2020. So that's good. And then water, water use. In 2021. 2021 of the purple bars. Again, in December, we were below 2019 and below the 10 year average for consumption or use. And that is pretty consistent throughout 2021. We were below in 2021. Things started to be a little bit more normal with consumption compared to 2020. Due to the impacts from COVID. So, you know, you can say that the. The universities have been. Open and still the consumption is, is a little lower. So that's good too. And it's. It's interesting to look at the whole year. So there's that. And then precipitation. In 2021. Again. Very wet year. So here's 2021 dark blue line. We didn't get as much precipitation total. Yearly precipitation as 2018. But we still got a lot of rain last year. So. Hence the reservoirs are full and we're in a good position. So that's it. Relative to drought. We have plenty of water going into 2022. So that's it. That's the webpage. It's up all the time. I update it monthly. You'll see at the end of January that things like the, the 15 year average line and everything will change a little bit because we update those. The beginning of every year. And that's it. Does anybody have any questions or comments? I'm going to stop sharing then. I have one. It's Jack. Yes. So is there, what's, what's the. There's probably a dam for Adkins reservoir. Correct for spillover. What, what elevation is that? Compared to the, you know, maximum. Levels that we're observing. The maximum level that we're observing. Well. The, it's not going over the spillway. I don't know how much freeboard is, is there. Yeah, I don't. Yeah. I'm not sure. Like as of today. I don't know. Maybe Amy knows. Yeah. So. Atkins reservoir. It's a unique reservoir. Cause normally you've got a reservoir where a stream comes in, it gets impounded in the reservoir. And then. You know, if once that's full, it's going over the dam on the far end and continuing on the stream. And Atkins is kind of, I almost call it like an offline reservoir. So it doesn't go into Atkins. It continues on a stream over here rather than going into the reservoir. So it never spills over the dam on the far end. It instead gets diverted to continue down. I get messed up the Dean and nurse and. Those brooks up there. So I forget the exact name of the brook. But anyway, we have a diversion going into it where water either flows from the stream and into the reservoir to get impounded, or it continues on down the stream. So it's a little bit of an odd question, but when we're at zero as shown, you know, zero below level, that's, we, we have this stick that floats. And that's how we measure. The level in the reservoir. And so when it's at zero, it's still a couple of feet below that, you know, spillway that you see. But that's kind of the, the maximum that we can, the maximum that we've always measured based on like what zero is. So. I hope that makes sense. My understanding, Jack, is that the Atkins reservoir was built. In. An adjacent reservoir to the adjacent watershed. To the one in which the stream. Flows that fills it. And when the reservoir was built, the diversion on the Brooks was built to fill the reservoir. But that Brooke didn't flow naturally through where the reservoir is. And so the divide between the two was, was. Very small. And a mechanical or engineering diversion. Was built into the stream was enough to push the water around the corner and a little bit of excavation. And then that's how it's controlled. It's an interesting little. Feature in the woods. Yeah, sounds like we could do a. Go and find it. Sounds like we could do a committee field trip, you know, some time. Sure. It was a, it was a hydro. Fields. It was a, it was a. We went there and looked at it as part of the hydro class at UMass. You know, whatever it was. 20 some years ago. I'd be happy to go out there and, and look at it with folks if, if you're interested. Thank you. Any other questions. On that. No, okay. So let's move on to water infrastructure and Beth is going to give us an update on the replacement of well, number four. Yes. Well, number four. We are working still working through the permitting process. We recently got an approval letter from DEP for, for well number four. And that just happened in the last couple of days. So we're working through what that letter says. So we're working through that process. And we've heard from the drillers that the pitless adapter. Is going to arrive any day now. So, and they already have, yeah, they already have the pump, pump, pump and pump motor. That arrived a few weeks ago. So. They'll have everything they need. We need to discuss. You know, doing this work. In the winter. You know, versus sort of the schedule. So that's all good news. Get through the permitting and we have the equipment that we need. So that, that's an. Impending improvement. And then well, number one. At this point too. Is it, is probably going to get it's. Pump. Sorry, I'm going to get a new pump. And a new column and a new shaft. So that's going to be. That's probably going to get a new pump and a new column and a new shaft. So that well is actually pulled at the moment. And those parts are also on order and are coming. So both of those wells will be getting some new equipment, which is really great. Can I infer from what you said that. While you might. Now have all the parts to drill at well number four. That doing so in the winter may not. My cost more or. Might be just too much of a pain. And. If you're discussing whether to put it off until slightly warmer weather, is that correct? Yeah. I mean, I think right now we're still just looking at this approval letter that we got from DEP this week and seeing, you know, what's going to happen. I mean, we're just looking at the conditions and seeing what they're going to require us to do. And then also. It's. It's easier to run into problems when you do anything, especially when it involves water, obviously in the winter months. So we'll be, we'll be talking with the drillers about that. And you know, move forward in the best possible way with that. But I guess I could say that before our next meeting next September, you should see some, some changes out at well, number four. Yeah. And that, that's all. I mean, do you have anything else to say about that? Nope. You answered that question. Great. So. Okay. That's one. You're here. Yeah. Yeah. Couldn't find the email in the thousands I get. So. Is well and before what's its production capabilities at the moment. Are you talking. Are you talking current well, number four or the new replacement? Well, number four. Okay. I don't know the exact numbers off the top of my head. I want to say that the capacity, like we talked about last time, the capacity is about 10% of what it is designed for. So I think it's at like 150 GPM. Sort of capacity. So. Yeah. Thanks. Yep. Anything else on well, number four. No, I think that's it. So let's move on to the waterline extension. Leverett. Jason. I'll talk about that one. So yeah, we finished about 8,000 feet of water, Maine from. Roughly the intersection of bridge street and East Levert road. Out East Levert road to T. Wattle Hill road. And hooked up. I want to say. Six houses to town water that were receiving bottled water from the town of Leverett due to some landfill contamination. Leachate plume. So we hooked up the six houses. They're all very pleased. The two borings under the rivers proved to be very difficult. We ended up downsizing. The pipe under the river from a 12 inch pipe to an eight inch pipe, because they got the borehole through, but they, then they continued to get the 12 inch pipes stuck. So we ended up having to downsize the pipe under the main river. From 12 to eight. The remaining. The rest of the main is 12 inch. Except the main on T. Wattle is eight inch. And then we ended up downsizing the pipe under the river. So we ended up having to downsize the pipe under the river. So we ended up having to downsize the pipe under the river. So we ended up having to downsize the pipe under the river. And then there's a two inch service that got bored under another brook to serve the final house. So. It all went off. Well, there was. The ledge under both Brooks was very difficult. And it. It took a lot of extra to the water main was done for a while while the borers were still there. So, but they finally got it done, got everything in all the way. So we ended up having to downsize the pipe under the river. So we ended up having to downsize the pipe under the river. So there's a slight, slight problem with some air trapped in the line, which we've been flushing and trying to take care of, but. The last how actually, I guess. The last couple of houses in the line have some cloudy water due to air entrapment, but we're hoping that we'll, we'll keep flushing it and trying to get it out. And hopefully eventually we'll get it out because there's no, there's no way where the air can be getting into the main. So we're hoping that we'll get it out. And then hopefully we'll get it out. Because there's a lot of trouble at dips and sags that make it difficult to flush it out. We've been working on it. Other than that, everything's, everyone's happy who's gotten connected and. And they're, they're pleased to no longer beyond bottled water. But any questions about the waterline extension. Okay. Seeing none. Let's move on to the Centennial. Amy. Really, we're in a position, there's kind of two things going on with it, so one, the design continues to march along, we're actually nearing completion of the design and so hopefully, you know, it could be bid relatively soon for construction. So that's exciting and again it would probably be about a, I want to say it's a two year from when we would bid to when it would be operational, you know, certainly as a lengthy construction process and permitting process and everything for that. Kind of parallel to that, we did apply. Do you want to back up and give us two sentences for the folks who are here about what is Centennial. What is Centennial. Yes, sorry, thank you. A couple of sentences would be sure. The Centennial water treatment plan is one of our two large surface water treatment plants that the town of Amherst has. It's up in Pelham. So it takes water from the Holly Hills and intake reservoir it's a little three reservoir system up there. So basically over the years, I think it, I want to say it's, it opened in. It was either 1981 or 1991 and I can't recall which but either way, over the years that the technology that we had just wasn't treating the water in the way. It wasn't treating the water as efficiently so we got lower production because it had to work harder than it was designed. When it was scheduled for kind of the replacement of all the media in the rehab we decided instead we're going to do a brand new treatment facility with technology that's more appropriate for the water quality that we get in. So it's going to be a dissolved air flotation treatment plant where before it was you know the traditional sedimentation treatment train. So, yeah so this has been, it's been offline for I think three or four years now and will be as we've been designing and working through this whole process and hopefully it'll be back online soon. Yeah, so the other kind of train that's going on with this is that we did apply for SRF funding. And we are waiting to hear really any day now we should be hearing a decision on SRF funding but if we do get that, then that will delay the schedule because there are certain processes that we would have to go through and there's some conditions that would have to be integrated into the construction documents to comply with the SRF funding requirements. So, what's SRF. Oh, it's the state revolving loan. So it's a, it's a program that the state has to offer low interest financing for large water and wastewater infrastructure projects. It's a competitive process so they have X amount of money. You have to apply and then they, they assign points based on the critical needs and a lot of different factors and they'll assign as deep into that point list as they have the funding to do so. And this is that with the Biden infrastructure money in the state of Massachusetts that money is actually funneling through the SRF program for the next several years so I think there are more opportunities in the next few years for funding for these types of projects and there were in the past. Any questions about Centennial Water Treatment Plan. We discussed this quite a bit prior meeting so that's good. Great, we'll move on to the Hadley interconnection. Amy. So some folks might have seen an article in the paper that referred to Hadley and Amherst working together and basically we're trying to partner on resiliency in general you know the water the resiliency of our water system. Part of that is we have interconnections right now where we can provide water to Hadley and vice versa. The connection to Hadley is Hadley is at a lower pressure than the town of Amherst like they're the pressure of their water. We usually provide water to them we just have a you know pressure reducing valve and we have a meter and water can just flow from Amherst into Hadley. Right now, if they wanted to supply water to us, we would have to do a hydrant to hydrant connection and pump water, because we don't have the infrastructure there to do that. But you know various ways that we can not only be able to get water in return if we want it to help improve our resiliency but then also ways that we can partner together on new sources or you know increased capacity so again so we can rely on each other at times when we need additional water supply. That's what's going on there. We have two connections on the Hadley interconnection, John. Amy is the is it the physical interconnection on route nine is that the one is there one connection there that or is there is another location. We have two. And so yeah one of them is it's not quite on route nine it's actually on the green leaves drive. But that one we don't, that's the one that we don't necessarily use as much. The good one is on Meadow Street and that's the one. Yeah, we put the new vault there recently with the pressure reducing valve and everything we're in the past. I think the one on green leaves. I don't even know if it's hard piped or if it's, it's certainly not metered. It's hard pipes, but we have to throttle the valve because of the pressure differential. Yeah. And that's where we're on Meadow Street one. And that's where if we were to put any sort of kind of pump station that's probably where we go. Is, is there a cost basis for what we share with Hadley, or what they share with us, didn't they have a moratorium on water usage last summer. They, they, they probably had water use restrictions over the summer. We have supplied them with water a few times when their well had to have some rehab work done and so the well maybe was pulled for a week or a month. While the rehab happened. And, and so we provided water to supplement their source. We just charge them the water rate the same as any other water customer in town so they get charged the same, you know, per 100 cubic feet that you get charged at at your house for water use. So it would be the same vice versa if we took anything from them. I imagine it would be. We actually haven't ever done that. I think with the exception of 1980, which was a while ago, and that's part of what we're talking to them is, you know, putting also putting together, you know, mo us between the communities and so that's that's happening. Just to just to kind of codify all this stuff. Great. Yeah. If I ask one other thing. Amy, that I thought Scott did a good job. I'm pretty good job in that article, except I thought it was fake misstated misleading referred to the storage tank. I'm not Warner as a water source, which of course is not the case storage tanks are not water sources. They're just storage. Did he mean that there's the notion of doing treatment at the Mount Warner well and returning that to be a viable source. Because thanks. Yeah, I mean that's that's that's more a Hadley question but I do know that they have been talking and exploring, looking at the Mount Warner wells and seeing if they can put treatment in place to bring those wells back online to help help give more resiliency to their system. Right. Because they just have the wells off the Fort River there on the run. Yeah. Yeah. Next time I run into Scott, continue our dialogue on technical things. Anything else on the interconnection with Hadley. Great. And we will move on to watershed activities. We're back to Beth. All right. All right, I'm going to share my screen again I just put a little presentation together. All right, so we wanted to start off by just looking at the watershed and sharing some of the more recent conservation efforts that have gone on out there, you know we have some new members on the committee and I'm not sure how much everybody has seen our watershed map. So and I did mail these out to you guys. So this is this are the two watersheds this is the the Atkins I don't know if you can see my cursor I hope you can but great. The purple line is the delineation of the two watersheds. The northern watershed that's mostly in shoots berries for the Atkins reservoir, which is over here. The southern watershed is mostly in Pellum and that's for our Pellum reservoir system. This is the the hill reservoir right there they're kind of faded back a little bit but there's the hill reservoir the Holly reservoir and the intake reservoir right there. So these are the two watersheds and the map shows land that Amherst owns within the watersheds and that's shaded and the purple line is Kohl's land in the watersheds. Blue is a land that's either owned by the towns of Shootsbury and Pellum or the state mostly DCR or institutions, colleges, universities. And then there's a little bit of land on the map that's marked as being owned by Womiko. And then we talk about the watersheds these are the this is the land areas that we're referring to. So recent activities in the watershed. The cruise check cruise check I'm not sure how you can say that but I think it's cruise check property was bought by the town of Amherst back in 2019 which seems like a while ago but I'm not sure we've ever talked about it at one of our protection committee meetings. And it's this little parcel here it's about 16 acres. It's part of you know the headwaters for the Amethyst Brook. And the town as I said the town bought in 2019 using funds from the state drinking water supply protection grant funding. And then more recently just north of that so also the headwaters of the Amethyst Brook is a 32 acre parcel that's founded in green here that the town of Shootsbury is currently working with Kestrel land trust to hopefully purchase for conservation land in 2022. And I know that they're doing things like going to the CPAC in the next few months to try to secure the funding to buy that so those will both be new parcels within our watershed that are conserved and protected. And another recent conservation effort within the watershed was is the creation of the Walter Coles Jones working forest, which is she is is hatched here and it's, it's over 2000 acres. It's land owned by Coles and they worked with the state, I think in the federal government to put a conservation restriction on all this land, which the majority of it is in Shootsbury the majority of the 2000 acres is within the reservoir watershed there's a little bit over here that's outside the watershed a little down here that's actually in the Pellum watershed. But that was done in finalized really in 2020 conservation restriction that's held by Mass Department of Fish and Game and ensures that there can't be any future development into perpetuity. And it also ensures public access for hunting and fishing and hiking and other passive recreation. Coles still owns the land and they can still forest the land, but in terms of watershed protection of our watershed. And that's a real big bonus for the watershed. You know, we as a town as a water department. Keep an eye on any kind of development that happens in the watershed and this just took over 2000 acres off of our responsibility of keeping an eye on real development. Forever, which is, which is a great thing so that is also a recent conservation effort in the watershed. And then we have some potential solar projects in the watershed. And this maps got a few of the protective layers on it to which we can talk about. I just wanted to point out there are three projects within the actions reservoir watershed and one proposed project in the Pellum system watershed. There haven't been any actual project development designs submitted to shoot sprayer Pellum for these projects. The wetland delineations for some of them have been submitted to the shoot spray and Pellum conservation commissions. The Pratt corner East wetland delineation and the Pratt corner South wetland delineation have been approved by the shoots for a conservation commission. And I believe the Tower Road delineation is under review by the Pellum shoots for a conservation commission at the moment. And then some of the watershed protection layers that I just have turned on here is the mass drinking water regulations zone a b and c for surface water so I don't want to get into really the details about what these regulations and restrictions include I can we can send that information out but the map at least just shows you the areas that are covered. So zone a is 400 feet around a surface water source and then also 200 feet on either side of all tributaries so that's what these kind of snake looking things are. Zone B is this hatching here and that's within a half mile around any actual surface surface water source so half mile around Atkins reservoir. And zone C is basically everything else within the watershed. But then, just in terms of the solar projects other watershed protection that's that's in place is zoning shoots brand Pellum are both up to date with their zoning and they both include they both have in their town zoning watershed protection. Pellum's got a water, water supply overlay district should very has relatively progressive zoning that they put in place in 2008 that focuses on open space protection and watershed protection, both towns have recent solar bylaws. Shooters 2016 Pellum very recent in 2020 so these are all protections, and then the wetlands protection act which, as I mentioned shoots brand Pellum conservation commissions will review projects that are within their jurisdiction around wetland areas. So, yeah we're just kind of want to give an overview I know this is the first time that this committee's seen all this information so we're just taking kind of a general look at it all. And then what could the water supply protection committees role be with these. Again, this is, this is all sort of a general introduction there's been a lot of public interest in these potential projects, and then some questions of how Amherst is looking in terms of the watershed. That's why we wanted to start talking about it today. So one potential role for the water supply protection committees to provide opinion and opinion on impact to drinking water from solar development. And that could take the form of sort of a technical technical document. And then there's some information from other solar projects and research, and that could be potentially provided to shoot very impel them. Conservation Commissioner planning boards if they request it. I think we should go that would be the most useful thing I would think for those committees would to would be to get some kind of a technical opinion from a group like our group. So we are looking for anyone who has any experience with these things or is interested in working on that kind of a document with staff. I shared these maps with water supply protection committee or resident submitted these maps. And, you know, the main reason is that our GIS layers are as updated as we can get them to be and we just want to make sure that the information that we present is as accurate as possible. So these are some maps that are resident. So what's interesting with this map here is that the actual shapes of the solar sites are more accurate than what was on the previous maps that we were just showing. So that may be helpful to folks. And that is all I have on that. So we're open to questions and comments on on this. Okay, I can't see. Maybe I can see. I might stop sharing so I can see who's got questions. Okay, I can, I can, I can share again. Yeah, that's fine. Okay, so if, if you. There we go. So I'm just going to start at the top of my list with Aaron. Thank you. I was just curious. If there's been any sort of analysis of the Atkins watershed, as far as the total acreage that's been protected, and also if there's a goal for the amount of acreage to be protected in the Atkins watershed. We certainly, we definitely know the acreage that that is protected. I mean, it's protected in different, different ways as those maps were showing, you know, some land is owned by the town of Amherst. So some of it was bought with things like the water supply protection grant. So, you know, it, it was specifically purchased for water supply protection, whereas some land is conservation land owned by the town of Pellum or the town of Shootsbury. So that has different protections on it, different conservation restrictions are have been placed on them at different levels and they were also a lot of the land was bought at different times. You know, there's some land that was just strictly bought in 1946 by the town of Amherst and no grants were used or anything. It's just land that we own there may, you know, there's, so there's sort of different levels of conservation that that's out there, but we certainly know the acreage. There's no doubt that we know total acreage that we own total acreage of land that's protected in a variety of different ways. Yeah, do we know what percentage that is that's currently protected and what our goal for overall conservation, you know, to protect the drinking water supply is in that watershed. I don't know if hand the actual percentage I can certainly we can definitely calculate that. I was just curious. I don't like if it was half the watershed or more than half or like kind of what the, what the goal and what our current level of protection is out there, just because it serves, you say 50% of the town and just be interesting to know kind of just just looking at the maps that I was just showing the the Pellum, especially the Pellum water system looks to be more than 50%. I don't know exactly what it is but just looking at the maps you can see how much land, especially that the town of Amherstowns in that Pellum system. So in terms of goals, I, you know, I don't know if there's ever been a set goal for how much of the watershed to preserve I think, you know, as time goes on. There are some parcels that come available, especially if there's a willing seller if someone's interested in preserving their land in either of those towns. We always look at it for water supply protection. Okay, Chris. I was just trying to look at the conservation restriction map and the proposal and I see now that there are exclusions where those solar proposals are. So just, I don't know if there's like, I'm guessing that was done, you know, deliberately with those projects in mind. I guess I guess I was just interested if they're what those discussions were or how that was thought of or if that those exclusions were done not to make it possible for these for these possible projects. I guess I was just looking for a little bit of the history if we know any of that. I don't think we really know. That's what it certainly looks like, I guess you could say, you know, but I will. I don't think anybody on this committee was necessarily part of any of those discussions. I presume that the Coles lands, like all the other land is was purchased it, you know, one parcel of time over time and it's fairly easy to work with a subset of the total number of parcels that you own. I don't think we know. Other questions, comments from the committee on the proposed solar projects. Does anyone have interest in working on. I think john has his hand up. Brian to. My only comment best is that I think the committee and others should look for studies that do things that are sometimes referred to as paired watershed studies and other things like this where you compare, say, runoff or groundwater. There's a lot of concentration, water quality and water amounts for similar parcels that do and don't have solar rays on them. For example, solar rays at impervious surface elevated above the ground but there's still the pervious surface below them. So it's complicated right in terms of hydrology and water quality is not straightforward. It's a construction project so like any project like forestry their short term effects and order term effects so there's always just a number that has to be dealt with appropriately by things to impact to limit limit short term. You know, acute impacts to rivers and streams that kind of things DCR does and all its watersheds and the club and what you sit in terms of for and Amherst and its forest activities. I mean, I think there's no, it's all the same issue you look at with respect to water quality watersheds. I don't know this science or the studies, you know, what's what's on the study. Like any project. You can, you can look at pictures and times and have it's really hard to disturb the soil and not have the potential for what looks to be a really severe short term acute impact is just that's just the nature of things. And it could be about a construction project that causes that just a transport of a vehicle. Take a look at the power line work that's going on right now the kind of work that kind of intense activity that goes on so anyway, I would just, I'm sure the town should think about all those issues like, like other other things. Yeah, I feel you know I feel like like you said the short term impacts are similar to typical construction projects and a lot of that is dealt with with the town conservation commissions, as long as they're in wetland jurisdiction which in this case is the city of Lamar. I guess, I'm thinking of this committee, particularly just because of the, the technical quality we have here with this group of maybe more long term effects from solar just, and it would involve some research and that kind of thing but, you know, just providing hammers to the town of just some technical document that that gets into that a little bit and I'm just interested if anybody would be willing to work on that or again if anyone has any experience with it. Brian and Jack both have their hands up. Let's go in that order. Well, first of all, I agree with just about everything john said, or certainly the spirit of it. One issue john is, it's a great suggestion to look into paired watershed studies to what's out there. And wouldn't it be nice if someone had done something on this. There is virtually nothing on the impacts of solar large gas solar on changes to soil moisture changes to run off changes to recharge. There's an abundance of white papers is abundance of consulting reports, and I think there's a huge wealth of information that's out there and I have to apologize to folks in the participant panel. There's too many academics here on this committee but it's waiting for a proposal. And it's something that's on my radar so last summer I started working on this with Chris and Anna and Steve roof and Hampshire college, just starting to make some of these measurements on the large scale solar field at Hampshire college. And I'll be putting in a proposal probably this spring. But there's a ton of work to be done out there. Every state has different regulations on how large scale solar gets permitted, which makes sense in a certain expect because there's different climate and different soils in every state. One of the best states I found looking around is Minnesota. Minnesota, there must have been someone right out of their masters and watershed hydrology they got it, put it they got tasked with with writing the regs and they did a great job. That said, I think one of the places to look is just look around the state permitting guidelines. You know, we don't have time to wait for years and years for the academics or to sort of make a ruling on this and for the UK and various various agencies to weigh in. One thing I will say that's unique about solar is with respect to the construction, the footprint is really, really big. It is rare that you have a 20 30 40 50 acre intensive construction project, the way you have with solar. So that's one thing to keep in mind of, and we see it with respect to you've seen it in South Hampton in Williamsburg in Haydenville there've been multiple issues with with severe runoff from the construction projects. And so I think that's one thing to be mindful of as permanent is going forward. And I'll push back on back and say it's not like construction. It's, it's, or it shares a lot of similarities, but there are things to be aware that the footprint is really large. And the second thing is my guess is that the slopes tend to be steeper. The places where people are willing to put up some solar panels are probably different from where you'd want to put up a target. And so between the large footprint and the steep slopes. I think it's just something to be on people's mind. And as at the state level in writing the regs, I think, added stormwater protection are going to have to be necessary depending on the footprint and the slopes, beyond what might be relevant for, you know, putting up a target which might be 10 acres as opposed to 50. All right, I'll get off my soapbox. Thank you, Brian. Jack, and then Aaron. Yeah, I am. Brian I walk our dogs occasionally together. We've had some conversations about solar development and water resources and things like that. But I do have, you know, a good deal of experience from the consulting side I'm obviously on the planning board as well. But I have gone, you know, drilled down on a project. It was in central Massachusetts, proposed solo solar development. So I kind of did a white paper myself so I have, you know, I would, I would volunteer. For the committee I've looked at a lot of different angles on it but you know I can't really add much more than what Brian and John said but you know there's, it's certainly an interesting topic and so I'll leave it at that. Right I've got Brian and Jack on my list. Aaron. Sorry. I was just going to say that I recently had a conversation with Kathy Ramiro. She's a regional planner at the DP drinking water program. And she had suggested that that the town of Amherst ask that the guidelines are followed that DP puts out for the purposes to provide guidance to public water suppliers on information to be submitted to mass DP for wind and solar projects proposed on lands, owned or controlled by water systems for drinking water purposes and I know that these projects aren't proposed on land that's owned by the public, or controlled by the public but I think it would be really useful to provide these guidelines to the project proponent and ask them if they could try to address the comments to keep the projects as they design them in compliance with those guidelines to try to protect the watershed lands as much as possible. So that's sort of some common sense design standards that would take into account how they're designing things to try to keep the watershed safe and I know a lot of these guidelines are not apples to apples like one of the guidelines is to keep battery storage out of zone one. Now I know we don't have zone one in this area, but we do have zone A and zone C and so, you know, if we could try to come up with some, you know, ways to mitigate the project prior to it coming forward and so a lot of times when these projects are designed. You know, then, once they're submitted asking them to go back and revise them is a lot of work and it's it's a lot of money and so if we could, you know, prior to the design being submitted, ask the proponent to take these guidelines into consideration I think that would be really useful. Excellent suggestion. Thank you. Good research. Anyone else on the committee have comments. I will say that I will. Yeah, I see that I will work with Jack and Brian to put something together for this. So, Jack. Yeah, I was just curious, you know, we have Dave Zomac here. So, is the nature of the zoning bylaw that the town will be working on will it include wind. And, you know, these battery storage and kind of be a little more encompassing than just ground mounted solar. That's a really great question, Jack. I think we've really been focused, you know, to the degree that the council is talking about this and, and the CRC is talking about it. Most of the focus has been on a bylaw for for solar, but certainly we could, you know, we could insert that into the conversation. The CRC on their agenda tonight is talking about the moratorium, but I know that I'm also working with the town manager and, and, and other staff on kind of the longer term is, you know, how do we, how do we work on a solar bylaw. So we first have to, you know, see where the council wants to go with the moratorium, and then we'll, we'll proceed to look at the broader question of, you know, a townwide solar bylaw but yeah we could, we could certainly look into that I don't know what other communities have done relative to, to wind and geothermal and things of that sort but it's a good, it's a good question a good, good thought thank you. I think it's time that we took comments from the public. I cannot see folks so you'll have to let them in. Okay. All right, we'll start with Janet Keller. Thanks. Janet Keller on pulpit Hill Road. Amherst. First of all, thanks for this. This discussion and presentation much appreciated and my main thing going forward is to ask if we can have these materials posted online so that we can consult them that would be very much appreciated. And that's basically it. Thanks. Yes, we can do that. Thank you, Janet. All right, Sharon wise and Bob. Hi, thank you. I so appreciate you all meeting to sort of address these issues and my question is. If you could clarify for me what the role of this water protection water supply protection committee is in relation to the proposed or soon to be proposed solar development. It seems like the role of this committee like you have you don't meet very often, and that the scope of what's potentially coming down the road is huge compared to issues that you had to deal with in the past and so I think part of my question is just to understand what your role is relative to this and also do you see your role sort of increasing in response to these potential threats to the Amherst water supply. That's it. Thank you. So the water supply protection committee is a advisory committee to town council and are really charged is to keep track of the current water demand and potential future water demand drinking water demand of the town. Based based on on data and also to keep track of a lot of the data that the water department is collecting constantly on the quality of our water. And so that involves certainly the watershed but also our water treatment plants and our distribution lines. In terms of the watershed. You know we are charged with keeping an eye on the watershed in terms of potential development projects. And being in contact with the towns of shoots berry and palom, in terms of their review and permitting processes. And in this case, you know, I feel like providing our opinion. At least at this point where there's not even any projects that have been designed and submitted to shoot spray and palom. I think just being involved in sort of Amherst technical opinion of what solar, how solar could impact from drinking water is is where we're at at the moment. So I think it could be expanding I, you know, I, I'm not sure I guess we don't really know because we don't really know what projects have been are going to come forward in these towns. On the top the committee is also very involved with, as we mentioned conservation within the watershed so purchasing lands that become available for deciding if lands that do come available or would be good to add to our to the watershed. I don't know if that answers your question or if others want to chime in on that. I will say that well certainly we can provide opinion to our neighboring towns in the watershed. These lands are not available for sale. So we at this point we can't purchase them for conservation or watershed protection. And there's not much that this committee or the town of Amherst can do to stop development on private lands within the watersheds. But we can provide opinions to say the Shootsbury Conservation Commission about things that we hope they consider in their approval process. And we can provide those to the developers since we know who it is. And we can ask that those guidelines be incorporated in the design from the beginning. It's about the limit of what we're able to do anyone else have something to add to that john. I think I'll add is that the committee or members of the committee have a history of meeting and doing things as needed to help the public we've we've gone to the select board we've addressed specific issues related. Whatever so I think the committee while we regularly meet once or twice a year we have on occasion had many more meetings and done things in support of the town staff in their work. I just want to add that, you know, under the water, the drinking water regulations. We are required, because we want rerun our drinking water program. We are required to be involved with some of the zoning in those other towns and make sure that that those towns, or at least again it's not make sure it's work with them and suggest to them that they include in their zoning, water supply protection and, as I mentioned earlier, both shoots very impalem are pretty up to date and include water supply protection in their zoning and they both recently passed solar bylaws that that are, they were relevant to this discussion so I would say, you know, the way Amherst in that responsibility has has been has been very involved more historically with making sure that those towns meet that sort of zoning requirement of the drinking water regulations. Okay, so Eric back rock would like to make a comment. Eric. Thank you very much for recognizing me I do appreciate the, the wonderful work that the watershed water supply protection committee has undertaken. I live on shoots Berry Road and although the conversation from the regarding the watershed area is is for public water supply. I and my neighbors are supplied water on private wells, and I know for a fact that when we dug a well in 1984, our flow rate was three gallons a minute, and I'm wondering if anybody could address consequences of deforestation regarding impact on private well systems and and just how, although where your conversation is regarding the public water we do have many people in Amherst who are provided water through their private wells that are potentially in in danger so I'm concerned about that if you can perhaps either address it or or or or move me into a better place to ask this question to the Board of Health or some someone like that. So thank you. Yeah, I would have to say that I, I have no direct information on that and you're right that in Amherst the Board of Health is as much more involved with private wells and may have a little bit more research on anything on construction projects in general solar but even just like you're saying clearing of trees and stuff and their impact on private wells but maybe some folks on this committee might have some information I don't know. I guess I'll take a stab at this and say that in general, every private well is going to respond differently to changes in its in its watershed. And in the big picture, potential proposed solar projects are not likely to impact your private wells in a negative way. But that's not a guarantee. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, you know private wells are the the subsurface geology and the surface geology that's affecting both the flow and the quality of the water coming out of your well is a complicated site specific situation. And it's really hard to predict activities like blasting can sometimes nearby can sometimes cause significant disruptions to private wells, you know, things like that. I agree with Lions on the footprint of this relative to the world. I mean, your private well water may well have infiltrated the ground many, many, many miles from your house and gotten to that well. It's complicated. So you can bring David, Brian's colleague David about and talk about isotopic analysis where water comes from what it does but anyway it's a complicated question that doesn't have a simple answer, but yeah. Jack do you have your hand up. I do. So I can say what what I said during a planning board meeting when we were looking at this and from a mile high view. So the solar, you know, ground mounted solar projects. They're not. Now, when you think about hydrology and Brian you can correct me if I'm wrong here, but you basically say if you have a forested track of land, you're essentially replacing it with with grassland. Okay, so it's the solar, you know, cannot be considered as paved area. You know, basically and the other thing is solar. From what we know, there's no hazardous materials that are brought on site and that's important to know. So, you know, I think in some of these situations when you're thinking about replacing a stand of forest and replacing with grassland, and you look at the hydrological, you know, differences between those. You know, there's not going to be any blasting. It just, they're just. So, you know, generally you're looking at a change due to ground cover. And believe it or not, a forested track takes up a lot of groundwater because of the Vapo transpiration, especially during, you know, July, August, September, and, you know, pardon me. Anyway, yeah, it's definitely complicated, but not as, as, you know, I agree with Lyons it's generally going to be, you know, mild to no effect on private wells. Other comments from the public. I was muted again. Cinda Jones would like to talk would like to make a comment. Cinda. Hey guys. Thanks for all your time on this. I just wanted to give a little context and answer some questions that maybe I'm the only one who can answer. So, I have written down a couple notes I can then try to get through. You know, the town of Amherst asked us all the time to protect land that they're concerned about. And I think every time we have said yes. And most recently, it was. Guilford asked us for land right on the website would be the east side of the Atkins reservoir within that 200 foot buffer. David Domek asked for a Cushman piece, and we were thrilled to do it. Our land is in chapter 61, which means that you do have a right of first refusal to buy it for the price that we're being offered over time by the solar company which is pretty much probably means you can't buy it but you, you had the opportunity. It's, it's part of the 61 agreement. And the land that we did the conservation restriction was initiated by Kristen DeBoer of the Kestrel land trust as all our 5,500 acres of conservation wise she is a driving force, and she asked us to do this one because it's conserving watershed land and US Forest Service had this special grant available. And so did the state to help protect land that affects watershed so we put 2000 acres of watershed land for the quavin and Amherst in conservation. We are dedicated to, like you, doing the right thing for the environment. And so not only are we doing landscape level conservation, but we are dedicated to achieving mutual environmental goals for 2030 and 2050 and green energy is critical and we believe that to the legacy goal of leaving this place better than we found it landscape level solar is important. We left these exclusions out of our conservation restrictions expressly for solar, because we wanted to do both. The town of shoots very has a pretty exorbitant and nobody else could meet it. Goal of getting four times conservation for for every acre of solar. And we did 10 times in the area and and thought that this would be an important thing to do in it and it's interesting we was 150% of what we were supposed to do for solar. And only the runoff from the solar. Everything between especially three of the solar sites to the reservoir is protected. So, it's, it's pretty, the ground is probably going to be quite cleaning, in my opinion. Let's see. The footprint is small, it's not like Walmart, it's pole mounted with a meadow underneath. So well the panels do shed in a line, instead of in a larger area. It's consistently shedding into the meadow, and it's not like roof runoff. It, there's still impermeable ground underneath it for the most part. Well, oh, we were used to threatening the water supply we built the water supply. Walter Dickinson calls in four generations ago built the Atkins reservoir and Amherst water company, which was sold to the town we protected the land around the reservoir and we continue on a landscape level to protect. I hope solar is an asset to this community environmentally and not a threat in any way that we can work with the town to make it do the right thing. We're interested. So, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you for providing context. I think, in particular, our, our greatest concerns are the overall design of the project, and in particular, the stormwater design protections that could be put in place during construction. And until the meadow is reestablished in or established in the area around the panels. So, we will certainly be in in contact with you. So, regarding that, it sounds like you're willing to continue to work in those directions so that's good. We appreciate that. Have other comments from the public. I don't see any other hands raised if I guess just to let everyone know who was out there, if you would like to make a comment raise your hand. But right now I don't see any. No, I think we're good. Judy. Judy. There, I forgot to add to unmute. Yeah, I, in with respect to Cindy's comment about Kristen D'Borre, she's absolutely right. Kristen is, of course, and I've been working with Kestrel for many, many years. And I think Kristen has done a fabulous job. The other thing I wanted to just mention is that although I hear you saying that the stormwater management is most important during construction. Because the trees have been taking in a great deal of water. So, and now are not there. I think that you also have to look at where that water is going. Once trees are cleared, and how much more water there may be as a result of that. And also, of course, there is the carbon sequestration versus solar electricity production that enters into some of this stuff. So, as I think, as said, there is, you know, it's a very complex problem, a very complex situation. And I think I agree with Cinda. We want to make sure that that the solar is in fact an asset to the community. And, and I believe that she does have the best of intentions on this. So I hope we can all work together. I think it comes into Pellum too. So that it's really more of an affirming I think if we if we use our heads and our common sense about this we can move forward. I should say as a point of reference I have a personal experience with a project that was very badly managed in Williamsburg. It happened to be my son's property that hit the news. And far from it being only a matter of. A huge matter of no management during construction, far too many trees removed. He is still three years later, having to deal with about, well between 10 and 20 acres of his land, being destroyed, and there are many ways to reconstruct. But if you screw up the wetlands from a hillside disaster takes a long time to mitigate it. Just saying. Anyway, that's it. Thank you. Well, I hear a lot of comments to work with the town on the part of the landowner, and I hear a willingness of the committee to look into issues that we can recommend to our neighbor towns. And to the landowner for making this all happen in a way that's going to work for everyone. That is good. With that, I think we will move on to our last topic of the morning, which is scheduling our next meeting in September. And I will say that my preference of the three dates proposed is not the first one. As I have a conflict, we can do whatever we want, but my preference is the 22nd or the 29th. Anyone else have you put to that. Shall we pick the 22nd. How about the 29th. This is Linda arsenal. Either one is fine with me. 29th. John. Jackie okay with it. We're right now. Okay, not anymore. Not anymore. You're scheduled. Here. Okay, September 29 will be the date of our next meeting. Are there any other topics we did not get to put on the agenda. Come up. I just, I just want to mention the conflict of interest law forms that I sent out to everybody and just make sure you sign your acknowledgement form and get it back to the town clerk. Has everyone done that. Yes. No, I'm in arrears. Yeah. Yeah. Do your best to get it over there. I will. I will do so. All right. You mentioned new members. Who are the new members and new committee members. I think you're the newest. I've been there. Right. Okay. I don't know if you meant, I don't know if you meant during the watershed discussion, but I since I've started, which I think was close to when you started. I don't know how much we've shown the watershed map. And, you know, just shared all the parcels who owns what. So, I wasn't sure who had seen that map recently. So, very good. Thanks. Linda, there's new relative state lions or me, maybe. Relative. Yeah. So, Beth, you're going to post the, the materials someplace on, I guess, the website. Yeah, I will maps so that the public can see those and reference them. Yes, yes, I can put them on our committee website. I think, I think that's probably the best. The best bet, but I'll think a little bit about it. But yeah, I can, I can put them. So we just chose the 29th, right. Yes, September 29. I'll send out an invite. Okay. Thank you all very much. John. John. Beth, any chance you could share the, or somebody can share us the by solar bylaws of shoots very impala what what they wrote. Sure. Yeah. Yes. Find them, but I didn't look, but thank you. And apologize for being late. I couldn't find the link. Aaron. Yeah. Aaron, could you share with Beth, the reference of the materials that. That you spoke about, we get those in the notes so they're part of the record. Yes, absolutely. I think I, I'm sorry. I sent the, at least the regulations to you guys want, but we can, I can send them again. And make sure they're included in the, in the minutes for today. And that, that'll be helpful. They were also requested by, by Tom Reedy and they sent those along to him just while we were on the call. So, so, so he has them to share with Coles. So, great. Um, Jack question. Did we have minutes to approve or. Yeah, we probably did. Okay. Yeah. September 16. We do have them. So we vote on those. They were sent out. They were sent out a long time ago. I don't have any changes to them. But they miss bill rise name. Oh, that's big. I'll fix that. Yell on. I correct myself on that an awful lot. Okay. Does anybody else have any changes? Other than that. No, okay. Approved. Yeah, we should. All those in favor. Hi. Hi. Hi, thank you. And it's approved. Great. I just, this is Linda again. I did have a comment to make on the solar arrays when I was out West, we did permitting solar arrays and they put up waddles and banks to ensure no runoff. And we did. Guards for the trucks when they were leaving to ensure they didn't track anything off location. And we did dust control plans to ensure there was no particular matter. And which way it would be going when it did blow. So just FYI on that. So biggie. Standard construction mitigation. Okay. Thank you all for coming. We'll see you September 29. Jack and Brian. We will be in touch. While putting something together. Thank you all. Have a great day. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Have a great day. Thanks.